Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2011-08-03 (2)
BLUE MOUNTAIN DESIGN GROUP ~ ) -O-),U re0.A1 C%C Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Planning Division Town of Tiburon It 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 15 July 2011 Dan, AUG - 3 2091 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I am writing this letter on behalf of Ms. Andrea L. Hong and Mr. James. S. Parsons regarding the proposed renovation project at their residence at 65 Reed Ranch Road. This letter is being attached with the project's latest submittal to the Tiburon Town Council. This project involves adding a new, attached garage with guest bedroom and bath above. The proposed new structures are conforming in height, setbacks, maximum floor area and maximum lot coverage requirements. The purpose of this letter is to communicate that the latest drawings and renderings illustrating our design have been reviewed by immediate neighbors and that this proposed project has earned their support: Reed Ranch Road --a L• < < Date ~ r Reed Ranch Road Reed Ranch Road Date [ E -r• Date Reed Ranch Road [ ] Date Reed Ranch Road [ ] Date Reed Ranch Road [ ) Date Reed Ranch Road [ ] Date ~ ,~i~: 1~.•!I',.~..' 'i).,,.`.~:)i „ c,-~~~ i. l:;sl: .'!~L .'•..CIi,~;'. ~>:!1.~ ~;i~..~.ilf:. :!i!~` t. .A. ~a.{l}.~-i°.~_} Neighborhood Characteristics Two houses each way 61 Reed Ranch Road 63 Reed Ranch Road 65 Reed Ranch Road 67 Reed Ranch Road 69 Reed Ranch Road To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting August 3, 2011 Agenda Item: J Subject: Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (PD #20); 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701; Final Environmental Impact Report, Precise Development Plan, and Prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on approximately 52 acres; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Project Name: Address: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owners/Applicants: Flood Zone: State Clearinghouse Number: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Alta Robles Residential Development 3 825 Paradise Drive 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 30701 Approximately 52 acres PD-R-a (Rabin) and PD-R-i (SODA); (Planned Development-Residential; maximum density 0.4 du/ac) Rabin - RPD (Residential Planned Development); S.O.D.A. - No Tiburon zoning, located outside Tiburon town limits; County Zoning is RMP-0.4 Rabin - Single Family Residential; SODA - Undeveloped Irving and Varda Rabin, et al X (Outside 500-year flood event) 2007072104 Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, have submitted applications for precise development plan and prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres of land. The subject property consists of two contiguous parcels: the 20.95 acre SODA property and the 31.26 acre Rabin property. The SODA property is located in an unincorporated portion of Marin County within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and is currently undeveloped. The Rabin property is currently developed with one single-family residence and several ancillary structures and is located within the Town of Tiburon, with a street address of 3825 Paradise Drive. The proposed project, as originally submitted, involved the eventual subdivision of the 52 acres into 14 single family parcels (one existing residence to remain and 13 new residences to be constructed) and three open space parcels totaling 18.69 acres. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11 TOW11 COLHIC11 MCCtin , AHITLIst 3, _2011 Precise Development Plan The Precise Development Plan seeks approval for 14 residential lots, comprised of: • 1 lot for an existing single family home; and • 13 lots for thirteen new single family homes • 3 parcels (Parcels A, B, & C) are voluntarily offered to be protected by open space easements held by the Town of Tiburon • Residential use areas, height limits, floor area maximums, representative home designs and footprints, and other zoning parameters would be established • Design guidelines would be adopted Prezoniniz The application proposes prezoning the SODA property to RPD (Residential Planned Development) consistent with the Tiburon General Plan designation (single-family dwellings at 0.4 dwelling units per acre or less) and consistent with the Town's zoning on the.adjacent Rabin property. The RPD zoning (Section 16-21.020 (F[l]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code) proposed for the SODA property 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 proposed single family residential use is a Permitted Use (Section 16-21.030) in the RPD zone. Maximum density for the land shall be established by a Precise Development Plan approval pursuant to the requirements of Section 16-52.060. The 20.95 acre SODA property is currently outside the Town's corporate limits, but within Tiburon's Sphere of Influence. The applicants intend that this parcel be annexed to the Town for development pursuant to the Town's adopted policies. The Marin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would be the decision-making body for the annexation application; however, the Town's EIR must address any environmental impacts associated with the annexation request and the Town must hold public hearings on, and approve the prezoning prior to action by LAFCO. The Town's General Plan calls for annexation of this property to the Town and the Town Council has twice voted its desire to see the SODA property development plan processed through the Town, rather than the County of Marin, and the property annexed. Subdivision Although an application for subdivision cannot be submitted at this time, the eventual subdivision configuration would result in 17 subdivision lots, as shown on the Precise Development Plan Maps. These are: 14 single-family lots; 3 open space lots (A, B, & C) Preservation of Scenic and Natural Resources Extensive land area is proposed as permanent private open space by offer of open space easement or other restriction. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11 l-ONVII C OLHICil \ CCMIJ Auust 3, 2011 • Private Common Open Space areas (Lots A, B, & C), are voluntarily offered for permanent open space and resource conservation. These lots constitute 18.69 acres or 35.8% of the total land area. A public trail easement is proposed across a portion of Lot C that would complete the Tiburon Ridge walking path in the vicinity. This is a major public benefit of the project, given that the Town was recently required by court order to close a portion of Hacienda Drive to public access. • Private Open Space, lands proposed in individual private lot ownerships on the 13 proposed new lots, is voluntarily offered for permanent protection through scenic and resource conservation easements. These areas include 9.51 acres or 18.2% of the total land area. • Private Space (Rabin Private Zone), comprising land surrounding the existing residence at 3825 Paradise Drive (Lot 1), is proposed to be maintained for private resource conservation, open space, and private recreational use. This area includes 11.8 acres or 22.6% of the total land area. A public trail easement discussed above would cross part of the Private Space. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Significant Unavoidable Impacts A Draft EIR was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, including the CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code § § 21000-21178. 1), CEQA Guidelines, and relevant court decisions. The Draft EIR (DEIR) identified two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than- significant level through mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. These SU impacts were: 1) that project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; and 2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space [see Exhibits 5.8-4 and 5.8-5(a), and (b) in the DEIR]. In addition, the DEIR indicated that implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other anticipated future projects at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula, would result in the following unavoidable cumulative impacts: • Additional vehicle trips at the Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection. • The addition of vehicle trips to U.S. Highway 101. • Construction noise. • Wildlife habitat and connectivity impacts. • Visual impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources Due to these unavoidable impacts, approval of the project or any of the "development alternatives" studied in the EIR would require that findings of overriding considerations to be made at the time of project approval. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 11 Town Council Mccting Aticyust 2011 Alternatives In addition to discussing potential off-site project locations, the EIR also studied the "No Project" alternative, wherein no new units would be built on the site. The EIR also analyzed a development alternative with 8 new homes, with all new development kept on the SODA parcel and terminating the fire road at a hammerhead prior to the environmentally challenging crossing onto the Rabin property, directly below and to the east of the Rabin residence. This alternative eliminates the proposed homes on the Rabin property that would be accessed by the project roadway after crossing onto the Rabin property. The DEIR also studied a modified version of the applicant's project (13 new homes) incorporating DEIR-identified mitigation measures into the design. During the public review period of the Draft EIR and at the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, several members of the public and the Planning Commission expressed concern for the need to evaluate an additional alternative to the project. In response to those concerns, staff met with the applicant team to discuss an additional project alternative that would reduce project grading, retaining walls, and environmental impacts in the areas of biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and visual quality. After careful review of the DEIR findings as well as the comments received on the Draft EIR, the applicant's team developed Alternative 4. This alternative built upon the revised site plan evaluated in the Draft EIR (Alternative 3), plus added landslide stabilization and grading revisions. The alternatives thus covered the full range of the number of units (0 to 13) that could be constructed along what appears to be the sole realistically feasible means of vehicular access to serve new development on the site, while attempting to reduce significant environmental impacts in the process. Staff is of the opinion that while numerous permutations involving the selective elimination of one or more lots within that range of units exist, those permutations would not provide a meaningful environmental distinction that could not be reasonably ascertained within the current range of alternatives before the Commission. On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to hear and consider the recommendation of the Environmental Coordinator as to whether "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period. At the close of that hearing, the Planning Commission determined that no "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period; and directed the consultant to complete the response to comments and prepare the Final EIR. The Final EIR concluded that while the revised project (Alternative 4) would reduce the degree of certain impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the proposed project, such impacts would remain significant and in need of mitigation measures. The Alternative 4 project design would still result in significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impacts and visual impacts when viewed from the Town's Middle Ridge open space area. The updated studies are included in the Final EIR and did not result in any significant new information or the discovery of any previously unidentified significant environmental impacts. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11 TO W11 C OL111 it MCCtinky At11-ItiSt 3, 2011 On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and adopted Resolution No. 2011-04 recommending certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council and also adopted a resolution recommending approval of prezoning for the SODA parcel. MERIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 26, 2011 Meeting The Planning Commission first considered the merits of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan at its January 26, 2011 meeting. The staff report for that meeting included the following recommended modifications to the project to reduce significant impacts on the environment and/or to better achieve consistency with General Plan policies: 1. Elimination of Lot 4 due to its violation of Tiburon Ridge vertical setback policy. 2. Reduced floor area for Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to a maximum of 4,500 square feet, with 600 square feet of garage space. 3. Limiting the homes on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to predominantly one-story designs, with only a partial second story, and reducing the height of the home on Lot 7 from three stories to two stories. At the January 26th meeting, a majority of the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the Precise Development Plan that focused on the following issues: • Consistency with rid eline policies. The project design was inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines. Policy OSC- 12 states that "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. The Commission concluded that more effort needed to be made to locate the future homes to preserve the visual integrity of the ridgelines. • Neighborhood compatibility. The project design was inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding consistency and compatibility with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. General Plan Policy LU-13 states that "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." The size and scale of the proposed homes were inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly those homes in the Seafirth, Acacia Drive and Norman Way neighborhoods. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11 Town CoLincil McctlIl„-T ALI~LISt 3, 2011 • Lack of changes presented by Alternative 4. The modifications to the original project proposed by the applicant's Alternative 4 project design did not appear to make substantial changes to the development pattern of the project and did not materially improve ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. The Commission suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of reducing the number, size and height of the proposed homes and better cluster the dwellings on the site to achieve improved consistency with General Plan policies. The Commission also requested clarification on how the Town could ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. The public hearing was continued to allow the applicant time to address these issues. April 13, 2011 Meeting The applicant subsequently submitted a revised alternative project design (Alternative 5) that included the following changes from the previous Alternative 4: ➢ Lot 4 was moved from its previous location within the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback to a location within the previous Lot 1 (the location of the existing house on the site) and adjacent to Lot 2. The size of Lot 4 increased from 0.75 acres to 1.03 acres, and the residential use area increased in size from 0.40 acres to 0.57 acres. The previous site of Lot 4 became part of the "Rabin private zone" of Lot 1. ➢ Portions of Lots 2 & 3 (0.25 and 0.26 acres respectively) along the roadway frontage of each lot were eliminated from the residential use areas and became private open space. These spaces set residential improvements back from the roadway. ➢ A small (approximately 450 square foot) portion of Lot 6 was eliminated from the residential use area of the lot and became private open space. ➢ The submittal materials included calculations on the fagade surface areas based on the conceptual house designs for each lot. The submitted table on Sheet SP-03B indicated that 36.39% of all building fagade area for the proposed homes would be below grade and not visible. Alternative 5 included no other changes to the previous 14-unit Alternative 4 project design. The number of lots and the maximum floor areas and building heights for homes on each lot remained the same. Prior to the meeting, Staff prepared and distributed a memo (Exhibit 16) that provided additional information and analysis regarding the project's relationship to the two Significant Ridgelines located on the project site and additional comparative information on surrounding neighborhoods. The analysis was based upon a review of Alternative 4, prior to the applicant's submittal of Alternative 5 and assumed inclusion of the project modifications recommended in the January 26 staff report. The memo contained detailed analysis of the relationship of the individual proposed house locations to both Significant Ridgelines from various viewpoints analyzed in the EIR. The TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11 TOW11 C OLHICil N ICC ICT AuITu-4 3, ?1 11 memo also included additional analysis of the house sizes in the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The memo listed numerous possible project revisions that were intended to produce a level of improved policy consistency in an attempt to meet the expectations expressed by the Planning Commission at the January 26 meeting. In combination with measures already set forth in Alternative 4, the draft Mitigation Monitoring Program, and in the January 26 staff report, the memo listed the following measures to increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines: 1. Eliminate Lot 4 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 3. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings. 4. Eliminate Lot 8; or relocate the Lot 8 building site to a portion of Lot 1 north of Lot 2; or reduce the Lot 8 floor area maximum to 4,500 square feet with a 600 square foot garage and 25' maximum height limit and darken the roof color. 5. Reduce floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet and reduce the maximum height of both homes by 3 feet; require a greenish exterior color that better blends with the evergreen foliage backdrop. 6. Require a flatter roof on the Lot 11 house and darken the color of the roof. 7. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation. 8. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered" and appears as undisturbed topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline. 9. Reduce floor area maximum on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 10. Eliminate Lot 13; or relocate the Lot 13 building site to Lot 11 and reduce both homes on that site to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square feet of garage and a 22' maximum height limit; or reduce the Lot 13 floor area maximum to 5,000 square feet with 600 square feet of garage and a maximum height limit of 22' and require wall and roof colors that minimize contrast. The memo also listed the following measures to increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding neighborhood consistency and compatibility: 1. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot garage. 2. Reduce floor area of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet. 3. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 4. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 13 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of garage. The memo also included a "menu" of possible project revisions to the Alternative 4 project design (Exhibit 17) that created a checklist of the measures noted above. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 11 Town Council ducting ,August 2011 To address the Commission's concern that the architectural design of homes built on the individual lots in the future would be consistent with the conceptual designs included in this precise development plan, staff recommended the inclusion of the following condition of approval: "House Designs. Individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall closely resemble the conceptual designs shown in the above- referenced drawings prepared by KAO Design Group, as revised pursuant to conditions of approval contained herein, or otherwise will require an amendment to this Precise Development Plan. In reviewing these design review applications, Town staff and the Design Review Board are directed to disallow changes, except for a reduction in house size, to the conceptual house designs and to the house locations, that would: a) materially increase the project's visibility from off-site; b) have materially greater impacts on views from other homes in the subdivision; c) substantially increase the heights of retaining walls; or d) result in substantially more grading without off-setting reductions in views and visual impact, while not materially increasing environmental impact." At the April 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission used the provided checklist as a tool to make recommendations about appropriate revisions to the project design, but also identified additional revisions that went even further toward increasing consistency with General Plan policies. During the Commission's deliberations, staff tallied the recommendations of individual Commissioners. The following revisions from the provided checklist were each recommended by a majority of the Commission for the reasons stated below: 1. Lot 8 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 6 and its proximity to serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. 2. Lot 9 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 3. Lot 10 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 4. Lot 13 would be eliminated due to its visual massiveness when viewed from Paradise Drive, the Seafirth Estates area, and Acacia Drive, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policies LU-13 and OSC-12. 5. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 would be reduced in size to minimize impacts on serpentine bunchgrass habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26, which states that "to the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special status species or special communities." 6. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5 and 6 would be reduced to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13 and to reduce visual impacts identified in the EIR. The maximum building height for these homes shall be limited to 16 feet to lessen the visual massiveness of these homes when viewed TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11 TuN\ n Council Mcctin" Au"USt 2011 from nearby public open space, consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.8-1. The Commission did not find it warranted to reduce the applicant-proposed floor area or height of homes on Lots 2, 3 or 7, and found the relocated Lot 4 location, size and height acceptable. 7. The maximum allowable floor area for Lot 12 would be reduced to 6,000 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13 . s 8. The private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7, across the roadway from the residential use areas, would be incorporated into the Lot "A" private common open space, to increase the protection of sensitive plant habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26. The Planning Commission unanimously directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan to the Town Council with the revisions noted above. On April 27, 2011, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-10 (Exhibit 4) recommending approval of the revised project to the Council. Staff believes that the focus of Town Council review will likely be on the project revisions made by the Planning Commission to the applicant-proposed Alternative 5 during the merits review hearing held on April 13, 2011, as summarized above. The Town Council field trip scheduled for July 22 will be structured around this concept. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed the Alta Robles project for consistency with goals and principles of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. In particular, the Commission placed a very strong emphasis on General Plan policies related to ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. Staff had suggested a host of project revisions to Alternative 4 that focused on reducing the size and height of homes to increase consistency with ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility policies, using relocation or elimination of lots as a final option. The Commission found the lot elimination option to be a more effective tool to achieve policy consistency that the size and height reductions alone. The Commission recommended its changes to the project design and number of lots in order to achieve sufficient compliance with these policies after it concluded that the applicant's revisions did not make substantial changes to the development pattern of the project and were not substantially responsive to the direction provided at earlier meetings by the Commission. The changes to the project design recommended by the Commission enhance ridgeline protection, achieve greater consistency with several General Plan policies, and make the size, number and location of the remaining ten (10) dwelling units on this project more compatible with the pattern of development in surrounding neighborhoods. Staff recommends that the Town Council certify the Final EIR for the project. The Council should then begin deliberations on the Precise Development Plan, using the Planning Commission's recommendations for a revised ten-lot project design as a starting point for these TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 11 deliberations. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to return with a resolution containing any project modifications that the Council deems to be appropriate, for adoption at a future meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and close the public hearing; 2. Adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) certifying the Final EIR; 3. Begin deliberations on the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning, and if appropriate, direct staff to return with a density-specific prezoning ordinance, as well as resolutions conditionally approving a Precise Development Plan, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and making any necessary CEQA findings of fact and findings of overriding considerations consistent with the contemplated project approval. EXHIBITS 1. Draft resolution certifying the Alta Robles Final EIR 2. Draft ordinance prezoning the SODA property 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-10 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-04 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-05 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 23, 2009 7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24, 2010 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 26, 2011 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2011 10. Minutes of the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting 11. Minutes of the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting 12. Minutes of the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 13. Minutes of the April 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 14. Minutes of the April 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 15. Consistency Analysis with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 16. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Planning (previously provided to the Council) 17. Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Consulting (previously provided to the Council) 18. Draft Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines, dated 3/6/2007 19. Applicant Alternative 5 narrative memo, dated April 1, 2011 20. Applicant memo on photosimulation changes, dated April 6, 2011 21. Applicant response to April 13, 2011 staff report, dated April 13, 2011 22. Memo on Additional Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility Policies, dated March 23, 2011 23. Menu of possible project revisions to Alternative 4 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 11 24. Letter from Steven Sockolov and Susan Snyder, dated January 11, 2011 25. Letter from Carol and Norman Traeger, dated January 12, 2011 26. Letter from Alexander Anolik, dated January 13, 2011. 27. Letter from Barbara and Jeffrey Farber, dated January 14, 2011 28. Letter from Jeff and Suzanne Appleman, dated January 15, 2011 29. Letter from Barry Moss, dated January 17, 2011 30. Letter from Don Abramson, dated January 17, 2011 31. Letter from Michael and Marcia Rubenstein, dated January 17, 2011 32. Letter from Ronald and Rhea Brown, dated January 18, 2011 33. Letter from Robert Wolfe, dated January 19, 2011 ! 34. Letter from Dan and Gina Waldman, dated January 19, 2011 35. Letter from Katie Vogelheim and John Hansen, dated January 20, 2011 36. Letter from Marilyn and Peter Siewert, dated January 21, 2011 37. Letter from Nona Dennis, dated January 21, 2011 38. Letter from David and Kimberley Brody, dated January 22, 2011 39. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated January 23, 2011 40. Letter from Douglas Currens and Jan Maisel, dated January 23, 2011 41. Letter from Ed and Christa Keeling, dated January 23, 2011 42. Letter from Eva Buxton, dated January 23, 2011 43. Letter from Jack Sholl, dated January 23, 2011 44. Letter from Murray Zucker, dated January 24, 2011 45. Letter from Roberta Zucker, dated January 24, 2011 46. Letter from Theo Koffler, dated January 24, 2011 47. Letter from Marvin Moskowitz, dated January 24, 2011 48. Letter from Doug Dossey, dated January 25, 2011 49. Letter from Kathrin Dellago, dated January 25, 2011 50. Letter from Leonard and Ruth Yaffe, dated January 25, 2011 51. Letter from Jan Gullett, dated January 25, 2011 52. Letter from Barbara Pattton, dated January 25, 2011 53. Letter from Jeff Schottenstein, dated January 25, 2011 54. Letter from Lawrence and Nancy Goldberg, dated January 26, 2011 55. Letter from Julie and Seth Jacobs, dated January 26, 2011 56. Letter from Bee Kilgore, dated January 26, 2011 57. Letter from Annette Gellert, dated January 28, 2011 58. Letter from Dana and Richard Steele, dated January 31, 2011 59. Letter from Mark Goldstein, dated April 7, 2011 60. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated April 12, 2011 61. Letter from Jerry Riessen and Joanna Kemper, dated April 12, 2011 62. Letter from Barry Wootton, dated April 13, 2011 63. Letter from Katie Vogelheim and John Hansen, dated July 12, 2011 64. Alternative 5 drawings and photo simulations, prepared by Ken Kao, Architect and CSW/ Stuber-Stroeh Additional correspondence regarding the Draft EIR is on file and is available for review at the office of the Planning Division. Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2011\August 3 drafts\Alta Vista PDP.report.doc TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 11 OF 11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR THE ALTA ROBLES PROJECT (PD# 20) ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 039-021-13 AND 039-301-01 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the Alta Robles residential development project was prepared and released for public review in August 2009. Following the public comment and review period, the Planning Commission determined on February 24, 2010 that recirculation of the DEIR was not required by law and directed the preparation of responses to comments and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been responded to in the FEIR for the Alta Robles project, which was released in December 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 2011 at which it received testimony and letters in regard thereto, after which it considered the FEIR and recommended certification of said document to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the EIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Town of Tiburon Local Environmental Review Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed public meeting on the FEIR on and heard and considered the FEIR and all testimony received; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alta Robles Final Environmental Impact Report: Consists of: a. The Alta Robles Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 2009. b. The Alta Robles Final Environmental Impact Report and Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated December 2010. 2. Is hereby certified by the Town Council to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local CEQA guidelines. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. --1--12011 1 EXHIBIT NO. A~ oaf 3. Has been presented to the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, which has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR. 4. Reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the Town Council. 5. Is hereby adopted as the Environmental Impact Report for the Alta Robles project and any trailing permits. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK S: I MministrationITown CouncihResolutionsWlta Robles FEIR certification reso.doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. --1--12011 2 L- ORDINANCE NO. XXX N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PREZONING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY (SODA PROPERTY) IN THE PARADISE DRIVE PORTION OF THE TIBURON PLANNING AREA (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 039-301-01) The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A. On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-05 recommending to the Town Council prezoning of certain unincorporated territory within the Tiburon Planning Area. B. The Town Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on 0 and has heard and considered public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. D. The Town Council finds that the actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council finds the actions made by this Ordinance to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. F. The Town Council finds that the proposed prezoning action was fully evaluated in the Alta Robles Environmental Impact Report that has previously been certified by the Town Council and that no further environmental review is required prior to approval of the prezoning. SECTION 2. PREZONING OF TERRITORY The territory described below is hereby prezoned with a zoning designation of RPD (Residential Planned Development); with a maximum density not to exceed _ [to be determined based on Precise Development Plan approval] dwelling units per acre (exclusive of secondary dwelling units ancillary to single family dwellings), and is incorporated into Planned Development No. 20 in Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning), Section 16-14.020 of the Municipal Code: Marin County Assessor's Parcel No. 039-301-01, commonly referred to as the SODA property; being approximately 20.95 acres, further described in attached Exhibit A and depicted graphically for illustration purposes only on attached E'HIBIT NO. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12011 1 Exhibit B, both incorporated herein. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The Town Council declares that it would have passed this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES : COUNCILMEMBERS : ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Exhibits: A. Legal Description B. Graphic Depiction S: IAdministrationITown CouncillOrdinances120111Pre-Zoning OrdinanceAlta Robles.doc Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N.S. Effective --1--12011 EXTITIBIT NO.r 2 f -I a~(,e Ear -71IBIT NO. DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate partly in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described below as follows: PARCEL ONE: Parcel 1, as• shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map Snyder, Winslow, Kilgore, Mills College -Land Division, a Portion of Parcel One, Two and Three under Recorder's Serial No.. 84-0029582 and Under Recorder's Serial No. 86-0074047", filed for record March 26, 1997 in Book 26 of Parcel Maps, at Page 32, Marin County Records. PARCEL TWO: A Sanitary Sewer. Easement -over Land of Smith (2580 OR 89) and being described as follows: A) A strip, of land 20.00 feet in width, lying 1.0'feet on both sides .of the following described line: .Beginning at a point on .the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map. entitled "Lands of Neill Smith"-, filed for record. June 8, 1978 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being South 00° 15'20" West 27 -.1.0. feet from the intersection of the courses "N 01 115' 20" E 48.006 feet & N 450 26' 21" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence leaving said Westerly line North 4619 19' 07' East 344.18 feet; thence South 830 29' 26" East 87.49 feet; thence South 330 44' 32" East 95.00 feet; thence South 751D 37' 39" East 38.16 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 16° 3504", a distance of 46.31 feet; thence North 8711 47' 17" East 112.62 feet;. thence South 63° 33' 33" East 37.00 feet; thence- North 700 14' 39" East 14.13 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding courses, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 20° 36'2-7", a distance of 57.55 feet; thence North 49" 38' 12" East 57.14 feet; thence on a curve to the left,. tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a. central angle of 90' 24' 05", a distance of 26.25 feet; thence North 40° 14' 07" East 184.56 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 10° 48' 06", a distance of 30.16 feet; thence North 51'D 02' 13" East 37.31 feet; thence on a curve .to the left tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 33° 04'44", a distance of 92.37 feet; thence on a reverse curve having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 25° 21' 58", a distance of 70.84 feet; thence North 43° 19' 27" East 19.22 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 68°.07' 44", a distance of 190.25 feet to the termination of this description. B). Beginning at the termination point of the above described Parcel One; thence North 21 ° 27' ' 11" East 41.66 feet to the line of Corte Madera Del Presidio, a shown on said Parcel Map (15 P.M. 34.); thence along said line of Rancho Corte Madera Del Presidio, South 66° 06' 413" East EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION Continued 111.06 feet; thence. North 770 53' 12" East 138.60 feet thence South 870 06' 48" East 242.88 feet; thence South 67° 06' 48" East 220.44 feet to the most Westerly corner of the parcel conveyed to Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County, recorded November 4,. 1968 in Book 2283. of Official Records at Page 49, Marin County Records; thence along the Westerly line of said Sanitary District No. 5 Parcel, South 11 ° 17' 20" East 72.19 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, North 47° 38' 09" West 59.16 feet; thence North 670 06' 48" West 198.16 feet; thence North 87° 06'48" West 230.56 feet; thence South 770 53 12 West 106.68 feet; thence along a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, .having a radiu5'rof 170.00 feet, through 'a central angle of 33° 33'.59", a distance of 99.59 feet; thence North 680 32' 49" West 61.29 feet; thence North 21 ° 27' 11 East 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. c) Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being the intersection of the courses "N 0° 15' 20" E 48.006 feet, and N 450 2621" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence along said Westerly line, North 450 26' 21" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, South 43° 40' 53" East 9.79 feet; thence South 460 19' 07" West 29.14 feet to the Westerly line of said Parcel" 1; thence along said Westerly line, North.0° 15' 20" East 1:3.17 feet to the-point of beginning. Parcel C subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions so require: d) Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith filed for record June 8, 1978 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being North 45° 26' 21" East 370.74 feet. from the intersection of.the courses "North 00 15' 20" East 48.006 feet. and North 450 26'21 " East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence leaving said Northwesterly line, South 440 33'39" East 65.10 feet to the Northerly line of Easement Parcel 'One, as described herein; thence along said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 830 29' 26" East 31.83 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 4410-33' 39" West 89.86 feet to the Northwesterly line'of aforementioned Neill Smith* Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South 45° 2621" West 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel D subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions require: e)Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain. Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being "North 450 26'21" East 288.15 feet from the intersection of the courses "North 0° 15' 20" East 48.OD6 feet" and North 450 26' 21" East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence along said Northwesterly line, South 83° 29'26" East 18.10 feet to the Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, described herein; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 460-19'07" East 30.75 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 831,29' 26" West 18.70 feet to the Northwesterly-iine of aforementioned Neill Smith Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South. 45° 26' 21." West 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. r EXHIBIT NO. - DESCRIPTION -Continued PARCEL THREE: A Utility Easement, 20 feet in width to install and maintain one' sewer line as contained in the document recorded November 30, 1999 as Instrument No. 1999 084666 and 1999 84667, Marin County Records. PARCEL FOUR: Portion of the so-called "Small Reed Ranch" as conveyed by John J. Reed to Clotilde Josephine Reed, by Deed dated November 21, 1899 recorded in Book 58 of Deeds at Page 1.68, Marin County Records. Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said tract, distant thereon South 450 51' East 45 feet from the intersection thereof with the Southeasterly line of the lands conveyed by Hercules Powder Company to T.A. Kilgore, recorded'January 26, 1925 in Book 64 of Official Records at Page 394, Marin County Records; said Southeasterly line being also the Northwesterly line of the lands now or formerly owned by Crowley; thence South 440 09' West 900 feet; thence North 450 51' West 1525 feet; thence North 440 09' East 875 feet; thence North 450 51' West 90 feet; thence North 440 09' East 25 feet to the Northeasterly line of the "Small Reed Ranch"; thence along said line, South 450 51' East 1616 feet to the point of beginning. ' EXHIBIT NO. EY~IBIT NO. B.. City Parcels BayAreaCounty Ci 13 Road Names County Boundary OceanBay a 99 EXHIBIT NO. 1 SODA Property RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE ALTA ROBLES PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 20) AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 039-021-13 AND 039-301-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Towil of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town of Tiburon has received and considered an application filed by Irving and Varda Rabin, et al for a Precise Development Plan (the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan) to develop the following project: The development of ten single-family lots and appurtenant improvements on an approximately 52.21-acre property. The Alta Robles 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 zoning elements for the proposed lots. B. The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #30701, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. 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 prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for the project in making its recommendation to the Town Council on the merits of the project. The Planning Commission has, by adoption of a separate resolution, recommended certification of the Final EIR for the Alta Robles project. D. The Planning Commission has also, by adoption of a separate resolution, recommended prezoning of the unincorporated portion (20.95 acres) of the site to the Town Council. E. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on January 26, 2011 and April 13, 2011 at which it heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Planning Commission found, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the application materials, staff report, EIR and the entire record, that the proposed project, TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 4/27/2011 EXHIBIT NO. P. l OF Yy as amended by conditions of approval, 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 project record. F. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant's proposed project designs, including Alternatives 4 & 5, were inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-13, which states that: "Neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, rgass, 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." The maximum floor areas and visual for the proposed homes would be inconsistent with the development pattern of the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The Commission has recommended imposition of conditions of approval and #project modifications to achieve project consistency with this policy. G. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant's proposed project designs, including Alternatives 4 & 5, were inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-12, which states that: "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." Several of the proposed lots would result in homes that are inordinately large and would visually overwhelm homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Commission has recommended imposition of conditions of approval and project modifications to achieve project consistency with this policy. H. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant's proposed project designs, including Alternatives 4 & 5, were inconsistent with General Plan Policy OSC-12, which states that: it "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." TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 4/27/2011 2 EXHIBIT NO. ~ 2~~ y~ Several of the proposed lots would be situated on or close to significant Ridgelines 5 & 6 that traverse the subject property. The Commission has recommended imposition of conditions of approval and project modifications to achieve project consistency with this policy. 1. The Planning Commission finds that the applicant's proposed project designs, including Alternatives 4 & 5, were inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-7, which states that: "Development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive, including habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshqs, 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." Several of the proposed lots would be situated close to -sensitive plant species habitats, including communities of serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. The Commission has recommended imposition of conditions of approval and project modifications to achieve project consistency with this policy. J. The Planning Commission finds that recommended conditions of approval imposed on the project were consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-4, which states that: "Future land use decisions shall be consistent with the Land Use Diagram, Proposed Land Use. Densities and intensities specified in the Land Use Element are maximums (except for state-mandated bonuses for affordable housing or other density bonuses specifically provided for in the Housing Element) that may not be achieved if other policies of the General Plan pertaining to environmental, physical or other constraints such as steep slopes, soil instability or limitations on necessary infrastructure require lower densities or intensities." K. To achieve the consistency of the project application with the policies of the Tiburon General Plan, and consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-4, the Planning Commission recommends that the following modifications be made to the project design: 1. Lot 8 shall be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 6 and its proximity to serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. 2. Lot 9 shall be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 3. Lot 10 shall be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 4. Lot 13 shall be eliminated due to its visual massiveness when viewed from TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 201 1-10 4/27/2011 3 EXHIBIT N0. 3 P. 3 vF Yy nearby residences on Paradise Drive, the Seafirth subdivision and Acacia Drive, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policies LU-13 and OSC-12. 5. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 shall be reduced in size to minimize impacts on serpentine bunchgrass habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26, which states that "to the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special status species or special communities." _ 6. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5 and 6 shall be reduced to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU- 13. The maximum building height for these homes shall be limited to 16 feet to lessen the visual massiveness of these homes whenMewed from nearby public open space. 7. The maximum allowable floor area for Lot 12 shall be reduced to 6,000 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13. 8. The private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7, across the roadway from the residential use areas, shall be incorporated into the Lot "A" private common open space, to increase the protection of sensitive plant habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26. Section 2. Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Granting Conditional Approval of the Project and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council approve the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit 1, and adopting a mitigation monitoring program for the project. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 4/27/2011 4 EXHIBI, NO. 3 - L4 OF YY EXHIBIT' PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on April 27, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Corcoran, Frymier & Tollini NOES: None ABSENT: Doyle and Kunzweiler CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Attachments: Exhibit 1 (Conditions of Approval) Exhibit 2 (Table of Maximum House Sizes and Building Heights) Exhibit 3 (Mitigation Monitoring Program) S: PlanninglPlanning Commission lResolutions120I P2011-10; Alta Robles PDP.doc TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 4/27/2011 EXHIBIT NO. Z 5 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Contents. The approved Alta Robles Precise Development Plan shall consist of the following: Precise Development Plan for Alta Robles, Tiburon, California, including Architectural Design Guidelines prepared by IPA, Inc., dated March 2007 and plans prepared by CSW/Stuber-Sroeh Engineering Group, Inc., dated 05-08-07; Kao Design Group, dated May 08, 2007; and Jim Catlin Landscape Architect, dated March 2006; all as amended by Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (a.k.a. Alternative 5, prepared by Kao Design Group, dated March and April 2011), and as amended and modified by mitigation measures and conditions contained herein. Within sixty (60) days of final Precise Development Plan approvdl, applicant shall submit a complete set of the drawings and documents referenced above incorporating the changes required by the conditions of approval herein to the Community Development Department for review and acceptance as being in substantial conformance with this approval. 2. Mitigation Monitoring Program. This Precise Development Plan approval incorporates mitigation measures contained in the Alta Robles Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. Applicant shall bear all costs for implementation and monitoring of said Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3. Modifications to Precise Development Plan. The following modifications shall be made to the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan application, as modified through Alternative 5, as described in Condition of Approval No. 1 above: a. Lots 8, 91 10 and 13 shall be eliminated. The land area of Lot 8 shall be incorporated into the Lot "A" private common open space and the land area of Lots 9, 10 & 13 shall be incorporated into the Lot "B" private common open space. b. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5 and 6 shall be reduced to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space. The maximum building height for these homes shall be 16 feet. The residential use areas for these lots shall be reduced in size to eliminate all portions indicating the presence of serpentine bunchgrass shown on Sheet SP-30, prepared by Kao Design Group, dated April 1, 2011. EXHIBIT NO. 3 p~aF `~Y C. The maximum allowable floor area for Lot 12 shall be reduced to 6,000 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space. d. The private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7, across the roadway from the residential use areas, shall be incorporated into the Lot "A" private common open space. 4. Lot 1 Parameters. Lot 1 is currently developed with a single family dwelling, tennis court, pool, pond, garden and landscaped areas and other ancillary improvements. Lot 1 is subject to the 8,000-square foot floor area guideline limit as set forth in the Tiburon Municipal Code. The height limit for the main building is 28 feet and the tennis court must be unlighted. Any additional floor area on Lot 1 must first secure a floor area exception as set forth in Section 16-52.020(I) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, or successor sections thereto. Additional improvements on Lot 1 shall be confined to the residential use area except as otherwise approved herein. The Rabin Private Zone shall be subject to the provisions of Condition No. 10 below regarding establishment of open space, scenic and/or resource conservation easements. No additional buildings are allowed in the Rabin Private Zone beyond the existing shed located adjacent to Lot 5, which may be maintained in good repair but may not be enlarged or the use altered without prior approval by the Planning Commission. 5. Maximum Density Established. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (C[2]) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes a maximum density of 0.19 dwelling units per acre (10 primary dwellings, not including any Town-approved secondary dwelling units incidental to primary dwellings) on the 52.12 acre site and is intended to reflect the ultimate development of the property. 6. No Further Subdivision. No additional subdivision for the purpose of creating additional lots and/or building sites is permitted, and a note to that effect shall be placed on the final map. 7. Floor Area and Height Maximums Established. 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, and "height", as defined in Section 16-100.020 (H) therein, that may be constructed on each lot as set forth in attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein. Any garage and/or carport floor area in excess of the amount specified in Exhibit A shall be counted as additional gross floor area on a lot. Floor areas meeting the definition of "basement" in the Tiburon 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 2 EXHIBIT NO. ~ P. 7 oP q~ footage and/or height for good cause. Exhibit A also establishes a floor area allowance not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet for the construction or installation of detached accessory buildings, excluding garages, carports, and secondary dwelling units. Accessory buildings may include a pool house, cabana, tool/garden shed, or similar structure, the use of which is clearly subordinate and incidental to the main building. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above grade. 8. Accessory Buildings and Fences. Accessory buildings or structures and other improvements, including patios, decks, pools, spas, fountains and water features, built-in barbeques, play structures, arbors, gazebos, tool sheds, fencing, introduced landscaping, utility improvements, parking areas, driveways, and retaining walls shall be limited to the "residential use area" of each lot. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height and landscape walls shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 9. Tennis Courts. Additional tennis courts (beyond the single existing court on Lot 1) are prohibited. 10. Common private open space. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes a designation of "common private open space" for Lots A, B and C, and in furtherance of Section 16-21.030(D[3] of the Municipal Code, said Lots A, B, and C shall be protected by open space, scenic, and/or resource conservation easements to be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the final map application. Said easements (if accepted) shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the final map and their existence shall be noted on the final map. Said easements shall acknowledge, as necessary, any existing improvements (such as the three 19 foot-high water storage tanks on Lot C), any 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. Easement or dedication documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development prior to acceptance for filing of any final map application. 11. Residential Use Area (RUA). In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, no improvements of any type, including fencing, shall be .permitted on any lot outside of the approved "residential use area" for each lot. 12. Lot Areas Outside the RUA. In furtherance of Section 16-21.030(D[3]) of the Municipal Code, all portions of private lots outside the RUA shall be protected by an open space easement or easements offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the final map application. Said open EXHIBIT N0._3 3 P, i@ OF q ~ space easement or easements shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the final map and their existence shall be noted on the final map. This limitation does not apply to improvements contemplated in this Precise Development Plan; for example, the private roadways serving the subdivision; driveways, retaining walls supporting driveways; utilities; landslide repair devices and re-vegetation; drainage ditches; existing water tanks and other existing improvements, or other ancillary improvements necessary for installation of the subdivision improvements contemplated in this Precise Development Plan or permits issued in reliance thereon, including the subdivision improvement drawings. _ 13. Rabin Private Zone on Lot 1. In furtherance of Section 16-21.030 (D[3]) of the Municipal Code, the area designated as Rabin Private Zone on Lot 1 shall be reserved for natural resource protection and scenic view preservation. A natural resource protection and scenic view preservation easement shall be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the final map application. Said easement shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the final map and its existence shall be noted on the final map. Said easement shall acknowledge, if necessary, any existing improvements, any required roadway, drainage and/or utility easements and any landscape installation (e.g. mitigation planting) and maintenance agreements that are required as part of this Precise Development Plan or permits issued in reliance thereon. 14. Design Guidelines. All residential improvements constructed on the property shall substantially conform to the Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines dated 3/6/2007, as amended by this approval. Within sixty (60) days of final Precise Development Plan approval, said Guidelines shall be updated and revised to reflect mitigation measures and conditions of approval herein to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Said guidelines shall be part of the draft CC&R's submitted for review and acceptance by the Town Attorney with the tentative subdivision map application and shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map. 15. House Designs. Individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall closely resemble the conceptual designs shown in the above-referenced drawings prepared by KAO Design Group, as revised pursuant to conditions of approval contained herein, or otherwise will require an amendment to this Precise Development Plan. In reviewing these design review applications, Town staff and the Design Review Board are directed to disallow changes, except for a reduction in house size, to the conceptual house designs and to the house locations, that would: a) materially increase the project's visibility from off-site; b) have materially greater impacts on views from other homes in the subdivision; c) substantially increase the heights of retaining walls; or d) result in substantially more grading without off-setting reductions in views and visual impact, while not materially increasing environmental impact. 4 EXHIBIT NO, p, c, of cl q 16. Colors and Materials. Colors and materials of homes and accessory buildings shall be low-reflectivity; medium and/or dark hues that minimize contrast with surroundings and reduce visual impacts. 17. Retaining Walls and Screening. The appearance of any publicly-visible project retaining walls (including debris catchment fences or walls) shown on the subdivision improvement drawings in excess of forty-two (42) inches in height shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board (DRB) prior to approval of said drawings. Where publicly visible, all subdivision improvement-related retaining walls and bridge piers shall have the appearance of rock, such as would be found native on the site, to provide a natural look, and shall be medium to dark in color to reduce contrast. The DRB review and approval shall include appropriate landscaping screening for such structures. Bonding or other monetary security for the irrigation, maintenance and replacement of retaining wall landscaping for the lifetime of the retaining walls shall be secured by the Town prior to recordation of the parcel map. The amount of monetary security shall be acceptable to the Director of Public Works and the terms of the maintenance and replacement shall be acceptable to the Town Attorney. 18. Landscaping. Any disturbed open space areas shall be landscaped immediately following the landslide repair and/or subdivision improvement/home construction 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 other than that approved as part of a detailed landscape plan and palette to be submitted with the tentative subdivision snap application and incorporated into the subdivision improvement drawings. 19. Landscape Transition. The Precise Development Plan landscape drawings for the private lots shall be revised to require a gradual transition of landscaping within the residential use areas from the suburban-type landscaping of the RUA to the more natural-appearing vegetation found in the private open space portions of lots and areas outside the residential use area. 20. Detailed Landscape Plan. A detailed landscape plan for the subdivision improvement phase of the project shall be prepared as part of the subdivision improvement drawing submittal and shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. This landscape plan shall include removal of any remaining invasive plant species; review of common area plantings, entry landscaping, retaining wall screening, and any landscaping required in adopted mitigation measures. Infrastructure and subdivision improvement-related landscaping must be supported by a functional, reliable, and appropriate irrigation system for which maintenance is guaranteed by the homeowner association. Mechanisms shall be instituted in the CC&R's and elsewhere as appropriate that 5 EXHIBIT NO. _ 3 R /D op Ll1 provide the Town the right, but not the obligation, to compel maintenance of such landscaping at homeowner association expense if deemed necessary by the Town. 21. Tree Plan. A detailed Tree Protection and Replacement Plan shall be submitted with the subdivision improvement drawings to set forth protection measures for trees to be retained during project construction and to implement Mitigation Measure 5.5-5 and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works. Said Plan shall be subject to third party review at the applicant's expense. s 22. Private Open Space Bollards. As described on p. 49 of the Alta Robles Draft EIR, three-foot high permanent bollards with plaques shall be installed between the boundary of the residential use areas and the private open space areas of each lot. 23. Roadway Lighting. If lighting is proposed for the project roadways, lighting details shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to tho approval of subdivision improvement drawings for the project. 24. Restrictions and Agreements. 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 or 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 final map. The CC&R's shall grant to the Town of Tiburon the authority but not the obligation to ensure that the provisions contained in the Precise Development Plan are honored. The Town of Tiburon would be a third-party beneficiary with independent rights of enforcement, as determined in the reasonable discretion of the Director of Community Development and Town Attorney. The CC&R provisions pertaining to the Precise Development Plan may not be amended without Town of Tiburon's prior consent. 25. Vehicular Access to Project. All vehicular access shall be from the primary access road connecting to Paradise Drive near the northern edge of the property. There shall be no vehicular access from Hacienda Drive except for emergency vehicle purposes. 6 EXHIBIT NO. T, tt or-qy 26. Traffic Study at Project Entry. No more than ninety (90) days prior to submittal of the final map application and subdivision improvement drawings, a traffic study performed to the specifications of the Town Engineer shall be performed to ascertain the average speed of vehicles near the project entry at that point in time to determine whether Mitigation Measures 5.1-4 from the Draft EIR is necessary and shall be applied. Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 shall be applied in any event. 27. Existing Project Entry. The existing access roadway leading from Paradise Drive to the residence at 3825 Paradise Drive, located at the farthest eastward edge of the property, shall be used for emergency vehicle access only and shall be secured and gated for that purpose to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. This access point shall not be used for project construction. 28. Public Recreational Trail. Applicant shall design, survey and install a traversable public access recreational trail within the easement immediately north of Hacienda Drive as part of the subdivision improvement drawings. The design shall include installation of six (6) foot-high fencing at the northwestern edge of the trail nearest 139 Hacienda Drive that will to the maximum extent feasible prevent trail users from approaching the shared property line of that property with the Alta Robles property and thus minimize privacy issues for occupants of 139 Hacienda Drive. Applicant-performed work shall be done as part of the subdivision improvement phase of the project. Alternatively, applicant may make a monetary contribution to cover fully the Town's estimated reasonable costs of designing, surveying and installing said path. If an in-lieu monetary contribution is proposed instead of applicant installation, then said payment shall occur prior to recordation of the final map. The amount of any monetary contribution shall be based on an estimate by the Town Engineer. Notwithstanding this condition, Town and applicant may agree to an earlier installation of the public path improvements, by separate agreement that would render this condition moot. 29. Removal of Junk Materials. As part of the installation of the subdivision improvements, applicant shall remove or replace dilapidated fencing and fence- posts, and shall remove litter, garbage, and other junk materials from the entire site. 30. Debris catchment fences. All proposed debris catchment fences and/or walls shall be shown on the Subdivision Improvement Drawings. Where such fences or walls are proposed to be located in, or would require access through, sensitive resource areas, alternative solutions shall be explored that would avoid to the extent feasible impacts on sensitive resources. 31. Fire Access Easements. Fire apparatus access areas shown on Lot 1 shall be shown as easements for emergency vehicle use and offered for dedication as such on the final map to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Fire Marshal. 7 EXHIBIT NO. .3 32. Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan contained in the March 2007 Alta Robles project submittal is illustrative only. A detailed Construction Management Plan shall be prep4red and submitted with the Final Map application and Subdivision Improvement Drawings for review and approval by the Town Engineer and Director of Community Development. The Plan shall, without limitation, outline the sequence and estimated timing of subdivision improvement installation; and shall comprehensively address construction staging areas, construction parking, materials storage, soil stockpiling, debris boxes, portable restrooms, and protective fencing for the subdivision improvement installation phase of the project. The Plan shall specify an aggressive subdivision improvement installation schedule. In no event shall installation exceed a period of two calendar years. 33. Grading Period. 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. 34. Smoking. 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 the contract and the construction documents for the contractor(s) performing the work. 35. Expiration. 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 reap 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. S.•IPlanninglPlanning ComnsissionlResolittions1201112011-10; Alta Robles PDP Exhibit I (conditions).doc ~ ~ g EXHIBIT NO. P . 13 0-F 91t Exhibit 2 TABLE OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREAS AND BUILDING HEIGHTS LOT NUMBER TOTAL HOUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 7,800 150 23'6" 3 7,640 750 29'0" 4 4,000 600 25'0" 5 4,500 600 16'0" 6 4,500 600 1610" 7 7,290 750 25"0" 8 ELIMINATED ELIMINATED N/A 9 ELIMINATED ELIMINATED N/A 10 ELIMINATED ELIMINATED N/A 11 7,890 750 22'4" 12 6,000 750 21'8" 13 ELIMINATED ELIMINATED N/A 14 4,663 600 24'2" S: `Planning~Plonning Commission ~ Resolutions ~ 2011 X2011-10; Alta Robles PDP Exhibit 2 (house size table).doc EXHIBIT NO. 7:~: P, 14OFqV Exhibit 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring program when approving a project or changes to a project, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code section 21081.6). The program is based on the findings and the required mitigation measures presented in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared on the project and certified by the lead agency. The reporting program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. A Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) must cover the following: • The MMP must identify the entity that is responsible for each monitoring and reporting task, be it the Town of Tiburon (as lead agency), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (i.e., the project sponsor). • The MMP must be based on the project description and the required mitigation measures presented in the environmental document prepared for the project and certified by the lead agency. • The MMP must be approved by the lead agency at the same time of project entitlement action or approvals. MMP's are typically designed in chart and checklist format for ease of monitoring. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR was prepared to address the impacts of the proposed Alta Robles Residential Development. This document, entitled Alta Robles Residential Development EIR consists of two volumes (Draft EIR dated August 2009, and Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated December, 2010), and is on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department, along with all the other documents which constitute the record of proceedings. EXHIBIT NO. 3 P, 15- OF YLI Mitigation Monitoring Program Alta Robles Residential Development PURPOSE AND USE OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM The purpose of the monitoring program is to provide the Town of Tiburon with a simple guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the Final EIR are implemented properly. Since each required mitigation measure must be implemented, a monitoring chart was created, which is attached to this report. This chart provides the following information and direction for use. 1) The required mitigation measures are listed in the first column, corresponding to the list of measures provided in the Final EIR. 2) The second column lists the agency or entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. 3) The third column lists the timing as to when the mitigation measure is to be implemented. 4) The fourth column provides guidance on monitoring to ensure that implementation procedures are followed. 5) The fifth column provides a location for Town staff to verify that the mitigation has been implemented and the date of the verification. The Town's requirements for mitigation monitoring programs are set forth in the Town's Environmental Review Guidelines. 1 Section E.2.c states that "the Town's efforts shall focus on monitoring, not reporting. A memorandum shall be prepared by the case planner, upon completion of the implementation of all mitigation measures, for inclusion in the project file to document satisfactory completion of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan." 1 Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines, Town Council resolution No. 62-2002. - - - EXHIBIT NO. 3 P. 16 of LN E 0 a 0 0 co 0) Z y cc O cr 2. Q 0 CL Z ct Z 0 ~ w tallq pq O a~ ~ 03 O r' s~ p • - ~ U 4"' f c > Ct ct o~ ~ . i 03 Z o oz ct ti o • n cn Q. o U N N O b4 4; N Q, ' cn O 03 0 U . U ~ 3 ~ o ~~b B o a :3 O v N 11 > 7:1 En c~z U o 0 ti O " 4 O o ~ ~ o • m M 114 W M :zl- I ya c CO CD 0 0 ca .o 0 .2 a ~o ~ o ~ A j o ~ U a~ o ~ W • 4r O ~ Q O 1 V ca u O O CZ N ct 4 O 3 3 cz o Q. o., zs cn O to 4- O p ctt n ' ti N r - c tS CZ CZ • 03 ct o O Q, oz O O a; c~ G ti u cz m ' CZ o z~ cn Q ti C O o 4-4 >1 I -41 W `3 C4- CL rn v , I C) CZ cn 3cz bi) pVj p O 4, N v p «i O U cz N Q A U cz O cC b cat ct > cz 1r) r, s -d " o o ' cz ° ° O cz v cz u cw o a v b a, o Q M c b O C) C~5 -4 CZ: ' 'n p v CZ C.) b " zi 1Z c O ~ .o .o o rD Q, m O W coo ai C) ~ ~ o Q) .o 0 a Q _ o ~ o t w ~ O A O ~ i.; b0 tt3 ~ U QQWO (~U ~ 0 0 p _C~3 O ~ c C a w ~ O . a o IE , • 4 ~ O cn CZ • ct ct 4.1 can N cn r, co co Q cc3 O U b cG U O. O p p s. N N Q, Q 't3 Nom, cn R3 cn O p Q + O 'd ° kn U M -p " p' «i C -O p E v ccn cn N c F ion O N p ~ ~ ~ Gq ~ ' r O ~ • ~ j c~ ~ O + O O 'CS , , E E u UCt ~ , ~ U ~u ~ U ~ U 4 o a~ ~ al I- r u . ciz 03 O r M a p U cn Q. . o C40 • ~ _ _ bA s•. ^d :z 7~ ~ m w W cz ' ~ ~ •y ti cn ✓ S.