HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2011-08-31TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Special Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
August 31, 2011
Meeting time - 7:30 p.m.
Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor
Fraser, Mayor Slavitz
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this
time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended
discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to
the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future
Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan - Consider actions related to the Alta Robles
Precise Development Plan and prezoning applications for the eventual subdivision of
52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling into 14 single-
family residential lots (Planning Manager Watrous) - item continued from August 3, 2011
• Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants
• Address: 3825 Paradise Drive
• Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - August 26
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-
7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to
Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website,
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda.
Dan WaVOUS LATE MAIL # P 4-/
From: Comcast [ankiandiarry@comcast.net] i :ji; 4 .
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:51 AM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: Rabin/Alta Robles Project
I attended the Planning Commission meeting and support their recommendations as a
reasonable compromise.
Larry Gelb
15 Seafirth Place
Tiburon
435-1180
Sent from my iPa
1
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tov~7n Council Meeting
August 31, 2011
Agenda Item: P~~- To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
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
(Co 'nued from August 3, 2011)
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 2011, the Town Council held a public hearing of the request by Irving and Varda
Rabin, et al, for precise development plan and prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on 52
acres of land (the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan). At that meeting, the council heard
public testimony, closed the public hearing and adopted a resolution certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the project.
Before beginning deliberation on the merits of the Precise Development Plan, the Town Council
requested the following additional information on the project:
• A larger version of the site constraints map.
• Revised language that would better ensure that future homes constructed on the
site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the
applicant.
• Analysis of the secondary impacts of the project resulting from landslide repairs,
construction of retaining walls and subsurface drainage improvements.
• Revised project maps clearly showing the setbacks of the proposed home locations
and residential use areas from the ridgelines on the site.
• Clarification of the role of the trees on the Sorokko property in screening the
house on the proposed Lot 13.
• A more thorough analysis of the environmental site constraints of the proposed
Lot 8.
The Town Council continued the hearing on this application to the September 7, 2011 meeting.
Due to scheduling conflicts, the meeting date was moved to a special meeting on August 31,
2011. Notices of this rescheduled meeting date were mailed to all property owners within 300
feet of the project site.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6
..~~.i. ,.,f .e'~-... ...E ~"3;
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the Town Council requested the following additional information on the project:
1. A larger version of the site constraints map. On August 18, 2011 the applicant
submitted full-sized sets of the environmental constraints maps. The first sheet of
the set is colored to show the proposed open space areas for the project, while the
second sheet does not include the designated open space areas. The applicants
have also supplied a comprehensive set of plans representing their project
Alternative 5. The environmental constraints' maps have been previously
distributed.
2. Revised language that would better ensure that future homes constructed on the
site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the
applicant. Shortly after the August 3, 2011 Council meeting, Town staff met with
the applicant's representative to discuss the information requested by the Council.
The representative volunteered to have the applicant's attorney, Riley Hurd,
prepare draft language to better tie the conceptual house designs to the project
approvals.
Mr. Hurd has submitted draft conditions of approval (Exhibit 3) that would read
as follows:
14. House Designs. The approval of this Precise Development Plan was based,
in part, on the presentation of conceptual home designs that greatly
reduced visual impacts and preserved natural landforms. Accordingly,
individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review
approval shall conform to the conceptual exterior design for a particular
lot, as shown in the drawings prepared by KAO Design Group dated
XX/XX/XXXX. Any modification of the KAO Design .Group conceptual
designs will require an amendment to this Precise Development Plan. In
reviewing design review applications submitted for lots subject to this
Precise Development Plan, Town staff and the Design Review Board are
directed to disallow changes, other than 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 visible retaining walls; or d) result in
substantially more grading without an offset in visual impact, or result in
substantially more grading that materially increases environmental impact.
15. Design Guidelines. All residential improvements constructed on the
property shall strictly conform to the Alta Robles Architectural Design
Guidelines dated 3/6/2007. Within sixty (60) days of final Precise
Development Plan approval, if necessary, said Guidelines shall be updated
and revised to reflect mitigation measures and conditions of approval
TOWN OF TIBURON RAGE 2 OF 6
herein to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Said
Guidelines shall be incorporated as part of the draft CC&Rs submitted for
review and acceptance by the Town Attorney with the tentative subdivision
map application and the CC&Rs, with the incorporated Design Guidelines,
shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map.
These conditions of approval are similar to those recommended by the Planning
Commission as part of Resolution No. 2011-10, but include several text changes
intended to tighten the language of these requirements.
3. Analysis of the secondary impacts of the project resulting frrom landslide repairs,
construction of retaining walls and subsurface drainage improvements. The Draft
and Final EIRs for the project included analysis of primary and secondary impacts
that would result from the project. Secondary impacts of the project were
addressed in the Draft EIR on the following pages:
■ Transportation: Pages 169-170
■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Pages 226-230
■ Biological Resources: Pages 264-270
■ Geology and Soils: Pages 290-295
■ Visual Quality: Pages 323-325
The Final EIR included an analysis of the secondary impacts of project Alternative
4 on Pages 9-24 and 33-46, and modified analysis of secondary impacts to
wetlands and drainages on Pages 73-74.
During its review of the project, the Planning Commission was concerned about
the adequacy of the site distance analysis at the intersection of the project access
road and Paradise Drive. The Commission recommended a condition of approval
(No. 26) which would require that a traffic study be performed to ascertain the
average speed of vehicles near the project entry at that point in time to determine
whether the retaining walls required under Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 would be
necessary.
4. Revised project maps clearly showing the setbacks of the proposed home locations
and residential use areas from the ridgelines on the site. The full sized
environmental constraints maps show the location of the proposed home locations
and residential use areas (RUAs) in relation to the ridgelines on the site, but do not
show the precise setbacks of homes or RUAs from the ridgelines.
During its review of the project, the Planning Commission was most concerned
about the proximity of the proposed Lots 8, 9 & 10 to the ridgelines on the site.
The Commission recommended elimination of these three lots because the
ridgelines run directly through the proposed home locations and RUAs for these
lots. The ridgelines on the site also run through the proposed house locations for
Lots 3 & 12 and the RUAs proposed for Lots 11 & 14. The house locations and
RUAs for the proposed Lots 2, 4 5, 6 & 13 do not cross the ridgelines on the site.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6
Policies OSC-10 & OSC-11 of the Open Space & Conservation Element of the
Tiburon General Plan require a 150 foot horizontal setback and a 50 foot vertical
setback from the Tiburon Ridge. The General Plan does not require or recommend
any specific setbacks from other significant ridgelines, such as Ridgelines 5 & 6
which traverse the subject site. However, 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."
Based upon an analysis of these factors, the Town Council may wish to establish a
numerical setback from the ridgelines for the future house locations and/or
residential use areas for lots proximate to the ridgelines on the site.
5. Clarification of the role of the trees on the Sorokko property in screening the
house on the proposed Lot 13. The Sorokko property is located in an
-unincorporated portion of Marin County across Paradise Drive from the subject
site. This nearby property contains a large grove of very tall Eucalyptus trees that
form a backdrop to several of the proposed Alta Robles lots, particularly Lot 13,
but do not screen the proposed lot from view from the nearby homes on Acacia
Drive. Many of these trees would be removed as part of the construction of the
Sorokko project. After these trees are removed, the future house on the proposed
Lot 13 would become more visually prominent against the backdrop of San
Francisco Bay when viewed from residences on Acacia Drive.
6. A more thorough analysis of the environmental site constraints of the proposed
Lot 8. The full-sized environmental constraints maps indicate that the proposed
Lot 8 contains a variety of sensitive plant species (including Marin Western Flax)
and coastal scrub to the south and east of the proposed residential use area. Coast
Live Oak trees extend into the northern portion of the RUA. The western edge of
the RUA is at the border of a designated setback from wetlands located downslope
to the west. Ridgeline 6 passes directly through the center of the proposed house
location and RUA.
A review of the environmental constraints maps reveals little space on the
proposed Lot 8 to move the RUA or house location. However, a physical
inspection of the site indicates that there may be potential to move the RUA
slightly to the west to place a future home within the wetlands setback on the west
side of the ridgeline. A home in such a location that would be dug into the hillside
on the far side of this ridgeline would reduce its visibility form the Middle Ridge
open space without interfering with the wetlands to the west below the house site.
TOWN OF TiBVRON RAGE 4 OF 6
PLANNING COMMISSION ANALYSIS AS FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION
At the April 13, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission utilized a "menu" of possible project
revisions to the Alternative 4 project design (Exhibit 2) prepared by Town staff that listed
numerous possible project revisions that were intended to produce a level of consistency with
General Plan policies. The Commission used the menu as a checklist 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
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.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 6
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 Town Council may wish to use the project revisions recommended by the Planning Commission
review as a starting point for its discussions on the merits of the project. The Commission's
recommendations have been edited into checklist form and are attached as Exhibit 1, and may
provide a useful tool with which to build a consensus on a final project design.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Continue deliberations on the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning,
utilizing the Planning Commission's recommendations as a starting point for reaching
consensus on a final project design;
2. If substantial project design changes are required, direct the applicant to make the
required changes to the project and continue the application to a date certain;
3. 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. Menu of possible project revisions based on recommendations of Planning Commission
2. Menu of possible project revisions to Alternative 4 presented to Planning Commission
3. Revised language conditions of approval related to conceptual house designs submitted by
Riley Hurd, received August 25, 2011
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-10
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-05
6. Town Council Staff Report dated August 3, 2011
7. Minutes of the August 3, 2011 Town Council meeting
8. Letter from J. Fraser and Helen Muirhead, dated August 11, 2011
9. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated August 25, 2011
10. Letter from Jeff Appleman, dated August 25, 2011
11. Project environmental constraints map (previously distributed)
12. Alternative 5 plans
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
\shared\Adininistration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2011 \August 31 drafts\Alta Vista PDP.report2.doc
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6
Menu of Planning Commission Recommended Project Revisions
Possible Revision
YIN
1. Lots 5 & 6:
a. Reduce to 4,500 square feet, with 600 square feet of garage space
and 16' height
b. Reduce residential use areas to eliminate all portions with
serpentine bunchgrass
2. Lot 8: Eliminate the lot
3. Lot 9: Eliminate the lot
4. Lot 10: Eliminate the lot
5. Lot 12: Reduce to 6,000 square feet, with 600 square feet of
garage space
6. Lot 13: Eliminate the lot
7. Lots 1, 25 4 & 7: incorporate the private open space on the northern
portions of the lots, across the roadway from the residential use areas,
into the Lot "A" private common open space.
EXHIBIT NO.~
Menu of Possible Project Revisions to Alt. #4 Project
Possible Revision YIN
1. Lots 2-7:
a. Lots 2, 3, 5, and 6: Reduce to 4,500 square feet and 16' height*
b. Lot 4 to be eliminated*
c. Lots 2, 31 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
c. 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 NO.
Conditions of Approval Guaranteeing Design Guidelines and the Kao Designs
Submitted by Riley F. Hurd III, Esq. on August 25, 2011
1. The approval of this Precise Development Plan was based, in part, on the presentation
of conceptual home designs that greatly reduced visual impacts and preserved natural
landforms. Accordingly, individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and
Architectural Review approval shall conform to the conceptual exterior design for a
particular lot, as shown in the drawings prepared by KAO Design Group dated
XX/XX/XXXX. Any modification of the KAO Design Group conceptual designs will require
an amendment to this Precise Development Plan. In reviewing design review
applications submitted for lots subject to this Precise Development Plan, Town staff and
the Design Review Board are directed to disallow changes, other than 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 visible retaining walls; or d) result in substantially more grading without an
offset in visual impact, or result in substantially more grading that materially increases
environmental impact.
2. All residential improvements constructed on the property shall strictly conform to the
Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines dated 3/6/2007. Within sixty (60) days of
final Precise Development Plan approval, if necessary, 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
incorporated as part of the draft CC&Rs submitted for review and acceptance by the
Town Attorney with the tentative subdivision map application and the CC&Rs, with the
incorporated Design Guidelines, shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map.
Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT NO. 3
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 Town 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 Enviromnental 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.
41 1 OF q y
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, 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 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:
"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 N0,
Pz o~~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.
I. 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. 2011-10 4/27/2011 3
EXHIBIT NO.__q_
3 ofZ/Y
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 when=viewed 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
proj ect.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 4/27/2011 4
EXHIBIT N0.
P, qcF q4
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: IPlanninglPlanning Commission lResolutionsL0111201 1-10; Alta Robles PDP.doc
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-10 4/27/201155
I IBIT N0.
P, 5 CFqy
Exhibit I
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 approval, 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, 9, 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._ q
P, co o- q 4
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 8,00Q 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. 4
p,7of-- y~
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 snap 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
3
EXHIBIT NO. ~
P. C>[-- q Y
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 enviromnental impact.
4
EXHIBIT NO.
P, C/ yrgy
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. tc> op W
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.
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 the 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.
NO.
6
Pt It OP W4
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-perfonned 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.
EXHIBIT
N0._'~L
P 4 f 2- o-r- q(-{
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 prepared 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 map has been approved in reliance on this
Precise Development Plan, in which instance the Precise Development Plan shall
remain valid cotenninous with the tentative map approval.
k PlanninglPlanning COn?niission1Resollitions1201112011-10: Alta Robles PDP Exhibit I (conditions).doc
EXHIBIT NO. s
P( 13 0F- y~
Exhibit 2
TABLE OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREAS AND BUILDING HEIGHTS
LOT NUMBER
TOTAL HOUSE
SQUARE FOOTAGE
GARAGE SQUARE
FOOTAGE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
2
7,800
750
2316"
3
7,640
750
2910"
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
2412"
S:~Planning~Planning Commission ~Resolutions ~2011~2011-10; Alta Robles PDP Exhibit2 (house size table).doc
EXHIBIT NO
P► 1~ OFgy
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.
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.
'AHIBIT N0.
? , csoF(ly
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.
-2-
P, «o=Uy
E
m
0
c
O
O
t0
z
4
y
O
Q
0
Z
Z
0
Iftft
Z
~ A
O N
12
O
3 i a _tb
2
U O
~ a?, b
cCi
3
p..~Q.
U
E0E~
0
r.
-all
cz
H ~ H ~ w
O
°
~
o
QQ
° o
°
\
^4
o o bj) bA
>
y
p
U. u o
o
jc~
o a~
cf~
M
12
ai
? O
E-+
03
N O
U
N r" N ct N
bU
x
r
:I
N cn N
^
. p
. :
L
_O
~ U U ~
~
~y RS r 1 Q r~ > ~ 4r
cn CZ CZ
.2
I~
'b
bA • cn " Q
o
o
o
z
°
c
,
Q.
Z
c
o
o .
Q
ti
~b o~~~ a 3
H °
Un W o
O
0
E-~
H
r4
M
c
co (1)
0 0
C
.o 0
a
o
o ,
~o
co
~ o
~
w
~
A
p
ccs W
p
"
cca
o
O
O O
y
0.
03 u
C
'cz
3
cz o
cz
O
o
U
U U
-CZ
o
.4-
u
o
U cncnCZ
3
~
~OCZ
~,o•
b 3
c,
U
U
En
U
U °
o
U
U
o b U
o - , o
o
-4-
u
c
CZ
Ts a
i
U ~:s
CZ
o~ U CIZ:
U
o In
cn
~s
a.
