Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2012-02-15 (2)4.y ,I 1+ U U Y tJ L,10'~ TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Via E-Mail Only Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 $74 FOURTH S70 EE:-, SOITU D SAN KAFAU, CA 949*1-32.4r, TOWN COUNCIL •3•r~},.y,~t~}acy~e.fi15.4~3,9~433 a~~~Y~<xe:~1:~.453,H~~'~ IN IN #F3.sffiY}T}..}. i`.C&3 td 0 IL;F Raggh1antl l r re taS LLP February 15, 2012 iAlt MAIL # Ig-1 MEETING DATE 2 Re: Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (PD #20); 3825 Paradise Drive; File # 30701 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Our office continues to represent the Rabin Family in connection with the above- referenced application. We have now had the opportunity to review the proposed conditions attached to the draft approval resolutions for this project. The purpose of this letter is to address issues arising out of four, of the thirty-four, proposed conditions. Condition 2 We would request that Condition 2 be modified as follows: "Within 0.4.4ru.X 4_20) nine 90 days following the effective date of this Resolution, the applicant shall submit a complete set of the drawings and documents referenced above incorporating all changes required by the conditions of approval and project modifications made in this Resolution to the Community Development Department for review and acceptance as being in substantial conformance with this approval. This update shall also include and required changes to the Landscape, Tree Removal and Vegetation Management Plans prepared by Jim Catlin, Landscape Architect, dated March 2006 (16 sheets)." Given the complexity of the subject plan sets and the fact that they will be heavily referenced in the future as binding documents, it is important that adequate time be allowed for their accurate preparation. This edit would provide that time. 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. MACIAS DAVID P. FREITAS (RET. ) ERIC STERNBERGER HERBERT M. ROWLAND DF Ragghianti lFreitas LLr Tiburon Town Council February 15, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Condition 6 Condition 6 prohibits certain improvements within 15 linear feet of Town Ridges 5 and 6, and the applicants are willing to fully comply with this condition. It is very important to note, however, that the current set of plans submitted to the Town in conjunction with Alternative 6 erroneously depict the length of Ridge 5. After reviewing Resolution 2859, which created the subject Ridges, and also referencing General Plan Diagram 3.3- 1, which depicts the Town's Ridges, it became clear that the application documents extended Ridge 5 too far towards Paradise Drive. Staff is aware of this issue and concurs with our understanding of the actual length of Ridge 5. Updated materials will be submitted this evening correcting this data. Condition 26 Condition 26 is a carryover from the Planning Commission and we would request that it be edited in the following manner: "Upon completion of the improvements for the subdivision, the existing access roadway leading from Paradise Drive to the residence at 3825 Paradise Drive, located at the farthest eastward edge of the property, shall be used for emergency vehicle and Lot 1 access only and shall be secured and gated for that purpose to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Fire Marshal of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. This access point shall not be used for project construction." While we understand that the new lots in the Alta Robles subdivision will be accessed only from the new roadway off Paradise Drive, it has always been the Rabins' representation and expectation that Lot 1 would continue to enjoy the same historic access to which it has always been entitled. We are aware of no legal basis for eliminating this vested right and would simply request that Lot 1 continue to be able to use its existing driveway. Condition 31 Condition 31 has to do with the Construction Management Plan for the project and contains the following language: DF Ragghianti IFreitas LLr Tiburon Town Council February 15, 2012 Page 3 of 3 "The Construction Management Plan shall specify an aggressive subdivision improvement installation schedule. In no event shall installation exceed a period of two calendar years." The applicants have every intention of constructing the project as fast as is reasonably possible. As outlined in the submitted Construction Management Plan, it has always been the Rabins' intention to construct the project in phases. A detailed Construction Management Plan along with an anticipated schedule will be submitted with the final map application and subdivision improvements as required by Condition 31. However, in order to comport with the submitted Construction Management Plan, we request that the last sentence of this condition be modified to read as follows: "In no event shall any phase of the installation exceed a period of two calendar years." Conclusion We would ask that the Council make the three limited edits suggested herein. Thank you for your attention to these detailed, but very important, issues. Very Truly Yours, • "4~ E,- Riley F. Hurd III CC: The Rabins TO: Tiburon Town Council FROM: Randy Greenberg DATE: 2/15/12 RE: Alta Robles Alternative 6 OWN COUNCIL LATE SAIL MEETING DATE ~-i- The Alta Robles project has evolved over time, and the current alternative is an improvement over the original. House sizes are somewhat reduced, and their siting is more respectful of habitat and ridgelines. The question before you is: Does the series of modest changes, made under protest, add up to a project that is appropriate to approve as currently submitted? 14 large lots with large houses are requested for this highly constrained site - 18 landslides, 2 significant secondary ridgelines, wetlands, and special status and listed vegetation. Do these considerable constraints support approval of a density at the maximum allowed (when the existing lot, covering 29% of the site, is removed from the calculation). The Findings of Overriding Considerations provided in your Resolution, (Attch. A, p. 28, Section 7) is really just lip service to satisfy CEQA requirements. All the "benefits" accrue to the project because Town policy, and CEQA, allow them to be required. These "benefits" would be realized with any multi-unit development on this property - whether 4 units or 14. Specific Issues to Consider: Lots 5 & 6. Is it reasonable to say the significant unavoidable visual impacts from the Middle Ridge Open Space, largely caused by Lots 5 & 6, are overridden by "benefits" that the Town routinely conditions for larger subdivisions? I don't see how this argument can be made. In addition, the Private Open Space ["OS"] of these lots encompasses serpentine grasslands and freshwater marsh/sedge meadow.' Please consider eliminating these lots. At the very least, the Planning Commission recommendation that the houses on these lots be reduced to 4500 sf, and their lot lines pulled back out of sensitive habitat, should be adopted. I Common OS provides greater habitat protection than private. The excerpt below is from the 2008 Easton Pt. DEIR [aka Martha, p. 435, bottom para.), prepared by Bob Berman (the very same Bob Berman who prepared the Alta Robles EIR). "Portions of the on-site populations of dwarf flax and serpentine reed grass occurring on individual lots outside of the building envelopes are not likely to persist over the long term. The EIR biologists are aware of very few examples that demonstrate that a rare plant species can be protected and managed adequately within private open space (that is, areas deeded to individual lot owners), whether funded and managed by a home owners association or by individual residential lot owners... Various human activities (herbicide and fertilizer use, over-watering, bike riding, trampling, land clearing and other activities) may occur despite deed restrictions, CC&Rs,... and may damage or harm these populations purposefully or inadvertently". a "1L012 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Detached Accessory Structures. At your last hearing, Councilmembers expressed concern about allowed detached accessory structures (up to 500 sf and 15'h), or even larger second units, being placed on the "ridgeline" (defined as a line running down the middle of a ridge). Your Draft Resolution approving the project (p. 5, #6) establishes a minimum setback of 15' from the "ridgeline" to address this concern. The fact is that this distance from "ridgelines" is de minimis. The site does not have narrow alpine ridgelines, but broad, rolling ones. The effect of moving 15' from the centerline of a broad ridge does not in any way diminish the sense that structures are sited along the tops of the ridges (elevations are likely to be about the same at the center of these ridges as 15' from them). This is a clear case of not meeting the spirit of our policy. There are two issues to address in this regard: 1. 500 sf, 1 S' detached accessory structure. When the Planning Commission ["PC"] recommended allowing this, it had reduced the total number of lots to 10, meaningfully decreasing total project square footage and associated impacts. In addition, the PC had reduced the size of houses on Lots 5, 6 and 12 below what the applicant is now requesting. Thirteen 500 sf structures equals an additional 6,500 sf over and above the very substantial square footage for 13 new primary houses, with the potential for new, significant view impacts. At the very least, there should be no allowance for a detached accessory structure for Lots 5 and 6 because of the significant unmitigable view impacts they create even without such structures. Such structures should also be prohibited for lots where Residential Use Areas ["RUAs"] cross ridgelines. 