-I V ~ i•+y H1 mil v 1~1 -al --11 - ~ O O° 4- u P4 2 ;:s iO a- m O F~-1 J~ w .T v r c cr a> ~ 0 0 o ~ c ~ o a a~ ~o ct 9~ y A 2 o 0 ~ o o c3 y ° U 0 bp U o C.) cz b o o ° ~ ~ w u " ~ U o o ca Z o v~ o o u Q 3 ? oz ~ H U Q U W U U 0 Q 0 0 cz a~ o 'b fl a ~o . ~ Ct ct d 41 cn U O ~ cn ~ C~ cn 3 ~..r.4 -Ct CZ 'd o V, o t4:44 o U. oz u or4-, u=4 U haw v o ° a~ v b ~ a) ~ c} O J Q 0 ' U Q" 14 2 t + Ic-t, ago O ' v~ ' ~ cz vii , ° .4 3 bA ° ct cn ' :Z d ' 4. . c ~ o C o o - a) C" C) 4-1 En Q Q m 0 ~ n ~ ay En $-4 cn cot c n cn c b U -d Aa bb C) -T5 En En o 0 o X) O H C fB N O Q .0 0 a ct: co ~ a ~a O c o ° o W ~ xU 2zz U O pp 'CZ .r bb O U C/~ • A-r u~ ~ N ~ bI) ~ vz cz O I O p O p ~"O O cn U v~ rr", U p cn U ~ 'b O U Q > C cat a O fl cz A•. U.-4 - W O O vUi +r, s " U CZ U cz -1- O m u CZ S1 U 'd U U v~ + cz +-N CO V) U U r- 7t, QD O W U O Q O p cn U S~ p 'b y' ° c r C z ct 3 ct 3 o o ~ ° 0 Q, o o o , d v o1.4 aCZ O z 7d U o a U CZ ~ M rr ~ 4 b "1' 4 O U °~ct o~ 3 ~ u~ ~ cz 4- ° v; U U try . s. O O U 't3 U u p ct O U U C-n O O cd CZ U O t ~ O v i CA jcz p fl. U S1 U i 0 U cz 03 Q CZ U H o 3 Q. o Q CZ b ~ o > O o CZ 3 C-n . c cz a, v O H w C cm a) 0 0 o ~ m ~ c a c ~ mCC o ~ o S;:2 j ~ CZ ~ . u U 'L3 o lull U 03 U u Q o d u o u C~, > > u u, u u a~ Z 3 b C Mb o 'd o > U z bA " • E- W 0 CZ,- . u. a °-0 . o ~tz~ - e r. . ti ti w i 'I r W s ~ U u o W ~ u ct v N N CZ v CZ cl) Zs u -0 In p cz `4 u "d CZ Q u Z Z" C M O ~1. ;t p - i " O CI O 'n ~ p p p~ O "d rA 7.. w x o a CZ U A" ° o En o UU- o E~ o~ a~ o co cz -4 bl) :j cz O 3 N U. b 0 N O ' bA CA U $.0 CZ r^ C 3 .45 " ° cn b4 > a~ cQ.° GA CZ a~ C ti ct u u ~ o 3 ~q o spa cn O 0 C,3 4-, S 'd O o u U 4-~ O v W 4? Q~ U O ~ Z cz -5 b o t ~ tb CZ a~ cz cz C 4-0 i CA o U u, 0 • 3 cz • o v0 E~ ~ o o a~ • o ° -a U c° °n W C~ . . . M O z H G4 r "1 W E ca a~ a~ E 0 0 o ~ o y 0 m ~ o C~ 't w yA ~ U Its ~ U ~ b~D U ~ • b ~ ~ 0 0 ~ p o W . , 1o o p W U QC~E~ U C~QF~ ri U ° 0 0 U ; O cd U U 3 H U cz tom . I U 4.4 O d cn O ct s U ~O r Z: M U N G U) FL, EL ct a Q U W c~ M o. Q.~ tw n o U u, 0., d O'U A~ 4-4 b cti U z C) ° U N C~/1 4-4 CZ p U r. U O U ct O ' Cn cz cz 'L7 cn O _ O Cij 3 U U p y u U Gp O o U U U u cz u Q. CA v W b au O Et ' Q) U -O U ° ' .4 U ' ° U U° o.'~~ o er ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ U o > C~- CO) CZ . s : N O N ~i O p Q. cn C) E- Ui O U O U . O E- s cn - U $y U U C U ~ U 't1 v u s. cn fl. cz bA cCi cCi s . p ' s cn U O Q. . U N U U cC U U b~ O. a j o U ..p ' p O O En C) bj) -4 O D U CZ 0 0 0 ti C40 0 0 ti4 m ° W n m O0.! O W fl cz cc M m Q.. C14 U ti UZcn R~ Q. U C CZ 'S U J- a L5' M/ ' / O w E o, E 0 0 .s; o o_ c~ JL3 ~o cc ~ w ~A 0 f N V N i r V ^ ` W n!y W A ~ • ~ ~ • O Q~ ' t ~ y 4•-1 Q~ V w"'`V O rr! mo W ~ ..•y ~ i-1 `V ~ P i~1 DUI V ^ O ~11 CZ ~ ii 1M1 03 u C) C) cl~ o ~s 3 O a~ o (n cl, - O Q+ O bA RS r z 4-1 64 3 o ° b o U U cp = (U bb Q:8 _s:l bju 7 3 ; 4-4 q) U~ o ° ~ t C7 ct r" cz C) cl, C-) N ° o a~ o. an a y a U Cl) v > v o C° 3 M a~ o > P. o ~ `z a o,~ o e-I o m m cz -4- 64 cz ca u U 12 1 13 (z Jti (v Q.~ O m 0 c 0 Z 0 co ~ A 4.1 o o W • r- CC X0,1 4-~ CZ bA '•d ~ ° i-. N ~ a : ryM ~ O V~ O ° C~ ¢ ' y + m 03 r+ O b(1 s , O J Cam/ ` CCS z . ] C O O .--i cn • .Zi 4- rA cz O 4~ a" - c~ U O 03 bq 10 N cd U) ~ N u ` Cz O, rd o 0 o b z - u C" M ° b rn Q CZ U o~ u rn ~ ct > cw z C) 14 -0 o cl:5 Cc 7:1 ca o.~b °.z~ci o 0 0 C) > N rd U U C° Q o U C) o o ° o v~ on t C, .4 o C6 c CZ V o -o N o 0 0 c 03 ti c a, o ° a C cn C7 ° C Z 1 ° CZ o u C ~ O~~w ~ ~ v~HCuH 3 ~ d u w vs x w ~ a ~ d ~ U ~ . . . r~ w O N W Z a, E 0 0 'o O w ~ a cc co o cr i A s w 0~ N ti a w N 1 }u~ / = ~ ° 7' 71 goy ° ` V ` M/ 1- 1 ~ 1 • ^y ` V ^ ' W V~! ~~ll Cpl ~ cn C/l " ° ( ~ ~ - 1 ^ }-I C/] i - ~ ~ V 1 ~H Q~ '0 ~„r `n ~I . r1 o `y CZ o ' o t0 cd G~ + ct CZ 03 t~ 'm cn ct r a~ r-q 4 C) cl~ U) 4-1 ) kl~ b P ;,,o U. cz . o . o On cz = ° o a 1 a~ u oz: bA a~. o o . ' U a~ ct o o o o o r 4 .ti cz a~ Q 3 a C) oo y u 0 :3 > on C. r C ° 3 u Q, En cn C) M r~ W ~ c m a~ o Q a o ~ o o_ ~ .co a co ~ o Q 9~ ~ w ~A 0 W N ~v 1 rV N ~ N O ~ by O • c b4 > b `n d p ~ ~ U U O cq cd p U ct -0 U 4 ct O U p O U U c v~ CZ r 4 p ~ c*-' ~ to CS U bA cz bA C~5 r, ell ct bA _ ' U - 'd "d O ¢ cz O" O 0 va O O c, O ^C p y •v O ~ 3.. O ~ ~ ) c~ s, O 4' 03 U C. Cz b r O U U t)b O cl, 4--4 . N , cis r U N o o O t+-.4' U O U o a~ ~ cC to cC n U N O CZ m c U U cz oz o > b y U ct U O > O O O cC 4 cz U U p U U N ~ O ~ U ~ ~ bUA O y ~ > `,;5 v U o i Cn N ~U, O > O Q ct a-) cn o cz M -CZ cz (n m 4. ' N CZ c>, U O O U cn r" 3 CL U 4-a > Ea; > U U v O U O ~ 'O v zaa, °z A za N 4:11 m O H W M E c o`~ E 0 0 4. O 0 c • ~ o a c V5 ~ o co Q 9~ N ~ Y V O p W C/1 O bA c~C b C~z o UQQH C,~ cz u cz p b A V 'n N y O ~ U 03 cz _ U 61) Z+r U -a U ~ L1. O ' ~ P. ~ ~ ~ 'b 3 O ~ N ° .C13 ca ca u C) e-) V) Q 4 ° U 3 w u h oo O b N j U N 4c" > CZ U F--i y O 't7 N v~ N p~q c+-.4 c~C a j U W oz u J-- w C) C, c~ 'Ct C) C) En En cn cl) 4.1 4- 4-1 cn C) Ts ° o a~ 3 w -d o b M 4.1 U C) 4- 42 u 4c > w CZ 't~ cG r ~ O r4 a~ N "d cn C,3 o "'r 5 U t2l OU ° CZ13' C m C40 z co p, O bUA cz U > O ctc -d U ctt CZ U c~ 4 j -O N o 03 v o w Q En cn •b N c~ M 0 MH F•i-l H w U; ~r E c ca a) Q o o IC-1 _o 0 a o ~ c~ co w X-, cr ~ w ~A U ~ U ~I U Q QQ U Q" bid ~ N a w b ~ cl~ , En S-~, ~2• O o o 5 zct o a -o a En o O 'd 3 Cl) vUi O ~ U p U° U Q) nz~ p t 03 n " - ° o > o , o cr O N U bA ct Z V n U . O ^d n cr~ (D U 'A ct a) S4 bL o o bA a c ct cn O~ U Lam' ai cn 0 o , C/) clu U 7d q O U b p C~ C v) 'd U O y n 'd n O bA U > O 1-4 6 O p O p V p by > v~ vn p U> r O tb a) 1-4 b O s . U tL A o O to u $n cz O rn pa Y o U bU , t4-4 'd 3 o~ U O , o 0 Q) rA o ff > b t4 CZ 1-4 z (1) ca CZ v ~ M u z! o ~ b4 U U V iG r" O U Sb. O Q) cC U U m U. ;J-4 En m O MHM H-i-1 H~i-~ o~ .o 0 a o , ~o o z 9~ rl a! ~ ~ G A o p W U Q Q h N 4-4 ° a-4 a u P-4 U U ~ b4 C1, ddU~ 'd t4 +n O s, CZ - cz N _ U d N U ccnn C) 'L3 cn O U "b m U > N bA Uu O `n > O N kf. U cz U m v N t E U U a 3 N cn bA 3 , t+ cz: En ~ b ( ~ ~ U N ~ ~ N U ~ U ~ ' ~ ti ~ ~ bA O • -Ci U ~ ~ O cz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ U v ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ • b -tzs p ~ ~ ~ ~ by 0 0 3 0 a~ d 14-4 o o .4- cz d.2 U -7j cn b O o - 0 ) o o C. , .0 n v ° -4- Cu C 3 v ' fl 4~ o b r a~ bA a~ cu U cz C4-4 c~ c+ r U O O c~i O c~ «s N C b bA `n c~ U 0 ' n1 U O U p ~ N c~ p b b O ctf ~ p - kr) ~j N N . d ~ O F3 (D • v p" 4) to is. U U O C N En :z p b~ U 'd c~ 'O N U U Q, , U ~ tO ti U c~ U N N j c~ sU. O Q. Q U cC p p 'm G~ C N ~d cz En u d -d s~ U U . .fl H E- Z$- 0 M O 6 4 all TO o~ C° '0 0 a 0 0 rn ~ ~ o ~a ~w ~A j O O O N ~ .N •v co~ GA O S2, v, O N cn ~j ' ~ O N N ^ CCS N O V] En bU O C~ O O° N v U CZ ct N a C14 r4 kr) c~ y rn p U r U N o W Ts C~J o O N Ct 4-4 x Cz m p U~ -d ~ ao ° M U U. ° N r N Cl) N aA ai tin ^ ti 'Ct U N ° ;z C'3 Q) p N M ~ rn "C3 r, ct -N 0 N N , a a) C, N sm C~ ° b o N p° C . N u , . . cn t~. N° b o o ct ~ N(n 'ri N N U N U ti p Q j N rip s N N N N° N cC s. U c N In cz J . y 4- d cn N O 5 c y. r tai V + •iJ ~I ~ti V V • s E-♦ H H coo aoi oQ .o 0 a ~ o ~A ~ p p W ~ ~ do ~ 3 U o o ~;d ~ "d U cz U U U u, aq o u, CQ O Q" p O ~ ~ b O N a) ~ U U N , O O U O U c~ S~ cd > N N U O U N 'o ctj • U O `i' on Q kn U a) s.. U a) bA U C,3 . ~A O > . , 'c3 `n cti ce -b cat . `n v CZ Icn) I a; o o r-4. m B. ~ 4 . m cf ) cn ° o 00 24 u cz a) o `z b 03 3 U .fl . o a~ o a~ a~ o C° o b° ~ > M. " c b o tin CA ci -4- cn C2 C,3 cz CZ u U C) $ 4 bb -4 i o a, o 4-4 ~ d bb C) bb v r) 05 C14 C o o o 'n o o 4-4 ° o ° o ° o b > CIO bJu bl) 111 Q . E-~ ~Q E c c~ m o ~ C o Q) 0 ~ o a C w ~ O ~ w A O ~ 'd O O M O O U i b4 O C~L4 N h ° P-1 yd cn X r4 cn 1 CIO -4 u > A cn U t O U U ACS U c 4-4 , . d O U G~ b ~ U 44-4 r4 C6 v ci3 :::s En 0 r4 o cn CZ u o r4 CZ O -d N U U N Cj U cC O, r cn bA v r o3 ' n N d l cn ' U y vj cn p O ,,C Q, o~ u ca cn P, - U 0 C~ 1 : U U UO N V U 'U O ' :5 Q, cn 7L U `n "d O a O Q, cz o • r. ~ u r U U c~ C10 t: r U vi 'o o U, -7p u o ° U ~4...~ QCl.•. U O U r. p" O CZ M4 Cl~ S u, ono c' "u, U • . ^ 3 O O U o. • .r. Q O = U 1-1 C/) a C40 u, "Z:; c INN CO 0 ~ MH W W E c cz o o ~ oCS, a 0 0 w o ~ o cj: 9a iA a - U b4 C~z O U U • O QQE-~ kr~ E ma ~ N ^ / y ~ Q~ ~ ~.y icy Y-I cz N ~ cz U O U U by U O ° U p O t ti U U U ti O L4 In. O 'd _ U p ctS _ O U U U O cci 'b a, U > > b U cCi O s~ ; ti N> U v~ pi p p p U c ' > p > cz y CA cn o C O U .O N O ^p U c b U U p 1) 'd c~ -b va s, O s~ U N 4- y p ~ s" U U O U N CIZ O b p p O P4 o:° o 3~ ---I cp cz U ° • N p •3 O s, O> U O O G~ 0' o ~ p a? o P. , ; d - o o cz U C) U 30 C) M -4 m u 4. U , cn ~ O c4 v cz U v U 7:$ 0 3 U CZ . N W o o t O -mob 3 0> s. Z ~ Z rd ° o al 0 4-1 a) 0 O ° cC W ~ •b O O U ~ U O O 1. r N U U b4 U U C c" ctt O r U U r U 0 r~ f~ U - 3 0 o 0 ti U) o ' ~ d ° U3cc C) ° 0 0 CU C) ~ U 3° M ~ ~ ~ ~ o o, o 0 . ~ ~ ~ M A- m 0 W E c m a) o, E 0 0 a c ~ m 2 co (3) ~ o ct ~ w O i A ~ U 4~ U Q Q b U o~ > o aA tju cz r' U o ~ cli cn ~ c~ bIJ N • U bA Q., ~ bA vi j ~1, i ~ Qom-, Q, C ~A c,-C C>t 'C bA b O U c~ •0 U C'Z 45 ° o, o b4 ao ao o d o o o o p ° o° o w ° b ° o o ° or, H o o -a o o o n U , ~n ti O ti > 4- 71 ti -ct 0 a) 03 v V q.) CC kf) a) En cz m W) a) a aA a~ cz ° o 0 0 ° tin b > ~ Q, O 'd U o ct o o, o o C,3 ^ w U ° 0 CV7 O H ~ c m a~ 0 0 o ~ a c a> ~ ~ o yA Q4 O O ~ O _ O ~ ~ N O ^ N p 4-1 0 ct CZI U b1p " U U m o -ti a N o b u N - ct - N 4- CZ 4 Q o o u - r in. Q" U z u,L~ 3 a~ a~ g . 4 a~ 4. C) b cz U o o a b o 03 4- C~j U , -Cll ' ~ bb CZ 4-1 CA CZ CZ 4- v Q. 4- «S 8, U N U U U to "C3 U " ::.z p O Z co p 4~ N O p O 2~ N U U V U Q. ct 0 4-i U o5 CZ -C! cn o b o en 1p C~ Q, s~ cn En VJ U U ' ~ ° . a) cl 03 o o~ 0 ao do v o ~ clz$ 0 v u u b En a~ o W i m O H W ~ c o, E 0 0 a ~ o i A lull O D UZs O D U O N U b b ~ b b ~ 3 ~ o ~ U O 71 'r 'd p U bA CZ 73 e~ S~, .fl CZ Ci cn u r bA > O Q) bUA b cn ~ o O O ' . C A j • P. d Q. Z d c ct a dC7U Q, ~L7U a ~ l o oC7U ~ N U ~ G) 'd u CA v U v p N cn 4. 03 ti ~ c~ O O S~ O N ~ C/i > 3 , : O U O p b a, 1 2 U r p O OU U Ct cl, --4 ~ C 4-4 bC U C) cn > U U > N G bA p c~ U U bq cd c~ s , N 'd U sm. CZ L,) r. 0 cn bA p P.4 M CE ~ C'O p 4-4 U V Gq CZ 4 tip O CIZ$ r- N n O -t.- O r-4 U N J tb b>7 , U Z-4 Q. O U M , U ' to > Lt 0 N 3 e o ~ , w a~ u w cn u co~ b ao En M > u c z do C o Cl) b U 3 0 ~ m ,cz 24 .E . 3 . m C1. V J~ F c cr (1) c~ 0 0 •o 0 a (Tj Q: 2 C/) ~ o y A ..o o ~ H ~ ~U Q . g 0 U U ~ c~3 `n U ~ ~ O s. .fl CIO ~ iy U , U U ~ ~ O t • w U z 9 p cz ~q ~ 0 cCt kr; . :3 03 cn cn o o o U ° ° ' cl, o > ~ o 65 rA , U C,3 ~ b °u ~ an o ? Oo, .d o = E " C En C13 ~n bA U U U_ O U O b cC 14 O U 'b - p CZ U 71 .4 Ct3 bA -d tw U s , O N ct O~ -d C,3 ul O O 03 cl~ „u c+ U c~ O Q C. 1 U C6 w U ' p e'° c~ o , U O U o cn b o Q 3 3 p two ° aoi o • an C'~ -ti r - an d a -cl ° ' a b o ~ o cz; cz U C,3 U u ~ 3 ~ 0 cz m ° CIZ U O O U O U N O 'd U Q Q a. O Q U U r , CIO) u a U U p O • • C n U • s , "-.4 "C~ 0 bA O b A • O O v • U U M f3:. 0 w ~ c c~ m o ~ O 0 O ~ w S~ •1r G O ~ O Cl) co o cc ti Q V a U Cz u ~ O p~ O O C~ M O c~ N i w ~ ~ y H i v kf) Cl) c C~ U a ~ O ti rn U ~ U~., U ~ ~ U 64 N a, o --.4 r o o 4 U 6, ct 6, 0 64 a3 -4 z ~:s ct c ~ U o U 03 -d U o Q -o o i CIO o° 'n r- O 0 O V) U U s•. U U ^ U ' O U U 03 u 05 r , U Ct U t.-, 4 - o U 3 0 ~:l C4-4 U U oz s~. O o U o o a, C,:3 o c~ 0 U ~ u 0 r 1. cn ° ° `o 3 U CZ CZ ~ w o o .fl o.~ ' Ct o ' er a on c ' o o° U o ° o U H U o w C~: b c C', V -ts CE :J a) ° 3 ° •ti i rte, 4-1 o u cn O cz 'y Wi s. U 0 U 0 ° O U p • U O O c~ 0 U v U 0 C -C c~ p O 3 r" O> O Q~~ ° 'H " m ~ M ml O H F--1 W EZ o`, E 0 0 'o O c a m Co ~ o O A i ~ ti O ~ 3 0 H f i•1 04 a~ v CZ G. b cat O cz ti y Q ^ c~ C4 cz p O (1, ~ ~ s.. ~ • r. O b n U 'd O N 'd O s N N = cz N r-- cn (4--4 Cn o a~ o o~ V) C6 CZ CZ 'I'l on 3 a, o~ v, coo 4-4 ° o o , -d a~ En M cz t4-.4 l 03 u 3 et o a b cz . . cz . ~ rd 3 0 0 0 W b cn a) C,3 U In cz "I C', 75 In cn " O N vZ b'° N on CZ U) cn on Q s `z " $:i cz w . . 3 bn - cn V , bp1p on u c n N a ono > v ° U" nc~ cuc .-03 . -o . °°U -~:7 m ►-t W F 0 0 C - .o 0 a o CIS cri z o cc 9a ~A 3 3 > aQw a~ h cz F°-+ha QQ ~ 0 0 o > ~ c~ > cti Q cz" u cd • ti fi wd a d ad~ 'd U U 4) O N ono o coo (A oz -4 4.j N C ` o o ti c~ -d F, o N 03 o P. > =s o o CZ Ts o U C14 $-4 ° C13 En 05 L Ct > o . r-4 p a~ -4 c~ 03 C3 3 o n U o ate, 4- r-- a) u -4 v r o u ° ct v 00 m v U u b o o bin O y W u Q, o p Q. o > b -4- 4- Ct U W a o U 3 on U° Con N V U vi J r. O ~i o Q C/) m b4 U b4 b4 fi O N ti O U U c3 N y U ti s>. co m H G►Q W i c a o, E 0 0 a r-71, 'o O w ~ ~ o a~ co o z ~ w i A U O ~ U UQC~ O U U Q w o~ ~ O U '•d ciU., O ~ cn O U ~ ~ to cn in. ::3 cz 4) U O ct U N 0 V cC U p cz ° ° 3 °~'b a~ ° O o CZ u 424 ° Q, o 0 o o U 0 U v o «t o~ U U -dam u u 4-4 cz C) -4 CIO ~ rU.) cz pp O cz Uf 1, ~ ti ~ ~ 0 bA b4 O 0 O M o U. Q. ~ O CZ j W Cl. ° cn cn ~ = cz u o ° o 0- E 3 cn coo U a) c~ U 10 ~v) E Z a, E I'll, 0 0 o a~ .O O w ~ b o .h o a) ~ o O ti A y O w W ~ O O E-~ ~ O 'ti bq N U c~ ~ b q ~ Cl) O U O N ~ ~ U y N ^ 03 cz cz CZ o u Ts v o 'd ° o cn ~ r" a 4 C*) u 03 " C.) CZ b cz (n O a. Q, ct CZ cq i - CZ v v cn u d (U u a) ;z "IR cz ° Q, o o U V (L) CIO ~cz cz ~~d 3 0 0 0 ril cz o r.4 Q) U o -o cz o Q, o , \o ° O 0 O M En U , 4 0 a) 4) ci C) . cz 7 C4 ) O o O ti o p aU 45 a4 (U cw Q s~ " o o 3 cz . . o o 71 ao, as H ~c U 0 -d3 0 cz m 9 °~0 :4:t, ea- m 0 w 0 0 '0 0 a ~o ~ w ~A W ct o~ ~o a,Qw wQ H C--,5 ~ hHrx ct 0 0 O 3 i1• CO 03 r > cl~ C~ no 5Q-4 !r ^ O ' O 4 ct U N C)o C)o O O N U ct COD O N U .s _ O `n bb CZ v bA O cn qL $:I p N IcId, o~ ' o, o Q o r , C+C) U '6 o US b o a~ CO) 0 0 Q 4-j ~ 1-4 o o Q, o o M cn blo It 45 C) C) CZ o cn o -d rd ~ 3 E a. a) - v~ U N O c~ _ { cd C4 ~ C3 U n c cn 4~ O O C p U `n as ° U) n y u O" ~ o ri c~ yC oo N ct O N m Q, o b o o .o w ,o V - o oo, w 4- r o aA o -d 0 U Q cz b a~ ft. J C/) M a~ O a~ COO) U ~ cz ~4°t = Q ti v U xz s>. O . o . cz a m 0 z H W ~ c a~ E 0 0 i ~ O co C O ~ O N co O O ~A Y ~ c e U(~Q O U U Q cz U _ O E a) O O cn (4-4 O U cz cl~ 3 a ago G a ~ o U 03 ° c ct ° Q U cd ° w cz U.' N s O p Q, cd 'd ct s . cn U ~ U U N U y U c~ N U 4-i O N N c N ct cz p O O O Z O bA O V U O CZ 'n o ~o 3= t O cz C (n . ~ o d U) oo _=4 - to 3 CZ U N R vUi + U N `'y cn - s." b~o c~ N bA CZ C) p ^ O = v b~p =1 p N 4 cz . p Q. 3 0 . c Sy ~ O r; b_A O > • d O O ~,.,a + , O - - O O U QQ P. O CZ cn 3 O O N O G bq cz W W C/~ p ' v oo N • Li' ■ ■ w ■ N cn cn u t-• - U > vi 91.4 P-0 ~O 4 ~VJ O FMM-1 ELI -3~- E c o a~ o a .o 0 a M cc ~ o 9~ ~ w O ~A O U Q Q ~ o ti a by w O M ~ 1 ~H 4 , U U N ~ O sy -d cz ¢ O w ~ s• ~ O ~ > bb Cc J., - p cry cz -0 m cz CZ a) U U En O ° b Q N Cl) ~ O O ° Sb. cn cz U U > vz cn N c~ a) U U a) C14 u cn ~~4 cz U bA V CZ U U O cC r S , CZ ' 3 cn o CZ a) , O N O U Z~ 7d al b1) 0 U . v' CZ °o, 'n b4 ~ c z b4 3 a~ o E~ b4 M o o Q 3 bn o . u. o ° + o, o o O a; cz a) CO) a,o ° b o cn C) CZ b U ' - 71:1 a, 7~ cn t a p Q a r-4 CZ r4 v, En > r > CZ C) C13 ~ 4? ~1' ° t2 " U Con O 4 J y cl, .p cj~ cn s. t. C) MI ~ O O ~ U ~ d ~ " CA nz~ q. r. U O bA N • ~ O ~ ~ ~ o U mo r- . cz . C', $-4 cz Q C6 U • Q. cn u m rvl • U o cz o u M FM-~--1.1 i-iti 0 i O O O O (Tj .0) ~a ~ y C A a O W W A ~ \ ti W ti w 0j ti bQ cz O o t ) a) CZ a~ a~ o ~d U a) z O ° ¢ CZ 7~ ~ a3 q.) ~3 Icn, CG cz 00 V! O u ct o 3 3 ~ y am' , . cz a; U csc o U ~ O s" O vi C 'j s= N U > C'3 u a) C a'o~~~~=34. -U 4:d ° O O ° a~ U U O a) U bA ~ cn p 0 m v cn U 'd v u u ° U O 'd M W U O R$ 0 0 0 N 0 0 coo U .o cn cn 0 bA _cz S MI O I~H ~ -7 Tu~ H W 0 M FOLE COPY RESOLUTION NO. 2011-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ALTA ROBLES PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PREZONING PROJECT ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 039-021-13 & 039-301-01 WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the proposed Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and Prezoning Project has been prepared and was transmitted by the Town of Tiburon to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the DEIR was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were accepted from the public from August 19, 2009 to October 5, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and accepted testimony on the DEIR on September 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010 the Planning Commission directed the Town's environmental consultant to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and respond to comments on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the FEIR for the proj ect; and WHEREAS, the FEIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends to the Town Council that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan & Prezoning Project be certified as having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable local guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on January 26, 2011, by the following vote: AYES : COMMISSIONERS : Corcoran, Doyle, Frymier, Kunzweiler & Tollini NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-04 01/26/2011 1 44 EXHIBIT NO. I CATH FRYM R, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-04 01/26/2011 EXHIBIT NO.~ RESOLUTION NO. 2011-05 F0 VV(DIFY A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL PRE-ZONING OF AN UNINCORPORATED 20.95-ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE TIBURON PLANNING AREA (SODA PROPERTY; ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 039-301-01) WHEREAS, the property owner has submitted an application for pre-zoning of an unincorporated 20.95-acre parcel within the Tiburon Planning Area; and WHEREAS, an environmental impact report regarding the prezoning and an accompanying precise development plan has been prepared and has been considered and recommended for certification by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised public hearing regarding the application on January 26, 2011, at which testimony was received from the public, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan, and is consistent with the objectives of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council pre-zone territory commonly identified as Marin County Assessor Parcel Number 039-301-01, as set forth in the draft ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on January 26, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: "COMMISSIONERS: Corcoran, Doyle, Frymier, Kunzweiler & Tollini NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-05 01/26/2011 EXHIBIT N0,5~ P• i Ot_ CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: -17 Aw-n /V SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Attachments: Exhibit I (Draft Ordinance Prezoning Territory) TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-05 01/26/2011 EXHIBIT NO. 5- P. 2 dt- s EXHIBIT ORDINANCE NO. XXX N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE. TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF R RON PREZONING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY (SODA PROPERTY) IN THE PARADISE DRIVE PORTION O THE TIBURON PLANNING AREA (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 039-301-01) The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A On , 2011, the planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-XX recommending to the Town Council prezoning of certain unincorporated territory within the Tiburon Planning Area. B. The Town Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on i and has heard and considered public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. D. The Town Council finds that the actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the. protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council finds the actions made by this Ordinance to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan. and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. F. The Town Council finds that the proposed prezoning action was fully evaluated in the Alta Robles Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the Town Council on and. that no father environmental review is required. SECTION 2. PP, ZONING OF TERRITORY The territory described below is hereby prezoned with a zoning designation of RPD (Residential Planned Development); with a maximum density not to exceed 0.4 dwelling units per acre (exclusive of secondary dwelling units ancillary to single family dwellings), and is incorporated into Planned Development No. 20 in Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning), Section 16-14.020 of the Municipal Code: Marin County Assessor's Parcel No. 039-301-01, commonly referred to as the SODA property; being approximately 20.95 acres, further described in attached Exhibit A and depicted graphically for illustration purposes only on attached Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. =N.S. Effective 4-12011 EXHIBIT NO. S 3 Exhibit B, both incorporated herein. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such Council not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The Town that it would have passed this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILM EMBERS : NOES: COUNCILMJE MBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE TACOPI, TOWN CLERK Exhibits: A. Legal Description B. Graphic Depiction S:1AdministrationlTown Counci110YdinanceslPre-Zoning Ordinance Alta Robles.doc Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XffN.S. Effective -1--12011 EXHIBIT N0. s 2 P qua - - - - - - - _ ..y - - --'BI i' NO. DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate partly in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described below as follows: PARCEL ONE Parcel 1, as. shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map Snyder, Winslow, Kilgore, Mills College Land Division, a Portion of Parcel One, Two and Three under Recorder's Serial No.. 84-0029582 and Under Recorder's Serial No. 86-0074047", filed for record March 26, 1997• in Book 26 of Parcel Maps, at Page 32, Marin County Records. PARCEL TWO: A Sanitary Sewer Easement'over Land of Smith (2580 OR 89) and being despribed as follows: A) A strip of land 20.00 feet in width, lying 1.0•feet on both sides of the following described line-. Beginning at a point on.the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith filed for record. June 8, 1978 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being South 00° 15 20 West 27.1.0 feet from the intersection of the courses "N 00 15' 20" E 48.006 feet & N 450 26' 21" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence leaving said Westerly line North 461? 19 07 East 344.18 feet; thence South 83° 29' 26" East 87.49 feet; thence South 330 44' 32" East 95.00 feet; thence South 750 37' 39" East 38.16 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 16° 3604", a distance of 46.31 feet; thence North 87" 47' 17" East 112.62 feet;. thence South 63° 33' 33" East 37.00 feet; thence North 700 14' 39" East 14.13 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding courses, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 200 36'27', a distance of 57.55 feet; thence North 49 38' 12" East 57.14 feet; thence on a curve to the left,. tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a. central angle of 9 24 05", a distance of 26.25 feet; thence North 40° 14' 07 East 184.56 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 1011 48 06", a distance of 30.16 feet; thence North 51 ° 02' 13" East 37.31 feet; thence on a curve.to the left tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 33o 04'44"1 a distance of 92.37 feet; thence on a reverse curve having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 25° 21' 58", a distance of 7034 feet; thence North 43 19 radius " East 19.22 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a .160.00 feet, through a central angle of 68°.07' 44", a distance of 190.25 feet to the termination of this description. B). Beginning at the termination point of the above described Parcel One; thence North 21 ° 27' 11" East 41.66 feet to the line of Corte Madera Del Presidio, a shown on said Parcel Map (15 P.M. 34.); thence along said line of Rancho Corte Madera Del Presidio, South 66 06'48'.' East S'.. 5 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION Continued 111.06 feet; thence. North 77° 53' 12" East 138.60 feet thence South 87° 06' 48" East 242.88 feet; thence South 67° 06' 48" East 220.44 feet to the most Westerly. corner of the p gook 2283. of conveyed to Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County, recorded November 4, 1968 i Official Records at Page 49, Marin County Records; thence along the Westerly line of said Sanitary District No. 5 Parcel, South 11 ° 17' 20" East 72.19 feet; thence leaving said Westerly North 47° 38' 09" West 59.16 feet; thence North 671) 06' 48" West 198.16 feet; thence North line, 87° 06'48" West 230.56 feet; thence South 77° 53' 12" West 106.68 feet; thence along a urrveo the right, tangent to the preceding course, .having a radius. of 170.00 feet, through 'a central angle of 33° 33'.59", a distance of 99.59 feet; thence North 68 32 49" West 61.29 feet; thence North 21 ° 27' 11 East 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. c Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel a entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being the intersection of the courses "N 0° 15' 20" E 48.006 feet, and N 45° 26'21" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence along said Westerly line, North 45° 26' 21" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, South 43° 40' 53" East 9.79 feet; thence South 460 19' 07" West 29.14 feet to the Westerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Westerly line, North.0° 15' 20" East 1.3.17 feet to the.point of beginning. Parcel C subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions so require, Parcel d) Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith"., filed for record June 8;° 1978 26' in 21" Book 1 East 5 of 370.74 feet. Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being North 451, and North 45° 26' 21" East from the intersection of .the courses "North 0° 15' 20" East 48.006 feet. iine South 44° 33' 39" 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence leaving said Northwesterly East 65.10 feet to the Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, as described herein; thence along. said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 83° 29' 26" East 31.83 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 44°33 39 West 89.86 feet to the Northwesterly line'of aforementioned Neill Smith Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South 45° 26' 21" West 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel D subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions require: e )Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain. Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being "North 450 26' 21" East 288.15 feet from the intersection of the courses "North 0° 15' 20" East 48.006 feet and North 45 26 21 East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence along said Northwesterly line, South 83 29'26" East 18.10 feet to the Northerly. line of Easement Parcel One, described herein; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 460.19' 07, East 30.75 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 830 29' 26" West 18.70 feet to the Northwesterly line of aforementioned Neill Smith Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South. 450 26' 21" West 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. ENHIBIT NO. of 6 DESCRIPTION -Continued PARCEL THREE: A Utility Easement, 20 feet in width to install and maintain one, sewer line as contained in the document recorded November 30, 1999 as Instrument No. 1999 084666 and 1999 84667, Marin County Records. PARCEL FOUR: Portion of the so-called "Small Reed Ranch" as conveyed'by John- J. Reed to Clotilde Josephine Reed, by Deed dated November 21, 1899 recorded in Book 58 of Deeds at Page 168, Marin County Records. Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said tract, distant thereon South 45° 51' East 45 feet from the intersection thereof with the Southeasterly line of the lands conveyed by Hercules Powder Company to T.A. Kilgore, recorded January 26, 1925 in Book 64 of Official Records at Page 394, Marin County Records; said Southeasterly line being also the Northwesterly line of the lands now or formerly owned by Crowley; thence South 440 09' West 900 feet, thence North 45 51' West 1525 feet; thence North 440 09' East 875 feet; thence North 450 51' West 90 feet; thence North 44° 09' East 25 feet to the Northeasterly line of the Small Reed Ranch"; thence along said line, South 45° 51' East 1616 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT NO.__5 7 v~'Q, EXHIBIT NC._____- City Parcels BayAreaCounty County Boundary OceanBaY Road Names EXHIBIT NO. 5- P: 0OFL9 SODA Property TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting September 23, 2009 Agenda Item: Subj ect: Accept Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Alta Robles Residential Project located in the Vicinity of 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 PROJECT DATA Project Name: Alta Robles Project (Precise Development Plan & Prezoning) Address: Vicinity of 3825 Paradise Drive Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 File Number: 30701 Lot Size: Approximately 52 acres General Plan: PD-R-a (Rabin) and PD-R-i (SODA); (Planned Development- Residential; maximum density 0.4 du/ac) Zoning: Rabin--RPD (Residential Planned Development); SODA----No Tiburon zoning, located outside Tiburon corporate limits Current Use: Rabin----Single Family Residential; SODA----Undeveloped Owners/Applicants: Irving and Varda Rabin SCH#: 2007072104 Flood Zone: X (outside 500-year flood zone) BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon is processing applications for Precise Development Plan and Prezoning for ii a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres of land. The proposed project is located at 3825 Paradise Drive, and extends from Hacienda Drive on the south downward to Paradise Drive on the north. The proposed development, known as the Alta Robles Project, involves a proposal for the eventual subdivision of 52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling, into 14 single-family residential lots. Approximately 20.95 acres (SODA) of the site are located within an unincorporated portion of Marin County, within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and approximately 31.26 acres (Rabin) of the site are located within the Town of Tiburon. The project would also entail eventual annexation of the SODA property into the Town. The Town determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for this project, and retained Nichols Berman, an environmental consulting firm to prepare the EIR. EXHIBIT NO.& " i A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared for this project by Nichols Berman, and is currently being circulated for public review and comment. The Town of Tiburon mailed a Notice of Preparation as required by CEQA, with a 45 day comment period scheduled to conclude on October 5, 2009, at noon. Written comments may also be submitted at the meeting. At the conclusion of the comment period, the consultants will respond to all oral comments made to the Planning Commission as well as written comments submitted during the comment period. ANALYSIS Purpose of the Planning Commission Hearin The primary purpose of this meeting is to receive public testimony concerning the contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. Speakers are encouraged to express their views on the adequacy of the DEIR. Comments should focus on: the sufficiency of the DEIR in discussing possible impacts on the environment, ways in which adverse impacts might be minimized, and feasible alternatives to the project that would reduce environmental impacts Following the conclusion of the public testimony, Planning Commissioners may choose to provide oral comments on the DEIR or may submit written comments prior to the deadline. A subsequent public meeting will be held, after the close of the comment period, at which the Environmental Coordinator will recommend to the Commission whether significant new information has been received during the comment period that would require revision and recirculation of the DEIR. In addition, a hearing will be scheduled for consideration of project merits by the Planning Commission. This hearing would be held following the release of a Final EIR (FEIR), which will contain the responses to comments made on the DEIR. Reference copies of the DEIR may be reviewed at the Planning Division at Town Hall, at the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library during normal business hours or on-line at the Town's website. Proiect Description The subject property consists of two contiguous parcels: the 20.95 acre SODA property and the 31.26 acre Rabin property. The SODA property is located in an unincorporated portion of Marin County within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and is currently undeveloped. The Rabin property is currently developed with one single-family residence and several ancillary structures and is located within the Town of Tiburon, with a street address of 3825 Paradise Drive. The proposed project involves the eventual subdivision of the 52 acres into 14 single family parcels (one existing residence to remain and 13 new residences to be constructed) and three open space parcels totaling 18.29 acres. The applicants have currently submitted applications for Precise Development Plan; prezoning and annexation; the EIR will be prepared for these applications and all trailing permits (subdivision, design review, etc.), barring substantial changes to the project subsequent to any Precise Development Plan application approval. EXHIBIT NO. Precise Development Plan The Precise Development Plan seeks approval for 14 residential lots, comprised of, • 1 Lot for an existing single family home; and • 13 Lots for thirteen new single family homes • 3 Lots (A, B, & C) are voluntarily offered for dedication as Open Space • Building envelopes, height limits, floor area maximums, and other zoning parameters would be established Design guidelines would be adopted Prezonin The application proposes prezoning the SODA property to RPD (Residential Planned Development) consistent with the Tiburon General Plan designation and consistent with the Town's zoning on the adjacent Rabin property. The RPD zoning (Section 16-2.7 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) proposed for the SODA property 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 proposed single family residential use is a Permitted Use (Section 16-2.7.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code). Maximum density for the land shall be established by a Precise Development Plan approval pursuant to Section 16-4.8 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. Annexntinn The 20.95 acre SODA property is currently outside the Town's corporate limits, but within Tiburon's Sphere of Influence. The applicants are requesting that this parcel be annexed to the Town for development pursuant to the Town's adopted policies. The Marin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would be the decision-making body for the annexation application; however, the Town's EIR must address any environmental impacts associated with the annexation request. The SODA property is adjacent to parcels within the Town's corporate limits. Subdivision Although an application for subdivision has not been submitted at this time, the eventual subdivision configuration would result in 17 subdivision lots, as shown on the Precise Development Plan Maps. These are: • 14 Single-family lots; • 3 open space lots (A, B, & C) Preservation of Scenic and Natural Resources Extensive land area is proposed as permanent private open space by offer of open space easement or other restriction. . C~ EXHIBIT NO s • Private Common Open Space areas (Lots A, B, & C), are voluntary offered for permanent open space and resource conservation. These Lots constitute 18.29 acres or 35.03% of the total land area. A public trail easement is proposed across a portion of Lot B. • Private Open Space, lands proposed in individual private lot ownerships on the 13 proposed new lots, is voluntarily offered for permanent protection through scenic and resource conservation easements. These areas include 8.58 acres or 16.43% of the total land area. • Private Space, comprising land surrounding the existing residence at 3825 Paradise Drive (Lot 1), is proposed to be maintained for private resource conservation, open space, and private recreational use. This area includes 10.48 acres or 20.08% of the total land area. A public trail easement is proposed across a portion of the Private Space that would connect to the Tiburon Ridge Trail. Summary of Key DEIR Findinp-s Land Use and Planning The subject property is surrounded on three sides by other residential neighborhoods along Acacia, Hacienda and Paradise Drives. Town-owned open space along the Middle Ridge borders the site to the southeast. The Tiburon Ridge crosses the Rabin property, and two significant ridgelines extend down slope from the Tiburon Ridge onto both the Rabin and SODA properties. The DEIR analyzes the proposed project for consistency with relevant public plans and policies, including the Town's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Design Guidelines and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as well as with Marin County's Paradise Drive Visioning Plan and the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) Policy Guidelines. The DEIR concludes that the proposed project could result in houses that are larger than surrounding existing development and include roof overhangs, increased traffic, development that encroaches into setbacks from Significant Ridgelines, landslide repairs, large retaining walls, undergrounding of utilities and changes in views from public open space areas that are possibly inconsistent with adopted policies regarding projects being in "harmony" with surrounding uses. This is a project merits issue, not an environmental impact under CEQA, and will be evaluated at the hearings on the requested entitlements. Transportation " Access to the site will be provided by a new roadway leading upslope from Paradise Drive. This roadway would roughly follow the alignment of an existing fire road on the SODA property that was upgraded several years ago under permits issued by the County of Marin. The access road would then be extended laterally across the project site to serve proposed lots on the Rabin property as well. Secondary (i.e. emergency only) access to the project will be provided via a gated entrance located immediately south of 180 Hacienda Drive that would connect to an existing fire road located on public open space. No project-related traffic will be allowed to utilize this secondary access except in emergencies when authorized by public agencies. The current driveway intersection with Paradise Drive that provides access to the existing home EXHIBIT NO. (O would be gate-controlled and would provide an exit for exclusive use by the existing home on the property. As discussed in Section 5.1 Transportation, the DEIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak hour traffic volumes at the signalized Trestle Glen Boulevard / Tiburon Boulevard intersection or at the un-signalized Paradise Drive / Trestle Glen Boulevard and Paradise Drive / Project Entrance Road intersections. Project site residents would contribute slightly to the number of bicyclists using Paradise Drive. The project would also add motor vehicle traffic to Paradise Drive. This additional increment of motor vehicle and bicycle traffic would exacerbate already constrained conditions along Paradise Drive. Mitigation measures are proposed to improve conditions adjacent to the property frontage along Paradise Drive. Air Quality As discussed in Section 5.2 Air Quality, construction activities could expose neighbors to unhealthy levels of particulate matter and possibly toxic air contaminants. Grading of the project site may disturb soils containing serpentine, possibly releasing asbestos fibers into the air. With conformance to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations and mitigation measures included in the DEIR, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Noise As discussed in Section 5.3 Noise, construction activities at the project site would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. Measures are proposed to mitigate construction noise, but even with implementation of mitigation measures, this would be a significant unavoidable impact. Hydrology and Water Quality The property slopes down from the Tiburon Ridge to Paradise Drive. Fifteen drainage areas have been identified on the site, most draining down to Paradise Drive and then under it via nine existing culverts. Seven of the fifteen drainage areas would experience increased runoff due to the project, but all would be able to handle 25- and 100-year storm events after drainage improvements (including a large storage cistern) have been constructed as part of the project. All drainage from the site caused by the increase in impervious surfaces was evaluated in the DEIR for downstream impacts between the subject property and San Francisco Bay. As discussed in Section 5.4 Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project includes storm water detention. Each residential lot would be provided with a cistern that would store storm water runoff generated by the construction of impervious surfaces. The proposed cisterns would possess sufficient capacities to mitigate post-development peak flow rates to pre-development levels for the 100-year rainstorm. Surface water quality, including the shoreline water along Paradise Cove could be adversely affected by project-related run-off pollutants. Project impacts would be mitigated through development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) together with other required mitigation measures. EXHIBIT NO. ~v Biological Resources The subject property is covered with a variety of native and ornamental vegetation, mostly consisting of grasslands, scrub brush and oak woodlands. Surveys of plant species on the site revealed the presence of Marin western flax (Hesperolinon congestum), a federally- and state-listed plant species; North Coast semaphore grass (Pleuropogon hooverianus), a state-listed species; and Tiburon Buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum caninum) and Carlotta Hall's lace fern (Aspidotis carlotta-halliae), two special status plant species. Two potentially sensitive vegetation communities, serpentine bunchgrass grassland and freshwater marsh or seep (sedge meadow), were also found on the site. Biological surveys of the site found no listed animal species. However, the property is within the study area for the California red-legged frog, a federally- and state-listed species. The surveys also found a moderate potential for Cooper's hawk, Tiburon micro-blind harvestman spider, long-eared owl and white tailed kite on the site. A total of 261 trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would result in loss of important native habitat and sensitive natural community types as well as impacts to jurisdictional waters. Mitigation measures are included in the DEIR which will protect adversely affected biological impacts and reduce them to a level that is less- than-significant. Geology and Soils The site is underlain by highly variable Franciscan Assemblage bedrock typical of much of the Tiburon Peninsula. A geotechnical study of the project site mapped 10 active, 3 dormant and 5 potential landslide areas on the property. Four methods of landslide stabilization are proposed: use of compacted fill buttresses, subsurface drainage, retaining structures and debris fences. As discussed in Section 5.6 Geology and Soils, strong seismic ground shaking is expected to occur at the project site some time during the design life of the proposed development that would expose people and structures to adverse seismic effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. If not properly repaired or eliminated, consistent with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy, the on- site landslides could reactivate and threaten new development, adjacent properties and Paradise Drive. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the identified geology and soils impacts to a less-than-significant level. Public Services and Utilities The DEIR evaluates the project's potential impact on fire protection and emergency services, police services, water supply, wastewater management, public schools and solid waste. In general, the DEIR concludes that adequate public services are available for the proposed project. Development on the project site may expose houses and structures to wildland fire risks. The DEIR includes mitigation measures that incorporate Fire Safe Marin guidelines and Tiburon Fire Protection District requirements, thereby reducing potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. VXHIBIT NO.~ Visual Quality The project would involve the construction of 13 additional homes and accessory residential improvements on a 52 acre site currently developed with only one single-family dwelling. Some of these residences and improvements would be visible from homes along Acacia Drive and portions of Paradise Drive, from Town-owned open space along the Middle Ridge portion of the Tiburon Ridge, and from other locations as well. The DEIR evaluated visual impacts from three viewpoints: looking north from Middle Ridge Open Space, looking west from Paradise Drive and looking east from Acacia Drive. As discussed in Section 5.8 Visual Quality, the Draft EIR concludes that from the Middle Ridge Open Space viewpoint, new houses would be seen on 12 of the 13 lots proposed for development. The close proximity to this viewpoint of the houses on Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, plus the fact that much of their exterior surface would be exposed cause them to be most conspicuous features of the proposed project from this viewpoint. No building construction and/or yard improvements would occur within 150 horizontal feet from either side of the Tiburon Ridge. Development on Lots 4 and 5 is proposed within 50 vertical feet of the nearest peak elevation of the Tiburon Ridge. All of the proposed development on Lot 4 and the proposed detached garage on Lot 5 would occur within the 50 foot vertical setback of the Tiburon Ridge. The DEIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the visual impacts of the proposed development. However, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project, when viewed from Middle Ridge open space, would result in a significant unavoidable visual quality impact. Cultural Resources As discussed in Section 5.9 Cultural Resources, the DEIR concludes that no known archaeological or historic sites exist on the project site. Although no discernible impacts to subsurface cultural resources including human remains are anticipated, the possibility cannot be precluded that prehistoric cultural deposits and features are present below the ground surface, and could be damaged during land alteration activities, and therefore standard mitigation measures related to cultural resources have been included in the DEIR. Cumulative Impacts Several other residential development projects on the Tiburon Peninsula are in various stages of construction or are under review and could be under construction within the foreseeable future. The cumulative impacts of the proposed project as well as any other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area were evaluated in the DEIR. Chapter 7 assesses the cumulative effects of implementing the proposed project as well as past, present and probable future projects, including those projects outside the control of the Town of Tiburon (such as those under County jurisdiction). Implementation of the proposed project together with anticipated future projects would result in the following unavoidable cumulative impacts: f , EXHIBIT N0. (w ~ , • The addition of vehicle trips to the signalized Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection. • The addition of vehicle trips to US Highway 101. • Construction noise. • Wildlife habitat and connectivity impacts. • Visual impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources plus the significant ridgelines. AltemgtivPc The CEQA Guidelines, in section 15126.6, require that: "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects." As described in detail in Chapter 6, the DEIR examined several alternatives to the project as proposed. These alternatives include two on-site No Project alternatives, an on-site development alternative and potential off-site locations. The DEIR concludes, on the basis of the discussion of the proposed project and the on-site alternatives, that Alternative 1 (No Project / No Build) would be the environmentally superior alternative, as it would avoid the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 3 would be the environmentally superior alternative. Although the significant impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project, the inclusion of the proposed revisions would reduce the degree of certain impacts; however, such impacts would remain significant and in need of mitigation measures. Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts As identified in the specific topic area discussions above, the DEIR identifies two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than- significant level through mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. These are 1) that project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; 2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site when viewed from Tiburon's Middle Ridge Open Space. Comment letters received as of the date of this report As of the date of this report, one comment letter regarding the DEIR has been received and is attached as Exhibit 1. ZXHIBIT NO, Future Action Required The Commission will hold a public meeting, after the close of the comment period on October 5, 2009, at which it will determine whether significant new information has been received during the comment period that would require revisions and recirculation of the DEIR. At that meeting, the Environmental Coordinator will make a recommendation based upon a review of all the comments received during the comment period. A regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting date in October (either the 14th or 28th) is likely, depending on the volume and complexity of comments submitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, at the conclusion of the staff report, the Planning Commission should receive any public comments on the DEIR. EXHIBITS Letter from Robert L. Lynch, District Manager, Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County, dated August 28, 2009 PREVIOUSLY-DISTRIBUTED OR PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Alta Robles Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 2009 Prepared by: Diane Henderson, Contract Planner Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development EXHIBIT NO. To: From: Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2010 Agenda Item: Subject: Determination as to Whether Recirculation is Required for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Alta Robles Residential Project in the Vicinity of 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 PROJECT DATA Project Name: Alta Robles Residential Development Address: Vicinity of 3825 Paradise Drive Assessor's Parcel Number: 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 File Number: 30701 Lot Size: Approximately 52 acres General Plan: PD-R-a (Rabin) and PD-R-i (S.O.D.A.); (Planned Development-Residential; maximum density 0.4 du/ac) Zoning: Rabin--RPD (Residential Planned Development); S.O.D.A.----No Tiburon zoning, located outside Tiburon corporate limits; County Zoning is RMP-0.4 Current Use: Rabin----Single Family Residential; S.O.D.A.---- Undeveloped Owners/Applicants: Irving and Varda Rabin, et al SCH#: 2007072104 BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon is processing applications for precise development plan, prezoning and annexation for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres of land. The proposed project is located at 3825 Paradise Drive, and extends from Hacienda Drive on the south downward to Paradise Drive on the north. The proposed development, known as Alta Robles, involves a proposal for the eventual subdivision of 52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling, into 14 single-family residential lots. Approximately 20.95 acres (S.O.D.A.) of the site are located within an unincorporated portion of Marin County, within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and approximately 31.26 acres (Rabin) of the site are located within the Town of Tiburon. The Town determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for this project, and retained Nichols Berman, an environmental consulting firm to prepare the EIR. A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was prepared for this project and circulated for public review and comment. The 45-day comment period concluded on October 5, 2009. Public EXHIBIT NO. 77 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 comments on the DEIR were also received at a public hearing held at the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. After receiving testimony, the public hearing was closed, and this item was continued pending a detailed review of the comments received on the DEIR. ANALYSIS Purpose of this Meeting The primary purpose of this public meeting is for the Planning Commission to hear and consider the recommendation of the Environmental Coordinator as to whether "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period. If not, then the Planning Commission shall direct the EIR consultant to complete the responses to comments and prepare the Final EIR for the project. Summafy of Key DEIR Findings The key DEIR findings were summarized in the Staff Report for September 23, 2009 meeting, which is attached as Exhibit 1. In summary, the DEIR identified two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. These SU impacts were: 1) that project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; and 2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space [see Exhibits 5.8-4 and 5.8-5(a), and (b) in the DEIR]. In addition, the DEIR indicated that implementation of the proposed project, together with anticipated future projects at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula, would result in the following unavoidable cumulative impacts: • The addition of vehicle trips to the signalized Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection. • The addition of vehicle trips to U.S. Highway 101. • Construction noise. • Wildlife habitat and connectivity impacts. • Visual impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources Public Comments Several comment letters and oral communications were received during the comment period, and are attached and indexed in Exhibit 2. The comments focused on the following environmental issues: • Project alternatives. That the DEIR did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives. An additional alternative should be evaluated in the EIR. • Transportation. The location of the site entrance and the main road, including adequacy of sight distance, need for grading and the length of the retaining wall. Is there an alternative to the proposed site entrance? EXHIBIT NO. -7 • Biological resources. Impacts to special status plant species (Mann dwarf flax) and sensitive natural community types (Serpentine Bunchgrass). • Tree removal. The amount of tree removal proposed (.at present 261 trees, of which 107 qualify as a "protected tree"). • Geology and soils. Grading required for landslide repair compared to grading required for infrastructure and lot development. Avoiding landslides in order to reduce the amount of grading for necessary landslide repair / remediation, and, in turn, reducing the impacts associated with such grading. • Visual quality. Reduce the size of homes, relocate homes, or eliminate homes to reduce visual impacts. Reduce encroachments on the Tiburon Ridge and on-site significant ridgelines (identified as Ridgelines 5 and 6). Minimize the need for retaining walls. • Public trail. Concern was expressed regarding the proposed location of the trails along the south and west boundaries. • Consistency with Town policies. Concern was expressed regarding the project's consistency with General Plan policies as well as Zoning Ordinance provisions, especially those stating that "preservation of the natural features of the land shall be achieved to the maximum extent feasible through minimization of grading and sensitive site design". Please note that overall consistency with Town policies is not an environmental issue and is a separate determination made by Town decision-makers during merits hearings. Action Item for this Meeting At this meeting, the Commission shall determine whether or not "significant new information" has been received during the public comment period that would legally require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA. As the public comment period on the DEIR is closed, any public comment at the meeting should be confined to whether revision and recirculation of the DEIR is required. The Planning Commission should either: 1. Determine that no "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR has been received during the public comment period, and direct the consultant to complete the response to comments and prepare the Final EIR; or 2. Find that significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR has been received during the public comment period, and continue the matter pending preparation of analysis of this new information by the consultant and recirculation of a revised DEIR. In accordance with the Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines, any decision by the Planning Commission regarding recirculation of the DEIR is appealable to the Town Council within five (5) days of the decision. Said appeal shall be heard at the next feasible Town Council meeting. ~ EXHIBIT NO. E i1i ( L F ,t.f i ..f.,. ...ss Discussion of Thresholds for Recirculation CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 indicates that a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review but before certification. "New information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. "New information" is routinely added to an EIR during the response to comments phase, and is therefore "not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of a project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible alternative project) that the project's proponents have declined to implement". The CEQA Guidelines provide four examples of thresholds that, if reached, would require recirculation. These are: 1. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Staff Response: The DEIR has been prepared by a highly-qualified professional environmental consulting firm in accordance with fundamentally sound planning and environmental review procedures, as set forth in the CEQA statutes and guidelines, and consistent with the Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines. Staff sees no evidence that the document is fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature. 2. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. Staff Response: Although the public comments provided additional information about potential environmental impacts identified by the DEIR, the public comments received did not identify any new significant environmental impacts that would result ftom the project or from the proposed mitigation measures. 3. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Staff Response: No new information was submitted during the public comment period that clearly indicated that the severity of the environmental impacts of the project would be substantially greater than those identified in the DEIR. Preparation of additional information in the response to comments could possibly result in identification of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact of the project; if so, recirculation would be required at that time unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. Staff response: The desire to look at additional project alternatives was raised by several individuals during the public comment period, and was echoed by some Commissioners. CEQA requires that a "reasonable range" of potentially feasible project alternatives be considered in an ' NU. EXHIBI I-Aj EIR, but there are few set rules for what constitutes a "reasonable range" and such determinations should be fact-driven to the specific site and its circumstances while applying the rule of reason. There is guidance provided by CEQA as to alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is intended to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Thus, alternatives must provide substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project and must be potentially feasible, considering economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. In the case of this property, the range of "feasible alternatives" is unusually limited by highly constrained vehicular access options, which have been studied extensively by the project development team. Although the EIR provides an abbreviated history of the proposed access and on-site circulation proposed (including consideration of the existing driveway and existing fire road development), it did not detail the two-year planning process that the applicant's development team went through to establish the proposed circulation plan, prior to submitting an application to the Town. The property has frontage on both Paradise Drive, a public street, and on a privately-owned portion of Hacienda Drive. There is no legal access of record to the property over Hacienda Drive, and it is considered both legally and politically infeasible for a development project on the Alta Robles site to derive vehicular access from Hacienda Drive for general access purposes. This does not include emergency vehicle access. Potential access points off Paradise Drive were also studied, with the existing driveway accessing the current Rabin residence as the most obvious. However, the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) has stated that it would not accept vehicular access to additional homes via this driveway, which is too steep and geometrically problematic for their vehicles to traverse. While it might be technically possible, through substantial grading, retaining, widening and realignment, to create a roadway acceptable to the TFPD in this general location, the impacts on immediately adjacent special status plants, including Tiburon buckwheat, Marin dwarf flax, and serpentine bunchgrass grassland would be severe and would likely result in significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources that the current project avoids. Use or modification to the existing access road for the site would therefore not serve the required purpose of an alternative, which is to reduce significant environmental impacts. Prior to filing of the application, the project development team also studied alternative new access points from Paradise Drive, including locations along the S.O.D.A. property frontage and frontage of the adjoining Slater & Sons property to the north of the S.O.D.A. parcel. In those locations where sensitive resources are avoidable for purposes of roadway construction, the steepness and difficult topography of the site makes vehicular access extremely challenging, with massive new grading, retaining walls, and a serpentine roadway the likely design solution. The existing fire road is able to make a comparatively leisurely climb of about 100 vertical feet over a distance of nearly 800 linear feet to reach a position at elevation 250 feet adjacent to proposed Lot 11. A direct route upward from Paradise Drive would require that 100 foot elevation change to be achieved in less than 300 linear feet; hence the need for substantial grading and retaining, and a serpentine alignment covering much more than 300 linear feet, to potentially meet maximum grade requirements for fire suppression vehicles. EXHIBIT NO. '7 The concepts of achieving vehicular access through public open space to the southeast, and through private lots and open space to the northwest were also deemed infeasible, leaving no clearly viable options other than the existing fire road. The EIR transportation sub-consultant confirmed to Town staff the environmentally disruptive nature of attempting to create an alternative access road from Paradise Drive along the S.O.D.A. frontage. It was with awareness of these site-driven constraints that the EIR preparer devised the alternatives analysis contained in the DEIR. The DEIR evaluated a range of alternatives, with all "development" alternatives making use of the existing fire road for all, or nearly all, vehicular access to lots. In addition to discussing potential off-site project locations, the EIR also studied the "No Project" alternative, wherein no new units would be built on the site. The EIR also analyzed a development alternative with 8 new homes, with all new development kept on the S.O.D.A. parcel and terminating the fire road at a hammerhead prior to the environmentally challenging crossing onto the Rabin property, directly below and to the east of the Rabin residence. This alternative eliminates the cluster of proposed homes on the Rabin property that would be accessed by the project roadway after crossing onto the Rabin property, as shown in the original application. The DEIR also studied a modified version of the applicant's project (13 new homes) incorporating DEIR-identified mitigation measures into the design. , The studied alternatives thus cover the full range of the number of units (0 to 13) that could be constructed along what appears to be the sole realistically feasible means of vehicular access to serve new development on the site, while attempting to reduce significant environmental impacts in the process. Staff is of the opinion that while numerous permutations involving the selective elimination of one or more lots within that range of units exist, those permutations would not provide a meaningful environmental distinction that could not be reasonably ascertained within the current range of alternatives before the Commission. Staff is also aware that the merits review portion of the process offers considerable latitude in addressing consistency with Town policies and land use regulations, and goes beyond the strict environmental impact-based review provided by the EIR process. Issues such as ridgeline protection, density, neighborhood character, house size, and compatibility with surrounding development all reside within the merits review realm. Development of an Additional Alternative However, in response to the concerns expressed at the September 23, 2009 Commission meeting, staff met with the applicant team to discuss an additional project alternative that would reduce project grading, retaining walls, and environmental impacts in the areas of biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and visual quality. After careful review of the DEIR findings as well as the comments received on the Draft EIR, the applicant's development team has developed Alternative 4. The major elements of this 14-lot alternative were presented to Town staff and the EIR consultant by the applicant's representatives in January 2010, and are described in detail in attached Exhibits 3 and 4. Among the modifications contained in Alternative 4 are the following: ➢ Reduced grading and site disturbance from landslide repair. It was determined that landslide repairs for the project were almost completely driven by the Town's Landslide EXHIBIT NO. 7 Mitigation Policy and not by the project design/layout. This is because identified landslides could either impact Paradise Drive, other private properties in the vicinity, or existing improvements on the Rabin property without repair or improvement. Nevertheless, upon careful re-evaluation, substantial reductions in grading, retaining walls, and increased avoidance of special status plants and other bio-resources was possible through alternative landslide repair and improvement measures that meet the intent and purpose of the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. These revised repair and improvement measures are set forth in the letter from Miller-Pacific Engineering dated February 8, 2010, attached as Exhibit 5. The Town's independent geotechnical consultant, Herzog Geotechnical, has reviewed the revised Miller-Pacific approach in the field and found it consistent with the intent and purpose of the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy (see Exhibit 6). ➢ Redesign of the roadway crossing onto the Rabin Property from the S.O.D.A. property. This was the most challenging portion of project's roadway in terms of environmental impact. A "bridge" design has been developed that would reduce grading, retaining walls, visual impact, tree removal, and disruption of wetlands. While the term "bridge" often connotes an imposing and highly visible structure, technically it means that a structure ``spans" an open area beneath it and does not rely on the ground surface or earthen fill for support over its entire length. There are "bridges" over Tiburon Boulevard of which most citizens are unaware. ➢ House locations on Lots 13 and 14 have been moved to reduce biological impacts, and the home on Lot 14 has been reduced in size by over 1,800 square feet. ➢ Homes on Lot lines on Lots 5 and 6 have been moved back from sensitive species to provide a larger buffer, and the lot line on Lot 5 has been moved out of the ridgeline setback. ➢ Modifications to Lot 8 to reduce biological and visual impacts. The applicant has committed in writing to adopt Alternative 4 as his project. As part of the EIR consultant's response to comments, Alternative 4 would be evaluated and become part of the Final EIR. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, no recirculation is required as a result of this new alternative, as the applicant has committed to adopt it as his project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission finds that no "significant new information" was received during the comment period that would legally require recirculation of the DEIR. The environmental consultant should be directed to complete the response to comments and prepare the Final EIR. EXHIBITS Staff Report from the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. EXHIBIT NO.= 2. Written comments on the DEIR and verbal comments (minutes) from the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Letter from Scott Hochstrasser dated February 8, 2010 regarding Alternative 4 (previously provided to the Commission) 4. Booklet on Alternative 4, entitled "DEIR Review and Comments" dated February 2010 (previously provided to the Commission) 5. Letter from Miller-Pacific dated February 8, 2010. 6. Letter from Herzog Geotechnical dated February 12, 2010. Prepared by: Diane Henderson, Contract Planner Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development . EXHIBIT NO To: Members of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 2011 Agenda Item: From: Community Development Department Subject: 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701; Final Environmental Impact Report, Precise Development Plan, Prezoning and Annexation for a 14-unit residential project on approximately 52 acres; Planned Development #20; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Project Name: Address: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owners/Applicants: Flood Zone: State Clearinghouse Number: Alta Robles Residential Development 3825 Paradise Drive 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 30701 Approximately 52 acres PD-R-a (Rabin) and PD-R-i (S.O.D.A.); (Planned Development-Residential; maximum density 0.4 du/ac) Rabin - RPD (Residential Planned Development); S.O.D.A. - No Tiburon zoning, located outside Tiburon town limits; County Zoning is RMP-0.4 Rabin - Single Family Residential; S.O.D.A. - Undeveloped Irving and Varda Rabin, et al X (Outside 500-year flood event) 2007072104 SUMMARY Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, have submitted applications for precise development plan, prezoning and annexation for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres of land. The proposed project is located at 3825 Paradise Drive, and extends from Hacienda Drive on the south downward to Paradise Drive on the north. The proposed development, known as Alta Robles, involves a proposal for the eventual subdivision of 52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling, into 14 single-family residential lots. Approximately 20.95 acres (S.O.D.A.) of the site are located within an unincorporated portion of Marin County, within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and approximately 31.26 acres (Rabin) of the site are located within the Town of Tiburon. TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 1 OF 16 BACKGROUND/PROJECT HISTORY The following is a brief timeline for the Alta Robles project: • In 2007, Irving and Varda Rabin, et al submitted applications to the Town for Precise Development Plan, Prezoning and Annexation for the Alta Robles residential project. • The Town determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for this project, and retained Nichols Berman, an environmental consulting firm to prepare the EIR. • In compliance with CEQA, the Town sent a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on July 19, 2007 to government agencies, special service districts, organizations, and individuals with an interest in or jurisdiction over the project. • On August 8, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping session on the proposed project to identify environmental issues and concerns of the public about the project in order to evaluate those issues in the EIR. • A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was prepared for this project and circulated for public review and comment. The 45-day comment period concluded on October 5, 2009. Public comments on the DEIR were also received at a public hearing held at the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. After receiving testimony, the public hearing was closed, and this item was continued pending a detailed review of the comments received on the DEIR. • During the public review period of the Draft EIR, several members of the public and the Tiburon Planning Commission expressed concern for the need to evaluate an additional alternative to the project. Specifically, it was requested that the EIR discuss an additional project alternative that would reduce project grading, reduce the need for retaining walls, and reduce environmental impacts in the areas of biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and visual quality. • In response to the Draft EIR findings, as well as the comments received on the Draft EIR, the applicant's development team developed a Revised Proposed Project (Alternative 4). CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 states that a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but before certification. "Significant new information" includes a disclosure showing that `a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it." The project applicant has committed in writing to the Town to adopt this new alternative as the proposed project. Therefore, the inclusion of Alternative 4 did not represent "significant new information" and did not require the recirculation of the Draft EIR. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to hear and consider the recommendation of the Environmental Coordinator as to whether "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period. At the close of that hearing, the Planning Commission determined that no "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period, and directed the consultant to complete the response to comments and prepare the Final EIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of two contiguous parcels: the 20.95 acre SODA property and the 31.26 acre Rabin property. The SODA property is located in an unincorporated portion of Marin County within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and is currently undeveloped. The Rabin property is currently developed with one single-family residence and several ancillary structures and is located within the Town of Tiburon, with a street address of 3825 Paradise Drive. The proposed project involves the eventual subdivision of the 52 acres into 14 single family parcels (one existing residence to remain and 13 new residences to be constructed) and three open space parcels totaling 18.29 acres. The applicants have currently submitted applications for Precise Development Plan; prezoning and annexation; the EIR has been prepared for these applications and all trailing permits (subdivision, design review, etc.), barring substantial changes to the project subsequent to any Precise Development Plan application approval. Precise Development Plan The Precise Development Plan seeks approval for 14 residential lots, comprised of • 1 Lot for an existing single family home; and • 13 Lots for thirteen new single family homes • 3 Parcels (A, B, & C) are voluntarily offered to be protected by open space easements held by the Town of Tiburon • Residential use areas, height limits, floor area maximums, representative home designs and footprints, and other zoning parameters would be established • Design guidelines would be adopted Prezoning The application proposes prezoning the SODA property to RPD (Residential Planned Development) consistent with the Tiburon General Plan designation (single-family dwellings at 0.4 dwelling units per acre or less) and consistent with the Town's zoning on the adjacent Rabin property. The RPD zoning (Section 16-21 (F[l]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code) proposed for the SODA property 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 proposed single family residential use is a Permitted Use (Section 16-21.030 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) in the RPD zone. Maximum density for the land shall be established by a TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 16 ;,-XHIBIT NO. a Precise Development Plan approval pursuant to Section 16-52.060 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. Annexation The 20.95 acre SODA property is currently outside the Town's corporate limits, but within Tiburon's Sphere of Influence. The applicants are requesting that this parcel be annexed to the Town for development pursuant to the Town's adopted policies. The Marin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would be the decision-making body for the annexation application; however, the Town's EIR must address any environmental impacts associated with the annexation request and the Town must hold public hearings on, and approve the prezoning prior to action by LAFCO. The Town's General Plan calls'for annexation of this property to the Town and the Town Council has twice voted its desire to see the SODA property development plan processed through the Town, rather than the County of Marin, and the property annexed. Subdivision Although an application for subdivision has not been submitted at this time, the eventual subdivision configuration would result in 17 subdivision lots, as shown on the Precise Development Plan Maps. These are: 14 single-family lots; 3 open space lots (A, B, & C) Preservation of Scenic and Natural Resources Extensive land area is proposed as permanent private open space by offer of open space easement or other restriction. Private Common Open Space areas (Lots A, B, & C), are voluntarily offered for permanent open space and resource conservation. These lots constitute 18.29 acres or 35.03% of the total land area. A public trail easement is proposed across a portion of Lot C that would complete the Tiburon Ridge walking path in the vicinity. This is a major public benefit of the project, given that the Town was recently required by court order to close a portion of Hacienda Drive to public access. • Private Open Space, lands proposed in individual private lot ownerships on the 13 proposed new lots, is voluntarily offered for permanent protection through scenic and resource conservation easements. These areas include 8.58 acres or 16.43% of the total land area. • Private Space (Rabin Private Zone), comprising land surrounding the existing residence at 3825 Paradise Drive (Lot 1), is proposed to be maintained for private resource conservation, open space, and private recreational use. This area includes 10.48 acres or 20.08% of the total land area. A public trail easement discussed above would cross part of the Private Space. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT PAGE 4 OF 16 NU. h Modifications to Project Design Resulting from the EIR Process Since the publication of the Draft EIR, the applicant has revised the submitted project to include the following modifications in order to reduce impacts identified in the Draft EIR (the revised project is identified as Alternative 4 in the FEIR): ➢ Reduced grading and site disturbance from landslide repair. It was detennined that landslide repairs for the project were almost completely driven by the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy and not by the project design/layout. This is because identified landslides could either impact Paradise Drive, other private properties in the vicinity, or existing improvements on the Rabin property without repair or improvement. Nevertheless, upon careful re-evaluation, substantial reductions in grading, retaining walls, and increased avoidance of special status plants and other bio-resources was possible through alternative landslide repair and improvement measures that meet the intent and purpose of the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. These revised repair and improvement measures are set forth in the letter from Miller-Pacific Engineering dated February 8, 2010, attached as Exhibit 15. The Town's independent geotechnical consultant, Herzog Geotechnical, has reviewed the revised Mill er-Pacific'approach in the field and found it acceptable and consistent with the intent and purpose of the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy (see Exhibit 16). ➢ Redesign of the roadway crossing onto the Rabin Property from the S.O.D.A. property. This was the most challenging portion of project's roadway in terms of environmental impact. A "bridge" design has been developed that would reduce grading, retaining walls, visual impact, tree removal, and disruption of wetlands. While the term "bridge" often connotes an imposing and highly visible structure, technically it means that a structure "spans" an open area beneath it and does not rely on the ground surface or earthen fill for support over its entire length. Staff does not believe that this "bridge" would be a visually prominent project feature. House locations on Lots 13 and 14 have been moved to reduce biological impacts, and the home on Lot 14 has been reduced in size by over 1,800 square feet. ➢ The lot line on Lot 4 has been adjusted north outside the horizontal ridgeline and the roofline has been lowered 17 feet. Any home on Lot 4 would still be located in the vertical setback of the Tiburon Ridge. ➢ Homes on Lots 5 and 6 have been moved back from sensitive species to provide a larger buffer, and the lot line on Lot 5 has been moved out of the Tiburon Ridge vertical setback. ➢ Modifications to Lot 8 to reduce biological and visual impacts. The project design, particularly including the modifications proposed in project Alternative 4, represent substantial efforts to promote future homes and other site improvements that avoid sensitive resources on the site. The clearly articulated representative house plans incorporate green design principles that would considerably reduce the visual impacts of future homes on the site and dramatically lessen the environmental footprint of the project. The Town's ability to rely TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 16 EXHIBIT N0. on these representative house designs, as publicly committed to by the property owner and his representatives, in the review of future Design Review applications for individual homes is a major benefit of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, including the CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code 2 1000-21178. 1), CEQA Guidelines, and relevant court decisions. The key findings of the Draft EIR (DEIR) were summarized in the Staff Report for the September 23, 2009 meeting, which is attached as Exhibit 6. In summary, the DEIR identified two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. These SU impacts were: 1) that project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; and 2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space [see Exhibits 5.8-4 and 5.8-5(a), and (b) in the DEIR]. In addition, the DEIR indicated that implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other anticipated future projects at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula, would result in the following unavoidable cumulative impacts: • The addition of vehicle trips to the signalized Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection. • The addition of vehicle trips to U.S. Highway 101. • Construction noise. • Wildlife habitat and connectivity impacts. • Visual impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources During the public review period of the Draft EIR and at the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, several members of the public and the Planning Commission expressed concern for the need to evaluate an additional alternative to the project. In response to those concerns, staff met with the applicant team to discuss an additional project alternative that would reduce project grading, retaining walls, and environmental impacts in the areas of biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and visual quality. After careful review of the DEIR findings as well as the comments received on the Draft EIR, the applicant's team developed Alternative 4. The major elements of this 14-lot alternative were presented to Town staff and the EIR consultant by the applicant's representatives in February 2010, and are described in detail in attached Exhibits 10 and 11. CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 states that a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but before certification. "'Significant new information" includes a disclosure showing that `a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it." Because the project applicant committed in writing to the Town to adopt this new alternative as the proposed project, the inclusion of Alternative 4 did not represent "significant new information" and therefore did not require the recirculation of the Draft EIR. TOWN OF TIBUROW PAGE 6 OF 16 HIBIT NO. On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to hear and consider the recommendation of the Environmental Coordinator as to whether "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period. At the close of that hearing, the Planning Commission determined that no "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period, and directed the consultant to complete the response to comments and prepare the Final EIR. As required by CEQA, the Final EIR includes all written comments received by the Town during the 45-day public review period as well as all oral comments made at the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft EIR and 'responses to those comments. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments documents. The Response to Comments document includes all comments received on the Draft EIR and the project's environmental effects. The original letters are reproduced, and comments are numbered for referencing with responses. Responses to individual comments raising significant environmental points are presented immediately after each comment letter. The minutes from the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing on the DEIR are also included with comments numbered and responses immediately following the minutes. There were numerous comments raised during the public review period that pertained to the same topic and/or issue. As a result, a Master Response was prepared for each topic area that appropriately responds to these groups of comments. The three master responses were prepared for Visual Impacts, New Development Alternative and Biological Resources and provide a comprehensive analysis of major environmental issues raised in multiple comments. With regard to Visual Impacts, several comments on the Draft EIR raised issues regarding the impact of the proposed Alta Robles residential development on views from San Francisco Bay. Views from San Francisco Bay may be affected through tree removal, landslide repair, and the construction of roads and proposed houses. In response to these comments, a visual simulation accurately illustrating the proposed project from the Bay was prepared and included in the Response to Comments document. The Final EIR concludes that the project would result in a less-than-significant visual impact when viewed from San Francisco Bay. As previously indicated in this staff report, several members of the public and the Planning Commission expressed concern for the need to evaluate an additional alternative. Specifically, it was requested that the EIR discuss an additional project alternative that would reduce project grading, reduce the need for retaining walls, and reduce environmental impacts in the areas of biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and visual quality. The applicant's development team developed a Revised Proposed Project which is analyzed in the Response to Comments document as Alternative 4. This alternative, which has been adopted by the applicant as the proposed project, builds on the revised site plan evaluated in the Draft EIR (Alternative 3), plus adds landslide stabilization and grading revisions. The Final EIR concludes that while this revised project (Alternative 4) would reduce the degree of certain impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the proposed project, such impacts would remain significant and in need of mitigation measures. The Alternative 4 project design would still result in significant unavoidable TOWN OF TIBURON r PAGE 7 OF 16 EXHIBIT INTO. 8 temporary construction noise impacts and visual impacts when viewed from the Town's Middle Ridge open space area. With regard to Biological Resources, comments on the Draft EIR included concerns regarding vegetation and special-status species on the project site. In particular, comments on the Draft EIR questioned whether the vegetation findings were current given that the original studies conducted by the applicant's previous biological consultant were conducted between 2002 and 2005. In response to the comments on the Draft EIR, the applicant retained a new biological consultant who conducted updated studies on vegetation and special-status plant species on the site. The updated studies are included in the Final EIR and did not result in any significant new information or the discovery of any previously unidentified significant environmental impacts. As described in detail in Chapter 6, the DEIR examined several alternatives to the project as proposed. These alternatives include two on-site No Project alternatives, an on-site development alternative and potential off-site locations. Subsequent to the preparation of the Final EIR, the project applicant developed a fourth on-site development alternative, which was evaluated in the Response to Comments document. The EIR concluded, on the basis of the discussion of the proposed project and the on-site alternatives, that Alternative 1 (No Project / No Build) would be the environmentally superior alternative, as it would avoid the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) state that if the environmentally superior alternative is a "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the development alternatives. Of those alternatives, Alternative 4 would be the environmentally superior alternative. Although the significant impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be similar to the originally-proposed project, the inclusion of the proposed revisions would reduce the degree of certain impacts; however, such impacts would remain significant and in need of mitigation measures and the two significant and unavoidable project impacts would remain without additional project modifications being imposed. All mitigation measures are included in the Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program which is included in Appendix A of the Response to Comments document. 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 14. The following is a summary of the issues raised in that analysis: General Plan Ridgeline Protection. The Tiburon Ridge and two "significant secondary ridgelines" identified as #5 and #6 by Town Resolution No. 2859 and Diagram 3.3-1 in the Open Space & Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan, are located on the project site. With respect to the Tiburon Ridge, Policies OSC-10 and OSC-11 of the Open Space & Conservation Element state as follows: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. 8 f ;.I.I a:i" OSC-10. Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 150 horizontal feet of either side of the Tiburon Ridge. OSC-11. Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 50 vertical feet of either side of the Tiburon Ridge, measured from the highest point of the roofline or tree. Project development would not encroach into the horizontal setback, but nearly all of the proposed Lot 4 would encroach into the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback. Lot 4 is therefore clearly inconsistent with a quantitative standard set forth in the General Plan and Staff cannot recommend its approval in the location proposed. Staff recommends that Lot 4 be eliminated to achieve consistency with this quantitative standard. With respect to Significant Ridgelines #5 and #6, Policies OSC-9 and OSC-12 of the Open Space & Conservation Element, and Policy C-4 of the Circulation Element, state as follows: OSC-9. Undeveloped ridgelines have overriding visual significance to the Town. In balancing open space interests with development interests, the preservation of predominantly undeveloped ridgelines shall have the highest priority. 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. 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. The Alta Robles DEIR analyzed and addressed these criteria for Significant Ridgelines 5 and 6 at pp. 100-104, and the location and physical limits of the ridgelines on the subject property are graphically depicted on p. 101 of the Alta Robles DEIR and on Exhibit 13 to this staff report. All or portions of Lots 3, 4, 7-12 and 14 would approach the crests of Significant Ridgelines 5 or 6. The project would also include construction of roads serving subdivision traffic that would travel along or cross over portions of Significant Ridgelines 5 or 6. In addition, the project would upgrade existing unpaved roadways within the Tiburon Ridge setback, but make them available for emergency vehicle use only. These circumstances create a major policy decision for the Town decision-makers with respect to the proper "balance" between development and reasonable protection of the secondary significant ridgelines. Staff does not believe it is possible to avoid the secondary ridgelines and still allow TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO._._ 9_ arf l -i: . l u reasonable development of the site, raising the policy question of how much proximity to and impact upon the secondary ridgelines is appropriate under the particular circumstances of this property and project. Factors that the Planning Commission may consider in making this policy decision, among others, are as follows: 1) The plain language of the policies; 2) The fact that the Tiburon Ridge setbacks prevent development on the most easily built-upon portion of the site, comprising approximately 30% of the total site area; 3) The fact that the Rabin Property is the only remaining large undeveloped or underdeveloped parcel on the Peninsula that would be affected by the Tiburon Ridge setback policies, meaning that there is no potential for precedent-setting. 4) The fact that Ridgelines 5 and 6 occupy much of the central portion of the site outside of the Tiburon Ridge setback areas. 5) The Draft EIR (P. 102) indicates that most portions of Ridgelines 5 & 6 are not "visually prominent". 6) Project access locations have been extensively studied and feasible alternatives to use of the proposed entry point along Ridgeline 5 have been exhausted. 7) Review of the photo-simulations in the DEIR (pp. 331-343) and the FEIR (pp. 6- 8) that offer evidence as to visual prominence of the ridgelines and the visual effects of the proposed development upon theirs. Please note the photo- simulations do not reflect Alternative 4 modifications made by the applicant, nor staff-recommended changes contained in this report that are intended to reduce the visual impacts of certain homes, including those on Lot 4 (removed), and Lots 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (lowered and reduced in size) and Lot 14 (reduced in size and pulled back from Paradise Drive). Neighborhood Compatibility. The density of single-family development proposed on the site would be consistent with the land use designation for the site and lower than the density of other development in the vicinity. However, the floor areas proposed for many of the new homes on the site would be substantially larger than the sizes of other homes in the vicinity, and would be among the largest homes in Tiburon. Goal LU-I of the Land Use Element 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," and Policy LU-15 states that "remodels, tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be compatible with the design, size, and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood." The floor area of the homes, as originally proposed, ranged from 6,300 to 7,980 square feet, with only one of the new residences proposed to be less than 7,200 square feet. There are currently only approximately 25 homes in all of Tiburon with floor areas over 7,000 square feet, with approximately two-thirds of these larger dwellings clustered in the Mt. Tiburon and Gilmartin Drive neighborhoods and including the existing 8,143 square foot home on the project site. The project as originally proposed would increase the number of such larger homes in Tiburon by almost 50%. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. e ;1~ , The project site is generally bordered by three different neighborhoods: homes along Hacienda Drive and Noche Vista Lane; Paradise Drive and the Seafirth subdivision; and Acacia Drive. The floor areas of these neighborhoods are characterized as follows: Hacienda Drive and Noche Vista Lane: The floor areas of the 27 homes in this neighborhood to the south and west of the project site range from 2,146 to 6,324 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from 0.25 to 1.1 acres. Only one of these 27 homes is over 6,000 square feet, only 3 are over 5,000 square feet and only 7 of the 27 dwellings are over 4,000 square feet. Paradise Drive and Seafirth: The 29 homes in the Seafirth subdivision, to the north of the project site, range in size from 1,936 to 4,331 square feet; Seafirth lots range in size from 0.24 to 0.92 acres, while other unincorporated lots along Paradise Drive range from around half an acre up to over 23 acres. Other homes along the unincorporated portions of Paradise Drive north and east of the site are substantially larger, and the approved Sorokko subdivision on the east side of Paradise Drive could have homes as large as 8,000 square feet. Acacia Drive: The floor areas of the seven homes in the Acacia Court Subdivision, to the northwest of the project site, range from 2,860 to 6,272 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from 0.9 to 1.79 acres. Five of these seven homes are larger than 5,000 square feet, and three of the dwellings are over 6,000 square feet. One nearby residence on Tanfield Drive is among the largest in Tiburon at 9,599 square feet. The proposed Lots 2-6 would be located closest to Hacienda Drive, with Lots 7-8 closer to Paradise Drive and Lots 9-13 closer to Acacia Drive and Paradise Drive, with Lot 14 closest to the substantially smaller homes in the Seafirth subdivision. The house sizes on Lots 8-13 would be somewhat larger than most other homes in their adjacent neighborhoods, but within the range of floor areas of existing and potential dwellings in the vicinity. The applicant subsequently accepted Alternative 4 as the project, reducing the height and square footage of certain homes in response to public comments and the EIR process. Staff has previously recommended that Lot 4 be eliminated due to its violation of Tiburon Ridge vertical setback policy. Staff also recommends that the floor area for Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 be reduced to a maximum of 4,500 square feet, with 600 square feet of garage space. This could be accomplished by limiting the homes on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to predominantly one-story designs, with only a partial second story, as the conceptual house designs for these four lots each have one level of living area of at least 4,280 square feet (Mitigation Measure 5.8-1 of the Final EIR recommends limiting the building height for Lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 to 16 feet). The home on Lot 7 would be reduced from three stories to two stories. The resulting reduction in building mass from these project changes would also substantially lessen the visual impact of the project when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space (Viewpoint No. 1 in the Draft EIR) and, in combination with the elimination of Lot 4, potentially lessen the significant unavoidable impact on views from this vantage point to a less-than-significant level. Visual Impacts. The project would not substantially interfere with views from any surrounding residences. However, the Final EIR has concluded that the project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Policy OSC-30 states that "the preservation of visual qualities, views, and the view potential of the natural and TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO.~ built enviromnent shall be a major consideration of the Town in any development project review." The building floor area and height reductions on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7, in combination with the elimination of Lot 4, would reduce the impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space area. Environmentallv Sensitive Areas. The project has the potential to adversely affect occurrences of special status species, native serpentine grasslands, wetlands and oak woodlands. The project as proposed would impact wildlife movements across the site and limit wildlife access to common open space areas and protected wetlands. The project would remove approximately 107 protected trees from the site, but would avoid disturbance of most of the protect trees on the site. Policy OSC-17 states that "development shall not encroach into sensitive wildlife habitats, limit normal range areas, or create barriers to wildlife that cut off or substantially impede access to food, water, or shelter, or cause damage to fisheries or fish habitats." Policy OSC-33 states that "protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum extend feasible." The Final EIR contains mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources and wildlife movements to less-than-significant levels and would further reduce the number of protected trees affected by the project. Usable Open Space. The proposed project would preserve over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space. Policy OSC-5 establishes a goal that a minimum of 50% of the site area be preserved as permanent open space. Goal OSC-B calls for the Town "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, to be protected by a Town-held open space easement." As noted above, the project would adversely affect occurrences of special status species, native serpentine grasslands, wetlands and oak woodlands, but the Final EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources to less-than-significant levels. However, individual homes would be located along the two significant ridgelines on the site and could have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. The recommended reductions to building floor areas and heights on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7, in combination with the elimination of Lot 4, would reduce the impact on views and should achieve consistency with this policy. Safety. Eighteen landslides have been identified on the site. Policy SE-5 of the Safety Element states that "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." A geotechnical analysis of site landslides has been prepared and reviewed as part of the Final EIR. The conceptual stabilization repair plans have been reviewed to ensure conformance with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. Driveways. Policy C-19 of the Circulation Element states that "new driveways intersecting Paradise Drive shall be kept to the minimum possible and be situated in safe locations." Site TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 12 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. i S... t access to the project would be provided by a single new roadway from Paradise Drive. However, the project proposes to allow the existing driveway currently serving the Rabin residence to provide exclusive service to that home. To achieve maximum consistency with this policy, Staff recommends that the existing driveway be limited to emergency access use only. Zoning Ordinance Harmony with Neighboring Development. As noted above, the floor areas proposed for the homes on Lots 8-14 would be generally compatible with the size of other dwellings in the adjacent neighborhoods along Acacia Drive and Paradise Drive. The same project modifications found in the immediately preceding section are recommended by Staff to address this inconsistency. ° Prominence of development and construction. Based on the photomontages prepared as part of the Final EIR, the locations of the individual buildings on the site would be visible on the hillsides, but the visibility of the homes would be minimized by appropriate location of grading and building placement. The Town has the ability to require additional changes to individual building designs during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to ensure consistency with this principle. P Grading and Preservation of Natural Features. Although some slopes created by the project as part of landslide repairs would exceed 30%, the final contours and slopes would reflect natural landforms and would not exceed current slopes on the site. This grading is necessary to comply with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. Development on Lot 4 would encroach occur within 50 vertical feet of the nearest peak elevation of the Tiburon Ridge. Staff recommends elimination of Lot 4 to achieve consistency with this policy. Minimization of significant adverse impacts. The Final EIR includes mitigation measures that would reduce most potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to less-than-significant levels. However, the project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff recommends building floor area and height reductions on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to achieve consistency with this policy. The project would also contribute to five significant unavoidable cumulative impacts at build-out of the Tiburon Peninsula, as noted above. ISSUES As discussed in the DEIR, the Tiburon Ridge crosses the upper portion of the project site, effectively removing approximately 30% of the subject property from development. In addition to the Tiburon Ridge, the Tiburon General Plan identifies two significant secondary ridgelines on the project site. These ridgelines are designated in Town Resolution No. 2859 as Ridgelines 5 and 6. General Plan Policy OSC-11 states that development and other improvements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 50 vertical feet of either side of Tiburon Ridge. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the project, as originally designed, would include development on Lots 4 and 5 within 50 vertical feet of the nearest peak elevation of the Tiburon Ridge. Nearly all of Lot 4, as well as an existing shed (proposed as a detached garage on Lot 5) would be located within the vertical setback of the Tiburon Ridge. TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 13 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. E3 The project as redesigned (Alternative 4) includes changes that reduce the impacts on ridgelines. Specifically, in the redesigned project, the lot line on Lot 4 has been adjusted north outside the horizontal ridgeline and the roofline has been lowered 17 feet and the lot line on Lot 5 has been moved out of the ridgeline setback. With these changes, Lot 5 would no longer violate ridgeline setbacks, but Lot 4 remains within the Tiburon Ridge vertical setback contrary to the General Plan. Staff recommends eliminating Lot 4 (and all proposed development shown on Lot 4) and incorporating it into the Rabin Private Zone on Lot 1. As indicated in the Final EIR, changes to the project reflected in Alternative 4 would reduce the visual exposure and obtrusiveness of project features as compared to the originally proposed project. However, when viewed from Middle Ridge Open Space, the Final EIR indicates that the revised project would still meet the visual dominance characteristic definition of co-dominant as described in EIR Exhibit 5.8-2. Although the color contrast of the new homes would be relatively low, the buildings, roadways, driveways, and retaining walls that would be visible would attract attention due to their contrast in form, line and texture with those naturally established in the surrounding setting. The Final EIR concludes that the revised project, as designed, would result in a significant visual impact when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space. The severity of the visual impact in the revised project would be less than that of the originally proposed project. The FEIR includes mitigation (Mitigation Measure 5.8-1) to reduce the visual impact such that the project would not attract attention when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space. The proposed mitigation includes limiting building heights to 16 feet and limiting total floor area for the proposed homes on Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6; increasing screen planting of native trees and using glass that has a Visible Light Reflectance/Reflection value of less than nine percent for all exterior glass for all proposed homes that are in view from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Although implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.8-1 would reduce the obtrusiveness of the homes and the visual dominance of project features, the FEIR concludes that the project, when viewed from Middle Ridge Open Space would still appear co-dominant, and therefore the project would result in a significant unavoidable visual impact. When reviewing Exhibit 5.8-5(a) of the Draft EIR (page 332), staff believes that the home on Lot 4 creates the greatest visual impact of the project when viewed from Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff believes that incorporation of Mitigation Measure 5.8-1, coupled with elimination of the home on Lot 4 (as discussed above) and reduction of the height and size of the Lot 7 home, would further reduce the visual impacts of the revised project, possibly to a less-than-significant level. This is a somewhat subjective determination. The height and visibility of the retaining walls previously proposed for the project have been substantially reduced as part of the Alternative 4 (now the project) design. Exhibit 3.0-13 in the Final EIR (page 148) provides more detail about the proposed retaining walls, including whether the walls would be visible or non-visible, with many of the proposed walls buried in the ground supporting future buildings. Additionally, the retaining wall originally proposed as a mitigation measure in the DEIR has since been determined to be unnecessary and is no longer proposed. Only three (3) visible walls for the project would exceed 6 feet at their highest points, described as follows: • Wall W5-A on Lot 5, with heights of 0 to 9 feet over a length of 39 feet; TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 14 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. U Wall W 12-C on Lot 12, with heights of 0 to 7 feet over a length of 112 feet; and Wall W 14-B on Lot 14, with heights of 4 to 7 feet over a length of 257 feet. The final height and appearance of these walls can be further reviewed through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process for individual homes or as part of the review of subdivision improvements for the project as a whole. Staff concludes that the retaining wall visibility issue has been adequately addressed by the applicant. As discussed above, Staff believes that the major outstanding policy area to be resolved deals with project proximity to Significant Ridgelines 5 & 6. Staff sees no viable alternative to and increase in the number of roadway crossings of ridges on the site (some already exist). Similarly, wholesale elimination of certain lots would appear necessary to avoid lots and homes being in close proximity to, or on, portions of the two secondary ridgelines. As noted above, these two ridgelines dominate the topography (but not necessarily the visibility) of the site and largely constitute the feasibly buildable portions of the site not located within the Tiburon Ridge setbacks. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, 8 comment letters have been received regarding the revised project design. Additional comments were received from various individuals and responsible agencies during the review of the Draft EIR (see Planning Commission Staff Report, 2/24/10). FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED Planning Commission action on these applications would be in the form of a recommendation to the Town Council. If the Alta Robles Environmental Impact Report is certified, and the Precise Development Plan and Prezoning applications are approved by the Town Council, LAFCO would then be in a position to consider action on an annexation application. Subsequent Town permits would likely include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings, Final Subdivision Map, and Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and Building Permits for each of the new residential lots. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hear a presentation of the project by the applicant. 2. Open the public hearing on the project, hear all testimony, and close the public hearing. 3. Time allowing, begin deliberations. Staff recommends that the Commission deliberate on the relevant items in the following order: DOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 15 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. a. Consider the adequacy and completeness of the FEIR, and consider adoption of the draft Resolution (Exhibit 1) recommending certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council. b. Consider the prezoning, and consider adoption of the draft resolution (Exhibit 2) recommending prezoning of the SODA property to the Town Council. c. Consider the draft resolution (Exhibit 3) prepared by Town Staff that would recommend approval of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan to the Town Council with the incorporation of project modifications. EXHIBITS I. Draft Resolution regarding EIR certification 2. Draft Resolution regarding prezoning 3. Draft Resolution regarding Precise Development Plan approval 4. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Planning (previously provided to the Commission) 5. Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Consulting (previously provided to the Commission) 6. Staff Report from the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting 7. Minutes from the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting 8. Staff Report from the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting 9. Minutes from the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting 10. Letter from Scott Hochstrasser dated February 8, 2010 regarding Alternative 4 (previously provided to the Commission) 11. Booklet entitled "DEIR Review and Comments" (a.k.a. Alternative 4), dated February 2010 (previously provided to the Commission) 12. Draft Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines, dated 3/6/2007 13. Graphic from DEIR depicting ridgelines on the Alta Robles project site 14. Consistency Analysis with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 15. Letter from Miller-Pacific dated February 8, 2010 16. Letter from Herzog Geotechnical dated February 12, 2010. 17. Letter from Steven Sockolov and Susan Snyder, dated January 11, 2011 18. Letter from Carol and Norman Traeger, dated January 12, 2011 19. Letter from Alexander Anolik, dated January 13, 2011 20. Letter from Barbara and Jeffrey Farber, dated January 14, 2011 21. Letter from Jeff and Suzanne Appleman, dated January 15, 2011 22. Letter from Barry Moss, dated January 17, 2011 23. Letter from Don Abramson, dated January 17, 2011 24. Letter from Ronald and Rhea Brown, dated January 18, 2011 25. Drawings prepared by Ken Kao, Architect and CSW Stuber Stroeh Prepared by: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Diane Henderson, Contract Planner Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development S:Tlanning\Planning Comm i ssion\S taff Reports\2011\January 26 meeting\Alta Robles staff working draft Tdoc TOWN DE TIBUR®N PAGE 16 OF 16 EXHIBIT NO. To: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting April 13, 2011 Agenda Item: off From: Community Development Department Subject: 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701; Precise Development Plan for a 14- unit residential project on approximately 52 acres; Planned Development #20; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 (Continued from January 26, 2011) Reviewed By: SUMMARY Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, have submitted applications for precise development plan and prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres of land. The proposed project is located at 3825 Paradise Drive, and extends from Hacienda Drive on the south downward to Paradise Drive on the north. The proposed development, known as Alta Robles, involves a proposal for the eventual subdivision of 52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling, into 14 single-family residential lots. Approximately 20.95 acres (S.O.D.A.) of the site are located within an unincorporated portion of Marin County, within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and approximately 31.26 acres (Rabin) of the site are located within the Town of Tiburon. The Planning Commission most recently reviewed the project on January 26, 2011. At that time, the Commission adopted Resolutions Nos. 2011-04 & 2011-05 recommending to the Town Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project and prezoning of the unincorporated portion of the site. The Commission took testimony, closed the public hearing, provided direction on the merits of the precise development plan and continued the item to allow the applicants time to respond to the direction provided. BACKGROUND The staff report for the January 26, 2011 meeting (Exhibit 8) contained a timeline for the Alta Robles project from 2007-2010. The staff report also included the following recommended modifications to the project to reduce significant impacts on the environment and/or to better achieve consistency with General Plan policies: 1. Elimination of Lot 4 due to its violation of Tiburon Ridge vertical setback policy. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. 2. Reduced floor area for Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to a maximum of 4,500 square feet, with 600 square feet of garage space. 3. Limiting the homes on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to predominantly one-story designs, with only a partial second story, and reducing the height of the home on Lot 7 from three stories to two stories. At the January 26'1' meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the project that focused on the following issues: Consistency with rid eline policies. The project design was inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines. The Commission concluded that more effort needed to be made to locate the future homes to preserve the visual integrity of the ridgelines. Neighborhood compatibility. The project design was inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding consistency and compatibility with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. The size and scale of the proposed homes were inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly those homes in the Seafirth, Acacia Drive and Norman Way neighborhoods. Lack of changes presented by Alternative 4. The modifications to the original project proposed by the applicant's Alternative 4 project design did not appear to make substantial changes to the development pattern of the project and did not materially improve ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. The Commission suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of reducing the number, size and height of the proposed homes and better cluster the dwellings on the site to achieve unproved consistency with General Plan policies. The Commission also requested clarification on how the Town could ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. PROJECT REVISIONS The applicant has submitted a revised alternative project design (Alternative 5, Exhibits 4 & 12) that includes the following changes from the previous Alternative 4: ➢ Lot 4 has been moved from its previous location within the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback to a location within the previous Lot 1 (the location of the existing Rabin house on the site) and adjacent to Lot 2. The size of Lot 4 would increase from 0.75 acres to 1.03 acres, and the residential use area would increase in size from 0.40 acres to 0.57 acres. The previous site of Lot 4 would become part of the "Rabin private zone" of Lot 1. ➢ Portions of Lots 2 & 3 (0.25 and 0.26 acres respectively) along the roadway frontage of each lot have been eliminated from the residential use areas and TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. ~ PAGE 2 OF 6 become private open space. These spaces would set residential improvements back from the roadway. ➢ A small (approximately 450 square foot) portion of Lot 6 has been eliminated from the residential use area of the lot and become private open space. ➢ The submittal materials include calculations on the facade surface areas based on the conceptual house designs for each lot. The submitted table on Sheet SP-03B indicates that 36.39% of all building facade area for the proposed homes would be below grade and not visible. The original version of Alternative 5 submitted to the Towii included a change to the access point for the proposed public trail along the Tiburon Ridge from Hacienda Drive. After Town staff informed the applicant that the new access point would be located past the point where the public has legal pedestrian access on Hacienda Drive, the applicant eliminated this change from Alternative 5. No other changes have been made to the previous 14-unit Alternative 4 project design. The number of lots and the maximum floor areas and building heights for homes on each lot remain the same. The applicant has submitted revised photosimulations representing Alternative 5. The applicant has submitted a memo (Exhibit 5) describing the differences between these photosimulations and those prepared for the Draft EIR for the project. The applicant indicates that the original photo simulations did not include visualization of Alternative 4. The revised photosimulations include design revisions made as part of both Alternative 4 and Alternative 5. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff previously prepared and distributed a memo (Exhibit 6) that provided additional information and analysis regarding the project's relationship to the two Significant Ridgelines located on the project site and additional comparative information on surrounding neighborhoods. The analysis was based upon a review of Alternative 4, prior to the applicant's submittal of Alternative 5 and assumed inclusion of the project modifications recommended in the January 26 staff report. The memo contains detailed analysis of the relationship of the individual proposed house locations to both Significant Ridgelines from various viewpoints. The memo also includes analysis of the house sizes of the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The memo lists numerous possible project revisions that could produce a level of improved policy consistency in an attempt to meet the expectations expressed by the Planning Commission at the January 26 meeting. In addition to measures already set forth in Alternative 4, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and in the January 26 staff report, the memo lists the following measures that would increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines: 1. Eliminate Lot 4 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 TOWN OF TIBURON 17 PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT N0. 3. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings. 4. Eliminate Lot 8; or relocate the Lot 8 building site to a portion of Lot 1 north of Lot 2; or reduce the Lot 8 floor area maximum to 4,500 square feet with a 600 square foot garage and 25' maximum height limit and darken the roof color. 5. Reduce floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet and reduce the maximum height of both homes by 3 feet; require a greenish exterior color that better blends with the evergreen foliage backdrop. 6. Require a flatter roof on the Lot 11 house and darken the color of the roof. 7. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation. 8. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered" and appears as undisturbed topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline. 9. Reduce floor area maximum on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 10. Eliminate Lot 13; or relocate the Lot 13 building site to Lot 11 and reduce both homes on that site to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square feet of garage and a 22' maximum height limit; or reduce the Lot 13 floor area i maximum to 5,000 square feet with 600 square feet of garage and a maximum height limit of 22' and require wall and roof colors that minimize contrast. The memo also lists the following measures that would increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding neighborhood consistency and compatibility: 1. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot garage. 2. Reduce floor area of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet. 3. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 4. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 13 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of garage. In staff's opinion, the changes to the project design included in Alternative 5 are not substantially responsive to the direction provided by the Commission at the January 26 meeting. The memo offered the options of eliminating Lots 4, 8 & 13, with the possibility of moving Lot 8 to a portion of Lot 1 and relocating Lot 13 to Lot 14. Alternative 5 retains Lot 8 and moves Lot 4 to the Lot 1 location. If Lot 4 is approved in its revised location, staff suggests that Lot 8 should either be eliminated or reduced in size as noted above. The previously distributed staff memo also included a "menu" of possible project revisions to the Alternative 4 project design (Exhibit 7) that creates a checklist of the measures noted above. The Commission is encouraged to use this checklist as a tool with which to build a consensus on a revised project design to recommend for approval to the Town Council. At the January 26, 2011 meeting, the applicant responded to suggestions to better cluster the dwellings on the site by referring to a constraints analysis of the physical characteristics of the project site. The applicant contends that various environmental constraints on the subject property (landslides, sensitive species habitat, etc.) severely limit the potential house locations on the site TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 .~XH1~31~' l~ U . cl and minimize the potential to cluster homes more closely together. Staff believes that the measures contained in the memo offer material opportunities to increase clustering. In order to ensure that the architectural design of homes built on the individual lots in the future would be consistent with the conceptual designs included in this precise development plan, staff recommends the inclusion of Condition of Approval No. 14, which would read as follows: "House Designs. Individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall closely resemble the conceptual designs shown in the above- referenced drawings prepared by KAO Design Group, as revised pursuant to conditions of approval contained herein, or otherwise will require an amendment to this Precise Development Plan. In reviewing these design review applications, Town staff and the Design Review Board are directed to disallow changes, except for a reduction in house size, to the conceptual house designs and to the house locations, that would: a) materially increase the project's visibility from off-site; b) have materially greater impacts on views from other homes in the subdivision; c) substantially increase the heights of retaining walls; or d) result in substantially more grading without off-setting reductions in views and visual impact, while not materially increasing environmental impact." PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no comment letters have been received regarding the revised project design since the January 26, 2011 meeting. FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED Planning Commission action on this application would be in the form of a recommendation to the Town Council. If the Alta Robles Environmental Impact Report is certified, and the Precise Development Plan and Prezoning applications are approved by the Town Council, LAFCO would then be in a position to consider action on an annexation application for the portion of the site that is located outside the Tiburon Town limits. Subsequent Town permits would likely include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings, Final Subdivision Map, and Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and Building Permits for each of the new residential lots. CONCLUSION At the January 26, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed disappointment that the Alternative 4 project design did not appear to make substantial changes to the development pattern of the project and did not materially improve concerns about ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. The subsequent Alternative 5 also is not fundamentally different than the project design, with the exception of the relocation of Lot 4. In order to achieve improved consistency with the policies of the Tiburon General Plan, staff concludes that the Planning Commission must take action to further shape the project design. Staff believes that some or all of the measures recommended above should be utilized to come up with a project design that the Commission can recommend for approval by the Town Council. The resulting project design, as revised by these recommended measures, would be substantially TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. lpi"i~ 73; ~'C~11 consistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines and neighborhood consistency and compatibility. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hear a presentation of the revised project design by the applicant. 2. Open the public hearing on the revised project, hear testimony only on new materials for the Precise Development Plan submitted to the Planning Commission after the close of the public hearing on January 26, 2011, and close the public hearing. 3. Staff recommends that the Commission consider the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) that would recommend approval of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan to the Town Council and utilize the menu of possible project revisions (Exhibit 7) prepared by Town Staff to help determine the appropriate project, modifications to be included as conditions of approval. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution regarding Precise Development Plan approval 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Planning (previously provided to the Commission) 3. Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Consulting (previously provided to the Commission) 4. Alternative 5 narrative memo, dated April 1, 2011 5. Memo on photosimulation changes, dated April 6, 2011 6. Memo on Additional Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility Policies, dated March 23, 2011 7. Menu of possible project revisions to Alternative 4 8. Staff Report from the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 9. Minutes from the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting 10. Minutes from the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting 11. Minutes from the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 12. Alternative 5 drawings and photosimulations, prepared by Ken Kao, Architect and CSW Stuber Stroeh Prepared by: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development S:\Planning\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\201 1\April 13 meeting\Alta Robles staff report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 994 February 24, 2010 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Kunzweiler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Kunzweiler, Commissioners Corcoran, Frymier, and Tollini Absent: Commissioner Doyle Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Contract Planner Diane Henderson, Environmental Consultant Bob Berman and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director of Community Development Anderson stated there are no items scheduled for the Commission's March 10th meeting, which will likely be cancelled. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. VICINITY OF 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE PROPOSED ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT; FILE #30701; Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, Owner and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 [SA] Contract Plannet Diane Henderson presented the staff report, stating the Rabins made application to the Town for a planned development annexation and pre-zoning to develop 52 acres on Paradise Drive with 1 existing and 13 new homes. Staff reviewed the application, determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required, and retained the firm of Nichols- Berman to prepare the EIR. The completed Draft EIR (DEIR) was released for a 45-day public review period ending on October 5, 2009. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the environmental document on September 23, 2009. At the close of the public review period, staff reviewed the comments received to determine whether a recommendation could be made to the Planning Commission to proceed with the final EIR and response to comments, or if recirculation would be necessary. EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 AGE 1 Ms. Henderson reviewed the DEIR findings, which focused on noise related to temporary construction, view impacts when the site is viewed from middle ridge open space, and 5 cumulative impacts resulting from build-out of the Tiburon Peninsula. Ms. Henderson provided a summary of the comments received, which related to the adequacy of analyzed alternatives, access to and circulation of the site itself, biological impacts, view impacts, tree removal, the proposed public trail, and how the project conforms to Town policies. Ms. Henderson reviewed the project alternatives identified by the DEIR, noting that while the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a reasonable range of alternatives, it does not specifically state what is considered reasonable. She highlighted the project site's constraints, particularly as they pertain to access, detailed possible alternative means of access, and concluded that the proposed entry along the existing fire road is the most feasible. The applicant presented supporting information to the environmental consultant, whose traffic consultant concurred that this is the most likely point of access. Ms. Henderson explained that the Commission's role this evening is to determine whether or not, based on CEQA's thresholds, there is need to recirculate the DEIR. She outlined the 4 thresholds and provided the following response: • The EIR is inadequate in its conclusory - The DEIR was prepared by Bob Berman of Nichols-Berman, a well-known and highly regarded environmental firm with many years experience. Staff has reviewed the DEIR and feels that it meets both CEQA requirements and the Town's environmental guidelines. • A new significant impact is identified - There were no new significant impacts environmental impacts identified during the comment period. • The intensity of an impact has increased - Although information was presented in writing and at the hearing on the DEIR, staff is not aware of any increased impacts. • A new project alternative or mitigation measure which lessens impacts is identified, but the applicant has refused to adopt it - The applicant has developed a 4th alternative which reduces impacts and has adopted it as the proposed project. Ms. Henderson stated that after reviewing the comments received on the DEIR, staff met with the applicant to discuss the development of a new alternative that would address concerns raised regarding grading, tree removal, and biological impacts. She reviewed the Town's Landslide Policy, noting there was a question as to whether the significant amount of grading required for the project was a result of the development itself or a virtue of the Town's policies. The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Miller Pacific, studied the site carefully and proposed several solutions that would minimize the amount of grading while still addressing the issue of landslide repair. Craig Herzog, the Town's geotechnical consultant, reviewed the Miller Pacific report and has determined that it does in fact meet the intent of the Town's Landslide Policy. In addition, the applicant has redesigned the proposed roadway such that a bridge would be built to span the crevice created by the landforms, thereby eliminating the need for large retaining walls and greatly reducing view impacts, grading, and impacts to biological resources. The applicant also made a number of changes to lots and the houses on those lots. Lots 13 and 14 have been redesigned and reshaped, with the home on Lot 14 reduced by 1800 square feet. Lots 5 and 6 have been shifted to relocate them outside of sensitive areas and the area of ridgeline TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 EXHIBIT NO. b PAGE 2 impacts. Lot 4 has been reduced in size by 2500 square feet, although does still remain within the 50-foot vertical setback from the Tiburon Ridge. Lot 8 and the home on Lot 8 have also been redesigned to reduce impacts. She noted that, as the applicant has indicated in writing that this is now the proposed project, Alternative 4 can be analyzed in the response to comments without the need for recirculation. Ms. Henderson said it is her belief that no CEQA thresholds are triggered and it is therefore appropriate to direct the environmental consultant to prepare a response to comments and final EIR. She noted that the scope of both documents is limited to environmental issues and not the merits or final approval of a project. She concluded that the DEIR has covered a full range of alternatives and impacts associated with the development of 0 to 14 units on the site and the Commission has the information necessary to determine the project's environmental impacts. Commissioner Tollini confirmed with Ms. Henderson that, upon distribution of the Final EIR, there is chance for additional public review and comment. Mr. Anderson stated that the Commission would ultimately be asked to make a recommendation on certification of the Final EIR and merits of the project, which are typically considered in tandem at one or more public hearings. Commissioner Corcoran noted that Alternative 2, labeled as the "No Project" alternative, carried a somewhat thorough analysis, although was not as thorough as that for Alternative 3. Ms. Henderson explained that the "No Project" alternative assumes the applicant would make no requests to the Town, but would in fact develop the S.O.D.A. parcel as allowed by the County's zoning guidelines. Commissioner Corcoran inquired about the process going forward, should the Commission determine that no new substantial information has been identified. Bob Berman, Nichols Berman, said he would begin by preparing a response to each comment received and, if in fact those comments result in changes to the text of the EIR, he would also make those revisions. He said the primary function is to determine if any information eliminates or significantly reduces the impacts previously identified and still meets the goals of the applicant. Chair Kunzweiler asked if the comments received tonight would receive responses. Ms. Henderson said that only those comments received during the public review period that ended in October 2009 would have written responses. Chair Kunzweiler opened the item to public comments. Public Comments: Scott Hochstrasser, planning consultant for the applicant, said he was initially taken aback by the Commission's concerns expressed at the September 2009 meeting regarding a reasonable range of alternatives. He said he later realized that the Commission did not have the same range of information he had already gathered through two years of studying and planning development at TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE EXHIBIT NO. tO this site. When the Town adopted the General Plan EIR in 2005, it contained specific information about this property that was generated out of information that he provided to the Town. He noted that the General Plan EIR identified this property as having opportunity for 20 units and he used two additional years of study to develop a project of only 14 units. He has been in this process since before 2005, has had a complete application with the Town since early 2007, and has spent the last two years on the EIR process. He has done everything he can and asked that the Commission direct staff to move forward with the project. Chair Kunzweiler reviewed the density allowed for the entire site, noted that 14 units is actually the maximum for this parcel, and said he believed this choice was based more on the requirements and site constraints than a significant level of generosity on the part of the applicant. He thanked the applicant for Alternative 4, which tells him that changes to the original plan did in fact reduce the impacts and that these kinds of creative changes are good for the applicant, good for the hillside, and good for the surrounding area. He questioned and confirmed with Mr. Hochstrasser that it is still the intent of the applicant to construct these homes. Chair Kunzweiler asked for a general idea of the construction timeline and whether the homes would be built on spec basis or all at once. Mr. Hochstrasser said that has not yet been determined. Jack Scholl, Acacia Drive, said his property looks out on Lots 9 through 12 and the fire road ridge. He voiced concern with development on the ridge and said any development should cluster homes around the existing driveway. He acknowledged the owner's desire to develop his property but said that, as a neighbor, he has obvious objections to the size, scale, and placement of the homes. Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League, said she is - concerned about the progressively increasing size of homes along Paradise Drive, the precedent set by past and future project approvals, and the changing character of the area. She is very familiar with CEQA criteria for recirculation of an EIR and that information received from new botanical surveys as well as from Alternative 4 could trigger that. She also noted that views of the site from San Francisco Bay have not been addressed well at all and that if addressed in the context of responses to comments, new significant impacts could be identified. Despite the improvements made by Alternative 4, she continues to feel that the extensive grading is due to excessively sized homes on excessively sized building envelopes. Randy Greenburg concurred with Ms. Denis and asked the Commission to take her.comments to heart. In her 16 years on the Planning Commission, she found that the best decision-making happens when the public has all the information it is entitled to. She said the CEQA process is a fairly objective way of getting this information and allows for peer, agency, and public review, which is why all information should come from EIR documents and not solely from the applicant. She acknowledged the applicant's offer to update biologic surveys and asked that they be overseen by the EIR consultant, not the applicant. She said the EIR alternatives analysis continues to be inadequate and does not offer an alternative that feasibly obtains the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the project. She said the applicant's offer of Alternative 4 is not the same as having an EIR, without vested interests, TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 EXHIBIT NO. 10 PAGE 4 create one for you and gives a skewed version of what is achievable in terms of impact reduction. She also noted that the DEIR lacks a view impact analysis from the bay, the largest and most used public transit way and recreational open space in the area. CEQA intends an analysis of and mitigations for the impacts to views of these significant secondary ridgelines and that the Planning Commission deserves the benefit of this information. She said recirculation of specific aspects of the EIR are called for and include the updated biological study, an alternative that reduces the impacts in a meaningful way, and a view impact analysis from San Francisco Bay. Commissioner Corcoran asked her to comment on how she might change Alternative 2. Ms. Greenburg said it seemed careless to have studied an alternative which inaccurately represented the densities that would be allowed under the County. She said a reasonable alternative should look closely at ways to reduce grading, increase clustering, decrease home sizes, and reduce view impacts. Sandra Swanson concurred with Ms. Greenburg and said CEQA requirements clearly indicate that the EIR consultant should be directed to gather and analyze new data, and then made to re- circulate a revised DEIR. Robert Swanson, Seafirth Road, said he raised concerns regarding views from San Francisco Bay at the last meeting and asked if those would be responded to in the DEIR. He believed it is significant enough to require re-circulation of at least that portion of the DEIR. Chair Kunzweiler said those comments would be responded to but that it is too early to determine if it would trigger recirculation. To comments regarding the character of Paradise Drive, Mr. Hochstrasser noted several significant estate type developments on the Town's zoning map. He said the die has been set, that this is an estate type residential development area and that this project is consistent with that. He noted that the General Plan requires developments to retain at least 50% of the land as open space and said this proposal allows for nearly 70%. He asked the Commission to support staff s recommendation and direct the EIR consultant to prepare a response to comments. Chair Kunzweiler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Corcoran asked how recirculation of only a portion of the DEIR would work. Mr. Anderson stated that CEQA does allow the option of re-circulating portions of a DEIR, provided the changes are not of a magnitude that would warrant revision and recirculation of the entire document. He said the EIR preparer would in that case be directed to make revisions to the document and the public review and comment period would be reopened. The Planning Commission would hold another public hearing on the re-circulated portions and then resume the process taking place this evening. Commissioner Corcoran asked how it is determined whether to re-circulate all or a portion of the DEIR. Mr. Anderson said it is typically fairly clear to the Commission and staff and that significant revisions involving multiple topical sections typically warrant recirculation of the entire document. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2010 MINUTES NO. 9EXHIBIT NO. 0 PAGE 5 Commissioner Corcoran said the consultant has done a good job of capturing an enormous project and the comments made at the last hearing. He found the comments regarding botanical surveys and views from the bay particularly helpful and said he would like to see Mr. Berman's reply to those comments. He agreed that more information would be helpful but did not think it would be significant enough to require recirculation. He reviewed the criteria for recirculation and said he would prefer greater analysis on Alternative 2. Commissioner Tollini asked how Alternative 4 was drafted. Ms. Henderson said she, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Berman met with the applicant to review the concerns identified through the public and Commission comments. They informed the applicant that it would be wise to develop a new alternative that could be prepared by Mr. Berman or preferably, the applicant. The applicant prepared Alternative 4, returned to staff for review, and then accepted it as their proposed project. Conunissioner Tollini said she read through the CEQA documents and believes there to be a high threshold for recirculation in terms of new information and project alternatives. She said the comments raised are valid and will be addressed in the Final EIR. She recommended the Commission direct the EIR preparer to move forward with the response to comments. Vice-Chair Frymier said the staff report successfully highlights the progress made on this project to date. She voiced continued concerns that the impacts on views from the bay have not been adequately addressed. She said she has a limited level of confidence that this Commission knows what this project will look like five years from now and that the environmental impacts of any project alternative have been appropriately emphasized. She said she tends to look at this project as a worst-case scenario of 14 homes built at the maximum FAR. Chair Kunzweiler said the alternatives outlined in the DEIR illustrate a variety of environmental impacts that are possible with any number of variations of the project. He said the point is not to develop as many alternatives as possible but to ensure that the studied alternatives provide a useful illustration of all possible impacts. He noted that the project is not cast in stone and that based on the findings of the EIR, the Commission will have opportunity to make alterations to the project in the merits phase. He said the merits stage cannot begin without an understanding of the environmental dimensions of this property so the Commission can make sound determinations on what is ultimately the project. .l Commissioner Corcoran asked if re-circulation would be necessary if the Commission was to direct additional biological surveys and analysis of view impacts from the bay. Mr. Berman said the applicant has already committed to conducting additional biological surveys, which will be subject to peer review by the EIR biologist. He said it is possible that through that process, new information will be identified which triggers the CEQA requirement for recirculation. Based on current information, however, he did not believe that would be the outcome, but conceded that it is possible. Ms. Henderson stated that re-circulation would not be required prior to obtaining that information. If, in the process of following the Commission's direction, significant new EXHIBIT No. C TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 6 information is identified, Mr. Berman would return to staff and the Commission for a determination. Commissioner Corcoran asked if that analysis is ongoing, even past certification of the Final EIR. Mr. Berman explained that surveys would most likely continue through June because of the blooming period of the special status plant species. He noted that a peer review of the applicant's proposed surveys did recommend some additional clarification and surveys and said the Commission would have an opportunity to review that information before making a final certification. Commissioner Corcoran said he was reassured that surveys will be ongoing. Based on that premise and the direction regarding further analysis of views from the bay, he supported moving forward with the response to comments. Chair Kunzweiler said he found this to be a very complete DEIR on an extraordinarily complicated and important piece of property. He said the current document identifies significant visual impacts which, per earlier comments and the Commission's direction, will be addressed and also identifies significant noise impacts associated with construction that are unavoidable and will have to be dealt with. He asked staff what the Commission could expect in terms of concerns raised about views from the bay. Ms. Henderson said the issue was raised during circulation of the DEIR and will be analyzed and responded to by the EIR preparer. She said that if the analysis should determine that significant impacts would result, that portion of the document would require re-circulation. Chair Kunzweiler noted that significant view impacts are already identified. Ms. Henderson clarified that no significant impacts on views from the bay have yet been identified; only impacts to views from the Middle Ridge open space area. Chair Kunzweiler said that while he appreciates the identification of cumulative unavoidable impacts, it is not fair to penalize an applicant for the impacts created by others. Ms. Henderson explained that because of the identified significant impacts, the Commission would likely need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it wishes to approve the project. She said the same pertains to the project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts. Mr. Anderson rioted that the General Plan EIR identified those same cumulative impacts and determined that, at build-out of the peninsula, those impacts would be unavoidable. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to find that no significant new information requiring re- circulation of the DEIR has arisen and, therefore, direct the EIR consultant to prepare the response to comments and Final EIR. Motion carried: 4-0 MINUTES: 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 10, 2010 EXHIBIT NO. ~ 0 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 24, 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 988 September 23, 2009 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Kunzweiler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Kunzweiler, Vice Chair Fraser, and Commissioners Corcoran and Frymier Absent: Commissioner O'Donnell Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Consulting Planner Henderson, Environmental Consultant Berman, and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director of Community Development Anderson reported that the Town Council will again discuss the Martha Company project at its October 7th meeting. He reported on future agenda items and stated that the Parente Vista hearing has been continued once again and will not be discussed on October 14. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROPOSED ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN THE VICINITY OF 3825 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #30701; Rabin/Soda LLC, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-10 Director Anderson introduced Diane Henderson, Planning Consultant, and Bob Berman, EIR Consultant, and stated that Ms. Henderson would present the staff report. Ms. Henderson stated that the purpose of the hearing is to receive public comment on the Draft EIR (DEIR) for a proposed project encompassing approximately 52 acres in the vicinity of 3825 Paradise Drive. The proposed development, known as the Alta Robles Project, involves a proposal for the ultimate subdivision of two parcels. Approximately 20.95 acres (SODA) of the site are located within an unincorporated portion of Marin County, within the Town of Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and approximately 31.26 acres (Rabin) of the site are located within the Town. The project would also entail eventual annexation of the SODA property into the Town. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE I EXHIBIT NO. Ms. Henderson said that the property owner has submitted applications for the Precise Development Plan, annexation, and prezoning. She noted that actual annexation would be acted on by Marin LAFCO who will use the EIR that the Town certifies. Tonight's goal is to receive comments on the DEIR pertaining to its focus, identification of potential project impacts, mitigation development, and identification of project alternatives. Ms. Henderson summarized the findings of the DEIR, which concentrated on the following areas of potential impact: land use and planning, transportation, air quality, noise, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, geology and soils, public services and utilities, visual quality, and cultural resources. The DEIR identified two areas of significant unavoidable impacts of the project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the identified mitigation measures. These are 1) that project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; and 2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site when viewed from Tiburon's Middle Ridge Open Space. The DEIR also examined the cumulative impacts of this project and several other residential development projects on the Tiburon Peninsula that are in various stages of construction or are under review. Five potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts were identified and relate to traffic on Highway 101 and at the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Trestle Glen Boulevard, construction noise, views, and wildlife habitat and connectivity. Ms. Henderson stated that CEQA requires the EIR to identify alternatives to the project which both reduce potential impacts and meet the project applicant's goals. These alternatives include two, on-site No Project alternatives, potential off-site project locations, and an on-site development alternative which would retain the existing Rabin residence and allow the lower 20.95 acre (SODA) parcel to be developed with 8 residential units under the County's current zoning standards. She said that aside from the No Project/No Build Alternative, the DEIR has identified the on-site development alternative as environmentally superior. Although the significant impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, the inclusion of the proposed revisions would reduce the degree of certain impacts; however, such impacts would remain significant and in need of mitigation measures. She noted that the EIR outlines relatively few project alternatives and attributed this to the extensive surveys and work already put in by the applicant, prior to submitting applications. Mr. Berman discussed the project's consistency with relevant public plans and policies. He noted that the project is inconsistent with General Plan Goal LU-1 and Policy LU-15 in terms of the project's size and scale relative to existing dwellings in the surrounding area. Homes in the proposed development would range in size from 6,300 to 7,980 square feet, or 1.5 to 2 times the size of existing homes along Hacienda Drive and Acacia Drive. He also noted that the proposed development on lots 4 and 5 would fall within a 50-foot vertical setback from Tiburon Ridge and is, therefore, inconsistent with Policy OSC-11. Mr. Berman reviewed the DEIR's hydrology analysis, concluding that the project's design capacity could be met by the proposed storm water runoff cisterns and would not adversely affect peak flows to existing culverts under Paradise Drive. He cited 4 special status plant species TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE 2 EXHIBIT NO. < identified on the project site, with the impacts to Marin Western Flax and Tiburon Buckwheat being of particular concern; however, the proposed mitigations would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Of the 261 trees slated for removal for the purpose of grading or erosion repair, 107 qualify as a protected tree under the Town's Tree Ordinance, and that while much of the site's developed existing oak woodland would remain intact, it could be indirectly impacted by future requirements in terms of fire management practices and the creation of defensible space. He noted discrepancies between the applicant's tree replacement recommendation, the preliminary planting plan, and the preliminary planting plan that was submitted with the recommendation. He also noted that the biologist recommends that any goal to replace trees which are removed through site development should be balanced with the importance of maintaining the open grassland habitat. Mr. Berman discussed the visual impacts identified by the DEIR, which were evaluated from three viewpoints: looking north from Middle Ridge Open Space, looking west from Paradise Drive, and looking east from Acacia Drive. The DEIR concluded that new homes would be visible on 12 of the 13 proposed lots from the Middle Ridge Open Space Viewpoint and that its close proximity to houses on Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, which have a mostly exposed :tenor surface, would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Mr. Berman stated that the proposed site contains 18 mapped landslides, for which the applicant's geologist has proposed 4 different methods of stabilization: use of compacted filled buttresses, subsurface drainage, retaining structures, and debris fences. He said that these methods, as proposed, are consistent with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. Mr. Berman closed in stating that he believes the DEIR complies with CEQA requirements and offers decision makers the latitude to select, from the proposed application and identified alternatives, a project that is feasible and achieves the objectives of the applicant. Ms. Henderson reiterated that the purpose of this hearing is to receive comments which will be addressed in the Final EIR. She advised that comments should focus only on the sufficiency of the DEIR in discussing possible impacts, ways in which these impacts might be minimized and feasible alternatives to the project that would reduce these impacts; comments regarding the merits of the project itself would be inappropriate at this time. Chair Kunzweiler opened the public hearing for comments on the Draft EIR. .l Public Comments: Judith Thompson said her property abuts the proposed project site. She said that one proposed walking path is situated at the property line and gives way to concerns for her privacy. She said that the other public path can only be accessed through her property, noting that she has granted no easement. She requested that the locations of both paths be reconsidered, out of consideration of impacts to her privacy, light and air. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 23.2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE 3 EXHIBIT NO . Eva Buxton said she is a biologist, specializing in botany, and objected to the analysis of impacts on biological resources, specifically the loss of serpentine grass, located within the northern portion of the SODA parcel. She requested that the extreme loss of vegetation be listed as the third significant unavoidable impact. She said that the applicant's surveys were incorrectly timed, incomplete, and failed to accurately map serpentine grassland populations across the site. She noted that Marin Dwarf Flax is categorized as threatened under both state and federal endangered species acts and can be found near Lot 13. She said that when soil disturbance is experienced to the extent that is outlined in the DEIR, the restoration of obliterated native grasslands would be considered extremely costly and ultimately improbable. She expressed concern that surveys were performed over 4 years ago and that surveys should not be performed in August. She requested that additional biological surveys be required, that serpentine grasslands should be accurately mapped on the SODA parcel, that grading boundaries on Lots 109 11, and 12 are modified to protect more of the native grassland, and that Lot 13 be eliminated from the proposed project to avoid extrication of a large population of Marin Dwarf Flax. Jan Gullett expressed concern about the extensive grading proposed on Lots 10 through 14. He said all residents on Acacia Drive and many on Hacienda Drive look across the ridge to the bay, a view that would be significantly impacted by the proposed project and the proposed alternatives. He believed that the disparity in lot sizes throughout the project (particularly Lot 1) places the bulk of development in an environmentally precarious location and further increases impacts and it is disingenuous to consider the project in terms of total number of lots relative to total parcel size. Sandra Swanson four several photographs with the Commission, stating that the DEIR does not contain view photos indicating the proposed project's Middle Ridge view impacts to homes on Seafirth Drive. She requested that the EIR project these viewpoints once the trees have been removed and analyze the data as it pertains to obtrusiveness, noise, air quality, and other impacts. She believes that Lot 14 is missing from the photo. She also asked that the EIR identify the number of trees at risk for indirect removal or decline and provide a breakdown of tree removals per lot. She indicated more trees could be removed for fire mitigation. She said that the calculated community noise equivalent does not account for decibel levels created by chainsaws, augers, and wood chippers and asked that it be recalculated. She read from the DEIR pertaining to mitigation measures for tree loss and erosion repair, said that these impacts cannot be made less than significant, and requested additional project alternatives that relocate home sites further from woodland areas, decrease the number of lots, decrease building envelopes, and increase clustering to minimize all impacts. Doug Woodram echoed Ms. Swanson's comments. He suggested a project alternative that allows for fewer total homes, develops both parcels, and increases tree mitigation measures. He said there is opportunity for a middle ground solution that meets the goals of the applicant while reducing unavoidable significant impacts. Norman Traeger said he lives directly below the Rabin parcel, cited several neighboring properties in various stages of development planning, and said he will feel the impacts of each one every time he leaves his home. He reviewed the identified impacts, stating that each is temporary and unavoidable or a product of progress and therefore, unavoidable. Several TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23.2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT N0. incredibly large homes have already been built on the ridgeline and these are the product of poor planning in years past; however, he said this proposal is thoughtful and carefully designed to minimize impacts. Jahan Sedaghatfar, licensed architect and planner, said he has watched this beautiful town follow a poorly developed path of progress, he requested a third party review of the DEIR and asked that the number and size of homes be further limited. He said that mitigation is an academic word and urged a design that creates fewer impacts. Robert Swanson complimented Mr. Berman on a comprehensive and scholarly DEIR. He cited "progress" within the Town which has, in his opinion, diminished the quality of life for residents. While this project does not significantly add to the cumulative effect, those impacts have not been addressed to his satisfaction. He said that the majority of proposed home sites encroach upon significant ridgelines. He acknowledged the DEIR analysis of those impacts from certain vantage points, but requested that it do the same from the position of San Francisco Bay, as well. He also asked the EIR to account for the visual impacts of proposed retaining walls and loss of trees on the Sorokko site, which screen the entire area. He advised that all EIRs should provide better mitigation definition, a more comprehensive approach towards cumulative impacts, and better resolution of significant unavoidable impacts. Anne Norman requested that quality of life impacts, which are significant, be discussed in the EIR. Kenneth Marks stated that building his own home on Paradise Drive cost him 11 years, several lawsuits, and considerable money and he said this applicant seems to be in a similar situation. He indicated that the only way to develop here is with significant costs and Tiburon has grown into a town that he does not like anymore. Randy Greenberg discussed the proposed project's excavation, stating that the DEIR lacks discussion and mitigation measures in this area. She said that the document appears to accept extensive grading as a given and operates on the assumption that this grading is a Town requirement and is therefore, not an impact. She asked that this be rectified. She said that the extensive grading requirements are the result of too many units and poor placement relative to the entire project site. She requested that the EIR provide mitigation in the form of reduced grading for landslide repair, as well as an alternative which avoids at least a portion of the sites requiring this repair. She questioned the adequacy of the proposed alternatives, noting that the preferred Alternative 3 requires all of the same mitigation measures required by the proposed project and does not lessen any of the impacts. She asked that the EIR provide a reduced density alternative and argued that Alternative 2 relies on County zoning standards that do not apply to this parcel. Chair Kunzweiler closed the public comment period. Vice-Chair Fraser said that when he first visited the project site, he saw a beautiful piece of land with excellent views and the opportunity for development. The DEIR, which was well crafted, has left him disappointed with the project's impacts on the site itself and the surrounding area. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE 5 EXHIBIT NCB. He questioned the lack of alternatives provided by the DEIR and concurred with Ms. Greenberg that the assumption of the high end use of County zoning density for Alternative 2 is unrealistic. He struggled with the concept that all identified mitigations are based on a project which encroaches upon ridgelines and significantly impacts existing landscape, vegetation, and hydrology. He shared particular concern that the identified mitigations would be insufficient to restore land that has been so significantly disrupted. The project should be also designed to protect open space. Vice-Chair Fraser requested more depth and research on possible mitigations. He noted that miscellaneous site issues with respect to slope, grading, and slides are left up to the individual who purchases the site and therefore are not accurately accounted for in the cumulative impacts. He disagreed with the DEIR findings which determined land use issues, as they relate to the General Plan, were mitigated to less than significant levels. He said the DEIR is flawed and fails to identify appropriate means and mitigation measures for developing a property with significant natural resources, numerous ridgelines, and 18 landslides. He disagreed with the DEIR findings regarding consistency with the General Plan in both land use and open space issues. Commissioner Corcoran said that many of the identified issues directly relate to the proposed size of the homes. He said that the DEIR could be helpful in suggesting alternative lot placements, particularly for Lots 4-6 and 12-14, which would decrease certain impacts on views and the ridgeline. He suggested a fourth alternative that combines Alternatives 2 and 3 by reducing the number of homes, relocating and/or removing specific problem lots, and clustering lots. He also asked that the alternative reduce the number of homes (perhaps to 11) and the square footage of proposed homes as well as the number of trees removed. Vice-Chair Fraser discussed neighborhood harmony, noting that the proposed homes are nearly double the size of those on Hacienda Drive and at least 36% larger than homes on Acacia Drive. Commissioner Frymier said she visited the project site and attempted to envision it relative to the Town 20 years ago when new development was taking place throughout the peninsula. She acknowledged the comments shared by the public but advised that any new project in this community is almost considered guilty until proven innocent. She said that she found the maps difficult to read and cumbersome, especially with respect to the proposed alternatives. She believes the DEIR should better articulate how entryways ended up where they are. She is concerned with fences and retaining walls. She believes that the alternatives seem to present their own environmental threat, the entire document lacks perspective from inbound water views, and that the cumulative impacts on transportation were not well covered. She voiced concern over ridgeline encroachment and requested that the comments of Ms. Buxton be incorporated into the report. She closed by stating that the construction schedule should be more specific and that ultimately, the homes feel too large for the project. Chair Kunzweiler echoed the comments of Vice-Chair Fraser, stating that the project began with a well-developed assumption of 13 new homes on a relatively large parcel and has been significantly challenged by features such as ridgelines, landslides, and protected species. He acknowledged that the Town'has strict landslide management guidelines but said that they are relevant to the impact in and around proposed houses and only require remediation to the extent TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23.2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE 6 EXHIBIT NO ( that is dictated by structure placement. He requested one or two project alternatives that would provide a better understanding of the differences, pros, and cons between each alternative. He advised that these alternatives should include different schematics in terms of site location, road placement, home size, and grading and should focus on what will best suit the property rather than a set number of homes. Chair Kunzweiler said that the property's entrance could be better considered as he is confused as to the design of the road and voiced concern with its placement on what is now the fire road. He also voiced concern with the potential for a 120-foot long retaining wall fronting Paradise Drive and said it makes the argument for neighborhood compatibility challenging. He also requested more specificity regarding the project's construction time, cited a backlog of approved, large scale projects and stated that the County and Town need to have better understanding of the related cumulative construction impacts. Also, the mitigation measure for road degradation was vague and meaningless. He also cited several mitigation measures which were almost contradictory to what was being mitigated. He also expressed concern with views as well as sight lines along Paradise Drive. i Chair Kunzweiler said that the DEIR's fundamental challenge relates to consistency with the Town's General Plan. He noted that the document determined the project to be remarkably consistent with the plan's Land Use Element and he disagrees with approximately 80% of those findings, stating that they operate on a flawed assumption. He explained that a project's features cannot be considered consistent if they are optional. He advised against determining that mitigations are acceptable simply by virtue of being required, concurred with Commissioner Frymier's assessment of the maps, he feels they are too small, the angles are inconsistent and not all walls are shown. He encouraged visual analysis from other viewpoints, including from Seafirth and upper areas. 2. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE REFORMATTING AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONINIG ORDINACE; FILE #MCA 2008-09; CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 ACTION: It was M/S (Fraser/Corcoran) to continue the hearing without discussion to October 141 2009. Motion carried: 4-0. MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of September 9, 2009 ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Fraser) to approve the minutes of September 9, 2009 as submitted. Motion carried: 4-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 23.2009 MINUTES NO. 988 PAGE 7 EXHIBIT NO ( k PUBLIC HEARING 2. ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:-3825 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #30701; CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPLICATIONS FOR PRE ZONING AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 14-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSED ON 52.12 ACRES; Planned Development #20; Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-12 and 039-301-01 Diane Henderson, contract planner- for the Town, presented the staff report. She described the project and the EIR process thus far. She noted that the Draft EIR concluded that the project could result in potentially two significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Those impacts were related to temporary construction noise and to views of the site fiom Middle Ridge Open Space. The Draft EIR also identified five significant unavoidable cumulative impacts fiom the project in combination with all other development at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula. She stated that numerous public comments were received both in writing and verbally regarding the need to look at an additional alternative to the proposed development. The applicants subsequently developed Alternative 4, a reduced development plan that sets out to address the significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Alternative 4 has been adopted by the applicant as the project and as such, can be included in the Final EIR without the need to re-circulate the document. She described additional photo simulations prepared as part of the Final EIR that indicated that there would not be significant impact when viewed from the bay. Updated studies have been provided and are included in the Final EIR, which identified no new significant impacts. She stated that staff has reviewed the Final EIR and believes it to be compliant with the California Enviroiunental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommended that the Commission recomnnend certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council. She described issues related to ridgeline setbacks with the revised project design. As currently proposed, Lot 4 still remains within the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback and it is unlikely any development could occur- on that lot without violating the setback. As a result, staff has recommended elimination of Lot 4 and any development in that location. Alternative 4 adjusted lot lines of Lots 4, 5 and 6, moved lot lines of Lots 13 and 14, and reduced the house size of Lot 14 by 1,800 square feet. The alternative also greatly reduced the arnount of grading proposed, much of which was in response to the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. The revised project now includes only 3 retaining walls that exceed 6 feet in height, and most walls become either walls of the house or will not be visible from off-site. Alternative 4 made significant changes to the roadway connecting the two sites, -which previously required significant grading and retaining walls. The new solution essentially constructs a bridge connecting the two terrains. She stated that staff believes that the applicants have truly addressed the concerns raised, with the one outstanding issue being impacts to Significant Ridgelines 5 and 6. Staff believes it would be very difficult to develop this site without violating some of the terns of policies regarding developing on ridgelines. Ms. Henderson noted the Town has shown some flexibility with EXHIBIT NO. 1 ?0- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 201.1 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 3 significant ridgeline setbacks in the past and, in fact, the location of the existing roadway is in violation of what the current ridgeline policies would allow. Commissioner Kunzweiler requested more information on cumulative impacts and how this truly relates to an individual project application. Director of Community Development Anderson said that cumulative impacts have previously been identified in the Tiburon General Plan EIR as impacts that will occur with build-out of the Tiburon peninsula. He said that these impacts do not amount to much at an individual project level, and only become cumulative at the General Plan build-out level. He stated that in approving its General Plan, the Town accepted and agreed to live with these cumulative development impacts. • Commissioner Kunzweiler said that he was taken aback by Alternative 4, which makes modest changes to Alternative 3 but does not address the significant unavoidable impacts. He asked what guidance CEQA offers in determining the adequacy of an alternative and whether Mr. Bennan was satisfied with the analysis provided by Alternative 4. Environmental consultant Bennan stated that the intent of Alternative 4 was to look at ways to reduce specific impacts identified in EIR. He said that the alternative was successful in terns of reducing those impacts to less than significant levels with the exception of views from Middle Ridge Open Space. He said that the Commission now has a range of alternatives with a range of units from which it may choose and to which it may also make further revisions. He noted that alternatives typically deal with physical impacts as opposed to policy conflicts, and some of the remaining issues with this project are not the types of variations to be dealt with in an EIR. He believed Alternative 4 to be an adequate response in keeping with the EIR process and that the EIR provides the Commission with adequate information to proceed. Ms. Henderson said that staff concurs with the position that Alternative 4 is a separate and adequate alternative. She reviewed the additional modifications recommended in the staff report, which do attempt to address policy impacts further than was done in the EIR. Chair Frymier noted that the Commission had read all correspondence items related to the project, including late mail, and she asked the public to limit comments to new information. She opened the public hearing and requested the applicant's presentation of the project. Shira Rabin, applicant, said that her family takes great pride in having created a sustainable and environmentally harmonious development that would minimize the impacts associated with such a constrained site. She said that since the last project hearing, they have further revised and improved the plan to address additional concerns and constraints. She said that they hosted an additional community meeting the previous week and were pleased to hear some praise and thoughtful comments. She said that the primary theme of concern was related to the potential for a "bait and switch" on the proposed home designs, and this has never been their plan, nor is it what they want. In addition to the Town's own practices and policies, she said that they would like to commit that the Ken Kao-designed homes proposed would be what would actually be built on the property and they would agree to language that deviations from this plan would require individual property owners to obtain a PDP amendment. EXHIBIT NO. 12- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 4 She said that her family has been an excellent steward of the land and as they would be most affected by what happens here; they have designed a project that they can live beside. She thought that this application was one of the most thorough and well thought out ever- submitted the Town and encouraged the Commission to certify the EIR. Scott Hochstrasser, environmental consultant, presented a PowerPoint slide show. He discussed both existing and approved development in the surrounding area and said that the SODA parcel, if developed under the County's jurisdiction, could likely yield the same significant development potential as the Sorokko property below. He reviewed the studies commissioned by the applicant, which were combined in an overlay map to demonstrate the development constraints identified in the general plan. He stated that this leaves two relatively small envelopes of developable area on the site. He noted that a significant portion of the project's ridgeline impacts result directly from these site constraints. He discussed what he felt were concessions on the applicant's part, including reducing the density from the maximum 20 units allowed under the general plan to 14 units and proposing homes mostly ranging fi-om 6,500 to 7,500 square feet in size on 1.5-acre lots. He noted that some homes were further reduced in size as a result of the EIR findings. He added that the applicant was offering 21.5% more open space than required by the general plan as well as development of a trail adjacent to Hacienda Drive. Ken Kao, project architect and master plamier, continued the PowerPoint presentation. He demonstrated how the project attempts to cluster buildings and how each home would be individually shaped to conform to the contours of the land. He discussed the latest revisions to Lots 4, 5, 6, and 14. He also discussed the green design elements of the project, which attempt to minimize the perception of massing by limiting exposed volume and appreciable view. He stated that this would be accomplished through benned-type homes, terraced designs, reduced exposed apertures, natural materials, and earthen forms. He said that the project presents a wonderful opportunity to expand on passive home design, perhaps through geothermal or solar energy and vegetative covering. Mr. Hochstrasser stated that approximately 776 trees currently exist on the property, only 323 of which are native. While the project proposes to remove about 261 trees, he said that 253 trees would be planted. He explained that the removal to planting ratio is just short of one for one because of the extensive native grassland and plant habitats that should not be changed. He discussed Alternative 4 in greater detail, stating that in addition to reducing landslide repair grading by roughly 5%, it would eliminate 362 linear feet of retaining walls and limit the average visibility of retaining walls to 2 to 5 feet in height. He briefly discussed the proposed bridge and landscape design. Varda Rabin said that as stewards of the property, she and her family focused on the selection of an architect who truly understood the land and could offer the most integrated design. She said that Mr. Kao is the foremost architect in the field of environmentally integrated design. She is not a professional developer and as such, is looking to preserve the valuable features of the land while also creating something where she, her children, and others would be proud to live. She t~'XHIBIT NO. 12- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 5 believed that the proposal truly captured the spirit of Tiburon and requested the Commission's support. Chair Frymier asked if her fellow Commissioners had any questions of the applicants. Commissioner Kunzweiler acknowledged the applicant's comments regarding stewardship, but said that he had trouble reconciling that with such an intense use of the land. Mr. Hochstrasser replied that it is unlikely there are many projects of this size that would show similar sensitivity to and use of the guidelines and direction provided within the general plan. He said the general plan indicates that this site has potential for up to 20 units, but in respecting the other goals and constraints identified, the applicant reduced that back to 14 units. He said that the home size proposed would be consistent with the character of the community and surrounding land use patterns. He also noted that while Lot 4 would present some ridgeline setback issues, a close look at the surrounding area would show no less than 16 other homes violating ridgeline constraints. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that the conceptual designs are lovely, but he asked how the applicant proposed to enforce what was presented. Mr. Hochstrasser said that that would be more an issue of how the Town would propose to enforce its oven approvals. He said that the Town has the policies, prograins, and laws in place to ensure that the project as proposed would be the project that would be built. He stated that the Rabin family is committed to building the-cutting- edge project outlined through the design criteria proposed, and approval of the project should offer the Town the ability to enforce those criteria. Chair Frymier asked Mr. Kao to discuss his experience with residential projects of this size. Mr. Kao said he has worked on several projects with homes ranging in size from 3,500 to 15,000 square feet. He said that most of his work relates to the master plain-ing phase and few clients see the need to design as intensively in this phase as the Rabins have. He said that none of the projects are complete developments yet, as something of this magnitude takes a significant amount of time. Commissioner Doyle asked how the applicants see this proceeding, should the Commission approve the project. Mr. Hochstrasser said that there would be another 2.5 to 3 years of additional processing before any work could begin. He said that there is no intent to construct the entire development at once, but they would likely address all infrastructure improvements up front. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing to continents from interested persons. Mark Goldstein said the architectural work done for the project is phenomenal but he voiced concerns with the utopian sense of vision. He fully supported the applicant being able to profit fi-om their land, but he could not understand why stewards of the land would propose this density, mass, and grading. He was hoping for much more than a nip and tuck in Alternative 4. EXHIBIT NO. 1 Z- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 6 He said the Sorokko property was a poor model to cite and what happens there or has happened in the past is less important than what will happen in the future. Eva Buxton said that she had many concerns relating to the project, portions of which she addressed in a letter to staff. She noted that the project calls for removal of roughly 165 native oaks trees, a number of which are heritage trees and would result in a great loss. She requested that tree mitigation measures be expressed in more detail and that a specific in-lieu fee value be detennined. She also asked that the applicant consult with a botanist before installing plantings, as some of the species shown in the presentation were not native. Douglas Currens said that he has been an immediate neighbor of the Rabins for 20 years and he strongly supported the application. He said that he should be generally opposed to any development here, but he found this to be an acceptable compromise over what is allowed under the Town's general plan. He said that the project does an excellent job of integrating design into the natural environment while still allowing for expansive views. He thought that the desirable and visionary design elements would bring architectural and envirorunental acclaim to the town. He said that the applicants, who would suffer most from poor plaruzing, were clearly just trying to preserve their- legacy and have done an exemplary job of trying to meet the high standards set forth in the Town's guidelines. He felt that the project was worthy and he would be pleased to see such homes built across from his own. Sharon Strauss said that she has known the applicants as philanthropists, supporters of many community causes, and environmentally sensitive. She said that they designed their project with the utmost attention to green design because it is the right thing to do. She supported the project without hesitation and hoped that the Commission would do the same. Norm Traeger said that he owns 23 acres contiguous to the Sorokko and SODA properties. He supported this project, but greatly regretted that it was not proposed 20 years ago. He felt that a project of this scope and sensitivity would have sent the right signal to the Design Review Board, the Building Division, and other developers. He said that the project would forever change the character of Paradise Drive for the better and he asked the Commission to both support and to encourage this sort of landmark construction. Nona Dennis, Mann Conservation League, said that she has watched the progressive increase in size, density, and insensitivity to scene and character along Paradise Drive. She questioned the Commission's ability to make the finding of overriding considerations needed to certify the EIR. She characterized Alternative 4 as a variant, not an alternative, and asked why Alternative 2 was not given greater attention. She was baffled by the continued creep of home size, particularly as recent surveys are finding that larger homes are becoming obsolete in the demography of increasing age. She asked how the common open space areas would be managed over time so that they truly constitute a whole and viable open space. She said that although individual areas of concern have been mitigated, the project as a whole was too much for this site. Annette Gellert said that she is a long-time environmentalist and has worked with Varda Rabin in the advocacy of green planting. She asked the Commission to envision what a different community tlus would be if each home were designed with the sensitivity shown here. She said EXHIBIT NO. 1 Z TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE f that the applicants have done an amazing job of evaluating how the project will impact the community and said that fi-om an envirornrnental standpoint, the Town can do no better than what is proposed. Alex Gerson said that the project would provide the community with a tremendous amount of open space in exchange for a low density development. As a close neighbor, he was pleased with the proposal, said that this showed the hard work and diligence of the Planning Commission. He said that the applicant's record of accomplishment supported the green concept and the proposal was in line with market demands. Regina VValdman said that the Rabins are staunch and relentless defenders of ecology, clean air, and open space, and the project directly reflects the nature of their philosophy. She supported the project as something the Town could be proud of and future generations would benefit fiom. Dan Waldman said that he views this property directly from his home and he travels past the proposed project frequently. He expressed concern with what the visual impacts would mean for him and the community, but said that he had great respect for the applicants and their vision. He appreciated that 1/3 of the property would be dedicated in perpetuity to open space and also that the applicant was willing to lock in the scope and forward thinking design presented as part of the project. He understood the applicants to be great stewards of the land and felt that their high ethical standards would ensure the implementation of this design. Sandra Swanson said that the Califonnia Supreme Court calls the general plan the Town's "Constitution" for future development. She read fi om the general plan, noting particular areas that speak to land use. She said that the Seafirth neighborhood would be tremendously affected by the significant unmitigated impacts, and asked the Commission to consider what 15 years' worth of construction noise would mean for the community. She requested that controls be put in place to require that Mr. Kao's specific designs be built. She also requested that the Commission either re-establish the original traffic study or require a new one using a consultant not hired by the applicant. She said that the remaining impacts could be greatly reduced by requiring fewer and smaller homes, increased clustering, and no ridgeline interference. Randy Greenberg stated that Alternatives 3 and 4 were identical in terns of impacts and mitigation measures. She said that the inability to provide an alternative that both accomplishes the project objectives and minimizes impacts made the project merits questionable. She said that the project did not give ridgeline policies the respect they are due and only applies general plan policies where convenient. She said that these policies, which are very clear and important to the residents of Tiburon, should be defended. She stated that ridgelines give a sense of place and space and, as many were lost to development that preceded implementation of these policies, those that are left should be protected. She said that the Conunission's direction to the applicant should not be about what specific number of units would be suitable, but rather that the project must be amended to bring impacts more in line with the Town's goals and policies, and to leave the most visible portions of the ridgelines undeveloped. Becky Pringle said that she supported the efforts of the applicants but hoped the Commission would be able to balance private property rights with the rural character of Paradise Drive, traffic EXHIBIT NO. t.2- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 100 PAGE 8 from both existing and approved development using Paradise Drive and Trestle Glen Boulevard, and a more appropriate concept of home size. She said that the applicants have done a nice job, but there was still room for more thoughtful care of these concerns. Judith Thompson said that she lives immediately next door to the applicants. She said that she had repeatedly raised issues with the proposed trail head which begins right in her front yard. She said that the applicant had proposed plantings to separate the entrance from her property, but this would obstruct her views. She said that there would not be suitable access and parking at the proposed trail location, leaving the public to park on and traverse her property, and she was frustrated that the issue has not been addressed, but she otkerwise supported the project. Robert Swanson said that many of the concerns with the EIR that he raised at the last public hearing have not been addressed. He said that while there has been a drastic erosion of private property rights over the years, the applicants' efforts to exercise their rights would greatly infringe upon his rights. He asked what assurances the applicant could provide that future site owners would be constrained to build a home as designed by Mr. Kao and questioned how they would know what is expected of them. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. She asked the Commissioners to provide their continents at this time on the issues of EIR certification and the prezoning of the SODA property. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that this is a very challenging project. He said that it was unfortunate that a richer and more illustrative range of alternatives was not offered in the EIR, as the project had improved with each revision. That said, he believed that the Commission had the opportunity to review and refine the project during the merits phase. He continued to be very concerned with the traffic studies, noting that the most recent study conveniently carne up with speeds that were perfectly in line with the site distances available. He expressed specific concern with the use of the fire road for construction equipment. He thought that there was no question that the applicants had good intentions but the project needed to be better balanced with the general plan's objectives. He doubted that the EIR process would offer any more assistance in this area and said that he would support certifying the EIR so that the merits phase and project refinement process could begin. Commissioner Tollini concurred. She said that the Draft EIR, response to comments and Final EIR were all quite extensive. She did not necessarily agree with all their conclusions, but felt that any other issues could be addressed during review of the project merits and she recommended certification of the EIR. Vice-Chair Corcoran concurred. He said that both the Commission and rnenlbers of the public requested an additional alternative that would provide concrete changes over what was previously presented. He was rather disappointed with what came back [Alternative 4] and did not think that it was in line with what was requested; however, he felt that the EIR was adequate and complete and he could support recommending its certification. EXHIBIT NO.~ TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 9 Commissioner Doyle also agreed. He said that -what was presented by the applicant was clearly the product of considerable work, which was exactly what this project deserved. He voiced support of certification of the EIR but said that there was clearly much more to discuss. Chair Frymier echoed the previous coininents, stating that most of the comments heard at this meeting relate to the project merits, and she was prepared to move forward with very specific direction to the applicant. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution recommending certification of the Alta Robles Final EIR to the Town Council. Motioir carried: 5-0. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to adopt the resolution recommnending prezomng of the SODA property to the Town Council. Motion carried: 5-0. BREAK - Chair Frymier called a brief break, and thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. She asked Commissioners to provide their initial comments on the merits of the Precise Development Plan (PDP). Commissioner Kunzweiler said that his concerns in no way reflect his opinion of the applicants' intent, but there is debate over what constitutes intense development, reasonable development, and good stewardship. He said that he approaches his position as a Commissioner with the belief that the general plan is in fact the Town's equivalent of the "Constitution" and that it contains guidelines that both the Commission and the public spent much time developing. He said that this site presents real difficulties in balancing a profitable development with the general plan's policies, which very strongly discourage construction on ridgelines. He said that the general plan also discusses neighborhood compatibility, and while this project may be consistent with certain developments that have not yet been built, such as the Sorokko project, it would be inconsistent with the Seafirth, Acacia and Nonnan Way neighborhoods. He said that the project flies in the face of much of the general plan. He said that he was prepared to be flexible, but he could not see an argument to support the contention that the proposed density and size would be consistent with the general plan. He said that it was disconcerting to see so little progress"made with [Alternative 4] since the last meeting, but did commend the applicants' willingness to encourage innovative design and to keep Mr. Kao involved. He said that he was not prepared to vote on the PDP at this time but would ask the development team to return with a design that demonstrates consistency with the general plan. He wanted to see if there were other alternatives, including reducing the number and/or size of homes or clustering dwellings, that would be more consistent with the general plan or lessen the impacts of the project. Commissioner Tollini said that she believes in the applicants' rights to develop their own property, but it is the Commission's role to ensure it is done responsibly and in accordance with the general plan. She said that while the proposed density was technically supported by the EXHIBIT NO--E:~-- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 10 general plan, the overall project was not in line with its direction regarding ridgelines. She said that she would like to see another project design that better addresses ridgeline policies, whether that is achieved by decreasing the density or perhaps by clustering homes away from sensitive areas. She was impressed with the amount of work done thus far, loved the design of the homes, and said that she would be more comfortable if it could be guaranteed that the homes presented this evening would be the homes that would be built. She said that there was not sufficient protection of the ridgelines. She said that she would also like to see more in the way of traffic studies and alternative locations for the public trailhead for the Ridge Trail. Vice-Chair Corcoran said that he was impressed with the comments received so far and echoed Commissioner Kunzweiler's conunents that the project merits are not related to the applicants' character. He noted the Conunission's responsibility to enforce the zoning ordinance and the general plan. He said that there is a lot he liked about the project, including green design, open space, and the public trail easement, but he concurred that more refinement was needed. He said that the project needed more clustering, less grading, smaller residential use areas and smaller home sizes. He said that the proposed home sizes were not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and did not like the fact that numerous homes approached the crest of a ridgeline. He said that he mostly agreed with the staff report and recommendations, and thought Ms. Greenberg's suggestion (addressed in her letter) relative to paragraph 10 of the resolution would be appropriate. He said that the recommendation that the Rabin's existing driveway be limited to emergency access needed further discussion, noting that the general plan recommends that there be few access points to Paradise Drive. He said that the Commission had been quite clear in its obligations to the general plan and, while he appreciated the work invested to date, the project was not quite at a point that he would be comfortable supporting it. Commissioner Doyle concurred with the previous comments. He said that development on Red Hill Circle was an important impetus in Tiburon establishing itself as an incorporated community and as more and more of the town is developed the general plan provides the guidelines by which to do it properly. He said that there is an opportunity to preserve the ridgelines on the site and the project could do a little better in that regard. He said that he would be quite pleased if he knew these homes would be built exactly as shown, but he was unsure how to guarantee that. He said that he was not as concerned about home size because the reality is that by digging homes into the hillside, one can increase floor area without increasing bulk. He questioned whether clustering was really the answer but said he would like the benefit of seeing how that could work, and felt that both the applicant and the Commission were in the position to require something even better than what is currently proposed. Chair Frymier said that she concurred with the majority of the Commissioners' conunents. She agreed that clustering is not always better and said she liked the way the project was laid out, which does an exceptional job of connecting residents to the land. She agreed that much of what was previously developed in town is not ideal and that this is an opportunity to do it right. She felt that just because there are larger homes nearby did not mean that large homes were appropriate at this location. She said she found the home sizes to be in conflict with the theory of green design, though she very much appreciated the green elements of the project. She had no issue with the proposed density but had a significant issue with the potential ridgeline impacts, noting that the Commission's role is to look at the general plan on balance and weigh what is i1WJJTBTT NO, Z, TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 11 proposed against what is ultimately possible. She said that while the project was very positive overall, the Conunission needed to provide very specific direction to the applicant on further refinements to the project. Commissioner Kunzweiler recognized that ridgelines take up a large portion of the site, but the Commission seemed to be unanimous in the position that the Tiburon Ridge is off limits. He suggested that the Commission request an alternative design that eliminates interference with the Tiburon Ridge and minimizes or significantly reduces impacts to Significant Ridgelines 5 and 6. He said that the applicant could decide whether they prefer- fewer, larger homes or a greater number of smaller homes, and then identify footprints that would have the least damage. The applicant was recognized as wishing to respond to the Commission's comments. Mr. Hochstrasser said that he was frustrated with the lack of direction provided by the Commission. He stated that he had provided the Commission with a composite analysis demonstrating that nearly all development opportunities on the site are limited to areas on or near the secondary ridgelines. He requested more specific direction from the Commission on the number of homes that would be acceptable. Q Chair Frymier said that the Commission was very specific in requesting that they limit the size of homes or lower the number of homes. Commissioner Doyle said that some concerns relating to size and bulk might be alleviated with better visualization of what the overall project would look like. He said he understood the concept that had been presented, but many people might not. Vice-Chair Corcoran respectfully disagreed, noting that the staff report pointed out that reduced mass on Lot 4 would still encroach into the Tiburon Ridgeline. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that Mr. Hochstrasser's reaction and comments surprised him. He said the Conunission was attempting to be reasonable and consistent in its direction, rather than spoon feed the applicant when it knows little of the specifics or costs of the project. He said that the applicant would not be well served by having the Commission design the project for hire. Mr. Hochstrasser asked if the Commission would be open to some sort of subcommittee to facilitate the process, as he felt that the current proposal was their best attempt. He said that the record reflected a constant desire to preserve ridgelines, which he felt was accomplished. He felt that the project balanced the goals of the general plan on the whole and the applicant would require specific direction to make any more changes. Vice-Chair Corcoran said that while the Commission does not all speak with a single voice, he felt that there had been little change in its direction to the applicant over the past two years. In reviewing the minutes of prior meetings, he felt that it was evident that direction was given for specific changes to be made. He recognized the changes that had been made and acknowledged the constraints of the site, but said that more changes were needed to bring the project in line with the general plan. He said that the staff report provided some solid direction and, while he EXHIBIT NO. 12- TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 12 would argue that the resulting home sizes would still not be compatible with the surrounding area, these changes would go a long way toward minimizing ridgeline impacts and increasing support for the project. Commissioner Tollini said that she could not suggest anything specific but generally felt the project encroached on the ridgelines. She said that the staff report provided solid recommendations that she fully supported. She said that she could likely get behind a project that moved further in that direction, particularly with more concessions related to home size and height and perhaps eliminating a lot or two. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that the staff recommendation was certainly a step in the right direction but should be looked at only as a starting point. Chair Frymier echoed the previous comments. She said that she would like the applicant to better demonstrate how the language of the general plan and Zoning Ordinance supports what is being proposed. She said that she would like to see Ms. Greenberg's comments regarding Mr. Kao's designs incorporated into the resolution and asked if a deed of trust would be appropriate for this situation. Mr. Anderson stated that a deed of trust is a possible tool and Chair Frymier said that she would strongly favor that sort of requirement. She said that she felt very strongly about this particular development and would like it made very clear that anyone purchasing a future lot in this development would need to comply with these requirements. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kunzweiler) to continue the item to the March 9, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING) EXHIBIT NO. 12, TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 13 application and found it to be in compliance with the requirements of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance. He recommended that the Commission take public testimony and adopt the draft resolution granting conditional approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. There was no public comment. The Commission expressed support for the Resolution, as drafted. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to adopt the Resolution granting conditional approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. Vote: 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 2. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: PRESICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #20) FOR A 14- UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES; (FILE # 30701); Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-12 and 039-301-01 Mr. Watrous presented the staff report, stating that the application is for a Precise Development Plan (PDP) and prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres. The Planning Commission most recently reviewed this application on January 26, 2011. At that meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about the project that focused on its consistency with the Town's ridgeline policies, neighborhood compatibility and consistency policies, and the lack of changes presented by Alternative 4. The Commission suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of reducing the number, size and height of the proposed homes and better cluster the dwellings on the site to achieve improved consistency with the General Plan policies. The Commission also requested clarification on how the Town could ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. He stated that the applicant had submitted a revised alternative project design known as Alternative 5, which moved from its previous location within the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback to a location within the previous Lot 1. He stated that other changes had been made to the residential use areas of Lots 2, 3 and 6 and the submitted materials included calculations on the fagade surface areas based on the conceptual house designs for each lot. He said that no other changes have been made to the previous 14-unit Alternative 4 project design and the number of lots and maximum floor areas and building heights remain the same. Planning Manager Watrous described a previously distributed memo providing additional information and analysis regarding the project's relation to the two Significant Ridgelines on the site and additional comparative information on neighborhoods surrounding the site. He noted that the analysis was based on a review of Alternative 4 prior to the applicant's submittal of Alternative 5 and assumed inclusion of the project modifications that had been recommended in the January 26th staff report. He said that in staff s opinion, the changes to the project design included in Alternative 5 are not substantially responsive to the direction provided by the Commission at its January 26th meeting, and therefore the memo listed numerous project TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 1 PAGE 2 EXHIBIT NO. revisions that could produce a level of improved policy consistency and attempt to meet the expectations expressed by the Commission at the previous meeting. He encouraged the Commission to use this checklist as a tool with which to build consensus on a revised project design to recommend for approval to the Town Council. He also recommended the inclusion of condition of approval No. 14, which specifies that the house design shall closely resemble the conceptual designs presented by the applicant, in order to ensure that the architectural design of the homes built on the potential lots would be consistent with the designs included in the PDP. Planning Manager Watrous summarized that in order to achieve improved consistency with the policies of the Tiburon General Plan the Commission should take action to further shape the project design. He recommended that some or all of the measures recommended in the staff report should be utilized to come up with a project design that the Commmission can recommend for approval by the Town Council. He stated that the resulting project design, as revised by these recommended measures, would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines and neighborhood consistency and compatibility. Daniel Rabin apologized that the remainder of his family was unable to attend the meeting. He thanked the Commission for attending the property tour and hoped that it helped~them to realize the uniqueness of the project. He stated that the current proposal was one of the most thorough and carefully thought-out development projects in the history of Tiburon, and had been further revised and improved to respond to concerns raised by the public and the Commission. He said that the changes made this a much better project. He stressed that the applicants are not absentee developers and that his family sincerely hopes to live in the homes proposed by this project. He said that as the residents most impacted by the project, they have crafted something they would be proud to live alongside. He encouraged the Commission to recommend the project as presented to the Town Council for approval. Scott Hochstrasser, land-use and environmental consultant for the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the changes proposed by Alternative 5. He noted his late mail submission and stated that the memo referred to by Mr. Watrous was done without the benefit of the Alternative 5 application. He stated that the staff report failed to properly analyze the new alternative. He compared the recommendations of the memo with the changes proposed in Alternative 5. He said that Lot 4 was not eliminated but reduced in size, relocated and clustered tightly between Lots 1 and 2. He said that while Alternative 5 did not propose the recommended reductions to size and height for Lots 2 and 3, this would be mitigated by landscape screening and an increase"in the open space buffer. He said that Lot 5 was reduced in size and additional vegetative screening added to Lot 7. He stated that the maximum height of the lower buildings and vegetative screening of Lots 1, 8, and 9 would effectively shield theirs from view. He said that the staff recommendation that would combine Lots 11 and 13 seemed contradictory to Commission concerns relating to ridgeline proximity, as these lots were closer to the actual ridgeline than other lots. Ken Kao, architect, continued the PowerPoint presentation. He presented illustrations of the revisions in Alternative 5 and provided visual comparisons between standard hipped roof homes and the conceptual designs of larger homes substantially embedded into the hillside. He said that the average vertical surface area for the project would be 36.39% below grade and he stressed TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT No. 13 PAGE 3 that while the square footage of the proposed homes seems large, the massing style would be consistent with the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines. He provided visual demonstrations of screening and views from Paradise and Acacia Drives. He stated that the access to the Ridge Trail had been moved as close to the pillars on Hacienda Drive as possible. Riley Hurd, attorney for the applicant, said that numerous residents had already expressed their support for the project. He asked the Commission to focus on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was prepared by an independent consultant of the Town's choosing and at great expense to the applicant. He said that the EIR identified Alternative 3 as the environmentally superior alternative, and that Alternatives 4 and 5 improve the project even further. He asked that the Commission provide specific findings supported by evidence in the administrative record if it detennines that further deviance from those recommendations are warranted. He recited the requirements relating to the Commission's decision and argued that the proposed resolution lacked legally adequate findings or evidence to support the deletions or size changes recommended by staff. He requested that any evidence supporting how such a change would achieve a measurable net positive difference be stated for the record. Mr. Hurd discussed neighborhood compatibility and argued that the nearby Soro'kko project was indeed worthy for comparative purposes. He said that if the Commission truly sought neighborhood compatibility the project would consist of numerous, 5,000+ square foot wholly above-ground structures with little to no articulation or spacing between them. He said that instead, the applicant has proposed primarily subterranean residences with considerably less visual mass than the outdated designs of the past. Mr. Hurd stated that the Town's attempt to rezone the Rabin and Martha properties in the early 2000's was defeated by Measure M and that the Town simply embedded the same concept in its General Plan under the guise of ridgeline protection. He discussed the property's significant ridgelines, noting that both staff and site visitors essentially found there to lack visual prominence. He cited the ridgeline evaluation characteristics contained in General Plan Policy OSC-12 and concluded that the caliber of ridgelines found on the applicants' property warranted less protection than other, more prominent ridgelines. He said that the proposed house designs essentially preserve all landfonns on the site and that while the ridgelines should not have been mapped, they would not be truly affected by the project. He discussed views and cited the Hillside Design Guideline principle that views over undeveloped property are temporary or borrowed views and characterized any views across the undeveloped site as borrowed views. He said that despite this, the applicant has proposed only 13 new bunker-like residences that would preserve nearly all of the borrowed views. He questioned whether the Town was more concerned about the numbers and square footages as they look on paper rather than the actual visibility of the future homes and stated that the proposed homes represented the superior choice. He challenged the Commission to have the wherewithal to recognize that the application is based on data, mapped constraints and economic viability. He asked that the Commission not just eliminate lots just to do so, but to point to specific evidence of measurable improvement that would result from eliminating lots. He characterized the project as a strategy litmus test, as the applicant had not submitted a larger "straw man" application to be reduced in density by the Commission, but rather an appropriate level of development from the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 13. ?011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT NO. f -3 beguiling. He asked that the Commission judge the project on its actual merits rather than using an arbitrary list of changes that would lead to a capricious result. Commissioner Kunzweiler stated that the conceptual house designs were a key rationale for supporting the project and asked how the applicant proposed to guarantee that the homes would be built as presented. Mr. Hurd said the concern has been raised repeatedly and stemmed from a lack of understanding of the Commission's ability to condition the project. He stated that the applicant was committed to the house designs and was willing to accept a condition of approval requiring that the houses be built as designed. He said that any future property owner who did not want to build the homes as designed would need to request an amendment to the PDP. Commissioner Kunzweiler stated that the current proposal includes a number of other assumptions, such as screening offered by existing trees, and he asked who would make sure that the trees would remain to screen the homes. Mr. Hurd stated that vegetation is the most commonly used screening tool following good design. He said that the issue would fall to the Town to enforce the landscape plan. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. Eva Buxton said that the impacts on natural resources had yet to be mitigated in her opinion. She reiterated her request for new grassland snapping. She asked if the project would entail a construction staging area, adding that such an area might disturb more vegetation. She appreciated the concept of sod roofs but questioned whether native species would be used on the roofs. She noted that sod roofs are not conducive to rooftop solar installation, and asked if solar panels would be allowed on private open space. She expressed concern with the proximity of the story poles to existing oak trees, noting that most would not survive the impacts of construction and environmental changes. She supported the elimination of Lots 5 and 6 due to their proximity to wetlands and native grasslands and Lot 13 due to its proximity to federally endangered plant species. She also recommended that Lots 11 and 12 be decreased in size to reduce impacts to sensitive species. Jerry Riessen submitted a late mail item to Mr. Watrous. He questioned the value of segmented open space and recommended the Commission alter lot lines as needed to snake this space more contiguous. He doubted the value of private open space and requested specific oversight of colnmon open space. He disagreed with Mr. Hurd's comments regarding Measure M, stating that ridgeline protection existed long before that ballot measure and that the measure was defeated due to threats of lawsuits. He asked the Commission to respect the will of the people by protecting the Town's ridgelines from development. Craig McDow cited several complaints relating to noise coming from the Rabins' property. He said that the construction of the fire road on the site was an example of the applicant's disregard for neighbors' private property and the preservation of native vegetation. He said that he was strongly opposed to the visual nuisance of homes along the ridgeline from his vantage point. Sandra Swanson stated that drawing vegetation on plans is an art, not planning. She said that when the applicant originally came forward with plans for his own home, he sited the house on TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT NO. I?) PAGE 5 the least constrained part of the lot and the Planning Commission advised him that he would be unlikely to develop the rest of the site to its maximum density. She read from General Plan Policy LU-4 that projects may not achieve their maximum density if other General Plan policies require lower density. She said that there was no guarantee that the conceptual house designs would be built. She said that while the applicant's proposal focuses on green design, it makes no acknowledgement of the environmental desecration resulting from excavating over 100,000 cubic yards of dirt, encroaching into ridgeline setbacks, constructing hundreds of feet of retaining walls, and destroying hundreds of trees. She said that Alternative 5 only included minor changes to the project and could not be characterized as "green." She asked the Commission to protect and preserve the Town's natural resources by applying the General Plan policies as intended. Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League, said that the EIR found impacts to views from Middle Ridge to be a significant and unavoidable impact of the project and that it was incumbent on the Commission to mitigate this impact to the extent possible. She stated that while the applicant was relying on innovative design and LEED Platinum Certification to sell the project, LEED fails to properly address the issues of traffic impacts, excavation, and home size. She questioned whether the excavation quantities stated include that grading required for recessing the homes into the hillside. She said that LEED also fails to account for ridgelines protected by local policy, views, neighborhood compatibility, removal of trees and other vegetation, and fragmentation of habitats. She recommended that the Commission reduce all home sizes and residential use areas, reconnect at least a portion of the open space areas, and eliminate parcels as needed to truly achieve an ecologically sound master plan. Randy Greenberg stated that the Commission has both the right and an obligation to reduce impacts beyond what is considered significant by the EIR. She expressed concern with the concept of private versus common open space, noting that the proposed private open space would exceed the size of the conunon open space and includes areas of sensitive species. She . read from the Easton Point EIR which states that habitat is not protected by private open space and that one could expect its loss regardless of oversight. She said that the applicant had repeatedly failed to respond to the Commission's request for appropriate changes. She said that the applicant continued to treat the site as though it has only nominal constraints rather than 18 landslides and 3 ridgelines and took a disproportionate share of the land for his own house. She asked the Commission to consider changes that address home size and the fragmentation of open space parcels, including possible elimination of lots. Barry Wootton said that he shared the same concerns already expressed. He said that while he appreciated the concept of green building, many of the design features proposed present real challenges. Larry Gelb, Secretary, Seafirth Estates Association, stated that the association shared many of the concerns expressed, particularly those related to house size, neighborhood compatibility, and design guarantees. He said that he was very impressed with the most recent staff report and found he could support much of its analysis and recommendations. He also cited concern with the ongoing wear and tear to Paradise Drive and asked who would be responsible for mitigating further damage to the road. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT NO. I ~ PAGE 6 Mr. Hurd said that his client was aware that densities are not guaranteed, as evidenced by a proposal containing significantly fewer than the 24 units allowed at the time of purchase. He said that the applicant mapped the site constraints in advance of the application and had positioned units in response to those constraints. He said that the application would offer 70% of the Rabin's private property as open space that would be contiguous to existing open space. In addition to design conditioning, he said that private CC&Rs would ensure that homes would look like what was proposed in the PDP. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Corcoran asked if solar panels are allowed in private open space. Mr. Watrous stated no but noted that there is no restriction on their placement in residential use areas. Vice-Chair Corcoran asked if the public has access to all portions of open space for recreational purposes such as hiking. Mr. Watrous said that there is little that can be done to enforce restrictions on that type of use on open space. He said that the establishment of specific trails is fairly effective at maintaining remaining open space areas in a relatively natural' condition. Commissioner Tollini commended the applicant for the time and energy invested in this process and stated that the architectural designs were beautiful. She said that the Commission gave clear direction regarding density and ridgeline policies at the last hearing, and although Alternative 5 had made some changes, it did not go far enough. She said that this is a very constrained site. She cited General Plan Policy LU-4 with respect to density and Policy OSC-12 with respect to Significant Ridgelines, noting that while the ridgelines did not appear to be obvious when viewed from the site, they are more noticeable from nearby properties. Referring to the menu of possible project revisions contained in Exhibit 7, she supported the following: 1(a), 2(a), 3(b), 4(a) and (b), 6 (c), and 7(a). She said that Lot 13 would be very visually prominent, and even more so once the trees on the Sorokko site are removed. Additionally, Commissioner Tollini recommended reducing the floor areas for the homes on Lots 2, 35 5 & 6 based upon their proximity to the ridgelines and neighborhood compatibility. She said that most of the house sizes should be reduced in size to match home sizes in surrounding neighborhoods. She also recommended that the residential use and private open space areas on Lots 5 & 6 be reduced in size to eliminate areas of serpentine bunchgrass and include those grassland areas as part of common open space. She said that the project would still have three homes over 7,000 square feet, which was appropriate given the sizes of other nearby homes. She recommended that open space areas across the roadway from Lots 1 through 4 and private open space areas fronting the road on Lots 2-4 be added to common open space Lot A. Similarly, she said that the area of the eliminated Lot 8 should be included in Lot A common open space to protect Marin flax and bunchgrass habitat. She also recommended conditioning approval on the use of Mr. Kao's architectural plans. Vice-Chair Corcoran stressed that the Commission's decision was not a reflection on the applicant's personality or demeanor but was based on the fact that the current proposal fails to comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan. He stated that the General Plan is the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT NO, (2) PAGE 7 Town's constitution and the current proposal is not consistent with the General Plan. He said that the Commission asked for a lot of changes to the project and did not get many. He acknowledged the constraints on the site and said that he appreciated the public trail dedication, relocation of Lot 4, open space preservation, and home designs, but said that the main issue was the combined impacts of the number and size of proposed homes. Referring to Exhibit 7, Vice-Chair Corcoran reconunended the following: 2(a), 5(a), 6(b) and (c), and 7(a). He recommended reducing Lots 2, 3, 7, and 11 to 4,500 square feet plus 600 square feet of garage space; eliminating Lots 5 and 6 or reducing their- residential use areas to place sensitive plant species in common space; and eliminating Lots 9 and 10 to create a broad swath of open space connecting to the opposite end of the site and better habitat protection. He recommended that if Lots 11 and 13 were combined, the size of each home should be reduced to 3,500 square feet. He felt that Lot 13 should be eliminated due to the visual impacts from the Paradise Drive, the Seafirth neighborhood and Acacia Drive. He said that the residential use areas should be reduced in size to avoid large paved areas that could create a visual eyesore from a distance. He discussed the concept of adding the Town to the CC&Rs as an interested party and said that there are many examples of this in other jurisdictions. He explained that this would give the Town the ability but not the obligation to enforce those conditions and said that that would be important for a project of this significance. He also said he would like the Town to have some oversight over common open space. He also recommended that private open space across the road from Lots 2-4, as well as a significant portion of Lot 7, be added to common open space. Commissioner Kunzweiler gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the project's progress, outstanding issues and his recommendations. He said that the project has a level of complexity that is beyond the nonnal scope of the Planning Commission. He said that no one had ever brought forward such a "big idea" to the Town before and he wanted to preserve the idea but make sure it would be consistent with the General Plan. Rather than contemplating every critical detail, he recommended providing the Town Council with meaningful direction that balanced public and private interests and best reflected the intent of the General Plan. He stated that the applicant's premise of an implied right to enjoy maximum use of this site lacked basis and that the project's consistency with the General Plan was still being debated. He said that that the factors driving the consideration of the project were the number, location and size of proposed homes. He said that the applicant had made virtually no progress in addressing these factors over nearly 3 years of public discussion and, in fact, had achieved only a 2% to 6% reduction in total home floor area in that time. He said that he wanted to avoid reducing the sizes of individual lots or homes, as this creates an ongoing cycle of redesign. He stated that downsizing the project would reduce critical environmental, aesthetic, construction, and traffic impacts. He felt that it would be bad policy to promote a project that is too complicated. He recommended the following eliminations: Lots 5 & 6 for open space considerations; Lots 9 & 10 for their proximity to ridgelines; Lot 13 for the size of the house itself, and Lot 14 for neighborhood character. He did not recommend relocating or reducing any other lots but did say much could be accomplished by reducing residential use areas. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT NO. r PAGE 8 Commissioner- Kunzweiler requested a more meaningful traffic study that would better account for speed of traffic as well as retaining walls and bike lanes, consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.1-7. He also recommended that the applicant and staff seek opportunities to reduce private open space in favor of more common open space. He said that the remaining houses should be built exactly as proposed. Commissioner Doyle said that at the last meeting the applicant asked what the Commission wanted, was told what to do and did not do it. He noted that there was a certain level of frustration surrounding the applicant's failure to apply the Commission's recommendations in a meaningful way. He said that he concurred with much of Commissioner Kunzweiler's comments. He said that he hoped to apply a common sense approach to the project. He said that he was less opposed to the size of homes than other Commissioners, as he felt that the perceived impacts of homes can vary greatly depending on architectural style and massing. Referring to Exhibit 7, he supported revisions 2(a) and 7(a). He also supported elimination or reduction of Lots 5 and 6. He said the value of private open space was often diminished by homeowners wishing to enclose it and recommended reducing the private open space areas on Lots 5 and 6. He cited concern related to the guarantee of the proposed house designs and particularly appreciated the draft Condition of Approval 14, though it would place a significant burden on the Town. Chair Frymier referred to Condition of Approval 14 and asked whether requiring this as a deed restriction would lessen the burden on the Town. Mr. Watrous stated that the concept of a deed restriction was intended as an additional way to inform property owners of their parcel's design limitations. He said that regardless, there is burden onus on staff and the Design Review Board to ensure that each project complies with the Precise Development Plan and the originally approved design. Commissioner Kunzweiler noted that the Design Review Board has a fair amount of latitude in its deliberations. Mr. Watrous said that that would remain a critical point no matter what, as the Board always has to interpret how a house design complies with zoning or PDP requirements, but that is not an unreasonable burden on the Town. Chair Frymier supported Councilmember Kunzweiler's comments regarding micro-management. She discussed floor area which she felt should be reduced significantly throughout the project for purposes of neighborhood compatibility. She noted that most of the larger neighboring homes were developed prior to the Town's floor area restrictions and therefore using the size of those earlier, larger homes for comparison was not a valid argument. She added that the homes on the Sorokko site were in an unincorporated portion of the county and had not yet been built, and therefore did not present a strong argument for neighborhood compatibility of the larger proposed homes. She cited General Plan Policy LU-13, which specifically speaks to neighborhood character. She stated that the language in the General Plan protecting ridgelines is very strong and the project needs to respect Ridgelines 5 and 6 more closely than Alternative 4 and 5 do. She cited General Plan Policy LU-4, which states that any maximum densities are maximums that may not be achieved. Referring to Exhibit 7, she recommended the following. 1(a),(b),(c) and (d), 2(a), 6 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT NO. 13 PAGE 9 (a),(b) and (c) and 7(a). She also recommended elimination of Lots 3, 9, 10, and 14 as well as reduction of Lot 11 to 6,000 square feet. The Commission held further discussion and ultimately reached consensus on the following: • Eliminating Lots 8, 9, 10 & 13; • Reducing the floor area for Lots 5 & 6 to 4,500 square feet and their maximum building height to 16 feet, and eliminating the bunchgrass areas from the residential use areas and private open space, moving it to common open space; • Reducing the floor area for Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet and 750 square feet of garage space; • Converting the private open space on the north sides of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 (across the roadway) to common open space; • Making reference to Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 in Condition of Approval No. 25 requiring the traffic study; • Adding language giving the Town the ability to enforce CC&Rs, based on language in the Martha DEIR; and • Include language within the resolution reflecting the rationale that the Commission has expressed to support these changes. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kunzweiler) to direct staff to prepare a Resolution reconunending approval of the Precise Development Plan to the Town Council, as drafted in the staff report and with the following changes: 1) to eliminate Lots 8, 9, 10, and 13; 2) to reduce the floor area for Lots 5 & 6 to 4,500 square feet and their maximum building height to 16 feet, and eliminating the bunchgrass areas from the residential use areas and private open space, moving it to common open space; 3) to reduce the floor area for Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet and 750 square feet of garage space; 4) to convert the private open space on the north sides of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 (across the roadway) to common open space; 5) to snake reference to Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 in Condition of Approval No. 25 requiring the traffic study; 6) to add language giving the Town the ability but not the obligation to enforce CC&Rs, based on language in the Martha DEIR; and 7) to include language within the resolution reflecting the rationale that the Commission has expressed to support these changes. Vote: 5-0. BREAK: Chair Frymier called a 5-minute break at 10:15 p.m. and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting. 3. EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS - REFERRAL FROM TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW TIME EXTENSION ORDINANCE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; FILE MCA 2011-01 Mr. Watrous stated that the Planning Commission held its hearing on February 23rd about language to extend the Design Review approvals. The Town Council held a public hearing on the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 EXHIBIT NO. 13 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 1009 April 27, 2011 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Frymier called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Frymier, Commissioners Corcoran and Tollini Absent: Commissioners Doyle and Kunzweiler Staff Present: Planning Manager Watrous, Community Development Director Anderson and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Vice-Chair. Corcoran reminded the public of the following upcoming events: • April 30th - Salmon Release at Blackie's Pasture • May 7th - Walk Your History OLD BUSINESS: 1. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #30701; ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #20; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 Planning Manager Watrous presented a brief staff report, noting that the conditions of approval, as modified by the consensus of the Commission at the April 13th meeting, were included as Exhibits 1 and 2. He also noted that the Commission specified no building heights for Lots 2, 3, and 4. Those listed in the table on draft Exhibit 2 were estimates based on surrounding homes and he said that the Commission should indicate whether those were appropriate or specify something different. Vice-Chair Corcoran referred to Finding K(5) of the resolution, which describes a reduction in residential use areas on Lots 5 and 6, but was not specific. Mr. Watrous referred him to Condition 3(b) of Exhibit 1 of the resolution which, in turn, refers to Sheet SP-30. He confirmed that staff believed the reference to SP-30 to be sufficient. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 EXHIBIT NO. 1q- PAGE 1 Chair Frymier referred to Condition of Approval No. 29, which speaks to the removal of junk materials, and said she that found it to be rather open-ended. Mr. Watrous explained that this was a fairly standard condition for precise development plans that would be conducted during installation of the subdivision improvements. He said that staff was not aware of any specifics that needed to be addressed as part of this application and this was intended to clean up the site from older improvements that are no longer necessary. Chair Fryinier opened the public hearing. Scott Hochstrasser, representing the applicant, stated that the resolution under consideration represented a defective decision of the Commission. He said that the resolution lacked the required facts and evidence to demonstrate a meaningful change between what the applicant submitted and the Commission decided. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tollini respectfully disagreed with the applicant, stating that the changes required by the Commission would have significant and meaningful impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, views, and the project's compliance with the Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She referred to Finding K(4) and said her rationale was also based on General Plan Policy OSC-12, and to add that policy reference to the finding. She requested removal of the brackets surrounding "except Lot 1" in Condition of Approval No. 7 and said she had no strong feelings with regard to maximum building heights for Lots 2, 3, and 4. Vice-Chair Corcoran stated that he could support the resolution. Chair Frymier requested clarification on the height alternatives for Lots 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Watrous stated that the original application indicated Lot 2 with a maximum height of 23 feet 6 inches, and Lots 3 and 4 with a maximum height of 29 feet. He said that at one point staff recommended reduced heights of 16 feet for Lots 2 and 3. He noted that Lot 4 in its new location is a fairly interior lot and staff did not feel it appropriate to place a restrictive height limit on this lot. The Commission agreed that Lots 2 and 3, which the Commission did not reduce in overall square footage, could remain at the originally proposed height and determined that a 25 foot height limit was appropriate for Lot 4. Chair Frymier extended her compliments to staff on their application of the Commission's direction at the prior meeting. She too respectfully disagreed with the applicant's assertions regarding the Commission's decision. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to adopt the resolution, as amended, recommending conditional approval of the Precise Development Plan to the Town Council. Motion carried: 3-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 27, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 LL P AGE 2 EXHIBIT I~10. Consistencv Analysis of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning 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 low-density residential land use pattern designated for the property 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. Inconsistent: 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, significant ridgelines, special status species, wetlands, and streams and riparian corridors. The project design would preserve over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space and would avoid steep slopes and preserve most tree stands and inboard and outboard views. The project design would adversely affect occurrences of special status species, native serpentine grasslands, wetlands and oak woodlands, but at mitigable levels. The project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Development on Lot 4 would encroach occur within 50 vertical feet of the nearest peak elevation of the Tiburon Ridge and all or portions of Lots 3, 4, 7-12 & 14 would approach the crests of the Significant Ridgelines 5 and 6 on the site. The project would remove approximately 107 protected trees from the site, but would avoid disturbance of most of the protect trees on the site. The implementation of mitigation measures included in the Final EIR would allow the proposed project to fit within environmental constraints and have adequate access and infrastructure, with the exception of achieving maximum protection of significant secondary ridgelines. LU-F: To preserve and protect Tiburon' s views, scenic environment, natural beauty, and open space. EXHIBIT NO. So Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis Inconsistent: The project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable visual impact from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff believes that project modifications recommended in the Staff report would lessen project impacts and would achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. LU-H: To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity. 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 other development in the vicinity. However, the floor areas of the proposed homes, as discussed in the Staff report, would be substantially larger than the floor areas of homes of other neighborhoods in the vicinity of the site. Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on Lots 2, 31 51 6 & 7 to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. LU-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house sizes/architectural a 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 other development in the vicinity. However, the floor areas proposed for the dwellings would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site, particularly those homes nearby along Hacienda Drive and Noche Vista Lane. Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. 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 14 dwelling units on 52.2 acres of land. The overall density of this residential project would be consistent with that of a "small-town" residential community. LU-3: The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest extent feasible wildlife habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, woodlands, and other biologically sensitive areas. Consistent: The project as proposed would impact wildlife movements across the site and limit wildlife access to common open space areas and protected wetlands. The Final EIR recommends a mitigation measure and other habitat protection measures that would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level to achieve consistency with this policy. EXHIBIT NO. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 2 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 areas proposed for the dwellings would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site, particularly those homes nearby along Hacienda Drive and Noche Vista Lane. Alternative 4 has made substantial progress on this issue, and Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. 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. a Consistent: The implementation of mitigation measures included in the Final EIR 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, significant ridgelines, special status species, wetlands, and streams and riparian corridors. See discussion under LU-E above. 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. Inconsistent: The project would adversely affect occurrences of special status species, native serpentine grasslands, wetlands and oak woodlands. Mitigation measures are recommended by the Final EIR that would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources to less-than-significant levels. However, individual homes, particularly dwellings on Lots 3, 4, 7-12 and 14 would be located in close proximity to the two significant ridgelines on the site. A detailed analysis of the criteria to be used in reviewing the significance of these ridgelines is contained in Pages 100-104 of the Draft EIR. 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. While project homes would be visible from many surrounding residences, the project would not substantially interfere with views from any surrounding residence. EXHIBIT N0. !S Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 3 The location and type of new landscaping would not grow into primary views of existing homes or public vantage points. 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 consistent with this policy. The project would utilize design elements that maximize opportunities to blend in with the natural landscape. Staff recommends adoption of a condition of approval requiring substantial compliance with the conceptual house designs and will ensure conformance with these designs through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. 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 consistent with this policy. The project would utilize design elements that maximize opportunities to blend in with the natural landscape. Staff recommends adoption of a condition of approval requiring substantial compliance with the conceptual house designs and will ensure conformance with these designs through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. 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. Inconsistent. The conceptual house designs would be consistent with this policy. However, the floor areas proposed for the dwellings would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site, particularly those homes nearby along Hacienda Drive and Noche Vista Lane. Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. LU-28: The Town shall, through prezoning and annexation processes, add land to the Town when such action will materially enhance the community or substantially further the goals and policies of the General Plan. Consistent. The Rabin property is located within the Tiburon town limits. The SODA property is located in an unincorporated portion of Marin County within the Town of Tiburon's sphere of influence. The project proposes to prezone the SODA property and annex it into the Town of Tiburon. EXHIBIT N0. I5 Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 4 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 over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space. Conditions of approval provide for Town-held open space easements over these areas that would serve to further protect them. 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. a Inconsistent: The project design would preserve over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space. The project would adversely affect occurrences of special status species, native serpentine grasslands, wetlands and oak woodlands. Mitigation measures are recommended by the Final EIR that would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources to less-than-significant levels. However, individual homes would be located in close proximity to the two significant ridgelines on the site and would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff believes that project modifications, as set forth in this report, would potentially reduce the significant unavoidable visual impact to a less-than-significant level, but the failure to keep development well below significant secondary ridgelines remains. 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 over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space. The site would assume a low-density residential appearance upon completion, with open expanses being retained. 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. EXHIBIT NO. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 5 Consistent: See OSC-A. 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 would include the grant of a 50-foot wide public access easement along the Hacienda Drive frontage to complete the Tiburon Ridge walking path. This is a major public benefit of the project, given that the Town was recently required to close a portion of Hacienda Drive to public access. 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: The project would preserve over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space, with an open space easement held by the Town over the common open space for permanent protection. 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: The project would preserve over 70 percent of the site as common or private 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: 'Although the project proposes larger homes on lots over an acre in size, the level of development would be appropriate for the site, given the 52.21 acre size of the property. The feeling of "estate lot" type development would be minimized by limiting the construction of dwelling units to defined residential use areas and preserving over 70 percent of the site as common or private open space. 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. EXHIBIT NO.__[5~_ Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 6 Consistent: A portion of the proposed common open space, including the very important public access easement, would be contiguous to the Town-owned open space along the Middle Ridge. 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. Inconsistent: The Tiburon Ridge and two other significant ridgelines identified by Town Resolution No. 2859 are located on the project site. Development on Lot 4 would encroach into the vertical setback established for the Tiburon Ridge. Staff recommends elimination of Lot 4 to achieve consistency with the quantitative Tiburon Ridge setback standard. However, individual homes, particularly dwellings on Lots 3, 4, 7-12 and 14 would be located in close proximity to the two significant ridgelines on the site. A detailed analysis of the criteria to be used in reviewing the significance of these ridgelines is contained in Pages 100-104 of the Draft EIR. OSC-10: Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 150 horizontal feet of either side of the Tiburon Ridge. Consistent: No building construction and/or yard improvements would be located within 150 horizontal feet of the Tiburon Ridge. OSC-11: Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 50 vertical feet of either side of the Tiburon Ridge, measured from the highest point of the roofline or tree. Inconsistent: Lot 4 would substantially encroach into the 50 vertical foot setback from the nearest peak elevation of the Tiburon Ridge. Staff sees the elimination of Lot 4 as necessary to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. 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. Inconsistent. The Final EIR has evaluated the proposed project design when viewed from other nearby viewpoints and focuses upon the prominence of proposed homes in close EXHIBIT NO. 1 ~ Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 7 proximity to the Significant Ridgelines 5 & 6. All or portions of Lots 3, 4, 7-12 & 14 would approach the crests of the significant ridgelines on the site. In addition, other lots may develop landscaping, fences, walls and paved driveways that would be proximate to the significant ridgelines. 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. Inconsistent. The project does not propose to construct-any streets along or across the Tiburon Ridge, but an existing unpaved emergency fire road would be enhanced that would cross the Tiburon Ridge. However, the project would also include construction of roads that would travel along or over portions of Significant Ridgelines 5 & 6, with crossings not limited to perpendicular crossings. OSC-17: Development shall not encroach into sensitive wildlife habitats, limit nonnal range areas, or create barriers to wildlife that cut off or substantially impede access to food, water, or shelter, or cause damage to fisheries or fish habitats. Access to environmentally sensitive marshland and adjacent habitat shall be restricted, especially during spawning and nesting seasons. Inconsistent. The project as proposed would impact wildlife movements across the site and limit wildlife access to common open space areas and protected wetlands. However, the Final EIR recommends mitigation that would reduce these impacts to a less-than- significant level to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-20: Buffer zones of at least 100 feet shall be provided, to the maximum extent feasible, between development and wetland areas. Consistent. The project as currently proposed has modified the location of building envelopes to increase setbacks from wetlands and conform with the recommended setback distance in other locations. The Final EIR recommends preparation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Program for Special-Status Plant Species and Other Sensitive Resources that would reduce any potential impacts to wetlands to a less-than-significant level and achieve consistency with the general intent and purpose of this policy. 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 EXHIBIT N0-__E_ Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 8 crossings, such modification shall be made in an environmentally sensitive manner that enhances, replaces or retains vegetation. Inconsistent. The project as proposed would directly affect some drainages and would not conform with the recommended setback distance in other locations. The Final EIR recommends preparation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Program for Special-Status Plant Species and Other Sensitive Resources that would reduce any potential impacts to streams to a less-than-significant level and achieve consistency with the general intent and purpose of this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-25: A diversity and abundance of wildlife and marine life shall be protected and maintained. The Town shall strive to preserve and protect to the greatest extent feasible wildlife habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other biologically sensitive areas. Inconsistent. The project as proposed would impact wildlife movements across the site and limit wildlife access to common open space areas and protected wetlands. However, the Final EIR recommends mitigation that would reduce these wildlife impacts to a less- than-significant level and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-26: To the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special status species or special communities. Inconsistent. The project would adversely affect occurrences of special status species, native serpentine grasslands, wetlands and oak woodlands. However, mitigation measures are identified in the Final EIR that would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources to a less-than-significant level and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-27: The Town shall strongly discourage development on slopes exceeding 40%. Consistent: -'The proposed project would generally avoid portions of the site that exceed 40% slopes, although portions of Lots 7 & 10 and the proposed roadway would encroach into existing areas of the site where slopes exceed 40%. OSC-28: Principal vistas, view points, and view corridors on land subject to development shall be identified and preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Inconsistent: The project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff believes that project modifications, as set forth in this report, would potentially reduce the significant unavoidable visual impact EXHIBIT NO. 5_ Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 9 to a less-than-significant level. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. 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 project would not result in significant visual impacts on views from Paradise Drive or San Francisco Bay. This site is not visible from Tiburon Boulevard or Trestle Glen Boulevard. 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. Inconsistent: The project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff believes that project modifications, as set forth in this report, would potentially reduce the significant unavoidable visual impact i to a less-than-significant level. End result: Consistent with project revisions 'and EIR mitigations. OSC-31: The preservation of visual qualities, views, and the view potential of the natural and built environment shall be a major consideration of the Town in any development project review. Inconsistent: The conceptual house designs would use natural materials and design strategies to limit the project's obstruction of the natural environment of the site. However, the project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff believes that project modifications, as set forth in this report, would potentially reduce the significant unavoidable visual impact to a less-than-significant level. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-33: Protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: "The project would remove approximately 107 protected trees from the site, but would avoid disturbance of most of the protected trees on the site. Mitigation measures proposed by the Final EIR would further reduce the number of protected trees affected by the project. OSC-34: The Town shall protect natural habitat, and natural wooded areas shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Inconsistent: The project would adversely affect some natural wooded areas. However, mitigation measures are recommended by the Final EIR that would reduce potential impacts on these sensitive biological resources to less-than-significant levels and achieve EXHIBIT NO.- Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 10 consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. 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 project building envelopes would be sited in areas that attempt to avoid the steepest slopes and landslides on the property, with the exception of grading necessary for the proposed roadways and to perform landslide repairs, which would minimize the amount of grading and retain the natural features of the 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. Project grading will not have a dramatic effect on the site's ridges. , Consistent: The project building envelopes would be sited in areas that attempt to avoid the steepest slopes and landslides on the property, which would minimize the amount of grading for the project. 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 Final EIR 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 proposed project design attempts to minimize the grading necessary for development on the project site and the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR would minimize the impacts on adjacent properties, water quality or air quality. 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. EXHIBIT NO Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 11 Consistent: Grading to implement mitigations recommended by the Final EIR 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. Graded areas on 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 project would require the construction of retaining walls along the proposed roadways and for house construction. Only four visible walls for the project would exceed 6 feet at their highest points, with only limited portions of those walls exceeding 6 feet. The project design has been modified to minimize the height and/or visibility of these walls to the maximum extent feasible. OSC-47: The Town shall protect significant geological, ecological, archeological and paleontological resources and historic sites. Consistent: There are no known significant geological, archeological and paleontological resources and historic sites on the subject property. Sensitive biological resources on the site that are significant ecological resources could be affected by the project. However, mitigation measures are recommended by the Final EIR that would reduce potential impacts on sensitive biological resources to less-than-significant levels and achieve consistency with this policy. 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 Final EIR concludes that the project would have less-than-significant impacts on groundwater resources and drainage patterns. OSC-52: Water quality should be maintained or enhanced in order to promote the continued environmental health of natural waterway habitats. Inconsistent: The project as proposed would produce stormwater contaminated with heavy metals and petrochemical residues and would result in significant water quality impacts. However, measures in the preliminary Erosion Control Plan and mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR would reduce water quality impacts to less- than-significant levels and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. EXHIBIT NO. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 12 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 project includes measures that are consistent with the standards contained in Start at the Source-Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection and Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document. 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 project includes a Construction Management Plan that contains air quality control measures that would 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 PMIO, NO,,, and diesel particulate matter related to construction activities. Inconsistent: As proposed, the project would generate particulate matter that would have a potentially significant impact on air quality. However, mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR would reduce air quality impacts to less-than-significant levels and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-64: The use of native plants for landscaping shall be encouraged and the planting of invasive, exotic species shall be discouraged. Inconsistent: As proposed, the project includes a conceptual landscape plan that would utilize primarily native plant species. However, some plant species identified in the conceptual landscape plan would be inappropriate. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures that would limit the planting of invasive, exotic species and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. OSC-65: The removal of invasive, exotic species, such as broom and pampas grass, shall be required as a condition of approval for new developments. Consistent: The project would be required to remove invasive plant species, such as broom plants on the site, as a condition of approval of the project. EXHIBIT NO. tS Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 13 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 project would be required to conduct ongoing control of invasive broom plants on the site as a condition of approval of the project. 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. Inconsistent: Based upon the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the traffic generated by the project would not cause significant traffic safety impacts or cause any intersections to fall below an acceptable level of service standard. Project-generated traffic on Paradise Drive would contribute cumulatively to existing safety conflicts involving autos, bicyclists and pedestrians. However, the Final EIR contains mitigation measures that would require widening of the Paradise Drive roadway shoulder to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. C-E: To improve the circulation system for pedestrians and bicyclists, including safety enhancements. Inconsistent: Project-generated traffic on Paradise Drive would contribute cumulatively to existing safety conflicts involving autos, bicyclists and pedestrians. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures that would require widening of the Paradise Drive roadway shoulder to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. C-F: To minimize traffic congestion. Consistent: Based upon the analysis contained in the Finat EIR, the traffic generated by the project would not cause significant traffic safety impacts or cause any intersections to fall below an acceptable level of service standard. 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 EXHIBIT NO. J s Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 14 Significant Ridgelines except for the use of emergency services, or where no other access is viable. Inconsistent: The project would include construction of roads that would travel along or cross Ridgelines 5 & 6. The design of the roadways is not limited to perpendicular ridgeline crossings. These ridgelines occupy much of the central portion of the site. The proposed project would not include construction of new roads or installation of new utilities along the Tiburon Ridge. 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 cause any intersections to fall below an acceptable level of service standard. i C-9: The Town strongly discourages gated subdivisions. This policy is not intended to prevent single-family homeowners from installing gates [on their individual driveways]. Consistent: The project does not propose to install gates on the access roadways for this subdivision. C-10: Street lights shall be installed only at intersections or where required for safety purposes. Light sources shall be of a warm, subdued nature and should be down-lights and/or properly shielded. Consistent: Street lights are proposed along both the roadways proposed for the project for safety purposes. All lights will be required to-be down-lights and shielded from off- site view. C-17: Scenic views from Paradise Drive shall be preserved wherever possible. Consistent: Housing units proposed by the project would not block scenic views from Paradise Drive, and the project would not obstruct any outward views from Paradise Drive. C-19: New driveways and roadways intersecting Paradise Drive shall be kept to the minimum possible and be situated in safe locations. To meet this objective, to the extent feasible, multiple residences shall be served by a single access from Paradise Drive. Inconsistent: Site access to the project would be provided by a single new roadway from Paradise Drive. However, the project proposes to allow the existing driveway currently serving the Rabin residence to provide exclusive service to that home. To achieve EXHIBIT NO. 16- Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 15 consistency with this policy, Staff recommends that the existing driveway be limited to emergency access use only. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. C-20: Turnouts and widened shoulders on Paradise Drive should be created where possible to protect the health and safety of its users. Inconsistent: The original project design did not propose to install any turnouts or widened shoulders on Paradise Drive, but has since been modified to increase shoulder widths on some portions of Paradise Drive. The Final EIR contains a mitigation measure that would require construction of a consistent width shoulder along Paradise Drive directly abutting the project site to achieve consistency with this policy. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. Safety Element Goals SE-B: To identify hazardous areas and to discourage to the maximum extent feasible development of areas subject to hazards including, but not limited to, geotechnical hazards, unstable slopes and flood-prone areas. Consistent: Eighteen landslides have been identified on the site. Mitigation has been proposed for these landslides that fulfills the purposes and objectives of the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. SE-C: To ensure safe subdivision and building design. Consistent: Future site development shall comply with all applicable seismic design provisions of the most currently accepted Building Code in effect at the time the applicant or individual lot owner applies for a building permit from the Town. 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 Final EIR would avoid, eliminate, or reduce geologic and non-geologic 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 1 EXHIBIT NO. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 16 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 Final EIR, which includes mitigation measures to reduce geologic hazards to less-than-significant levels. The Town's separate independent geotechnical consultant has also reviewed the report and recommendations and found them acceptable. 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 Final EIR. The repair of the 18 landslides on the site consistent with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy would result in improved safety conditions on the site and for other properties in the vicinity. a 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 Final EIR. The conceptual stabilization repair plans have been reviewed to ensure conformance with the Town's 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 Final EIR. The conceptual stabilization repair plans have been reviewed to ensure conformance with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. SE-7: The Town shall discourage development on slopes exceeding 40% wherever possible. Consistent: The proposed project would generally avoid portions of the site that exceed 40% slopes, although portions of Lots 7 & 10 and the proposed roadway would encroach into existing areas of the site where slopes exceed 40%. SE-11: Drainage facilities within new subdivisions shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm. EXHIBIT NO. 15 Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 17 Consistent: The Final EIR indicates that the proposed drainage facilities would be adequate to maintain post-development peak flow rates at pre-development levels and to accommodate a 100-year storm. SE-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 proposed cisterns would be adequate to store sufficient runoff to enable the project to maintain site peak flow rates at pre-project levels to accommodate a 2-year and a 100-year design 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. , Consistent: The existing Mount Tiburon water tanks provide sufficient water supply for both domestic and fire flow requirements. A mitigation measure contained in the Final EIR, specific to Lot 14, would ensure adequate domestic water supply for that lot. 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 project roadways 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 proposed project would incorporate the ordinance criteria of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the fire safety practices of FIRESafe Marin. Noise Element Policies N-3: Environmental reviews (environmental impact reports, initial studies/negative declarations) of projects within the Tiburon Planning Area will be required to, where appropriate, include an acoustical analysis of the project's potential to cause a noise impact. EXHIBIT NO. l S Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 18 Consistent: An acoustical analysis (including mitigation measures) was prepared for the project Final EIR which concludes that the noise environment for the project would not exceed the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The Final EIR includes standard noise control mitigations for construction noise. 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: The Final EIR includes standard noise control mitigations for construction noise. Parks and Recreation Element PR-9: The Town shall continue to increase, enlarge and enhance its network of public trails within the Tiburon Planning Area. Consistent: The project would establish a public trail easement along the Tiburon Ridge which would enhance the Town's network of public trails by closing a critical gap in the Tiburon Ridge alignment. Housing Element H-3: Affordable Housing in-lieu Fee Fund and Other Funding. Continue to collect and expend affordable housing in-lie fees for meritorious affordable housing projects, as set forth in Appendix A. Strengthen current Housing In-lie fee provisions as specified in Program H-22 and seek other funding to augment these in-lieu fees. Consistent: The applicant proposes to make an in-lieu payment to satisfy the Town's affordable housing requirement. H-17: Resource Conservation. Promote development and construction standards that provide conservation by encouraging housing types and designs that use cost-effective energy conservation measures and fewer resources (water, electricity, etc.) and therefore cost less to operate over time, supporting long-term housing affordability for occupants. Consistent: The conceptual housing designs for the project incorporate numerous energy conservation measures and utilize green building design principles to support resource conservation and long-term housing affordability. Zoniny- Ordinance Consistency EXHIBIT NO, L S7- Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 19 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: The project would designate approximately 37 acres (more than 70% of the project site) as private or common 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: The project would remove approximately 107 protected trees from the site, but would avoid disturbance of most of the protected trees on the site. Mitigation measures proposed by the Final EIR would further reduce the number of protected trees affected by the project. (3) Slopes created by grading should not exceed thirty percent. Final contours and slopes should reflect natural landforms. Consistent: Although some slopes created by the project as part of landslide repairs would exceed 30%, the final contours and slopes would reflect natural landforms and would not exceed current slopes on the site. (4) Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve principal vistas, view points, view corridors, mature trees, rare plants, significant native flora and fauna, areas of historical significance, access corridors, and habitats of endangered species. .Inconsistent: See OSC-B, OSC-17 and OSC-33. End result: Consistent with project revisions and EIR mitigations. (5) Location' of development well below ridgelines shall be achieved, in compliance with the General Plan and other Town policies. Inconsistent: See OSC-9 through OSC-13. (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: Based on the photomontages prepared as part of the Final EIR, the locations of the individual buildings on the site would be visible on the hillsides, but would be EXHIBIT N0. ~ Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 20 minimized by appropriate location of grading and building placement. The Town has the ability to require additional changes to individual building designs 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: Avoidance of most landslides on the site would not be possible, as they threaten off-site improvements such as Paradise Drive or other homes. Much of the site is covered by landslides that are required to be repaired ,or mitigated prior to site development. A geotechnical analysis of site landslides has been prepared and reviewed as part of the Final EIR, which includes mitigation measures to reduce geologic hazards to less-than-significant levels. (8) Minimization of significant adverse impacts, as detailed in the environmental impact report, if one is required. Inconsistent: The recommended mitigation measures included in the Final EIR would reduce most potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to less-than- significant levels. However, the project as proposed would have a significant unavoidable impact on views from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Staff recommends building floor area and height reductions on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 and the elimination of Lot 4 to achieve consistency with this policy. Construction noise would be a significant unavoidable impact of the project. The project would also contribute to five cumulative significant unavoidable impacts in combination with other projects at General Plan build- out. (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 grades of the proposed roadways would range from 6.3% to 18%. The roads have been designed to minimize cut and fill. (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 conceptual building designs for each lot would not be monotonous, and the Town has the ability to require changes to the building designs during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to ensure consistency with this principle. The floor areas proposed for the dwellings would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site, particularly those homes nearby along Hacienda EXHIBIT N0. is Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 21 Drive and Noche Vista Lane, but Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to achieve consistency with this policy. (11) 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 building envelopes would be a significant distance from any residences in the vicinity to buffer visual and noise impacts to nearby dwellings. (I2) Improvements shall be placed so as to minimize intrusion of noise on nearby areas. Consistent: The project building envelopes and roadways would be a significant distance from any residences in the vicinity to buffer noise impacts to nearby dwellings. (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: Proposed project landscaping would be compatible with the native landscaping on the site and would provide benefits to fire protection, water conservation, protection of views and trail areas, and buffering of noise. (14) Utilities shall be underground and streetlights, if needed, shall be of low intensity and low in profile. Consistent: Project utilities would be placed underground. Street lights are proposed along both the roadways proposed for the project for safety purposes, with all lights required to be down-lights and shielded from off-site view. (15) Materials and colors used in improvements shall blend into the natural environment to the extent reasonably possible. Consistent: The exterior building facades proposed for the conceptual building designs for each lot 'would utilize materials that would blend in with the natural environment. Conformance with this principle will be finalized when actual house designs are reviewed by the Design Review Board through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. (16) Consistency with other goals and policies of the General Plan elements shall be demonstrated. Consistent: Other than those previously described, the proposed project is consistent with other goals and policies of the General Plan. EXHIBIT NO, I S_ Alta Robles Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 22 OEx Julo, f 14s I~ 'F 1 ~4 P✓Nveous I)e ~4T*C*kvAw I. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Sustainable Design To the greatest extent reasonable, all buildings should incorporate sustainable design features, including: • Passive solar design; • Active solar energy where neighbors are not unreasonably affected thereby; • Other energy conservation design; , • Use of "green" building materials; and • Prohibition on wood-burning stoves or fireplaces which do not incorporate state- of-the-art engineering measures designed to prevent release of particulate matter. B. Common Design Elements In order to create a sense of "place" - a sense of community for ?Alto Robles - the architectural planners have developed a vocabulary of building components included in the KAO Group plans. To the extent possible, the design of each home at Alto Robles should draw on this vocabulary in order that each home, while unique, relates in a harmonious fashion with its neighbors. C. Building Bulk, Mass and Scale At Alto Robles Lot Area Summary Matrixs (See Exhibit A) shows the maximum area planned for residential use, and the KAO Group "House Lot Site Plan" for each of the 13 new lots includes the building footprint, number of floors and expected maximum size of the home for each lot at Alto Robles. Although the Design Review process may create exceptions on an individual basis, this matrix should generally be considered to reflect the maximum permitted use and development for each lot. The following definitions apply: • Maximum house size for each lot is defined as all habitable floor area. This calculation is the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors, measured from the faces of exterior walls, and excluding decks, courts, terraces, porches, and any detached structures not designed for or used for sleeping purposes. • Maximum lot coverage for each lot is the total area on grade of all structures built on a lot (including but not limited to the house, garage, guest house, storage shed, pool, cabana, arbor, and decks that exceed 3 feet above finished grade), but excluding other impervious surfaces (including but not limited to driveways, other pavements, decks that do not exceed 3 feet above finished grade). Home designs which exceed the maximum house size or maximum lot coverage shown in KAO plans or which are located outside the building envelopes shown in KAO plan, will 31612007 Alta Robles EXHIBIT NO.-I-f - Page I of9 ordinarily require story poles and/or graphic information for analysis of visual effects. When Appropriate, Design Review shall require the installation of plastic netting or other acceptable material between story poles to simulate roof ridge lines, eave lines, and building forms for proposed development. In addition to these general guidelines governing building bulk, mass, and scale, the following lot-specific guidelines also apply: Earthen Building Strategies: The major design. objective for these lots is to place structures into existing land contours, fitting buildings into the native environment as underground service spaces. Some shaping of the terrain wouldebe done to fit the structures. The design for these homes should be primarily single-story and should be earth berm and thermal mass engineered for energy efficiency and in evident visual impacts. If any, second-story elements should only be used when the roofline can be kept below the upper elevations of such lot. Terraced Building Strategies: The major design objective for these homes would be to reduce building bulk and mass with horizontal and vertical articulated massing. Stepped building composition would integrate with site contours to reduce visibility. Earth berms and thermal mass engineered for energy efficiency and photovoltaic solar will be used for electricity generation and water heating. Materials and colors will blend with and compliment the surrounding native landscape. Lot 1: Maximum design flexibility is allowed for this existing home because of its distance from all other Alto Robles homes and homes on surrounding properties. D. Maximum Building Heights New Lots 2 through 13: Homes should not, exceed a maximum of 25 feet in height as measured from grade. The majority of the building should not exceed 20 feet from natural grade. Accessory structures should not exceed 15 feet in height above natural grade. Fences should not exceed 5 to 6 feet in height. Existing Lot 1: Because of the size and privacy of this lot, and the fact that it is developed with an existing home maximum flexibility in design is permitted. However, except as otherwise permitted through Design Review, this home should not exceed 30 feet in height, as measured from natural grade elevation to the top of the highest roof ridge. Accessory structures should not exceed 15 feet above natural grade. Tennis court fences should not exceed 12 feet; other fences should not exceed 5 to 6 feet. E. Viewshed Protection KAO plans show the tentative location of the residential building footprint for each lot. In order that each lot purchaser can visualize surrounding development - even prior to build-out - KAO plans create a rebuttable presumption that a home of that lot coverage and shape will be permitted on each lot within the building footprint shown. Therefore, in purchasing a lot, and in designing a home, each lot owner should be cognizant of the construction which will EXHIBIT NO. 1 31612007 Alta Robles Page 2 of 9 likely be permitted on adjacent lots and should accordingly plan his/her own windows and view corridors in order to preserve privacy and views even after build-out of adjacent lots. On the other hand, to the extent that a lot owner wishes to build outside of the building footprint shown in KAO plans, the burden will be on the lot owner to avoid highly visible areas, to minimize interference with existing views on surrounding properties (especially views which are oriented towards major visual resources such as San Francisco Bay and Tiburon Ridge and to demonstrate that other lot owners and public trail users are not significantly disadvantaged by the building location. In general, homes which are located outside of the plan guidelines should be oriented to present the narrow side of the building to the exposed view rather than the wide side. Visual impacts from relocating homes outside of the footprints shown in KAO plans should be considered significant if they: • result in a substantial and significant, demonstrated negative aesthetic effect; • result in a significant obstruction of any selected scenic vista or view open to the public and noted in public policy; or • result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view as defined by public policy. Visual impacts from relocating homes outside of the footprints shown in KAO plans can result not only from construction, but also from grading, alteration of natural land forms, or removal of vegetation. Visual impacts may be evaluated by assessing the physical layout of buildings with respect to ridge lines, slopes and other visually prominent topographic features, as well as building placement, height, bulk, and massing. The visibility of new development should be minimized by using existing natural site characteristics for screening, such as trees, topographic features, and rock outcrops. All utility lines must be placed underground. Rooflines should generally be below the visual plane of ridges, or, where a ridge lot is too flat to allow placement of a home below the visual plane of the ridge, then a height limit should be imposed. F. Hillside Building Design Buildings situated in hillside areas should be designed to visually blend with the surrounding natural topography to minimize the prominence of structural height, bulk, and massing as viewed from surrounding properties and roadways. The following design aspects are encouraged in hillside areas: General building form should include low profile one- and two-story levels stepped down hillsides to conform to the surrounding natural terrain. Uphill views of homes should present a low-slung horizontal silhouette by integrating deck and foundation and glazing location and design into the shape of the building and site topography. EXHIBIT NO,__.i,~ _ 31612007 Alta Robles Page 3 of 9 Downhill views of homes should present a pleasing roof-scape of low-pitched and curved or flat roofs. G. Rooflines Roofs should be pitched and oriented to reflect the slope and natural terrain which provide a visual backdrop for each home. To reduce visual impacts related to overall height, bulk, and mass of buildings, roof pitches should generally not Architectural features which provide for articulation of roof forms, such as light wells, are encouraged as long as they do not substantially increase the bulk and mass of tlae structure. Roof forms and roof lines should be broken into a series of smaller building components. Long, linear, unbroken roof lines are discouraged. A fire-resistant roof system with a minimum Class A rating is required on all buildings. All chimneys must have spark arresters consistent with Section 11.20(b) of the Tiburon Fire Protection District Ordinance 120. H. Exterior Walls Exterior walls should be composed of a series of smaller horizontal and vertical planes to break up the visual bulk and massing of buildings and reflect the irregular terrain of the Alta Robles site. Excessive cantilevers and overhangs should be avoided on downhill elevations to minimize the apparent massing of buildings. Large unbroken expanses of walls and rooflines should be avoided. Generally, no vertical building wall visible off site should exceed 20 feet in height as measured from the lowest point on finished grade adjacent to the wall. (Foundations or other structural elements under two feet in height are excluded from the 20-foot limit.) Flat building walls over one story in height and over 25 feet in running horizontal dimension should be discouraged to minimize unarticulated wall mass. Any vertical walls above the 20-foot single wall height limit should be stepped back from the adjacent lower walls by a minimum distance of 10 feet. (Chimney masses less than six feet in width are excluded from this requirement.) The wall step-back design should also be reviewed in light of adjacent home design to ensure visual separation between homes above the first floor, thus reducing visible mass from down-slope locations. 1. Parking / Garage Design Each lot must provide at least two off-street guest parking spaces in addition to two garage parking spaces. For down-slope lots, garages should be sited as close to the street as practical while providing vehicular access and allowing for adequate off-street parking, so as to minimize grading for driveway ramps. For up-slope lots, garage buildings and driveways should be EXHIBIT NO. V6 31612007 Alta Robles Page 4 of 9 sited so as to minimize the size and height of driveway retaining walls and to avoid excessive cuts. To the extent feasible, the front of the garage should be oriented away from the street frontage. However, this objective must be balanced against the goal of minimizing the grading typically required to construct driveway access to garages which are oriented toward side or rear property lines. J. Fencing No fencing of lot boundaries is permitted, but low fencing within the Private Use Area, while discouraged, will be allowed. All fencing locations, material, and design are subject to Design Review. When planned, fences should generally not exceed 5 feet in height unless the applicant can demonstrate, with evidence, that additional height will be visually unobtrusive and is needed for deer protection and will not affect views from surrounding parcels. K. Exterior Lighting Design Review plans shall include information on the location, type, intensity, and design of all exterior lighting. Exterior lighting fixtures should compliment the architectural style of structures. Exterior lighting should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to safely illuminate points of access and outdoor living areas. It should be designed and located to avoid or to minimize visibility from surrounding properties and roadways. It should generally be avoided in areas which are visible from surrounding properties and roadways, unless necessary for safety or security. In areas where such lighting will be visible from roadways or surrounding properties, light fixtures should be mounted at low elevations and fully shielded to direct lighting downward to the immediate area underneath the fixture. Lighting along walkways should be mounted on low-elevation bollards or posts. Flood lighting is prohibited. Night lighting for recreational use of tennis courts, sport courts, and other similar outdoor recreational activity areas is prohibited to avoid glare and noise intrusion from the nighttime use of such areas. L. Exterior Building Materials and Colors Exterior building facades should be treated with materials and colors which visually blend with the surrounding natural environment and minimize contrast with the natural backdrop when viewed from off-site locations. The following exterior building elements should be used to achieve architectural compatibility with the built and natural environments: EXHIBIT NO. 31612007 Alta Robles Page 5 of 9 1. Roof colors should be dark earth tones to minimize visibility from distant locations. Earth tone concrete, non-reflective surfaces and recycled materials are recommended. 2. Roof materials should either be concrete tile, flat clay tile, slate, non-reflective metal, composition or fiberglass shingles, or other material which meets the requirements of applicable fire prevention codes. 3. Exterior wall material should consist of sustainable forested woods, concrete, steel, glass or natural colored local stone or brick masonry, or cement plaster. 4. Exterior colors should be subdued natural or earth-tone finishes which are visually compatible with the colors of the natural surroundings. 