O a N n p cz O
b s, ul
N
c
u
O
O O
cz
O O
'
O
A UO
z O
O
U
G
. ~O
U
CLI tl~
bq
US
U
a
~
'd
o U b4 n U
v
cn r-4
cz
C) cz cz
C)
In
cc
U U
U
M
°
CZ
~on
-t~
ct
C ct
o
11
cl~
cz
ucz
Con
b.o~°~
r
w
'
~00
- J. °
Q,3
u,
°
Q
W UQ
• ai
•
D
Cl)
a
E c
0 Q
a> ;
~ o
a
~ o
cc
~ w
i A
bA
c
C) 0 rl CZ
70.
U
Q Q~ O
Q U
~
p O
w
o
4)
~
N
~
w
~ O
N
CZ
r
o
a, b
O
z
~
N
i c
U
CIZ
r++ U
cz
'
~
fl
O
O
U
~
c73
C
4-j
U cn
U. ~
cd
0
p
U
~
O
i i. U
CZ
s", U
O a)
N
t~.
cis
O U b
o z3
7
;
cz
1 a,
U cz
4 j
p
z
Z
cl~
4-'
0
U
N
.0
c
4 U
m p
O
b U
to
O
cn
U
C4
4- r"
O
CZ
p
cz
O
c~
v
a)
"
Z'
O
U P
CZ
cz
4-1
x o
a~
20
z
M
°
ct
0
-C)
cz
CZ
U
a) Q -a
o o
o
o
4-1
p
C~3
C) 4- - -
a ° ~
w
~b
o ~
U o
o~
~ ~b
o,
o
4
1
a
n
~
C cz
C
-
U O, • p O O
ct U
Cn
O.
p
X
cn
. Q. O
v~
-0
0
U CZ
CZ 4-
U
~
C
z~
p
U
c
.
o
Q
C~ 0 3
• ~
•
2
~
F-'
w
4
/ V
/
U
• U
.
• ~
•
W/
im
`Y~I
zt-l
O
H
6-®f
r c
cB
C-1 Q
C o
.o 0
~w
a
o
~o
~
j
A
_
-cz
a3 _
U.
E- v1 CA ~ U.~~ U W ~
sQ) Q o cz U.s
U G=. F-+ H cR.
0 0
x
cn a~
CO
n.~
oA
0 bb
o b
't
Z!
o
.Z
r o
cz
y o o
5 o
C~5
U
Q o
ct o
a?
O
`t
° s~. CJ
cn
o U
'
CL4
O O
N
cn
C3 O
cn
cn
N
CL
03
N
CZ
°
W 3°
fix CZ U cz
°
r
3 0' W
.
„
'Ct
CZ
CZ
(n
cn
CZ
C005 4Z -4.-
U
cn
0
0-4
r"4
.
Q
d O O a~
In
cn
a"
o
cz ct
>1 C/)
.
,
-0
p-
-
r
cn cz cn
u
y bA ct 4
Ct
°
4
_ U
U'
v b
v
u
a1
C14
Z
o
O
o~ ~ o
o ~
~
.
wa
13
O
cn
cz
O
O
N
0
E" ~
E c
tM (3)
0 0
o> >
o ~
~ c
01
CO co
w ~
O
0
ct
U
cd
o
~ 4--i U
c~ U
bA
~
U ~
NSr
c
UGC 6. C)
3 ~ W U
12
03
bi)
U
t cn
4-4~
cn
R
ct
CZ
U
°
~ o
o
cA
b
C,.., U
ke)
zs
Cs
4-4
C7
Cl)
tj)
`t
U 1421
'b V Q
kri . C.)
Q
> c
°
s
Q)
a~
b m o R C7
cn
cl,
Q
t
o
o W
o
Q b
a~
o
o
ti
o
G
-c: P.
o Q
,
r~ Z: CA
4- >1
V
u
bo a~
v
t4-4
o
14-4 -4-
cz
CZ
cn
~
~
°A
°
`
~ ~ v ~
o
~
'
7.1
oA ~ s~
~
~
~
~ ~
CZ
a, ~
~ ~ •
•
no
;
.
o
c,3
i
Q'
sz o °
o a~i
W o
o
U
C)
~
&Z cz
J
0
°
En
> oC13
En
er'
o
cz
u
°
0
.
b a
_
v
o
L)
m
a0 N
O c~ -O
~
0 s,
c~
p O
O N °
_
= O
13
O
z
w
E c
c~ m
0 0
Q)
o O
o ~
0 0
~ o
~
w
~
O
A
.
-
U
U
CIO)
t
N
o-o
cz o ; trio
' ED Q - p
U•; C
c ~
4 -0 U Z -cs U U
^
U
U o
on
u. U .
o
U
o U
3 n. o U cl~ . .
p o ~cz U an
cc - s2
°
H 3 ° 3 4° °
w
o~
~
y
N
ti
o~
'
r
U
cd
U Z 00
-
-ct
b4
(JO
`a
O
cz;
v U
U
O
_
s
. C40
U U
U
u
o'
Loo C40
cot) -
CZ
c
)
t)b
r
44
-
r'4
ct ~ ~
tiD
U
tz~ t8
t O cn rrww ~
E U ~ ~
SN-+ U O E--! ~ ~ U S~ c~ U U ~ O
U
v
o '~:3 '
U o o o>
U
O 3
U U n
CZ
O ? O M
o
cl~
°
o
C6 C~
o Q
U U U
Z
U 03 (1) Q
U 3 q o cz cc
z~
w
o
o F•
o
3 o°
72
cz t4-.4
o,
ct r-
U.~
a U
z
a~° w
4~ C)
7°
Ol U U ol-U i z
C) r
x
a" Q
3~ S~ U
O
C U
'T'' U
44
O
r-
c
z
CZ U
u.~O
• 3 ~
• o z~~.-,~~
H•~ ~ 3~
• o~ U-o~Ur~~ o..W V ~ U
L1r-
0
E-+
c~v ai
a~ E
0 0
.o 0
~o
~q
0
0
~
o o W
~
o o w
°
~
o
U
U o
(-~C~E-1
o
U
a~ o
QQH
O
a~
0
0
ti ~
O > Q,
O
~
C
O
c~
~
Or .r
~
U ~ O b
O •"d i""
U
° • ~
~ to th U
>
Cy
C) -0
r o (4-4
b
U
N
q) Z
CL
u
-c~
v3 C)
cn
U
s"
°
$-C
O
U
U ^ .
C~..,
>
C40)
cn
4:
- O 4
N
O
z:s
b
O
n
,
q U bA
3 -=i o--
_
_
4-4
a~
c
.
a~
COD
o u, a
o °
-4- CZ
G
4R
o
5
-zi
4
p
W
U~
Q
V
o
r/~
p
0
y U N r..
U C
O
.
s-,
cn
c~ N
C40
4-1
C O O
Q
bb.- p U
C/~ U -p C
ti
0
0
Q
o W
b
cz cz
ti
> 0
° 8> m
3 'o
a~ >
W
m
00
O f4
cz C4 CL4 0
T
C~-
O
MME-1
~-i
~ c
0 0
ai
o ,
c ,
a
~ o
i
A
O
1
'I
N
r
ti
"V
ti
ti
03
CLI
O
3 t
°
b°
-d ~D
O
03
bA s..
N 41
CZ
(U
o
cn
o
cz
° ct
-o
to
o
0
o
ct ° a>
m O (n
b4
oz -0
Z
C).4
>
o a~ cz Z
(1) U
CC,
U
o°
u
o
'
(1)
'o
A4
° cl,
u
U Q O U
p
O N
4~ z cz
u
P.,
f-•
Z:s
CZ
o
co
-t8 °
w
?
3
3
o
~
4-
a
u
-o
a
n
a3
0
Q
°
r
. b
cz
cn
.
c
n
CZ 2
"C",
13
13
0 ct
fl
A--
0
W
Q)
0 0
o°
o~
co
~ o
i
a
A
.
Cc)
W
UQQE-~
cz:
cw -d ° o
o p > aA a~
O >
° Ct ct
o a
'
-00 151 - cz
_
O u
w
C~ ,.fl > cz U >
o
3 to
ff
0 /
o ;4
_
I~° a~
r
~
x
o
CZ u
a o o a.
o o
CL,
~
~
o
~
+
0
CZ
r4
h
ct
7v
CIO
o
fi
CZ V
oz
Uv
c -4,
~ o
7~
-4
C44
k,
° o Ts
`
u
u
U
CA
v
; c
>
a cn
u
° CZ
CZ
a~ o a~
Q,
s.
U
zs ~
v o 'm
° ~ u
c o' 3
~z = cn
.
-d
cz
u
m
a~
( 4-
cn
ti
o
r
o
°
ct
CZ
4-4
M
cn CZ
cn
b
o
cis cd
'ti
'
v) c
M u
v~
o
b
U
r.
°
o
cz
"
cn
M
Q
•
°
°
(V
Ian °
o
~
w.a~
Imo'
°
~
a~
o
•~1
IV
r1 V
i/1i1
1./
1 •
CZ y ,°-1
• O 1 ^N ^V' ~?/.~N • .H ~y U
~
'~V `~N1 W V1 .N ?~..1
A
, y/
U V4/
. N
~
,
i-1
~
• rl
°
'..I
• 64
ail
"
y
W
~
O
• A-1 U UJ
~
.I
11 n ^ r.~rT O 4../
~.q
C,
,
.
c
m
/
~
?.+y
A,
W
U O
O ~
ct
w
V)Pu 3
Q o
W
CAS
uo b
U
w
O
°
~
O
.
E-+
Fz- c
cm a)
0 0
a
cm
~ o
o_
a
0 0
M or
co
~ o
cc
~A
0
w
m
y
N
v
1
A
n
~
~
~
O
~
Ste" ~.r
~
C~ C~
C3
bO C~ •
CC
C~
u
CCS ' ~ c~ ir
i ~ ~
$
,
-
to U o
o are
°o
kr)
cz 3 rte,
CZ U u
u
~-4
CZ
CIL
4. °
'
140, CZ
o
Q
0
o U
U
cn
°
s: qn
-0
kf)
-
.
CA
ro
=s
-
U
0
k))
CZ
cd ?
M in U. ct
cz N N
54 U
-
U V
U
o
a~
'
o
-Cl
-v
o
~ :3
o
cz
-d Q
cC! ~
cz ate '
U
CZ
cz
a rn
a~
C',
cn
U.
o
zy
cz
'
~
U
05
°
CZ
3
,
U
o
CZ
3
a>
u
v
o -d
a~
cn
b
o o
o
a~
a~
o bo
7z)
a~
o ct
o
a~
U
> cat
o
4
o
a~
°
aA >
CZ
cz
4-4
T
0
0
z
~a
x
w
E c
co a~
o Q
~ o
Q)
~ o
0
c
o Q)
~ o
cri
Q
p0~'
\1 V
~A
4a
O
S
ti
y
w
ti
V
✓l ~
ray ~
°
N O cis
~ b
A
•
bA
~
t-. U
p
V
U
¢
o
>
U
E
gl.
v~
c
U
-
U
w'' ~
U
> cn
O
U co CZ
U cz
3."
CZ ~
.9
7d
°
~
CIZ:
OU U CZ
ct
c~
v~
Cl
~
U
U CZ
U b4
c
b4 C
ti
~0c
z
0
v~ E E
>
E 0 U
ct
(1) 0
C) cz
j
v
u
o
-d
U
O. '
C~ S~ CZ
C~ c~3
c~
'd
O
c~
U-4 p
fl
CZ
cC
u
O
N O
Q,
_
4-1
.
O~
U a/
~
U U
U D
O
O
O U
U
~
U
>
cz
(1)
CZ
p
~
U-, c~
U
c~
cz
cz
cz
p
>
O
r,
r,
cn
o
O
U
r
>
O
U
cn
C)
O
U
cLS :
V U
En
C) U
"
cn cn
t
U
N
Q O
> U
U
> U r
O CIO cn
CZ u
~ 7~ 03
U U cz u _;=1
> Q~ 3'Cj~ o o C
-7d p O 3 En
o. CU
U cn
c~
Ct j U
Q, -cn U U
O O
m U O
ul u 4- C)
> cn v> > U U O, v~
Q O U
U 75 c~ cz
rZI
W
U C
~ U
zaa
>oz
.r
W
z a•
14
MHM
H
W
M
c~,
E c
m (1)
o a
C o
Q)
o ~
c
~ c
a
~ o
Q
j
U
~
o ~ o
i
3
zs P
°
O
W
0
4
~
ct
>
7~
En
'
-
bA
o3
U -
U
o a) Q
U Q Q E-~ lc:z".
v~
4
o
~ p
E. o 1~ °
o
s-). on .
~
bA
O
O
O
s,
O
O
Q
N
~
om,"
O
U
o
~
Q,
y
ti
O
'CS UU
N . U t+ U . C.) 7"
SZ ° v o"7d °
~ "wda~- OUP-,
O cC ~ O ~ a)
U
~
~
~
o
-
3
cn
En En
CZ
to ~~v u
7~ C)
4-1
o
CZ O
7=
rA C)
c~$
p
ccz
cn ~
cn
Coo
c~ o V
.2
O o
oz
cn
U
~
'A M ~ ~ ai U
- U
4)
bA
c~
O
v~
~ a
~ ~
~
n
,
O
U bA
O
j
°
C"
bA 5
O
U
U
.O cn -
O
En C~3
O ~ O
~ o.
a)
c'S
O En
cz
-0
U O cn O
U bA
c},
s ,
° p
cn
(D
u
cis
CG (u 7:1
1
4~
U
42
m
C)
cz
O
sU.
tb 4- > N
cn U U N
1
r•
d U
=s o
a)
U G En
cz
U Q
• 3 U m 5 z u
4-a U bA U
p 7~ ~ U -O U
7 i" a) U
Q'o
~ a
C o o
4~- In ~
3 U c
~ 'bA N ~ ~ ~U•'
'C~ in. O QUA Iz
CZ C
a) 0
V O ^
cC U
p ccz
U U U O
i, p,
cz
U
oz C~3
. ~ .fir ~ ~
• cz
'd am'" c+ Er,
O
E--(
rx~
Zr-
37
N
ai-
E ai
0 4
o
.o 0
z
a
m
O
~A
.
H
Q 'b
Q
~
~ y"
O p U
t
o
U
a~
Q~1 U
w
14~
"
v
U
bA
,
m. E5
O to
O
U
a"
cz
E r
cz
o o o
42 -ct
o U
cz t8 °
Q"
o
a~ ap Ct a u
CA
>
cz
'
~
a
N
> O tn
U
N
O y c~ C1 .
cn CZ
o
a
cn
U ~~d
U
0 3 U o
; o
a, b
t4Z4
-0
> o a~ o
03
cn oo b
U
-1Z ca u
U) t
U U
t, bA
N cn
c y t4 >
,
O
'CS
U
U 4
Q
Y
O c~
U
U
d cCi
4)
N ct
U u p O
N
cz cn "d , O z
M
N _
En
GO
CZ
05 CZ m
N
~O b U
p 4
H
Q O
Q O Q..
cz
U fl..
U O ~
c~ U CZ
U
cC N N
O
-p O
U
'b N «1
b 0
ti
i. j U U p >N
bA
>
C
.
O
cn
c~
X
- E OU
• N U
Q.
cG v~ c~ U
c
t
u -0 " w ccn
F/0
r~
E c
'm a)
a, E
'o 0
Z~
cri~
~o
~a
i A
.
.
o W
~
o
U
QQE-~
~ o
O °
to U
'S y
~
~
U
O .
