Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2011-11-16TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon. Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Council November 16, 2011 Meeting time - 7:30 p.m. Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Interviews - 7:00 p.m. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION - (6:30 p.m.) Section 54956.9(c) Decision whether to initiate litigation - One Claim INTERVIEWS - (7:00 p.m.) (Planning Commission Vacancy - one pending vacancy) • Rick Waterman, 36 Southridge West • Patrick McNerney, 1691 Mar West • Kam Shadan, 38 Reed Ranch Road CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Fraser, Mayor Slavitz ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY RAL 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. PRESENTATIONS 0 Sanitary District No. 5 Update - Board President Corinne Wiley CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of November 2, 2011 Regular Meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) ACTION ITEMS 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 - Item continued without discussion from November 2, 2011 2, CAPERS Side Funds - Consider recommendation to retire both the Local Safety and Miscellaneous Employee's Side Funds (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - November 4, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest - November 11, 2011 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. C~7-, / TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Slavitz ed the regular ting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesd , November 2, 20115 i Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, Cali rnia. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Captain Hutton, Planning Manager Watrous, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, the Council met in closed session, beginning at 6:45 p.m., to discuss the following: CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Section 54957) Title: Town Manager ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY Mayor Slavitz said that Council had received a threat of litigation from the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition and had voted unanimously to place the threat on the closed session agenda as an urgency item. He said that no further action was taken in closed session. ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS None. DRAFT own Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 1 PRESENTATIONS • Police Officer Jerry Wachowiak - Recognition for 25 years of distinguished service to the Town of Tiburon • Police Sgt. Mike Mourgos - Recognition for 25 years of distinguished service to the Town of Tiburon upon the occasion of his retirement Chief Cronin gave the opening remarks about both officers and noted that they had both spent their entire career in public service. He commended them for their distinguished service to the Town of Tiburon and listed the many ways they had contributed to the community during their 25 years. Mayor Slavitz read Officer Wachowiak's resolution and presented it to him. Town Manager Curran read Sergeant Mourgos' resolution and, along with her personal thanks, she commended him for his dedication to the department and to the Town. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of October 19, 2011 Regular Meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for September 2011 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 3. Citizen of the Year - Adopt resolution commending Georgia Kirchmaier upon her selection as the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce 2011 Citizen of the Year (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 4. Employee 25'1' Year Anniversary -Adopt resolution recognizing Police Officer Jerry Wachowiak on his 25th anniversary of service to the Town of Tiburon (Police Chief Cronin) 5. Employee Retirement - Adopt resolution recognizing Sergeant Mike Mourgos for 25 years of distinguished service to the Town of Tiburon (Police Chief Cronin) 6. Bay Trail Gap Closure - Authorize selection of Alta Planning & Design and approve service agreement for preparation of Bay Trail Gap Closure Study (Planning Manager Watrous) 7. Sign Policy Amendments - Adopt resolution rescinding and adopting a policy regarding signs on Town-owned property (Director of Community Development Anderson) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 2 Councilmembers Collins, Fraser and O'Donnell submitted revisions to the October 19 minutes (Item No. 1). MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 7, as amended. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project - 1501 and 1505 Tiburon Boulevard; Consider Applications for General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Amendments to the Point Tiburon Master Plan and Point Tiburon Precise Plan and Take Related Actions Associated with a Proposed 17,000 Square Foot Addition to the Existing Library Facility (Director of Community Development Anderson) - Public Hearing Closed: Consider Adoption of Three Resolutions and Three ordinances related to the Project Director of Community Development Anderson gave the report which summarized the direction of the Council at the last meeting. He said that a majority of the Councilmembers had expressed a preference for the proposed plan (Civic Connection Concept with Refined Alternate D site layout) to the other options analyzed. In addition, the Director said that the Council had unanimously determined that, at this point in time, the most prudent course of action was to declare the visual impact of the project on views of the Tiburon Ridge from Tiburon Boulevard to be a remaining significant impact. He noted that staff was directed to find the impact to be "significant and unavoidable" and to include it in the CEQA findings of fact, and to prepare a statement of overriding considerations for Council adoption. With regard to concerns about impact on wetlands, Anderson said that the Town Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation that a text amendment to Policy OSC-20 was unnecessary, and directed staff to draft the General Plan amendment resolution accordingly. With regard to the scale of the expansion and consistency with Town policies, Director Anderson said that the Council had provided a range of opinions regarding potential design and architectural changes to the building. He said that a majority of the Council appeared to favor, at a minimum, reduction in the visual impression of "excessive mass, bulk and scale" 'of the building as viewed from Tiburon Boulevard. He said that such a reduction would not necessarily require, but would not preclude, square footage reductions prior to approval of detailed site plan and architectural drawings by the Council, and that a majority of the Council indicated its desire that these changes also ameliorate the impact of view loss of the Tiburon Ridge from Tiburon Boulevard. He said that a new Condition No. 1 of Exhibit 2 (General Plan Amendment resolution) had been added to address this issue. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 3 Finally, the Director said that in its discussion of parking and circulation issues, a majority of the Council indicated that two issues 1) adequacy (or convenience) of parking and 2) circulation issues involving Tiburon Boulevard/Mar West intersection ---both needed attention. He noted that an additional condition of approval regarding parking had been prepared subsequent to the distribution of the staff report. He said the condition called for the creation or funding of additional parking for Town Hall and Library visitors prior to issuance of a building pen-nit for the Library expansion. Director Anderson recommended that the Council continue its discussion and consider adoption of the resolutions and ordinances at this meeting, or, if necessary, continue the item to a date certain. Anderson said that in anticipation of the approvals, staff had initiated processing of the streamlining and exemption ordinance for any future Town of Tiburon land use entitlements associated with the Library expansion project. He said that the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft streamlining ordinance on November 9, 2011 and that the ordinance could appear before the Town Council as early as December 7. He said that if the ordinance is adopted, the Council would begin its deliberations as a design review board sometime after the New Year. Vice Mayor Fraser stated that at the prior meeting the Council's remarks had lacked specificity, and that he did not think consensus had been reached on the issues as a result. Fraser said the two biggest outstanding issues-view impacts and mass and bulk-still needed to be addressed. He said that he recalled the direction of the Council was for staff to prepare a revised summary of overriding considerations for Council's review, rather than adoption, at this meeting. He also said that the statement that bulk and mass "might not preclude square footage reductions" did not entirely capture the direction of the Council. The Vice Mayor noted that Councilmember O'Donnell had suggested a percentage square foot reduction, and that the Vice Mayor had referenced the Planning Commission discussion of a 10-15% square footage reduction. Councilmember Collins likewise stated that he did not have the impression that a majority opinion had been formed by the Council on how to address these issues. He said that even if a majority of the Council favored the mitigation of view loss and a reduction of mass and bulk, he said the Library needed more specific direction as a matter of fairness. Councilmember Fredericks agreed that closure had not been reached at the October 19 meeting. For instance, she said that the Council did not reach consensus on the matter of possible square footage reduction of the project and more importantly, had not agreed to place any specific requirements on the Library. She said it now had an opportunity to discuss these issues further. Mayor Slavitz said that the Council would review the issues, one by one. He first asked about the parking issue. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 4 Director Anderson said that at the prior meeting, four Councilmember had expressed concerns about visitor parking and the proximity of parking spaces to Town Hall; he said the mitigation measures in the EIR addressed staff parking adequately, and concluded that parking would not be an adverse impact with mitigation, but the Council had expressed continued concern about convenient visitor parking. In response, staff developed a specific condition of approval aimed establishing additional Town Hall and Library visitor parking in some nearby, convenient location. He said this parking would be based on a ratio set at half of the parking ratio for typical Library use. He said that the reduced ratio excluded the need for Library employee parking, which was adequate, and that the ratio was lower than that which would be applied to an entirely new Library building, in that while some increased use was- anticipated, it was less than if the Library itself were an entirely new use. He said the ratio used in the condition of approval equated to 17 spaces for a 17,000 square foot addition, to 15 spaces for a 15,000 square foot addition, and so forth, based on having one parking space per each 1,000 square feet of library space added. Glenn Isaacson, volunteer Project Manager for the Library, referenced a letter from the Library Agency dated October 19 to the Town Council. He said this letter had asked that the Council not to concentrate on specific details of the project which would be reviewed later during the design review portion of the process. He said that the Council had honored this request and that the Chair said the Council's general direction was well received and would be utilized in the design of the Library project as it moves forward. With regard to parking, Mr. Isaacson said that the Library had received the latest proposed condition and said that if the Library was to partner with the Town in a bilateral fashion to achieve the result, the Library Agency would be amendable to this proposed condition. Mayor Slavitz pointed out that the condition was not bilateral, as written. Director Anderson said that this would not preclude the Town from working together with the Library Agency on this issue. Mayor Slavitz asked Mr. Isaacson if he meant the Town would participate financially. Mr. Isaacson replied "in all ways," and said that the Library controls only its parcel and could not solve the issue alone. Following discussion, the Town Council acknowledged that the Town would work cooperatively with the Library to meet the parking condition, especially for the creation of on-street parking spaces. Councilmember Collins asked whether the timing of construction of the queue (left-turn lane) improvements needed to be specified in a condition of approval. Director Anderson responded that the mitigation measure already required this improvement to be completed prior to occupancy of the new addition. Councilmember Collins moved on to a discussion of view loss. He said that while it was difficult to arrive at a percentage number for acceptable view loss, his opinion was that it should be "none or almost none." He said that as a result, square footage reduction might play a greater role in DRAFT Tovim Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 5 achieving an acceptable expansion project. He said that he did not agree with the 60% loss figure generated by staff, and that the view begins farther up the Boulevard and is broader than 120 feet. He suggested that the Library be directed to not exceed a certain percentage of view loss in its design process. With regard to open space policies, Collins said that the Town had very clear open space goals and policies to follow. Collins said that with regard to parking, he was troubled by the fact that there was no study to correlate the number of parking spaces with square footage. He said that some sort of study would help everyone concerned understand the issue and arrive at a solution. He said the conditions as written were too vague. Councilmember Fredericks agreed that it was difficult, if not virtually impossible, to quantify the view loss of the Tiburon Ridge. She said that the 60% figure reflected a view from a specific vantage point; she said that the best view of the open space was actually seen from across the street from the project. She also said that the view of Old St. Hilary's Church and the ridge are more spectacular as you walk toward downtown, and she commented on the challenges of balancing loss of ridgeline views given the General Plan's call for 2-3 story buildings in this portion of Downtown along Tiburon Boulevard. Fredericks said that the corridor between the buildings was 48 feet at its narrowest point and was not a tunnel, as described in a previous meeting. She said that some of the things that diminished the view were trellises and trees and that direction to be given might be to minimize the landscaping as a trade-off to view preservation. However, she said this would come at the expense of landscaping a common public space. Nonetheless, Fredericks said that the most expansive view would be from the rear of the project, and one that would be more expansive than the view that currently exists, if the Civic Center [Civic Connection] project is developed. Councilmember Fredericks said that the Town's Open Space Guidelines set priorities concerning building on ridgelines; she noted that the Library was not a private developer attempting to build on a ridge, and that its mission was to meet the needs of an entire community. She reiterated that the Library will offer enhanced views from other locations on the property, and she noted that the Town already has a policy of balancing competing interests with regard to views and view loss. Fredericks said that nothing in the General Plan indicated that every aspect of every view of the ridge from Tiburon Boulevard is to be preserved in the exact state that exists at a point in time. She stated that the notion of balancing interests to decide whether a view can be changed or enchanced for public benefit has some policy support. With regard to square footage, Fredericks said the Council should take care in providing specific direction and instead allow the Library to figure out the square footage based on what the Council stated were the priorities of the Town. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 6 Councilmember O'Donnell agreed with Councilmember Fredericks. He said that the Council could not approve the Civic Center [Civic Connection] design without causing some view blockage. O'Donnell suggested that the corridor between the buildings be widened as much as possible. With regard to parking, O'Donnell said that the Town should look at acquiring the parking lot (or a portion thereof) adjacent to Town Hall. He also said that the Council had adopted a General Plan that called for keeping parking behind the buildings in the downtown. O'Donnell said he would favor a bilateral approach to acquire additional parking, and that if the parking lot were acquired it too could help protect the view of the open space (by keeping the parcel open). In general, Councilmember O'Donnell said that the location of the expansion was appropriate and what remained was to figure out how to reduce the mass and scale of the new building. He said his idea was to give direction to the Library to reduce the size of the building by 5% in order to create a compromise. He said that when the Council talked about mass and bulk it had to address square footage and set parameters because there was no other way to do it. O'Donnell agreed that the staff report was somewhat confusing on this issue. He said it would be better to be more specific and not just leave the mass and bulk issues to be resolved at the design review hearings. Councilmember Fredericks asked if Joint Recreation Department staff parking was included in the application. She noted that this parking might not be needed once the Ned's Way facility was constructed. Director Anderson said that the potential relocation of Joint Recreation was discussed in an earlier staff report, and agreed that if Joint Recreation parking was relocated to Ned's Way, that would free up additional parking for the Town Hall and Library. Vice Mayor Fraser said that compromise and balance were needed from both the Library Agency and the Town. He agreed that more specificity was needed. He reiterated that the view in question was of one of the five most important landmarks in the Town and that it was a significant view and a significant ridgeline. He said that people coining to the Library would see it, as mentioned earlier, but that other people (drivers, hikers and pedestrians on Tiburon Boulevard) should not be discounted. He said that the question was one of how much of the view to protect; the Town had come up with the 60% figure for view loss, and Councilmember Collins had come up with a larger number for view loss. He said that specificity should be based on compromise and balance, as well as the Town's "constitution," naively, its General Plan. Vice Mayor Fraser added that he was uncomfortable leaving the traffic improvements on Tiburon Boulevard up to CalTrans and suggested that the Council build it in to its conditions of approval. He said that everyone agreed that it was a dangerous intersection and that improvements were needed. Fraser said that he was part of a task force that was studying traffic improvements on the Boulevard and that this was a key intersection, also mentioned in the Safe Routes to School study. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.x -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 7 Vice Mayor Fraser said he agreed with Councilmember Collins and that he was not yet prepared to adopt the findings as set forth in the staff report. Mayor Slavitz said this was a "tough project" albeit one that everyone supported in concept and realized the importance of building. Slavitz said that he was not bothered as much by the open space view loss as by the mass and bulk of the building and the frontage being so close to Tiburon Boulevard. He said he had asked for a design change to reduce the intensity of the design, but that in reality he thought it would not be possible without a reduction in square footage. However, Slavitz said that he did not know what that reduction would be. The Mayor wondered whether language might be added stating that any reduction in mass and bulk will require a reduction in square footage. Mayor Slavitz said that if this were a design review application for a home, the Town would ask the applicant to come back with a revised design to see if it met the expectations of the Council; hence his suggestion that a new drawing showing a revised design might be helpful to the process. With regard to open space view preservation, Slavitz reiterated that while the view was important, it was not as important as, say, a view loss from Founder's Rock. He acknowledged that 15 years ago during the development of the Library, view was an issue and it was now, but that he would not go along with the idea of "no" intrusion as a condition of approval. That being said, Slavitz said that it also difficult to come up with a number or percentage. Mayor Slavitz said that the traffic improvements were important and that he hoped the conversations with CalTrans were successful. With regard to parking, the Mayor said that buying the [Abrams] parking lot was a good idea, but that at the very least the Town could require the Library to lease a certain number of spaces so that people coming to Town Hall for business would be able to find parking. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the Council might come to a consensus with regard to view loss and square footage reduction by giving direction that the view should be improved from a specific location. However, she conceded that under this scenario, there might still be disagreement over the specific location and view. Fredericks said that the original founders of the Library could not have predicted its success; she said that she feared the ignominy of approving a project that once again did not fully meet the needs of the community. Councilmember Collins addressed the issue of bilateral cooperation with regard to parking. He said he was opposed to the concept if it meant a cost to the Town because the Library expansion had been promoted as having no cost to the taxpayer. He said he did not want to put the Town in a position of having to budget taxpayer dollars to provide parking for the Library. Also, Collins said that if he were on the Library Board, he would want a parking study to be able to have a way to quantify and plan for parking. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 8 Likewise, Collins said there was a way to quantify view loss and that was to limit the height of the building. He said that mass and bulk might be addressed by moving the building farther away from Town Hall and increasing the corridor between the buildings. Collins said that the Town's open space goals were to preserve and protect views and did not talk about "balance''. Mayor Slavitz asked if he had specific language in mind to address the view impact. Councilmember O'Donnell suggested that a percentage might be used, for instance, to require expansion of the view corridor by 5 or 10% and to similarly ask for a percentage reduction in square footage. Mayor Slavitz said he had a hard time visualizing what percentages would look like. Vice Mayor Fraser asked how many square feet were in the proposed second-story addition and was told it was 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. Fraser said that it was important to have "must haves" and "nice to haves" and to realize that some of these things might not "make the cut"' and fit into the space. He said that in design review approvals, floor area ratios were set and that maybe this expansion was just too big. Councilmember Collins asked about the size of the ground floor square footage addition associated with Alternative D, which was located in front of the existing structure. He suggested that perhaps some additional ground floor square footage could be added to that portion of the project as an alternative to the second story portion of the remainder of the proposed addition. Mr. Isaacson said that if the Library were to make that a two-story section, it would have to install fire stairs and an elevator which were cost prohibitive. Mayor Slavitz once again broached the idea of asking the Library to provide a revised design drawing to "give them a crack at meeting our expectations". He said that they need not be fully "fleshed out" plans, but more of a sketch in response to the concerns expressed by Council. Library Board Chair Beverlee Johnson said that the idea of balance and compromise is "where we are" and that the Library representatives had listened carefully to the Council's deliberations at the last meeting. She said they had already started working on the suggestions, and that their staff had been generous in its approach to compromise. Ms. Johnson said that the Board had talked with the Library's consultants and architects; she noted that they were working with "world class architects" and that the Council would not be disappointed in the results. Mayor Slavitz asked Ms. Johnson what she thought of his idea of returning with a new drawing. Ms. Johnson responded "that's the direction we're heading". She added that she understood the difficulty of sorting out the issues and also appreciated the Council not being too specific in its design requirements at this juncture. Mayor Slavitz asked staff what the impact would be of delaying further action on the application. Director of Community Development Anderson said it would not be prudent for the Council to adopt the resolutions until they were comfortable doing so. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 9 Councilmember O'Donnell asked if there were time limits on the adoption of the resolutions; Anderson said there were none, as they were legislative actions. Vice Mayor Fraser said that everyone was well intended but that too many unknowns remained; he said it might be prudent to pause and come back with a new sketch to review prior to taking action, in order to make a better decision on the matter. Councilmember Fredericks said that she did not favor the idea of setting percentages and that revisions must correlate with the needs of the Library. She said she was glad to hear that at least two other members of the Council seemed willing to allow the Library to continue to work on the design. Councilmember O'Donnell said that any percentages recommended by the Council at this stage would be approximate numbers and could be stated in terms of "roughly this or that amount" in order to avoid being too specific but to give some guidance. Mr. Isaacson said that interim drawings would be acceptable to the Library but not as a "pause" in the approval process. He said that the Library Agency wanted action to approve the applications in order to move forward with its plans. Mayor Slavitz said that "we are unequivocally on board with the [Library] expansion but not how big or how much." Mr. Isaacson replied that "we are at the CEQA stage, rather than the design stage," and that indecision was adversely affecting the fundraising efforts, as well. Town Attorney Danforth informed the Council that it still would have the ability to modify the design once the CEQA approvals and findings were made. She said that she heard the willingness of the Library to do an interim design, but that if the Council could not agree on the [CEQA] findings, it could not move forward at this time. Mayor Slavitz concurred with this point; he also said it was important to make findings in order to start the clock ticking on any CEQA challenges. Town Attorney Danforth added that the Council could add the requirement to come back with a proposed design revision as part of the approvals. Councilmember Collins asked whether the Council could structure the findings to state that the view impact would be reduced to less than significant when it comes back to Council for design approval. Town Attorney Danforth responded that specific mitigation measures are not in place at this time to reduce that impact to a less than significant level, and the impact should be called significant and unavoidable at this juncture. Vice-Mayor Fraser stated that it would be "putting the cart before the horse" to adopt the findings regarding view blockage before reviewing the sketch. It was noted that the Town Council had already voted to make this finding at the prior meeting. Mayor Slavitz said that the safer course of action was to find that the view impact was "significant and unavoidable". DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 10 Mayor Slavitz recommended going through the resolutions and ordinances one by one to see if the language was acceptable to the Council. Vice Mayor Fraser expressed concern that Condition No. 1 of Exhibit 2 (the general plan amendment resolution) misrepresented the intent of the Council at the prior meeting. He stated his belief that the intent was to reduce the significant and unavoidable view impact. Town Attorney Danforth responded that the condition of approval was intended to address the issue of the mass and bulk of the building as raised by Mayor Slavitz at the prior hearing, and not to address the view blockage impact, which is a CEQA issue. -Vice Mayor Fraser respectfully disagreed with this interpretation and reiterated his desire to see the word "impact" used, rather than the word "impression". Vice Mayor Fraser suggested the following wording: "The building design and architecture shown on said drawings shall be revised to reduce the visual impact (rather than impression) of excessive mass, bulk and scale as viewed from Tiburon Boulevard. These revisions will likely require a reduction in square footage prior to approval of detailed site plans and architectural drawings by the Town Council. The Town Council intends that these design and architectural revisions submitted reduce the significant view blockage of Tiburon ridge and the open space from Tiburon Boulevard." Councilmember Fredericks respectfully disagreed, stating that impact is not the same as impression, as impact has a particular meaning under CEQA as a legal term. She found the proposed wording of the condition in the staff report acceptable. Councilmember O'Donnell once again suggested using an approximate number of square footage reduction. Vice Mayor Fraser said he had "moved away" from his earlier suggestion that more specificity was needed in this way. Councilmember Collins suggested revised language to strengthen the idea that in order to reduce the visual impact of mass and bulk from Tiburon Boulevard, a square footage reduction was likely needed. Councilmember Collins said he supported Vice Mayor Fraser's earlier comments that a reduction in mass and bulk still did not address the issue of views. He asked for a definition of "mass". Director Anderson said that as used by Town staff, it is an appearance of massiveness and that the term "bulk" was used synonymously. Councilmember Collins said the terms "mass, bulk and scale" are not helpful to his understanding of needed project revisions. Town Attorney Danforth said that view blockage had been identified as an impact of the project under CEQA, but that mass, bulk and scale is not treated as an "impact" under CEQA. She suggested separating the view impact issue from that of mass and bulk. She said that "an impact is not an impression" under CEQA. Town Attorney Danforth clarified that the word "impact" should not be substituted for "impression" because it had a different meaning under CEQA. She said she thought the wording DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page I 1 was acceptable as the Library had indicated it would work in good faith "to reduce the visual impression of excessive mass, bulk and scaled as viewed from Tiburon Boulevard" by reducing the square footage and still meet the needs of the community. Town Attorney Danforth suggested that if the word "impression" was unacceptable, that the Council use some other word than "impact'', suggesting "`effect" or "consequence". Director Anderson suggested eliminating the words "visual impression of altogether from the sentence, and to have it simply state that "...said drawings shall be revised to reduce the excessive mass, bulk and scale as viewed from Tiburon Boulevard." He also incorporated the suggestions to strengthen the language in the following sentences in the same paragraph to read, "These revisions will likely require square footage reductions prior to approval of detailed site plan and architectural drawings by the Town Council" and that "The Town Council intends that these design and architectural revisions will reduce the significant view blockage impact of the Tiburon Ridge from Tiburon Boulevard." There was a discussion of what constituted a reasonable monetary contribution to intersection improvements; staff responded that it was normally based on a pro-rata share of trips generated. With these changes, the Council concluded its review and revisions to Exhibit 2, after also agreeing to incorporate the new condition number 9 dealing with parking, as prepared by staff. The Council turned to a review of Exhibit 1, the CEQA findings resolution. Councilmember Collins suggested strengthening the language in Exhibit 1, at page 11, dealing with parking. Director Anderson said a sentence could be added to state, "In addition, the Town Council has added a condition of approval that requires additional parking be provided." Collins also suggested the addition of language concerning the queue (left-turn lane) if it was not already included in the findings. The Council concurred. Regarding Exhibit 1, Section 4, Councilmember Collins asked whether the finding of a significant and unavoidable visual impact also meant the project was inconsistent with land use plans, as listed on P. 15 of Exhibit 1 under Impact LU-2. Director Anderson said that CEQA review of land use plan consistency did not look at conformance with individual policies, but rather whether a proposed project met the basic land use type and density or intensity criteria set forth in land use plans. On that basis, the environmental impact was not significant. Councilmember Collins requested that the words "may provide" be replaced with "provide" in the first paragraph under Impact AES-1 on p. 16. He also recommended striking the phrase "approximately 60%" from the Finding paragraph on page 16, Impact AES-1, as well as the phrase " ...from the vantage point used in the EIR photo simulations." The Finding would read, "Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the view to the Tiburon Ridgeline would be blocked by the project. This visual impact would be significant and unavoidable if the project is to be approved." The Council concurred. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 12 Councilmember Collins had questions of staff about the findings regarding the project alternatives on pages 18, 19, 20, and 22. Council concluded that these findings could be made and that no revisions were necessary. The mayor asked if there were any other revisions. Vice-Mayor Fraser suggested that the word "partially" in the first full paragraph on p. 16 was misleading. The Council determined that the word "partially" should be eliminated. The Council concluded its review of Exhibit 1 without further changes. In response to a question from the Mayor, Director Anderson explained that Exhibits 3 and 4 amended the zoning map; that Exhibit 5 amended the Point Tiburon Master Plan snap; and that Exhibit 6 amended the Point Tiburon Precise Plan map. There were no Council questions or revisions concerning these other exhibits. MOTION: To adopt resolution Exhibit 1 (CEQA findings), as amended Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous MOTION: To adopt resolution Exhibit 2 (General Plan Amendments, Mitigation Measures), as amended Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous MOTION: To read Exhibit 3 (Ordinance Rezoning Property) by Title only Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon rezoning certain property from OS (Open Space) to P (Public/Quasi-Public) Zone to accommodate an expansion of the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library." MOTION: To adopt ordinance, as written Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz MOTION: To read Exhibit 4 (Ordinance Rezoning Property) by Title only Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon rezoning certain property from NC (Neighborhood Commercial Space) to P (Public/Quasi-Public) Zone to correct a prior mapping error." DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November- 2, 2011 Page 13 MOTION: To adopt ordinance, as written Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz MOTION: To read Exhibit 5 (Ordinance amending the Point Tiburon Master Plan) by Title only Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific Railroad) Master Plan (PD#42) to accommodate an expansion of the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library located at 1501 Tiburon Boulevard." MOTION: To adopt ordinance, as written Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz MOTION: To adopt resolution Exhibit 6 (Amending the Point Tiburon Precise Plan), as written Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous For clarification, Town Attorney Danforth asked whether the Library would be required to erect story poles when it returned to Council with the sketch drawings to be prepared, as a prelude to submittal of detailed design drawings. The Council confirmed that story poles should be erected for the sketch plan review. As its next step, Town Manager Curran noted that staff would return to the Council with a streamlining ordinance for the Library project at a meeting in the near future. 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 - Public Hearing closed on August 3, 2011: Item continued without discussion to November 16, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1. Plastic Bag ordinance - Consider adoption of an ordinance to add amend Title III of the Tiburon Municipal Code to add a new Chapter l0A (Single-Use Carry-out Bags) regulating retail establishments provision of single-use carry-out bags (Planning Manager Watrous) - Introduction and first reading of ordinance DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 14 In his report, Planning Manager Watrous said that Town staff recommended Council consideration of an ordinance that would amend Title III of the Tiburon Municipal Code to add a new Chapter l0A (Single-Use Carry-Out Bags). He said the ordinance would prohibit certain retail establishments from providing plastic single-use carry-out bags to their customers and would require these establishments to charge a fee for providing paper single-use carry-out bags. He said that currently, two Marin jurisdictions (Fairfax and Marin County) have adopted regulations banning single-use carry-out bags. Planning Manager Watrous said that the "`Save the Plastic Bag Coalition" had sued the County of Marin over adoption of its ordinance. He said that among other things, the coalition argued that paper bags should not be favored because they created more of an adverse environmental impact in their manufacture than plastic bags. Watrous said that the County had prevailed in the litigation, however, there was still time running on a possible appeal. The Planning Manager said that in early 2011, a Single-Use Plastics Advisory Committee (SUPAC) was formed to facilitate a process involving interested public agencies,' community groups and merchants in evaluating options for reducing single-use plastics. He said the Committee included representatives from the cities of Novato, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito and Tiburon, and was chaired by Bob Brown of San Rafael who was in the audience to answer any questions. Watrous said the intent of the committee was to recommend a common approach to reducing single-use plastics in the form of plastic bags and take-out food containers that could be adopted by all or most of Marin's jurisdictions. Mr. Watrous said that in Tiburon, the ordinance would apply only to grocery stores, pharmacies and convenience stores. He said that Woodlands Market already did not provide plastic bags to its customers. He said the proposed ban would not apply to plastic meat containers and the like. Watrous said that the proposed ban would apply to CVS Pharmacy, when it carne on-line. He also said that Shark's Deli was not a convenience store but more of a delicatessen, under staff's interpretation. Councilmember O'Donnell took issue with a paragraph in the staff report that referenced the methods used in the manufacture of recycled plastics in China. He said it was not appropriate for the Town to "bash" other countries; he said the plastic business was a multi-billion dollar business world-wide. Bob Brown, former Community Development Director of San Rafael, said that the information concerning China had been presented to the committee by a clean water advocacy group, and also had appeared in a 60 Minutes television segment. O'Donnell said he had seen the 60 Minutes segment on recycled electronics but not plastics; he asked Mr. Brown to provide him with a link to this information. Brown said that the proposed ban on plastic bags had wide support, from the California Grocers Association, the California Restaurant Association, and other community groups. He said the DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 15 committee had considered the information provided by Mr. Joseph (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition) and the discussion about paper versus plastic bags. He said the intent of the ordinance was not to substitute one for the other, but rather to lower the number of carry-out bags. He said that in Marin County alone, it was estimated that people used 600 carry-out bags per person per year. Mr. Brown said that the retailers did not object to the ordinance because they saw it as a way to save money and to recoup costs. He said that the City of San Rafael had done a survey of 250 retailers who either favored or did not object to the ban. With regard to enforcement, Mr. Brown said that the County of Marin had offered to do the inspections at the same time it performed annual Weights & Measures inspections, as well as using community volunteers. In response to a question from the Mayor concerning what action other cities were taking, Mr. Brown said that San Rafael ordinance in the preparation stage; Mill Valley was scheduling a study session, as was Novato. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment on the item. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. Council discussed its options and decided it would be prudent to wait until the threat of litigation was removed before undertaking any further action. Mayor Slavitz said that he had asked for the proposed ordinance to come forward because it was the goal of late Supervisor McGlashan to have the ordinance adopted county-wide, and that it was a laudable goal. Councilmember Fredericks agreed that it would be prudent to wait but stated her support of the ordinance, as did Vice Mayor Fraser. He said the ban on plastic bags was a goal worthy of this Council. Councilmembers O'Donnell and Collins indicated their preference for a voluntary ban over the adoption of an ordinance. O'Donnell said it was better to incentivize than penalize a business. Both expressed opposition to the idea of charging five cents for a paper bag. A discussion ensued of how to do outreach to the business community, through the Chamber or the local newspaper, on the idea of voluntary compliance. The rest of the Council was amendable to this direction. Item tabled. DK4FT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November- 2, 2011 Page 16 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Collins announced that the Town of Corte Madera had voted last night to join Marin Clean Energy, which brings a total of 11 cities participating in the entity. He also said that the City of Richmond had expressed an interest in joining. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - October 21, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest -October 28, 2011 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m., in memory of Anne Louise Ellinwood. She said that Ms. Ellinwood was instrumental in the incorporation of the Town and had been was elected to the first Council in 1964. He said that she had donated the Council dais to the Town in 1996 and all her life had remained active in civic affairs. JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 November 2, 2011 Page 17 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting November 16, 2011 Agenda Item: z--l Subject: Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (PD #20); 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701 & R2007-01; 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 (Continued from August 31, September 21, October 5 and November 2, 2011) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND On August 3, 2011, the Town Council held a continued 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. The Council requested additional information on the project and. continued the hearing on the application to the September 7, 2011 meeting. Due to scheduling conflicts, the meeting date was moved to a special meeting on August 31, 2011. At the August 31 meeting, the Town Council reviewed the additional project information and deliberated upon the merits of the application. The Council generally agreed with the Planning Commission's analysis and recommendations. However, a majority of the Council believed that the applicant might be able to retain one or more of the lots that the Commission recommended for elimination (Lots 8, 9, 10 and 13) if the project were modified to enhance compliance with the Town's General Plan in a manner that did not increase the project's environmental impacts. In general, the Council requested that the applicant move house locations and residential use areas away from the ridgelines "as far as possible" without creating increased impacts relating to the existing site constraints. In addition, the Council recommended smaller homes on several lots. At the applicant's request, the Council gave specific direction as to the nature of revisions that might address General Plan consistency concerns so as to allow the restoration of one or more lots, as follows: TOWN OF TIBURON FADE 1 OF 5 Lot 1: No change Lot 2: No change Lot 3: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 4: Reduce size to that recommended by Planning Commission Lot 5: Separate away from Lot 6, possibly further uphill and further from sensitive habitat, but not moved into the required setbacks from the Tiburon Ridge. Lot 6: Separate away from Lot 5 Lot 7: No change Lot 8: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 9: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 10: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 11: No change Lot 12: Move off of ridge Lot 13: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 14: No change The Council continued the matter to the September 21, 2011 meeting, when the applicant stated that they would return with a conceptual map showing the changes. The applicant subsequently requested further continuances to October 5 and then to November 2, 2011. ANALYSIS The applicant has now submitted a conceptual plan (Exhibit 7, previously distributed) showing revisions to the project design, designated as Alternative 6. The revisions made to each lot are summarized as follows: Lot 1: No change. Lot 2: No change. Lot 3: The house location was shifted to a location 30 feet from Ridgeline 6. The house size was reduced by 540 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,640 square feet to 7,100 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 29 feet to 22 feet. Lot 4: No change. The proposed 4,000 square foot floor area was already the same as that previously recommended by the Planning Commission. Lot 5: The house size was reduced by 126 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 6,926 square feet to 6,800 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 17 feet to 16 feet. Lot 6: The house location was shifted approximately 25 feet further from Lot 5. The house size was reduced by 795 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 5 7,695 square feet to 6,900 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 27 feet, 4 inches to 16 feet. Lot 7: No change. Lot 8: The house was redesigned with a more linear footprint and moved 25 feet west of Ridgeline 6. The house size was reduced by 1,154 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,695 square feet to 6,541 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 29 feet, 1 inch to 16 feet. Lot 9: The house location was moved 30 feet west of Ridgeline 5. The house size was reduced by 1,270 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,810 square feet to 6,540 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 25 feet to 22 feet. Lot 10: The house location was moved 30 feet west of Ridgeline 5. The house size was reduced by 480 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,400 square feet to 6,920 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 27 feet to 22 feet. Lot 11: No change. Lot 12: A portion of the house was eliminated to keep the entire house 30 feet from Ridgeline 5. The house size was reduced by 670 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,570 square feet to 6,900 square feet. Lot 13: The house location was moved slightly to the north. The house size was reduced by 882 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,783 square feet to 6,901 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 27 feet, 9 inches to 22 feet. Lot 14: No change. ANALYSIS Conceptual plan The submitted conceptual plan has removed all proposed house footprints from the ridgelines on the site, with all homes now shown to be at least 25 feet from any ridgeline. The proposed residential use areas (RUAs) for 7 of the lots would still extend across the ridgelines to varying extents, which would allow certain residential improvements (including fences, swimming pools and minor accessory buildings) to be built on or across the ridgelines. The revised house locations would be in better compliance with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-12 that "development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines." The reduced maximum building heights and/or modified locations of the homes on Lots 3-8 would reduce the visibility of these homes against the ridgeline when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space. The proposed homes on Lots 5 & 6 would be only 16 feet above grade and the redesigned home on Lot 8 would be moved to the far side of the ridgeline and also reduced to 16 feet in height. These changes would substantially reduce the visual profile of the future homes TOWN OF TTBURON RAGE 3 OF 5 along this ridgeline when viewed from the Middle Ridge, which was identified as a significant unavoidable impact by the Final EIR for this project. The maximum floor areas for 8 of the 13 proposed new homes have been reduced by a range of 126 to 1,270 square feet. Although these changes would help reduce the visual appearance of these homes, the proposed floor areas for all but two of the new homes would still exceed 6,500 square feet. Members of the Town Council have previously expressed concerns about the floor area of the proposed homes in relation to the size of residences in the neighborhoods surrounding the Alta Robles property. The revised house locations would not appear to substantially increase the project's environmental impacts. The revised location of the house on Lot 8 would be partially within an area of Coast Live Oaks, and the revised building footprints and/or residential use areas for Lots 63 9 & 10 would appear to encroach slightly more into areas that include Coast Live Oak trees. Other revised house locations appear to only affect areas on the site that are not environmentally constrained. Staff considers the increased impacts on Coast Live Oaks to be minor and still adequately addressed by Mitigation Measure 5.5-5. The conceptual plan does not include detailed home designs for each lot. Prior to the August 31 meeting, the Town Council received a complete set of plans for Alternative 5 (dated August 26, 2011) that included conceptual architectural plans for all 13 proposed homes. Given the importance that the Town Council has placed on ensuring that future homes built on the site are architecturally consistent with the conceptual house designs prepared by the project architect, staff believes that it is imperative that the Council be able to review a complete set of plans for Alternative 6 before making a final decision on approving the Precise Development Plan. Staff recommends that the Town Council review and comment upon the revised conceptual project design and give direction regarding any additional modifications to the conceptual plan. If the Council determines that the conceptual plan is acceptable, the Council should continue the item and direct the applicant to prepare more detailed conceptual plans for all proposed homes. Revised story poles should be installed prior to reviewing these more detailed home plans. Prezonin~ As previously noted, the Alta Robles 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 requires that the maximum density for a parcel of land shall be established by a Precise Development Plan approval. After reviewing the conceptual plan, the Town Council may either determine that the proposed project density or a reduced project density is appropriate for this site. If the Council is able to make such a determination, staff recommends that the Council proceed with the introduction and first reading of the density-specific prezoning ordinance (Exhibit 2). The final adoption of the ordinance would be postponed until such time as any Precise Development Plan approval was contemplated. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Continue deliberations on the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning. The Council may wish to reopen the public hearing to accept limited testimony regarding the revised conceptual project design; 2. Review the conceptual project plan and direct the applicant to snake any required changes to the project, prepare conceptual architectural home designs and install story poles, and continue the application to a date certain; 3. If appropriate following deliberation, proceed with the introduction and first reading of the density-specific prezoning ordinance. The procedure would be to move to read the ordinance by title only, waiving any additional reading, and introduce the pre-zoning ordinance. Pass the first reading by roll call vote. If first reading is passed, the Ordinance would return for adoption in conjunction with any Precise Development Plan approval. EXHIBITS 1. Alternative 6 submittal, dated November 4, 2011 2. Draft prezoning ordinance 3. Town Council Staff Report dated August 3, 2011 4. Town Council Staff Report dated August 31, 2011 5. Minutes of the August 3, 2011 Town Council meeting 6. Minutes of the August 31, 2011 Town Council meeting 7. Conceptual project plan, received November 4, 2011 (previously distributed) Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\201 1 \Nov 16 drafts\Alta Vista PDP.report3.doc TOWN OF TIBUR©N PAGE 5 of 5 11 ILF RagghiantilFreitas Lir ATroRNEYS AT LAW 674 Fown-H SIREE1, SUITE 0 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901.3246 TELEPHONE 415.453.9433 FASCIMILE 415.453.8269 WWW.RF I. AWI. I P.COI/ November 4, 2011. Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail Tiburon Town Council 1 Town. of 'l'iburon 1.505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Alta Robles PDP - Transmittal of "Alternative No, 6" Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: This letter follows the August 31, 2011, Town Council hearing concerning the Alta. Robles Precise Development Plan. At that hearing, the Council considered "Alternative No. 5" of this project and gave the applicant direction regarding house sizes and locations. (Please see Summary of Council. Direction attached as Exhibit A.) Enclosed as Exhibit B, please find a new snap for a proposed "Alternative No. 6." This updated Alternative responds to the Council's August 31st direction and involves the relocation and reduction of a significant number of the hon-.es. A surnmary of the changes between. Alternatives Nos. 5 and 6 is included as Exhibit C. This summary also sets forth the new distances of the homes from the Town-designated secondary "ridges" on the property, while also differentiating between above and below grade square footage. As demonstrated by Exhibit C, the applicants have in-1plelnented each and every one of the Council's requests to the fullest extent practicable. Visible Square Footage The distinction between above and below grade square footage is a.crucial one. 1-louse sizes are relevant primarily because of the Town's desire to avoid overly massive or visually prominent structures. Town rules limit the maximum. house size to 8,000 sq ft.; none of the new proposed homes are proposed at the 8,000 sq ft. maximum size. The Sorroko subdivision, immediately adjacent to the Alta Robles development project, has been approved for five 8,000 sq ft homes. Additionally, the town recently approved a JOSHUA S. LEBOVITS RICHARD T. FRANCESCHINI RILEY F. HURD III DAVID F. FEINGOLD GARY T. RAGGHIANTI, INC. SARAH N. LEGER ROBERT F. EPSTEIN JOHN RALPH THOMAS, JR. (OF COUNSEL) MICHAEL 0. GLASS PATRICK M. ACACIAS DAVID P. FREITAS (RcT.) ERIC STERNBERGER HERBERT M. ROWLAND EXHIBIT NO. OF 0 Ragghianti I Frei tasL*LP Tiburon Town Council November 4, 2011 Page 2. of 3 9,000 sq ft home adjacent to a Town-designated significant ridge. The homes proposed here are all smaller than these other comparable properties. The utilization of subterranean space addresses bulk and mass issues while still allovAring the applicants to achieve some of their desired square footage. Attached as Exhibit D is a comparison between a typical 3,:00 square foot borne and a 6,926 square foot home as designed by the applicants. As this comparison clearly demonstrates, the advanced designs being proposed here actually result in significantly less apparent mass, while achieving more square footage. This Exhibit illustrates why using pure numeric comparisons are inappropriate. Furthermore, it also illustrates why the outdated above-grade styles of the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods should. not be used as the "neighborhood compatibility" standard in this case. Alternative No. 6 cuts an additional 6,000 square feet from the project while still incorporating these mass-reducing designs. "Ridges" General Plan Policy OSC-12 sets forth eleven characteristics for analyzing what level of protection is appropriate for any of the particular Town-designated "Significant Ridges," as mapped in Diagram 3.3-1 of the General Plan. The mere existence of this policy of qualitative analysis is evidence that all ridges in Town are not considered equal. In fact, the General Plan has explanative language that clearly states that not all ridges warrant equal protection. Some may warrant no protection, while some may be of a higher quality and the warrant more protection. No minimum or maximum numerical setback is specified in the General Plan for Significant Ridges. Town staff, however, has performed the required OSC-12 analysis for the subject property. Staff concluded that, "neither ridgeline on the property has high visual prominence," and that therefore, "Policy QSC-12- indicates that this caliber of ridgeline warrants less protection than more prominent significant ridgelines." Staff's analysis is correct, the subject Town-designated ridges simply do not warrant significant protections. However, as requested, Alternative No. 6 moves every single home site off the Town-designated ridges. This level of protection is more than commensurate with the visual prominence, or lack thereof, of the property's "ridges," and comports with the spirit, purpose, and intent of OSC-7.2. EXHIBIT NO. Z_ OF 1kf Ragghianti (Freitas iLr Tiburon Town Council November 4, 2011 Pagc 3 of 3 Conclusion The history and context of this application is relevant for the Council to consider in conjunction with this final Alternative, Only 13 new lots are sought on a parcel 52 acres in size. 76% of this privately owned parcel is offered as prime open space where only 50% is required by the General Plan. Finally, the proposed building footprints of Alternative 6 use less than 2.0% of the total land area in the Alta Robles parcels, which is one of the lowest densities of any development project in the Town of Tiburon. One of the pieces of mail addressing this project discussed the possibility of a precedent being set for the back side of Paradise Drive. It would seem that 0.26 homes per acre, 76% open space, a 2.0% footprint, and beautiful, low-visibility house designs is exactl the type of precedent the Town would desire. Alternative No. 6 is a direct response to the Council's request and represents the most reductions and greatest setbacks the applicants can achieve while maintaining a feasible project. The plan. far exceeds the General Plan standards with a balanced approach protecting prime open space characteristics while providing for low density residential development. Your recognition of these efforts and approval of this final Alternative would be appreciated. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, Riley F. Hurd III Enclosures CC: Clients Scott Hochstrasser Ken Kao EXHIBIT NC)._ P, op l 1 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT No. q6c-- t I Alta Robles Precise Development Plan Summary of Direction from Tiburon Town Council - August 31., 2011 The Council generally agreed with the Planning Commission's analysis and recommendations. However, a majority of the Council believed that the applicant might be able to retain one or more of the lots that the Commission eliminated (Lots 8, 9, 10 and 13) if the project were changed to enhance compliance with the Town's General Plan in a manner that did not increase the project's environmental impacts. In general, the Council requested that the applicant move house locations and residential use areas away from the ridgelines "as far as possible" without creating increased irnpacts relating to the existing site constraints. In addition, the Council recommended smaller homes on several lots. At the applicant's request, the Council gave specific direction as to the kind of changes that might address General Plait consistency concerns so as to allow the restoration of one more lots, as follows: Lot 1: No change Lot 2: No change Lot 3: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 4: Reduce size to that recommended by Planning Commission Lot S : Separate away from Lot 6, possibly further uphill and further from sensitive habitat* Lot 6: Separate away from Lot 5 Lot 7: No change Lot 8: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 9: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 10: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 11: No change Lot 12: Move off of ridge Lot 13: Move off of ridge and make smaller Lot 14: No change The Council continued the matter to September 21st, when the applicant stated that they would return with a conceptual map showing the changes. At that point, the Council may ask the applicant to erect story poles that reflect the changes. Please note that the Council did not state that the forgoing changes would necessarily result in a project approval with the additional lots. At this point, we do not know whether the proposed changes are feasible or would create secondary impacts. Lot 5 should not be moved into the required setbacks from the Tiburon Ridge. EXHIBIT NO. 5 ~~ll EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT NO. I P, ce- of--11 V e O U - C CL ) U U uJ V d ~ o U ) U (n Y 0 ° 0 0 O z GL cu -1 t U w X: C) O 0 N a ~E N cA 0 C a o Q Q o -a N N ~ U- W w O d) . 0) c N } 0 O N ~ 1 N O . 0) D o o _5 Q) d ) . 2 0> a t: o = tf> tO N 0) (D C L7 0 { UJ - Ei Z CL 0 C N O w Y W co a LY H Q O F~M-1 W 1~1 W EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT N0. P, 9 n 1 0 N ■ rrrl E 0 0 PK .o N H ~ ~ V♦ v ~ H U ~ O b U 0. o ~ t U ' ^I t3 e;~ - CL LD M CO tn > 10 r.} v co v > O x v c H o CO z U 0 4) n O o C: 0 - IO E~-t 0 v o itl r rr Vj .5 0 > 0) ~ 0 fl ,0 V V U) (D a v 0 R' 0) E .v ■ of v s p O N r y c a. ^ Q `0 O C d N _ v bt7 eU _ 0) a x c cc 0 E CU U 3 O m d V M V W a ~ cd 3 o O zit LD u at .a L O O O O D \ O T N N 00 st v 6 m m 0 v CI!Z \ ` o° llcl>-,~ a 00, ti o oIZ 0 00 ov L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 4 14 pl: 1 i 4 M 114 4 c3; r- ai 4 *4 -6 N N N 4qr H " N M N tY) cy- M V- 7 N 0 tD ~,0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 y X N N lD ri to H to 4-t N N N N N N ro ~A o I 0 0 0 cS r- H o o cr to CA rr x r m c1 . m _.r i- r h i oo al , to _ r~ r N _r r-I , r~ H ro N N N H N N N N rq r%; N (N r%i N L7 O O O O O ri 0 0 0 o r m I 0 0 0 0 0 m d ~r N m 0 o to j tl3 .-i O a4 at rt WL O at W M m to + t~ l0 tD h tD tG tD t`. 0 tD SY N m N M ct H m m I in m r-i r, m 01 ri rn co N tO a to nr rn to 0O t, ` Q ~ ra o tri rV M to a cFr v ct' rn m M N ; 'rA ►n 0 o 0 v 8 t>1 to rn c> a vt rn o~ g 2 o 9 m 0O m to ~ 00 ~ O N a; to ) N to 00 tr 0a tr^ h cn Q t~ t~ tit tQ r~ r: n~ t; t: r= n ~ ~t' to a~ - ~ 4 d a w w r C m f- 1 Ca LJ t: J r 0 iri L er} +J G C7 ° p N C en p 0 0 ti' CV Crl rrt '7 M , rr'r :a !--i r! r""1 rt U ro CL tl 0 . tl Q Q \ 4 p \ .a Y . •,O o\ O \ Q o .;ea c ~O c~ O o\ 4 c (A I ;n ON tT- o) cal d\ a a c of rr Sri t ! ti' tt rri kr o, rr c i Q, jr rr- jr Kr a ) , r , I , O ro Ir; u-r r? f t J v ai ai ~ i at"i cc cc CO co co (n V) w a ~ tr 14-4 4-4 ~4 .14 O co , w cc co 6 0 0 w cc c E a co ca CO co o 0 0 o O c 0 r~ ,t i t: d 7 ro ca y A ~ u ut 7 L ti o o h w 0 0 0 0 0 0 :s v U t~ 1- ca u v W v s~ rs v !W v 0 0 O 0 0 > 0 0 0 :a > > y , 0 ~ at. ;r 3. T. c-3 rr7 rt M Ir) tD r^- too 0) o o o 0 o 5 o 0 0 .0 0 0 O .y d Qt, 'tY w v W C1, cy+ O a O N N .a E a~ 0 Z CL 0 O c a0 o, 0 0 X Z a LM n w 0 Z O U w Q Z w w J 1 Z O D CC) E- w J O O cc H J Q s FMS W EXHIBIT D . EXHIBIT NO co a 0 L st E 0 U r r ,4j M x w cm 0 4-- 00 m 00 ( 'M'w \ / t ` t `~O -4-J 0 1 {f~ 0 N O z E N 0 z n D O 0 c y d n O ro 0 z ° C) m L w (Y3 a w U z 4-- 0 w z a d •v, Z o a ~ E _m H w cz w J co a O J . ~w Q ORDINANCE NO. XXX N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PREZONING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY (SODA PROPERTY) IN THE PARADISE DRIVE PORTION OF THE TIBURON PLANNING AREA (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 039-301-01) The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A. On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-05 recommending to the Town Council prezoning of certain unincorporated territory within the Tiburon Planning Area. B. The Town Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on and has heard and considered public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. D. The Town Council finds that the actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council finds the actions made by this Ordinance to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. F. The Town Council finds that the proposed prezoning action was fully evaluated in the Alta Robles Environmental Impact Report that has previously been certified by the Town Council and that no further environmental review is required prior to approval of the prezoning. SECTION 2. PREZONING OF TERRITORY The territory described below is hereby prezoned with a zoning designation of RPD (Residential Planned Development); with a maximum density not to exceed _ [to be determined based on Precise Development Plan approval] dwelling units per acre (exclusive of secondary dwelling units ancillary to single family dwellings), and is incorporated into Planned Development No. 20 in Title Iv, Chapter 16 (Zoning), Section 16-14.020 of the Municipal Code: Marin County Assessor's Parcel No. 039-301-01, commonly referred to as the SODA property; being approximately 20.95 acres, further described in attached Exhibit A and depicted graphically for illustration purposes only on attached EXHIBIT NO. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N.S. Effective --1--12011 1 Exhibit B, both incorporated herein. SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The Town Council declares that it would have passed this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILMEMBERS : NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Exhibits: A. Legal Description B. Graphic Depiction S: lMministrationlTown Counci110rdinancesl201IlPre-Zoning Ordinance Alta Robles.doc EXHIBIT NO.= Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N.S. Effective --1--12011 2 f . e~ NO DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate partly in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described below as follows. PARCEL ONE: Parcel 1, as, shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled: "Parcel Map Snyder, Winslow, Kilgore, Mills College -Land Division, a Portion of Parcel One, Two and Three under Recorder's Serial No.. 84-0029582 and Under Recorders Serial No. 86-0074047", filed for record March 26, 1 7 Boom 26 of Parcel Maps, at Page 32, Marin County Records. PARCEL TWO: A Sanitary Sewer Easement'over Land of Smith (2580 OR 89) and being described as follows: A) A strip. of land 20.00 feet in width, lying 1.0•feet on both sides of the following described fine: . Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map . itled "Lands of Neill Smith filed -for record. June 8, 1978 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page ent 34, Darin County Records; said point being South 006 15' 20" West 27 '.1' feet froth they intersection of the courses "N 0$ 15' 20" E 48.006 feet & N 450 26 21 E 1036.625 feet as shown on said map; thence leaving said Westerly line North 46 19 07 East 344.18 feet, thence South 83° 29' 26" East 67.49 feet; thence South 330 44 32 East 95.DO feet; thence South 750 37' 39" East 38.16 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the.preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 16° 3604", a distance of 46.31 feet, thence o North 870 47' 17" East 112.62 feet;. thence South 63° 33 33" East 37.00 feet; thence.North 70 14'39" East 14.13 feet; thence on a. curve to the left, tangent to the preceding courses, having a radius of 160.00 feet; through a central angle of 201) 36'27", a distance of 57.55 feet; thence North 49° 38' 12" East 57.14 feet; thence on a curve to the left,. tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a. central angle of 90• 24' 05", a distance of 26.25 feet; thence North 40° 14' 07 East 184.56 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 10 4806", a .distance of 30.16 feet; thence North 51" 02' 13" East 37.31 feet; thence on a curve.to the left tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 33o 04'44", a distance of 92.37 feet; thence on a reverse curve having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 25° 21' 58"1 a distance of 70.B4 feet; thence North 43 19 27 East 19.22 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of .160.00 feet, through a central angle of 68°.07' 44", a distance of 190.25 feet to the termination of this description. B Beginning at the termination point of the above described Parcel One; thence North 21 ° 27' 11" East 41.66 feet to the line of Corte Madera Del Presidio, a shown on said Parcel Map (15 t P.M. 34.); thence along said fine of Rancho Corte Madera Del Presidio, South 66o 06'4B" . -East EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION Continued 111.06 feet; thence. North 77" 53' 12" East 138.60 feet thence South 67° 06' 48" East 242.68 feet; thence South 67° 06' 48" East 220.44 feet to the most Westerly. corner of the' parcel conveyed to Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County, recorded November 4, 1968 in Book 2263. of Official Records at Page 49, Marin County Records; thence along the Westerly line of said Sanitary District No. 5 Parcel, South 11 ° 17' 20" East 72.19 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, North 47° 38' 09" West 59.16 feet; thence North 670 06' 48" West 198.16 feet; thence North 87° 06' 48" West 230.56 feet; thence South 77° 53 12 West 106.68 feet; thence along a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radiu-srof 170.00 feet, through 'a central angle of 33° 33'-59", a distance of 99.59 feet; thence North 68°32' 49" West 61.29 feet, thence North 211, 27' 11 East 10.00 feet to the point of beginning, c Beginning at a point on the Westerly sine of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being the intersection of the courses "N o° 15' 20" E 48.006 feet, and N 45° 26'21" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence along said Westerly line, North 45° 26'21" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, South 43° 40' 53" East 9.79 feet; thence South 460 19' 07" West 29.14 feet to the Westerly line of said Parce( 1; thence along said Westerly line, North .0° 15' 20" East 1:3.17 feet to the-point of beginning. Parcel C subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions so require: d) Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith filed for record June 8; 1978 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being North 45° 26' 21" East 370.74 feet from the intersection of.the courses "North 0° 15' 20" East 48.006 feet. and North 45 26' 21; East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence leaving said Northwesterty fine, South 44 33'39" East 65.10 feet to the Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, as described herein, thence along. said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 83° 29' 26" East. 31.83 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 44°33' 39" West 89.86 feet to the .Northwesterly line'of aforementioned Neill Smith' Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South 45° 26' 21" West 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel D subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions require: e)Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain. Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book IS of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being "North 45° 26' 21" East 288.15 feet from the intersection of the courses "North 0° 15 20 East 48.006 feet and North 45 26' 21" East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence along said Northwesterly line, South BY 29'26" East 18.10 feet to the Northerly-line of Easement Parcel One, described herein; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 4611.19' 07" East 30.75 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 831' 29'26" West 16.70 feet to the Northwesterly-line of aforementioned Neill Smith Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South. 45° 26'21." West 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT NO. P. L~o DESCRIPTION -Continued PARCEL THREE: A Utility Easement, 20 feet'in width to install and maintain one sewer line as contained in the document recorded November 30, 1999 as Instrument No. 1999 084666 and 1999 84667, Marin County Records. PARCEL FOUR: Portion of the so-called "Small Reed Ranch" as conveyed by John J. Reed to Clotilde Josephine Reed, by Deed dated November 21, 1899 recorded in Book 58 of Deeds at Page 1.68, Marin County Records. Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said tract, distant thereon South 450 51' East 45 feet from the intersection thereof with the Southeasterly line of the lands conveyed by Hercules Powder Company to T.A. Kilgore, recorded January 26, 1925 in Book 64 of Official Records at Page 394, Mahn County Records; said Southeasterly line being also the Northwesterly line of the lands now or formerly owned by Crowley; thence South 44 09 West 900 feet; thence North 45 51' Vilest 1525 feet; thence North 44° 09' East 875 feet; thence North 45° 51' West 90 feet; thence North 44° 09' East. 25 feet to the Northeasterly line of the Smal I Reed Ranch'; thence along said line, South 45° 51' East 1616 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT NO. EXN~EIT NO, B. City Parcels BayAreaCounty Ci D D Road Names County Boundary OceanSay ? ES o EXHIBIT NO. a_ r , " 4- SODA Property 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 3825 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 3 825 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 NO. Precise Development Plan The Precise Development Plan seeks approval for 14 residential lots, comprised of: • 1 lot for an existing single family home; and • 13 lots for thirteen new single family homes • 3 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[1]) 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. g11h(1ivici0n 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 EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 2 OF 11 • Private Cora non 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 TTBURON PAGE 3 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. ,-S 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. ~ On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and adopted Resolution No. 2011-04 recommending certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council and also adopted a resolution recommending approval of prezoning for the SODA parcel. MERIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 26, 2011 Meeting The Planning Commission first considered the merits of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan at its January 26, 2011 meeting. The staff report for that meeting included the following recommended modifications to the project to reduce significant impacts on the environment and/or to better achieve consistency with General Plan policies: 1. Elimination of Lot 4 due to its violation of Tiburon Ridge vertical setback policy. 2. Reduced floor area for Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to a maximum of 4,500 square feet, with 600 square feet of garage space. 3. Limiting the homes on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to predominantly one-story designs, with only a partial second story, and reducing the height of the home on Lot 7 from three stories to two stories. At the January 26th meeting, a majority of the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the Precise Development Plan that focused on the following issues: • Consistency with rid eline policies. The project design was inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines. Policy OSC- 12 states that "development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines. Setbacks shall be based on an evaluation of the following characteristics: local and regional visual prominence, ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential to act as a neighborhood separator, views of and views from, length, height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive habitat, special silhouette or back-drop features, difficulty of developing or accessing, and integrity of the ridgeline land form." The Commission concluded that more effort needed to be made to locate the future homes to preserve the visual integrity of the ridgelines. • Neighborhood compatibility. The project design was inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding consistency and compatibility with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. General Plan Policy LU-13 states that "neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible." The size and scale of the proposed homes were inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly those homes in the Seafirth, Acacia Drive and Norman Way neighborhoods. TOWN OF TiBUR{)N ~ PAGE 5 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. 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 faeade 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 faeade 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 TaBURON EXHIBIT ` ~ PAGE 6 OF 11 memo also included additional analysis of the house sizes in the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The memo listed numerous possible project revisions that were intended to produce a level of improved policy consistency in an attempt to meet the expectations expressed by the Planning Commission at the January 26 meeting. In combination with measures already set forth in Alternative 4, the draft Mitigation Monitoring Program, and in the January 26 staff report, the memo listed the following measures to increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines: 1. Eliminate Lot 4 2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 3. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would minimize contrast with their surroundings. 4. Eliminate Lot 8; or relocate the Lot 8 building site to a portion of Lot 1 north of Lot 2; or reduce the Lot 8 floor area maximum to 4,500 square feet with a 600 square foot garage and 25' maximum height limit and darken the roof color. 5. Reduce floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet and reduce the maximum height of both homes by 3 feet; require a greenish exterior color that better blends with the evergreen foliage backdrop. 6. Require a flatter roof on the Lot 11 house and darken the color of the roof. 7. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation. 8. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered" and appears as undisturbed topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline. 9. Reduce floor area maximum on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 10. Eliminate Lot 13; or relocate the Lot 13 building site to Lot 11 and reduce both homes on that site to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square feet of garage and a 22' maximum height limit; or reduce the Lot 13 floor area maximum to 5,000 square feet with 600 square feet of garage and a maximum height limit of 22' and require wall and roof colors that minimize contrast. The memo also listed the following measures to increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding neighborhood consistency and compatibility: 1. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot garage. 2. Reduce floor area of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet. 3. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet. 4. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 13 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of garage. The memo also included a "menu" of possible project revisions to the Alternative 4 project design (Exhibit 17) that created a checklist of the measures noted above. TOWN OF TIBURON ~ PAGE 7 OF 11 EXHIBIT To address the Commission's concern that the architectural design of homes built on the individual lots in the future would be consistent with the conceptual designs included in this precise development plan, staff recommended the inclusion of the following condition of approval: "House Designs. Individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall closely resemble the conceptual designs shown in the above- referenced drawings prepared by KAO Design Group, as revised pursuant to conditions of approval contained herein, or otherwise will require an amendment to this Precise Development Plan. In reviewing these design review applications, Town staff and the Design Review Board are directed to disallow changes, except for a reduction in house size, to the conceptual house designs and to the house locations, that would: a) materially increase the project's visibility from off-site; b) have materially greater impacts on views from other homes in the subdivision; c) substantially increase the heights of retaining walls; or d) result in substantially more grading without off-setting reductions in views and visual impact, while not materially increasing environmental impact." At the April 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission used the provided checklist as a tool to make recommendations about appropriate revisions to the project design, but also identified additional revisions that went even further toward increasing consistency with General Plan policies. During the Commission's deliberations, staff tallied the recommendations of individual Commissioners. The following revisions from the provided checklist were each recommended by a majority of the Commission for the reasons stated below: 1. Lot 8 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 6 and its proximity to serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. 2. Lot 9 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 3. Lot 10 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 4. Lot 13 would be eliminated due to its visual massiveness when viewed from Paradise Drive, the Seafirth Estates area, and Acacia Drive, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policies LU-13 and OSC-12. 5. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 would be reduced in size to minimize impacts on serpentine bunchgrass habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26, which states that "to the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special status species or special communities." 6. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5 and 6 would be reduced to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13 and to reduce visual impacts identified in the EIR. The maximum building height for these homes shall be limited to 16 feet to lessen the visual massiveness of these homes when viewed TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. ~ 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 EXHIBIT PAGE 9 OF 11 3 NO. . deliberations. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to return with a resolution containing any project modifications that the Council deems to be appropriate, for adoption at a future meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and close the public hearing; 2. Adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) certifying the Final EIR; 3. Begin deliberations on the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning, and if appropriate, direct staff to return with a density-specific prezoning ordinance, as well as resolutions conditionally approving a Precise Development Plan, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and making any necessary CEQA findings of fact and findings of overriding considerations consistent with the contemplated project approval. EXHIBITS 1. Draft resolution certifying the Alta Robles Final EIR 2. Draft ordinance prezoning the SODA property 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-10 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-04 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-05 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 23, 2009 7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24, 2010 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 26, 2011 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2011 10. Minutes of the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting 11. Minutes of the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting 12. Minutes of the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 13. Minutes of the April 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 14. Minutes of the April 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting 15. Consistency Analysis with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 16. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Planning (previously provided to the Council) 17. Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Consulting (previously provided to the Council) 18. Draft Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines, dated 3/6/2007 19. Applicant Alternative 5 narrative memo, dated April 1, 2011 20. Applicant memo on photosimulation changes, dated April 6, 2011 21. Applicant response to April 13, 2011 staff report, dated April 13, 2011 22. Memo on Additional Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood Consistency and Compatibility Policies, dated March 23, 2011 23. Menu of possible project revisions to Alternative 4 TOWN OF TISURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 10 OF 11 . 24. Letter from Steven Sockolov and Susan Snyder, dated January 11, 2011 25. Letter from Carol and Norman Traeger, dated January 12, 2011 26. Letter from Alexander Anolik, dated January 13, 2011 27. Letter from Barbara and Jeffrey Farber, dated January 14, 2011 28. Letter from Jeff and Suzanne Appleman, dated January 15, 2011 29. Letter from Barry Moss, dated January 17, 2011 30. Letter from Don Abramson, dated January 17, 2011 31. Letter from Michael and Marcia Rubenstein, dated January 17, 2011 32. Letter from Ronald and Rhea Brown, dated January 18, 2011 33. Letter from Robert Wolfe, dated January 19, 2011 34. Letter from Dan and Gina Waldman, dated January 19, 2011 35. Letter from Katie Vogelheim and John Hansen, dated January 20, 2011 36. Letter from Marilyn and Peter Siewert, dated January 21, 2011 37. Letter from Nona Dennis, dated January 21, 2011 38. Letter from David and Kimberley Brody, dated January 22, 2011 39. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated January 23, 2011 40. Letter from Douglas Currens and Jan Maisel, dated January 23, 2011 41. Letter from Ed and Christa Keeling, dated January 23, 2011 42. Letter from Eva Buxton, dated January 23, 2011 43. Letter from Jack Sholl, dated January 23, 2011 44. Letter from Murray Zucker, dated January 24, 2011 45. Letter from Roberta Zucker, dated January 24, 2011 46. Letter from Theo Koffler, dated January 24, 2011 47. Letter from Marvin Moskowitz, dated January 24, 2011 48. Letter from Doug Dossey, dated January 25, 2011 49. Letter from Kathrin Dellago, dated January 25, 2011 50. Letter from Leonard and Ruth Yaffe, dated January 25, 2011 51. Letter from Jan Gullett, dated January 25, 2011 52. Letter from Barbara Pattton, dated January 25, 2011 53. Letter from Jeff Schottenstein, dated January 25, 2011 54. Letter from Lawrence and Nancy Goldberg, dated January 26, 2011 55. Letter from Julie and Seth Jacobs, dated January 26, 2011 56. Letter from Bee Kilgore, dated January 26, 2011 57. Letter from Annette Gellert, dated January 28, 2011 58. Letter from Dana and Richard Steele, dated January 31, 2011 59. Letter from Mark Goldstein, dated April 7, 2011 60. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated April 12, 2011 61. Letter from Jerry Riessen and Joanna Kemper, dated April 12, 2011 62. Letter from Barry Wootton, dated April 13, 2011 63. Letter from Katie Vogelheim and John Hansen, dated July 12, 2011 64. Alternative 5 drawings and photo simulations, prepared by Ken Kao, Architect and CSW/ Stuber-Stroeh Additional correspondence regarding the Draft EIR is on file and is available for review at the office of the Planning Division. Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2011\August 3 drafts\Alta Vista PDP.report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11 EXHIBIT Nip. TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meetinor 1505 Tiburon Boulevard August 31, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: ~/s4 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 (Continued 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 TIBURQN PAGE Z OF 6 I;~.HIBIT N0. 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 PAGE 2 OF 6 EXHI.BIT NO. 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 from 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 EXH1BIT NO. 4 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 TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. q f 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 TiBBURON PAGE 5 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. q 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\AdministrationJown Council\Staff Reports\2011'\August 31 drafts\Alta Vista PDP.report2.doc TOWN of T>EBURON EXHIBITNO. 1 / PAGE 6 OF 6 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 in 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. 5 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 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. 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 EXHIBIT 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 EXHIBIT NO._4~_ 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 ' HIBIT NO. 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 hA'14 IT NO. 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 BIT 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 not 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. 5- 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 I I 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 pennission 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 ` EXH BIT 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 snake 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 ridgelines. 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 EXHIBIT NO. 5- 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 unposed 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 NO. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Slavitz called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 31, 2011, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Manager Watrous, Recording Secretary Harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 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 Planning Manager Watrous summarized the key elements of the project, stating on August 3, 2011, the Town Council held a public hearing on the request for precise development plan, prezoning, and EIR for a 14-unit residential project (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 deliberating merits on the project, the Town Council asked for additional information and continued the hearing which eventually was rescheduled from September 7 to tonight. The Council requested the following additional information on the project: Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page I L3 IBIT NO.-P-- • A larger version of the site constraints map. He noted there have been questions raised with regard to the clarity of the map and currency of infonnation received on the vegetation on the site; • Revised language that would better ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. The applicant's attorney has prepared draft language that would better tie conceptual house designs of the project included in the staff report. This is similar to what was recommended by the Planning Commission in its resolution and does include several text changes. Councilmember Collins has also expressed some additional potential text changes, as well; • Analysis of the secondary impacts of the project resulting from landslide repairs, retaining walls and drainage improvements. Much of his was discussed in the Draft and Final EIR. The Planning Commission discussed the potential for a retaining wall along Paradise Drive that would result from site distance analysis of the intersection of the access road in Paradise Drive and prescribed an additional traffic study be prepared to determine whether future retaining walls would be needed at that location for adequate site visibility; • Revised project snaps clearly showing the setbacks of the proposed home locations and Residential Use Areas (RUAs) from the ridgelines on the site. The environmental constraints map shows these areas on the site but not their precise setbacks. During the Planning Commission's review, they were more concerned with Lots 8, 9 and 10 where ridgelines run directly through the lots, but the ridgelines run as well as through the proposed house locations for lots 3 and 12 and residential use areas for Lots 11 and 14. The General Plan does not require or recommend any setbacks from significant ridgelines other than the Tiburon Ridge but has a policy that includes factors to be considered in reviewing development near ridgelines, and the Council may wish to establish a specific numerical setback for future house locations and/or RUA's for these lots that are close to 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. This property includes a large grove of eucalyptus trees that provide a backdrop to Lot 13, and the future house would become more visually prominent against the bay when viewed from homes on Acacia Drive; • A more thorough analysis of the environmental site constraints of the proposed Lot 8. As indicated by the constraints map, Lot 8 contains live plant species, coast live oak, and is bordered by a wetlands area. Ridgeline 6 also passes through the center of the proposed house and RUA. There appears to be some 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 without interfering with the wetlands to the west and below the house site. During its review on April 13, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission utilized a "menu" of possible project revisions to try to create project revisions that would increase the project's consistency with the General Plan. The Commission used this checklist to create a series of revisions that would do the following: Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 2 EXHIBIT NO - - 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. 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. Mr. Watrous stated the Council may wish to use the project revisions recommended by the Planning Commission as a starting point for its discussions on the merits of the project. Staff has edited this into a checklist form which was attached as Exhibit 1 and may provide a useful tool with which to build a consensus on a final project design. 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; Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 3 EXHIBIT NO. G 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. Mayor Slavitz stated as indicated in the staff report, Ridges 5 and 6 run though Lots 12 to a lesser extent and to a greater extent, through Lot 3. He asked why these lots were not removed by the Planning Commission even though they are located on the ridge. Mr. Watrous explained that the Planning Commission felt that for Lot 12, the house location is just barely into the actual ridgeline. For Lot 3, they felt that perhaps since that lot was so far up the ridgeline to a point where it was surrounded by trees, it was hard to distinguish that as being visually prominent on that ridgeline. Mayor Slavitz asked if the Planning Commission suggested a certain setback from these ridges. Mr. Watrous stated they did not. They opted to remove Lots 8, 9 and 10 completely so as to avoid conflict with the ridgelines rather than try to set a specific standard or setback from the ridgelines. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the purpose of setting ridgeline setbacks during this procedure would be to provide an opportunity to move instead of eliminate lots or proposed houses that are on the ridge. Mr. Watrous stated that General Plan Policy OSC-12 is to set back development from ridgelines and gives a series of characteristics to try and determine not necessarily how close something could be but how important protection was for that particular part of a ridgeline: It is up to the Council to determine whether protection needs to happen as a result of those individual factors, or in some fashion, whether the designated line on the map is being protected. He noted that the lines were established after a fair amount of thorough analysis, much of it from the bay where these ridges are more pronounced. Councilmember Fredericks questioned the consequences of redesigning in this manner, and cited the uncertainty of resultant impacts. She felt the maps are somewhat helpful, but there are things that cannot be seen on maps because colors blend into each other, and she was puzzled by the invitation to redesign the Planning Commission's conditions of approval and the site map. Mr. Watrous explained that there are some opportunities for possibly moving some of the lots around. Lots 9 and 10 have fewer environmental constraints in their immediate vicinity than others. Some may not have as much area, but this is why the increased level of detail in the larger constraints map was provided. He did not think it was the Council's job to redesign any changes, but if the Council thinks the Commission's approach of eliminating as a way to address the setback issue goes too far, it is possible to give direction to the applicant to determine opportunities that would accomplish some goals with higher importance, or in terms of moving a house slightly to achieve protection in some areas than others. Councilmember Fredericks stated the larger map was helpful; however, because some of the areas have more than one biotic constraint, it is often hard to tell what one is looking at. If lots, houses, and RUAs get moved around, she asked to be able to see materials in order to determine consequences at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Watrous said if the Council is asking for additional redesign of lots, he thinks it would be reasonable to request more detailed maps that would have clearer information as Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 4 EXHIBIT NO. b to where those specific site constraints are. Mayor Slavitz referred to lots 9 and 10 and asked if the Planning Commission investigated revising them to remove them from the ridge. Mr. Watrous replied no. In using the checklist, at least 3 of the 5 Planning Commissioners felt it was more of an inappropriate location as designed. Rather than move things around, they felt that because the ridgeline went right through them, they would stick with complete protection to be consistent with the General Plan. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether the Planning Commission also went through the checklist or a modified checklist. Mr. Watrous said Exhibit 2 to the staff report is the checklist the Planning Commission used, and this was prepared when staff had not yet received Alternative 5. The Commission reviewed it further, made specific changes which are identified on Exhibit 1, and he said this might be useful for the Council in deliberating and achieving consensus. Vice Mayor Fraser said the Council received a note from Judith Thompson regarding the trail easement incorporated in part of the plan and access to it from Hacienda Drive. As he read the letter and looked at the diagram, it was not clear how this was going to play out and he asked if staff could discuss the access point, whether private property is involved here and whether this will be an issue as laid, out in the plan submitted by the applicant, if the Council went forward as designed. Town Attorney Danforth responded, stating the Town obtained a pedestrian easement from 117 Hacienda Drive up to 139 Hacienda Drive in settling the litigation with the Wayne family. At that time, Council and staff understood that Hacienda Drive veered out of the area covered by the Wayne easement onto property owned by Ms. Thompson and her partner. A small portion of the paved area also traverses the property of another neighbor. Many years ago, the paved road was reconstructed outside of the original easement. Ms. Danforth said she discussed this with Ms. Thompson and spoke with her again today to assure her that the Town knows it still must resolve the connection between the actual of-record easement that goes up Hacienda Drive with the trail head presumed to be at 139 Hacienda Drive. There are a variety of ways this could be done. They want to arrive at a solution to everyone's mutual satisfaction. Possibly, the trail head might be shifted which might satisfy the situation, or construct a walkway around the private area. No one is planning to put a public trail on Ms. Thompson's property without her permission. Councilmember Collins asked how changes made in the proposed plan affected any physical impacts identified in the approved EIR. Ms. Danforth said the answer depended on the extent to which the certified document described the impacts that would be reasonably expected to flow from the project as amended. She noted that the EIR evaluated all 14 lots, the document is quite comprehensive and examines a wide range of alternatives. Once changes are identified, the Town would have to evaluate any impacts to determine whether further environmental study is required. Mayor Slavitz noted that the Council closed public comment at the last meeting and the purpose of this meeting is for the Council to evaluate the merits of the project and come to a determination. He Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 5 EXHIBIT NO. asked for Council comments. Councilmember Fredericks said that as has been pointed out, this is a site with 18 landslides, 2 ridgelines and significant prime open space resources including protected species. She said the Council's job is to find a balance between the preservation of prime open space as defined in the General Plan and reasonable residential use. Prime open space is a resource for which the whole is really bigger than the sum of the parts. In chopping away at it, a list is not being diminished, but rather habitat and other things the Town is directed to consider when looking at development. It is ridgelines, streams, riparian corridors, flood prone areas, steep slopes, views, trees. She said this site is so constrained that if these characteristics of prime open space were a mandate to be protected, it would be very difficult to develop this site at all. However, it is not a mandate, but a balancing act. One of the significant characteristics of prime open space is the ridgelines. OSC-12 gives a list of characteristics of ridgelines when considering land owners' desires for residential purposes, but why these ridgelines are really important is because over decades, the community has defined what Tiburon is. What is important is the visual identity of Tiburon, and this is why the desire to preserve this identity is memorialized in the General Plan. Councilmember Fredericks stated neighborhood compatibility is another issue discussed extensively. The project would set a new standard in home sizes not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and some were approved on parcels with different characteristics, under different conditions, and some by different jurisdictions. However, the 26 acre Tiburon Glen project applied for 8 lots and got 3 lots. This is an example of how other things balance the homeowner's desire to use land to the maximum density. It is not something always achieved, especially in parcels that are enormously constrained. She said there are tradeoffs for everything, especially when dealing with a constrained piece of land. When one tries to control the visual impacts, one ends up grading and digging to bury the floor area. When one wants to keep people and the home site safe by extensive landslide repair, habitat is disrupted. If there are fewer houses, fewer cisterns are needed which means less grading and less landslide repair, and less area used by the landowner. She stated that a good example which has not been discussed is when a house on a site is reduced and the proposed house is two-story to one-story, you possible produce a bigger footprint. She hopes this can be mitigated in some way by orienting the house so that the smallest facade is towards the middle ridge open space, which can be discussed in conditions of approval. The Planning Commission made changes to the plans to achieve greater consistency with the Town's General Plan and she personally thinks the Commission struck a reasonable balance. There are significant unavoidable impacts no matter what is done with this piece of land and the Town has