5. Decking material and colors should be compatible with the residence. 6. Solar collectors are encouraged but need to be handled in as sensitive a manner as possible, subject to professional review. They may be placed on roofs only where they do not create reflective glare when viewed from surrounding properties and roadways. Where solar panels cannot be hidden on roofs, they should be incorporated into landscape plans with terraces, walls, pool houses, and other hard surfaces. 7. Exposed sheet metal and flashing shall be painted or treated to harmonize with adjacent field colors. 8. Window and skylight casing materials are to be consistent with building architecture, materials and colors. Skylight cases which are visible from ofd site locations should be flat lenses or low-pyramid-type and painted or treated to harmonize with adjacent field colors. 9. Fences should include materials which are compatible with the exterior materials of the residence. The use of rock, natural wood, open wire fencing with natural wood, or masonry/cement plaster posts is encouraged to visually integrate fencing with landscaping and the surrounding natural backdrop. Other than local natural stone fencing, any fence proposed for the front and side yards should be prohibited. 10. Retaining walls and concrete exposed to downhill views should be either: rock-faced; colored, textured, or painted to harmonize with adjacent soil or plant colors; covered with redwood, brick, stucco, or stone; or screened by landscaping to reduce visual impact. 11. Building materials certified by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) should be used where feasible. LEED's-certified building materials are rated for energy, water, indoor air quality, and site issues. The following exterior building elements are discouraged because they are generally obtrusive by nature of their massing, ornamentation or structural form: EXHIBIT NO. 31612007 Alta Robles Page 6 of 9 1. reflective materials, or colors which visually contrast with the natural backdrop; 2. columns, minarets, and towers which are inconsistent with the architectural vocabulary shown at Exhibit A; 3. large, unbroken expanses of walls; 4. large areas of single-pane glass; 5. mirrored or other highly reflective glass; 6. plastic materials made to resemble masonry or stone; 7. plywood siding such as T-1-11; 8. excessive cantilevers or overhangs on downhill elevations; 9. overhanging decks or decks on elevated poles that make buildings appear more massive from downhill views; and 10. fence materials such as chain link, corrugated metal, bright colored plastic or plastic-coated wire. a II. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINE A. Landscape Guidelines Applicable to All Lots Conceptual landscape plans for the entire subdivision have been prepared by Jim Catlin, Landscape Architect (See Alta Robles Subdivision - Preliminary Planting Plan Defensible Space - Dated March 2007 - Consisting of 11 Sheets) The plans include an overall detail of the fire safe Marin defensible space requirements. The plan identifies project tree removal (See Sheet L1.0b) for natives and non-natives. The plan also includes a concept tree, native and non-native, replacement plan. The plan generally demonstrates that the project impact on trees will be mitigated by project design. Additionally, the plans have a lot by lot preliminary planting plan. The following general guidelines were used to direct the preliminary landscape planting plan. Landscaping will respect the primary viewsheds available to surrounding residents and to users of the public open space. The location and species type of new landscaping should be regulated by the Property Owners' Association to ensure that existing scenic views are preserved. The location and species type of introduced landscaping should be such that, at maximum height, landscaping will not block scenic views of significant natural features (Tiburon Ridge and San Francisco Bay) or cast substantial shadows onto adjacent properties. On-site landscaping should utilize primarily native plant species which are compatible with the surrounding natural environment of Alto Robles. Existing trees and natural vegetation should be retained where possible. Introduced landscaping shall include approximately 80% California native species tolerant to drought, fire, and frost which are consistent with plants approved by the Marin Municipal Water District and the Tiburon Fire Protection District. -NTuTBIT NO. 31612007 Alta Robles Page 7 of 9 Trees and other vegetation endemic to mixed evergreen forest and open grass lands should be encouraged in landscape plans. An approved landscape palette listing vegetation which meets these criteria is also included in the preliminary plan Sheet L 1.0a. This is not an exclusive list, but all vegetation selected for landscaping should be comparable in drought tolerance and fire resistance to those plants listed in the plan. Trees and grasses planted within 20 feet of the nearest street (including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and pavement) must be approved by Public Works, and should not include either tree species such as alders, redwoods, and sycamores, or non-native grasses which are detrimental to the integrity of the roadside. At least 80% of all plants along drainage ditches must be native grasses and evergreen species, to minimize accumulation of vegetative debris within ditches, downstream watercourses, and drains. Landscaping shall not be placed in easements provided for utilities or drainage if such landscaping could damage or interfere with such functions, or change the direction of flow of drainage channels, or obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels. Landscaping and other property frontage features such as retaining walls and fences shall be sited and designed so as not to obstruct or impede sight distances between driveways and approaching motorists. Extensive terracing and retaining walls or pony walls are discouraged. Terracing for front and rear landscaped yards may be permitted with incremental steps. Spas, pools, or lawns on sloped lots may be acceptable if the above development standards can be met. Solar collectors should be incorporated into walls, fences, terraces, spas, pools, and other landscape elements whenever possible. Landscape plans show defensible space for individual lots and concept homes and they have been reviewed by the Tiburon Fire Protection District to ensure that they conform to fire safety regulations. Trees and other vegetation should not be planted in locations that will require removal or substantial trimming with maturity to meet Fire District regulations for maintaining defensible space. When planning landscaping, homeowners should bear in mind that - pursuant to the Fuel Modification and Landscape Management plan contained in the CC&R's - all owners are responsible on an on-going basis for reducing flammable vegetation and debris within their respective fuel modification zones. R. Lot-Specific Landscape Guidelines Lots 2 through 13: The Residential Use Areas of these lots are very limited to preserve the native terrain, vegetation and open views. Landscaping is intended to be limited, with the goal of avoiding the use of introduced vegetation to screen structures. Instead, landscaping should be low-growing in order to retain views over structures from public trails. Lots 1: This lot enjoys a larger Residential Use Areas because site topography is more stable and less steep, and because the sites are less visible from off-site and already developed. Accessory uses, swimming pools, and tennis court, is permitted within the 31612007 Alta Robles EXHIBIT NO. Page 8 of 9 Residential Use Areas and larger formal landscape and hard surface areas exist and are appropriate. IV. BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING GUIDELINES SEE THE SYCAMORE ASSOCIATES, LLC REPORT "MITIGAITON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPROXIMATE 60 ACRE RABIN/SODA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOLPMENT. The project sponsor intends to implement the mitigations presented in the Sycamore report and they have been conceptually shown in the project design plans. For example, the tree removal for project development and the mitigation requiring replanting has been conceptually presented in the preliminary landscape plans prepared by Jim Catlin, Landscape Architect. 31612007 Alta Robles Page 9 EXHIBIT N0. of 9 Alta Robles Alternative 5 Date: April 1, 2011 To: Dan Watrous and Scott Anderson, Town of Tiburon Planning Department From: Kao Design Group Photosimulations: 1. Building colors were darkened per recommendations in the last staff report. 2. Transition plantings were added on the south sides of houses 5, 6 and 8, 11, 12 and the west side of house 13 (point 10 from R. Greenberg's January 2011 recommendations) 3. Alternative 5: House 4 was modeled and sited in its new location. 4. House 8 received the additional plantings on the roof and walls per Alt 4 that had not been shown in previous visualizations. Site plans 1. Residential Use Area of house 1 was reduced, from 3.75 acres to 2.92 acres. Lot 1 was reduced slightly from 15.22 acres to 15.16 acres. (SP03, SP04 and 04B) 2. In Alternative 4, House 4 was outside the 150' horizontal offset from the Tiburon Ridge, but still within the 50' vertical offset. With Alternative 5, house 4 was moved completely out of the ridge setback zone. The new location for lot 4 is in an area that was previously part of the Rabin property, adjacent to lot 2. This serves to further cluster the homes. (SP-04, SP-0413, SP-20, SP-22, SP-30, SP-32, A04-01, A04-13, A04-21) Expanded Migration Area: 3. Lot 2's residential use area was reduced from 1.26 acres to 1.01 acres, and the resulting quarter acre was converted to private open space. The fenceline was relocated accordingly. (SP-04, SP04B, SP-20, SP-22) 4. Lot 3's residential use area was reduced by 0.37 acres and converted to private open space, of which lot 3 had none before. The fenceline was relocated accordingly. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP-22) 5. The residential use area on lot 6 was reduced in order to increase the private open space and extend the wildlife migration corridor on private open space. The fenceline was revised accordingly. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP-22) 6. Lot 4's Private Open Space continues the line of the private open space of lots 2 and 1. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP- 22, A04-01, A04-13) 7. Lot 1's Private Open Space was connected to Lot 9's, to encourage species movement on the site. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP-22) Fagade Surface Area 8. Data was recalculated to reflect surface area below grade to be from top of floor instead of bottom of footing to reflect living area. (SP-03B) Grading 9. Grading was modified to remove and replace the landslide within 100' of footprint of lot 4 house. (SP-30B, SP- 30B, SP-32) Revision 2 (April 1, 2011) 10. The access to the public trail from Hacienda Fire Road was relocated southeast near the two pillars of the Hacienda Fire Road, further away from the neighbors. Plantings are proposed to the northwest of the trailhead to visually screen it from the neighbor's view. (SP-04, SP-0413, SP-20, SP-2013, SP-22, SP-30, SP-32) EXHIBIT NO. 19 MEMO To: Dan Watrous, Scott Anderson, Town of Tiburon Planning Department From: Kao Design Group Date: April 6, 2011 RE: Summary of changes from Alt 3 to Alternative 5 visualizations for Alta Robles Alta Robles had visualizations done for the Draft Environmental Impact Review at the Alternative 3 stage from the viewpoints Middle Ridge Open Space, Paradise Drive and Acacia Court. Alternative 4 visualizations were not done from those views. Most recently, the design team modeled the buildings f and rendered those three views to incorporate the design revisions that were part of both Alternatives 4 and 5. What follows is a listing of the differences that are visible between the visualizations. The view summaries are followed by a detailed list of all Alternative 5 revisions. View West from Middle Ridge Open Space • General conditions: o Existing trees to be conserved are illustrated o Illustrated vegetated roofs as distinguished from solar panels o Wood siding and trims have been modeled a dark tree bark color stain. • House 4 o Removed from primary ridge setback to Alt 5 location, between lots 1 and 2, with revised massing and footprint. In Alternative 5, house 4 maintains a smaller square footage at 4000 square feet and a 600 square foot garage. In Alternative 4 it was 4490 square feet with a 600 square foot garage. In Alternative 3 it was 6300 square feet with a 600 square foot garage. • House 5: o Illustrated Alternative 4 of lot 5 with building set back, facing open space and resource area, to 30 feet and pool set back 21 feet-10 inches. o Illustrates Alternative 4 massing and vegetated roof o Existing shed to remain as of Alternative 4 o This vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Small deciduous tree to southeast at master bedroom in south yard ■ 1 small deciduous tree to south of stair at deck in south yard ■ 1 small deciduous trees in courtyard terrace in south yard ■ Tree to east of pool in south yard ■ Small deciduous tree to southeast of corner of house in south yard • Lot 2 o House is screened from existing trees which are to remain • Lot 3 o House is screened from existing trees to be conserved along drive • Lot 7 EXHIBIT N0. Z ' o House is partially screened from existing allee of trees along drive • House 6 o Vegetated roof per alternative 4 o Illustrated alternative 4 of lot 6 with building and pool set back facing open space and resource area to 30 feet . o Reflects Alternative 4 massing o This vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Coniferous tree at south corner of building in south yard ■ Deciduous tree at south corner (master bedroom) of building in south yard ■ Small deciduous tree to south of pool in south yard ■ Coniferous tree in front of pool • House 8 o Additional vegetation on southern slope of roof (per Alternative 4 drawings) o Planted wall instead of stucco on lower level of southeast wall (per Alternative 4 drawings) a o The vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Deciduous tree to south of garage, ■ Deciduous tree to south of building corner • Lot 11 o The vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Deciduous tree added downslope from house at southeast corner ■ Three deciduous trees added downslope from house along southern face of house, in front of terrace and pool ■ Deciduous tree added at northeast corner of driveway • Lot 12 o The vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: . ■ Three deciduous trees added along southeast facade • Lot 13 o Shown in its Alternative 4 massing and location with expanded buffer zone o This vegetated buffer zone of the Residential Use Area is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Two deciduous trees are added at southwest face of building ■ Existing trees to remain at southeast corner ■ Vegetated roof shown on non-PV portions of roof Looking West from Paradise Drive EXHIBIT NO. ~ P, z C) P 5 • General conditions: o Wood trims have been modeled a dark tree bark color stain. o Existing trees to be conserved are illustrated o Illustrated vegetated roofs distinguished from solar panels • Per design intent, this visualization retained the existing allee of trees which screens lot 3, 7 and partially screens 2. • House 8 o The vegetated buffer zone of the Residential Use Area is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Deciduous tree to south of garage, ■ Deciduous tree to south of building corner o Per Alt 4 drawings, the lower floor southeast wall is a planted wall instead of stucco • House4 o Removed from primary ridge setback to Alt 5 location (between lots 1 and 2) with revised massing and footprint. • House 3 o House is screened by existing allee of trees to be conserved • House 7 o House is screened by existing allee of trees to be conserved • House 2 o House is partially screened from existing trees to be conserved along drive • House 6 o Hidden in this view by existing trees to remain • House 9 o Partially hidden by existing trees to remain • House 10 o Partially hidden by existing trees to remain • House 11 o The vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Deciduous tree added downslope from house at southeast corner ' ■ Three deciduous trees added downslope from house along southern face of house, in front of terrace and pool ■ Deciduous tree added at northeast corner of driveway • House 12 o The vegetated buffer zone is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Three deciduous trees added along southeast facade • House 13 o Hidden in this view by existing trees to remain, • House 14 EXHIBIT NO. ICJ t? .3 10 t- S o Hidden in this view by existing trees to remain and topography o In Alternative 4, the house was changed to have smaller massing and floorplan with area 4663 square feet (previously 7200 square feet). The pool top of wall and terrace were lowered to reduce heights of bare wall by 4.5 feet. Looking East from Acacia Drive • General conditions: o Wood trims have been modeled a dark tree bark color stain. o Existing trees to be conserved are illustrated o Illustrated vegetated roofs distinguished from solar panels • House 14 o Screened by existing trees and topography o In Alternative 4, the house was changed to have smaller massing and floorplan with area 4663 square feet (previously 7200 square feet). The pool top of wall and terrace were lowered to reduce heights of bare wall by 4.5 feet. 0 • House 13 o Shown in its alternative 4 massing and location with expanded buffer zone o This vegetated buffer zone of the Residential Use Area is planted with additional trees listed below that provide additional visual screening: ■ Two deciduous trees are added at southwest face of building ■ Existing trees to remain at southeast corner ■ Vegetated roof shown on non-PV portions of roof • House 12 o Vegetated Roof shown- topography slopes up to roof • House 11 o Hidden by existing trees to remain. • House 10 o Existing trees to remain • House 9,- o Existing trees to remain Alternative 5 had changes to allocations of residential use areas and private open space to expand migration corridors; these modifications appear in the Site plans. Site plans 1. Residential Use Area of house 1 was reduced, from 3.75 acres to 2.92 acres. Lot 1 was reduced slightly from 15.22 acres to 15.16 acres. (SP03, SP04 and 0413) ~C EXHIBIT NO. L4 C> F5 2. In Alternative 4, House 4 was outside the 150' horizontal offset from the Tiburon Ridge, but still within the 50' vertical offset. With Alternative 5, house 4 was moved completely out of the ridge setback zone. The new location for lot 4 is in an area that was previously part of the Rabin property, adjacent to lot 2. This serves to further cluster the homes. (SP-04, SP-0413, SP-20, SP- 22, SP-30, SP-32, A04-01, A04-13, A04-21) Expanded Migration Area: 3. Lot 2's residential use area was reduced from 1.26 acres to 1.01 acres, and the resulting quarter acre was converted to private open space. The fenceline was relocated accordingly. (SP-04, • SP0413, SP-20, SP-22) 4. Lot 3's residential use area was reduced by 0.37 acres and converted to private open space, of which lot 3 had none before. The fenceline was relocated accordingly. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP- 22) 5. The residential use area on lot 6 was reduced in order to increase the private open space and extend the wildlife migration corridor on private open space. The fenceline was revised accordingly. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP-22) 6. Lot 4's Private Open Space continues the line of the private open space of lots 2 and 1. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP-22, A04-01, A04-13) 7. Lot 1's Private Open Space was connected to Lot 9's, to encourage species movement on the site. (SP-04, SP0413, SP-20, SP-22) Fagade Surface Area 8. Data was recalculated to reflect surface area below grade to be from top of floor instead of bottom of footing to reflect living area. (SP-0313) Grading 9. Grading was modified to remove and replace the landslide within 100' of footprint of lot 4 house. (SP-3013, SP-3013, SP-32) Revision 2 (April 1, 2011) 10. The access to the public trail from Hacienda Fire Road was relocated southeast near the two pillars of the Hacienda Fire Road, further away from the neighbors. Plantings are proposed to the northwest of the trailhead to visually screen it from the neighbor's view. (SP-04, SP-0413, SP- 20, SP-2013, SP-22, SP-30, SP-32) Z-b EXHIBIT NO. P, <j~6FS-- Scott L. Hochstrasser IPA, Inc. LATE MAIL# Z E-Mail slhl ipa(Daaol.Com *42 Glen Drive, Suite B * Fairfax, CA 94930 USA * Tele(415)459-6224 * Fax 459-5810 April 13, 2010 (via email and Hand Delive p )[E 0 IE Q W E Planning Commission Tiburon Town Hall APR 3 2~~~ 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT: Alta Robles Project: April 13, 2011 "Staff Report" and March 23, 2011 "Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility" (Exhibit 6) Dear Planning Commission Chairperson and Members: Our consulting team is in receipt of the "April 13, 2011 Staff Report" and the March 23, 2011 "Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility" prepared for your Commission and pertaining to the Alta Robles project. Although both reports are thorough and detailed, they rely on assumptions, subjective qualitative analysis, approximations and opinion that are not based in fact. The March 23, 2011 Memo and the April 13, 2011 Staff Report fail to provide an analysis of the facts and evidence presented by the project applicants. Moreover, the staff recommended measures for reducing visual impact, improving ridge line and improving neighborhood compatibility policy consistency are opinions not based on facts or evidence. Most importantly, the Memo and Staff Report lack facts or evidence to prove that the measures proposed and the recommendations presented in the Memo and the draft Resolution attached to the Staff Report will actually result in any meaningful distinction between the Alternative 5 project now proposed by the applicant and the project as conditioned by the Draft Resolution. MEMO -March 23, 2011- Staff Report April 13, 2011 1. Significant Ridge Policy Analysis The staff Memo reports that at the January 26, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant return with revisions that would achieve improved consistency with these policies. The Memo states the following: "The primary purposes of this memo are to: EXHIBIT N0. 2 ' 1) Provide the Commission with additional information and analysis regarding the project's relationship with the two significant ridgelines (Significant Ridgelines #S and #6) located on the project site; 2) Provide the Planning Commission with additional comparative information on surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) Based on Commission direction at the Janua7y 26, 2011 meeting, to describe project revisions that could produce a level of improved policy consistency in an attempt to meet the Planning Commission's expectations. " Please note that this information and analysis has been generated independently by staff and has not been informed by applicant-Generated materials associated with so-called "Alternative 5 which has not yet been submitted as of the completion of this memorandum. For the pu7poses of this analysis, Staff assumed that conformance with the Tiburon Ridgeline policies and setbacks would be achieved through the elimination of Lot 4, and for the same reason, policies applicable only to the Tiburon Ridgeline are also not addressed herein. " FACT: Staff notes the PC asked for revised plans then reports that they did their analysis without using the revised information. This happened because the analysis was done before the revised plans were submitted. For example staff assumption that Lot #4 would be eliminated is not correct. The fact is the applicant did not "eliminate Lot #4" it was relocated on the project site and more tightly clustered between Lots #1 and #2 to achieve the Tiburon Ridge vertical setback, (the horizontal setback was already achieved by the previous design). Finally, if the applicant generated info-nation has not been used to inform the staff, then why did the staff require extensive additional plan revisions, Memos outlining changes in the project from Alternative #3 presented in the EIR and project merit alternatives #4 and #5? Staff failed to use the applicant's updated information to inform their analysis. Proximity of Home Footprints to Significant Ridgelines Based on an approximated superimposing (Exhibit 2) of the Alternative 4 site plan onto DEIR Exhibit 4.0-2 (Ridges), Staff concludes that the proposed home footprints horizontally relate to the significant ridgelines as follows: Staff notes that'the actual visibility and prominence of ridgelines (and proposed homes on or near them) varies based on a number of factors, including topography, vantage point, existing vegetation, and vertical distance from a ridgeline. Staff has not attempted to calculate the vertical relationship of proposed homes to significant ridgelines, but rather has applied a qualitative assessment based on the DEIR analysis of Policy OSC-12 and more detailed analysis of the public viei4point photo-simulations contained in the project EIR. FACT: It is not clear why staff chose not to calculate the vertical relationships of the proposed homes to 2 EXHIBIT NO.~_ the significant ridges, the plans are to scale and staff required this for the Tiburon Ridge. Rather, staff applied a "qualitative assessment based on the DEIR" and more detailed analysis of public viewpoint photo simulations contained in the EIR. The fact is the DEIR and the EIR did not have updated public view point and photo-simulations to reflect the project changes presented in Alternative #4. The DEIR and the FEIR include photo-simulations for the project ``worst case" Alternative #3. So the "qualitative assessment" staff did was not based in fact pertaining to the Alternative #4 or Alternative #5 merits project alternatives prepared to respond the public and PC comments made at previous hearings. Accordingly, the project analysis was not based on most recent facts and is subjective at best and borders on punitive. The project applicants prepared a visual simulation of the changes made in project Alternative #4 and Alternative #5, including plans for protecting existing trees, landscaping planned by design, relocation of Lot #4, and modeling proposed colors, materials and building design elements to show more exactly what the project views would be from the exact view locations selected by the Town and used by the Town's EIR consultant for their independent visual assessment. So, it is unclear why the staff prepared a "qualitative analysis" based on outdated photo-simulations when the applicants provided exact visual simulations that objectively and exactly modeled the merits project views from critical locations. KEY POINT - Neither Significant Ridge has "high visual prominence" "Staff concludes that, in general, neither significant ridgeline has "high visual prominence" nor is a candidate for public trail connection to the Tiburon Ridge Trail. The distinctiveness of the ridgeline landform itself varies based on the vantage point, but is generally though not always muted for both ridgelines. In short, neither ridgeline "jumps of the page " at a viewer in any of the photo-simulations contained in the EIR, although segments dominated by grasslands are more visible as a rid¢eline landform. Policy OSC-12 indicates that this caliber of ridgeline warrants less protection than more prominent significant ridgelines. That said, staff attempts below to provide a more nuanced evaluation of visual impacts of the project on the ridgelines based on the photo-simulations (Exhibit 4) contained in the EIR, and suggests measures that could reduce impacts and provide improved protection of the two ridgelines. " FACT Staff honestly concludes that neither significant ridgeline has "high visual prominence" and generally they are muted and neither ridgeline "jumps off the page" at a viewer in any of the photo-simulations contained in the EIR. This is based on a fair assessment of the geographic features of the site. The fact is, it is difficult to even identify these ridge forms, Page 102 and 103 of the DEIR states the slopes of Ridge 5 and 6 are relatively subtle, and lack physical characteristics of a ridge including steep topography and visual prominence. Moreover, in 'the field and this was confirmed in conversations on the April 8, 2011 PC field trip where several members of the public and some members of the Commission questioned where in fact the ridge lines were. Even though the independent EIR consultant and staff find that Ridges 5 & 6 don't meet the physical standards for being a "ridge" of significance, staff makes an effort and attempt to EXHIBIT NO. Z_ / provide the PC with a more "nuanced evaluation of the visual impact'' of the project on the ridgelines. But, this analysis is based on outdated visual simulations (Exhibit 4 contained in the DEIR) which modeled the "worst case" Alternative #3. This plan Alternative has been modified twice since the EIR was completed. Although staffs "policy analysis" does not provide the PC with a history of how Ridges 5 & 6 came to be designated "significant ridges" on this propert y and there is no report of the purpose of the ridge designation, clearly staff understands and assumes the PC does as well that the intent and purpose of the "significant ridge" designation is to preserve and protect "visual qualities" of the ridged. The applicant's team provided the Town staff, a full revised set of project plans showing Alternative #5 on March 28, 2011 in accordance with the PC request. This package includes project revisions made in response to Planning Commissiou comments at the January 26, 2011. The package includes detailed changes in the plans including relocation of Lot #4 out of the Tiburon Ridge vertical setback, tighter clustering of lots by placing Lot 4 between Lot 1 and Lot2. It includes reduction in residential use area for Lot #1, 5 and 6, and it included revised tables, detailed plans, 3 d models and updated visual photo-simulations to show the changes in the project since it was last modeled in the project EIR, Exhibit 4. Following the presentation of these materials, staff requested a surnmary of changes from Alternative #3 (the Alternative modeled in the EIR) to Alternative #5" (the project being presented to the Planning Commission April 13, 2011). The Memo, Summary Changes from Alternative #3 to Alternative #5 visualizations for Alta Robles, prepared by KAO Design Group, prepared for Town staff, dated April 6, 2011 and presented to the Planning Commission on the April 8, 2011 field trip lists all of the changes presented in Alternative #4, the merits presentation made at the January 26, 2011 PC hearing, and all of the Alternative #5 changes made in the plan presented to the PC April 13, 2011. (SEE Exhibit A attached herewith). The fact is, the staff s March 23, 2011 MEMORANDUM and "nuance evaluation of the visual impact of the project on the ridgelines was prepared before staff received the updated material. Accordingly, the analysis staff did on the project details and menu of recommendations for project changes specified in the March 23, 2011 MEMO are flawed for the following reasons 1. The analysis of the project development details was based on outdated "worst case" visuals and photo simulations from the EIR that modeled Alternative #3, and 2. The staff analysis failed to include the facts of all of the project changes that have occurred from Alternative #3 to the Alternative #5 in presentations on the merits of the project (See Exhibit 5 'of the PC Staff Report), and 3. The staff analysis is based on a "qualitative" not a fact based or quantitative analysis. For example, staff did not even bother to calculate and report to the commission the actual details of the vertical relationships between the proposed homes and the significant ridges. Secondly, staff did not do a comparison of the project changes presented in PC Report Exhibit #5 with the "menu" of changes listed in the Memo and the Staff Report, and 4. Staff failed to point out that even with the changes recommended in the EIR and the further "menu" of changes to the project staff proposes the project could continue to result in significant unavoidable visual impacts from the Middle Ridge and in all cases a "statement of overriding consideration" would be required in the mitigation monitoring program. 4 EXHIBIT N U►. 2 ( SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SIGNIFICANT RIDGE ANALYSIS The independent EIR consultant and Staff correctly conclude that Ridges 5 & 6 lack the typical physical characteristics of a ridge including steep topography and visual prominence. However, staff goes on to do an additional visual impact analysis to come up with measures to modify the project in accordance with what the PC was telegraphing, but not stating, at the January 26, 2011 meeting. Staff's analysis was based on outdated project visual simulations. Accordingly, the staff made a qualitative and subjective analysis of the visual impacts of the project based on a "worst case" CEQA analysis and ignored the applicants two revised plan modifications and submissions including, Alternative #4 and Alterative #5. Alternative 4 and 5 changes were made to respond to the merits comments received from the public and Planning Commission at previous public hearings. The staff failed to provide the PC with quantitative data and/or to present the facts of the project changes from EIR" worst case" Alternative #3 and the current merits project Alternative #5. Accordingly, the staff analysis and "possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures"; presented in their March 23, 2011 are simply un-infonned opinion and have no merit and lack current facts and comparison of the changes already made in the Alternative 5 project plans. Accordinglyrn, the analysis and recommendations are subjective, misleading and arbitrary. For example, in their March 23, 2011 Memo staff provides the following measures for PC consideration: "Summary ofMeasures to Increase Ridgeline Policy Consistency In addition to measures already set forth in Alternative 4, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and in the January 26, 2011 staff report, staff believes that the following measures would increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines: 1. Eliminate Lot 4 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 3. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings. 4. Eliminate Lot 8; or relocate the Lot 8 building site to a portion of Lot I north of Lot 2; or reduce the Lot 8 floor area maximum to 4,500 square feet with a 600 square foot garage and 25' maximum height limit and darken the roof color. 5. Reduce floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6, 000 square feet and reduce the maximum height of both homes by 3 feet; require a greenish exterior color that better blends with the evergreen foliage backdrop. 6. Require a flatter roof on the Lot 11 house and darken the color of the roof. 7. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation. 8. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered " and appears as undisturbed topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline. 9. Reduce floor area maximum on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 5 NO. Z 10. Eliminate Lot 13; or relocate the Lot 13 building site to Lot 11 and reduce both homes on that site to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square feet of garage and a 22' maximum height limit; or reduce the Lot 13 floor area maximum to 5,000 square feet with 600 square feet of garage and a maximum height limit of 22' and require wall and roof colors that minimize contrast. " Several of the changes recommended were made in the Alternative #4 and Alternative #5 merits proposal (See Exhibit #5 PC Staff Report). Additionally, many of the recommendations lack any merit and there is no analysis or demonstration with evidence to show how these changes would make a meaningful distinction in the Alternative #5 project merits plan. The staff analysis ignores the applicants efforts to responses to issues; including submittal of two alternatives with updated plans, tables, visual simulations, 3D visual models and details of changes presented in the April 6, 2011 Memo. Additionally, and most importantly, the staff finds based on a review of the site topography that the significant ridges are not visually prominent and don't warrant strict application of ridge policy. Then, nowhere in the staff analysis either in the March 23, 2011 Memo and/or in the April 13, 2011 Staff Report does the staff provide any proof that the ten (10) ridgeline visual impact reduction measures noted above make any meaningful distinction in the overall consistency of the project with the Town policies pertaining to "significant ridges". 2. Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility In their Memo staff notes that the Tiburon General Plan (Tiburon 2020) contains several goals and policies that address neighborhood consistency and/or compatibility. These goals and policies are as follows: Goal LU-H: To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity. Goal LU-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house sizes/ architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-5: New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. Policy 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. 6 2 ~ EXHIBIT NO. 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. Project Setting The project site is generally bordered by three different established neighborhoods: homes along upper Hacienda Drive; homes in the Seafirth Subdivision and nearby Paradise Drive; and homes in the Acacia Court Subdivision. The floor area of homes and lot area ranges these neighborhoods are described as follows: Hacienda Drive: The floor areas of the 27 homes in this neighborhood to the south and west of the project site range from 2,146 to 6,324 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from 0.25 to 1.1 acres. Only one of these 27 homes is over 6,000 square feet, only 3 are over 5,000 square feet and only 7 of the 27 dwellings are over 4,000 square feet. Most of these homes date to the 1960's through 1980's. Seafirth Subdivision and nearby Paradise Drive: The 29 homes in the mid-1950's-vintage Seafirth Subdivision to the north of the project site range in size from 1,936 to 4,331 square feet. Seafirth Subdivision lots are much smaller than the proposed Alta Robles lots and range in size from 0.24 to 0.92 acres, while other unincorporated lots along Paradise Drive range from around 0.5 acre and up. Other homes along the unincorporated portions of Paradise Drive north and east of the site are substantially larger than the Seafirth Subdivision homes. The most directly adjacent property with the most recent approved subdivision is the Sorokko Subdivision on the east side of Paradise Drive directly across the road from the lower project site. This site has a County approved Master Plan allowing the development of homes as large as 8,000 square feet, although, unlike the subject site where an 8,000 sq ft home exists on Lot #1, no home designs have been built on the Sorokko site. Acacia Court Subdivision: The floor areas of the seven homes in the Acacia Court Subdivision to the northwest of the project site range from 2,860 to 6,272 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from 0.9 to 1.79 acres. Five of these seven homes are larger than 5,000 square feet and three of the dwellings are over 6,000 square feet. Most of the homes date from the 1990's. Trestle Glen Estates: East of the project site, and adjacent and along Paradise Drive is the Trestle Glen Estates Subdivision In 2006 the Town approved a 3-lot subdivision (Tiburon Glen) for the 26-acre parcel surrounding Norman Estates; homes sizes were approved at 4,800 to 5,400 square feet of floor area. The project has not yet received its final subdivision map approval. FACT Staff notes in their Memo that in "Exhibit 5 is a table showing the original project home sizes and heights as are depicted in the EIR photo-simulations."' Staff notes "The applicant reduced some home sizes and heights in presenting Alternative 4" but there is no effort to give the PC 7 EXHIBIT NO. Z j details about which homes have already been reduced by the applicant in Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 merits revisions. Furthermore, staff fails to acknowledge that the applicants provided a detailed table demonstrating with facts (See Staff Report Exhibit 12 - See SP03B) that the apparent massing and exposed facade for each of the new homes is substantially below grade. For example SP -03B shows that larger homes on Lot-3,6,7,9,11, average over 40% of the total building facade surface area below grade. Staff does not acknowledge that even though proposed larger homes in the 7 or 8,000 sq ft range, which is totally compatible with the adjacent Sorokko Subdivision and some homes in Acacia Court, and with the existing house on-site on Lot #1, would have a visual appearance of roughly half of the of homes in the comparison neighborhood. For example the proposed home on Lot #11 is approximately 7,800 sq ft but only 43% of its total facade or 3,646 sq ft of the building is visible from off-site. Yet staff ignores this information and equates size with apparent visual impact and avoids any analysis of building mass and visual facade. Staff fails to report that several of the heights of houses in the Alternative 4 and 5 plans have been reduced. Staffs Memo and Staff Report fail to provide the PC with a complete analysis of the up dated information presented by the applicant that was asked for by the PC and provided by the applicant. Rather the staff goes on to recommend reduced housd sizes and height reduction measures to increase policy consistency with significant ridgelines and neighborhood consistency. Summary and Conclusions - Measures to Increase Neighborhood Consistency In addition to recommendations presented in the January 26, 2011 draft resolution to reduce house sizes on Lot 5 and 6 the Memo and Staff Report staff recommends additional reduced floor area for homes as follows: 1. Reduce Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot garage. 2 Reduce floor area of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet. 3 Reduce floor area of home on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 4 Reduce floor area of home on Lot 13 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of garage. However, staff fails to use current data for their analysis, leaves out any reference to the plan revisions already made for building size and height reductions and snakes no mention of the "Fagade Vertical Surface Area Comparison (SP 03B)" provided by the applicant to demonstrate that basically a 7,800 sq ft house would likely have the apparent visual massing of a 3,600 sq ft home because 45% of the building mass and visual facade would be below grade. Accordingly, the analysis is flawed, misleading and void of the true and lacks a report of the current facts of the case. Finally, staff provides no facts or evidence to demonstrate any meaningful distinction or improved policy consistency would result with application of the measures recommended. I would be pleased to discuss any of the above comments and issues noted above. Thank you for your kind consideration of this report. 8 EXHIBIT NO.--Z- Sincerely, Scott L Hochstrasser EXHIBIT N0. 21 n 1111cc~E 0W E APR 1 3 2011 Alta Robles Square Footages ot No. Alt 1 May 8, 2007 Alt 2 April 13, 2009 Alt 4 Feburary 5, 2010 Alt 5 March 28, 2011 Garage 2 7800 750 3 7640 750 4 6300 4005 4490 4000 600 5 7290 7826 6926 750 6 7980 7695 750 7 7290 750 8 7520 750 9 7810 750 10 7400 750 11 7890 750 12 7570 750 13 7930 7870 7783 750 14 7200 4663 600 4, Kao Design Group April 14, 2011 0~:'LAIVNING IVIS101V P EXHIBIT NO. I Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Dan Watrous, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Alta Robles Project: Additional Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility Policies DATE: March 23, 2011 BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission provided direction to the applicant indicating that the project design did not adequately comply with Tiburon General Plan policies in two key areas: 1) Policies regarding protection of significant ridgelines; and 2) Policies regarding consistency and compatibility with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, emphasizing size and or height reductions to achieve a greater degree of consistency with homes in surrounding neighborhoods. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant return with revisions that would achieve improved consistency with these policies. The primary purposes of this memo are to: 1) Provide the Commission with additional information and analysis regarding the project's relationship with the two significant ridgelines (Significant Ridgelines #5 and #6) located on the project site; 2) Provide the Planning Commission with additional comparative information on surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) Based on Commission direction at the January 26, 2011 meeting, to describe project revisions that could produce a level of improved policy consistency in an attempt to meet the Planning Commission's expectations. Please note that this information and analysis has been generated independently by staff and has not been informed by applicant-generated materials associated with so-called "Alternative 5", which has not yet been submitted as of the completion of this memorandum. For the purposes of this analysis, Staff assumed that conformance with the Tiburon Ridgeline policies and setbacks would be achieved through the elimination of Lot 4, and for the same reason, policies applicable only to the Tiburon Ridgeline are also not addressed herein. EXHIBIT NO. 262 l dF3z Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM ANALYSIS 1. Ridaeline Policies The Tiburon General Plan (Tiburon 2020) contains several goals and policies that directly address significant and/or undeveloped ridgelines (other than the Tiburon Ridgeline). These goals and policies are as follows: Goal 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. Policy L U-7.- Development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive, 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. Policy 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. Policy OSC-12: Development shall 1 shall be based on an evaluation of the fc 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. EXHIBIT NO. Z Z- T ZOF3z )e set back from Significant Ridgelines. Setbacks illowing characteristics: local and regional visual Evaluating Significant Rid elg Ines In evaluating Significant Ridgelines for protection, all characteristics identified in Policy 0SC-12 should not be judged equally. Significant Ridgelines that have a high visual prominence, have the potential to connect to the Tiburon Ridge Trail, or have a distinct ridgeline land form, such as those found at the eastern terminus of the Tiburon Ridge, should be afforded greater protection than those that have low visibility, do not connect to the Tiburon Ridge, or do not have distinct ridgeline land forms. March 23, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Policy 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. Policy 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. Several other General Plan goals or policies address ridgelines indirectly, primarjly through reference to preservation of Prime Open Space, of which ridgelines are an element. The General Plan's discussion of Prime Open Space from the Open Space & Conservation Element, and the goals and policies relevant to the Alta Robles project through reference to Prime Open Space, are set forth in attached Exhibit 1. Proximity of Home Footprints to Significant Ridgelines Based on an approximated superimposing (Exhibit 2) of the Alternative 4 site plan onto DEIR Exhibit 4.0-2 (Ridges), Staff concludes that the proposed home footprints horizontally relate to the significant ridgelines as follows: Home footprints straddling a ridgeline Significant Ridgeline #5 Lot 9 Lot 10 Home footprints near the ridgeline .l Significant Ridgeline #5 Lot 11 (<50 feet from ridgeline) Lot 12 (<50 feet from ridgeline) Lot 14 (<50 feet from ridgeline) Home footprints away from the ridgeline Significant Ridg_eline #5 Lot 13 (>I 00 feet from ri dgeline) Significant Ridgeline #6 Lot 3 Lot 8 Significant Ridgeline #6 Lot 7 (<100 feet from ridgeline) Significant Ridgeline #6 Lot 2 (=100 feet from ridgeline) Lot 5 (>150 feet from ridgeline) Lot 6 (>150 feet from ridgeline) March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT NO Page 3 of 11 P, 2_- Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Staff notes that the actual visibility and prominence of ridgelines (and proposed homes on or near them) varies based on a number of factors, including topography, vantage point, existing vegetation, and vertical distance from a ridgeline. Staff has not attempted to calculate the vertical relationship of proposed homes to significant ridgelines, but rather has applied a qualitative assessment based on the DEIR analysis of Policy OSC-12 and more detailed analysis of the public viewpoint photo-simulations contained in the project EIR. The Alta Robles DEIR contains an analysis (see Exhibit 3) of the two significant ridgelines based on criteria set forth in General Plan Policy OSC-12 and its associated "text box" (both set forth above). Staff concludes that, in general, neither significant ridgeline has "high visual prominence" nor is a candidate for public trail connection to the Tiburon Ridge Trail. The distinctiveness of the ridgeline landform itself varies based on the vantage point,but is generally though not always muted for both ridgelines. In short, neither ridgeline "jumps off the page" at a viewer in any of the photo-simulations contained in the EIR, although segments dominated by grasslands are more visible as a ridgeline landform. Policy OSC-12 indicates that this caliber of ridgeline warrants less protection than more prominent significant ridgelines. That said, staff attempts below to provide a more nuanced evaluation of visual impacts of the project on the ridgelines based on the photo-simulations (Exhibit 4) contained in the EIR, and suggests measures that could reduce impacts and provide improved protection of the two ridgelines. Significant Ridgeline 5 Viewed from the West (Acacia Drive, pp. 341-343 of the DEIR; Viewpoint No. 3) The western slope of Ridgeline 5 is somewhat visible as a ridgeline landform from this vantage point; the upper portion (south end) is heavily screened by trees; the lower portion (north end) is more exposed to view but is also flatter and has a solid backdrop of large off-site eucalyptus trees, some of which would be removed as part of the County of Marin-approved Sorokko project. The house on Lot 13 is the most prominently visible of the homes. The Sorokko tree removal could result in the Lot 13 home appearing to break the plane of the horizon and appear to be situated on the ridgeline, although it is more than 100 feet away from it. Homes on Lots 9 and 10 are moderately visible; the house on Lot 14 is barely visible; and the house on Lot 11 does not appear visible. Homes on Lots 9 and 10 appear to barely break the plane of the visual horizon from this vantage point. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lots 9 and 10. 2. Substantially reduce in size or eliminate the home on Lot 13, or relocate it to Lot 11 and reduce the size of both homes (Lot 11 and relocated Lot 13) to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot garages and maximum height limits of 22 feet. March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT NO. ZZ Page 4 of 11 P. q of 3 2 Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM 3. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered" and appears as undisturbed topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline. In combination, these measures would leave a substantial pprtion of Significant Ridgeline 5 from Viewpoint No. 3 with a relatively natural visual appearance, except for the extreme ends of the visible ridgeline. Viewed from the East (Paradise Drive below Norman Way; pp. 336-338 of the DEIR; Viewpoint No. 2) The EIR describes Ridgeline 5 as not prominently visible from this vantage point as a ridgeline form. Houses on Lots 9, 10 and 12 are moderately visible, while that on Lot 11 is less visible based on the proposed house design. The home on Lot 9 would appear to break the plane and extend above the visual horizon from this vantage point, while the others do not. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Reduce height and visible size of homes on Lots 9 and 10. 2. Modify the color of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to better blend with the greenish background established by the evergreen trees in the backdrop. 3. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation. Viewed from the South (Middle Ridge Area, pp. 331-333 of the DEIR; Viewpoint No. 1) Ridgeline 5 is not visible as a distinct ridgeline feature from this vantage point, but homes on Lots 9-13 are visible, with homes on Lots 11, 12 and 13 being the most visible due to lack of intervening vegetation and the flatness of the ridgeline (which is essentially a knoll), in that location. Because of backdrop features, none of the homes appears to materially break the plane of the visual horizon. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Provide a flatter roof on the Lot 11 home. 2. Lower the height of the Lot 13 home. March 23, EXHIBIT NO. 2-- Page 5of0111 T. 5 OF 3 Z_ Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Viewed from the North (Larkspur Ferry on the Bay, pp. 6-8 of the FEIR; Viewpoint No. 4) Ridgeline 5 is not prominently visible as a distinct ridgeline landform from this vantage point. The EIR states that although distant, homes on Lots 9 and 10 would be almost entirely exposed to view, the home on Lot 13 would be partially exposed to yiew, and homes on Lots 11 and 12 would be almost entirely screened from view by vegetation. The darker colors proposed for the homes greatly reduce the contrast and visibility from this south-facing vantage point. No homes break the plane of the horizon. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Require wall and roof colors on visible homes (Lots 9, 10 and 13) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings Significant Ridgeline 6 Viewed from the West (Acacia Drive, pp. 341-343 of the DEIR; Viewpoint No. 3) Ridgeline 6 is not visible from this vantage point. Viewed from the East (Paradise Drive below Norman Way; pp. 336-338 of the DEIR; Viewpoint No. 2) Viewpoint No. 2 offers a good view of Ridgeline 6 and the ridgeline form is clearly discernable, though not prominent, especially where grassland vegetation dominates. Homes on lots 2, 3, 7, and 8 are plainly visible, while homes on Lots 5 and 6 are not visible. Lot 4 is assumed by this analysis to be eliminated. None of the homes break the plane of the horizon due to intervening topography. The homes on Lots 3 and 8 appear to (and do) sit right on the ridge-top, while the other homes appear to be largely over the visual crest of it. The photosimulation does not include proposed size and height reductions proposed in the January 26th staff report for Lots 2, 3, and 7, which would substantially reduce the prominence of these homes from this vantage point. The home on Lot 8 is currently proposed (in Alternative 4) as over 29 feet tall and with a maximum size of 7,520 square feet and a 750 square foot garage. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Eliminate Lot 4, as previously recommended in the January 26, 2011 staff report. 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 7 (as previously recommended in the January 26, 2011 staff report). 3. Reduce the size and height of the home on Lot 8, or eliminate or relocate it. Staff has identified a possible relocation site as immediately north of Lot 2 in the vicinity of the existing 3-car detached garage on Lot 1. March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT NO. T- 2- Page 6 of 11 L P. & 6F- Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Viewed from the South (Middle Ridge Open Space, pp. 331-333 of the DEIR; Viewpoint No. 1) The DEIR states that "it is difficult to discern the characteristics" of Ridgeline 6 from this vantage point. The lower portion of the ridgeline, in the direction of Lots 7 and 8, is the most visible ridgeline segment from the Middle Ridge Open Space area due to lack of tree cover. None of the proposed homes appear to break the plane of the horizon. However, the proposed project itself is highly visible from this location. Changes to the project made through a combination of Alternative 4 modifications, Mitigation Monitoring Program measures, and the recommendations in the January 26, 2011 staff report significantly reduce the visual impacts of the project as represented from this vantage point in the DEIR photo simulation. ,,However, Staff concludes that while these changes will substantially reduce the visual impacts of the project on the environment, they will have a limited, although beneficial, impact of the visual integrity of Ridgeline 6 due to its limited identifiability as a ridgeline landform from this vantage point. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Eliminate Lot 4, as previously recommended in the January 26, 2011 staff report. 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, as previously recommended in the January 26, 2011 staff report. 3. Reduce the size and height of the home on Lot 8, or eliminate or relocate it. Viewed from the North (Larkspur Ferry on the Bay, pp. 6-8 of the FEIR; Viewpoint No. 4) Ridgeline 6 does not appear as a particularly prominent ridgeline landform from this vantage point, largely due to existing tree cover. The knoll formed at its lower terminus is the most prominent feature. The EIR states that although distant, homes on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be almost entirely exposed to view, while the home on Lot 8 would be partially exposed to view (primarily the roof), and home on Lot 7 would be almost entirely screened from view by vegetation. The darker colors proposed for the homes reduce the contrast and visibility from this vantage point. No homes visually break the plane of the horizon (except for that Lot 4, which is assumed in this analysis to be eliminated). The photosimulation does not reflect reductions in the home heights and sizes for Lots 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 set forth in Alternative 4, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, or in the January 26, 2011 staff report. Possible ridgeline visual impact reduction measures: 1. Lower the height of the home on Lot 8 and darken the roof color to better blend with the oak foliage. 2. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings. 11 23, EX.,ifiIBIT NO. '0 Z March Page 7 7 of f 11 P - -76F- 3 Z Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Summary of Measures to Increase Ridgeline Policy Consistency In addition to measures already set forth in Alternative 4, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and in the January 26, 2011 staff report, staff believes that the following measures would increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines: 1. Eliminate Lot 4 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 3. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings. 4. Eliminate Lot 8; or relocate the Lot 8 building site to a portion of Lots 1 north of Lot 2; or reduce the Lot 8 floor area maximum to 4,500 square feet with a 600 square foot garage and 25' maximum height limit and darken the roof color. 5. Reduce floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet and reduce the maximum height of both homes by 3 feet; require a greenish exterior color that better blends with the evergreen foliage backdrop. 6. Require a flatter roof on the Lot 11 house and darken the color of the roof. 7. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation. 8. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered" and appears as undisturbed topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline. 9. Reduce floor area maximum on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 10. Eliminate Lot 13; or relocate the Lot 13 building site to Lot 11 and reduce both homes on that site to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square feet of garage and a 22' maximum height limit; or reduce the Lot 13 floor area maximum to 5,000 square feet with 600 square feet of garage and a maximum height limit of 22' and require wall and roof colors that minimize contrast. .l 2. Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility The Tiburon General Plan (Tiburon 2020) contains several goals and policies that address neighborhood consistency and/or compatibility. These goals and policies are as follows: Goal LU-H: To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity. Goa I L U-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house sizes/ architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT N0. ~ Z- Page 8 of 11 P, a= ~z Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Policy LU-5: New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. Policy 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. 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. a Project Setting The project site is generally bordered by three different established neighborhoods: homes along upper Hacienda Drive; homes in the Seafirth Subdivision and nearby Paradise Drive; and homes in the Acacia Court Subdivision. The floor area of homes and lot area ranges these neighborhoods are described as follows: Hacienda Drive: The floor areas of the 27 homes in this neighborhood to the south and west of the project site range from 2,146 to 6,324 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from 0.25 to 1.1 acres. Only one of these 27 homes is over 6,000 square feet, only 3 are over 5,000 square feet and only 7 of the 27 dwellings are over 4,000 square feet. Most of these homes date to the 1960's through 1980's. Seafirth Subdivision and nearby Paradise Drive: The 29 homes in the mid-1950's-vintage Seafirth Subdivision to the north of the project site range in size from 1,936 to 4,331 square feet. Seafirth Subdivision lots are much smaller than the proposed Alta Robles lots and range in size from 0.24 to 0.92 acres, while other unincorporated lots along Paradise Drive range from around 0.5 acre and up. Other homes along the unincorporated portions of Paradise Drive north and east of the site are substantially larger than the Seafirth Subdivision homes, and the recently-approved Sorokko Subdivision on the east side of Paradise Drive could have homes as large as 8,000 square feet under the County of Marin approvals, although no home designs have been approved. Acacia Court Subdivision: The floor areas of the seven homes in the Acacia Court Subdivision to the northwest of the project site range from 2,860 to 6,272 square feet, with lot sizes ranging from 0.9 to 1.79 acres. Five of these seven homes are larger than 5,000 square feet and three of the dwellings are over 6,000 square feet. Most of the homes date from the 1990's. March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT NO. Page 9 of 11 P. q of 3 Z Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Norman Estates: East of the project site along Paradise Drive is Norman Estates, subdivided in the early 1980's. The lot sizes for the 12 homes on Norman Way range from 15,000 to 88,843 square feet, excepting the 5.7-acre lot that is primarily open space. The homes range from 2,290 to 4,305 square feet. In 2006 the Town approved a 3-lot subdivision (Tiburon Glen) for the 26- acre parcel surrounding Norman Estates; homes sizes were.approved at 4,800 to 5,400 square feet of floor area. The project has not yet received its final subdivision map approval. Exhibit 5 is a table showing the original project home sizes and heights as are depicted in the EIR photo-simulations. The applicant reduced some home sizes and heights in presenting Alternative 4. In addition, staff has previously recommended that Lot 4 be eliminated; that the floor area for Lots 21) 31 51 6 and 7 be reduced to a maximum of 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of garage space; and that the home on Lot 7 be reduced from three stories to-two stories. Exhibit 6 is a table showing house sizes and height with incorporation of the measures contained within this memorandum for increasing policy consistency with significant ridgelines and neighborhood consistency. Summary ofMeasures to Increase Neighborhood Consistency 1. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot garage. 2. Reduce floor area of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet. 3. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 4. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 13 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of garage. CONCLUSION Staff concludes that utilizing some or all of the above measures would be responsive to the direction provided by the Commission at the January 26, 2011 public hearing. A "menu" of potential project modifications based on these measures is attached for the Commission's use as Exhibit 7. EXHIBITS 1. Prime Open Space & Related Policies from General Plan Tiburon 2020. 2. Approximated superimposition of homes onto Ridges graphic from DEIR. 3. DEIR analysis of significant ridgeline criteria in Policy OSC-12. 4. Photo-simulations from Alta Robles EIR. 5. Table of house sizes and heights as depicted in the EIR photo-simulations. 6. Table of house sizes and heights incorporating suggestions contained in this memo to increase policy consistency per the Commission's direction. 7. Menu of measures to increase policy consistency. March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT NO. Zz- Page 10 of 11 R 1 v of 3 L Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM Sources Consulted Tiburon General Plan 2020 Alta Robles Draft EIR Alta Robles Response to Comments/Final EIR Alta Robles Alternative 4 site plan January 26, 2011 Planning Commission staff report and minutes Town records S: IPlanning0anning CommissionlStaff Reports 12011April 13 meeting (Alta Robles policy consistency memo 2-25. toc March 23, 2011 EXHIBIT NO. Z-Z Page 11 of 11 v~ 32- PRIME OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION Prime Open Space is open space that is worthy of permanent protection due to its characteristics and attributes. The intent of this section is to permanently protect Prime Open Space through the development review process to the maximum extent feasible. Although they are to be applied to all applications Jt r development, Prime Open Space policies are intended to primarily achieve the objective of preserving the land with the highest open space value on lands subject to subdivision or other development, such as those that are designated Planned Development - Residential in the Land Use Element. Often, when designing a subdivision, a developer's last consideration is what should be preserved as open space. This approach can result in land that has little value to the community being proposed as open space. Tiburon 2020's Prime Open Space policies defi fte which open space is valuable to the community. Developers are strongly encouraged to take into consideration all Prime Open Space policies before laying out roads, lots, and building envelopes within a proposed subdivision. Diagram 3.3-1 provides an overview of the general location of some, but not all, of the Prime Open Space characteristics. Prime Open Space Characteristics Ridgelines Water and Shoreline Areas Wetlands Streams and Riparian Corridors Flood-Prone Areas Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Steep Slopes Views Trees and Woodlands Goal 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. 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. S: IPlanninglPlanning CommissionlStaff Reports 120111 March 9 meetinglAlta Robles Prime Open Space.doc EXHIBIT NO. 72- 7 -,-~F~. Approximated superimposition of house footprint onto ridges T Exhibit 4.0-2 A (--ero,-,Jv-e. 4j, Ridges I I I ~ Lot 12 13t Lot 11 I I ' `°t ~ CL t ~Lot ~ 10 l 9 Lot I 1x7 2 Legend ® The Tiburon Ridge -150 feet horizontal offset The Tiburon Ride - 50 feet vertical offset Significant Ridge Lot 'A' Lot 6 0 200 400 Feet j~ IBTT NO. -2- t 2- 0P z E HIBIT NO. r 4.0 Land Use and Planning Alta Robles Residential Development Draft EIR Significant Ridgelines Tiburon Ridge crosses a portion of the project site. In addition to the Tiburon Ridge, the Tiburon General Plan designates two significant ridgelines on the project site.7 These ridgelines were previously designated in Town Resolution No. 2859 as Ridgelines 5 and 6. 8 Exhibit 4.0-2 shows the location of the Tiburon Ridge and the two significant ridgelines on the project site. As discussed above, Policy OSC-10 states that development and other ~nprovements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 150 horizontal feet of either side of Tiburon Ridge. Policy OSC-11 states that development and other improvements associated with development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 50 vertical feet of either side of Tiburon Ridge. Exhibit 4.0-2 shows both the 150 horizontal feet setback and the 50 vertical feet setback for Tiburon Ridge on the project site. As discussed above in Exhibit 4.0-1, no building construction and / or yard improvements would occur within 150 horizontal feet from either side of the Tiburon Ridge. Development on Lot 4 and Lot 5 would, however, occur within 50 vertical feet of the nearest peak elevation of the Tiburon Ridge. All of the proposed development on Lot 4 and the proposed detached garage on Lot 5 would occur within the 50 vertical feet setback of the Tiburon Ridge. Policy OSC-12 establishes development set backs from Significant Ridgelines. Policy OSC-13 states that construction of roads and utilities along or across the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines shall be strongly discouraged. As discussed above in Exhibit 4.0-1 the proposed project would be inconsistent with both Policy OSC-12 and OSC-13. Exhibit 4.0-3 addresses the 16 criteria Resolution No. 2859 enumerates in relation to the proposed PDP. 7 Tiburon General Plan Figure 3.3-1 Prime Open Space Characteristics 8 Resolution No. 2859 A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Designating Significant Ridgelines Pursuant to Provisions of the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, adopted May 20, 1992. EXHIBIT NO, 2 . lC1 ®r- 3z- EX."HIBIT NO. Exhibit 4.0-2 Ridges i Lot 12 \ Lot 13 Lot 11 1 I ~ \ I ~ \ I 'Bt 1 / Lot ket Lot 1 ~ \ / 10 \ L 1 ) ¢1 I~ z 1 Q / Lot \ \ _ _ jot ~ 1 Lot ~ I 2 i Lot Lt I 1 ~ ~ J l Legend ® The Tiburon Ridge -150 feet horizontal offset V The Tiburon Ride - 50 feet vertical offset . 0 200 400 Feet Significant Ridge i i Source: CSW/ST 2, 2009 EXHIBIT NO. a i ~ e m y ~ O ~ m a > J O O m O m O a m N M Z o = ~ w o Wcc 0 a> C Z (D -44 C) W ti a) 48-4 4t C: SO 0 H U U O a .r N U v~ O U b p, ' m a~ a a~ a: C m ~p G mooo' O 4-A CN4 $.4 40 00 0 cd, C (D Z VA 0 4.4 19 w (D EA 21 e - CD > to on 4" 910 4.4 4 (4-4 -4 4.4 10 6 B 4; Go o o a) acm a)z " 00 a~ 3~ o ~Z a ca CZ 4.4 0 CD >1 cd col" ~s U ~ U O •d o ' S 1014 r y a~ ce ti 40 • tw v ct3 0 U C7 O a j «t a4 y p a U ~ 0 a N ' O 40 p N _C M 0 F--1 G4 EW 3 ~ m h ~ O r m Ctla J O m m 0 A ICE bA V ' El K, 0 ~ 4-4 ~Oy 0 CA p ~Q O m O U N .-q . r4 / (D E5 -b pp c y G O O V ~ CCS 1 a 4.4 V S . a~i v Rf • 78 O go b4 a~ a~ fj v v c •r o O 4.4 D 0 O ~o rMA _ O .0 v t $:L, A b . Boa > '>o •5"~ a '~o o , ao ~ ~ a o~.c• ~ a~ co 3 o 3 cr_i • O p 'd 'p ~ o O b C b a O ° p0 ~ 3 N N 3 4 'd 4 O b 0~a~ (D s, o oar ryrA 4.4 ~ a O~ °o "A 0 4-4 4, 0 ceo° ~o o a ~ 4 04 -0 0 o C> , i l V ~ aa e O . o +-A p,, a co %:6 1 0 cd 6.4 U 'o A o o 1 CD OP4 . W~ ~o W4 °3 H Co a~ y, o a y b o a b Cd -d 10 b ~ a ~ a x 3 0 O ~ E-+ w _cc W i a LZo ~ m ~a O rz t J .v U 'n •d O co .y.~ o c j 4-4 O GQ o > . > .b cis sx = F, a, 'b g b • Ri U O U ( u ~ U O O G G t g C N Cd 0. 20) ~ 43 ~ --4 ' a 0- cd d 45 0 co • go. A 0 > o~ ~ , o y U coo to -"4 0 bb .6.) cqs a4 1-4 'D ~ =g C's ~ ~ d ~ •~-~s F-4 a~ ' a ~ ~ • ~a~.s~ -dam cd 'D bb ° ~ ~ Go Q 04 d0 yUy tN 4 d U ~U U U U (D 0 rA V va ~ U U "b ~ ~ • ~ b4 •v ~ L7 r'" ~ ~ b4 O b4 b~U `r ~ ° ~ q ~ ; ~ yOr :b p a3 ~ b ~ . d ''d •b a U U O C13 w 04 O .o co 2 t~ .V O FM--1 W `V Cn 1 N ~ O E-i HM W M1 W ` ♦ri WI co 0 0 N N M 'v 0 y Q C Q1 N d N ui U 0 Cn - 331 - MM1 r ~r w M ~y a N O z H vi a~ is U O N N Q C QI N N N - 3 32' - cu v ~a a) is O ~r O O V n 0 Z O W S it vO a' c O W O i to /W ui s w~ 3 1 a" c [ ~k- p~ ?a r " x . F ,A ~x 3zi l I.' 4yir,. f !I f Y ~g S ' ~ f'1 Y -»3- N M O N 0 N co CD N N f6 U O N N Q C N N Q) 0 n R e j A p, 4 y ~ r t Q~ 9r~,!r ` ~ , H Y ~ ; r# C} x Z ca O U W cp w :Q W -336- 1 Y V c~ N 7O r-1 MHM 1-i-1 ~ 1mH MY Y Wt J~ M ~1 N E-~ p4 OD 0 O N vi N U O N Q d? .N N N d U O -337- r. w ~ n d a ~t IOU E , SsY O K J r y N w O yuyM Q N St a M <ZN N OL 0 z M~ p'r'1 all -338- M A4 W ~o Lc; w w - 34 1 - M N 4 E-i G4 W MMY ~ I v I to c OD 0 0 N N N t6 0 O N Q C N N d N U O Cl) - 342) - N lV ~ OL 0 E-+ c~ w W -343- N M LL O CIO 0 i O t 0 O cn O O J C Z as w t~ O a O J k L F `Ir WI ~ N Q. 0 E-+ Gq N vi ('S J G Q a~ n y c~ 7 y A ' JM It 0 N ~o- m co O y O LL, O O O O h O O O J a O Z O O O O O J y O N O .Q t WI f---e E---t c c G vi Q Oq !.J L J u n 0 i i c ~a 'n 0 0 ~c 0 0 J a O w ctj O a c 0 J a~ C) ,L vI O 1 N O W -8- ~ q ca~ O E-E W 0 0 Ji c r_ W) U U U Vn ALTA ROBLES PROJECT TABLE OF MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES AND HEIGHTS AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND AS DEPICTED IN THE EIR PHOTOSIMULATIONS w LOT NUMBER TOTAL HOUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 7,800 750 23'6" 3 7,640 750 29'0" 4 6,300 600 29'0" 5 7,290 750 16'1" 6 7,980 750 22'0" 7 7,290 750 28'7" 8 7,520 750 29'1" 9 7,810 750 25'0" 10 7,400 750 27'0" 11 7,890 750 2214" 12 7,570 750 21'8" 13 7.930 750 27,4„ 14 7,200 600 24'2" EXHIBIT N0. Z2- P 3i OF- ;2- NO. ALTA ROBLES PROJECT TABLE OF MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES AND HEIGHTS AS REVISED TO ACHIEVE GREATER POLICY CONSISTENCY LOT NUMBER MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR1 AREA FOR LOT (SQUARE FEET) GARAGE FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FEET) MAXIMUM HOUSE HEIGHT (FEET) 2 4,500 600 16'0" 3 4,500 600 16'0" 4 ELIMINATED ELIMINATED N/A 5 4,500 600 16'0" 6 4,500 600 16'0" 7 4,500 600 25'0" 8* 4,500 600 25'0" 9 6,000 750 22'0" 10 6,000 750 24'0" 11** 4,500 600 22'0" 12 6,000 750 21'8" 13*** 4,500 600 22'0" 14 4,660 600 24.2„ 1 Does not include "basement" area or "garage floor area" from next column. *Lot 8 is proposed for possible relocation adjacent to Lot 2, or for elimination. If relocated, a larger square footage of 6,000 square feet could be possible. **Lot 11 is proposed as a possible relocation site for Lot 13, with both homes being reduced in floor area and height as reflected in the table. If Lot 13 is eliminated, Lot 11 could be as large as 6,000 square feet. ***Lot 13 is suggested for possible relocation to Lot 11, or for elimination, as noted above. EXHIBIT N0--,Z-,2 11BIT NQ. Menu of Possible Project Revisions to Alt. #4 Project Possible Revision YIN 1. Lots 2-7: a. Lots 2, 31 5, and 6: Reduce to 4,500 square feet and 16' height* b. Lot 4 to be eliminated* c. Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6: Require wall and roof colors that minimize the contrast with their surroundings d. Lot 7: Reduce to 4,500 square feet and 25' height* 2. Lot 8: a. Eliminate the lot OR b. Relocate the lot to Lot 1 in the vicinity of the existing 3-car Detached garage adjacent to Lot 2 OR c. Reduce the floor area to 4,500 sq. ft. plus a 600 square foot garage and reduce maximum height limit to 25 feet and darken the roof color 3. Lot 9: a. Reduce floor area to 6,000 sq. ft. b. Reduce height by 3 feet c. Require greenish hue exterior colors to blend w/backdrop 4. Lot 10: a. Reduce floor area to 6,000 sq. ft. b. Reduce height by 3 feet c. Require greenish hue exterior colors to blend with backdrop 5. Lot 11: a. Require a flatter roof require a medium-to dark roof color b. Restrict so as not to increase visibility shown in Viewpoint #2 6. Lot 12: a. Restrict so as not to increase visibility shown in Viewpoint #2 b. Require earth-covered roof with undisturbed ground appearance o. Reduce floor area to 6,000 sq. ft. 7. Lot 13: a. Eliminate the lot OR b. Relocate building site to Lot 11 and reduce both homes to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square feet of garage and a 22 foot maximum height limit OR c. Reduce floor area to 5,000 sq. ft. with 600 sq. ft. garage and reduce maximum height to 22 feet and require wall/roof colors that minimize the contrast with surroundings *Recommendation contained in January 26, 2011 Commission staff report EXHIBIT NQ. January 11, 2011 To: Tiburon Planning Commission Scott Anderson From: Steven Sockolov 70 Reedland Woods Way Tiburon, 94920 Re: Alta Robles Final EIR Dear Scott, As a property owner here in Tiburon, and a long time friend of the Rabins, please know that we are wholly supportive of the Alta Robles project. The plans are innovative, sensitive to the area's natural resources, and respectful of the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the adjacent housing developments. It also provides two public access easements, one of.which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Additionally, the project will provide additional revenue to the Town of Tiburon. We believe that the Rabins have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding its merits. Best regards, l Steven Sockolov and Susan Snyder . EXHIBIT NO. Norman and Carol Traeger 3700 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 January 12, 2011 To: The Tiburon Planning Commission Re: Alta Robles Final EIR Dear Commissioners, My wife and I want to support the EIR that has been provided to the Planning Commission. Our Property is next to the Rabin's and we have been gratified to see the work and effort put into this project to make it sensitive to the environment and the community. It maintains the scenic open space and provides public access easements, missing since one of the trails were cut off by owners on Hacienda Drive. This is a great example of the way a project should be put together and we hope it will serve as an example to others that plan multiple home development on Paradise. Having attended every meeting on this EIR we would hope you have sufficient information to move this project forward. Si "ere _ t e%z~~ Carol Traeger :t No-rman EXHIBIT N0. ?PT- Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Al Anolik [anolik@travellaw.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:53 AM To: Scott Anderson Subject: Tiburon residents support of Rabin family Alta Robles project Dear Mr. Anderson, As property owner, over the hill from the Alta Robles project, and as long time Tiburon property owners who have also negotiated with the City on open space issues that we donated and were able to work out with yourself and the City, my wife and I were extremely impressed with the generosity and conservation concerns of the Rabin's in their current submission before you. Their concern for the City's scenic open space commitments and two separate public access easements are a extremely valuable proposed additional City asset if the City does not have to pay for these offers that all of us in Tiburon can enjoy in the future, we hope that you take into consideration this compromise on what could have been submitted as a much larger project. Since my wife and I have a previous commitment for the evening of the 26th, when you may hear this issue, and cannot attend the hearing, we request that you recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step towards project approval on its merits. Respectfully yours, Alexander Anolik, Esq. Alexander Anolik, A Professional Law Corporation 280 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel. No. 415-673-3333 Fax No. 415-673-3548 Email: anolik(@travellaw.com Website: www.TravelLaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY AND FORUM: This message is intended only for the use of the individual/entity to whom it was addressed. This message and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this message or any attachment is prohibited. The parties to this message agree that the receipt of this message, its content, and any agreements made within the documents and which these documents represent are to be governed by the laws of California, United States of America and in the County of San Francisco. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately. Thank you. EXHIBIT NO..~ 1/13/2011 Barbara and ey Farber .~e { 83 Paseo W irasol Tiburon, C 94920 ATTN: Scott Anderson RE: Alta Robles Final ETD As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the project on its merits. Sincerely, 'VIP EXHIBIT NO. ?*'I. Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Jeff Appleman Dappleman@balglobal.com] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:37 AM To: Scott Anderson Cc: Jeff Appleman Subject: Alta Robles Final EIR January 15, 2011 108 Hacienda Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 435-5743 jeff@usabal.com To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner and neighbor in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family's Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. The Rabins have been very good neighbors who have been very tolerant of their neighbors while we have been battling for restored access to our open space at the end of Hacienda. Their willingness to provide permanent public access to the open space so that the Tiburon Ridge Trail can finally be completed is a public spirited and generous gesture that should not be undervalued. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to move the project forward and assess the project on the basis of its merits. .t Sincerely, Jeff and Suzanne Appleman EXHIBIT NO. Qi,)n> 1 Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: BMoss2343@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 4:31 PM To: Scott Anderson Subject: Alta Robles Final EIR To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Scott Anderson, Community Development Director, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR I own the property at 2386 Mar East St, Tiburon. I am in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project, for the following reasons: 1.It is a fine example of master planning for a relatively large parcel of property( over 52 acres), that certainly could have attempted to place more homesites on the parcel. 2. The parcel will develop, but the plan ensures an integrated plan that the Town can be proud of without compromising the integrity of the site. 3. The plan is respectful of the public's interests in land conservation, preserving the area's natural resources, and preserving the views. 4.It provides scenic open space, as an integral part of the plan, not as an afterthought,, which is what good planning is all about. 5. It takes into account public access by providing two public access easements, one of which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. 67he Town, of course, must balance many competing interests. I think this Project not only provides an economic benefit to the Town, but also provides an excellent opportunity to improve necessary infrastructure( water and sewer services, roads, drainage, upgrading fire safety faciliities) that will be in the long term best interests of the community, since it the type of Project the Town can be proud of. The Plan Commission has been provided with sufficient information to recommend certification of the Project EIR, and move the Project forward, and I strongly urge the Plan Commission to do so. Unfortunately, I will be in Chicago on January 26th, and will not be able to attend the meeting. Barry L. Moss 415-435-0856 EXHIBIT N0. 2.- 1 /1 ROM 1 Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Don Abramson [borscht88@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:29 PM To: Scott Anderson Subject: alta robles project Hi Scott, As a Tiburon resident, I just wanted to let you know that I support the Alta Robles project and would like to see it move forward. I think the Rabins are very sensitive to open space and environmental considerations and believe that the project is worthwhile. Best wishes, Don Abramson 40 Reedland Woods Way, Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT N0. ' ii 0 i1)ni t LASE MAIL ##J Michael and Marcia Rubenstein 330 Blackfield Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 January 17, 2011 To the Tiburon Planning Commission: Re: Alta Robles Final EIR Dear Commissioners: We are property owners and long-time residents in Tiburon, and we support the Alta Robles project. We believe the project is sensitive to the area's natural resources and it respects the interest of the public in land conservation and view preservation. The project is also well within the parameters of the current General Plan. Unlike nearby developments, the project provides open space, and public access easements. The project will also provide an economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We urge the Planning Commission to accept the Final EIR and to move the project forward to the final step in the process of considering the project on its merits. Sincerely, Michael Rubenstein Marcia Rubenstein EXHIBIT NO. 3 To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the project on its merits. Sincerely, V EXHIBIT NO. Robert D. Wolfe 412 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 January 19, 2011 LATE MAIL# Tiburon Planning Commission Director of Development Scott Anderson Town of Tiburon Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Alta Robles Final EIR Dear Scott Anderson: As a property owner in Tiburon for over 35 years, I am lending my support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interests in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the project on its merits. Respectfully, Robert D. Wolfe ~Y EXHIBIT NO. 3 3 January 19, 2011 Scott Anderson Director of Development 1501 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 Dear Mr. Anderson: W IDMtA Management Group, Inc. LATE MAIL# %1 My family has lived and raised our children off Paradise Drive in Tiburon for the past 22 years. I had the privilege of knowing the Rabin family for many of these years. I have also followed their development plans and dreams for the Alta Robles Land Project for years. The final outcome of the Rabin's proposals, in my opinion, reflects utmost sensitivity to the ecological and physical environment the project is set in. They also reflect the aesthetic and civic dedication of the Rabins and their design team, with over one third of the project land being dedicated to permanent open space, and more than two thirds being preserved as public and private open space. The plan demonstrates particular sensitivity to the preservation of scenic open space, a value we all so cherish here in Marin. The Rabins show true vision and dedication to the public good with the final outcome of their development and preservation plan. As an individual who has been involved in numerous home projects myself I am impressed and happy to see the building design concepts as proposed, particularly the low profile and terraced integration into the hilly landscape. It is a masterful model of forward-looking architectural and landscape design, incorporating the very best ecological concepts as well as respect for minimizing environmental impact. The Alta Robles FOR and Rabin's project has my family's full support, Sincerely, Dan and Gina Waldman 107 Jamaica St. Tiburon, California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. 3q_ Tel: Home 415 435 3246 Cell: 415 317 4288 Property Management Investments & Consulting 459 Fulton Street, Suite 307 ■ San Francisco, CA 94 102-43 18 ■ Tel 41 5.922.2224 ■ Fax 41 5.922.0206 ■ infoQwaldmanmgmt.com Katie Vogelheim and John C. Hansen LATE MAIL# 014M. Scott Anderson Community Development Director Town of Tiburon Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Scott: Katie and I would like to notify town staff and the members of the Planning Commission of our strong support for the Alta Robles development project as proposed by the Rabin family. We are immediate neighbors and property owners with land adjacent to the property to be developed, and as you know, we walk almost every day out to the open space beyond Hacienda Drive and past the western border of the Rabin property. The Rabins have taken considerable time and effort to put forth a reasonable development plan, have undertaken to provide the infrastructure support necessary for the new homes, and Piave modified their plans in response to concerns raised by neighbors, naturalists, planning staff and others. We took the time to read through the EIR as well as the comments and responses, and are most comfortable that every reasonable concern, and in fact a large number of unreasonable concerns, has been raised and considered. We urge the Planning Commission to move on to an assessment of the project on its merits. We want to specifically commend the Rabins for stepping forward to help resolve the issue of public access to the open space beyond Hacienda Drive. All of us are only too aware of the anxiety, anger, legal fees and other nastiness that our neighborhood has endured for the last few years on this issue, and we have found Irv and Varda singularly understanding, considerate and gracious in doing what they can to help out our neighborhood. We certainly understand the the public access trail they are offering is a small part of a much larger project, but we do think it demonstrates a sensitivity to the neighborhood that comes about when the developer actually lives in his own development. The Rabins have been our neighbors for the 12 years we have lived in Tiburon, and they are a wonderful part of our community. Due to travel plans that cannot be changed, we are unable to attend the public hearing scheduled for later this month, which is a real disappointment for us. We have noted at least one rather emotional and threatening communication in the file from another neighbor, and have concluded that she probably has never met the Rabins or engaged in a constructive conversation about her concerns. We are hopeful that your hearing willyrovide an opportunity for a reasoned discussion of the relevant issues and perhaps calm some of the vitriol that too often accompanies these processes. Good luck! 1 Katie Vogelheim an John Hansen EXHIBIT NO. 350. 170 Hacienda Drive - Tiburon, California - 94920 January 21, 2011 LATE MAIL# ot To: Planning Commission Town of Tiburon Re: Alta Robles Proposed Subdivision From: Marylyn and Peter Siewert 146 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon We would like to offer our support of the proposed subdivision. It is low density and seems to offer sensitivity to the surrounding areas. Of major concern is Lot 4. The Town has spent hours of time with hours of public hearings developing the General Plan. The community wants to keep the major ridge of Tiburon clear of development. Lot 4 is placed in the ridge area. There is no xeason why a lot must be placed there. There are no geographical restraints that mandate it be there. Therefore there is no argument for a variance or approval of this location because of special circumstances beyond the developer's control. The developer is proposing unique architectural features in the development of each lot. These features should be cast in a secure document so that this proposal will be the final outcome when fully developed. So far there is no assurance that the proposed architecture will be secured. Hopefully this new development will blend into the surrounding environment without major visual and physical disruption to the area. 3(0 EXHIBIT NO. January 21, 2011 Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Town of Tiburon Via email: dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us Subject: Alta Robles Residential Development FEIR and Merits Dear Mr. Watrous: Marin Conservation League has followed the environmental review process for Alta Ro- bles for several years, prompted by our mission to protect natural and scenic resources of County-side significance such as those along Paradise Drive, and our policy to monitor and critique the cumulative impacts of development on important resources. The proposed Alta Robles Development will have significant individual and cumulative impacts on both natural and scenic resources. We have limited our comments to outstanding issues that we feel need to be resolved before the FEIR is recommended for certification and the Pre- cise Development Plan is approved. Alternatives. In view of significant impacts identified in the DEIR and critical comments received on the DEIR, we expected the Final EIR Revised Proposed Project to offer either a substantially reduced alternative that examined fewer units, smaller building envelopes, and reduced dwelling size., or a reconfigured alternative clustering development and leav- ing the majority of the site in common open space. Either approach would have the major benefit of reducing the extent of retaining walls, encroachment into ridgeline setbacks, and the direct, and likely indirect, impacts of site repair and development on special status plant species and wildlife habitat and connectivity. The Revised Proposed Project described in the FEIR does not provide a real alternative. In spite of the applicant's efforts to reduce impacts by tweaking the plan at numerous points, the plan continues to force too many and too large residences spread across a highly con- strained site. As a consequence, the new alternative renders the project less inconsistent with policy but does not provide meaningful reduction of significant impacts. The Staff Report addresses some of these issues in its analysis of the revised project and makes practical recommendations to reduce the encroachment of the project into signifi- cant ridgeline setbacks, such as eliminating Lot 4 entirely and lowering and reducing the size of residences on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and Lot 14 (also set back from Paradise Drive). Nonetheless, a major outstanding policy inconsistency cannot be mitigated and remains unresolved: viz. the project's proximity to significant ridgelines 5 and 6. Even as further modified by staff recommendations, the revised project does not offer an alternative that EXHIBIT NO. 37 F, t~'3 LATE MAIL #~ol 011. N C ON E j~.V+►_ 10 IN E, AG U G<1:j-h 4 iftn Avpn~;e r., I N a .0',;1 !:15.4$5.G257 1 15.485.6259 111 ar111Conse►,vatIonIeayur.01'9 gar Rf IIfa ,CA94901 2 is demonstrably environmentally superior to the originally proposed project while still allowing the applicant reasonable use of the property. Thus, in its decision process, the Town is deprived of a meaningful range of development alternatives, as required by CEQA. Clustering. Town policies designed to protect resources by clustering, and examples of successful clustering, are ignored by the FEIR. For example, in 2006 the Town ap- proved three units on the contiguous 26-acre Tiburon Glen property, clustered at the lowest property elevation, leaving 96 percent of the property in open space and conser- vation easements. In contrast, the 14 (or 13, if Lot 4 is eliminated) units of the revised proposed project for Alta Robles are distributed across the site, many of them on or approaching crests of two secondary significant ridgelines and encroaching into the also-widespread distribution of sensitive grasslands, ephemeral drainages and wet- land features on the site. Clustering of all development would be consistent with Town policy and with precedent. House Size. MCL is particularly concerned over the trend of increasing size of homes proposed for this and nearby developments. We expressed similar concerns when the County approved the Sorokko subdivision. Two issues are raised by excessive house size: 1) Consistency with the character of the neighborhood; and 2) the inherent non- sustainability of excessively large homes that are touted to be "green." The Staff Report addresses the first point by examining compatibility with three neigh- borhoods and finds that the proposed homes are consistently larger than existing homes. The analysis also finds that the project as originally proposed would increase. the number of such large homes in Tiburon by almost 50 percent. The Staff recom- mendation to limit the size of homes on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to 4,500 sq. ft., with 600 sq. ft. of garage space, is a move in the right direction. The residence on Lot 14 is also proposed to be reduced in size. The modified project still would permit seven homes, including the existing residence, ranging between 7,500 and 8,130 sq. ft. - sizes that are generally not consistent with existing neighborhoods. On the second point, current surveys demonstrate over and over that very large homes are neither "green" nor even desirable in the changing demographics of reduced house- hold size and an aging population. Houses can be constructed to the highest LEED standard, but in terms of full life-cycle and per capita carbon footprint, be far from "green," especially in locations requiring extensive services and transportation. It is baffling that communities in Marin County that pride themselves on their environmen- tal concerns and sustainability are fostering this trend. Common and Private Open Space. We are also concerned about the future manage- ment of both private and common open space areas, and the need for consistency in management approaches and assurances. The concern extends to the allowable uses within proposed residential use areas, which will likely be fenced and may be devel- EXHIBIT N0. ~;7 p. z or-3 ADV_LUP_AltaRoblesFEIR_MCL_01.21.2011 3 oped with pools, tennis courts, terraced areas, paved walkways, and landscaped with non- natives. A condition requiring transition landscaping between residential landscape and the native habitat of private open space and any adjacent common open space should be included in any approval. Management obligations to be included in the HOA CC&R's should be required to be recorded in the lot Deeds of Trust, so they will be enforceable by outside entities. This includes conditions on long term management of common. open space, public trail ease- ment areas, and portions of private lots that contain special-status species and sensitive habitat; maintenance of project landscaping and irrigation planned for screening retain- ing wall segments along roads and bridge; vehicle access restrictions on all open space; landscaping restrictions; broom and other invasives removal requirement; and pet restric- tions. CC&R's are weak enforcement tools, because they can be changed by a vote of the property owners and because of lack of active oversight. In conclusion. MCL believes that the FEIR should not be certified in that is fails to provide an alternative that is truly environmentally superior to the proposed project, while allow- ing reasonable use of the property. If the Commission does determine that the FEIR is adequate for certification, we concur that the Staff recommendations to eliminate Lot 4, reduce the size of residences on Lots 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 14 be followed. Finally, we urge the Commission to consider seriously the policy implications of the revised project's continu- ing inability to avoid significant ridgelines 5 and 6, as it is currently configured. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Planning Commission's proposed ac- tions. Sincerely yours, Nona Dennis President EXHIBIT NO. 37 ADV LUP AltaRoblesFEIR MCL 01.21.2011 P" 3 OP3 Scott Anderson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Anderson David Brody.[davidbrody2000@comcast.net] Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:09 PM Scott Anderson daniel.rabin@rabin.com; Jeff Appleman Alta Robles Project AMW My wife, Kimberley, and I reside at 134 Hacienda Dr. We rebuilt our home a decade ago, using the greatest of care to accommodate our neighbors' concerns and respect the environment. The Rabins are about to undertake an adventure which dwarfs our project in every way. Yet, they have addressed every issue with-sensitivity, intelligence, creativity and respect for the community and for the environment. We have reviewed their proposal and are overwhelmed by thoughtfulness. This project is truly unprecedented in its aesthetic and pragmatic considerations and will serve as a model for future land development. We support this project unconditionally and encourage the Planning Commission to do so as well . . Sincerely' David and Kimberley Brody EXHIBIT NO.-SL TO: Tibur g FM: Randy Greenberg DATE: January 23, 2011 RE: Alta Robles FEIR & Merits hearing The Alta Robles project tries to put too many very large units on a highly constrained site in a manner not consistent with long standing Town policy. The project should be redesigned to remove some of the ridgeline houses and reduce house size and RDA's or, ascurrently conceived, should be denied. Below, I have tried to present the major issues to be resolved as well as suggest specific changes/additions to mitigations and conditions of approval for the currently proposed project. I appreciate your attention to detail, because it can make an important difference in improving the project. Range of Alternatives. The Planning Commission may have difficulty deciding what specific aspects of the project work and how to rectify those which don't. This is because the EIR does not provide a meaningful range of alternatives. "CEQA directs EIRs to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project..."(DEIR, p. 357). As the applicant notes, alternatives are not about the number of units, but the project's environmental impacts. Besides two "no project" alternatives and an offsite infeasible one, the EIR offers alternatives 3 and 4 which are identical to the project in terms of significant impacts and mitigations required. In addition, at this time it is not even known if, or to what extent, Alt 4 might be an improvement over Alt 3 in regard to grading and its many secondary impacts. For instance: "Alt. 4 revisions may reduce the stability of landslide repairs proposed fog- the project "and their effectiveness is not currently known (FEIR, p. 42). Promised grading reduction for Alt 4 is not quantified and appears speculative. The actual extent of slide repair anddetermination of appropriate repair solutions could change at the time of actual repair (FEIR, p. 163). Also, grading impacts on sensitive resources appear understated for Alt 4, as dewatering by proposed additional subdrains (over Alt 3) -are likely to increase resource impacts over time (FEIR, p. 38). Material presented on Alt 4 does not specify grading amount,or reduced impacts to watercourses and related biological resources. It simply asserts they are less, but not enough to reduce impact significance. Alternatives Policy Consistency. The same lack of measurable difference between Alts 3 and 4 exists in regard to policy consistency. According to the EIR, Alternative 4 is "more consistent" with policy, but is still not consistent in important respects. Both Alts 3 and 4 are basically the original project, slightly revised, and significantly out of line with fundamental, long standing, town policy. The project cannot be approved in its current form if some reasonable consistency with policy is required. EXHIBIT NO. 31__ 2 Merits Issues: 1. Policy:The project is significantly inconsistent with critical Town policies designed to protect its character and physical beauty. The policies regarding protection of ridgelines, clustering, minimizing grading, resource protection and neighborhood consistency are not appropriately addressed by the project. The FEIR neglects to mention the 2006 Town approval of the contiguous Tiburon Glen property, where zoning allowed for up to 8 units, and 8 units were applied for. Three units,grouped at the bottom of the site, were approved for its 27 acres, a . l density. Please take to heart this recent application of policy to arrive at appropriate density. 2. Density. The applicants insist that they have "voluntarily" reduced the number of lots from the zoning's maximum of 20 to 14. But when a single, existing lot takes up 29% of the total property and you apply a .4 density to what remains, you come up with a maximum of 14 units allowed by zoning, subject to reduction due to environmental constraints. Essentially, the maximum density is being requested.The numbers make the point: of the entire 52.6 acres, Lot 1 covers about 29%; Common Open Space ["OS"]35%; and private open space 16.4%. (GP OSC-5 has a goal that 50% of planned development properties be preserved as permanent OS). This leaves less than 20% (about 10.4 acs.) for 93% of total development - 13 large houses, their RDA's and project roads. Proposed units are splayed out over the site, 9 of 13new rooflinesrise above ridgelines. While constraints may make it necessary to put some houses on or near secondary ridgelines, it is inappropriate tolinethe ridgelines with structures. And that's what the project does. At the very least, the most visible area of one ridgeline should be kept clear of development. Staff has identified thisarea as the location of lots 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Its solution is to reducethe size and height of houses for these lots. 5100 sf of structure (includes garages) on a grassy hillside, obscuring a ridgeline, still equals significant visual impact. I suggest a more policy consistent approach: any of the houses on these lots that will rise near to,or over the ridgeline, should be removed from the plan and made part of Common OS. This portion of the ridgeline is the most visible from the Town's Middle Ridge public open space. Our ridgeline policies are arguably the bedrock of our OS policies. Keeping the most visible portion undeveloped protectsthe ridgeline's natural contours,providesa sense of place in the way that our General Plan intends, and creates a density more in keeping with site constraints. In addition, removal ofthese lots 5, 6 and 7 would provide all required buffers from serpentine grassland, Tiburon buckwheat and freshwater marsh in this area, potentially reduce required slide repair by avoidance or adjustments in type of repair needed, save trees slated for removal and open up wildlife corridors. Their removal from the plan would significantly increase policy consistency. 3. Clustering. Because there is" widespread distribution of ephemeral drainages and wetland features on the site" (FEIR, p. 40), along with sensitive grasslands, splaying development all over the property has maximum habitat impact. Clustering homes in just one or two areas could result in slide avoidance/repair reduction and reduce habitat loss 4. Open Space and biological impacts. Where incursions occur into 100' wetland setbacks "the feasibility of restoring [wetlands] in these locations is highly unlikely given the dewatering that would occur as part of the drainage system" (FEIR, p. 204). A more EXHIBIT NO.~._ 3 specific issue in this regard is the protection of natural resources in private OS. These areas are to be treated the same as Common OS. However, numerous EIR's, as well as practical experience, indicate that people who own property tend to be unaware or not responsive to use limitations of this type. Where private OS areas are overlarge or strangely configured, they should be removed from private OS and added to contiguous Common OS, to provide better resource protection. It appears that Lots 1 and perhaps Lot 2 have portions of their private OS that actually cross project roadways. Clearly, such areas should be part of Common OS. s. RUA Size. Residential Use Areas are simply huge - from 3.75 ac. for the existing house to .4 acres. Recall that these houses are on sloping hillsides, largely exposed from different viewpoints, and most rooflines approach or are above the significant secondary ridgelines. Providing areas this large to be fenced, developed in a variety of ways, and landscaped significantly at odds with natural vegetation, could enormously increase the project's visual impacts. The size of the RUA's should be meaningfully reduced and transition landscaping to the native habitat of private open space and any adjacent common open space should be a condition of approval. 6. Unit Size. Tiburon's policies ask for neighborhood consistency in new construction. Proposed houses are significantly larger than existing and would change neighborhood character. If anything, houses on this largely exposed hillside should be smaller than average.Despite staff's recommended size reduction for some homes, fully half will confirm a new, very large standard for this area (the adjacent, vacant Lerner/Winter property will certainly reference these house sizes when developing). The houses are touted as "green", as if that justifies bigger size. But big green houses are not as green as smaller green ones. 7. House Design. The Alta Robles project rightly applauds itself for the quality of the Kao Design Group architecture for proposed homes. At a meeting held by the applicants at TPC, applicants reaffirmed their strong conunitment to these designs and at that meeting agreed to approval language that would require deviations from the submitted plans to require a Precise Plan Amendment. This is a more stringent condition than the current Resolution provides. Such revision would provide greater assurance that these low visual impact, platinum LEED homes would be the ones on the hillside. See #1 in Suggested Resolution/Mitigation Changes below for specific language. I ask the Planning Commission to help assure that submitted house designs are what isbuilt. 8. Sight Distance at Main Entry. The Alta Robles Draft EIR traffic study (DEIR p. 142&167), September, 2007 on Tues, Wed, Sat. and Sun over a 30-hour period, found that a 220' sight distance is required at the main entry. The very nearby Tiburon Glen and Sorokko projects' traffic studies also found that 220' sight distances were required in this very same area of Paradise Dr. Based on a Harrison traffic study (conducted for an amazingly brief 1.5 hours in September 2009 on a Saturday between 1-2:30 pm), required. sight distance has been reduced from 220' to 190' (coincidentally, a 190' sight distance is what currently exists). Lower traffic speeds are common on weekend afternoons because this is prime time for sightseers and bicyclists, who slow traffic. A 1 Z/ hour study mid- day on a Saturday should not be the basis for a change in a critical safety matter, which has atypical findings. At the very least, prior to issuance of any building permits, a new EXHIBIT NO. 3q 4 traffic study, at peak am/pm hours during a non-holiday work week, must be required. These study results should be used to determine the required sight distance. 9. Temporary Access Road to Lot 14. The DEIR (p. 69) discusses a temporary access road needed for Lot 14 preparation. It is not clear if this access is from the project or Paradise Dr. In any case, there is no EIR assessment of the road's impacts, which could include going through sensitive resource areas and have seriously inadequate sight distances if from Paradise Dr. Impacts must be determined and addressed. Recommended New Conditions of Approval for current proiect: These conditions do not reflect the p-efei°red app-oath, which is to require significant project redesign, with fewer, smaller units clustered in one or two contiguous areas of the site or, , failing that, project denial. They are offered to improve the Current proposal. 10. Require transition landscaping in RNA's to natural areas of private and public OS to mitigate visual impacts and reduce the appearance of abrupt lines of suburban type landscaping across the hillside (e.g., p. 49 FEIR proposes shrubs along south fide of lots 5 & 6 to provide OS buffer and to shield houses and yards. But this kind of linear demarcation can look very unnatural on a highly visible hillside.) Transition planting should be required, as it has for other projects. 11.Deftne uses allowed in private and common OS and outline restrictions. The current "passive recreational" description does not give adequate guidance, e.g. are trails allowed, can picnic areas be designated, etc. 12.Require a safe sight distance for main project entry. Require a new traffic study, consistent with one done for the Alta Robles DEIR, to be done prior to the issuance of any grading/building permits. Adjust required sight distance if appropriate. 13.The project (Alt 4) proposes a bridge rail with vegetative screening attached. It also includes stepped, vegetated retaining walls along roadways (p.8, 2/24/10 staff report). This raises issues of project-wide irrigation. How is this to be accomplished? Is it practical? A condition of approval should state that required infrastructure vegetation screening must be supported by an appropriate irrigation system, maintained by the HOA, and that bridge piers and project retaining walls must be have the appearance of rock, similar to that occurring on site, to provide a natural look. Reliance on vegetation alone to satisfy significant screening needs is inadequate. Recommended Specific Changes/Additions to Resolution Conditions/Miti2ations: (page#'s are fi°om Ex 3, Resolution &MMRP, 112611 ]staff report) 14. PDP Resolution, p.6, #10. Please include that materials and building forms be as submitted by Kao Design, and that while structures may be reduced in size, they may not be expanded. A simple statement saying that any material change from the submitted designs, other than reduction in house size,would require an amendment to the PDP should be added. EXHIBIT NO. 3~ 5 15. PDP Resolution, p. 5, #5. I am not clear on the intent of the language "No new tennis courts on the site are authorized by this PDP." Does this mean they are not allowed, or that they are subject to Design Review? Earlier discussion pointed out the grading, fencing and visual impacts associated with such courts. I would ask that new tennis courts be specifically prohibited. 16. p. 4. Mit. 5.1-7 Retaining walls. This mitigation requires the creation of a consistent-width shoulder along Paradise Dr. It allows minor deviations in width to avoid retaining walls. However, it does not address such retaining walls, if used. FEIR (p. 88) says retaining walls of up to 7'h for 750' may be necessary for the bike/ped path. Mat 5.1-7 should be amended to include specification of retaining wall color (dark) and facing materials(natural rock appearance), where such walls are over 2'h. This basic project infrastructure should not be left to Design Review. Retaining walls along the uphill side of Paradise Dr. that extend for any length have the potential to significantly alter the rural character and visual aspect of the area and such impacts should be addressed in the mitigations.Alternatively, under Visual Quality mitigations (5.8), there could be a single mitigation that any retaining walls on site or along Paradise Dr., shall be dark in color and faced to appear similar to stone/rock naturally occurring in the area. Timing. This mitigation to create a bike/pedestrian path is timed to occur prior to the occupancy of the first house. This could be many years in the future, and the developer could be long gone. Change the timing to require this path to be completed in the same timeframe as the rest of the infrastructure". A condition of approval should include bonding to make sure there are funds to accomplish this mitigation. Condition timing of landslide repair/infrastructure installation/pedestrian-bikepathto be completed within 2 years from start of work. Provide a phased schedule. Include meaningful financial incentive/penalty for early/late completion, if possible. This work has the potential to be highly disruptive to nearby neighborhoods in terms of traffic, dust and noise over a lengthy period of time Project grading will go on day after day for many months in an area where retired and work-from-home residents spend weekdays in their homes and outdoor areas. This work should not be done piecemeal, but started and completed efficiently to minimize impacts. 17. p. 5. Mit. 5.3-1, or elsewhere. This references a Construction Management Plan. Such a plan should not only be monitored by the Town, but requireTown approval. In addition to noise mitigation offered, this plan should outline the sequence and timing of lot development, addressed by Dr. Kao at the TPC meeting. Dr. Kao also spoke about the need to stockpile soil on site as a result of this sequencing. The length of time for stockpiling and its locations are unknown and have the potential to have unaddressed visual/dust impacts. The construction plan should address soil stockpiling and mitigate impacts. It should also explicitly prohibit the use of existing Lot I's driveway for project construction. Under no circumstances should this substandard road with substandard sight distance, running through sensitive resources, be used by construction vehicles.And it should identify on site storage/parking locations for vehicles/materials/tools to minimize noise, visual and environmental impacts. EXHIBIT NO. 6L( 6 18. p. 6. Mit. 5.4-2 4th bullet. This mitigation addresses cistern runoff if the cistern is placed outside the currently proposed lot grading boundary to control erosion and sedimentation. However, placement outside current grading boundaries has the potential to cause other impacts, which are not addressed. These include impacts caused by cistern installation, and required ongoing access and maintenance. Add language to this mitigation, or create a new one, that prohibits cistern placement where location/access is in, or could affect, resource sensitive areasor propose other alternatives which will mitigate for seconda7y impacts ofcistern installation outside grading limits. 19. p. 13. Mit. 5.5-1(c), 6th& 7th bullets. Some of the obligations to be included in the HOA CC&R's should run with the land and be recorded in the lot Deeds of Trust, so they will be enforceable by outside entities. CC&R's are weak enforcement tools, because (1) they can be changed by a vote of the property owners and (2) self-interest and/or unwillingness to confront neighbors results in lack of enforcement. If restrictions in CC&R's are not enforced consistently, they will not hold up in court. 20. p. 16. Mit. 5.5-2. 2"d bullet: Lots S & 6 should be reconfigured/relocated/eliminated so that serpentine grasslands are outside lots lines and in Common OS. Thy 30' setback offered (instead of the 100' specified by policy) for structures and RDA's is inadequate. The mitigation should call for a 100' setback. 21. p. 23. Mit. 5.6-3. Add the bike/pedestrian path to the list of items to be covered by a comprehensive grading plan. 22. p. 24 Mit. 5.6-5 The FEIR discussion of Impact 5.6-5 included debris catchment fences. To the extent these are used, please include the following language: Where debris catchment fences are located in, or require access through, sensitive resource areas, alternate solutions to such fences is required. Such debri scatchment fences would likely require future regular grading maintenance for debris removal. If location or access is in or through sensitive resource areas, unassessed degradation/loss could occur over time. 23. p. 28. Mit. 5.8 -Add a mitigation that plantings at maturity, for both project and residential landscaping, not block views of significant natural.features, such as site ridgelines, from public open spaces, including the Bay. The proposed location of 9 lots near ridgelines makes it likely that, without such a condition, the defining geographic features of the site will eventually be lost. This restriction should be in each property deed and run with the land, and included in the CC&R's for educational purposes. Slide repair revisions offered for Alt 4 may include the placement of sometimes. extensive debris catchment fences. For instance, one would be positioned at the bottom of a ravine just above Paradise Dr. (FEIR, p. 45, Revision 15 for Landslide E.). Despite assurances that such fences will be screened by existing trees, a mitigation requiring ongoing landscape shielding, as appropriate, for debris fences would assure that they would not cause unwanted visual impacts over time. This should be part of the CC&R's. EXHIBIT NO.- 37~i2_ LATE MAIL # ~Co- January z, 20 1 1 150 Hacienda Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Scott Anderson & Tiburon Planning Commission Town of Tiburon, CA 94920 Mr. Anderson and planning commission members, My wife and I have been living on Hacienda Drive directly adjoining the Rabin property for nearly twenty years. We have recently looked over their current plans for the proposed Alta Robles development, and find them to be surprisingly! sensitive to the siting and forward- looking in their integration into the property and "green" construction methods. The Rabins have been good and considerate neighbors, shown most recently by their ungrudging and generous easement for permanent pedestrian access to the public open space adjoining their property at the end of Hacienda Drive. Much as we might wish for their property to magically become entirely open space for the future, we feel that the proposed 70+% of the property being offereed as public and private open space is quite generous. Alta Robles, if built as shown in the master plan incorporating the Kao building designs, could be a memorable architectural landmark for Tiburon. Much like Sea Ranch, this proposal seems to offer a vision of creative and sensitive development, rather than an unsightly slew of disjointed "McMansions" (as developed on Strawberry Spit, for example). The Rabins are, quite reasonably, trying to make plans for the long-term development of their family's land within the constraints of the Master Plan, and it seems that their proposal meets Tiburon's strictest requirements. There is no one who would be more directly affected by any issues with ongoing construction than the Rabins themselves, whose home will remain in the middle of the proposed home-building. It seems to us that they hope to create an innovative legacy for the property they've called home for so many years, while also meeting all of the myriad demands which have been placed on them to the best of their abilities. The likely rate of development would be slow, especially with the current economy and the design restraints. Hopefully the Rabin family would continue to be responsive to unforeseen issues raised along the way. We have no reason to believe otherwise. We live perhaps a hundred yards or so over the ridgeline from a few of the proposed lots, and despite the potential for being affected by some eventual construction noise, we feel that this is a worthy proposal, especially if, as we understand it, any substitution for the Kao designs would Cequire entirely new design approvals from the city for each of the individual lots. They have earned our support in moving forward with this project. Douglas Currens and Jan Maisel 150 Hacienda Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 415 435-1424 EXHIBIT NO. Aii> Dan Watrous Page 1 of 1 LATLI:M.-AIL # CZ From: Christa Keeling [christakeeling@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:30 PM To: Scott Anderson Cc: Dan Watrous Subject: Alta Robles FEIR My husband and I live at 144 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, close to the proposed Alta Robles project. The applicants have committed to specific "green" house designs for each lot which we find very attractive with the exception of lot 4 which is too close to the Tiburon Ridge. I will attend the 1-26 meeting. Best regards, Ed and Christa Keeling EXHIBIT NO. q1 1/24/2011 Tiburon, January 23, 2011 Mr. Dan Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Watrous; LATE MAIL The Town of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance calls for the "preservation of natural features of land to the maximum extent feasible through minimization of grading and sensitive site design." In my opinion, the Alta Robles project MAXIMIZES grading and the destruction of natural features and resources, especially considering that 14 homes will be constructed on 18 landslides and that portions of some homes will be dug into the hillside. The few or minor reductions in the size of some houses and lots, grading, and length of retaining walls under Alternative 4 are to be commended. However, the mere fact that the houses are designed to be 6500-8000 square feet - reaching the maximum size allowed in Tiburon! ! - makes a mockery of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The depictions of the buildings proposed by the applicants are highly misleading (handouts at the applicants' get-to- gether last Tuesday). The drawings show sections of buildings, which by no means convey a truthful picture of the size of the homes. The applicants are eager to stress that they want to attain platinum status for their green buildings. That is a good goal per se; however, because of the size of the homes, the demand will be greater for resources such as water and electricity, the need to dewater large areas, and the destruction of vegetation, including trees, nullifying the concept of "green" in general and certainly the idea of "passive green." I have recently become aware that the homes will not be built by the applicants but that instead each parcel will be sold separately. The question then arises, how do we know that the future owner will use the "green" design prepared by the applicants? Considering the recent building code changes resulting from the new State laws to be superseding local regulations, and the Town Council's approval of amendments to the Tiburon Building Code (Jan. 5, 2011), there seems to be no assurance that the 14 houses will be built "green" in the future? It is truly disconcerting to read in The ARK (Jan. 12, 2011) that "passive green moves, such as building smaller homes that use fewer natural resources, net no points under the town's recent green rating system." I recommend that the square footage of the houses be reduced by several 1000 square feet - no house should be larger than 4500 square feet - before approval of the Alta Robles project by the Town Council. Sincerely yours, Eva Buxton Cc: Scott Anderson Connie Cashman EXHIBIT NO Page or i Dan Watrous LATE MAIL c2so , From: Jack Sholl Desholl@gmaii.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:38 PM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: Alta Robles FEIR Letter of Opposition Subject: Alta Robles FOR 1) 1 live in directly adjacent to the proposed Alta Robles project at 13 Acacia Drive. This project will affect my views, peace and quiet, traffic, and potentially negatively affect my property value. I am directly impacted as we are across from the "fire road" that Mr. Rabin is proposing as the main road to a 14 home new development. I would like to see the FEIR amended to include my concerns: 2) Safety/Sightlines on Paradise Drive: the FEIR has changed the critical speed on Paradise Drive to reflect Saturday afternoon traffic only. The original traffic study should. be reinstated to reflect the study carried out during peak weekday and weekend traffic hours and paid for by the EIR consultant, rather than the new hour and a half, Saturday-only study paid for by Mr. Rabin/Alta Robles. The original sightline should be restored. 3) Approving a smaller project could somewhat decrease the significant, unavoidable and the negative impacts described in the FEIR. 4). the applicant and his representatives have committed to specific "green" house designs for each lot. We would like to see these specific designs locked into the Precise Plan. 5) 1 oppose the size and scale of the project and the uncertain nature of the timeline of the total development. The project needs to be reduced by at least two thirds with the utmost care of the Council to keep houses and rooflines from the top of the ridge. The proposed roadway goes on top of the ridge and houses built along this without significant setback will affect views and the city codes. Sincerely, Jack Sholl Jack Sholl 13 Acacia Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435-3785-Home 415-734-1524-Cell ~ EXHIBIT NO.-- 1/24/2011 Scott Anderson LATE MAIL# c;Z. From: murray [drzucker@mac.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:37 PM To: Scott Anderson Subject: Alta Robles Final EIR To the Tiburon Planning Commission, I am a concerned and active resident of Tiburon and want to express my support for the Rabin family ALTA ROBLES project. I have reviewed the plans as well as the community and environmental impact studies and find that the project respects and advances the public's interest in land conservation as well as view preservation and is sensitive the the areas natural resources. Not only will the project provide additional open space but will include public access easements and public trails. Facilities and utilities will be upgraded as the infrastructure is established and fire safety facilities for the area will be upgraded. In addition the homes appear to represent the most advanced green design and materials and therefore will reflect our area's concern for ecology, efficiency, and harmony with the natural beauty around us. The economic benefit to the area will also be helpful. The Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with extensive and sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and then move the project along to the final and third step of decision on the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Murray L. Zucker, MD 107 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO. qt4 Scott Anderson Community Development Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 LATE MAIL# c~Z= January 24, 2011 Dear Mr. Anderson, I am a property owner in Tiburon and I support the Alta Robles project for many reasons. The main one is that it will provide open space which I highly value and provides two public access easements. I love to walk and hike and I look forward to being able to use the trails and open space. I live near downtown Tiburon and I am confident that every one of the remaining businesses would be in favor of this development. It is obvious that our town could use more commerce and this development is a perfect step in that direction. The Rabin's project is well thought out, preserves the land and makes it widely available to citizens. The homes will be beautiful and tasteful in keeping with the natural beauty of our environment. I, too, want to guard Tiburon against unscrupulous developers. But this is a project that respects Tiburon and its land and its citizens. Sincerely, Roberta Zucker 107 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 435-0825 EXHIBIT N0. IATE MA L # To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the prpject on its merits. q 7rrv[Q ~pxed~,~ ~ %t burn d~+7 a ~ ~incer~-el,, T"-' Vature Theo Koffler conser, ancy C0i 17 Tara H i I I Road Bel Tiburon, CA 94920-1555 EXHIBIT NO. 46 LATE MAIL #-c2 To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the project on its merits. Sincerely, -7 UL, s4t C~ L+ I L-0 ~Pati Vun. ~M t7lyv~~ a-XAo*o 9-..dome EXHIBIT NO., 917 ~ Page 1 of 1 Connie Cashman From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:28 AM To: allPC Cc: Scott Anderson; 'Diane Henderson'; 'Bob Berman'; Connie Cashman Subject: FW: Alta Robles Development More Alta Robles late mail... Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 LATE MAIL # From: Doug Dossey [mailto:ddossey@blumcapital.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 20115:59 PM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: Alta Robles Development Tiburon Planning Commission Dear Madam/Sir: With my wife, I recently purchased the home at 7 Seafirth Place in Tiburon near the location of the proposed Alta Robles Development. Having just purchased it at what is probably one of the highest values in the Seafirth Development, we are very concerned about the impact to the enjoyment and value of our property due to the proposed Alta Robles development. Given that our views looks directly across into what will be developed, we hope that the proposal is amended to reflect the concerns of many of the proposed development's future neighbors. In addition, I truly hope that the Tiburon Planning Commission will reflect our wishes for a smaller project that would at least somewhat mitigate the significant and unavoidable impact the FEIR will have on this still relatively undeveloped side of Tiburon. Yours sincerely, Doug Dossey Partner Blum Capital Partners, L.P. 909 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94133 415-288-7216 Direct 415-283-0616 Fax ddossev@blumcapita Lcom The information contained in this email message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the message. EXHIBIT NO. 4j& 1/26/2011 Page 1 of 1 Connie Cashman From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:29 AM To: allPC Cc: Scott Anderson; 'Diane Henderson'; 'Bob Berman'; Connie Cashman Subject: FW: Alto Robles FEIR .and one more... Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 LATE MAIL # 4aao From: Kathrin Dellago [mailto:dosseydeilago@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 20117:07 PM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: Alto Robles FEIR Dear Madam/Sir: I live at 7 Seafirth Place in Tiburon which is very close to the location of the proposed Alta Robles development and I am writing as I hope that the proposal is amended to reflect the concerns of many of the areas neighbors. It is my understanding, that there is a more comprehensive traffic study that has been carried out during the peak traffic ours and paid for by the EIR, however, it seems that the FEIR has changed the critical speed on Paradise drive reflecting a study which was limited to Saturday-only traffic and paid directly by Mr. Rabin/Alta Robles. Further, I believe that the developer has committed to specific environmentally-friendly development design and I would like to see these specifics of the design incorporated in writing and design into the Prices Plan. Finally, I truly hope that the Tiburon Planning Commission will reflect our wishes for a smaller project that would at least somewhat mitigate the significant and unavoidable impact the FEIR will have on this as of yet still natural and peaceful side of Tiburon. Yours sincerely, Kathrin Dellago 7 SEafirth Place Tiburon, CA 94920 14 EXHIBIT NO. s 1/26/2011 To: Tiburon Planning Commission Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dated: January 25, 2011 Re: Alta Robles Project L:MAIL#_ Dear Members of the Tiburon Planning Commission: We are residents and property owners in Tiburon. We wish to express our support for the Rabin family's Alta Robles project. Upon review of the project, we were impressed with the large amount of designated open space throughout the property plans and that nearly 70% of the land would remain undeveloped. In addition, the Rabin's have created two public easements on their property to facilitate connection of public open spaces and complete the Tiburon Ridge Trail. Both of these aspects of the project would be of great benefit to all residents of the Town of Tiburon. We hope the project may be approved so that the Rabin's can move forward to the next step in the process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Leonard Yaffe Ruth Yaffe 10 Gilmartin Court Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO.__5 Dan Watrous - M-RA" From: Jan Gullett Danlgullett@gmaii.com] ; -----LATE I L Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:20 AM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: Alta Robles Rabin Property - Final EIR - Public Hearing Jan 26, 2011 - Planning Commission Report I live at 4 Acacia Drive, spoke at the prior EIR and confirmed my concerns about this project with a follow-up letter. These were my concerns: • The proposed development heavily impairs our view of the bay across a secondary ridge line with homes on lots 9. 10, 125 13 & 14 appearing in our view of the bay above the ridge-line. • These homes are very large, 50% larger than our subdivision on average and are tall. They are out of keeping with surrounding property. This makes the view impairment worse. The homes on lots 9, 10, 12, 13, & 14 within our ridge-line view average 6180 square feet, are all three stories tall and average 25 feet in height. The proposed lot layout exacerbates view impairment by placement of open space and calling for a large lot for the Rabin residence preventing use of most of the land for the proposed additional thirteen lots. Outside of the open space., 44% of the lot space is given to the Rabin residence alone and 56% to the other thirteen lots in total (4.3% each). The Rabin residence lot adjoins all of the private and most of the common open space which in total comprise 39% of the entire development. This relegates the other 13 residences to less favorable locations such as the five on the secondary ridge-line that forms our bay view. The alternatives presented maintain this favorable land allocation to the Rabin residence and increase our visual impairment so do not address our concerns. • 766 trees are planned for removal, 256 of which are protected heritage trees. This tree removal will likely make our view impairment worse by exposing these houses on the ridge. • Cut and fill for grading at the site totals 49,200 cubic yards due to the existing 18 landslides. This is a very large amount. 37% of this fill will be on lots 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 on the secondary ridge. Serpentine soil is a widely believed to create carcinogenic conditions and this large amount of cut and fill will be quite dusty. . Retaining walls are proposed to deal with the eighteen landslides and total two miles in length. More than three quarters of a mile (4294 feet) is located on lots 9, 10, 12, 13, & 14. • Biological impact on the protected serpentine grass on the ridge-line near lots 10, 11 & 12 seems to have been omitted from the Draft EIR. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend this meeting tomorrow, so this reiterates my position. While my concerns were noted in the revision, modifications particularly with regards to impact on the neighbors on Acacia, were in my opinion negligible. I remain opposed to this development until reasonable steps are taken to minimize environmental impact and reflect in the plans that the development of existing residence impaired the development of this already difficult parcel, particularly when open space is placed adjacent to the existing residence as planned. Jan Gullett 5EXHIBIT NO. LATE M# Z- To: The Tiburon Planning Commission Re: Alta Robles Final EIR To whom it may concern: As Tiburon residents, my husband and I are writing in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. We have known the Rabin family for many years and have great respect for their values, aesthetic sensibility and ethics. After having seen the last drawings and plans for the proposed project, we are convinced that their vision is of the highest standards with ultimate respect for the land as well as the native plant population. The architecture is truly compatible with their property, its hilly topography and the vast views afforded by its incredible location. In the end we believe that this development will be one of a kind in California and will bring attention in the most positive way to the town of Tiburon. The Rabins, are willing to create a beautiful and stunning addition to Marin County. It's a win-win situation for everyone. As a third generation Californian, I have seen great devastation to my home state. I am pleased to write that this project is one which will be noted by developers and architects across the country as a model for honoring the land. We urge you to support this timely and visionary project. Sincerety, Barbara Patton (Mrs. E. Scott Patton) 2108 Mar East, Tiburon, California 94920 EXHIBIT NO. 6?0 LA1T= MAIL To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the project on its merits. Sincerely. ~~III Cr,I~^~✓d: or q)-0 EXHIBIT NO. S3_ LAWRENCE Y. GOLDBERG LATE M A I L # 7i January 26, 2011 Members of the Planning Commission Of the Town of Tiburon Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Commission Members: We have lived at 3600 Paradise Drive for close to sixteen years and are quite familiar with the property at 3825 Paradise Drive owned by the Rabin family which is an agenda item for your meeting this evening. 1 In addition to our knowledge of the property, we attended a public briefing last Thursday night which gave us additional detail on the careful planning for the project. We are writing in strong support of the position that the EIR material that has been submitted is more than sufficient to protect the interests of the Town and of all the neighborhoods in the surrounding areas. The site, when developed, should be a model for everywhere in the country where there is a need to balance beautiful scenery, valuable property, concerns of surrounding neighborhoods and a very healthy respect for the environment of which we are all custodians. The Rabin's are represented by an excellent and well qualified professional team and their presentation demonstrated the meticulous care that they have used in preparing the environmental material. We believe this will be of benefit for the Town as well as all of the other interests and we urge your speedy approval of the documents which the Rabins have offered to you and the Town. With all good wishes, 't ; 4 0~/ Larry an ancy Goldberg 3600 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5, Tiburon, CA 94920-0005 1660 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite Cl, Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 789-9490 • Fax (415) 789-9759 • e-mail: lygoldbero@earthlink.net LATE MAIL# & To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surroupding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to recommend certification of the project EIR and move the project forward to the third and final step in the process deciding the project on its merits. Sincerely, EXHIBIT NO. S5b Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson LATE MAIL # Zmv* BEE KILGORE [buzzbk@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:20 PM To: Scott Anderson Subject: re rabin development Dear Scott: I am writing you today from Tahoe as I can not be at the meeting tonite regarding the Rabin's proposed development on Paradise Drive. s Having been a life long resident and having owned and then sold part of the parcel that the Rabin's are planning on developing, I fully understand how this could change this side of the peninsula. But this change is a positive one! I know the Rabins have spent an enormous amount of time and money putting together this project so that it incorporates all the wonderful aspects of living where we do. I know they would not develop the land just to develop it. They are very consciencious about the environment and open space. Their own home reflects this in so many ways. As a long time neighbor, I feel that the information in the Draft and Final EIR is more than adequate to meet the highest CEQA standards. I am writing this to encourage you to recommend certification of the EIR , adopt resolutions to pre-zone and open the discussions on the merits of the Rabin's project. Thanking you in advance, Most Sincerely, Bee Kilgore (DBee Unlimited Kilgore The best vitamin for making friends is.. BEE 1! Have a B-utiful day and BUZZ me Cam: buzzbk@sbc91oba1. net Cell 415-203-6556 EXHIBIT NO. ~j 1/26/2011 ANNETTE GELLERT „a vi A'D - tee P cx S :1 4 if ~ - ~ ri ~~f'~ v('iYC;t ~ L• ~'-i~'V~ r~ i lcJl { V~~' 1 V I r1 YY~f~ s/1~ ,-An' `i rr~tt ! r i ~ ~ ~ vim(- ~ I/V1 `(ie.l.~~ ~~.e'.~ y '~r1 ~5 Z S C-• ~ ~ J~ ~-C~ rl^e~-yt-~_.. 1 l ` a becc c. v J c G:1.j ~>vc' i n n (?c ckj i C'. i ✓l cJ~ 3 C L. ' 1 ' ' .S U Y c~i vt r~ ~cd ~ & - I I ` G .1' y t` c (r J v Y_ i EXHIBIT NO,67 To the Tiburon Planning Commission, Re: Alta Robles Final EIR As a property owner in Tiburon, we are in support of the Rabin family Alta Robles project. It is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. It provides scenic open space, unlike all three of the housing developments surrounding the property. It also provides two public access easements, one of them which runs alongside Hacienda Drive. Furthermore, it will provide a welcome economic benefit to the Town of Tiburon. We believe the Rabin's have provided the Planning Commission with sufficient information to move the project forward and assess the project on the basis of its merits. Sincerely, n sk-ec~c EXHIBIT N0. 5S Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous LATE MAIL From: Mark H Goldstein [mgoldstein@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 1 : 1 4 PM 0 DIE 0 [E O W E To: Dan Watrous Subject: Alta Robles Project--letter APR - 7 2011 Dan Please forward the below note to the planning commission membership. Thank You! PLANNING DIVISION Dear Tiburon Planning I regret I will not be able to make the upcoming. meeting regarding Alta Robles projects. I attended the past 2 sessions and am very concerned about the scope of this project. It is the largest new project proposed for Tiburon in a decade that feels totally economically undoable given the cost of construction, lack of demand for $5,000,000 homes and glut of homes currently on the market. That said, getting into specifics....... I have reviewed the revised Alta Robles Revised Plans and remain somewhat in shock. I did not feel the spirit of the last meeting sunk in to the Rabin Family. It still is huge! While they moved some sites off the ridge, there still are 13 new homes (14) total proposed in a configuration that remains inconsistent with the new Tiburon guidelines we all worked so hard to put in place. The project simply remains too massive. 100,000 square feet of new homes, swimming pools, bridges, access roads. The specific part of the project that is most upsetting to me is the proximity in which 3 homes are proposed to be constructed along Paradise Drive. I call to your attention Lots 4, 8 and 13. Lot 4 has maybe a 20 foot distance from a particularly curvy section of the road. During construction especially, this proposes to effectively put construction workers physically on Paradise Drive and is not at all in the spirit of the new guidelines which call for maintaining the country-feel of Paradise Drive. This will create a concrete like feel in a pretty active corner where literally thousands of cyclists roam on weekends. These three sites also are 'viewless' and would be least desirable for any developer or home buyer to purchase. I would encourage you to have the Rabins consider removing the 3 lots from their plan. It would leave Paradise Drive still feeling somewhat rural and would retain the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. April 6, 2011 Mark H Goldstein EXHIBIT N0. 