~
N
U O
U
Q o3
N
nh ~
~
• rl
W
U
U U ~ bA
~
~
O
Q,'yp•O
Ci
~QUW
tb
c~j t
U > v N b0
U cat p> p N
kr? U
Ct Cc
3 ° `Z: a~
o U ' oA 3 N
vi,
-d O
z+- U • ~ g..
U 7~ p p
s~
o
o z3
n,
o
°
3 ?
o
'
ct
>
~
sy O o 7:1 b b
3 6
o
C40
cn r.,
1
r, CZ
42
?
a'
oz;
a~ o >
U c 5 o
o
c
i~ .
a
o
s
N
'b
cti
'
~j
S
'd zi O cC
0 --C5
N ::s O
U
O
0 U ,
> p
~ Q
cz
r
O
u C
bU u s-- O
>
,.C
O
U
u
U ~
U ~ m
r-4
'LS ' bA 'd bA
o
Z
cz
p O
O O
14
N N
cz
'd U
t) cz m
C4' 'n
u $M, r-
C14
COP)
cn cl: CZ
0 cC 'C3 O.
U Oz
• cn U Q b S~ U U
0
cn c~
~J
m
O
E-+
Gq
0 0
o ~
a
c ~
cr-
~ o
~ A
0
t
0
r.
O
O
cz _
aq
p
U
C/I
U^,~
U O
p
U
a:
O
U O
4 Q
> U
s",
v~ v~ .
O 0
N
b
q
v
r-- +
a
.
ca
ms
U
U
cz
^
~
cn
N
>
U
O
O Q'
C X N
O U
^ cz
c O U
0
cz
v
c
N
"
ca
U
C
)
rr~
U
t~ U
cn ,
CZ U
CZ
:z (Z
u
u
4--4
Ca
Ur_
CSC
~Q Ste, p
^ H4
V CC3
V]
En
CZ
r
CO U
u :Z
U
o, ~
cz
0
U U ~
-
C/)
~
cz
a
U coo u oz
En
zs
S
O
U U s, O
U
O p.,
>
U
U U 'd
U S~.
U b
O
-b
>
O r
,
p j
u
. r> s0,
N r.
cz
q U
?
40
b
N
0
U
U ~:s
cn
c
~
Q
. c
O
U
u
j
b
O p
z
~
cn
s
.
•y
r-rr
,.~-1
V4J n
~
~•1 V- AVl
/W'~ /yW
Y
Iw.t
`^r~
y ~pI
~
^~~,y cV
(_yW
9
4
yy ^
O ~y
~•~j~y •ry i(~+1 /i~1~
I
C/]
3~"vq
ct N -
~
cn
• V
O
ti
r
c
p
•I i~l
~
'
TI cz u u ~1/
r
~ -J
~a
•
C 'G
0 U
_C! C)
N
0 C7 4
cn
CZ CZ
4
•
,
~
cz
CZ v
Q
•
T
M
Q,
~-c
W
Z
m a)
0 0
Q)
.o 0
a
~o
~
w
~
A
a~
T
U
QQE-~
o o
a
w
go 0
blo
O
U
c j
C)o
p,~-fl
•
U
C~ ¢r U rIn. ct
Q bQ ° Q.i
~1
41,
U bA
N vii O
°
t1 p .O
U ~
U
U N
O
> N
c z a)
kn N O
W)
U
U
cn
U
U p CA O
a cz
v
i
ccS
'd c~ bA
o o
U a~
A
'O O U b
V=
p 'v
Q
C
S:~
bJ~
cz 7•
cn
'
N N
U u O
'Cc) v o -`z
Q, .
o
o bA
o
o
>
o
a~ o o
v
U C
o
,
o
C~4 on CZ
C
U
j=4 U
'
-d o
'
o do
s, O N 4
o o
p N
v~
O a
d
.ti
° cz
cz
a) U
>
cis o
by cn y
a~
tn'
7~ cn
4-4
C) U)
7;
~j
cd
z
_
U
::3 o
U U,
ab o
o
°
o
- cz
b
o 4-, b 4-4 °
o v
U cC
U
.
w
Cl) C)
o
o~
b
1p
3
C
o
o
c
>
Z U
_
oA
o
~ ° o , ° '
.
o = cz CZ
°U
cz
u o
o
u
-ti > sy
cc En Z
u.>-o ot4-4
O
>
o
0 3
>
CZ .
•v
N
b O r
CJ 4-r U
:d
cC U
U
_
c+..r
cc3 'U U U
n
T
J1
V
W
E c
m
o a
C o
o ~
w ~
~ o
a
to
~ o
~
w
~ A
O
t
O
O
U p
U
N
ti
°
b
o
o
cn
cn
a~
Q
E
o
3
m o °
o
'n
o
cl~
s i b
C)
o U
oA
"n
b
-
-
ct
u
C
n
° • m
U
° s -rs
°
3 ~d o
3
c~ ri 3
0 0
C13
-0
v o
_CZ
U b
cw
o
o
° w o
4- t4-4
" 3, E .21
CZ
m M
o
o m
o
o
r
-
o
o
U
o •m V
o•
o, U
-d
(4
4 m
o
~
°
,4-
o c R
-
~
cn
o
"
a~
o~
v~ 'd
U N
N
U U(
cZ
'd
cz
U
En
s.
CZ
Q)
0:3 u
U
4' o
Q, 'T:~
'C3 p.
o °
a
)
'
n
cl,
1
-a
-
- 4-1
o Z~
M
~
~ ~ ~
a ~ U ~
~ ~ ~ ~
o. ~
~ tin ~
~ a ~
~ ~
~ . ~ a~
rw
6,0 cn
CZ
M
ss, 4R
• . rx 3
O a. Al U O
. M
E U ~ ~
C/1 a
c) 4
U ~ ~ b o
Zr-
-j-
'
NN
l~-
0
H
W
c
m a)
0 C
~ o
a
cri~
~ o
~ A
U
w
~
o o w
°
U
S
QQF
1v 1I
ct
IIl
c~
0 O 03 V N N pA U
'
Q
mod
O
a.
~r U ¢ co
It
cl~
' ° Qr
t 'L3 U °
7O
N
In
4-4 lc~
OM
-0 u
03
u
`
~
b
s' °
>
coo a~
$n, cn
n
o o
°
bb
C6
° U m a~ O U P
° o°
3
N
k a~
a>1 ~
O
~
a
° " P. o zs
o a 4- U
(A
p
. -o
CZ
cl,
.tz; C'3
'
cn U) cn
o
°4
~
N
Q N
U -
U
'er oW o
3 Q. _
cti
O
C40)
cn
E
CZ
En -4
U
ct O
cz 03
N bA O'"
O U U
U
-ct
(A
.
"Cl
12.
CZ ct a
3 O
O
o
o
3
30.00
o
cn~
-Ij
a~
~o~~
En
7:1
z a'
ct
cn
3 d o
o~
o `
t 3 a ' cs
N U
•
ti
a. b c- v' -
U C N
N
b4 N
U~
C
Q
~
o'er
r,
~
.
-
b 3 0
°
cn
> o > ° o
o
U 3C3 a s U 'cn z
m
U
M
`^`JJ
lttr"~T1'~~•~
I~
Fz 'r-
.o 0
a
c
0 0
a~
~ o
~
A
U Q
Q
'B
a~
N ct
~
En
71
7~
0 CA
N
'y
°
a4 c
,
7~
C4-1
75
C), 2
rz~
u
C4--4
63
cn u
GO
m
cz
C40
C)
C) CZ
t4--4
A
a~ o
kr,
Cl)
kn Q
s.
r,
Z^. a~
u
3
$-4
kr) a)
bb
C40
-Z., C14
v
CZ
3
C,3 -4
bb
CA
P
z
a
~
o~.
ct~,
go
-Zy-
O
z
HMM
F-+-1
i--1
W
F
co (1)
& E
0 C
.0 0
a
~ o
~
A
a
o
~
a~ o
3
~ ° s
h
H ~ ~
to U O
"
N
fi
°
d
N ~ U U
~
b
~ O
N
y
~
v cl3
U N . cn
O
a
U
o
d
o °
0
4
U
U
>
0
-
bA
a3
U
>
oz
CZ
4,
U) Ct
o
~
cz
r'
o
--4
b
cl~ °
p ~
cvi
U
N
t~. U cd
~
N "d
cn bA
~
cl,
:z
CZ
o a,
fl. 3
a~
F5
E 'L)
a, . ~
o p
°
a
coo
a
• 'ti ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~
o
a a~ a~ t:
4-4
r-4
cn
~ a~ I=.
O
CO
t4l °
C14
b
O
d U
•ti
o cw
Z
Cfj
•
r N 'U bA.cd
cn '
b
N
N
U
U b~U 0
Q
c~n ~
b4
U
cn
,
oz
cn
cn
En En
N
o
1~
ct
o
a~ o
W
a
2
M
0
~Q
E c
00
CL
.o 0
a
ct:
w o
~ o
~a
~
a
A
pq
i
~
a
o a~ °
r•
O a~ °
o (1) U
~o
b
p
F~
b
U~°
m .
Z Q. U
r° o
V►~ U
o
F-+
°
tin
03
o
U
o
a~
zs
~
CZ .
~
~ . ~
~
U
O O
•
O ~ p
b0
_
C~ U
N
~1.
c~
~
c~ p Q
U
Q
'
,4 z
CZ
to
cn
ct
b
7:1
'd
(1)
C3
-d
Z
to
~:s U)
OU
!
t
d
CZ.
O
A
p
A by
U
U
'
by
U
O
o
,
tiA
N
l
s..
cz CZ
N U
> • O
~
U
Q,
U
L7
U N sue.
bIJ Q, b.0
:5
~ • Q
s~ O O
~
Q, b
Z
cn U
ncn U
U
C,3
C,3
ct
2 cn
N
° o
a
rn
o
o
Q
°
o
Q0u
A
a.
~~7U
°
Q
~ o
~
oC7U
,
,
•
0
0
zs U
rn
CZ
a
cn
M
°
En g
C6
o a~
-d
ri
cz
E-
o
m
O
c z
va
v a w
O
N
U °
Q4-4 -c!
U V
o
~
C) Q o
° -d
u
p
O
3 0
~
bn
r-4
o aj
N>
o
U 4 i U
c~
ct ct
N
sZ
,
a
> a~
U p
ago o
U
Z
.
°A U o
V)
C
;5
C)
cz C)
aj
(33
>
U ° a~
o
to
C)
a
°
a~ U 3
1
Cl)
-0
-tzs
(U
b
o
'er
>
r
, z
o
"
CA
0
0
cn cn
~ U
o
° O
ER
° 4 ,
a~ .
'd 'd p
U N
N
cC ^p
cz
~:l
O
r
v
a0
b
cz
U
3 0
bA
N
J
fl, ° '
~
~
~
'o CZ
~
C4
.
-
O
O
~ . ~ c
~ ~ ~
•
3
•
N
• i
~
~
r~ ~
• 3 ~ ,.fl rte.,
/s.
O
z
W
~ c
0 0
CD
.o 0
m~
~ o
~
q
a
~
o
N
bA ~ U
t" o
O C ^O U
y
U
bi)
ti)
z cz,
;z c
p u
cu
U
o
~
er, . ° aA
° °
U
m
-c;
,
u
Q
U
V
u
-C
u O
U to
En
n
7o
U
C
°
o
o 'b
3
° o
:d o
o
a)
CT
4, cz
'C~
Q) cz
~
"
`t
o
CZ
b
u
C)
u
cz U
cn
U U
-o
4-
-0
U C
cn
o
b
cQ
a4 . o
an
U o
cn CL
U
o.
° ~d o
o
cz
a
CZ
u
U
~A -O
U
U
v
U O
4-~
O c~
U
cC s .
4-~ U
cCS
.!J
t4
CZ 4
-.0 r-
In
U bA
v~
° o
C;
6
3
b
U a~
C6 C"~
N
~
~i
cr,
U ° °
°
u
~d
o
o
U
o,
3
°
o
U
a
b> to
Q
U
b
:
> - C14
CZ -4-
CZ
d U U
b
o.~
M m m
°
cz .b U
cz
CZ
::S
CZ
u
U
U U
U b!J
U U
N c~
U bA >
O 'n
cz
y
• cn
cn
CZ
• .~O
U
U
ti • .may C/1
) '
'
M Ct
it
Zn
O O
S r C~
V~ U
Sr
i~
C7
«S v~ b4 O b0
O O
cn
* U U
rte:..
E Z
~q)
O 0
N
o ~
a
O O
~ o
~a
~
w
U
o
A
U
_
~
O
O
~
H
M
N
N
7~
cz
N
1
Z!
v~
N
ti
1
h
1
cn
'
cz
Q
H
V
y
cn
~j
U
v~
U
3
.
o cn~
y o
Q
c°',
o
are
o
°
~ 3
> cz 03
c, u
`
o
n.., o
U
yU,
V
U
^C3
bA O D
U
'b
'd O
'C7
U
4-4
v1
v1
Q' O
~A U U
Qr rU^
0 Q
CC w .--r
N
C~
m
O V cz
4-4
¢
~
chi
r-4
v~
O N
N
Q,
N
, N
C)
cs U
rZ
U
> o a
"
~
°
°
~
o
>
cc
°
Q
cn
?
CZ -4-
Q
0
O
<4,
F~
W
~ c
ca a~
o Q
o
o ,
~ o
~
Y
q
•
~
O
.
O
~
O
4
ti
. p.y
bA
O U
O
U
=
~ y •d
b4
,
O
S~ O cz
b O
~
p
• O th
U
to
'
O
cn
p
~
N
'C3
d
N
cn CZ
c
o
o
cn
U CZ
4.1
Q)
b
~
o
D
a)
cn
u
o
'
ccz
=s ~
a o
b
a~
' o o
N
~ r''
3
r•
o
U
o
O bq
'd
x
N
o
U
~
0
3""
En
~b
t
cz -ti 3
0
~
0
0
W
3
c
E
o
z
O
cz C).
o
yy
o
•2 v
ry
0
0 >
U
"5
15
1-1
cz C)
O
`n
- O N O
>
v~
rn
U
~
Q
C/I
6t
ti
C
b0
"
.v cn
b N
b4
j
, p 4
>
,
s. .
vUi
a
Ct
Ca4
~
C)
U C)
O
con
c
b
v
a
i~
a> -
s~
to
0
0
'
~
r•
o
~ v
,
a
a
s z u
a)
-Cz
, .
Q)
3
a)
a~
can
°
br
U
~
O GA
M
'
cn Z u
6
o
U
~ -rs
z
b1D
o
b0
ao
-En
s~
E-~
,
a~
o
~
°
o
cis PE
~o
a
Aa
E-~
~
U
,
c
3
m-5
~
° U
.
.
0 U
r~
E c
CU a)
E
0 0
C -
0
'0 0
a
v5
Co
o
cr-
~
O
A
•
$
CC,
a,Qw aQ
C, ~
't7 w
O
cz
.
E
E
Q
o
o
>
C
p 3 0
u U M
U
U~ O
N
4~ 4-
O
O
N
U
p
O
w
-
~ 3
4-1
C
a.) o
c:;
o
>
0
-t) 3
Ci
o
7~>
°
o 4-1
-
;3
°
cz
o Q
o
un
Q-0 ~ o
~b
`ti o
c
b
a~ b
to
v
1=
$
'b z
G U
vUi
_
`ti ,
i~, U
O cz
O
y
w a
c"
7~ -0
~L
U r.
Ca~ U
O
0
C.)