been encouraged to think that the house design as a benefit overrides that. She felt it may, but there is some uncertainty as to where it will end up, which could affect open space characteristics. She thinks the Commission allowed reasonable residential use of the land if developed as conditioned. She asked that after this discussion, if there are substantial changes, the Council be provided with the additional information they might need to make an informed decision. She noted that the floor area was to be calculated as described in zoning laws, but in fact, the applicant's representative indicated Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 6 (L~ EXHIBIT N0. at a prior meeting that the floor area presented in the plans were calculated to include all square footage. She asked that this be reflected in a condition of approval. There was also a letter commenting about a concern with digging holes for houses below grade and then letting them sit until the lots were actually developed. She would like more information about these impacts prior to approval. Vice Mayor Fraser echoed Councilmember Frederick's comments. He recognized the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission for the breadth and depth of information provided to the community as extremely extensive and beneficial. He also thanked the applicant for providing access to the site. He said he has walked the site three different times and found it beneficial to learn each time more about the siting of the various homes and what may or may not be possible. He thinks the Commission addressed the key issues which deal with ridges, landslides, visual impacts, size and mass of the various homes proposed, protected species, natural resources, and preservation of open space. Even though the Planning Commission did what he thinks is a good job, when he looks at what is proposed today, he suggested there may be an alternative way to look at the plans. What concerns him the most was the fact there are several properties which cross the spine of a ridge. He would be troubled if a home were ever to be built on the spine of a ridge. Vice Mayor Fraser offered a suggestion to consider a setback from the ridgelines. In developing the General Plan, the Town clearly set out guidelines that directed to stay away from developing across ridges. He suggested that the house sizes might need to be smaller if moved away from the ridges. The plan today has extremely large houses and one could argue they are not compatible with the neighborhood, as well as an argument for what has been done to the west on Acacia Drive or to the south on Gilmartin Drive where there are homes of significant size. More important to him is utilization of the space that is available, and he could not support building on the spine of a ridge. However, houses could be built if moved away from the spine, but should not encroach into areas with protected species. He said that protected species are things that will never return if their natural habitat erodes, and while it may change the overall plan as presented by the applicant, it may be for the better. He stated there is a balance between what the General Plan and the community has asked the Council to carry forward. Councilmember Collins commended staff and the applicant for their work on the project and presentation. He believes this is a tough site to build on for reasons of constraints as stated and said he thinks the Planning Commission got it right-they required that this plan comply with the General Plan and zoning ordinance. He thinks there is a way for the developer to return with something that will take the homes off the ridge; otherwise, he could not support such a project. He would recommend that the architect and owner look at the things the Commission did and see what can be done to address those issues. Maybe all of the lots could be saved, possibly by proposing smaller homes. He also stated the home sizes are a problem for him, and while there are one or two homes in the area larger, they were built after the General Plan was adopted. He noted the proposed homes would be gigantic in comparison to those on Seafirth, Hacienda, Norman Estates and Acacia, which he described. He believes that a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot home is a large enough house and suggested hearing further Council comments. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 7 EXHIBIT NO. 62 Councilmember O'Donnell echoed Council comments, stated the presentation of the project was fantastic, and he respects the effort and work that went into the project. He also thinks the Commission did some good things in their work and knows their job is a difficult one. However, he also disagrees with some things. He said he generally agrees with the Commission and staff's recommendations in January to reduce the home sizes and mix them up; and not have every home over 7,000 square feet. He thinks the project presents an extremely environmentally-friendly project design. He thinks the applicant has put together an environmentally-friendly proposal of sod/live roofs, substantial earthwork for square footage, minimal impacts, allowing 75% of the overall land to remain as private and public open space, dedicating a public trail to the Town, and also the agreement to tie the home designs to the application. Councilmember O'Donnell voiced interest in the economic considerations that must go into projects, which he feels must be considered. He disagrees with what Mr. Hurd mentioned before about larger homes and more property taxes, but said a project of his size will bring an enonnous amount of revenue to the town in building and impact fees. He also empathizes with the applicant when making a substantial investment in the infrastructure to ensure they can pencil out the project. When lots begin to be eliminated, it becomes a difficult situation, and he empathizes with those economic points. He thinks there is a big benefit to the Town to have common interests with the property owner who resides on the land regarding protecting the site. He would not say which homes should be reduced or moved, which requires a level of expertise and review, but would support a recommendation of making certain numbers for the square footage maintained at a certain level, e.g., a few homes in the 4,000-4,500 square foot range, a few at 7,000 and a few at 6,000 square feet as a way of reducing impacts. He felt in general that this is a fair and balanced application and believes it is a project that will work well for the Town and for those who love and respect open space. Mayor Slavitz echoed comments about the applicant, staff, and especially the work of the architect. He said the problem for him is that the Town has spent a lot of time and energy developing the General Plan. He said that beautiful design is not a reason for exceptions from the General Plan. It is a document that reflects the sentiments of the Town, and one of the key features is not building on the ridges. The Commission did the right thing by removing these houses on the ridge. It sounds like the Council wants to go further, as some houses still remain on the ridge. He thinks it is an interesting suggestion to give the applicant an opportunity to see if they can be redesigned to not be on the ridge at all. The Council should follow the General Plan, will continue to ask applicants to follow it, and not following it because the homes are beautiful is not fair. He said that the Town cannot let one developer build on ridgelines but not another. Mayor Slavitz noted that the site at 52 acres is incredibly constrained. Every space on the map that is not constrained is proposed to be built on. He acknowledged the economic viability of the designed project which has created conflicts with the General Plan. The Planning Commission did a great job in striking a balance and not being overly punitive, as there were lots they could have removed and house sizes reduced for consistency with the General Plan. He was open to letting the applicant return and design homes that stay off the ridgeline and to be reflected in the final design drawings. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 8 EXHIBIT NO. fv Councilmember Fredericks asked to address the issue of asking for a redesign, stating one of the pitfalls of this is that houses are moved around and the Council-will deal with another set of impacts. The applicant has spent more money, time, and the Council will have to decide how important the stands of Western Flax, the Serpentine Grass or Tiburon Buckwheat are. The way she saw the balance was accepting some ridgeline impacts in order to avoid some other important impacts. Perhaps there is a redesign, but if the Council asks for this, it should keep in mind that it can be costly and the applicant is being put in a position where he is unsure of what is going to be acceptable. Mayor Slavitz clarified, stating that his intention was not to say to move the houses off of the ridgeline and into protected species. These houses have to stay in the white areas on the constraints map that do not indicate any environmental constraints. The houses could be made smaller and moved off the ridgeline, but not moved into the protected areas. Councilmember Fredericks stated one of the things suggested was that Lot 8 could be moved off the ridge. Perhaps it can, but it is between two habitats of Western Flax, and there are wetlands. If they start dredging that up, she was not sure how that would affect the Flax. It is a very complicated site to deal with and she is loathed to have the applicant start over. She would want the Council to consider what the burden on the applicant might be. Mayor Slavitz agreed with Councilmember Fredericks regarding Lot 8. Lots 9 and 10 have a lot of white space and the advantage of taking it away and also building smaller houses, is that it completely removes the impact from the ridge. He said to him, it is going further than the Planning Commission and requiring them to build off the ridge. Councilmember Collins asked if the applicant could indicate as to whether they were amenable to a redesign. He was also loathe to sending the applicant away and not address the various possibilities. Mayor Slavitz asked staff if it was reasonable for the Council to provide its thoughts about the different lots and possibilities and ask that the applicant consider these and return. Town Manager Curran suggested getting an initial read from the applicant as to whether there is interest or whether this is possible. She agreed that attempting to redesign things on the spot is not possible, but the applicant might be able to determine what possibilities exist and which do not with what the Council is proposing. Vice Mayor Fraser questioned what is it that the Council would like the applicant to achieve. There has been some different dialogue and he believes that building on the spine of the ridge is problematic. Quite possibly there is another area that has not been considered for building or another parcel that might be available for building, but he did not believe it was the Council's job to redesign, but rather to follow the guidelines of the General Plan and the applicant return with a plan that works. Councilmember Fredericks said some of this discussion is predicated on the assumption that the Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 9 EXHIBIT NO. white areas are areas that have no constraints. Mr. Watrous said they are not constrained in any significant environmental manner, in that they do not have landslides, sensitive plant species, or other substantial vegetation around theirs. Councilmember. Fredericks said, therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that if a house can be moved off the ridge within the white space, it will most likely avoid constraints. Mr. Watrous noted that for Lot 8 he was not sure how the wetlands setback was arrived at and whether intruding into that setback would necessarily affect a wetland. If there is an area of oak woodlands, that is not necessarily a sensitive plant species but depending on the amount of encroachment into it, an encroachment could be considered more sensitive. He suggested that if the Council is looking for direction to the applicant as to which houses are being considered for redesign, some of the other lots have, to some extent, RUAs or houses on the ridgeline, but the Commission only chose to eliminate Lots 8, 9, 10 and 13 at this point. However, direction could be to look at redesigning those 4 lots and/or possibly go further to take all home sites off the stretches of the entire ridgeline. He thinks there needs to be some consensus to identify which lots to redesign. Mayor Slavitz requested the applicant speak as to comments surrounding redesign. Attorney Riley Hurd stated they would very much like to hear the ideas in regards to the particular lots. After hearing this, they would be better able to decide whether this is something they can or cannot undertake. Councilmembers discussed their individual preferences relating to revisions, as follows: Councilmember O'Donnell: Maintain all 13 lots and constrain a few. Homes on Lots 13 and 14 should be reduced to 4,500 square feet. He did not see visual impacts with the removal of eucalyptus trees. He supported two smaller homes with clustering. He said that Lots 11 & 12 were fine. He asked to reduce floor area to 6,000 square feet for Lots 9 and 10 and possibly be 100 feet away from the ridgeline. The home for Lot 4 should be reduced to 4,000 square feet. He asked to reduce the size of the home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet and work on siting it to have the least impact and ensure it maintains balance with the overall design. The applicant's requested house sizes for Lots 5 and 6 was OK. Councilmember Collins: Install story poles for the redesigned lots. The home on Lot 14 should be 4,500 square feet. Consider relocated Lot 13 by tucking it below Lot 12 and bending it further north where the entry road comes in. The home on Lot 13 should be 4,500 square feet. Put Lots 9 and 10 on each side of the road and realign the road, maintain the homes at 6,000 square feet with a 100 foot setback from the ridge. Reduce the homes on Lots 11 and 12 to 6,000 square feet. The homes on Lots 5 and 6 feel like a continuous home and should be made more narrow, spread apart and moved toward the Tiburon ridge. He could not support Lot 8 being located on the ridge, but if moved, the home should be 4,000 to 4,500 square feet. Reduce floor area for homes on Lots 2, 3 and 7 to 4,500 square feet. He added that the FAR maximum should include subsurface areas and basement, and asked that grading not occur until house plans are approved and landslide repairs occur. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 10 EXHIBIT NO. ~P Mayor Slavitz: He preferred not to indicate specificity for floor areas. The homes for Lots 9, 10 and 12 should be reconfigured and made smaller. He supported the suggestion for reduced floor areas for the homes on Lots 9 and 10 and locating them on either side of the ridge. Lots 8 and 3 sit on Ridge 6, and he questioned how Lot 8 could be built. He supported spreading out and reducing the floor areas of Lots 5 and 6 which would make them not look like one house, as well as moving them off the ridge. Vice Mayor Fraser: Echoed the Mayor's comments and was opposed to building on the ridge. It would be helpful to provide the applicant with direction about any setback from the ridgeline saying that he was unsure whether a 50 foot or 100 foot setback was-appropriate. Encourage the applicant to consider smaller house sizes. He concurred with comments regarding Lots 3 and 8, but he was not opposed to removal of Lot 8 if the applicant could find a way to build a home and keep it off the ridge. Regarding Lot 13, if it is feasible to reduce the house in mass or move it to the other side of the roadway, this might allow the applicant to achieve a good size house and mitigate visibility aspects from the neighborhood. Councilmember Fredericks: Voiced opposition to building on the ridge, supported reduction of square footages, and pointed out that the lots include RUAs which could also include both swimming pools and secondary developments and accessory buildings up to 15 feet in height. Therefore, both the house sites and RUAs may be made smaller. She agrees with much of what has been said about the possibility of moving Lot 13 but cited its looming visibility and agreed with the Commission's recommendation to remove it. She reminded the Council that Lots 9 and 10 were removed because of the habitat for Western Flax. Lots 5 and 6 are very visible from Middle Ridge and they are a continuous line of development; reducing their size and moving them further apart is an excellent idea. She was open to anything that reduces the built environment on the ridge. BREAK Mr. Hurd requested a 10-minute recess, and Mayor Slavitz called for a break at 8:48 p.m. The Council then reconvened the special meeting at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Hurd commented that the difficulty with this is that they understand the General Plan as the Town's Constitution and this project was designed to balance its requirements, which area often competing elements. The General Plan calls for certain things and others that are not always perfectly compatible which is why they must be balanced. He said an interesting case came out in July where a municipality was instructed that instead of choosing one like ridges, that balance is required. He said that they used the characteristics of OSC-12 to judge whether a ridge should have setbacks at all, whether it can be built on or not built on, and it says each of these characteristics should not be judged equally. Tonight, instead of seeing this OSC-12 analysis, they are hearing from the Council they want nothing on the ridges, which is new. Staff went through the entire analysis and concluded that the ridges do not warrant the high protection of some of the other