415-902-1048-c 3650 Paradise Drive TO: Tiburon Planning Commission D 0 v E FROM: Randy Greenberg IL APR 1 3 2011 DATE: 4/12/11 RE: Alta Robles project PLANNING DIVISION I support your continuing effort to make the Alta Robles project appropriate to its constrained hillside location and in sync with the surrounding neighborhoods. In this letter I am asking you to consider specific lots for elimination - 5, 6 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. I also make specific suggestions for changes that should be made to lot configuration and house size for the proposed 14 unit project. There are also a few suggested revisions to the Resolution language. The case for lot elimination: The reason that you are still working on this project is the applicant's refusalpto eliminate some lots from his plan, despite repeated requests from your Commission to do so. The applicant states he is well within what the zoning allows (as you will no doubt hear again) and, technically, he is. The unusual circumstance here is the 15 ac. existing lot which is not available for new lot development, although its acreage counts as part of the zoning calculation for the project. Clever. This site cannot support 13 new very large homes. Mr. Rabin bought 18 landslides and 3 protected ridgelines adjacent to public Open Space ["OS"]. His hillside holds special status plants, jurisdictional wetlands and marshes. It is home to Marin western flax, Tiburon buckwheat, north coast semaphore grass, Carlotta Hall's lace fern, and serpentine bunchgrass. Just in the 22 ac. development there are 766 trees, with 256 qualifying as "heritage" and 391 as "protected" (DEIR, p. 241). Stating that the site is "constrained" does not adequately capture its development challenges. Many suggested project changes are the result of the DEIR view analysis. However, this analysis relies on the presence of existing site vegetation to conclude that some homes sites are not so visible. It is guaranteed that this vegetation will change over time. Plants die. Homeowners, despite restrictions, will limb up, window and cut down trees that are in their views. Where story poles are near or under existing tree canopy, construction is likely to compromise root structure and tree survival. "Conceptual" landscape plans are not up for approval, and they are heavily relied upon by the applicant to mitigate the project's visual impacts. Don't count on vegetation to screen homes that celebrate views as a major asset. Look at Plan p. SP-04 (Revision 5, 3/28/11), showing RUA's and common and private OS. You will see that RUA's are linked together. This means that not only primary houses, but terraces and terracing, manicured landscaping, pools, sheds, gazebos and pathways will appear as a continuous line of development through the site. RUA elements will stand out prominently against the undeveloped portions of the hillside. Houses and associated landscaping will eventually hide the lines of the ridge, and the natural geography will be lost forever. This will happen regardless of house design - good, bad or indifferent. This 1 EXHIBIT NO. (00 sinuous pattern needs to be interrupted by creating large areas of OS with meaningful habitat value between areas of development. The only way to achieve this is by removing lots. After eliminating lots, consider reducing house size and RDA's of remaining lots. Lots to consider for elimination: In its 4/13/11 report, Staff has offered you a number of suggestions to improve the project, which I support. I ask you to consider these additional suggestions which I believe are necessary to further reduce a still unacceptable level of impact and policy noncompliance: Staff offers the option of eliminating Lot 8, along with lot 13 (3/23/11 memo, #4). The alternate location offered for Lot 8 appears to be the one that now holds relocated Lot 4, so lot 8 should certainly go. Lots S & 6 are closest to and most visually jarring from the Middle Ridge OS. Homes on these lots are to be single story and 5100 sf (incl. garages). While the lower profile is good, the result is to spread the house out. The footprint of these houses will be extremely large - possibly bigger than that of the biggest project houses. This approach does not resolve the visual impact issues. Also, the private OS of these 2 lots are almost entirely serpentine bunchgrass and include sedge meadow. These lots should be eliminated. At the very least, increase reductions to house size, RUA's and private OS. Staff suggests reducing floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet and reducing the maximum height of both homes by 3 feet (4/13/11 stf rpt., p. 4, #5). Lots 9, 10, 13 and 12 (if the Eucalyptus on the Sorokko property is removed as planned) are the most view impactful from Acacia and Hacienda. Lots 9 and 10 (straddling Ridge #5) rely on 2 fairly spindly existing pine trees for view impact reduction, unreliable screening at best. Please consider eliminating all 4 of these lots, or at least further reduce the maximum size of their homes. Staff suggests reducing lot 12's unit to 6,000 sf, (presumably including garage) - this is too big. Even at a single story, this house will block bay views if the Euc backdrop is removed. Lot 13 has similar issues. Both 12 and 13 should be considered for elimination. For those lots that you feel belong on the site, please consider neighborhood consistency and visual impacts: make houses and RUA's smaller, pullback private OS where it impinges on special status species and where it fragments common OS: Reduce house sf for Lots 8-13. Houses for these lots are very much larger than those in neighborhoods in the same viewshed. The average size of proposed homes on lots 8-13 is 7,687 sf plus 750 sf garages! Hacienda homes range from 2,400 to 5,100 sf. Acacia homes are 3,700 to 6,300 square feet. Your approvals will specify maximum allowable house size for each lot, even if house design changes. Policy asks for some reasonable compatibility with what already exists. Reducing house size to 6,000 sf does not do the job, but establishes a new, high standard. There should be variation in allowable maximum house size and 6,000 sf should represent the highest end, not the default. I note that the RDA's can have hardscape, manicured landscaping and other features that will affect visual impacts. These are also overlarge and should be reduced. EXHIBIT NO. ~ 2 2nd units. I ask you to consider including a condition that maximum square footage includes any 2 d units. Increasingly, on high value lots, there are applications for 2"d units which function to increase maximum allowable living space for owners, and do not function as intended. The case for "Common" vs. "Private" OS: Common OS provides greater habitat protection than private. Special status species should be located within common OS. Look at Plan page SP-04 (Revision 5, 3/28/11) and note how the common OS is fragmented by the private OS and/or made into narrow strips, neither of which is desirable for the animal, bird and insect species which rely on this habitat. e Specific suggested changes to the "private" and "common" OS areas based on p. SP-04 and SP-30 (Revision S, 3128111). Lots 1-4. Areas of private open space are actually across the street from these lots' building and residential use areas and should be eliminated. These areas should be added to adjacent OS Lot A. Lots 2, 3 & 4. Eliminate the extremely narrow area of private OS fronting the road that has been created. These narrow areas have virtually no habitat value and are likely to look strange up against more formally landscaped house grounds visible immediately behind them. If the idea is to have screening landscaping in front of open wire fencing, then define a setback for the fence line for these lots and require native plantings along the street. This approach will better achieve the screening purpose than what might - or might not - grow naturally. Lots S & 6. Reduce private OS areas to widen the common OS corridor along the property line and better protect areas of serpentine bunchgrass, sedge meadow and iris leaf rush meadow now inside the private OS. Lots 7, 9 and 13's private OS areas should be reduced in size. Private OS on these lots approach 1 acre, which is unnecessarily large. Portions of these areas should be added to adjacent Parcels A & B. Lot 8. Add a portion of the private OS area along its current south side to adjacent Lot A. This private OS encompasses areas of serpentine bunchgrass and butts up directly against populations of western flax and Tiburon buckwheat. Lot 10's private OS ( 83 ac.) on its north side fronting the road, should be pulled back to allow it to link (albeit with interruption from the road) to Lot B's common OS. Lot M's private OS should be pulled back to allow a wider swath of common OS fronting Paradise Dr. Lot 12's private OS goes down to Paradise Drive in a narrow swath along the project road, interrupting the common OS frontage along Paradise Dr. The private OS area should be reconfigured so that common OS fi°onts Paradise to the entry road, retaining the natural, rural look along Paradise. Lot 13: Private OS space encompasses an area of Marin dwarf flax. This lot line should be redrawn so that flax population is on adjacent common OS Parcel A. EXHIBIT NO. ~C' 3 Lot B's common OS is isolated from other common OS. Elimination of Lots 9 & 10 or reduction in the RUA of Lots 10 and/or 12 could create a link (albeit across a road). Lot C's common OS is completely isolated from other common OS. This area does not appear to have any special habitat (see SP-30) and contains three large water tanks. I don't know if these are still used, but they don't belong in Common OS. It makes sense to adjust the OS lines here to add Lot C to the Rabin Private Zone and transfer a like amount of the Private Zone above Lots 3 and 5 to adjacent Lot A. CC&R issue: The following language from the 3/11 Easton Pt. DEIR (p. 563) seeks to address the enforcement problems associated with CG&R's. I urge the Town to include similar language to facilitate enforcement of CC&R's, especially the protections afforded designated OS areas: "The CC&R's would grant to the [Town of Tiburon] the power but not the responsibility to ensure that the provisions pertaining to maintenance of common improvements and landscaping and public access to designated trail(s) on the project site are honored. The [Town of Tiburon] would be a third-party beneficiary with independent rights of enforcement and shall provide that the CC&Wprovisions pertaining to project roads and maintenance of common improvements and landscaping may not be amended without Town of Tiburon's prior consent." Resolution suggested revisions: P. 4, Resolution, Condition 15. "Colors and materials of homes and accessory buildings shall be low-reflectivity; medium and/or dark hues..." Consider adding that paved areas, such as terraces, pools, patios, etc.be medium to dark in color. Such areas, which may be extensive, will stand out like beacons on the hillsides, especially when viewed from above on the Middle Ridge OS, Acacia and Hacienda. P. 7, Resolution, Condition 31. Construction Management Plan. "...In no event shall installation exceed a period of two calendar years." Consider adding stated consequences if this time limit is exceeded. This project is the largest that will come before you. It is your legacy. Take care with it. EXHIBIT N0. 6~0 4 1911 Straits View Drive Tiburon, CA April 12th, 2011 Re: Alta Robles Proposed Development To the Tiburon Planning Commission and Staff: All we need to do is look around. Ridge lines are a defining characteristic of our Town. The General Plan endeavors to protect the ridges and the vievts to and from the ridges for all of us to enjoy. "Undeveloped ridge lines have overriding visual significance to the Town. In balancing open space interests with development interests, the protection of predominantly undeveloped ridge lines shall have the HIGHEST PRIORITY" (OSC9). "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." (LU6) The Town is following the General Plan. Commissioners and StafF have offered the developers a clear menu of ways to reduce the the density and intensity of this project. These recommendations can easily be found in both staff reports and in minutes from prior meetings. However, few of these recommendations have been accepted, beyond moving lot 4. This leaves a project plan inconsistent with ridge line policies and therefore an unacceptable plan. The developer can provide a meaningful alternative that avoids or reduces significant ridge line impacts. They can limit the number of residences and reduce their sizes. We encourage them to do so. We appreciate the work of the staff and the Planning Commissioners to uphold the Tiburon General Plan and to protect our ridges and ridge line views for us all. Your Sincerely, Jerry Riessen, Co-chair Last Chance Committee & Joanna Kemper .l EXHIBIT NO. Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Barry Wootton [bwootton99@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:44 PM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: Alta Robles FEIR TO: Tiburon Planning Commission FM: Barry E Wootton, Sherry L Wootton RE: Alta Robles APR 1 3 2011 D PLANNING DIVISION We have several concerns regarding the Alta Robles Project proposal after reviewing the FEIR (12/10), the Kao Design plans, and the recent property tour on April 8, 2011. The Rabin's emphasis on the "green" home architecture in the Koa designs seems to be a diversion from the real concerns regarding the legality and environmental impact of building extremely large homes, some of which are on the protected ridge lines, on a property with three protected ridge lines adjacent to public open space. We support the case for lot elimination (Lots 5,6,8,9,12,and 13) as presented to the Tiburon Planning Commission by Randy Greenberg on 4/12/2011. Our first question is: How can the Tiburon Planning Department enforce the proposal for the green architecture as depicted in the Kao drawings, or prevent the further elimination of additional trees for view corridors once the lots have been sold to individuals for developement? The enormous " green" house on Endeavor Dr., referenced by Sandra Swanson in her letter to the Planning Commission (4/12/2011), is an example of a house approved by the Planning Commission that certainly does not seem to blend into the hillside and maintain the rural aspect of Paradise. How can we be assured that the current CC&R's would grant the Town of Tiburon the authority to adhere to the Alta Robles architectural proposals. How can they monitor the trimming or removal of additional trees after the homes are completed? Secondly, will the existing sewage plant be capable of supporting this development if an additional development is approved for the Martha project, which is currently under review at the County of Marin planning Department but within the sphere of Tiburon? Finally, In section 5.1-5 of the FEIR it is stated that the Alta Robles Project would pay traffic mitigation fees to the Town of Tiburon towards roadway improvements along Tiburon Blvd. Why were Trestle Glen and Paradise Dr from Trestle Glen south to the project access at 3850 not included? EXHIBIT NO. &?0- 4/13/2011 Katie Vogelheim and John C. Hansen July 12, 2011 Jeff Slavitz, Mayor Dick Collins, Council Member Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Alta Robles Project Dear Jeff, Dick and other council members: RECEIVED: JUL 15 2011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON We have been homeowners and residents of Tiburon since 1999, live at 170 Hacienda Drive and recently purchased the property at 180 Hacienda Drive. Both of these parcels share a border with the Rabin property, which is the subject of the proposed Alta Robles development. We understand you will meet August 3 to review the project and the planning commission's recommendations from April. We are unable to attend the hearing, but do want the Town Council to have the benefit of our perspective on the project and the Town review process to date. We support the Rabin family's Alta Robles project as presented and without the reductions proposed by the Planning Commission. As neighbors of the Rabins for more than ten years, we have a very good appreciation for the immediate vicinity. We have also taken advantage of their repeated efforts to present their plan to neighbors and residents, and we have walked the project twice. We have watched, with serious interest, the family's efforts to design a reasonable and sensitive development project that might be appreciated by the Town and neighbors, and their care and diligence in preparing the plan and investigating potential issues. The effort was lengthy, costly, inclusive and thoughtful. In our view, the final plan is a remarkable achievement in that the family has approached the project with a priority on sensitivity to the area's natural resources, the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation, rather than on maximizing their own financial return. We were frankly stunned to read of the Planning Commission's recommendations in The Ark in April, and believe they are unfounded in fact and ill-advised in policy. We concluded that the members had not toured the project, were unaware of the long preparation and planning or simply did not understand the facts of the situation. Instead of suggesting capricious reductions in housing units and size, the Planning Commission should be celebrating the arrival of a reasonable plan from a developer and holding it up as an example of wpat we would like to see in Tiburon developments. I am sure you are aware that the Rabins could have proposed a project with far more homesites and less restrictive design and environmental controls. In our view, the Planning Commission is inviting a far more aggressive plan proposal or litigation, both of which are far worse for all of us than the project as proposed. To be clear, we are not aware of any specific plans the Rabins may have for the future, and do not mean to imply we have any specific knowledge. Let's try to apply a little common sense and wisdom next month and do the right thing. Please include this correspondence in the file for public comment on the Alta Robles project. Thanks for your attention and consideration, 463 Katie Vogel eim a John Hansen EXHIBIT NO. 170 Hacienda Drive - Tiburon, California - 94920 4 /1, iV Td 'c- ~S'4Y(.(S TOWN COUNCIL LATE MAIL # ~N L MEETING DATE- - WALDM A,, N Management Group, Inc. Scott Anderson, Community Development Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Rabin Alta Robles Project Dear Scott: I have spent considerable time studying the Rabin Alta Robles project in its various stages. I have also attended the Planning Commission hearings on the subject and carefully weighed arguments for and against the project. As a developer myself , I was impressed all along with the Rabin's care to develop this environmentally sensitive project to the neighbors and the community surrounding it. From a developer's point of view, I conclude that reducing the project to less than the proposed plan is unfeasible. The costs of the infrastructure developments and the environment mitigation costs of this project are just plain too high to be sustainable. urge you to support the full project as currently proposed before you. A great opportunity for an award winning and a model for future developments will be missed. Sincerely, ~ r Dan Waldman Waldman Mgmt. Group. Home address.: 107 Jamaica St. Tiburon Calif. 94920 Cell: Tel: 415 317 4288 Home: 415 435 3246 Property Management Investments & Consulting 459 Fulton Street, Suite 307 ■ San Francisco, CA 94 1 02-43 18 ■ Tel 41 5.922.2224 ■ Fax 41 5.922.0206 ■ infoQwaldmanmgmt.com July 20, 2011 Scott Anderson, Community Development Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Anderson: I am writing to give my full support to the Rabin Alta Robles Project. I was impressed with the detailed and respectful plans that the Rabins submitted for review, especially the environmental aspects of their project. As a person who has been fighting for the preservation of our environment, I want to see such care being rewarded by qur city and county rather than being treated punitively. The action of the planning commission discourages similar careful development. I urge you to accept the Rabin proposal as submitted by them, and hope that it will become a new model for the town of Tiburon. Sincerely, Y ~L Betsy Zimmerman 2514 Mar East Tiburon, CA 94920 ~U O U o ~ ~ o F- o L L A (1) C mm ~ ~ co c O O L U p a) • O :3 F- C/) O O O O I~~L/J to c c/) ~--C C Q O O a) +r Q) L O N 0 C ~ a) Q O - Q.'O (n m E m C C "a -o a)C 0 E O C O O •N Y C C N N -a -c O a) o c a) U C O O a) mE m C N a) c O Q , cn a) a) a -c r- cy L M -a C Y M C O C w m L _ Q 5 t= M c = 00 E c6~0 m q cn 0 cn cn 0Q CIO U L a) 0 C) Q cn NN r I..L m a) 00 o C) l F- RECEIVED JUL 2,i LUIS TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON RECEIVED 20 Z011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON o~ o'..~~ ~ C~~•-7th. Barbara & Mordechai Winter July 22, 2011 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE Tiburon Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard It Tiburon, CA. 94920 Re: The Rabin Family's "Alta Robles Project" Dear Council Members, We are writing in support of the Rabin Family's "Alta Robles Project" as presented, and without the changes proposed by the Planning Commission. We have reviewed the EIR as well as documents prepared by the Town Planning staff, we have also taken a walking tour of the site earlier today along with members of the Council, the Rabin Family and Scott Anderson, Planning Director. We firmly believe that the plan as presented, is an environmentally sensitive grouping of homes that will only further improve the outstanding supply of world class properties available to current residents of the Tiburon Peninsula as well as folks who desire to move here from other areas. I ( Mordechai ) write this as a former member of the Belvedere Planning Commission, a current Trustee of the Belvedere Tiburon Library Foundation, a property owner immediately adjacent to the Rabin property, and finally a resident of Belvedere for 22 years. Barbara is currently a member of the Belvedere Parks and Open Space Committee Environmental Forum of Marin and Marin Food Scrap Recycling Taskforce. We both think that an approval of the plan as presented would be a wise decision that would be fair to the Rabin Family, and result in a beautiful project for all Tiburon Peninsula residents to see and appreciate for the years to come. Sincerely ours, Barbara and Mordechai Winter 49 Peninsula Road • Belvedere, CA. 94920 (415) 435 - 8039 • Winter49@Pacbell.Net PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION July 20, 2011 Mr. Scott Anderson Community Development Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Anderson: Re: Alta Robles Project, 3825 Paradise Drive (File # 30701) Dear Council Members: I am an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a nonprofit, tax exempt corporation organized under the laws of the State of California for the purpose of monitoring and litigating matters affecting the public interest. For over thirty-five years, PLF attorneys have been litigating in support of individual rights, including property rights, in courts around the country. Indeed, PLF attorneys won the landmark property rights case that many municipalities are familiar with Nollan v. California Coastal Commission-in which the United States Supreme Court declared that government cannot unconstitutionally condition land-use permits on the relinquishment of things of value, like interests in real property. We have been following with significant interest the Town of Tiburon's review of this project. We are particularly interested in the legal implications of the Planning Commission's application of the Town's Significant Ridgeline Policy, the General Plan policy that requires Prime Open Space analysis and that requires 50% of the land area be put in permanent Open Space, and the Hillside Design Guidelines. 1. Ridgeline Policy As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a law that "either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v. Headquarters: 3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200 • Sacramento, CA 95834 - (916) 419-7111 • Fax: (916) 419-7747 Alaska: 121 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 250 • Anchorage, AK 99503 • (907) 278-1731 • Fax: (907) 276-3887 Atlantic: 1002 SE Monterey Commons Blvd., Suite 102 - Stuart, FL 34996 • (772) 781-7787 • Fax: (772) 781-7785 Hawaii: P.O. Box 3619 • Honolulu, HI 96811 • (808) 733-3373 • Fax: (808) 733-3374. Oregon: (503) 241-8179 Washington: 10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 210 • Bellevue, WA 98004 - (425) 576-0484 • Fax: (425) 576-9565 E-mail: plf@pacificlegal.org - Web Site: www.pacificlegal.org Mr. Scott Anderson July 20, 2011 Page 2 General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) (internal citations omitted). A law that is "`void for vagueness' not only fails to provide adequate notice to those who must observe its strictures, but also `impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application."' Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104,108-109 (1972) (internal citations omitted). In Zubarau v. City of Palmdale, 192 Cal. App. 4th 289 (2011), the Court of Appeal stated that "[w]here the terms of a zoning ordinance are so vague as to not give sufficient notice of what precisely is permitted or prohibited, this vagueness is a violation of due process." Id. at 308 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), 311 (striking down a zoning ordinance regulating the height of antennae as void for vagueness), 311. As written, the policy is vague, in likely violation of the applicants' due process rights. The General Plan (OSC-12) provides that development must be set back from "significant" ridgelines. But nowhere is the term "significant" defined, leaving it to Town officials to balance a list of particularly subjective criteria. For example, one of those criteria-"high visual prominence"-cannot be objectively applied; one official's conclusion that a ridgeline has "high visual prominence" easily could conflict with another's conclusion that the same ridgeline has low visual prominence. Similarly, the General Plan's mandate that insignificant ridgelines warrant less protection than significant ones begs the question: What is "significant," and what is not? Staff s conflicting applications of the ridgeline policy to the subject property constitute striking evidence of the policy's inherent vagueness. II. Prime Open Space & 50% Open Space Requirements The Town of Tiburon General Plan Land Use Table 2.2-2 Planned Development Residential -Undeveloped Properties and Prime Open Space Characteristics shows the Rabin and SODA properties involved in the Alta Robles project likely have prime open space characteristics. The Table footnote clearly states: "This table is not a substitute for thorough site analysis that is required for development'review applications." Once more, the issue of what constitutes a "significant" ridge on the Rabin and SODA properties is subjective. Even the town staff reported to the Planning Commission in their reports that the staff did not attempt to calculate the vertical relationship of the proposed homes to significant ridges but rather "'applied a qualitative assessment based on the DEIR analysis of Policy OSC-12." In its reports, the Town staff itself opines that neither of the "significant" ridges "jumps off the page" at a viewer and should not be afforded the enhanced protections. Open Space Preservation Policies OSC-1 and OSC-5 strongly encourage open space preservation, but there is no criteria for establishment of a "significant ridge" as one element of the Prime Open Space Characteristic. Mr. Scott Anderson July 20, 2011 Page 3 The Planning Commission's recommendation to the Council that four lots in the project be eliminated because of their proximity to the "significant ridge" in effect leaves an additional 2.7 acres of the property undevelopable or in permanent open space. The General Plan policy OSC-5 establishes a goal that a minimum of 50% of the area of lands designated as Planned Development in open space. Nevertheless, the project sponsors proposed to-leave over 76% of their land preserved in a combination of private open space and common open space. The Planning Commission's action, by removing lots 8, 9, 10, and 13 and making additional private open space now common open space on lots 2, 4 and 7 overreached well beyond the Town's General Plan Open Space goals and possibly amounts to an unconstitutional condition under Nollan. III. Hillside Design Guideline We understand that the Commission is attempting to regulate the project in favor of third parties' alleged "right" to a view across the subj ect property. Unless a third party has some pre-existing grant from or covenant with the property's owners, this kind of regulation would fly in the face of California law. As the California Supreme Court has noted, "the entrenched rule of general application has provided that absent an agreement to the contrary, no one has a right to an unobstructed view of his or her property over another's private property." Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal. 4th 507, 518 n.4 (2006); Wolford v. Thomas, 190 Cal. App. 3d 347 (1987) (same). We are of the understanding that there is no easement or covenant that gives third parties "view" rights over the subject property. Any views are merely borrowed. In light of this, the guideline should not be applied to inhibit in any way the project in the name of views. Sincerely, n _ I PAUL J. BEARD II Attorney i~! ? 20i July 20, 2011 Scott Anderson Community Development Director Town of Tiburon Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Anderson: We are long time Tiburon residents. We believe that the town of Tiburon is well served by the Rabin Alta Robles project. It is environmentally sensitive, carefully and beautifully situated, non-invasive, and a source of good revenue for the town. We are especially grateful to the Rabins for providing a future connection to the Tiburon Ridge Trail. We love to hike from our house, and it was very sad not to be able to go through Hacienda to the open space. The Rabin project is exactly the kind of project we like to encourage. We heartily support this effort and hope that you will, also. Sincerely, Barry and Rosalind Jekowsky 4 Turtle Rock Court Tiburon, CA 94920 4525 Paradise Drive, Tiburon Ca 94920 7/25/11 Dear Mr. Anderson, This letter is written in support of Varda & Irving Rabin's proposed project for the Alta Robles project on Paradise Drive. From what we have seen the Rabin's have taken much time and effort to plan a project that surpasses the Green requirements of the city, reduce the number of lots from 20 to 14, as well as meet all the criteria set forth by your planning commission. We have also been using the path to the open space that the Rabin's generously gave to the community and we and many others would be so sad to loose it. The Rabin's are sensitive to the impact on the environment as well as to their neighbors and we are sure their project will be an asset to Tiburon. Please consider your decision carefully and give them the same consideration that they have given to this project. Yours sincerely, Anthony and Lisa Vidergauz. TOWN COUNCIL m In MAI LATE L # MEETING DATE L- 3- rL L LATE MAIL#%=/y The Rabin Family 3825 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 August 1, 2011 Jeff Slavitz Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mayor Slavitz, Over the past six years, our family has put a great deal of our time, resources, and careful consideration to create and refine the Alta Robles project. The project has had numerous phases and revisions and we are now approaching a culmination of our efforts with the meeting before you on August 3. We wanted to explain the history of the project, the highlights of the architectural and environmental work we have done and our issues with the Planning Commission's recommendations. HistorX When we bought the original 30 acres, Hacienda, Gilmartin and Acacia Court were in the process of being developed, many of the homes directly on the ridgeline. We lived through the development of those neighborhoods, but never objected to their creation. We purchased the lower 20 acres from our neighbor and good friend Dr Eugene Kilgore, an environmentalist, who had lived in the same home on Paradise Drive since 1929. He had hoped for a good development on his land We originally submitted a project on the lower parcel to the County of Marin, however the Town of Tiburon requested that we submit our proposed development directly to Tiburon, due to their desire to receive the tax revenues from any future development. We then performed a constraints analysis, reached out to the public to hear their concerns, and redesigned the project to include both parcels of land before we submitted it to the Town. Pro'ect 'ghli From the outset, our family set out to design a "green" and unique project that avoid environmental impacts and balanced both our goals and the public's interests. We will be the most immediate neighbors to this project. So we took great pains to design homes that are architecturally stunning while also reducing their visual presence. With that in mind, we proactively reduced our density from what R the general plan allowed (20 units) to 14 units. Before submitting our project, we performed our own exhaustive constraints analysis so we could create a plan that minimized the environmental, geological, and policy impacts.. We adhered to the Tiburon 2020 General Plan in choosing the home locations and designs. We hired one of the premier green architects in the r-ountry to design LEED certified homes that conform to the landscape, create architecturally significant designs and that avoid or mitigate environmental impacts to the highest extent. And we did all of this in 2005, before the "green" building movement gained the traction that in has today. Since submitting our project, we have opened our property to the public four times, participated in numerous planning commission meetings, and held additional public outreach meetings. Taking what we heard from the Planning Commission, the public, and the EIR, we revised and improved the project five times to reduce potential impacts and address community and town concerns. The Town's independent EIR found that our current project is environmentally superior. In our current plan, 76% of the total land will remain open space, far exceeding the 50% threshold required by the General Plan. Most of the homes are partially submerged into the earth, some of them up to 49% underground. This practice not only heats the home in the winter and cools it in the summer, but also significantly reduces the visual impacts of the homes. A 7,000 square foot home of our design has the same visual prominence of a traditional 3,000 square foot homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the homes we designed employ native vegetated roofs, which reduce their visual impact even further, have solar panels to create their own energy, and utilize energy efficient skylights and radiant heating to efficiently control climate.. The homes are meant to blend seamlessly into the surroundings and will be architecturally significant structures the Town of Tiburon will be proud of. Economic Consideration Importantly, this is not an inexpensive proposal. To construct the infrastructure is an enormous undertaking, and these costs are static regardless of the number of lots. Our design utilizes green building materials and green R construction practices, which are significantly more expensive than ordinary construction. Therefore, our project operates on a very thin margin and the Planning Commission's recommendations make our proposal economically unfeasible. The Planning Commission's increases the infrastructure development costs by 74% per square foot. Furthermore, the Planning Commission's recommendations would result in a Town tax revenue loss of about $3.5 million over 20 years, or $175,000 per year. What the Planning Commission failed to take into account was that the Town would realize the tax income benefits of a 6000-7500 square foot home, with the visual and environmental impact of the homes half that size. This project is one of the greenest developments ever proposed in Marin County, and could be a model for environmental development in Tiburon for years to come. Disnro_portionate Exaction by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission acted in an arbitrary and punitive manner in their recommendation on our proposal. They did not take into consideration the extensive information we provided (which was provided per the Planning Commission's request at our expense) plus the Tiburon Staff Reports. John Kunzweiler presented a prepared power point at the April 13, 2011 meeting, concluding that the project was beyond the normal scope of a Planning Commission and that there was too much information for the Commission to process. Without addressing the factors of OSC-12 Ridgeline policy of the General Plan, the Planning Commission simply decided to cut four lots, reduce the square footage of three homes and donate sections of private open space to common open space on three lots in the name of preserving ridges and neighborhood compatibility. These actions were excessive and did not take into account the careful work both our team and the town staff devoted to this project. Most importantly, the Planning Commission did not root their decisions in factual findings or present evidence that demonstrates further consistency with the policies and practices of the General Plan. The Planning Commission recommended the elimination lots 8, 9 , and 10 under the premises that they violated the Town's General Plan Policy OSC-12, the Secondary Ridge Policy. However policy OSC-12 requires that the Town balances various factors when creating setback from the secondary ridges, assessing (1) visual prominence, (2) ability to connect to existing open space, (3) potential to act as a neighborhood separator, (4) view of and from the lots, (5) length and height of the proposed home, (6) presence of trees, (7) difficulty of developing, and (8) integrity of the ridgeline form. The criteria above either do not apply to thq ridges on our property or are not affected by our development plan. Furthermore, the General Plan explains that not all Significant Ridgelines should be judged equally and that those that have lower visibility, do not have significant ridgeline forms, and that do not connect to the Tiburon Ridge should be afforded lower protection. The Town Staff wrote in their staff report on March 23, 2011 that neither ridgeline 5 and 6 on the Rabin's property has high visual prominence nor do they "jump off the page". They concluded that OSC-12 indicates that this caliber of ridgeline warrant less protection than more prominent significant ridges. This was exemplified during both the Planning Commission and Town Council site visits when the Commissioners, Council members, town staff, and the public had to ask repeatedly about the location of the ridges. In summary, the Alta Robles project complies with the purpose and intent of Policy OSC 12. The Planning Commission recommended that Lot 13 be cut because of its visual "massiveness" when viewed from Paradise Drive, Seafirth and Acacia Court. In reality, the story poles and home are virtually invisible from Seafirth and Paradise Drive and the view from Acacia Court is nominal. Moreover, that rational behind the elimination in violation with the Town's borrowed view policy which states that a person does not have a right to an unobstructed view from their home over someone else's property. The idea that Lot 13 would be such a massive visual burden on the surrounding areas is baseless, especially considering the visual blight of the homes on Acacia Court, our near neighborhood. The Planning Commission also recommended a reduction in square footage on lots 5, 6 and 12. These homes have the visual impacts of structures half their size. Lot 12 currently has the shortest story poles of any proposed home site (with the highest elevation being 5 feet off of the existing hillside), and is barely visible from e the major viewpoints. A reduction in square footage does not make the home less visible or make the project have fewer impacts. Moreover, these homes are no comparison to the enormous residences on Acacia Drive and Gilmartin Ave. Lastly, the Planning Commission offered no rational why they decided to take private open space on certain lots and turn it into common open space, when the project already devoted 76% to open space. Again, this was an exaction that did not improve any of the impacts of the project. We are asking you to carefully consider these aforementioned facts and look at this development through a clear and objective lens. Our family did not propose the highest density project in order to "negotiate" the political process. We presented an environmentally responsible project that upholds Tiburon's unique character and values. The Alta Robles Project has become an unfortunate political issue. Whereas it's proactive approach and design should be championed as the future of development for all of Marin. We hope that you will be able assess the project and its merits in its entirety and look forward to a fair resolution to move forward. In summation it is our view that the Planning Commission's recommendation is, in short, unfair and illegal. Sincerely, Irving abin Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Julie Chaiken [Julie@chaikenclothing.com] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:50 PM To: Scott Anderson Subject: Alta Robles LATE MAIL # PN z August 1, 2011 Scott Anderson Community Development Director 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Scott and the. Town Council: I am writing in support of the Rabin Family's Alta Robles project. They should absolutely be given the permits necessary to move forward. They are long time residents of Tiburon, that have created a plan that respectful and sensitive to Tiburon and it's environment. The fact that his process has taken so long and is now so contentious baffles me. I would hope that my tax dollars would be better spent and expect more from the Tiburon Planning commission than spending money for an EIR consultant, and then ignoring the findings and recommendations. This is completely counterproductive, and is the type of thing that gives building in Tiburon a bad reputation. I expect better from my officials, and hope the town council will allow the Rabin project to move forward and end this nonsense. Sincerely, Julie Chaiken 96 via los altos Tiburon, CA 94920 415.215.0497 8/1/2011 MICHAEL AND MARCIA RUBENS` EIN 330 lackfield Drive Tiburon, California 94920 August 1, 2011 Dear Town Council, I As Tiburon residents, we are in support the Rabin Family's Alta Robles project. The final plan is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. We do not want to set a precedent for property owners to always seek the maximum and most ostentatious plan in order to achieve a reasonable design. By passing the project as it is proposed, the Town sets a signal to applicants to proactively come forward with reasonable and thoughtful and comprehensive plans with creative designs. Sincerely, Atk&td and .lVla wia qu&mtein H D E C E ~ V E - AUG - 1 2011 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Town Council, As a Tiburon resident, I am in support the Rabin Family's Alta Robles project. The final plan is sensitive to the area's natural resources, respects the public's interest in land conservation and view preservation. I do not think it is right to set a precedent for property owners to always seek the maximum and most ostentatious plan in order to achieve a reasonable design. By passing the project as it is proposed, the Town sets a signal to applicants to proactively come forward with reasonable and thoughtful and comprehensive plans with creative designs. Sincerely, ~f Murray L. Zucker, M.D. 107 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 E C E ~ V E AUG -1 2011 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON AUG -1 2011 D July 26, 2011 Dear Town Council Members, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I am writing to you regarding the Alta Robles project. I want to encourage the Town Council to allow the project to proceed according to the plans they last submitted to you. I am aware that the plan was carefully and painstakingly researched. The planners performed their own impact analyses and the plan is as sensitive to the natural resources and the conservation of land and views as possible. They have created designs that are aesthetically pleasing and interesting and fit with the land. I hike in the area frequently and I appreciate that I will be able to access the open spaces that will be newly created for public use. I urge the Council to realize that decisions must be based on facts and merits and represent the townspeople. Alta Robles embodies all the right variables for an appropriate and responsible building project in our beautiful city. Please vote to allow the project to be built according to the plans submitted. SincereW Roberta Zucker 107 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Robert D. Wolfe RECEIVED 412 Paradise Drive AUG _ ?U11 Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON July 29, 2011 Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Tiburon Town Council: I have been a resident of the Town of Tiburon for 36 years. I am writing to support the revised Rabin Family's Alta Robles project. I realize that the original number of homes for this location has been downsized substantially. It is my request that the council approve the proposed modified plan. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Robert D. Wolfe July 27, 2011 Mr. Scott Anderson Community Development Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA, 94920 Re: Alta Robles Project Dear Mr. Anderson, i, 8 A' As long time residents of Tiburon we were surprised at the actions of the Planning Commission last April with respect to the Alta Robles Project. Prior to the Commission hearing, we had reviewed the extensive plans that had been submitted. Simply put, the preparation, consultant expertise involved, and the care and concern for the environmental effects created by the plan were all a pleasant surprise to many of us. Unlike most plans, this project demonstrated extreme sensitivity for the natural conditions of the property, as well as all visual avenues that might affect neighbors and the general public. As one who has been involved in many similar project applications, this one is the most pro-active in its care and attention to environmentally favorable development considerations, than any I have ever observed. The proponents should be complimented on their efforts. Specifically, we are most concerned with a Planning Commission report that essentially fails to identify any real evidence that supports elimination of any of the proposed lots. More importantly, the plan comports precisely with the General Plan and exceeds the Town's criteria for green building. As a fine example for any development proposal, the EIR analysis clearly showed that all impacts on geological, biological, and visual aspects of the property were studiously avoided. Essentially, the decision of the Commission was arbitrary, without clear and fundamental development reasons. This is not and should not be acceptable in a Town which prides itself on good planning. In fact, approval of this plan will set an exemplary example and precedent for all future project applications to the Commission and Council for review. We urge the Council to recognize the very favorable elements of this plan and to approve it based upon the many sound environmentally sensitive components of the plan. To do otherwise sets a poor example of decision making in the planning process. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Joni and Russell Pratt 112 Reed Ranch Rd. Tiburon, CA 94920 , 6-ue, N COUNCIL OWN COUNCIL August 1, 2011 L ATE MAI L Jeff Slavitz, Mayor MEETING DATE Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California Re: 'Alta Robles" Final Environmental Impact Report and Precise Development Plan V CONSERVATION LEAGUE Dear Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to support the Planning Commission's recommendations to cer- tify the environmental impact report; to approve the pre-zoning of the unincorporated 20.95 acre SODA property within the Tiburon Planning Area; and to conditionally approve the pre- cise development plan as described in Resolution 2011-10, dated April 27, 2011, with Condi- tions of Approval detailed in the accompanying Exhibit 1. a Marin Conservation League (MCL) has been following the Alta Robles proposed development for more than four years. Because the 52 acre Rabin/SODA property contains aesthetic and biological values of county-side significance and is constrained by numerous geologic and hydrologic conditions, MCL has expressed concerns on previous occasions that the applicant's alternatives did not substantially lessen the significance of impacts identified in the EIR, in spite of direction from the Planning Commission. As you are aware, the EIR identified numerous significant impacts on special status plant species such as serpentine grassland species and Marin dwarf flax, wetlands, significant ridgelines and other visual resources, as well as on hazardous hydrologic, geologic, and traf- fic conditions. It recommended mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, but found that some significant impacts were unavoidable. The applicant's plan and alternatives focused attention on "fixing" these challenging conditions with numerous landslide repairs, extensive retaining walls, adjustments in spacing of residences, and other design features in order to accommodate a project that continued to feature too many, excessively large residences that would be aesthetically, biologically, and physically intrusive on the landscape. Critics, includ- ing members of the Planning Commission, continued to request a true Reduced Project Alter- native that examined fewer units, reduced dwelling size and building envelopes (residential use areas). The applicant made many adjustments but was unwilling to offer this alternative. At their hearing on April 13, 2011, the Commission displayed both careful attention to detail and exemplary courage in formulating a series of conditions that come closest to resolving (mitigating) the numerous constraints while still allowing the applicant reasonable economic use of the site. Resolution 2011-10 that followed from the April 13 hearing contains provi- sions that constitute a de facto "reduced project alternative," i.e., a combination of eliminating ~ ~,A/( 1,led kccyl. 5.6157 md @rr3ari~,cf~ae~~ati„r as t..n~ s: i6 2 3-4 ft. f; l, .a t,-:i?,l ,w.in,,irincotiservationlet)gL€e.0i-9 Sa>3Rafacd,(..A94901 2 four of the most visually intrusive residences leaving a total of 10, reducing the square foot- age and/or height of several residences, moving open space areas from private control into common open space, and several other mitigations. In approving even a reduced and heavily conditioned Alta Robles development, the Town is faced with making findings of overriding considerations based on EIR conclusions that certain significant individual and cumulative impacts are unavoidable. The town also is required to mitigate these impacts to the degree feasible and to justify approving a project with unavoidable significant impacts. This finding must be taken very seriously because it will set a precedent for continued development along Paradise Drive on similarly con- strained sites. In conclusion, MCL concurs with the reductions recommended in the Planning Commis- sion's Resolution 2011-10. We also believe that Conditions # 17 to 24, Exhibit 1, are of par- ticular importance. These conditions, which outline responsibilities and requirements for maintenance of private and common open space areas, transitional landscaping between residential use areas and private open space, tree management, and other landscape con- cerns, should be supported by financial assurances in the form of bonding or other security measures if habitat and important landscape elements, such as retaining wall vegetation for visual screening, are to be effective and maintained for the "life of the project." Sincerely, V Susan Sfompe President cc: Marin Audubon Society, attention Barbara Salzman California Native Plant Society, attention Eva Buxton Supervisor Kate Sears, 3rd District I E C E ~ V E AUG - 3 2011 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON ADV LUT A1taRoblesFEIR MCL 08.01.2011 Norman and Carol Traeger 3700 Paradise Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 July 26, 2011 Jeff Slavitz, Mayor Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Alta Robles Residential Project Dear Mayor Slavitz and other Council Members, TOWN COUNCIL RECEIVED AUG -1 2011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON LATE MAIL # MEETING DATE We support this project, but do not agree with the plan to reduce this project from 14 lots to 10 lots. My wife and I live at 3700 Paradise Drive which is just below and contiguous to the Alta Robles project. We have owned our property, which consists of a total of 23 acres, since 1994. I have been a real estate developer for the past 40 years We are concerned that this project is being reduced from 14 lots to 10 and feel that is a mistake. What we like and appreciate with the planned project is the sensitivity that has gone into the planning process. Alta Robles has a chance to become the standard by which all future projects, of over two homes, are built in our community. Alta Robles will have the softest foot print of any homes built in Marin. For this project to work, it needs the critical mass that 14 homes can provide. Without those economies of scale we will wind up with homes that loom over the landscape. The homes at the top of Gilmartin Drive are a daily reminder of over powering silhouettes. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding the Planning Commissions recommendations and rational for reducing the scope of this project by over 28%. As a land owner of 23 acres the message it sends to me is go for the maximum number of lots possible, not try to be thoughtful in the planning process or go the extra mile in spending money for design, because in Tiburon, no good deed goes unpunished. It is our understanding that the General Plan would allow up to 20 units on this land, the owners opted to only request 13 sites. If in fact Tiburon proceeds with a "claw back" of 4 sites it would seem you are putting the owners into a corner and forcing a "takings" lawsuit. As a taxpayer we would then be looking to have to pay our share of litigation, which I believe the town of Tiburon will not be able to win, if this matter winds up in court. As home owners we would probably then be forced to see new homes with traditional profiles, Gilmartin homes, instead of the creative and thoughtful homes now proposed. My wife and I hope that the Alta Robles project is restored to 14 home sites and the Rabin Family is able to build out homes that set a new standard for our community. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the meeting on Thursday August 4th to speak in behalf of this project. incerely Norman T Page 1 of 3 Diane Crane lacopi From: Scott Anderson Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:40 AM AUG _ 3 ZD„ D TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON To: Diane Crane lacopi; Dan Watrous Subject: FW: Alta Robles development comments from the Currens/Maisel family with August update FYI another late mail. From: Douglas Currens [mailto:dougcurrens@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 20115: 10 PM To: Scott Anderson; daniel.rabin@rabin.com; irving.rabin@rabin.com Subject: Alta Robles development comments from the Currens/Maisel family s NCIL January 23, 2011 g am= LA i H ''y ~ 150 Hacienda Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 NIEETiNG~ DATE cf' 3- i Scott Anderson & Tiburon Planning Commission Town of Tiburon, CA 94920 Mr. Anderson and planning commission members, My wife and I have been living on Hacienda Drive directly adjoining the Rabin property for nearly twenty years. We have recently looked over their current plans for the proposed Alta Robles development, and find them to be surprisingly sensitive to the siting and forward- looking in their integration into the property and "green" construction methods. The Rabins have been good and considerate neighbors, shown most recently by their ungrudging and generous easement for permanent pedestrian access to the public open space adjoining their property at the end of Hacienda Drive. Much as we might wish for their property to magically become entirely open space for the future, we feel that the proposed 70+% of the property being offered as public and private open space is quite generous. Alta Robles, if built as shown in the master plan incorporating the Kao building designs, could be a memorable architectural landmark for Tiburon. Much like Sea Ranch, this proposal seems to offer a vision of creative and sensitive 8/3/2011 Page 2 of 3 development, rather than an unsightly slew of disjointed "McMansions" (as developed on Strawberry Spit, for example). The Rabins are, quite reasonably, trying to make plans for the long-term development of their family's land within the constraints of the Master Plan, and it seems that their proposal meets Tiburon's strictest requirements. There is no one who would be more directly affected by any issues with ongoing construction than the Rabins themselves, whose home will remain in the middle of the proposed home-building. It seems to us that they hope to create an innovative legacy for the property they've called home for so many years, while also meeting all of the myriad demands which have been placed on them to the best of their abilities. The likely rate of development would be slow, especially with the current economy and the design restraints. Hopefully the Rabin family would continue to be responsive to unforeseen issues raised along the way. We have no reason to believe otherwise. We live perhaps a hundred yards or so over the ridgeline from a few of the proposed lots, and despite the potential for being affected by some eventual construction noise, we feel that this is a worthy proposal, especially if, as we understand it, any substitution for the Kao designs would require entirely new design approvals from the city for each of the individual lots. They have earned our support in moving forward with this project. August update: Our opinion remains the same, and worth reiterating. The city should consider that with the construction methods proposed, the actual square footage of many of these homes would be largely underground, energy-efficient and undetectable to others. Reducing the square footage would have no effect to neighbors other than making more of the remaining footage the visible portion and making the property LESS energy-efficient and less feasible financially. The fact that the window areas are already so small a fraction of the footage (and usually beneath a "green" roof as well) is exactly the type of development Tiburon should encourage. If you 8/3/2011 Page 3 of 3 follow this flawed logic of continually reducing the square footage of the proposed homes, they would end up living in a bunker with a periscope! If you can manage to abide by your own General Plan standards in approving these homes, this proposal will likely eventually become a landmark of appropriate development rather than the eyesores so often approved elsewhere. If their construction were evaluated on the basis of "green" practices and environmental sustainability rather than just construction costs, these properties would be considered a forward-looking bargain (and significant long- term contributors to the town's tax base with minimal environmental impact). We think the Rabins have continually shown sensitivity to the site and the Master Plan and deserve to have this process moved along reasonably rather than being "nibbled to death by ducks" time and again in what begins to seem like an eternal delaying tactic to keep the property from ever being developed. This endless nit- picking is not a good use of the Rabins' time and money (or the town's), especially if nothing will ever be deemed to be "perfectly" satisfactory after the Rabin's have offered so many compromises from a plan that already met Tiburon guidelines handily. It's time to move it along. Douglas Currens and Jan Maisel 150 Hacienda Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 415 435-1424 8/3/2011 Cali f ornia Native Pant Socloet TOWN COUNCIL Tiburon, August 2, 2011 LATE -MAIL ##-2- MEETING DATE Tiburon Town Council AUG - 2 2 011 Tiburon Town Hall TOWN CLERK 1505 Tiburon Blvd. TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon CA 94920 Subject: Alta Robles Residential Development Project Dear Council members: The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Marin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) with the intention of informing the Council on measures that would increase the consistency with the General Plan policies regarding protection of natural resources. The Planning Commission placed a strong emphasis on General Plan policies relating to ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility, but attention was also paid to the General Plan Policy OSC-26 which states that "to the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special status species and special communities." CEQA requires that alternatives to a project "avoids or substantially lessens any significant effects of the project." Alternative 5 offers little avoidance or lessening of impacts to special-status species or sensitive natural communities on the site, except where "old" botanical survey results have been used for Lot 13 and near the existing access road (SP-31 and SP-32). Due to inadequate surveys carried out between 2004 and 2009, LSA Associates Inc. was retained by the applicant in 2010 to perform additional surveys and to map sensitive botanical resources. However, none of the findings by LSA (see Figs. 4 and 6; LSA 2010) are incorporated in the Precise Development Plan, SP-30 (March 1, 2007) with revisions, SP-30B (through March 28, 2011). This fact especially affects the "knoll" containing Lot 11 and Lot 12, which supports extensive serpentine bunchgrass grassland. Instead of incorporating LSA's mapping of grassland, the project uses survey results from year 2005 when only a small area was mapped as serpentine bunchgrass on the knoll. Consequently, the requirements of CEQA and the Town General Policy OSC-26 Dedicated to the preservation of Catifornia native ffora of avoiding or substantially lessening impacts to special-status species and special communities have not been considered/implemented. Similarly, no avoidance of native grassland on Lot 9 appears to have been considered (lot recommended for elimination by the Commission). CNPS recommends that Lots 11 and 12 be eliminated from the project. Due to the excessive grading required to stabilize the knoll, most - if not all - of the native vegetation will be removed. A reduction in house size to 6,000 square feet - still a very large house that can hardly be called "green" on a very constrained site - was recommended by the Planning Commission. At least one lot, Lot 11, should be eliminated, if not both lots, and no house should be larger than 4,500 square feet. CNPS urges the Town Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to eliminate Lot 8 and Lot 13, partly due to the occurrences of a federally-listed threatened species [Marin dwarf flax (Hesperolinon congestum)]; a CNPS List 1 B rare species [Tiburon buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum ssp. caninum)] (on Lot 8); and serpentine bunchgrass grassland, a sensitive community. Because LSA survey results were not incorporated in the Precise Development Plan SP-30, occurrences of Marin dwarf flax were not mapped correctly; the colony on Lot 13 is larger and closer to the lot line than is shown on SP-30 and a colony found by LSA on Lot 8 is not shown at all. Additionally, both these lots, and several others, would highly likely suffer tree loss/damage during construction and due to changes to drainage patterns because of the proximity of building sites to the trees. This loss of native trees is highly likely not included in calculations of trees lost to the project. [The FEIR states that 93 of at least 175 native live oaks to be removed are "protected trees" (a highly valuable natural resource) under the Tiburon Tree Ordinance.] Special-status species and special communities, as well as native trees, will be negatively impacted by the project as a result of the massive earthwork necessary to stabilize the hillsides and to prepare for the overly large, partly below-grade houses. Some of the "preserved" sensitive resources are within common and private open space. CNPS believes that such resources - if they survive construction of a project - are rarely managed in a way that preserves them. CNPS concurs with the Commission in recommending that the residential use area/private open space of Lots 5 and 6 be reduced to protect the "high quality" native grassland (Fig. 4; LSA 2010). Summary CNPS would strongly disagree with the Council's approval of the project, which we believe is too massive for the site's geology, hydrology, and biological resources (and other aspects), without accepting the recommendations by the Planning Commission as listed in the Town staff report, dated Aug. 3, 2011. In addition, CNPS recommends that Lot 11 and Lot 12 or at least Lot 11 be eliminated, or that a substantial reduction in home and RUA sizes on these lots is implemented to preserve sensitive natural resources. Native grasslands/special-status species habitat will be obliterated by the project and as restoration of such grassland are extremely difficult, CNPS recommends that the applicant, in addition to restoration on the project site, provides an in lieu fee to be used for enhancement of existing serpentine grassland on the adjacent Tiburon Town Open Space parcel (Middle Ridge). Similarly, CNPS concurs with the recommendation in the FEIR (Impact 5.5-5) that a tree replacement ratio of even 1:1 is not possible on the site (to preserve open grasslands); therefore a fee to provide, for removal of non-native trees on the adjacent Open Space parcel should be part of the required mitigation. S' erely, Eva Buxtbn Conservation Chair California Native Plant Society Marin Chapter Encls: Figure 4, LSA 2010 Figure 6, LSA 2010 SP-30 and SP-30B - Precise Development Plan SP-31 and SP-32 - Precise Development Plan L S A Blue Wildrye/California Brome Project Boundary FIGURE 4 Italian Thistle/Native Grass Lot Line Native Grass Understory ® Permanent Impact Area 0 Purple Needlegrass 10-25% \N Temporary Impact Area Purple Needlegrass 25-75% Retaining Wall Alta Robles ° 100 200 ® Historic Location of North Coast Semaphore Grass - Storm Drain FEET Subdrain Native Ormlauds SOURCE: Aerial Imager y from Main County I:VtSU0801\OISNV6\BiOPmow=\Figum4 Nadve Oraedand nmd (8/10/2010) L S~ 2~ l~ 2005 Central South s 4 2010 Central Z d L S A ® Mann Dwarf Flax Project Boundary KEY MAP N FIGURE 6 ~-J Tiburon Buckwheat Lot Line I R Mann Dwarf Flax and Tiburon Buckwheat Permanent Impact Area Temporary Impact Area No road improvements shall be made in special-status plant habitat Retaining Wall Alta Robles 0 1Q0 200 Storm Drain Subdrain spedal.;Uft plait SOURCE: Axial Im gay sam Ma& Canty IiRSU08011Oi51[~dapaV3roRawcea\Ffaueb_Spe~iUimus Piania.mgd (8/I7(2010) to 2009 North :f t r~ Central South o • A e <p O S Q I Note: Tiburon Buckwheat not surveyed for in 2009. MARIN WESTERN FLAX Q SEDGE MEADOW AL1A R(}BIES DEVEEI~MEN1 I WESTERN FLAX/ T. BUCKWHEAT ® UNVEGETATED WATERS BUILDING ENVELOPE (TV) Lot 14 PRIVATE ROAD F-1 NORTH COAST SEMOPHORE GRASS ® FRESHWATER SEEP SP-30 PROPOSED Lot 13 F__j CARLOTTA HALL'S LACE FERN F-1 SEASONAL WETLAND PARADISE DRIVE TIBURON BUCKWHEAT TIBURON, CA. WETLAND SETBACK Q IRIS LEAF RUSH MEADOW COASTAL SCRUB PROPOSED SITE PLAN SERPENTINE BUNCH GRASS Q LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION LANDSLIDE MITIGATION , PLUS BI ° LANDSLIDE NOTES (SEE SP31-32) ® LANDSLIDE SUBDRAINS COMPLLEOTE PROPERTY . `T. ® LANDSLIDE DEBRIS FENCE ti Lot 12 [~D LANDSLIDE-RETAINING WALL OATE: 1 MARCH 2111 ° Lot 11 PROJECT". 1413 SEALE : V = 251' - 1' PRIVATE OPEN RESIDENTIAL EXISTING Lot 8 I L SPACE (TYP) USE AREA RABIN REVISIONS o REV. 1- MAY 08, 2007 Lot 7 PRPOSED LOT (TYP) PRIVATE REV. 2- APR 13, 2009 LINE DRIVEWAY REV. 4- FEE; 5, 2010 1 (TYP PRIVA REV. 5- MAR 28, 2011 CO ON SPAC Lot 10 SOOA ~ \ ~~ti t1 301 Lot 9 PRIVA E CO ON h _ S ACE ` i J 'O y 4 / 1 V rD y ~A PROJECT ABI SITE , R I l 1 R BOUNDAR ' ACC i PROPERTY LINE ~J Lot fi LOT LINE I ✓ ' RABIN _ 038-021-13 - - RESIDENTIAL RABIN COMMON Lot 5 USE AREA PRIVATE OPEN ZONE SPACE / 1 KAO - design _ o - - o NDA D group 440 SOMERVILLE AVE PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED SOMERVILLE MA 02143 FIRE PUBLIC PUBLIC HOUSE TEL. 617 776 0007 617 8477 oaodesig 77n.com ACCESS TRAIL TRAIL FOOTPRINT wwwFAX..ka com EASEMENT EASEMENT COPYRIGHT KAO DESIGN 2011 CA BOWIES DDROKIK REV4 SP-30B NOTES ON LANDSLIDE AND GRADING 7. REVISED WALL TO STAY WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARY PARADISE DRIVE 8. MOVED LANDSLIDE MITIGATION RETAINING WALL NORTH, APPROXIMATELY 10' AWAY FROM MARIN DWARF FLAX IN PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. P B A R S N , A. 9. REMOVED. SUBDRaWo AVOID BIORESOURCEAIMPACWARF FLAX: 10. REVISED SUBDRAINS 11. BUTRESS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH WETLAND TO AVOID TREE IMPACTS. REMOVED DEBRIS FENCE @ ELEVATION 220'. PROPOSED SITE PLAN 12. REVISED SUBDRAIN TO AVOID PROPOSED WETLAND. MITIGATION 13. ELIMINATED PORTION OF MAIN ROAD AND REPLACED WITH A BRIDGE. REDUCED RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING IMPACTS. LANDSLIDE PLUS BIOLOGY 14. ELIMINATED UPPER RETAINING WALLS ALONG MAIN ROAD, LU Q T S 15. REMOVED SUBDRAINS TO AVOID IMPACT ST SIDE TO AVOID IMPACTS TO SERPENTINE BUNCH GRASS. 16. GRADING WAS MODIFIED ON THE EA ALT 5 17. GRADING MODIFIED TO REMOVE AND REPLACE LANDSLIDE WITHIN 100' OF FOOTPRINT OF LOT 4 HOUSE T DATE: I MARCH 200 PR03EC3 NO. 0403 SCALE N.A REVISION REV.1- MAY 08. 200 REV. 2- APR 13. 200 REV. 4- FEB 5, 201 REV. 5- MAR 28, 201 KA ( desig groin 440 90MERVILL SOMERVILLE MA TEL. 6'17 776 FAX. 617 776 EXHIBIT N~ • ti www,kaodesig CO°YRIGHT KAO OES 17,- Q _ z~ cu CT Q- a Q .2 1-0 CU LAJ a o= N O O p E p y v' c`v p 3 LL c7 w p •e > O t= N z F-- U L Q (O cc t7 CU = J ° X~ N O as U O a u , ca A wa_ N lC) 9 ..r ~ •l0 C CU c0 O c U _ CV _ ~ N > > p y ~ a~ o 0 o i= o co 1 o c o a = . co E cn. C -C3 L o ° C'~ U R,a E 3 ° a°it O mJr- n _J F- :2 o $ E co io ` ~ • co E v c ~ C ~ } a ~ c v cp--- N cc ~ o v ~ ° O O o ~ ° J p c o U O cn CL U- a> CL cc 2 Ui E : CD cD o n y c' Q n = E c-2 a m E3 3 E O O G cv E O N § ff CU L c~ N p W ° E c~ ° .--E-: 2 E y U oO J v E ° 75 S M c C °-Ea ° c:3 = z _ C'a 5> 5 a~ cn o Q c0 C O 'O d t•-- a C~ 'in 'p c: 'Cp N Ca C cC W C D •p O q> p r a 45 -9 p 1 p . cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 N J° O f E p O Q ;a ui E W E o E o o Q ° Cn m z cm U ~a A cm C a s: ° . N 0- Z d c~'C G V O 'd O c` C O 0 a F- co C j `O L) C!7 O C.`3 J V C'.3 0-- C.'] c O c ca ca D_ G .C N W > F- Gi C) O L6 IT U3 w ai CO L0 V) w w fn Z r CV C6 CV r- O C) _I I W zo C) LU =5 z CIO W W ¢ cc Q- n W mo CL x T _ I kfT ROES DEVELWIN] SP-31 PARADISE DRIVE TIBURON, CA. PROPOSED SITE PLAP LANDSLIDE MITIGATIOP =t ort ~ ~c~ PLUS BIOLOGY LOWER PROPERT` • s~ \ r d- DATE: I MARCH 200 PROIE(T NO. 0403 SCALE 1' = 200' - t \ i . REVISION REV. 1- MAY 08. 200' 00 REV. 2- APR 13. 200' O REV. 4- FEB 5, 201, O REV. 5- MAR 28. 201 o ' o p J N ' • ~ z J f . . V V/ Q w ~~JJ p) PROPERTY LIP , LOT LINE 09 Z3 . . RESIDENTIAL \ GPI 04 . , 17' USE AREA < ` N -.ter.-.-.-.-.-.. p~ pY - ° r W\ desigr o~ or 4 °L w of W group f• C'`r'~ oo 00,~ r C37 C'V m O 44 , Z = 440 SOMERVILLE SOMERVILLE MA 0: T- 617 776 0 E "~J C) --J _j ¢ T L. FAX. 617 776 8 www.kaodesign., T KAO DESIGN COPYRIGH EXHIBIT N0 r3~- 3,9 r ~ Qty ~L z °sz ♦ \ mss: ~ _ r AIT~ GO DEVELOPMENT SP.32 PARADISE DRIVE T1E3URON, CA. ` \r PROPOSED SITE PLAN LANDSLIDE MITIGATION /t\/\< i PLUS BIOLOGY UPPER PROPERTY 6f~ / .;X C2 i / i ww. _ l DATE: I MARCH 200• PROJECT NO. 0403 SCALE : 1' : 200' - 0 ` REVISION- REV. 1- MAY 08, 200-1 REV. 2- APR 13, 2001 REV. 4- FEB 5, 201( REV. 5- MAR 28, 201 i( 1L APRIL 23, 2010 L © APRIL 1, 2011 0 1W 2 O . 000 O O I ~ ' \ ~ \I ` I ` t Imo ys l ` I I I 5,5 l C/ m° I I PROPERTY LI~ a, I LOT LINE 0-11 T4 os, ~ / / ' RESIDENTIAL r / USE AREA orb 0 4,r E Fo E a o N v desigr ~ m of y E cc a r c a~ O U U Q J F- J WJ Ofr \ co C~ T C N o T E O co m U od, 1E W z ' ET1 C? C? L mw group \ w o c 3 o Q o C-5 a_ w LL w 2 W C] ca o o~ p ~a o c 'c` a to cn o F- o Lu a oe w v a= c n a, c as -22 -~5 E a~ a~ w Z w W o< N- in' a n c: CL> cc c :2 N N p 2 O J O 440 SOMERVILLE W C o w EL iZ C rn 1. o- o yJ d.. Q z o m c m E cu s c vi c c p V) C¢ p SOMERVILLE MA 0: , cu ~ c cr cn ° co C= v°'i o vci vci ~ w a_ 1 TEL. 61 7 7 7 6 0 C c cu a a~ S o m co J o a o 0 o FAX. 617 776 8 cl- C) z w 1 o -5 -2 ° o o~ a° c c www.kaodesign. FW c 7 Liz ~ cq c i= ~ E =o o ,o w w w COPYRIGHT I:AO OESIGP w O = c 3 0 U-3 E i- 22 3 o cD ~ aC Cn Q= v3 z"4 2 EXHIBIT NO. P~ Iq oF7 y' } C7 w ¢ 4 U p - m > > O W o ~ m r AOUNCIL TO: Tiburon Planning Commission FROM: Randy Greenberg DATE: August 2, 2011 RE: Alta Robes 8/3/11 Council Hearing SAIL # I would like to say that your Planning Commission ["PC"] did a commendable job in reviewing the Alta Robles project. Commissioners were educated on the project's many issues and made decisions that make absolute sense in terms of reducing impacts, making the project more compatible with its neighborhood, and increasing policy compliance. It My comments below assume acceptance of the PC recommendations, which I support, and are limited to issues that remain. I ask you to read my 4/12/11 and 1/23/11 letters (Exhibits 60 and 39 to the 8/3/11 staff report) to avoid repetition here. There are still changes that should be made to the project: • Proposed house size is inconsistent with the neighborhood and will set a new, high standard for the area. • Serious consideration should be given to eliminating Lots 5 & 6 entirely. House size: Hacienda/Noche Vista homes range from 2,146 to 6,324 sf. Homes on Acacia are 2860 to 6,272 sf. Seafirth's range from 1,936 to 4,331 sf. In addition to changes made by the PC, staff (1/26/11 staff report, p. 11) recommended that maximum house size on Lots 2, 3 and 7 be reduced to 4,500 sf plus 600 sf garages from their current respective 7,800, 7,640 and 7,290 sf. These houses are in part responsible for the significant unmitigable view impacts from the Middle Ridge Open Space. Your approvals do not guarantee specific house design, but they do specify maximum allowable house size for each lot. Town policy creates the expectation of some reasonable neighborhood compatibility. (The adjacent undeveloped Winter/Lerner property will certainly reference these house sizes when developing.) The applicant states that over one third of the proposed houses are below grade, as if this ameliorates size impacts. Most houses in Tiburon are built on hillsides. It is not unusual for meaningful percentages of homes to be below grade. This tends to reduce impacts from one viewpoint, but does not reduce them from others, where they are fully visible. My own home is at least one third below grade, but its 30' height on the bay side is fully visible, while the opposite appears as a single story house. Reduction in the excessively large proposed house sizes will make the project more consistent with the neighborhood and will reduce the homes' undeniable visual impacts. I strongly urge you, at a minimum, to reduce maximum size to the staff recommendation for units on Lots 2, 3 and 7 to bring the project more in line with our General Plan policies. The houses are touted as "green", as if that justifies bigger size. But big green houses are not as green as smaller green ones. Elimination of Lots 5 & 6. Lots 5 & 6, as currently recommended, are still the most visually obtrusive houses from the Middle Ridge OS. The recommended reduction in size and height (16' h maximum) results in a 5,100 sf footprint for each, creating a substantial visual presence. Instead of reducing visual impact, the proposed change to a single story has the potential to increase it. Sensitive habitat has been removed from these lots private OS areas, but now lot lines butt up right against it, with no protective buffer area. Perhaps more importantly, the linkage of houses and their RUA'sI along this ridgeline creates a visual line of continuous development. Where removal of lots 9, 10 and 13 on Ridge #5 creates a break in ridgeline development and related landscaping, Ridge #6 does not enjoy this benefit. When viewed from the south and southwest, this is a very prominent ridgeline. Removal of these two lots would protect a portion of the natural ridgeline, which will otherwise be lost to structure and associated landscaping and hardscape. Elimination of Lots #S & 6 would make a meaningful portion of this ridgeline visually clear and would better protect the adjacent sensitive habitat. While I believe this is the preferred and justified course of action, one lot, in place of two, would still be an improvement. % House Design. I would like to state how important it is to keep in mind that the Kao designed houses are not before you for approval. Despite attempts in the Resolution language to lock in designs that are similar, no one knows what houses will ultimately be built. Despite restrictive provisions, buyers who pay millions for a lot are likely to want personalized houses that meet their needs, not ones predesigned without their input. The Resolution language relies on a discretionary evaluation of what constitutes meaningful design change to require a Precise Plan amendment. It is unlikely that anyone currently sitting on this Council will be here years from now when the first house is built. Future Councils and Design Review Boards will not be familiar with the environmental documents nor all the reasoning that went into the conditions. Changes to house design will absolutely occur. I also note also that there is no assurance that future houses will meet the high LEED standards of the conceptual proposal. Please do not rely on the Kao designs in making decisions on this project. The applicant asserts that lots should not be eliminated. But his proposal treats the site as though it has only nominal constraints and fits in with the neighborhood. Mr. Rabin bought 18 landslides and 3 ridgelines adjacent to public Open Space. He took a disproportionate share of the land for his own 15 ac. lot [50% of the upper parcel and 29% of the entire site]. It is not the Town's responsibility to give the applicant what his property does not provide - and this highly constrained site does not provide for 13 new, very large houses. The applicant has not been responsive to the EIR findings and Planning Commission direction. So it is up to you to decide what is appropriate for this very difficult site. So many land use decision-makers regret their approvals after subdivisions take 3-dimentional form, and almost none say they wish there were more units than less. Our neighborhood will live with your decisions. Please make them consistent with policy, the neighborhood and good environmental practice. 'Residential Use Areas will be developed in a variety of ways. They will be paved, potentially contain up to 500 sf of 15' high accessory structures, pools, outdoor kitchens, and most certainly will be landscaped in ways that will set them apart from the natural environment. Not just the house, but the entire RUA will visually stand out from the natural areas surrounding them. And most RUA's are on, or will obscure, any sense of the natural ridgeline. These visual impacts have not been assessed and are substantial.