O
U
~
0
p
,
v
i
l
~C
o
ti
z
-
b
o
~-j
°
U
Ll
a
Q
d
CZ U
3
w
s
3
O
>
°
M
a. En o
r 3
o
J
>
~ `n
a
cc
CZ
cn
°
3
LLI
_
U a a~ o
.o
w
,
y p
v~
.
U
o o a
a,
o
DA
J
o a,
a~ O
°
cn
C%a
'd N
J
00
'ao4 C N
b~q
N v
N O
a0 r4
3
°
U
u
Z$ m
cn
> o~
b
,p
0
HMM
f
E c
m(1)
0 0
rm
o ~
z~
a
0
~o
~
w
i
A
~ p o
U Q Q
O U
U Q
M
0 U
•
p ~ U
y
L ~
o
W
~
u
U
CZ
a bA
ke)
V~
+
N
v~ ct
Q"
rn
h U O
>
>
J1J
c~
C~3
8b
-c.
C)
cz cn
ss,
cC
cz
u
o
o
cn o
in
~6
V
'n
"o
s
c ' > ct Lt
r-
0.,
d
CZ
En
c~
U
s .
U N
U N
-
b
cz
cn
U
cn
bA
I
'S'
b
A
O
p
rn r,
+ a0
~
p
C
b~1
~
z .
,
.
N
cz
o
o
U
3
O
O
bA
ca
cz N c~
Cl
1
• y
(n 00 U
[s,
■
■
f~
■
U rn
~ =
ti
c
U
N
d
GA
r r.
~ c
a~ Ei
0 0
o_
a
~o
~
a
A
.
o
j ~
Q Q
~
O
A
x
m
CZ
W
•v
U
.U ~ ~
Q
~ O
•
Q
s, O G
O 4-4 ~ 03
03
cl~
iz~
o
c
o
'a
CIO
°~b ; o
Q
cz
U U
N
O S~
~ sU. cz u
>71
C
y
v
:z -0
U
CZ
N
cz
Omu
N
cz
b
;
p
O
CZ
o3
C
'd cz bA
cn
U p O E
6-1
o
CG
1-4
-cn
c~
o b
C,
Ui
ct
03
En
4-4
CZ
c '13
_
o
o
O ct~
p
en
an
oA
$1r ;Z
o o
CA
> o ~
cn F--4
_
~
U
O O
U
Q
.~C p U p O
N N bA N
'
w
:z y 'd
N
p
bA
v
G v cC
N
3
c~ "O
c 0
"
N U
i
°
"C7
-4 t4"
U v
•
•
•
•
V1
V
• Q v
i
U
• U O
O
Q
M
O
FMM~1
F-~-1
W
a~
0
O
O
O
O
c0
z
~
a
A
O.a
•wi
o~
N
ti
ti
ti
05
0 O
u
U
b v
'ts o o
U
a
>
U
U
cn
O
t.
m
c
n
u~cz
o
3
U U c~
N O O 03
O m o
3
U
U U U 00
U b
cz
Q
cn o
cz r.
0
0
C j
c
no
c
U Q, o
U
cn
cn ~
aA cz u
_
.
~
~j-O-~1 e-,~~yN ~-y
r.f /°.I
E
O U i•r
F•d ` i-r Q~
U
O
'C3
M
.fl
. r,
W
N
~O
O
0
N
O
N
cn
0
U
,o
0
03
66
37
V
O
HMM
H
r~
0
M
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-05
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 NO.6
CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Attachments: Exhibit 1 (Draft Ordinance Prezoning Territory)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-05 01/26/2011
EXHIBIT NO.
5-
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:
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
EXHIBIT N0.
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
Prezonin
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[ I]) 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 (10 PAGE 2 OF 11
.~X
I~IBIT N0.
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
EXHIBIT NO. &
t ,
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
EXHIBIT NO. (~2
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 ridgeline 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 Seafrrth,
Acacia Drive and Norman Way neighborhoods.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11
PA HIBIT N0.
• 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 TYBURON ~ RAGE 6 OF 11
y;I3IT NO.
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
~1'~TBIT
NO.
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
Towru OF TIBURON PAGE 8 of 11
t;J:~~.HrIBIT NO. (r
I2; L
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.
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 9R OF 11
EXHIBIT N0. ~j'
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:
Hold a public hearing on this item and close the public hearing;
t
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
EXHIBIT NO.
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
\sharedWdministration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2011\August 3 drafrs'Alta Vista PDP.report.doc
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11
EXHIBIT NO. (C-
Councilmember Collins also noted that the neighbor's [appellants'] windows which were
impacted by the project were in their bedrooms and not the garage. He said that he could not
support the west-side windows and that there were too many windows in the front of the project.
Mayor Slavitz concurred with these comments; he asked whether the hallway and garage
windows could be eliminated.
Councilmember Fredericks said that the hallway might be dark without windows; she said that
former Councilmember Berger said that there were fixtures that provided down-facing light, and
that she would condition an approval on this and not the elimination of the windows.
Mayor Slavitz said that he could support this if the number of windows in the garage was
reduced.
MOTION: To direct staff to return with a resolution of findings partially upholding the appeal, as
described by Council, and with revised plans to eliminate the four west-facing
windows on the lower level of the garage, and the two windows iri the hall, and the
additional down-lighting requirements.
Moved: Collins, seconded Fraser
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
2. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan - Consider actions related to the Alta Robles
Precise Development Plan and prezoning applications for the eventual subdivision of
52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling into 14 single-
family residential lots; consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Planning Manager Watrous)
• Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants
• Address: 3825 Paradise Drive
• Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01
In his staff report, Planning Manager Watrous summarized the key elements of the project which
involves the eventual subdivision of the 52 acres into 14 single family parcels (consisting of one
existing residence and 13 new residences to be constructed) and three open space parcels totaling
18.69 acres.
Watrous described the environmental review process and said that the draft EIR had noted two
significant and unavoidable impacts: 1) project noise from construction that 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.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 5
EXHIBIT NO._ 7_
In addition, he said the draft EIR 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, Mr. Watrous said that 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.
Mt. Watrous said that 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 pro=posed 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.
On January 26, 2011, Watrous said 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.
In its review of the merits of the project, first considered by the Planning Commission in January
26, 2011, the Planning Manager said that a majority of the Planning Commission expressed
concerns about the Precise Development Plan with regard to consistency with ridgeline policies
and neighborhood compatibility. He said it was noted that 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.
At the April 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Watrous said that the applicant
submitted a revised alternative project design (Alternative 5) as described in the staff report. He
said that prior to this meeting Town staff had prepared and distributed a memo 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. He said the analysis was based upon a review of Alternative 4, prior to the
applicant's submittal of Alternative 5.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 6 -7
i,XI-IIBIT NO.
At the April 13, 2011 meeting, Watrous said the Commission used the checklist provided in the
staff memo as a tool to make recommendations about revisions to the project design, but also
identified additional revisions that went even further toward increasing consistency with General
Plan policies.
Watrous said that 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. Lots 8, 9, 10 & 13 would be eliminated
2. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 would be reduced in size
3. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5, 6 & 12 would be reduced.
4. 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.
Planning Manager Watrous said that 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, he said the Commission
adopted Resolution No. 2011-10, recommending approval of the revised project to the Council.
In conclusion, the Planning Manager said that 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, he said the Commission placed a very strong emphasis on General
Plan policies related to ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. He recommended
that the Town Council take public testimony and consider certification of the Final EIR at the
hearing tonight, then deliberate on the merits of the project and/or continue the item to a
subsequent hearing.
Mayor Slavitz opened the hearing to the applicant.
Irving Rabin, applicant, said that he bought his initial 30-acre property 20 years ago. He said that
he and his neighbor, Dr. Kilgore, whose 20-acre property he subsequently purchased, had jointly
planned a 23-home development in 1993. He said they wanted a good development, since they
both lived on the property, and from the beginning they envisioned homes that would be both
architecturally stunning and have a low profile and impact on the land. He said that Alternative 5
was the culmination and pinnacle of these efforts, and that it represented an environmentally and
architecturally superior plan in which over three-quarters of the property would remain in open
space conservation, greater than the 50% town requirement. In addition, he said the proposal
would allow the Tiburon Ridge Trail to be extended at the top of the property.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 7 -7
EXHIBIT NO.
Mr. Rabin said that most of the letters included with the staff report supported the project, and he
said it was also supported by the close and contiguous neighbors, the Vogelheim, Burley, Maisel,
Appleman, and Brown families, and on Paradise Drive, the Traeger, Kilgore, and Slater (Winter
property) families.
Mr. Rabin also asked for the Council's endorsement, stating that the project should be welcomed
and heralded as a model project in Tiburon and beyond.
Scott Hochstrasser, 25-year planning consultant, representing the applicant, stated that the Rabin
family had been good stewards of the land and that their application represented the most
comprehensive "green" plan in the County and Town of Tiburon.
In his powerpoint presentation, Mr. Hochstrasser showed a site analysis which he said was one of
the most comprehensive baseline maps ever created. He said this map helped guide his clients by
showing the limited development potential of the project and that during the five-year application
process, his client had voluntarily reduced the density of the project. He stated that even though
the draft EIR had deemed the applicant's project superior, his client nevertheless had met with
staff and had subsequently drafted Alternative 4, which had become the current project
application. He said that while there was a range of alternatives discussed in the EIR, the final
EIR said that Alternative 4 was even more superior than other options considered.
Mr. Hochstrasser said that it would be appropriate for the Town Council to adopt the Final EIR,
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hochstrasser introduced Dr. Ken Kao to address the Planning Commission's concerns
expressed during its deliberations on the merits of the project, as well as the latest iteration of the
project, Alternative 5.
Dr. Ken Kao explained the way the lots were clustered along the existing driveway and sub-
clusters on the fire trails, thereby allowing 75% of the land to remain as open space. He said that
most of the lots were around an acre (1.5 acres being the largest) and were set back from
sensitive areas, including sensitive plant habitats. He also said that some of the houses were
located in the trees to reduce the visual impacts and to address the concerns of the Seafirth Drive
neighbors. He showed what they might look like from three visual perspectives.
Dr. Kao said that the design strategies followed the Hillside Design Guidelines with a partial
subterranean approach and low profiles. He said they would be energy efficient, with solar panels
and vegetative roofs.
Attorney Riley Hurd, representing the Rabin family, spoke in favor of Alternative 4 and
described why the Planning Commission's recommendation was neither viable nor legally
supported. He discussed three aspects of the project about which the Commission had raised
concerns: ridgelines, neighborhood compatibility, and economics.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 8
EXHIBIT NO. -7
Mr. Hurd said that the Town's General Plan Policy OSC-12 stated that all significant ridgelines
should not be judged equally; that the ridgelines on this property were not only low profile, but
that it was hard to determine exactly where they were, and therefore they warranted less
protection. He said he had more fully delineated in his correspondence how the Alta Robles
project complied with the Town's guidelines.
With regard to neighborhood characteristics, Mr. Hurd agreed that the Alta Robles project would
be incompatible with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood, stating that Dr.
Kao's designs were superior and intelligent and were not the large-scale "McMansions" found on
Gilmartin and Acacia Drives.
Finally, Mr. Hurd said that the project was a "deal" for the Town in its "value to visibility ratio"
because in his analysis, larger homes represented greater tax revenue, while still being less
visible. He said that the Planning Commission's recommended alternative would not pencil out
and could not be built. He said that the infrastructure costs of the project were static and that the
ridge trail could not be built under this scenario.
Mr. Hurd said that the Planning Commission, while being a sophisticated group, had not gone
through the required visual analysis needed for a project of this complexity. He said one
commissioner has stated that the application was "too complex". He said instead, the
Commission settled for simplistic modifications, which consisted of reducing the number of lots
and the sizes of the homes.
Mr. Hurd said there was no evidence that such modifications would result in a net benefit, and
that cutting the project would punish the applicant who had shown sensitivity to the planning and
environmental process and had been "self-editing" all along. He said the lack of data to support
the Commission's recommendations would represent a gross disproportionate exaction from the
applicant. He said that the Planning Commission's recommendations would allow use of less
than 20% of the land and retain 80% as open space. He said this would not be legal.
Mr. Hurd said that a Town Council approval of the applicant's project would ensure responsible
development of the site, would "lock up" preservation of open space, as well as close a gap in the
Tiburon Ridge Trail. In addition, the project would include the forward-thinking designs of Dr.
Kao. Mr. Hurd concluded by stating that if the property was sold, the Town would not see this
type of project again.
Mr. Hurd responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Fredericks asked for electronic copies of the presentation materials. Mr. Hurd
said that he would do so.
Councilmember O'Donnell said that while everyone liked the home designs, he asked what
assurances there were they would actually be designed that way, once the lots were sold.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 9
EXHIBIT NO. '7
Town Attorney Danforth said that it was not common at this stage of the review process to
mandate design; nevertheless, she said the conditions of approval could mandate general
compliance with the applicant's architectural guideline and would guide review of future homes
on the site by the Design Review Board.
Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether the designs could be included in CC&R's for the
project. For example, he said that without a "live roof', the home on Lot 12 would look
completely different. Town Attorney Danforth said that Council could require this design feature
and if the builder wanted to change it, he/she would have to come to Council for approval.
Director of Community Development Anderson concurred, stating there were ways to
incorporate the designs into the PDP to resemble what is ultimately approved by the Town
Council. He also said there were also ways to incorporate a process for revisions into the
CC&R's so that the Town could have control over and approve those revisions. Nevertheless, he
said a certain amount of uncertainty remained in the question of whether these designs would be
built, especially if many years elapsed before a lot was constructed upon.
Councilmember Fredericks asked for clarification of a comment from the applicant's
representative that the Town Council had "voted twice" to control [development of] the subject
property.
Director Anderson said that twice previously, some years ago, the Rabins had requested that the
Town waive or defer annexation and allow the County of Marin to process development
applications for the site. On both occasions, the Town Council indicated that it desired to
process the development applications and annex the property to the Town.
Councilmember Fredericks also asked whether the entire square footage of the proposed houses
was stated on the plans, for instance, did a 7,000 square foot home include that portion of the
square footage that was underground.
Planning Manager Watrous said that he did not believe that the house sizes included garage
square footage or the FAR underground. He said he would check, but that normally, subterranean
area was not included in FAR numbers.
Mr. Hurd commented that the numbers presented were gross numbers intended to include any
basements. He did note that the applicant had not done an FAR analysis. Town Attorney
Danforth added that because this is a PDP review, the Council could impose floor area
maximums that included the subsurface areas.
Vice Mayor Fraser asked what latitude existed for the Council in siting the houses around
Ridgelines 5 and 6. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Council had a great deal of latitude;
that it could make findings regarding the importance of on-site ridges and impose distance
restrictions for consistency the General Plan.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 10
EXHIBIT NO.-
Councilmember Fredericks asked what kind of findings would support the home sites near the
ridge. Town Attorney Danforth said for instance that the findings might find that the home sites
were too near a significant ridge but allow them because of the benefits of the public trail as an
overriding consideration.
Councilmember O'Donnell said that the staff memo said that some of the ridgelines on the
property did not meet the "significant ridge" criteria.
Director of Community Development stated that he would riot characterize the memo quite that
way, but stated that the memo indicated that the ridgelines on the Rabin property were less
prominent than some other significant ridgelines, such as that located on the Martha Company
property, which was "in another league".