ridges in town which it sounds as if these are being equated to. He said this has been difficult, compounded by the Town's borrowed view policy, and then looking down at the private property, that policy is not being applied. He said that a 100 foot setback from the ridgelines would be a deal breaker, impossible, and would render the site undevelopable. What they can do is try to explore a scenario in which they Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 11 EXHIBIT NO. & move the lots discussed tonight off of the ridge. They cannot guarantee right now what the setbacks are going to be, but if the Council told them that getting them off the ridge by whatever amount would work, they are willing to look at it. They would also like.to hear what it is these characteristics apply to ridges to make theirs untouchable. Mayor Slavitz confirmed with Mr. Watrous that the Council's deliberation centered directly or indirectly on characteristics in OSC-12. The list talks about local and regional visual prominence, the ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential act as a neighborhood separator, views of and from length, height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive -habitat, special silhouette or backdrop features, difficulty of developing or accessing an integrity of ridgeline form. He said the discussion had to do with why these ridgelines are important to the Town, and he believes the Councilmembers made this clear. Ms. Curran urged the Council to discuss this further to provide greater clarity to the applicant. Mr. Watrous reviewed the general (and not majority) consensus of the Council, as follows: • Make the homes on Lots 9 and 10 smaller and move them off the ridge; • Make the home on Lot 13 smaller and off the ridge; • Make the homes on Lots 5 and 6 smaller and spread them out a bit; • Move the home on Lot 8 off the ridge and make smaller, if possible. Councilmember Fredericks pointed out that she was opposed to the consensus for Lot 13 and believes it to be extremely prominent. Mayor Slavitz referred to Lot 11 and confirmed with Mr. Hurd that the closest point it comes to Ridgeline 5 is 10 feet. He asked if the Council was comfortable in setting a particular distance and if so, what would it be. Councilmember Collins suggested the applicant move them as far as possible away from the spine of the ridge and return with a conceptual drawing. By reducing the size of the homes, it should reduce the size of the RUAs and increase setbacks from the ridges. Councilmember Fredericks stated one of the reasons she was comfortable with the Planning Commission's finding is because when looking at this balancing, there are some places on this ridge that one cannot see because of the trees, and there are some places very prominent in looking back. Instead of micromanaging the footage of setbacks or what visibility is enough or too much, she felt they balanced among the different sites to allow some and remove some on the ridge, and this is the balancing act in protecting the ridge. Her point is that this kind of grosser balancing was an easier way of protecting the ridge than trying to figure out what setback for each lot would work. Councilmember O'Donnell said he arrived at square footages using the staff report from January and specific recommendations on what size some of the lots should be, and thinks there has actually been Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 12 EXHIBIT NO. a lot of care and analysis done. Vice Mayor Fraser said that the General Plan states that these are ridges and he does not believe the Council should support building on the ridges. He also agreed with Councilmember Collins about establishing the best setback possible from the ridgelines, but the Council should give the applicant credit for their excellent design overall, knowledge of the site, and allow them some latitude in building houses that would fit the guidelines that the Council sets forth, which does not include houses on ridges per the General Plan. Protecting ridges is clearly one of the center points and driving forces of the community. He thinks that given the differences of opinion on Lot 13, he would not eliminate it, but the visual mass is larger than it-needs to be because of how it is sited. Councilmember Collins' also suggested siting it on the other side of the road, or reducing its size. Mayor Slavitz said he did not believe the Council was trying to protect these ridges like it does the Tiburon Ridge, and they are not asking for a 150 feet horizontal setback. However, they are asking for some separation, and he would not want to provide an exact number because what is designed in the relationship to the particular ridge can be different. He would think that the applicant could sketch a redesign, show floor areas, where houses could be relocated, and providing the distance from the ridge. He would be happy to accept the Planning Commission recommendations and shrinking Lots 2 and 3, but he is giving the applicant an opportunity to work out a plan that works out better for them and goes as far as what the Planning Commission suggested. It may be that the Council takes the Commission's recommendation after the applicant returns. Mr. Watrous reviewed, lot by lot, the majority consensus of the Council, as follows: All Lots: Do not build on the ridge; Lot 14: No change; Lot 13: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 12: Move off the ridge; Lot 11: No change; Lot 10: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 9: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 8: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 7: No change; Lot 6: Separate away from Lot 5; Lot 5: Separate away from Lot 6, possibly further uphill and further from sensitive habitat Lot 4: Reduce size to that recommended by Planning Commission; Lot 3: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 2: No change. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 13 EXHIBI'T' NO. G-~) Councilmember Fredericks said the Council should consider what would happen is if the only place to put an accessory building or secondary dwelling is closer to the ridge or on the ridge, or place it so it does not look like a continuous line of structure. Mr. Watrous said generally, this is the yard area or an area that can be fenced off, vegetated, or a swimming pool installed, versus areas that are private or common open space that are not to be touched. Mayor Slavitz asked if it would be safe to say the Council does not want RUAs on or near the ridge, and Mr. Watrous replied that it depends upon how the Council is looking at the structures; whether there may be a problem with someone having a 6-foot fence along a ridgeline or a 12- or 15-foot tall pool house, which he said is allowed. Mayor Slavitz said if the Council is serious about protecting the ridge he would not support accessory structures or fences on or near the ridge. Councilmembers concurred that RUAs should not be on or near the ridge. BREAK Mayor Slavitz called for a break at 9:34 p.m. for the applicant to briefly consider points made by the Council, and thereafter, reconvened at 9:41 p.m. Dr. Ken Kao, architect, said they appreciate the deliberations and requested the Council to direct staff to write out the specific details, goals and position for compliance for each of the lots as per discussion and detail the terms of compliance for the consulting team to evaluate and to return to the Council, per Councilmember Collins' suggestion for a concept sketch. They can then understand strategically how to develop the concept that can meet the criteria of General Plan compliance. Mayor Slavitz suggested continuing the hearing to a date certain. Ms. Curran offered September 21, 2011, and Mr. Kao confirmed. Councilmember Collins suggested there be story poles placed once the concept sketch is presented, and Mr. Kao agreed, and asked to be able to meet with staff prior to September 21, 2011. MOTION: Direct the applicant to make conceptual changes as described in deliberations and continue the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning to September 21, 2011. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember O'Donnell reported on the success of the Art Festival held August 27 and 28, 2011. He noted there were only 7 Plein Air applicants and suggested that next year's competition include a People's Choice Award, which he felt would garner greater interest. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 14 K EXHIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services Town Council Meeting November 16, 2011 Agenda Item: z Recommendation to Pay Off CalPERS Local Safety and Local Miscellaneous Employee Retirement Plan Side Fund Liabilities -t3z. Since 1967, the Town of Tiburon has contracted with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Ca1PERS) to administer the Town's pension plans. The Town participates in two CaIPERS retirement plans. Both are defined benefit pension plans and are funded through a combination of employer and employee contributions, as well as investment earnings. The first plan covers all employees who are not sworn police personnel. This group is referred to as "Local Miscellaneous". The retirement formula for the Town's Local Miscellaneous employees is 2% @ 55. An employee with at least 5 years of service is eligible to retire at age 50. The benefit is calculated as the number of service years multiplied by a percentage of the employee's highest annual salary. If the employee retires at age 55, that percentage is 2%. For example, an employee earning an annual salary of $50,000 retires at age 55 with 20 years of service. The employee's annual pension benefit is calculated at $20,000 ($50,000 X 20 years X 2%). The second plan covers sworn police personnel (Police Officers, Sergeants, Captain and Chief). Their retirement formula is 3% @ 55. Their benefit is calculated the same as Local Miscellaneous employees, except at age 55 there are eligible for 3% of compensation for every year of service. Therefore, an employee earning an annual salary of $50,000 retiring at age 55 with 20 years of service would receive an annual pension benefit of $30,000 ($50,000 X 20 years X 3%). The Town does not participate in Social Security. Therefore, an employee with less than 40 quarters of service in Social Security prior to employment with the Town will not receive a Social Security benefit, unless the 40 quarters are earned after retirement from the CalPERS system. Employees with at least 40 quarters of prior service will receive a limited Social Security benefit that is further decreased by participation in the Ca1PERS pension plan. Both the Town and the employee make contributions toward the pension plan. The employee contribution remains static at 7% of reportable earnings for Local Miscellaneous, and 9% for Local Safety. The employer contribution rate fluctuates based on the plan's funding status. The plan's funding status and employer contribution rate are negatively impacted when the actuarial TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6 4 assumptions used by CalPERS are not met, and conversely the funding status and employer contribution rate are positively impacted when actuarial assumptions are exceeded. In 2003, CaIPERS required all employers with less than 100 employees to be placed into risk pools. The Town had no option to decline participation in the risk pools, and on June 30, 2003 the Town was placed into the Miscellaneous 2% @ 55 plan pool and the Local Safety 3% @ 55 plan pool. Upon being placed in the respective pools, Ca1PERS no longer calculated the Town's individual unfunded actuarial liability. On June 30, 2003, the Town's unfunded actuarial liability for each plan was replaced with a debt to the pool referred to as a Side Fund Liability. The Side Fund Liabilities are amortized over a specified number of years determined by CaIPERS. The Side Fund Liabilities are credited each year with CalPERS' investment return assumption of 7.75%. Essentially, the Town is financing its Side Fund Liabilities through CalPERS at an interest rate of 7.75% In addition to the Side Fund Liability, the Town has a proportionate share of the Pools unfunded actuarial liability. The Town's exact share of the pool's unfunded actuarial liability is not provided with the Ca1PERS actuarial valuation. The Miscellaneous plan has a Side Fund Liability of $420,143 as of July 1, 2011, with 14 years left on its amortization schedule. The Local Safety Side Fund Liability is $248,599 with 6 years left on the amortization period. Both Side Fund Liabilities are being amortized through an increase in the Town's employer rate. The table below illustrates each plan's employer rate: Table 1. Employer Contribution Required (Percentage of Payroll) Fiscal Year 2011-12 Safety Miscellaneous Risk Pool's Net Employer Normal Cost 15.725% 7.684% Risk Pool's Payment on Amortization Bases 4.583% 1.855% Surcharge for Class 1 benefits 0.000% 0.520% Amortization of Side Fund 3.687% 1.717% 23.995% 11.776% ANALYSIS CalPERS allows agencies to accelerate or completely repay their Side Fund Liability at any point, thereby saving an agency financing costs on their debt (7.75%). Some agencies choose to refinance their Side Fund Liability payments to a lower interest rate through pension obligation bonds, or pay off the entire debt with a lump sum payment. As reflected in Table 1 above, if the Town paid off its Side Fund Liabilities, the Safety plan's employer rate would be reduced immediately by 3.687% of payroll, and the Miscellaneous plan would be reduced by 1.717%. Over the life of the amortization period, the Town will pay a total of $703,915 towards the Miscellaneous plan Side Fund Liability and $310,633 towards the Local Safety plan. By paying off the two Side Fund Liabilities, the Town would realize a savings of $358,735 in financing costs. Appendix I to this Staff Report provides details the amortization payments and the pay off savings of each plan. If the Town were to payoff both Side Fund Liabilities, the savings to the operating budget over the next fourteen years would be a total of $1,014,547 broken out as follows: FY 2012 $ 88,226 FY 2019 $ 5008 FY 2013 $ 911093 FY 2020 $ 521315 FY 2014 $ 941054 FY 2021 $ 54,015 FY 2015 $ 97,112 FY 2022 $ 55,771 FY 2016 $100,268 FY 2023 $ 57,583 FY 2017 $103,526 FY 2024 $ 59,455 FY 2018 $ 49,073 FY 2025 $ 615388 At the close of FY 2011 (June 30, 2011), the Town has $2,079,027 in Unallocated General Fund Reserves. This amount is in addition to the 25% policy required General Fund Operating Reserve of $2,139,683, and to the $7,478,071 in other General Fund Reserves earmarked in a combination of binding and non-binding ways for specific purposes including $1.55 million to fund the Ned's Way Recreation Facility project, and $786,000 for the Lyford Parking Lot. The Town continues to maintain a strong general fund reserve position with total reserves of $11.7 million at June 30, 2011. Because the Town is paying 7.75% for what is essentially debt held by CalPERS while it has substantial reserve funds set aside for a variety of projects and purposes, staff believes it would be financially prudent and affordable for the Town to eliminate this obligation at this time. With the Town's current investment return of approximately 0.5%, it makes sense to payoff a high interest rate debt with idle funds that are returning very little in terms of interest earnings. Paying off the Side Fund Liability is also in keeping with the Town's efforts to reduce unfunded liabilities over which it has control. The MCCMC Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit Committee also recommended that agencies with a Side Fund Liability financed by Ca1PERS may want to consider restructuring its obligation through refinancing. Staff has met with the Council's Finance sub-committee twice over the past two months to discuss the question of paying off, or paying down, the Town's Ca1PERS Side Fund Liabilities. At the sub-committee's meeting of October 25, 2011, it recommended that staff bring forward a proposal to the full Council to approve the repayment of the Town's two CalPERS Side Fund Liabilities from the General Fund Unallocated Reserves. The Committee also recommended that the annual savings realized from this action be reapplied to the General Fund Unallocated Reserve. FINANCIAL IMPACT Should the Town Council approve the repayment of the Ca1PERS Side Fund Liabilities from the General Fund, the Town will pay approximately $655,813 to eliminate this liability and realize a savings of $358,735 in interest expense associated with financing the funds through CalPERS. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to direct Staff to repay the CalPERS Side Fund Liability for the Local Miscellaneous and Local Safety Funds in an approximate amount of $655,813 from the General Fund Unallocated Reserve Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services APPENDIX 1. Side Fund Information for the Town of Tiburon Miscellaneous Plan Current Schedule 7/1 Balance Payment 7/1/2011 $ 420,143 2011/2012 $ 420,143 $ 40,504 2012/2013 $ 410,660 $ 41,820 2013/2014 $ 399,075 $ 43,180 2014/2015 $ 385,182 $ 44,583 2015/2016 $ 368,755 $ 46,032 2016/2017 $ 349,552 $ 47,528 2017/2018 $ 327,307 $ 49,073 2018/2019 $ 3015735 $ 5008 2019/2020 $ 272,524 $ 52,315 2020/2021 $ 2395340 $ 545015 2021/2022 $ 201,819 $ 55,771 2022/2023 $ 159,569 $ 57,583 2023/2024 $ 1125162 $ 59,455 2024/2025 $ 59,139 $ 61,388 2025/2026 $ (0) $ - Total Payments $ 703,915 11/1 Lump Sum Payoff 7/1 Balance Payment $420,143 $ 420,143 $417,057 $ 417,057 Savings if 11/1/11 Payoff $ 286,857 Safetv Plan Current Schedule 7/1/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 7/1 Balance $248,599 $ 248,599 $ 218,329 $ 184,103 $ 145,562 $ 102,316 $ 53,947 Payment $ 47,722 $ 49,273 $ 50,874 $ 52,529 $ 54,236 $ 55,999 Total Payments $ 310,633 Savings if 11/1/11 Payoff Total Savings if both Plans Paid Off 11/1/11 11/1 Lump Sum Payoff 7/1 Balance Payment $248,599 $ $ 248,599 $ 238,756 $ 238,756 $ 71,877 $ 358,735