Erin Tollini, Tiburon Planning Commissioner, described the Planning Commission's review. She
said that many hours had been spent in discussion and research and that the Commission was "up
to the task" of the application review and had made its conclusions accordingly. '
Ms. Tollini said that the statement that the maximum development potential of 20 sites that could
be allowed on this 52-acre site was only valid if the property was a "blank slate". She said the
Commission had concluded that the maximum density was lower based on the fact that the lot for
the existing Rabin residence occupied a large portion of the proposed project and other
environmental constraints of the site. She said that the density maximum in the General Plan was
not a guaranteed number, and noted the EIR found 18 landslides on the property, serpentine
grasslands, and other protected species would ultimately help determine the final number of sites
allowed for the project.
Ms. Tollini said that the principles of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance had been applied
during the Planning Commission's review and the Commission's recommendation was not
arbitrary.
Mayor Slavitz asked for comment on Policy OSC-12. Ms. Tollini said that the applicant's photo
simulation looked different than what was in the EIR and application. She said there were
significant slopes and ridgelines on the property; also, an important feature was the ability to
visually connect the open space areas of the project.
Vice Mayor Fraser asked about the Planning Commission's comments on traffic impacts. Ms.
Tollini said that the EIR described traffic at certain times of the day; she said that the entrance to
the property needed more of a sightline for safety reasons; she said the Commission would like to
have seen an independent traffic study to address the issue of traffic safety.
Councilmember Fredericks asked why the Planning Commission recommended elimination of
Lot 13, which was more than 100 feet from the ridgeline, rather than lowering the height and
roofline of the proposed house.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 11
EXHIBIT NO. 7
Ms. Tollini said that the Commission thought the trees that screen that lot would be removed to
develop the Sorokko property, thereby making the home on that site much more visually
prominent and "looming" over the ridge.
Mayor Slavitz opened the hearing to the public.
The following members of the public spoke:
• Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League (MCL), commended the Rabin family but said
that a project "takes on a life of its own" and would be developed over a long period of
time, with no guarantees that it would look as it does on paper; that precedents were
being set for home size and that the resource cost of large homes should be considered;
also, that private open space does not guarantee continuity of species or viability; that a
fully functioning open space was not "chopped up"; that views of the ridges would be
impacted; that there would be cumulative impacts of traffic at Trestle Glen Boulevard and
Highway 101. Dennis said that the MCL had been tracking the cumulative impacts of
development on Paradise Drive for a long time; she urged the Council to`make sure the
benefits of the project off-set the impacts.
• Eva Buxton, botanist, said the project had been designed without a botanical survey and
that there was inadequate mapping of species; said the CEQA requires a lessening or
avoidance of impacts on special species; that serpentine grasses were a special
community and that the extensive grasslands on Lots 11 and 12 would be obliterated by
landslide repair; said that the elimination or reduction of [house] size on Lots 11 and 12
would be results in a measurable benefit to the grasslands.
• Ariel Rabin read a letter from Douglas Currens, who could not be present at the hearing.
The letter said that the project represented a long and complex journey and that the Rabin
family had brought forward an exemplary project which resulted in preservation of a
ridgeline trail and 70% open space. He said that the home designs were commendable and
could have been influenced by a ground-breaking book by Ian McHarg entitled "Design
with Nature". He said the family was trying to leave a legacy and deserved approval for
their vision for the property. He said that minor course corrections could be made.
• Mordecai Winter, Peninsula Road, Belvedere, said his family owned the 27-acre Slater
property. He spoke in support of the project and gave credit to the Rabin family; stated
that 14 homes would have a minimal impact
• Roberta Zucker, Pt. Tiburon, said that traffic would not really be a problem because it `let
up' once you got to Trestle Glen; she commended the Rabins for their project and home
designs and that it was desirable not to have more "Italianate Mansions"; said she was a
walker and a hiker and appreciated the generous offer of the family to extend the Ridge
Trail.
• Mark Goldstein, Paradise Drive, said that he and many other property owners in the area
would be affected by the development and said that the Planning Commission had done
an admirable job in reducing the density to nine units; he warned of "bait and switch"
tactics in that the house designs were not guaranteed, as presented.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 12
~ ,
EXHIBIT NO.
The Mayor and staff had another discussion about the design features of the project. Director of
Community Development Anderson said that the actual wording in the Planning Commission
resolution said that the designs shown would "closely resemble" the approved designs and that
the DRB was instructed to disallow changes except in very limited circumstances. He said that
another proposed condition of approval required that the CC&R's incorporate relevant portions
of the PDP, and that those sections of the CC&R's could not be modified without permission
from the Town.
Planning Manager Watrous commented that in some projects, the direction given to the DRB
was often more generic and simple where specificity was not as crucial to the application. He
said, for instance, that the direction given by the Board for "craftsman style" homes in Vista
Tiburon was clear enough to be effective for that PDP.
Vice Mayor Fraser referenced a chart in Alternative 5 [the Fagade Vertical Surface Area
Comparison table] and asked whether these numbers could be incorporated into the approval
process. Planning Manager Watrous said that the calculations referenced by the Vice Mayor were
provided by the applicant and were not calculations ever previously used by the Town; he said it
might be difficult to apply this to the FAR calculations and limits nonnally used by the Town.
Vice Mayor Fraser noted that a key component of the design of the homes as depicted was their
subterranean nature, and that if that were to change, it would be a much different project.
Planning Manager Watrous said that the subterranean design, living roof, elevations, and other
design features could be incorporated into the approval.
Mayor Slavitz commented on the 29-foot height which would be exposed on the front of some of
the homes.
Councilmember O'Donnell noted that in Lots 2, 3 and 4, the topography dropped off sharply and
that the height was a necessary outcome.
Walter Sanford, Seafirth Place, downhill neighbor from the project, said that the sight
lines and photos did not show his neighborhood and that there would be a visual impact
on a lot of homes there; cautioned the Council to be aware of the danger of the proposed
designs which he described as a "Trojan horse"; stated that if all the homes in future
development of Paradise Drive were maximum height, it would be a problem.
David Joyner, Seafirth, said that the designs were nice but not enforceable; said that he
hears traffic now and that the noise and impacts on Paradise Drive would exacerbated by
earthwork, dust, and tree removal during construction; asked the Council to. please help
preserve the rural character of Paradise Drive in considering this and future
developments. He added that the Planning Commission had been very thoughtful in its
approach.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 13
EXHIBIT NO.
• Alex Gerson, Mateo Drive, resident since 1981, said that the Rabins were stewards of the
land and that the Town Council had a difficult job to balance zoning and usage; stated
that the Planning Commission should set a precedent to develop meaningful plans and
make a showcase of Tiburon rather than just trying to cut a project; noted that Tiburon
Vista and Turtle Rock had much more density than the proposed project.
• Sandra Swanson, Seafirth, said that some of their homes looked straight at the project;
warned the Council not to rely on future Design Review Boards to do the right thing; said
that to develop this project 100,000 cubic yards of earth would be moved and that the
natural habitat would be replaced by retaining walls`and swimming pools; said that
development was not entitlement; suggested that Lots 9, 10 and 13 be eliminated,
because they were most visible to the open space, also Lots 5 and 6; noted that the
Tiburon General Plan (Tiburon 2020) goal was "to protect and preserve" Tiburon.
• Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, said she appreciated the careful consideration being
given to this application; that it was a "project, not a family," and that the supporters of
the project were also landowners who wanted to develop their parcels. She said that four
to five lots should be eliminated and that the existing lot took up 29% of the developable
land; said that reliance on architecture should not be a factor because it would change;
said that the houses located near species with special status should be eliminated, and that
the size of the remaining homes should be reduced.
• Jerry Riessen, Vistazo West, reminded the Council that open space is the most important
value of this community; added that the General Plan couldn't be more specific as to the
protection of ridgelines; said that Planning Commission did a good job in its review; said
that applicant's financial risk was part of the process and should not be a concern of the
Council; asked the Council to focus on its statement of overriding consideration and what
it would say; said the General Plan allowed the Council "tons of power to restrict" the
project; said that the threat of losing the ridge trail was embarrassing.
The applicant made some final comments prior to Mayor Slavitz closing the public hearing.
• Mr. Hurd said that 1) his client's designs were a crucial part of the project and were not a
"bait and switch"; said that there were many legal ways to condition approval of the
project based on those designs; 2) said his client would commit to those designs if
Alternative 5 was approved; said that his client, too, also wanted compliance with the
General Plan, which allowed up to 20 units, but that the Planning Commission had used
the General Plan to "cherry pick" and cut the 14 proposed units; 3) said that the issue of
trees on Lot 13 was not relevant because the Sorokko project was downhill from Paradise
Drive; 4) noted that this Council for years had relied on the principle of "borrowed
views" and asked how much the opponents of the project were relying on these views; 5)
said that no statement of overriding considerations was required in the Final EIR for
ridgelines; finally, that the stated traffic and botany impacts were no different between the
draft and final EIRs.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 14
EXHIBIT NO.-
Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Fredericks said that the EIR was complete but that it did raise issues that needed
to be addressed. Councilmember Collins concurred and said that the process started in 2007 and
suggested that it might be worthwhile to continue the discussion of the merits of the project to a
future Council meeting. Council concurred with this recommendation.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution certifying the FEIR.
Moved: O'Donnell, seconded Fraser
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
Town Attorney Danforth said that it might be worthwhile to begin the discussion of the merits of
the project and give staff some direction for additional information it might require for the future
hearing.
Mayor Slavitz said that he would like to go back for another site visit and that he would like to
hear more about the guidelines for the proposed designs. Vice Mayor Fraser concurred, stating he
would like staff to come back with specific recommendations about how to codify the designs.
Councilmember O'Donnell also concurred with these remarks.
Councilmember Fredericks said that it was not up to the Council to re-design the project, but that
she would like to get a sense of the secondary impacts of the project from earth movement,
retaining walls, landslide repairs, and de-watering. She also said that she was amazed at the
constraints on the project demonstrated by the applicant's map.
Councilmember Collins said that he would like to see where the proposed homes and residential
use areas sit in relation to the riugelines.
Mayor Slavitz said he would like clarification of the tree issue on Lot 13. Planning Manager
Watrous clarified that the trees formed a "backdrop" to Lot 13, rather than screening that lot, but
that the removal of the trees [approved as part of the Sorokko project] would make the proposed
home more visible.
Councilmember Collins said that he would like to see a large map showing the environmental
constraints of the site, with the homes and lots superimposed. Mayor Slavitz said that full-size
plans would be helpful.
Councilmember O'Donnell said he would like to hear more from the applicant about the
possibility of re-sizing the building envelope on Lot 8.
Councilmember Fredericks said she was confused by information on whether or not retaining
walls would be required on Paradise Drive.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 15
N0. `7
EXHIBIT
Director of Community Development Anderson said that east of the project entrance, the area
had been identified in the EIR as one where line of sight improvements might be necessary in the
form of a retaining wall and shave-back of the hillside. He said that the Planning Commission
created a condition of approval, with which the applicant agreed, that a traffic speed study would
be conducted immediately prior to project construction to determine whether the retaining wall
was necessary to achieve safe sight-line distances.
Mayor Slavitz asked if the Council had to decide on maximum heights for retaining walls. The
Director said that all project retaining walls were listed in detail in the Final EIR. He said that
most of the tall ones formed the rear wall of homes and would not be visible, and that there were
few remaining visible retaining walls over 6 to 8 in height.
Vice Mayor Fraser said he had heard that this project had a potential for building a temporary
"construction" road across the ridges. Director Anderson said he had not heard anything to
indicate this.
MOTION: To continue the discussion of the merits of the project (Precise Development
Plan) to the September 7, 2011 regular meeting.
Moved: Collins, seconded Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
3. Water Conservation Ordinance - Consider amendments to Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water
Efficient Landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to incorporate latest Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD) regulations (Director of Community Development
Anderson) - introduction and first reading of ordinance
Director of Community Development gave the report. He said that in 2011, newly-adopted state
regulations went into effect that imposed additional water-efficiency restrictions on permits
issued by local agencies. In response, MMWD amended its water efficient landscape regulations
in December 2010. The proposed Town ordinance would have the Town amend its current water
efficient landscape regulations by adopting by reference the latest MMWD regulations.
Councilmember O'Donnell asked if these new regulations would be consistent with Tiburon Fire
District regulations. He cited an example of installing new landscaping pursuant to MMWD
regulations, only to find out that Tiburon Fire District had more stringent regulations.
Director Anderson said that this question had been raised with MMWD and that the water district
and fire district were making a more concerted effort to coordinate their regulations.
Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing.
Town Council Minutes #17 -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 16
EXHIBIT NU.
J. FRASER AND HELEN DRAKE MUIRHEAD
Town of Tiburon
1501 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
August 11, 2011
Re: Alta Robles
Dear Town Council Members,
RECEIVED
AUG 16 201 1
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
We live at 4200 Paradise Drive on a section of Paradise Drive where cars
frequently travel ten miles an hour over the twenty-five mile an hour speed limit.
The county does not enforce the speed limit on this stretch of the road. The road
is very narrow for the cars, bicycles, and pedestrians that share it.
We urge you to reduce the number ,of building lots in the Alta Robles subdivision.
The subdivision as proposed permits very large houses to be built. Large houses
create more vehicular traffic. The proposed 14 lots on would add as many as
126 trips per day on Paradise Drive between the Alta Robles property and the
intersection with Trestle Glen Boulevard.
The approval of the proposed 14 lots sets a bad precedent for development on
the eastern side of the Tiburon peninsula. The Town must protect the safety and
the well being of the community by limiting the number of building sites. We
think the town should set a precedent that supports the quality of life that
Tiburon residents presently enjoy. Please approve no more than ten lots for the
Alta Robles development.
Thank you for,your consideration.
Sincerely,
9AOC~
J. Fraser Muirhead
Helen Drake Muirhead
4200 Paradise Drive, Tiburon California
415-435-1837 EXHIBIT NO.
TO: Tiburon Town Council
FROM: Randy Greenberg
DATE: August 25, 2011
RE: Alta Robes 8/31/11 Council Hearing
I know that this Council will carefully consider its decision on this project. As a longtime
resident in this area of Paradise Dr., I remind you that its character is not the same as the
area to the north of Trestle Glen or the neighborhoods off Tiburon Blvd. I ask you to
protect its more rural character. Please reduce the extent of the project's ridge
development and the proposed size of all the new homes. Eventually, this project will be
built out, and what you approve will be your legacy to Paradise Dr. residents. Let this
legacy be one that makes you proud.
Ridgelines. The project violates Tiburon's ridge policies by treating them as though they
don't apply. It puts a continuous line of development (roads, houses, accessary structures,
landscaping, fences) on or close to identified significant secondary ridgelines?which radiate
down from the primary Tiburon Ridge. The proposed development will absolutely obscure
these ridge forms. Each lot's Residential Use Area ["RUA"] will be developed in a
variety of ways - paved, potentially contain up to 500 sf of 15' high accessory structures,
pools, outdoor kitchens, and most certainly landscaped so that these areas will be visually
distinct from the natural environment. Not just the house, but the entire RUA will stand
out from, and interrupt, the natural areas surrounding them. RUA's are proposed to range
in size from .53 to 1.44 acs., with the RUA of the existing Rabin lot at 4.51 acres (all
RUA's total 14.86 acs. on and along the ridges). These RUA 's will hide the parcel's
ridgelines. The RUA visual impacts have not been assessed and they are substantial.
(See Plan SP-04B, 3/28/11, Revision 5, to see how the proposed areas of development
((RUA's + houses + roads, the white and gray areas on this drawing)) form a continuous
line along the ridge tops.)
"Where is the Ridgeline?" was asked by councilmembers on their site visit. The applicant
has offered this query as proof that the site's ridges are not visually prominent. Broad
ridges aren't visible when you are on them, but they provide the soft rolling ridge contours
so expressive of the Tiburon Paradise Dr. geography from offsite, and this project will
cover and hide these highly valued features.
Please respect our General Plan ridge goals and policies and apply them:
"Besides water, ridgelines are the most visually defining open space attribute in the
Planning Area. Ridgelines also provide the greatest opportunity for community scenic
value.
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.
OSC-12: Development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines."
EXHIBIT N0.!___
Lots 5 & 6 are fully visible from and closest to the Middle Ridge Open Space ["OS"]. The
PC recommends houses on these lots to be single story (16'h) 4,500 sf, plus 500 sf garages.
This results in a 5,100 sf footprint that is only a few hundred sf smaller than the original
house size proposals, which were 2 stories. And, since these two closely set houses will be
viewed from above, their view impacts are much less associated with height than with
footprint. This 1-story recommendation does not achieve the intended reduction in the EIR
identified Significant Unavoidable impact for the project's visual impacts from the Middle
Ridge OS. The Council has to make "findings of overruling consideration" for this impact
to show that project benefits outweigh this impact. I don't think this finding can
reasonably be made. Lots 5 & 6 should be removed from the plan to make a meaningful
difference in the magnitude of this impact. Even if the "SU" impact remains after lots 5 &
6 elimination, it is appropriate for the Council to make changes to lessen such impact to the
extent possible. In addition, the Planning Commission's recommended adjusted lot lines
and RDA's still leaves these lot lines right up against special status serpentine grassland
and the freshwater marsh seep/sedge meadow', offering no buffer and no rooru for habitat
expansion.
After much study and citizen input, the Planning Commission has recommended that the
lots identified below be eliminated. I urge you to uphold their recommendation.
Lot 13 is located at the tip of the ridgeline, looming over Paradise Dr. and is highly visible
from neighborhoods to the north and east and west.
Lot 8 is in an area of active slides, and is on and adjacent to sensitive habitat. The lot itself
extends into the serpentine bunchgrass and butts up directly against the Tiburon buckwheat
population, leaving no protective buffer or room for this population to expand. In addition,
the lot's location acts to fragment Lot A OS. It is also visible from the Middle Ridge OS.
Lots 9 & 10 are situated squarely atop a secondary ridgeline, visually prominent from the
Acacia and Hacienda neighborhoods. Currently, proposed houses on the lots are partially
screened by a couple of unhealthy pines. These trees are a matter of feet from house
structure. It is speculative if they will survive development. Given the units' ridge top
location and proximity to adjacent neighborhoods, their visual impacts are significant and,
as recommended by the PC, they should be eliminated from the project.
4
Freshwater seeps & marshes are regarded as sensitive habitat because they serve important biological
functions by providing nesting, breeding & foraging habitat for a wide variety of resident and migratory
wildlife species.
EXHIBIT NO. 2
Page 1 of 1
Dan Watrous
From: Jeff Appleman Uappleman@balglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Cc: Connie Cashman; Jeff Appleman
Subject: Alta Robles Project
Dear Mr. Watrous,
Please provide the following to the Town Council.
S
As a long time resident of Hacienda Drive (108) and a neighbor of the Rabin family, I enthusiastically
encourage the approval of the Alta Robles project as submitted by the Rabins. The multiple benefits of
this imaginative and forward thinking project to our neighborhood and to the Tiburon community at
large (e.g. completion of the truncated Tiburon Ridge trail, increased property tax revenues, etc.) make
this a project that Tiburon should be embracing with enthusiasm and gratitude.
Regards,
Jeff Appleman
l
Jeff Appleman
Partner, Attorney at Law*
= cid:image001.gif@01CAD(
Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP
Attorneys at Law
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
DIRECT 415-743-9610 1 FAX 415-398-1808 EMAIL Jeff cx bal~lobal.com WEB www.balglobal.com
*Admitted in California. Practice limited to federal immigration law. Confidentiality Notice: This message may contain confidential client
communications. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please forward the message back to the sender and destroy the original
message (and any copies). Thank you.
EXHIBIT NO. 10
Qi1) si1) n> 1
August 31, 2011
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, California
LATE!a!_1G 10i1
CONSERVATION
LEAGUE
Re: "Alta Robles" Final Environmental Impact RPnort and Precise
Development Plan
Dear Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to support a substantially reduced Alta Robles project in both number
and size of residences, for consideration on August 31, 2011. Marin Conservation League con-
tinues to believe that the project as proposed is excessive for a highly constrained site and, if
approved by the Council, will set a precedent for the future development of lands adjacent to the
site and along Paradise Drive. The Planning Commission's recommendations of April 13, 2011,
come closest to reconfiguring the project to conform to policies in the Tiburon General Plan and
to mitigate significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR.
The applicants have invested heavily in a design program intended to mitigate visual impacts of
7,000 to almost 8,000 square-foot homes that encroach into significant ridgelines. Accord-
ing to draft conditions submitted by the applicant's attorney, the approval of the Precise Devel-
opment Plan would be based on requiring future applications to conform to home designs that
"greatly reduce reduce visual impact and preserve natural landforms." We take issue with this
proposed condition on three points:
1. The project as designed may reduce visual impact but it does not preserve natural landforms as
claimed.
According to our understanding of recent calculations, a total of about 64,000 cubic yards of
cut and equivalent fill would be required just for lot and road preparation, including repair
of 18 landslides. On this basis alone, the development proposal certainly does not preserve
natural landforms, nor does siting excessively large individual residences partially below
grade accomplish this objective.
2. The EIR did not analyze the impacts of excavation for siting residences belowgrade.
For the project as currently presented - and as would be required for future individual
applications - cuts amounting to 17,028 cubic yards have been estimated recently. Un-
derground cuts would range from 14 percent to 57 percent each for individual home sites
(building "pads"). Because the EIR assumed conceptual home design only, grading for each
home was not analyzed. Partially burying the homes might be a creative means "to reduce
visual impact and preserve natural landforms"; however, the direct, secondary, and cumula-
tive impacts of the excavations on hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, possibly
transportation, and noise have not been analyzed. For example, according to the EIR, noise
is already a significant unavoidable impact of the project. This impact will be exacerbated
[ ( iCi,. ('vcl 101"I~; l 'J:'.0 (J H' A ! I1 LI A+ 1 U '
411).48b.6 2 ::.marinconservaiionleayue.ory S ariRa at1,CA94901
by the additional grading. Before locking these design parameters for individual home sites
into conditions of approval, the impacts should be thoroughly understood. Do the impacts on
the physical environmentjustify the purported offset in visual impact?
3. The proposed house sizes, if approved, would establish a precedent for future residential
development whose design cannot be assured. Homes in nearby neighborhoods range in
size from just under 2,000 to a maxiinurn of 6,324 sq. ft., excluding the Rabin house itself.
The Alta Robles applicants may be able to assure the Town that design guidelines on this
site will reduce visibility of homes that exceed the neighborhoods' home sizes, but they
cannot offer the same assurances for other adjacent sites that are candidates for future
subdivision. As a consequence, the Town can expect 8,000 sq. ft. to become a new
"standard" for future applications on other- parcels south of Trestle Glen if Alta Robles is
approved as submitted. Not surprisingly some of these neighboring landowners fully sup-
port the Rabin proposal! Staff and Planning Commission recommendations to reduce house
sizes to between 4,500 and 6,500 sq. ft, plus garages, come closer to achieving the neighbor-
hood compatibility called for in the General Plan.
The EIR identified numerous significant impacts on special status plant species such as ser-
pentine bunchgrass and Mai-in dwarf flax, wetlands, significant ridgelines and other visual
resources, as well as on hazardous hydrologic, geologic, and traffic conditions on Paradise
Drive. The applicant's approach has been to "fix" these conditions with landslide repairs, ex-
tensive retaining walls, setbacks from special status plant populations, minor adjustments in
spacing of residences for "wildlife corridors," and by counting on design to mitigate a project
that continues to feature too many, excessively large residences. The applicant has made no
attempt to scale back the project as a means of avoiding these impacts.
The EIR also identified several significant unavoidable cumulative impacts (e.g., noise, traffic
at Trestle Glen and Tiburon Blvd. and on Hwy 101, fragmentation of wildlife habitat). While
the Town can make findings of overriding considerations in approving the Precise Devel-
opment Plan, the Town is also obligated to mitigate these unavoidable impacts to the extent
feasible.
The Planning Commission's recommendations, while not perfect in our view, come closest to
resolving (mitigating) the numerous impacts by eliminating four of the most visually intru-
sive residences, leaving a total of 10; reducing the square footage and/or height of several
residences; and by moving open space areas from private control into common open space. In
Conclusion, MCL concurs with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Susan Stompe
President
cc. Connie Cashman
Supervisor Kathrin Sears, 3rd District
ADV I,UP AIiaRoblesf [ IRPDP.US.31.201 I
Scott L. Hochstrasser
IPA, Inc.
E-Mail slhl ipa(&,,a01.C0m *42 Glen Drive, Suite B * Fairfax, CA 94930 USA * Tele(415)459-6224 * Fax 459-5810
August 31, 2011 A U G ~ 1 2011
Mayor and Council Members
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA
RE: 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 Alta
Robles - Pre-Zoning, Precise Development Plan
At the August 3, 2011 meeting your Council requested additional information on the project.
Some members of the public have commented on the completeness and accuracy of the
additional information provided to your council and I want to provide a brief response:
• Regarding the larger version of the site constraints map, a bit of history is
important. Public comments on the Draft EIR claimed that the vegetation findings
were not current and wanted the baseline studied again. Everyone knows
vegetation grows over time and this comment attempted to change the planning
baseline and resulted in a huge additional cost to the client and consumed a huge
amount of time because the studies have to be done in peak bloom season. After
new studies were prepared, the Towns independent consultant's "peer review"
found (top of P. 62 Final EIR) with regard to special-status plants species that the
new study done (2009-2010) generally confirmed the information from the 2002
to 2005 study. Regarding native grasslands, the updated study provided additional
controls for replacement in Open Space and Landslide repair areas, eradication
standards for broom removal and additional management standards for proposed
Open Space areas. Finally, the additional study found additional waters and
wetlands, all of which are proposed in Open Space. Nothing in the new study
changed the project development impacts, so none of the new findings were
mapped in the constraints map provided to your council. The commenter is
correct the map provided is the original baseline constraints map used for
planning the subdivision, it was not updated because no new findings changed the
project development impacts and the new study generally confirmed what the
original study found.
1
• Clarification of the role of the trees on the Sorokko property in providing a visual
backdrop for the house proposed on Lot 13. In addition to staff clarification of this
matter, attached please find a visual prepared by Ken Kao Design showing the
backdrop of the Sorokko trees removed.
PC Traffic Condition Recommendation #26
As staff reported, during its review of the project, the Planning Commission was concerned about
the adequacy of the site distance analysis at the intersection of the project access road and
Paradise Drive. The Commission recommended a condition of approval (No. 26), which would
require that a traffic study be performed to ascertain the average speed of vehicles near the
project entry at that point in time to determine whether the retaining walls required under
Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 would be necessary. There was no evidence presented at the PC
meeting either by the public, staff or the PC that the independent studies in the EIR were not
accurate. Accordingly, we request that the Town Council remove this condition because it simply
adds time and expense to the process.
Ridgeline 5 & 6 Qualities Don't Warrant Measureable Setbacks - Lots 8, 9, 10
Staff notes in their report that the full sized environmental constraints maps show the location of
the proposed home locations and residential use areas (RDAs) in relation to the ridgelines on the
site, but do not show the precise setbacks of homes or RUAs from the ridgelines changes were
made to setbacks because: "The General Plan does not require or recommend any specific
setback from the other significant ridgelines, such as Ridgeline 5& 6 which traverse the
subject site. "
General Plan Polices OSC -10 and OSC 12 do not set a measureable quantitative setback
standard. Rather these polices establish very subjective qualitative standards for determining two
things; one does the significant ridge line have distinguishing characteristics to warrant a setback
and two if they do what is a reasonable measurable setback that should apply.
Our design team made every effort to study the significant ridgeline characteristics and plan a
project that would comply with the subjective standards established in the General Plan policies
governing setback on significant ridges. It was understood that development setbacks from
Significant Ridgelines are based on an evaluation of the following characteristics:
1. Local and regional visual prominence,
2. Ability to connect to existing or potential open space,
3. Potential to act as a neighborhood separator,
4. Views of and views from, length, height, presence of trees,
5. Presence of unusual physical characteristics,
6. Highly visible open slopes,
7. Significant vegetation,
8. Sensitive habitat,
9. Special silhouette or back-drop features,
10. Difficulty of developing or accessing, and
2
11. Integrity of the ridgeline land form."
Based upon an analysis of these factors, the design team found that in the case of Lot #8, Lot #9,
and Lot # 101 no numerical setback from the ridgelines for the future house locations and/or
residential use areas for lots is warranted because none of the eleven factors above are
significant. Generally, the Town staff agreed with this when in their report they advised the PC
that Ridgeline 5 & 6 did not "jump off the page" and generally concluded that neither Ridgeline
5 nor 6 meet qualitative standards that warranted a measurable setback. Staff initially supported
these three lots and homes because although they are on the ridge, they incorporate design
standards that meet the purpose and intent of the governing policy and subjective standards
established in the General Plan for Significant Ridges. Common Language - More
conversational
During PC deliberations we continued to demonstrate that although the three lots in question
were on the Secondary Ridgelines, in this case given the ridgeline characteristics and policy
standards and criteria, each of the three lots with the specific house design did not warrant
measureable setbacks and in fact placing these homes on the ridgelines was less environmentally
damaging that placing homes in other locations on the site. Let's look at the facts of the proposed
development themselves;
Lot #8 - is located below the existing driveway at the very end of the Ridgeline #
6 as it is thematically mapped in the General Plan. None of the eleven criteria in
OSC 10-12 apply to the site. The house on Lot #8 is surrounded by existing
significant vegetation, the house is buried in the hillside 21 % is below grade and
59% of the lot is private open space has the ability to include a vegetative roof
similar to Lots 11 and 12. Alternative 5 visuals presented to the PC and your
Council shows that the house is virtually in-evident. Per your walk change
vegetative roof would make it in-evident. Listen to concerns and we are willing to
put a green roof on this house to make it - in-evident.
Lot #9 - is located at the flatter top of Ridgeline # 5 just below the existing Rabin
home. The site is surrounded by mature vegetation. The home would have a
vegetated roof and is stepped, terraced and its curved massing allows the building
to follow the grade. The house height is lowered to 25 ft max, 34% of the building
is below grade and 44% of the lot is proposed for private open space. Virtually
in-evident from Acacia or off -site as you may recall from your walk.
Lot #10 - this lot is tightly clustered with Lot 49 to follow the flatter portion of
Ridgeline # 5. The building is placed on an existing disturbed and graded fire road
turnaround. The building is screened from Acacia Drive by existing mature trees
and is located to the north side of the ridgeline to eliminate views from public
open space at the Middle Ridge View Point. The house has a vegetated roof,
broad overhangs and 29% of the building would be below grade. The lot would
have 55% private open space.
Working with the subjective criteria specified in the General Plan policies and given all of the
3
other development constraints on the property, and using the General Plan Land Use and Zoning
potential for up to 20 homes on this property, our team made their best design effort. The success
of the lot locations and building placements were identified in the EIR. Additional quantitative
information was presented to the PC and the Council in visuals, maps and reports. The Town's
independent consultants and your Town staff generally initially agreed that given the qualitative
and subjective analysis required by the General Plan - Ridgelines 5 & 6 were not significant
enough to warrant measurable setbacks.
Lot #13 - Visual Impact
Staff noted in their report that the PC found that Lot 13 should 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. The test here is visual
massiveness, but there is no evidence in the record to support this finding. At the August 3, 2011
one PC member noted that the view from Acacia would be further exacerbated because of the
possible eventual loss of trees on the Sorokko site, and once those trees were gone, the view. of
the house would be significant. Please see the visual attached here and presented by our design
team showing that the backdrop tree removal. Not only is there no change after tree removal,
eliminating a lot based on possible future actions by a third party on other private property are
inappropriate. Massing not square footage is the standard under the General Plan and this home
has massing less than a 5000 sq ft home, facts - 34.8% below grade and private open for this lot
is 65%.
Furthermore, the PC recommendation ignores the Towns "Borrowed View" policies in which
any view over developable private property is borrowed.
Lot #5 & #6
The PC action to reduce house sizes on these lots was guided by mitigation measure 5.8-1 in the
Draft EIR. However, in the Final EIR, after reviewing the Alternative 4 project changes, the
Town's independent EIR consultant modified mitigation measure 5.8-1 to proposing height
reductions only and dropped the 4,500 sq. ft. size reduction. The PC provided no evidence to
show residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 should be reduced in size to minimize visual impacts or
impacts on serpentine bunchgrass habitat. Actually the RDAs were modified in Alternative 4.
But the PC insisted on further modifications without any good reason. The maximum allowable
house floor area for Lots 5 and 6 would be reduced to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600
square feet for garage space, by the PC recommendation. This is supposedly done to increase
compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the
direction of General Plan Policy LU-13. But the PC did not compare house sizes with the
existing Rabin house, others they approved in the Alta Robles subdivision and/or the 8,000 sq ft
homes approved on the Sorokko property or the 5-6,000 sq ft homes on Acacia.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that shows that reducing the house sizes
improved the views or reduced visual impact. In fact the contrary is true, after the EIR was
4
recommended for certification changes to Alternative 5 included t lowering the homes (house 5
is planned at 17 ft height) and adding vegetative screening, providing green roofs and burying the
homes achieves the visual standards.
Lot #12
Staff correctly reported that the PC reduced the maximum allowable floor area for Lot 12 would
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 which states massing is the standard not square footage,
this house is 49% below grade Finally, there is no evidence to show that the house size reduction
reduced visibility and the story pole remain at five feet above grade.
Private Open Space to Common Open Space
The PC recommendation would require private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2,
4 & 7, across the roadway from the residential use areas, to 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 General Plan requires 50% open space. The
proposed plan has 76% open space, the PC action reduced lot sizes to 1/2 the size of the others the
approved resulting in a subdivision with incomparable and incompatible lot sizes by this action.
So on the one hand the PC recommendations seek to bring the project into consistency with
surrounding neighborhoods, but on the other hand their recommendation would cause significant
inconsistencies in lot sizes within the Alta Robles project. Does not improve GP consistency and
makes the lots less saleable.
Summary and Conclusion
Many of the PC recommendations were not based on facts or evidence. They cut lots and house
sizes just to make cuts. This is obvious when you try and work though a logical and reasonable
set of facts and findings to support their recommendations. It is strongly recommended that the
Town Council not use the PC recommendations as a starting point for deliberations for the
reasons stated above. Rather, on behalf of my clients and our design team, I would respectfully
request that the Town Council decide tonight based on the facts of the case, the details of the
presentations, maps, drawings, plans, EIR and reports previously submitted. The Town is
required to balance all of the General Plan policy goals, objectives, policies and programs. What
the PC did was to use a very few policies to support their decision, they relied on subjective
interpretations, and public misinformation and they ignored many of the facts because they were
overwhelmed by the specificity and details.
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of the facts and details of this project, I
continue to look forward to working with each member of the council to answer questions and
provide information that facilitates a fair and defensible decision.
5
Sincerely,
Scott L. Hochtrasser
CC: Rabin Family, Clients
Riley Hurd, Attorney
Attachment - Kao Visual - Sorokko Trees
ysti
4
.i"
t
r
,
O
ae
~a x
N
t
x ;
"xt
si
yyyy.~
y
3n
~
-d
Tt
r _ .
,
,
y
'AA
LATE MAIL # PN~I
TO: Tiburon Town Council
FROM: Randy Greenberg
DATE: August 30, 2011
RE: Alta Robes 8/31 /11 Council Hearing
AUG 3 0 2011
I have now had the opportunity to look at the Staff Report and the revised applicant materials
submitted this past week and make the following suggestions for your consideration:
1 S
1. In its grading assessment, the DEIR addresses grading for landslides, infrastructure and
building pads. I am unclear if the current plan creates building pads as part of its slide repair/
infrastructure installation. Slide repair will be done in areas where houses are sited, and it
might seem a good idea to create the pads at this time. Since significant areas of houses are
proposed below grade, creating building pads at this early stage will create what can only be
characterized as "huge holes" on and directly along Ridgelines 5 & 6. Such holes could sit on
the parcel for many years into the future until houses are built, creating visual impacts that are
undetermined, but surely significant.
I would like to recommend a new condition in the Resolution to say:
Slide repairlinfrastructure installation may not include the creation of building pads. Building
pads will be considered only as part of design review applications for house construction.
Slide repair work will restore the natural contours of the land to the extent feasible.
2. Staff has suggested the possibility of moving Lot 8 to the west, into the buffer area above
mapped wetlands. Such a move is likely to have unintended consequences. House
construction, cistern installation and modified slide repair at the new house site have the
potential to alter above and below ground water flow which sustains this wetland.
I urge you not to make project changes "on the fly" without fully researching associated
impacts. I note the applicant has long been aware of concerns re lot 8, as well as other lots.
However, with the exception of moving lot 4 out of the Tiburon Ridge required setback, he has
essentially kept house locations as originally proposed. If there were satisfactory alternate
locations, one would expect he would have taken advantage of them.
Unless you feel fully competent to redesign this subdivision, I ask you to eliminate
unacceptable units, rather than put them where the applicant and his experts have chosen not to
place them.
3. I support Eva Buxton's repeated comments (last in 8/29/11 email to the Council) on
inaccuracies in the applicant provided constraints mapping. Ms. Buxton is a respected botanist
and her comments should not be ignored. By their very nature, sensitive plant populations
move over time. This is why buffers are generally required - to give them room to expand and
contract. It would be unusual for these habitat areas to remain static year after year. I
understand one population of Marin dwarf flax has expanded and is now closer to Lot 13,
within its private open space, and a population on Lot 8 is not mapped at all. Since the Council
has updated information, it should use it in its decision making. Where sensitive habitat is
located on private lots, lot lines should be moved to exclude it and, to the extent feasible, a
buffer area provided outside lot lines.
LATE MAIL # fk4ftl
Tiburon, August 29, 2011
Tiburon Town Council -
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon CA 94920 AUG 0 2011
Subject: Alta Robles Residential Development Project
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I am reiterating in this comment what I have pointed out to the Planning Commission and
the Council for several months! As I am apparently the only biologist/botanist with an
interest in the Alta Robles project, I have had no support for my constant reminder that the
maps provided by LSA in 2010 of the sensitive natural resources on the project site (Fig. 4,
Native Grasslands; Fig. 6, Special-status species) are not being used as basemaps for the
development plan. Instead an "old" map with inadequately mapped sensitive resources is
being used time and time again (for all the alternatives), even though the applicant's
consultants are aware of the existence of updated maps. Consequently, sensitive resources
protected under the Tiburon General Plan (GP OSC-26), Marin Countywide Plan (CWP
Bio-1.1), and CEQA are NOT being adequately protected, i. e., attempts at avoidance or the
minimizing of impacts is NOT being considered in some instances. I specifically refer to
the serpentine and other native grasslands - sensitive communities and habitat for the
federally- and State-listed Marin dwarf flax and other special-status species - present on the
"knoll" with Lots 11 and 12, as well as Lot 13. This knoll shows no vegetation mapping by
the applicant, except for a very small polygon of native grassland.
At the August 3 hearing, Council member Collins and Mayor Slavitz requested a set of full-
sized maps showing the environmental constraints of the site with houses and lots
superimposed. Such maps were supplied by the applicant on August 18 (KAO design
group, Alternative #5, Open Spaces + Resources Constraints map; Resources Constraints
map). To my great dismay, the "constraints map" is not the updated version showing the
recent survey results produced by LSA (2010), but instead the old map with the inadequate
mapping is used again.
The maps from the Precise Development Plan (SP-30 (March 1, 2007) with revisions, SP-
30B (through March 28, 2011) have been enlarged to the point where the colors in the
legend do not correspond to the colors on the map. For ex., the color for occurrences of
Marin Dwarf Flax looks the same as that for Active Landslide. Because only colors (one
exception) are used instead of "screens", it is impossible to determine what the different
polygons indicate. Where two colors overlap, the map is illegible; for ex., the polygons for
Marin dwarf flax on Lots 9 and 13 is an indefinable color that is in no way conspicuous to
the viewer, thus does not convey the significance of the occurrences of a species listed under
the federal and the California Endangered Species Act(-s). The same is true for the
serpentine grassland between Lots 5 and 6 and the Middle Ridge Open space parcel.
Conclusion
The enlarged constraints maps, submitted on August 18, 2011:
• do NOT show the botanical resources present on the site, as mapped by LSA in 2010
o for Marin dwarf flax (additional colonies and different spatial distributions);
o for serpentine grassland (specifically knoll with Lots 11, 12 and 13);
• are illegible
o due to the use of colors that do not match the colors in the legend;
o when two colors are overlaid, as neither color matches the one in the legend;
• fail to show the 2010 results of sensitive botanical resources, therefore,
• CEQA's requirement that an alternative
o "avoids or substantially lessens any significant effects of the project;"
• Town of Tiburon's General Policy OSC-26 requirement that
o "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," and;
• Marin County's, Marin Countywide Plan (CWP Bio-1.1) requirement to
o "Protect habitat for special-status species, sensitive
communities through careful environmental review of proposed
development applications...."
have never been adequately considered in the development of project
alternatives.
In addition to accepting the Planning Commission's recommendations to eliminate some
lots, including Lots 8 and 13,1 urge the Council to require that Lots 11 and 12 be eliminated
or, at the very least, be much reduced in size.
Thank you for the opportunity to again comment on this project.
Sincerely,
Eva Buxton
Botanist
Tiburon resident and Conservation Chair for
California Native Plant Society, Marin Chapter
Page 1 of 1
Dan W81OUS LATE MAIL
From:
Mark H Goldstein [mgoldstein@gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, August 29, 2011 4:20 PM
To:
Dan Watrous; Connie Cashman
AUG 2 J 2011
Subject: Ecotopia
Can you pleasure forward this to the Town Council in advance of their 8/31 Alta Robles
hearing.
I'm sure many in Council remember the book by Ernest Callenbach in 1975. It describes a
Northern Californian society that lived in wet suits and grass roofed homes. While much of the
book did become true--I do spend an 90 minutes a day in a wet suit, much of it did not.
Likewise, the Utopian vision sculpted by Team Rabins is ridiculous.
The green homes specified by Rabins are wonderful BUT I had a chance to meet with two
contractor/developers to price them out. Post-infrastructure, profit and build costs, they
estimated they are specifying building $10 million cookie-cutter home community,
As a Paradise Drive resident and woefully familiar with real estate market and buyer demand, I
can make a definite statement. There is no market for a pre-built green home development of
$ l OM houses on the upper backside hill off Paradise Drive. Today there is barley any demand
for $3 million dollar homes. Wealthy home buyers either seek a'deal' or will only custom build
THEIR idea of a dream house, not somebody else's.
If Town Council chooses to approve the project in any form, which would be the LARGEST
PROJECT EVER built on Paradise Drive in Tiburon and undoubtedly will require a widening of
the Trestle Glen to the site amongst other County investments, PLEASE make Rabins' legal
council live up to his word and promise these are the homes that will be built AND specify a
tight window of construction and require a $20 million not refundable escrow payment in the
event the timetable and/or the specified homes are not constructed per plan.
I choose to live on the backside of Paradise Drive because it is slightly more rural the spectre
of 15 years or construction of a massive 14 jumbo home spec community across the street wasn't
ever what I felt Tiburon might consider approving especially given the TIburon Ridgeline
proclamation and vote just a few years back.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope Town Council makes the right decision on the 31 st.
Mark H Goldstein
3650 Paradise Drive, Tiburon
8/29/2011
Alta Robles Page 1 of 1
LATE MAIL #?How
Dan Watrous
From: Judith Thompson Dat@thompsonbrooks.com] AUG 2 3 2011
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell; askalicenow@usa.net; rctib2@gmail.comMayor, Jeff Slavitz;
Vice Mayor, Jim Fraser; Dan Watrous
Cc: Valerie Von Burg; Cynthia Brooks; bklavert@yahoo.com; pmsiewert@sbcglobal.net; Scott
Anderson
Subject: Alta Robles
Attachments: 139 Hacienda Survey.pdf
Dear Tiburon Council: I live at 139 Hacienda Drive. I am writing because I keep
reading about how the Tiburon Ridge Trail will be completed by the new path going
across the Rabin Land if the Alta Robles Project passes. Despite numerous letters to
the Planning Department and the Town Attorney, I feel that the issue of how people will
access this new trail is unclear to me and my questions have not been answered. I
think if you view the attached map, the problem will become clear to you. If the path is
built as described in the Alta Robles proposal, there will be no legal way for hikers to
access the path. The only alternative will be to walk across my property an;d the
property of my neighbor at 137. The town attorney told me they would deal with this
later, however, my feeling is that if the path is approved as is it will force people to
access it by crossing my property and I will be forced to sue the town to remove the
trail head and trail signage until the issue is resolved (just as the Waynes did).
If you take a look at the map you will see that the pink part of Hacienda is on the
easement, which was deeded to Tiburon from the Waynes. The roadway (known as
Hacienda) exits the easement and enters the private land (yellow) of 137 and then into
my property at 139. Between the two pink areas on the easement, is a very steep
gully, which would require a bridge to go across. The roadway does not re-enter the
easement in order to access the new path until it is almost at the pillars. So my
question is how does the town intend to get people from one pink area to the other pink
area without crossing my property? The yellow striped area, below the mailboxes, is
also on our private land. Are they intending to build a bridge? I have asked this
question again and again, with no response. The Town has written in meeting minutes,
in the Ark, and in its reports that the new path on the Rabin property will complete the
Tiburon Trail at last! The Town previously announced the public trail was located on
private property and had to enter into litigation with the Waynes over this exact issue, ,
so I find it unbelievable that they would go through it again. It's a waste of Town
resources. And I think it is disingenuous to announce a completion of the Tiburon Trail
when referring to the benefits of the Alta Robles project. I think the public deserves to
know that the Trail will still be incomplete once this project is passed.
Warm Regards, Judith
Judith Thompson, President and CEO
THOMPSON BROOKS INC.
A proud member of:
U.S. Green Building Council &
Build it Green
Direct Line: 415-581-2620
http : //www.thompsonbrooks.com
8/29/2011
,a
Q)
12+59.60 ~
te
rr
V
f
7
,
9.961 '
, Woof & i-BEAN+
FtETA
lNiNG 'lJAEL j ~ .
f
13+00
P
Fl
PIN,
WATER
METER
0" PlINE
WOOD
LANDS OF KLAVER-
137 HACIENDA DRI'
A.P. 039-121-13
z
n
a~
~J 4-V GU A to R ~
R AIL
y r
v
e= WATER
?
vlr
r-
TL
r
C)
co
(IV 0) ,t .
co
v14
GARAGE
LANDS OF
139 H ACI E
A.P. 039-
Page 1 of 1
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 20114:37 PM
To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council)
Cc: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Ann Danforth; Diane Crane lacopi
Subject: FW: Alta Robles Letter for TC Tonight
Attachments: 8-31-11_TC_-_Mtg_Final.doc; Kao Sorokko Visual.jpg
As he says below, VERY late mail...
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415),435-7393
E C E ~ W E I
SEP 2020';1
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
From: IPA, Inc. [mailto:slhlipa@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 20114:22 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Cc: kkao@kaodesign.com; david@redhorseconstructors.com; ACornwell@cswst2.com; RobinW@cswst2.com;
ariel.rabin@rabin.com; danielrabin@rabin.com; shira.weissman@rabin.com; slhlipa@aol.com;
nancy@redhorseconstructors.com
Subject: Alta Robles Letter for TC Tonight
Dan,
Attached please find the project applicants letter for tonights meeting. I realize this is very Late Mail and
appreciate your assistance getting it to the TC.
Sincerely,
Scott L. Hochstrasser, President
IPA,Inc. (International Planning Associates)
42 Glen Drive, Suite B
Fairfax, California 94930
Office (415)459-6224
Fax (415)459-5810
Cell 415-572-2777
r ,
vU a ~ C f
9/20/2011
Page 1 of 3
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:58 AM
To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council)
Cc: Peggy Curran; Ann Danforth; Scott Anderson; Diane Crane lacopi; 'IPA, Inc.'; 'Riley F. Hurd'
Subject: FW: "Alta Robles" Final EIR and Precise Development Plan
Attachments: ADV_LUP_AltaRoblesFEIRPDP.08.31.2011.pdf
More Alta Robles late mail...
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
From: MCL [mailto:mcl@marinconservationleague.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:28 AM
To: Dan Watrous
Cc: ksears@co.marin.ca.us; Connie Cashman
Subject: "Alta Robles" Final EIR and Precise Development Plan
NS R ft t
. I. I X3 t1
August 31, 2011
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, California
SEP 2 0 2011
TOWN CLERK
MOWN OF TIBURON
By e-mail: dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us; please forward e-mail to Town Council Members
Re: "Alta Robles" Final Environmental Impact Report and Precise Development Plan
Dear Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to support a substantially reduced Alta Robles project in both number and size of
residences, for consideration on August 31, 2011. Marin Conservation League continues to believe that the
project as proposed is excessive for a highly constrained site and, if approved by the Council, will set a precedent
for the future development of lands adjacent to the site and along Paradise Drive. The Planning Commission's
recommendations of April 13, 2011, come closest to reconfiguring the project to conform to policies in the
Tiburon General Plan and to mitigate significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR.
The applicants have invested heavily in a design program intended to mitigate visual impacts of 7,000 to
almost 8,000 square-foot homes that encroach into significant ridgelines. According to draft conditions
submitted by the applicant's attorney, the approval of the Precise Development Plan would be based on
requiring future applications to conform to home designs that "greatly reduce reduce visual impact and preserve
9/20/2011
Page 2 of 3
natural landforms." We take issue with this proposed condition on three points:
1. The project as designed may reduce visual impact but it does not preserve natural landforms as claimed.
According to our understanding of recent calculations, a total of about 64,000 cubic yards of cut and
equivalent fill would be required just for lot and road preparation, including repair of 18 landslides. On
this basis alone, the development proposal certainly does not preserve natural landforms, nor does
siting excessively large individual residences partially below grade accomplish this objective.
The EIR did not analyze the impacts of excavation for siting residences below grade.
For the project as currently presented - and as would be required for future individual applications -
cuts amounting to 17,028 cubic yards have been estimated recently. Underground cuts would range
from 14 percent to 57 percent each for individual home sites (building "pads"). Because the EIR
assumed conceptual home design only, grading for each home was not analyzed. Partially burying the
homes might be a creative means "to reduce visual impact and preserve natural landforms"; however,
the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the excavations on hydrology and water quality,
geology and soils, possibly transportation, and noise have not been analyzed. For example, according to
the EIR, noise is already a significant unavoidable impact of the project. This impact will be exacerbated
by the additional grading. Before locking these design parameters for individual home sites into
conditions of approval, the impacts should be thoroughly understood. Do the impacts on the physical
environment justify the purported offset in visual impact?
3. The proposed house sizes, if approved, would establish a precedent for future residential development
whose design cannot be assured. Homes in nearby neighborhoods range in size from just under 2,000 to
a maximum of 6,324 sq. ft., excluding the Rabin house itself. The Alta Robles applicants may be able to
assure the Town that design guidelines on this site will reduce visibility of homes that exceed the
neighborhoods' home sizes, but they cannot offer the same assurances for other adjacent sites that are
candidates for future subdivision. As a consequence, the Town can expect 8,000 sq. ft. to become a
new "standard" for future applications on other parcels south of Trestle Glen if Alta Robles is approved
as submitted. Not surprisingly some of these neighboring landowners fully support the Rabin proposal!
Staff and Planning Commission recommendations to reduce house sizes to between 4,500 and 6,500 sq.
ft, plus garages, come closer to achieving the neighborhood compatibility called for in the General Plan.
The EIR identified numerous significant impacts on special status plant species such as serpentine bunchgrass
and Marin dwarf flax, wetlands, significant ridgelines and other visual resources, as well as on hazardous
hydrologic, geologic, and traffic conditions on Paradise Drive. The applicant's approach has been to "fix" these
conditions with landslide repairs, extensive retaining walls, setbacks from special status plant populations, minor
adjustments in spacing of residences for "wildlife corridors," and by counting on design to mitigate a project that
continues to feature too many, excessively large residences. The applicant has made no attempt to scale back
the project as a means of avoiding these impacts.
The EIR also identified several significant unavoidable cumulative impacts (e.g., noise, traffic at Trestle Glen and
Tiburon Blvd. and on Hwy 101, fragmentation of wildlife habitat). While the Town can make findings of
overriding considerations in approving the Precise Development Plan, the Town is also obligated to mitigate
these unavoidable impacts to the extent feasible.
The Planning Commission's recommendations, while not perfect in our view, come closest to resolving
(mitigating) the numerous impacts by eliminating four of the most visually intrusive residences, leaving a total of
10; reducing the square footage and/or height of several residences; and by moving open space areas from
private control into common open space. In conclusion, MCL concurs with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission.
9/20/2011
Page 3 of 3
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Susan Stompe
President
Marin Conservation League
1623-A Fifth Ave.
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-485-6257
9/20/2011
Page 1 of 1
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:43 AM
To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council)
Cc: Peggy Curran, Diane Crane lacopi L~ lU1 u
Subject: FW: Alta Robles SE-P 2 0 2011
..More Alta Robles late mail... TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
From: A L [mailto:3636pd@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 20115:57 PM
To: Dan Watrous; Connie Cashman
Subject: Alta Robles
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you regarding the Alta Robles project.
We are absolutely astonished that the project has got this far and a public hearing is necessary for
something so obviously wrong.
It is clear that the project will do nothing to enhance the quality of living for the residents of Paradise Dr
nor for the town of Tiburon itself.
What's more, the impact of the project is so detrimental to every imaginable aspect (environmental,
traffic, noise etc.) that we feel that the only responsible and prudent way forward is to reject it
altogether..
We have read many messages from other residents and will not repeat points already made. There are,
however, other aspects to think about.
We have bought our house on Paradise Dr in 2008 after a careful consideration and out of many other
possible candidates in other places nearby and I can ensure you that we would not have bought this
place if the project had been approved and went ahead at that time. We are also certain that there will be
a significant negative effect on property prices on Paradise Dr for the entire duration of the project so it
shouldn't be a huge surprise if there were legal challenges from the existing residents should you decide
to approve the project.
We do realize that there might be a counter-challenge from the people behind the Alta Robles project
but we urge you to carefully consider the will of many existing residents of Paradise Dr who, like us, are
not happy with the project and determent to fight it
Alex & Sandy Lukianchikov
3636 Paridise Dr
9/20/2011
Page 1 of 1
Diane Crane lacopi
From:
Dan Watrous
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:34 AM
To:
alITC (Tiburon Town Council)
Cc:
Peggy Curran; Diane Crane lacopi
Subject:
FW:Alta Robles late mail
Attachments: letter to town council aug 29 2011.doc
and one more for Alta Robles...
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
From: Eva Buxton [mailto:evabuxton@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:14 AM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: comment letter to the Council
Hi Dan,
E
C E ~ V E
SEEP Z O 2011
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
Please forward the attached comment letter to the Council members before tomorrow's hearing on the
Alta Robles project.
Thank you.
Eva Buxton
9/20/2011
Page 1 of 1
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:38 PM
To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council)
Cc: Peggy Curran; Diane Crane lacopi; Ann Danforth; slh1 ipa@aol.com; 'Riley F. Hurd'
Subject: FW: Alta Robles Council comment letter
Attachments: alta robles.council email.8.31.11.docx
One more late mail item...
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
From: Randy Greenberg [mailto:rgreenbergll@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 20112:28 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Cc: Connie Cashman
Subject: Alta Robles Council comment letter
Dan/Connie - Would you please forward the attached memo to the Council regarding the Alta Robles
applicantion?
Thank you.
Randy
Randy Greenberg D E C E ~ U E
rgreenbergll@gmail.com u
415-435-2769
SEP 2 0 2011
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
9/20/2011
Page 1 of 1
Diane Crane lacopi
From:
Dan Watrous
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:44 AM
To:
alITC (Tiburon Town Council)
Cc:
Peggy Curran; Diane Crane lacopi
Subject: FW: Alta Robles
More Alta Robles late mail...
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
From: Sandra Swanson [mailto:swanson.sandra548@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 20119:17 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: Alta Robles
Dan,
We have read and passed along the exhaustive staff report on the proposed Alta Robles project.
Thank you from the 30 households of Seafirth for your most conscientious work. We have no further
comments on the development. We trust your report and believe that the Town Council will enforce
the 2020 Tiburon General Plan. We simply want to extend our high praises to you and your staff.
Thank you. SJS
Best,
Sandra J. Swanson
415.435.9565
I E 0 E ~ V E
SEP 2 0 2011
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
9/20/2011
Alta Robles
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Diane Crane lacopi; Peggy Curran; Ann Danforth
Subject: FW: Alta Robles
Attachments: 139 Hacienda Survey.pdf
Late mail for Alta Robles. Ms. Thompson sent it to all TC members.
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
Page 1 of 2
I E C E ~ WE ,
SEP 2 0 2011
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
From: Judith Thompson [mailto:jat@thompsonbrooks.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell; askalicenow@usa.net; rctib2@gmail.com; Mayor, Jeff Slavitz; Vice Mayor,
Jim Fraser; Dan Watrous
Cc: Valerie Von Burg; Cynthia Brooks; bklavert@yahoo.com; pmsiewert@sbcglobal.net; Scott Anderson
Subject: Alta Robles
Dear Tiburon Council: I live at 139 Hacienda Drive. I am writing because I keep reading
about how the Tiburon Ridge Trail will be completed by the new path going across the Rabin
Land if the Alta Robles Project passes. Despite numerous letters to the Planning Department
and the Town Attorney, I feel that the issue of how people will access this new trail is unclear
to me and my questions have not been answered. I think if you view the attached map, the
problem will become clear to you. If the path is built as described in the Alta Robles proposal,
there will be no legal way for hikers to access the path. The only alternative will be to walk
across my property and the property of my neighbor at 137. The town attorney told me they
would deal with this later, however, my feeling is that if the path is approved as is it will force
people to access it by crossing my property and I will be forced to sue the town to remove the
trail head and trail signage until the issue is resolved (just as the Waynes did).
If you take a look at the map you will see that the pink part of Hacienda is on the easement,
which was deeded to Tiburon from the Waynes. The roadway (known as Hacienda) exits the
easement and enters the private land (yellow) of 137 and then into my property at 139.
Between the two pink areas on the easement, is a very steep gully, which would require a
bridge to go across. The roadway does not re-enter the easement in order to access the new
path until it is almost at the pillars. So my question is how does the town intend to get people
from one pink area to the other pink area without crossing my property? The yellow striped
area, below the mailboxes, is also on our private land. Are they intending to build a bridge? I
have asked this question again and again, with no response. The Town has written in meeting
minutes, in the Ark, and in its reports that the new path on the Rabin property will complete
the Tiburon Trail at last! The Town previously announced the public trail was located on
private property and had to enter into litigation with the Waynes over this exact issue, , so I
find it unbelievable that they would go through it again. It's a waste of Town resources. And
I think it is disingenuous to announce a completion of the Tiburon Trail when referring to the
benefits of the Alta Robles project. I think the public deserves to know that the Trail will still
be incomplete once this project is passed.
9/20/2011
Alta Robles
Warm Regards, Judith
Judith Thompson, President and CEO
THOMPSON BROOKS INC.
A proud member of:
U.S. Green Building Council &
Build it Green
Direct Line: 415-581-2620
http://www.thompsonbrooks.com
Page 2 of 2
9/20/2011
Page 1 of 1
i
Dan Watrous LATE MAIL ~PHaw(
From: A L [3636pd@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 5:57 PM
To: Dan Watrous; Connie Cashman p Js
Subject: Alta Robles
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you regarding the Alta Robles project.
We are absolutely astonished that the project has got this far and a public hearing is necessary for
something so obviously wrong.
It is clear that the project will do nothing to enhance the quality of living for the residents of
Paradise Dr nor for the town of Tiburon itself.
What's more, the impact of the project is so detrimental to every imaginable aspect
(environmental, traffic, noise etc.) that we feel that the only responsible and prudent way forward
is to reject it altogether..
We have read many messages from other residents and will not repeat points already made.
There are, however, other aspects to think about.
We have bought our house on Paradise Dr in 2008 after a careful consideration and out of many
other possible candidates in other places nearby and I can ensure you that we would not have
bought this place if the project had been approved and went ahead at that time. We are also
certain that there will be a significant negative effect on property prices on Paradise Dr for the
entire duration of the project so it shouldn't be a huge surprise if there were legal challenges from
the existing residents should you decide to approve the project.
We do realize that there might be a counter-challenge from the people behind the Alta Robles
project but we urge you to carefully consider the will of many existing residents of Paradise Dr
who, like us, are not happy with the project and determent to fight it
Alex & Sandy Lukianchikov
3636 Paridise Dr
8/30/2011
Page 1 of 1
Dan „,a„oug LATE MAIL #-TVft-
From: Sandra Swanson [swanson.sandra548@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 9:17 PM
To: Dan Watrous - i
Subject: Alta Robles
Dan,
We have read and passed along the exhaustive staff report on the proposed Alta Robles project.
Thank you from the 30 households of Seafirth for your most conscientious work. We have no
further
comments on the development. We trust your report and believe that the Town Council will
enforce
the 2020 Tiburon General Plan. We simply want to extend our high praises to you and your
staff.
Thank you. SJS
Best,
Sandra J. Swanson
415.435.9565
8/30/2011