2. Second units. Staff has suggested that one way to minimize the potential impacts of state- mandated allowable 2nd units is to require that they be attached to the primary units. I understood that this was part of the conditions of approval in the Resolution, but found instead Condition of Approval #5 (p. 5) that seemed to imply that detached 2nd units were allowed.2 If this condition to require that 2nd units be attached to the primary structure is not part of the Resolution, it should be added. Lots 2 & 4 (lot #'s may not be correct or another lot may be similarly affected. However, I don't have access to an Alt 6 map, so please correct lots #'s as appropriate). Alt 6 has "private" OS across the main project roadway included in Lots 2 & 4. This area encompasses wetlands and .associated sensitive habitat. The PC agreed that these lot lines should end at the road and that the area across the road should be added to the contiguous Common OS Lot A to provide improved environmental protection. It also felt that it didn't make sense to extend these lots to include land areas that by definition must remain in their natural state and were unusable by owners as well as separated from other portions of the lots by the main project road. I ask you to adopt the PC recommendation and end these lots at the road frontage. Lot 8's RUA appears to butt up against, and perhaps include, sensitive grasslands, as well as be near site wetlands. Since the house has been moved off the ridgeline in the project's latest iteration, is it possible to redraw the RUA to provide a greater buffer to these special habitat areas? Additionally, the lot line could be adjusted so that all or at least more of the lot's sensitive 2 Resolution, p. 5. Section 2, #5. "Exhibit A also establishes a floor area allowance not to exceed five hundred 500 square feet for the construction or installation of detached accessory buildings. The allowance shall not be used for detached garages carports or secondary dwelling units,..." seeming to imply that 2°d units can be detached. 2 resources could be in Common OS. I note that greater protections for these resources would not be an unreasonable trade-off for putting others (trees) at risk because of the house's new location. Lot 13. Lot #13's revised house location relies on two large existing pines, which will certainly not live forever, for reduction of visual impacts. I know you recognize that your decisions are not about how what you approve will look tomorrow, but in a decade or so when a house is built and forever after. At such time that the trees die or are otherwise modified, the house will loom over road and neighborhood as much or more than it did in its previous location. Also, although these pines appear to be outside #13's RUA, they are very near the unit and act to close it in. Because of this, they are likely to be windowed, topped, or chopped, despite restrictions. Also note that the trees' location directly below the house and RUA is likely to cause adverse impacts associated with changes to drainage patterns as well as from runoff from commonly used fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The PC recommended elimination of this lot because of its view impacts. I urge you to consider that these impacts will still exist in the revised location and that inhabited structures generally triumph over vegetation. Fencing. RUA's may be fenced. Where the boundaries of RUA's run along street frontages, there is the potential for lengthy areas of street-front fencing, which will have adverse visual impacts from both on and off-site viewpoints. Consider addiing a condition of approval that requires that such street-front fencing be set back X feet, and that landscaping be required on the street side to reduce their visual impacts. Below are specific suggested change/additions to the Resolution: • Eliminate Lots 5 & 6 or reduce their size and/or adjust their lot lines so that sensitive habitat areas are in Lot A Common OS. • No detached accessory structures are allowed. Alternatively, they are not allowed on lots where RUA's cross ridgelines and on Lots 5 & 6. • 2nd units must be attached to the primary structure. !iks Lot lines for Lots 2 & 4 (please check for accurate lots #'s) shall end at the project road fronting these lots. • Adjust Lot 8's RUA to provide some buffer outside it to better protect sensitive habitat areas. Consider adjusting its lot line to put sensitive resources into Common OS instead of in Private OS. • Eliminate Lot 13. • Any fencing along street frontages shall be pulled back a sufficient distance to allow for required streetside landscaping to mitigate view impacts of such fencing from both on and offsite. Below are specific suggested changes to the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan: • p. 7, last bullet. Mitigation 5.4-2. Allows for cistern installation outside proposed building/grading area. This mitigation should prohibit cistern placement in sensitive habitat area(s) and, if that is not feasible, should specify what happens in such a case. 3 p. 7. Mitigation 5.4-3. Addresses onsite replacement for lost wetlands/seeps at 2:1 ratio, but provides no details on site location, feasibility. This information should be provided now and not be deferred. It is possible that wetlands cannot be recreated onsite and other alternatives should be enumerated, including specific offsite locations. e' = 4 02/14/2012 10:19 707-546-1360 CLEMENT LAW FIRM PAGE 02/03 LAW OFFICES OF CLEMENT, FITZPATRICK & KT.NWORTHY INCORPORATED 3333 MENDOCINO AVENUE. SUITE 200 SANTA. ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95403 FAX; 707 546-1350 TELEPHONE: (707) 523-1191 1 42} i C A r ON E. Gc.r!~1rsNT OIRFCI Oi/L! (707) eW1402 E•MR L:ct10%m0n110¢W"M TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON February 14, 2012 TGUitN COUNCIL VIA FACSIMILE (415) 435-2438 LATE MAIL # PH-/ Tiburon Town Council. MEETING DATE - is = 12-- Town of. Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (Tiburon File No. 3071 and.b 2007-W) Dear Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to request that the City of Tiburon (City): (i) ad:)pt the CEQA Findings of Fact attached to the February 1.5, 201.2 Staff Report; (2) conduct a socond reading and adopt an ordinance prezoning the SODA Parcel; and (3) adopt a resoluton approving conditionally approving the Alta. Robles Precise Development Plan for a 14 lot project; and (4) adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Plan,' because the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and. Zoning Code. Response to Council's Requests After multiple public hearings, the City Council asked the Rai-,.in Tamil;:- to revise the Alta Robles Project. The Rabin Family has responded by doing so Five times. Tl.le most recent revision, Alternative Six, responded to the Council's request by rnvvimg the homes off of designate ridgclines on lots 3. 8, 9, 10, 12- The Rabins also reduced the Aze of the. hoaxes on, lots 3, 51 6, 81 9, 10, 12 and 13 and. repositioned. the homes on lots 6 and 13 in or&.-r to move the homes on lots five and six fartheT apart and to reduce impacts to serpentine bunclig3 ssihabo>c Alternative Six also reduced heights for the homes on lots 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 1.0, an instances, the proposed home height was reduced by 30%-50%. Finally, the R~(bin.s submitted revised. conceptual designs showing that the modified home designs are cons ;stent with the character of previous home designs, including the lower-than-usual visual fagadi- surface areas, which reduce visual massing and bulk. I The City Council has already certified an 'EIR and adopted a Statement of Overrid.in; Consideral:ions for the project. 02/14/2012 10:19 707-546-1360 CLEMENT LAW FIRM PAGE 03/03 Tiburon Town Council February 14, 2012 Page 2 The Project is Consistent with the City's General Plan General Plan Policy OSC-12 requires all development to be set back froui designated ridgelines. At the November 16, 2011 Cotuzcil meeting, the Council asked the Ravin Family to move the proposed homes even further from the designated ridgeli.nes. and the Rabins have complied, as the February 15, 2012 Staff Report dotes. The Staff Report only .mentioned one other potential General flan consistency issue and that is compliance wish General Plan Policy OSC-26. This policy requires "to the maximum extend feasible, and as required bv federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special stagy us species or special communities." The Rabins complied with this policy by creating priv:ite open ipace on the northern portions of lots 1, 2, 4, and 7 and no further protection is neede~. Policy ()SC-26 only requires protection of the sensitive plant species. It does not require that all protective areas be contained in one parcel. In response to the Council's ,requests, the Rabins have redesigned this project a fifth time. As is set forth, in. the February 15, 2012 Staff Report, Alternative Six is coasistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Rabin Family requests that the Council Eldopt Staff s recommendations, approve the project, and take the actions identified on pages six and seven of the Staff Report. I regret that I must be out of town tomorrow. Riley Hurd and n►y partner.. Tina Wallis, will be there to answer any questions. Very trul CLEMENT CEChw c: clients Riley F. Hurd, III Raggh.iand Frei,tas LLP To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting February 15, 2012 Agenda Item: PP 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 November 16, 201 Reviewed By: SUMMARY On November 16, 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 Town Council reviewed a conceptual plan showing revisions to the project design, designated as Alternative 6, made in response to direction given by the Council at previous meetings. After taking public testimony and reviewing the revised plans, the Council introduced and held first reading of the prezoning ordinance, requested additional information regarding Alternative 6, and continued the item. The applicant has now submitted the requested information for review by the Council. BACKGROUND Planning Commission review The Planning Commission held public hearings on the Alta Robles project merits at its January 26 and April 13, 2011 meetings. On April 27, 2011, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-10 recommending approval of the project (Alternative 5 at that time) to the Town Council, with the following revisions intended to increase the consistency of the project design with General Plan policies: 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. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7 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 would 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. Town Council review On August 3, 2011, the Town Council held its first public hearing of the Alta Robles project and its environmental impact report (EIR). At that meeting, the Council heard extensive public testimony, after which it adopted a resolution certifying the EIR for the project. The Council requested additional information on the project merits and continued the hearing. At its 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 some or all of the lots that the Commission recommended for elimination, specifically 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 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 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, 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 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 At the November 16, 2011 meeting, the Town Council reviewed a conceptual plan showing revisions to the project design, designated as Alternative 6. The Council requested that the applicant provide the following additional information on Alternative 6: • Prepare larger scale drawings to make the lot lines and RUA limits more legible; • Prepare conceptual architectural home designs for modified lots and houses; • Install story poles for revised lots only; • Stake the RUAs for revised lots only; and • Update the tree removal data resulting from the latest project revisions The Council determined that this additional information was necessary before they could render a decision on the revised 14-unit project design proposed as Alternative 6. In addition to providing the information described above, the Council also directed the applicant to attempt to either move the residential use areas away from the ridgelines on the site or ensure that future site improvements were kept away from the ridgelines. The Town Council introduced the ordinance prezoning the portion of the project site currently outside Town limits, and continued the item to allow the applicant time to prepare the requested information. The Planning Commission minutes and resolution, and the staff reports and minutes from the prior Town Council meetings on the Alta Robles project are attached separately as Attachment A. ANALYSIS The applicant has now submitted the additional information requested for the Alternative 6 project design, and that information has previously been distributed to the Town Council. The revisions made to each lot as compared to Alternative 5 are summarized as follows: TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 3 OF 7 Lot 1: No change. Lot 2: No change. Lot 3: The house location was shifted off the ridgeline 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. The Planning Commission had recommended a 16 foot height limit and a 4,500 square foot floor area maximum. Lot 6: The house location was shifted approximately 25 feet further away from the house on Lot 5. The house size was reduced by 795 square feet, from the Alternative 5 proposed floor area of 7,695 square feet to 6,900 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 27 feet, 4 inches to 16 feet. The Planning Commission had recommended a 16 foot height limit and a 4,500 square foot floor area maximum. Lot 7: No change. Lot 8: The house was redesigned with a more linear footprint and moved off the ridgeline to a location 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. The Planning Commission had recommended elimination of this lot. Lot 9: The house location was moved off the ridgeline to a position 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. The Planning Commission had recommended elimination of this lot. 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 65920 square feet. The height of the house was lowered from 27 feet to 22 feet. The Planning Commission had recommended elimination of this lot. Lot 11: No change. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 Lot 12: A portion of the house was eliminated to keep the entire house a minimum of 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. The Planning Commission had recommended a maximum 6,000 sq; ft. floor area for this lot. 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. The Planning Commission had recommended elimination of this lot. Lot 14: No change. 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 seven of the lots would still extend across a significant ridgeline to varying extents. The applicant has agreed to provisions that no structures other than fencing, driveways and associated retaining walls would be allowed within 15 feet of the ridgelines and that all fencing within the RUAs would use an open, wood and wire design to provide an open visual appearance. The drawings indicate that only Lots 9-12 and 14 would have a driveway crossing a ridgeline. These revisions would bring the project design into 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 along this ridgeline when viewed from the Middle Ridge, which was identified as a significant unavoidable impact in the project's certified EIR. 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 Council also noted that the design of the homes and their lower- than-usual visual fagade surface area tend to reduce the visual mass and bulk of the homes as compared to more traditional designs. Staff has reviewed the Alternative 6 conceptual house designs and found the modified building designs to be consistent with the character of the previous conceptual designs. The revised house designs are generally consistent with the proposed development standards for each lot, although there are some minor measurement discrepancies, primarily involving building height measurements. Staff believes that these minor inconsistencies may be addressed by a condition of approval noting that in any situations where there are discrepancies between the development TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 5 OF 7 standards and the conceptual house illustrations, the development standards set forth in the Precise Development Plan resolution will prevail. The revised house locations (moved off the ridgelines) would appear to materially reduce the project's visual impacts while not materially increasing the project's other 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 6, 9 & 10 would appear to encroach slightly more into areas that include Coast Live Oak trees. The applicant's analysis indicates the loss of only one additional oak tree as a result of the Alternative 6 revisions. Other revised house locations appear to only affect areas on the site that are not environmentally constrained. Staff considers the very slightly increased impact on Coast Live Oaks to be minor and still adequately addressed by Mitigation Measure 5.5-5 of the EIR. The revised plans do not include the Planning Commission's recommendation to incorporate the private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7, across the roadway from the residential use areas, into the Lot "A" private common open space. The Alternative 6 plans still designate this area as private open space for the four lots. As noted above, the Planning Commission's recommendation was intended to increase the protection of sensitive plant habitat in these areas that are otherwise contiguous with Lot "A." The Commission cited 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." The Commission determined that the sensitive plant species found in the private open spaces would be better protected if combined with the adjacent common open space area. The Town Council has not addressed this specific issue in its prior deliberations. CONCLUSION The applicant has presented the detailed information on Alternative 6 requested by the Town Council. Staff recommends that the Town Council review and comment upon the revised project design and determine if Alternative 6 may approved or whether modifications should be made as conditions of approval of the Precise Development Plan. Staff would encourage the Town Councilmembers to attempt to reach consensus on remaining outstanding issues on a lot-by-lot basis, using Exhibit 1 as a guide if desired. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Receive the applicant's presentation of Alternative 6 and reopen the public hearing to accept limited testimony regarding newly submitted project design materials; 2. Continue deliberations and attempt to achieve consensus on an approvable project design; and 3. If appropriate, consider adoption of the followings draft documents: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 7 a. Exhibit 2: A Resolution making CEQA Findings of Fact for the project (for simplicity, the draft resolution assumes approval of a 14-lot project); b. Exhibit 3: A Resolution conditionally approving the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project (for simplicity, the draft resolution assumes approval of a 14-lot project); c. Exhibit 4: Hold second reading and adopt the Ordinance prezoning the SODA parcel. Extensive modification of the project as a result of Council deliberation could require revisions to these documents of a magnitude such that they would need to be brought back for consideration at a future meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Project Issue List by Lot 2. Draft CEQA findings resolution 3. Draft resolution approving the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan 4. Prezoning ordinance PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO TOWN COUNCIL Alternative 6 submittal, dated January 25, 2012 ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission minutes of April 13, 2011, Planning Commission Resolution 2011-10, and prior Town Council staff reports and minutes from the August 3, August 31, and November 16, 2011 meetings. Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developmen TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 7 EXHIBIT I Alta Robles Project Issue List by Lot Lot 1: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Incorporate private open space below roadway into the Lot "A" private common open space rather than private lot open space (also applies to Lots 2, 4 and 7) Not discussed No change Issue: Should the open space areas in question (below the roadway) be on private lots or in common open space? L'ot 2: Planning Commission recommendation: Incorporate private open space below roadway into the Lot "A" private common open space Town Council direction (8131): Not discussed Alternative 6 revision: No change Issue: See Lot 1. Lot 3: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: No change Move off of ridge and make smaller House location was shifted to a location 30 feet from Ridgeline 6; house size reduced by 540 square feet to 7,100 square feet, building height lowered from 29 to 22 feet Lot 4: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Issue: See Lot 1. Incorporate private open space below roadway into the Lot "A" private common open space Not discussed No change TOWN OF TIBURON ALTA ROBLES PROJECT ISSUE LIST BY LOT PAGE 1 OF 4 EXHIBIT Lot 5: Planning Commission recommendation Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Reduce maximum floor area to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square. feet for garage space; reduce maximum height to 16 feet Separate away from Lot 6, possibly further uphill and further from sensitive habitat, but not moved into the required setbacks from the Tiburon Ridge House size reduced by 126 square feet to 6,800 square feet; building height lowered from 17 feet to 16 feet Issue: Have the modifications to Lot S reduced visual impacts from the Middle Ridge enough to warrant the square footage of the home as designed and proposed? Lot 6: Planning Commission recommendation: Reduce maximum floor area to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space; reduce maximum height to 16 feet Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Separate away from Lot 5 House location shifted approximately 25 feet further from Lot 5; house size reduced by 795 square feet to 6,900 square feet, building height lowered from 27 feet, 4 inches to 16 feet Issue: Have the modifications to Lot 6 reduced visual impacts from the Middle Ridge enough to warrant the square footage of the home as designed and proposed? Lot 7: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Issue: See Lot 1. Incorporate private open space below roadway into the Lot "A" private common open space Not discussed No change TOWN OF TIBURON ALTA ROBLES PROJECT ISSUE LIST BY LOT PAGE 2 OF 4 Lot 8: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Eliminate Move off of ridge and make smaller House redesigned with more linear footprint and moved 25 feet west of Ridgeline 6; house size reduced by 1,154 square feet to 6,541 square feet; building height lowered from 29 feet, 1 inch to 16 feet Issue: Are the house relocation and redesign, and the square footage and height reductions sufficient to address earlier concerns? Lbt 9: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Eliminate Move off of ridge and make smaller House location moved 30 feet west of Ridgeline 5; house size reduced by 1,270 square feet to 6,540 square feet, building height lowered from 25 feet to 22 feet Issue: Are the house relocation and the square footage and height reductions sufficient to address earlier concerns? Lot 10: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Eliminate Move off of ridge and make smaller House location moved 30 feet west of Ridgeline 5; house size reduced by 480 square feet to 6,920 square feet, building height lowered from 27 feet to 22 feet Issue: Are the house relocation and the square footage and height reductions sufficient to address earlier concerns? Lot 11: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: No change No change No change TOWN OF TIBURON ALTA ROBLES PROJECT ISSUE LIST BY LOT PAGE 3 OF 4 Lot 12: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Reduce maximum floor area to 6,000 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space Move off of ridge Portion of house eliminated to keep the entire house 30 feet from Ridgeline 5; house size was reduced by 670 square feet to 6,900 square feet issues: Is further reduction in house size warranted? Is the 15 foot ridgeline setback adequate for this particular RUA, which is atop Ridgeline 5? Lot 13: Planning Commission recommendation: Town Council direction (8131): Alternative 6 revision: Eliminate Move off of ridge and make smaller House location moved slightly to the north; house size reduced by 882 square feet to 6,901 square feet; building height lowered from 27 feet, 9 inches to 22 feet Issue: Are the house relocation and redesign and the square footage and height reductions sufficient to reduce its visual presence from Acacia Drive and keep its profile from breaking the plane of the horizon beyond? Lot 14: Planning Commission recommendation: No change Town Council direction (8131): No change Alternative 6 revision: No change Other issues: 1. Are the unique design of the homes and their relatively low percentage of fagade visibility sufficient to offset concerns regarding the large numerical floor area maximums when compared to existing homes in the vicinity? 2. Is the 15 foot linear setback from the ridgeline for most improvements (excepting open wood and wire fencing, driveways, and retaining walls associated with driveways) sufficient to comply with the previous Town Council direction to move all R UAs off of ridgelines where possible? TOWN OF TIBURON ALTA ROBLES PROJECT ISSUE LIST BY LOT PAGE 4 OF 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATING TO THE ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 039-021-13 AND 039-301-01) WHEREAS, on August 3, 2011 the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon adopted Resolution No. 40-2011 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Alta Robles Residential Development Project ("Project"). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21081, the Town Council hereby makes findings of fact regarding the conclusions reached in the project's Environmental Impact Report, including findings of overriding considerations. The Town Council's findings are set forth in the document labeled "Findings of Fact for the Alta Robles Residential Development Project", which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, State of California, on , 2012 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Attachment: Exhibit "A" S: Udministration I Town CouncillResolutionsUlta Robles CEQA Findings Reso.doc T", TTTI~ Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 --1--12012 DRAFT Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The Town of Tiburon (Town), as lead agency, Report (FEIR) for the Alta Robles Residential House No. 2007072104). has completed a Final Environmental Impact Development project (Project) (State Clearing In August 2009, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared and circulated for public review and comment. The Town of Tiburon Planning Commission held a public hearing on the DEIR on September 23, 2009. Oral comments were made at the public hearing and written comments were received regarding the DEIR. The Response to Comments document/FEIR, which responds to comments made on the DEIR, was released in December 2010. The EIR consists of the 2009 DEIR and the 2010 Response to Comments/FEIR document. The Town of Tiburon Planning Commission held public hearings on the Alta Robles Residential Development on January 26, 2011 and April 13, 2011, at which time it considered the Environmental Impact Report for the project, among other things. The Planning Commission, at its April 27, 2011 meeting, adopted Resolution No. 2011-04 recommending that the Town Council certify the EIR for the Alta Robles Residential Development, and also adopted Resolution No. 2011-05 recommending that the Town Council approve the project (Alternative 5), as revised by the applicant through that date, with substantial revisions including the elimination of Lots 8, 99 10, and 13. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2011, at which it considered the administrative record and other documentary evidence and testimony with respect to the EIR and the Alta Robles Residential Development project, including the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Town Council certified the EIR for the Alta Robles Residential Project by adopting Resolution No. 40-2011. The Town Council subsequently further deliberated on the application merits on August 31, 2011, and provided specific direction to the applicant regarding movement of certain homes off of significant ridgelines and reducing the size and/or height of certain homes. On November 16, 2011, the Town Council accepted public testimony on the revised site plan drawing (Alternative 6) that was submitted by the applicant in response to direction received from the Town Council at the August 31, 2011 meeting. On November 16, 2011, the Town Council considered conceptual project revisions made in response to the direction received at the August 31, 2011 meeting. The Council generally found the revisions responsive to their earlier direction and continued the item to the meeting of February 15, 2012 in order for the applicant to, among other things, erect revised story poles, stake revised residential use areas, update tree removal information, and provide detailed drawings reflecting the relocated homes and revised residential use areas. The Town has prepared these findings to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, Section 15000 et seq.). In particular, the findings to satisfy the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section Exhibit,-A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx,/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 1 15091, which require the lead agency (Town) to make certain findings when an EIR identified potentially significant impacts. The Project The Project is a proposal to create thirteen building sites for single-family homes on 52+ acres of land, 31 acres of which is located in the Town of Tiburon and 21 acres of which would be annexed into the Town of Tiburon prior to development. The DEIR evaluated three alternatives to the project (Alternative 1: No Build / No Project; Alternative 2: No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development; and Alternative 3: Revised Site Plan. Prior to the Response to Comments, the applicant submitted a revised project, which it accepted as being the Project, called "Alternative 4: Revised Proposed Project". Alternative 4 was analyzed in the Response to Comments document and was found to reduce environmental impacts in comparison with Alternative 3, and which was therefore identified as the environmentally superior "project" alternative in the FEIR. Over the course of project review and through the Town's CEQA process, the applicant has modified the project design and layout numerous times in response to impacts identified and concerns raised. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 2011, the applicant submitted several project revisions to Alternative 4, said revisions being dubbed Alternative 5, and agreed to abandon its earlier revised project (Alternative 4) in favor of Alternative 5. The Alternative 5 design was very similar to that of Alternative 4, with modification focusing on further reducing significant project impacts. Similar to Alternative 4, Alternative 5 proposed 13 new homes on the project site, but relocated Lot 4 and made adjustments to several other lots and the proposed homes on them. The Planning Commission recommended Town Council approval of Alternative 5 after deleting Lots 8, 9, 10, and 13. The Town Council, following a public hearing on August 3, 2011 and continued deliberations on August 31, 2011, directed the applicant to further modify the project by, among other things, pulling homes off significant ridgelines and reducing certain home sizes and/or heights. In response, on November 4, 2011, the applicant submitted revised drawings, dubbed Alternative 6, that were responsive to the direction of the Town Council. On November 16, 2011, the Town Council accepted public testimony on the revised site plan drawing (Alternative 6) that was submitted by the applicant in response to direction received from the Town Council at the August 311 2011 meeting. On February 15, 2012, the Town Council accepted additional testimony on further refinements and information in response to Council direction provided at the November 16, 2011 meeting. Town review of Alternative 6 indicated that it is substantially similar to Alternative 4 evaluated in the FEIR and is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed and is environmentally superior to Alternative 4. The Town Council concludes that approval of Alternative 6 over approval of the project as originally proposed, or as subsequently revised and accepted by the applicant as the project (Alternative 4 and Alternative 5) is not ``significant new information," thus not requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, §21092.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) Findings Required Under CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 2 systematically identifying both the significant effects of Projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.AppAth 1490, 1506-1509; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001 (CLAPS) ["an alternative `may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record' (Citation.)"); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 CalAth 1143, 1165, 1166.) Moreover, "`feasibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1001 [after weighing "`economic, environmental, social, and technological factors,' `an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground"].) CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, feasible alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project's benefits outweighed its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Town's Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is included herein in Section 7 below. SECTION 2 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS; LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD The Recording of Proceeding (Record) upon which the Town Council bases these findings and its actions and determinations regarding the proposed project includes, but is not limited to: Exhibit "A"' to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 3 The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the Town in conjunction with the Project; 2 All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the continent period on the NOP; 3 The Draft Environmental Impact Report, Alta Robles Residential Development, Nichols- Berman Environmental Planning, August 2009 and all appendices; 4 The Final Environmental Impact Report Alta Robles Residential Development, Nichols- Berman Environmental Planning, December 2010 and all appendices; 5 All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the Draft EIR; 6 Documents cited or referenced in the Draft EIR and/or Final EIR; 7 The litigation monitoring program for the Project; 8 All findings and resolutions adopted by the Town Council in connection with the Project and all documents cited or referred to therein; 9 All reports, studies, memoranda, maps staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the Town, consultants to the Town, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the Town's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the Town's action on the Project; 10 All documents submitted to the Town and by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the Town Council public meeting on February 15, 2012; 11 Any minutes and /or verbatim transcriptions of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the Town in connection with the Project; 12 Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the Town at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; 13 Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The location and custodian of the Record is the Town of Tiburon Director of Community Development, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920. SECTION 3. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN- SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The FEIR indicates that certain significant environmental impacts will or may result from approval of the proposed project (i.e., the refined version of Alternative 4 from the Final EIR that the applicant has accepted as the project proposal, known as Alternative 6). Most of these significant impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. In response to those significant impacts so identified in the FEIR discussed in this Section 3, alterations have been required to the proposed project or mitigation Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 4 has been incorporated into or imposed on the project which will avoid or substantially lessen each significant environmental impact identified in this section. The Town Council hereby finds that each and every mitigation measure identified in this section is feasible and has been imposed on or incorporated into the proposed project, and the Council further finds that the significant impacts described in this section have been reduced to a less-than-significant level by incorporation of these mitigation measures. The Council adopts the findings contained herein. Transportation Impact 5.1-7 Project Impact on Bicycle Facilities and / or Safety Facts In Section 5.1 (Transportation) the EIR found that project site residents would contribute slightly to the number of bicyclists using Paradise Drive, a narrow and winding roadway that lacks shoulders and can be challenging for inexperienced cyclists. The project also would add motor vehicle traffic to the roadway, which has limited areas for motorists to pass bicyclists given the narrow width and frequent curves. While not significant alone, this additional increment of motor vehicle and bicycle traffic would exacerbate already constrained conditions (see pages 172 through 175 of the DEIR and page 147 through 149 of the Response to Comments). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on bicycle facilities and / or safety will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.1-7. This mitigation measure will provide a consistent-width road section (11-foot travel lane, four-foot wide paved shoulder and two-foot wide dirt shoulder, with reasonable deviations permitted) on the project frontage along the south side of Paradise Drive (directly abutting the project site), beginning at least 200 feet west of the proposed project entrance road and extending east to the existing driveway that serves the Rabin property (a distance of approximately 1,700 feet, or one-third of a mile). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 would reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to bicyclists to a less-than-significant level (see page 174 of the DEIR), since provision of a consistent width Paradise Drive would allow bicyclists to travel outside of the motor vehicle travel way for the eastbound segment of Paradise Drive along the project site. This mitigation would also allow eastbound motorists to safely pass bicyclists on this segment of Paradise Drive, thus enhancing motor vehicle circulation as well. Air Quality Impact 5.2-1 Construction-Period Air Pollutant Emissions Facts In Section 5.2 (Air Quality) the EIR found that air pollutants during construction could expose nearby neighbors to unhealthy levels of particulate matter and possibly toxic air contaminants (see pages 193 through 195 of the DEIR). Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xxixx/2012 DRAFT Page 5 Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact of construction- period air pollutant emissions will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2-1. Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 requires the implementation of the Construction Management Plan as set forth in the Precise Development Plan and as further modified to: require use of off-road construction equipment that was manufactured during or after 1996 meeting the California Tier I emissions standard or is equipped with diesel particulate filters or uses alternative fuels (e.g., biodiesel), prohibit the use of "dirty" equipment, require that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off and to include the following: "Prevent visible tracking of mud or dirt on to public roadways or immediately sweep dirt or mud tracked on to roadways.". Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level; since the project would implement all BAAQMD recommended PM10 control measures for construction activities. The control measures would reduce construction-period dust and diesel exhaust emissions so that nearby residences would not be subject to unhealthy levels of air pollution caused by the project. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level; since the project would implement all BAAQMD recommended PM1O control measures for construction activities. The control measures would reduce construction-period dust and diesel exhaust emissions so that nearby residences would not be subject to unhealthy levels of air pollution caused by the project. (See page 195 of the DEIR.) Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 5.4-2 Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns on Erosion and Downstream Sedimentation Facts In Section 5.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) the EIR found that project development would result in the installation of new roads and storm drain systems that would discharge more concentrated flows into existing swales or small drainageways (i.e. more defined bed and banks). This could result in localized incision (i.e. erosion) of the receiving drainageways even if the rock energy dissipators are installed as proposed in the Precise Development Plan. Also, the Precise Development Plan shows an incomplete tie-in to a roadside sump at Culvert 7. These alterations in the routing and concentration of discharged runoff would result in a significant impact on hillslope and channel erosion (see pages 227through 2.29 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact from alteration of existing drainage patterns on erosion and downstream sedimentation will be reduced to a less-than- significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-2. Mitigation Measure 5.4-2 reduces downstream erosion that would be caused by increased run-off from the project site by requiring construction of suitable channel stabilization methods where needed in the downstream drainageways. Appropriate permits would be obtained for any work and the applicant would monitor the effectiveness of the stabilization methods as required by the permitting agencies. Additionally, Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx;xx,/2012 DRAFT Page 6 requires revisions to the proposed drainage plan to correct the inadequate tie-in to the roadside sump at Culvert 7. Reduces downstream erosion that would be caused by increased run-off from the project site by requiring construction of suitable channel stabilization methods where needed in the downstream drainageways. Appropriate pen-nits would be obtained for any work and the applicant would monitor the effectiveness of the stabilization methods as required by the permitting agencies. Additionally, requires revisions to the proposed drainage plan to correct the inadequate tie-in to the roadside sump at Culvert 7. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-2 would ensure proper site drainage and minimize the risk of drainageway destabilization and Paradise Drive nuisance flooding. Erosion would be limited to the maximum extent practicable. This would reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts to a less-than- significant level (see pages page 228 and 229 of the DEIR). Impact 5.4-4 Impacts on Water- Quality Facts In Section 5.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) the EIR found that project implementation would increase the area devoted to both paved (roadway and driveway) surfaces and irrigated landscaping. Episodic discharge of stormwater contaminated with heavy metals and petrochemical residues could detrimentally affect shoreline waters along Paradise Cove. Residential lot development could be accompanied by increased application of fertilizers and chemicals (such as herbicides and pesticides). Typical residential pesticide application, as well as over-irrigation combined with accidental spills or releases of fertilizer or pesticides / herbicides would result in downstream migration of contaminated runoff to drainageways tributary to Central San Francisco Bay. Due to the listing of Central San Francisco Bay as impaired for mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, and several pesticides, including chlordane and dieldrin, even minor amounts of these substances above ambient watershed levels would result in a significant impact. Project implementation would increase the area devoted to both paved (roadway and driveway) surfaces and irrigated landscaping. Episodic discharge of stormwater contaminated with heavy metals and petrochemical residues could detrimentally affect shoreline waters along Paradise Cove. Residential lot development could be accompanied by increased application of fertilizers and chemicals (such as herbicides and pesticides). Typical residential pesticide application, as well as over-irrigation combined with accidental spills or releases of fertilizer or pesticides / herbicides would result in downstream migration of contaminated runoff to drainageways tributary to Central San Francisco Bay. Due to the listing of Central San Francisco Bay as impaired for mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, and several pesticides, including chlordane and dieldrin, even minor amounts of these substances above ambient watershed levels would result in a significant impact (see pages 230 and 231 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impacts on water quality will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-4. Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 would reduce contamination of stormwater by requiring the Home Owners Association (HOA) to privately contract with Mill Valley Refuse Service or its equivalent to undertake Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 7 twice a month street sweeping. Additionally the HOA shall provide each homeowner with information regarding less toxic pest management procedures. Reduce contamination of stonnwater by requiring the Home Owners Association (HOA) to privately contract with Mill Valley Refuse Service or its equivalent to undertake twice a month street sweeping. Additionally the HOA shall provide each homeowner with information regarding less toxic pest management procedures. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 would substantially minimize on-site and downstream water quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-4 would reduce project impacts on water quality to a less-than-significant level (see page 231 of the DEIR). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 5.5-1 Special-Status Species Facts In Section 5.5 (Biological resources) the EIR found the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan could result in loss of essential habitat and individuals for a number of special-status species unless adequate protective measures are implemented during construction and as part of long-term management of the site. In addition, construction could affect nests of a number of bird species if established on the site in the future. The Alta Robles Precise Development Plan could result in loss of essential habitat and individuals for a number of special-status species unless adequate protective measures are implemented during construction and as part of long-term management of the site. In addition, construction could affect nests of a number of bird species if established on the site in the future (see pages 252 through 257 of the DEIR and pages 61 through 74 of the Response to Comments). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on special-status species will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-1(a) through 5.5-1(e). Mitigation Measure 5.5-1(a) requires the applicant to comply with permit requirements of the CDFG, Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and the RWQCB. Also requires the applicant to participate in informal consultation with these agencies to insure maximum efforts to avoid, minimize and offset impacts to protected species. Mitigation Measure 5.5-1(b) requires revisions to the proposed Precise Development Plan to incorporate input received from consultation required in Mitigation Measure 5.5-1 regarding efforts to avoid further disturbance to essential habitat for special-status plant species on the site. Mitigation Measure 5.5-1(c) requires preparation of a detailed Mitigation and Monitoring Program, by a qualified biologist, for Special-status Species and Other Sensitive Resources (Mitigation Program). Mitigation Measure 5.5-1(d) requires measures to avoid the inadvertent take of the Californian red-legged frog that includes field surveys, the use of exclusionary fencing, training sessions for construction personnel, proper disposal of trash that may attract predators, and locating construction staging areas away from sensitive areas. Mitigation Measure 5.5-1(e) specifies requirements for the protection of raptor nests or other bird nests protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including pre-construction surveys, deferment of construction activities until young birds have fledged, and establishing protected areas as nest setback zones where Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 8 activities are limited and require approval of a qualified biologist. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-1(a) through 5.5-1(e), plus the project revisions through Alternative 6, together with compliance with permit requirements of the CDFG, Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and the RWQCB would reduce adverse effects to special-status species to a less- than-significant level (see page 261 of the DEIR). Impact 5.5-2 Sensitive Natural Communities Facts In Section 5.5 (Biological resources) the EIR found the Alta Robles Residential Development would result in loss of important native habitat and sensitive natural community types (see pages 261 through 262 of the DEIR and pages 61 through 74 of the Response to Comments). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on sensitive natural communities will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-2. Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 requires provisions to protect, replace, and enhance occurrences of native serpentine bunchgrass. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.1-2 plus the project revisions through Alternative 6 would minimize disturbance to the sensitive serpentine bunch natural community to a less-than-significant level (see page 263 of the DEIR). Impact 5.5-3 Wetlands and Drainages Facts In Section 5.5 (Biological resources) the EIR found the Alta Robles Residential Development would result in direct impacts to an estimated 0.3 acre of jurisdictional waters, could result in further loss of other on-site wetlands due to subdrain installation, and could degrade downstream drainages unless adequate erosion control measures are taken (see pages 264 and 265 of the DEIR and pages 72 through 74 of the Response to Comments). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on wetlands and drainages will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-3(a) through 5.5-39c). Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 includes requiring protection, replacement and enhancement of the jurisdictional wetlands and other waters on the site by requiring the following: measures to prevent inadvertent loss and degradation of protected wetlands, Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 9 replacement wetlands at a minimum ratio of 2:1 for direct or indirect impacts where complete avoidance is infeasible and performance criteria and monitoring requirements for a five year period. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-3(a) through 5.5-3(c) including authorization from the CDFG, Corps, and RWQCB for all activities affecting jurisdictional waters, and adherence to all conditions required by such agencies compliance with permit requirements of the CDFG, Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and the RWQCB would reduce potential impacts on jurisdictional waters to a less-than-significant level (see page 266 of the DEIR) Impact 5.5-4 Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity Facts In Section 5.5 (Biological resources) the EIR found the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan could reduce the existing habitat values of the site and substantially reduce opportunities for wildlife movement (see page 266 and 267 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on wildlife habitat and connectivity will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-4. Requires measures that, in addition to Mitigation Measures 5.5-1, 5.5-2, and 5.5-3, would preserve habitat values and connectivity at the project site by: requiring fencing restrictions, which would be enforced by restrictive easements, to insure unobstructed wildlife movement corridors, requiring lighting restrictions to prevent unnecessary illumination of open space, requiring secured garbage, recycling, and compost containers and establishing leash requirements for pets when in sensitive areas. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-4 together with other habitat protection measures would reduce adverse effects to native habitat and wildlife resources to a less-than-significant level (see page 267 of the DEIR). Impact Facts 5.5-5 Conflicts with Tiburon Tree Ordinance and Wetland In Section 5.5 (Biological resources) the EIR found aspects of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan would conflict with the Tiburon Tree Ordinance and Town wetland policies (see pages 267 through 270 of the DEIR). Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 10 Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on Tiburon Tree ordinance and wetland policies will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-5(a) and 5.5-5(b). Mitigation Measure 5.5-5(a) establishes that measures recommended in Mitigation Measures 5.5-1 through 5.5-4 to mitigate potential impacts to special- status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and native habitat and wildlife movement corridors would generally serve to provide conformance with the applicable local goals, objectives, and policies. Mitigation Measure 5.5-5(b) requires compliance with the Tiburon Tree Ordinance (Chapter 15A of the Tiburon Municipal Code). Also requires the Mitigation Program called for in Mitigation Measure 5.5-1(c) to provide for the protection and replacement of "protected trees" affected by proposed development. Application materials indicate that Alternative 6 would result in a net tree loss of one additional tree over Alternative 4, an insubstantial difference. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-5(a) and 5.5-5(b) would ensure consistency with Town of Tiburon Tree ordinance and wetland policies (see page 270 of the DEIR). GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 5.6-1 Seismic Ground Shaking Facts In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in seismic ground shaking impacts (see page 286 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that seismic ground shaking impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-1. Mitigation Measure 5.6-1 Requires site development to comply with all applicable seismic design provisions of the most currently accepted Building Code in effect at the time the applicant or individual lot owner applies for a building permit from the Town. Requires site development to comply with all applicable seismic design provisions of the most currently accepted Building Code in effect at the time the applicant or individual lot owner applies for a building permit from the Town. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-1 would reduce the impact of seismically induced ground shaking to meet building code criteria. The basic requirement is that new structures should withstand ground movement from a minor earthquake without damage; from a moderate earthquake without structural damage; and from a major earthquake without collapse. It is acknowledged that seismic Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xxi2012 DRAFT Page I 1 ground shaking impacts cannot be eliminated even with site-specific geotechnical investigations and building requirements (as discussed in Mitigation Measure 5.6-1). Exposure to seismic hazards is a generally accepted part of living in the San Francisco Bay Area and, therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-1 would reduce seismic ground shaking impacts to a less-than-significant level (see page 286 of the DEIR). Impact 5.6-2 Seismic-Related Ground Failure Facts In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in seismic- related ground failure impacts (see pages 286 and 287 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that seismic-related ground failure impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-2. Mitigation Measure 5.6-2 would reduce the potential impact from earthquake-induced slope 'failure and satisfy the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy by requiring a qualified geotechnical consultant to analyze Risk Level A landslides to determine the calculated factor of safety using appropriate pseudo-static values. Also requires recommendations for repairing or improving unstable slopes and landslides that are categorized as Risk Level A to have a calculated factor of safety greater than 1.0 for seismic conditions. Would reduce the potential impact from earthquake-induced slope failure and satisfy the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy by requiring a qualified geotechnical consultant to analyze Risk Level A landslides to determine the calculated factor of safety using appropriate pseudo-static values. Also requires recommendations for repairing or improving unstable slopes and landslides that are categorized as Risk Level A to have a calculated factor of safety greater than 1.0 for seismic conditions. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Repairing / improving Risk Level A unstable slopes and landslides in order to increase the factor of safety for seismic conditions would reduce this impact from impacting proposed structures and improvements to a less-than-significant level (see page 287 of the DEIR). Impact 5.6-3 Landsliding Facts In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in landsliding impacts (see pages 287 through 289 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that landsliding impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-3. Mitigation Measure 5.6-3 requires implementation of the following mitigation measures: detailed engineering geologic and geotechnical investigations shall be performed before development of roads and utilities and within proposed development areas of each individual lot; one comprehensive grading Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 12 plan shall incorporate all roads, lots, and open space. A design-level landslide repair program shall be established and implemented by the applicant; based on the design level analysis, all landslides shall be repaired, improved or avoided in accordance with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy before offering lots for sale. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementing the recommendations of the applicant's geotechnical consultants and future recommendations of detailed lot-specific investigations would identify landslide repair methods capable of reducing potential slope instability and landsliding to less-than-significant levels (see page 290 of the DEIR). Impact 5.6-4 Slope Stability Facts 'In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in slope stability impacts (see page 290 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that slope stability impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-4. Mitigation Measure 5.6-4 requires implementation of the following measures in order to mitigate the impacts of low shear strength of some bedrock / fill materials and potential erosion / failure of some slopes; cut slopes shall be examined during construction to determine whether they would be stable in the long-term. If the geotechnical consultant determines that the exposed bedrock materials are weaker than expected, this condition shall be mitigated by decreasing the proposed slope angle or by selectively using retaining walls; depending on the remolded shear strength of compacted fill materials used on the site, some of the proposed fill slopes shall be reinforced with mechanically stabilized embankments. This would allow for steeper slopes with enhanced long-term stability; appropriate drainage facilities shall be designed for all slopes with grades steeper than 5:1. Drainage facilities must be designed to be self-cleaning and allow for quick drainage; incorporate surficial stabilization methods into slope design to reduce erosion and surficial failures (see Mitigation Measure 5.6-7). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Rationale Implementing the appropriate recommendations of the applicant's geotechnical consultants and recommendations of lot-specific investigations would identify slope repair / stabilization methods capable of reducing potential slope instability and surficial failure to less-than-significant levels (see page 291 of the DEIR). Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xxixx;2012 DRAFT Page 13 Impact 5.6-5 Grading Facts In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in grading impacts (see pages 291 and 2922 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that grading impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-5. Mitigation Measure 5.6-5 requires implementation of acceptable methods of grading and minimization of grading activities by establishing performance criteria that includes: requiring general observation, evaluation, and direction of grading operations by a qualified geotechnical consultant, and establishing that the geotechnical consultants shall observe and test the removal and / or recompaction of unsuitable materials and determine the use of stability mitigation by recompaction of materials or select use of retaining walls; requiring revegetation of cut and fill slope to prevent erosion; conformance with the Building Code and requirements of the Town; establishing standards for excavated areas, fill compaction, and the removal of all unsuitable materials from the project site; and requiring further geotechnical exploration as needed to determine depths and limits of removal and recompaction. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale The use of proper grading techniques, retaining structures, subdrains and buttresses would reduce grading impacts to a less-than-significant level (see page 293 of the DEIR). Impact 5.6-6 Secondary Effects of Grading Facts In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in secondary effects of grading (see pages 2294 and 295 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the secondary effects of grading will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-6. Mitigation Measure 5.6-6 establishes that implementation of Mitigation Measures discussed in Section 5.5 Biological Resources would reduce the secondary impacts of grading and subsurface drainage control on affected biotic resources to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measures discussed in Section 5.5 Biological Resources would reduce the secondary impacts of grading and subsurface drainage control on affected biotic resources to a less-than-significant level. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 14 Impact 5.6-7 Expansive Soils Facts In Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project development would result in expansive soils impacts (see page 295 and 296 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that expansive soils impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-7. Mitigation Measure 5.6-7 requires comprehensive plasticity index or expansion index testing on developed lots to determine shrink-swell potential of expansive soils on developed site, and implements typical site specific mitigation measures to reduce the potential damage to structures, road, and utilities. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-7 would reduce the impacts of expansive soils to a less- than-significant level (see page 297 of the DEIR). Public Services and Utilities Impact 5.7-1 Fire Service Impacts Facts In Section 5.7 (Public Services and Utilities) the EIR found that project site development would result in increased service demands on the TFPD, however, the increase would not be significant. The design of the proposed project may provide some fire fighting concerns (see pages 301 and 302 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the fire service impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.7-1. Mitigation Measure 5.7-1 requires the applicant to revise the Precise Development Plan to reflect standards of the Tiburon Fire Protection District related to fire apparatus access. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 5.7-1 would reduce fire service impacts to a less-than-significant level (see page 302 of the DEIR). Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 15 Impact 5.7-3 Cumulative Fire Service Impact Facts In Section 5.7 (Public Services and Utilities) the EIR found that cumulative development in the Tiburon Planning Area could generate additional demand for fire services which may require additional personnel and equipment (see page 305 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the cumulative fire service impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.7-3. Mitigation Measure 5.7-3 states that in the event new construction is required to expand fire services for the area, the Tiburon General Plan includes a number of policies and programs to reduce development-related impacts. These policies include OSC-22 which require buffers of 50 to 100 feet from perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams; OSC-26, which directs development away from special status species; OSC-30, which encourages development to be in areas where it least interferes with views; and OSC-35 which requires that grading be kept to a minimum. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale As discussed in the EIR (see page 305 of the DEIR) analysis of potential impacts without identified sites and complete design would be speculative. However, Mitigation Measure 5.7-3 would reduce impacts related to the expansion of fire facilities to a less-than-significant level. Impact 5.7- 7 Water Service Impacts Facts In Section 5.7 (Public Services and Utilities) the EIR found that proposed on-site water system would not be adequate to serve Lot 14 (see page 310 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the water service impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.7-7. Mitigation Measure 5.7-7 requires that the on-site water system shall be redesigned so that Lot 14 would be served by MMWD's existing water line in Paradise Drive. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation measure 5.7-7 would ensure that adequate domestic water supply would be provided to al of the proposed houses and reduce water service impacts to a less-than-significant level. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx`xx,/2012 DRAFT Page 16 Cultural Resources Impact 5.9-1 Potential Subsuf, face Cultural Deposits Facts In Section 5.9 (Cultural Resources) the EIR found that while no discernible impacts to subsurface cultural resources including human remains are anticipated, the possibility cannot be precluded that prehistoric cultural deposits and features are present below the ground surface and could be damaged during land alteration activities (see pages 354 and 355 of the DEIR). Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council finds that the impact on cultural resources will be reduced to a less-than significant level by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.9-1. Mitigation Measure 5.9-1 requires training of construction workers for recognition of 'archaeological resources and measures, in the event that archaeological resources are discovered, that allow for unimpeded evaluation by an archaeologist and consultation with appropriate agencies including the Native American groups and the Marin County Coroner (if skeletal remains are found). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.9-1 would reduce significant impacts to a less-than- significant level (see page 355 of the DEIR). SECTION 4. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED The FEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level because the FEIR cannot identify feasible mitigation that the Town can be certain can be implemented. These impacts, which are discussed in detail below, relate to transportation, noise, and visual quality. The Town finds that with respect to each significant effect identified in Section 4, the impact will remain significant because: 1. The EIR finds that no mitigation is available to reduce these impacts to an insignificant level; and/or, 2. Recommended mitigation measures are the responsibility of another jurisdiction to implement and the Town is not reasonably certain that the other jurisdiction will implement it; and/or 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible some of the mitigation measures or project alternatives described in the FEIR, and more fully set forth in Section 6 (Alternatives) and Section 7 (Statement of Overriding Consideration) below. The following unavoidable significant impacts on the environment have been identified. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 17 Transportation Impact 5.1-5 Impact on Regional Roadways Facts In Section 5.1 (Transportation) the EIR found that the project would generate trips that would travel on two facilities that are designated as routes of regional significance as part of the County Congestion Management Program (CMP): Tiburon Boulevard and U.S. 101. The Tiburon General Plan 2020 EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact to U.S. 101 resulting from regional growth, including growth within Tiburon which includes the proposed project. This would be a significant cumulative impact (see pages 171 and 172 of the DEIR). Finding The Town Council finds that the impact to U.S. 101 to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5.1-5 is the same as Mitigation Measure 4.2-4 in the Tiburon General Plan 2020 EIR. Maintain an active role in the Transportation Authority of Marin and / or U.S. 101 Corridor planning program with the purpose of ensuring that improvements enhance inter-city movement. Corridor improvements could include additional travel lanes in some segments, operational improvements at interchanges, and measures to reduce vehicle trips (such as regional transit improvements). As discussed in the findings for the Tiburon General Plan 2020 because Highway 101 is a Caltrans facility located within the County of Marin, is the responsibility of Caltrans and the County of Marin to implement this Mitigation Measure. The Town finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to effect changes to roadways outside its jurisdiction. The EIR identifies the mitigation measure but does not provide evidence that the mitigation measure will be implemented. For this reason, the Council finds that the mitigation measure in the EIR should be treated as infeasible, and that it is the responsibility of another public agency to implement. Thus this impact will not be reduced to a level of less-than- significant. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in Section 7 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). Rationale Although a mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the impact on regional congestion on Highway 101 to a less-than-significant level, the Council does not have the jurisdiction to implement this measure. Implementation of this measure is within the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the County of Marin, and there is no clear evidence that Caltrans or the County of Marin intends to implement this mitigation measure. Therefore, it is concluded that this impact cannot be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Noise Impact 5.3-1 Construction Noise Facts In Section 5.3 (Noise) the EIR found that construction noise associated with the Alta Robles project would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. Given the potential for substantial increase in noise at adjacent residential land uses as a result of project construction, and the likelihood that such construction noise would occur for more than one construction season, this would be a significant impact (see pages 208 through 210 of the DEIR). Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 18 Finding The Town Council finds the construction noise impacts to be. significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 requires the project applicant to implement a Construction Management Plan that would, among other things, limit construction hours consistent with Chapter 13 of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code. Although Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 would reduce the effects of construction noise upon existing residences in the area, the EIR concludes that construction noise impacts would be significant and cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set forth in Section 7 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). Rationale Construction noise impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 would reduce the effects of construction noise upon existing residences in the area. Even after implementing these measures, however, noise levels at adjacent residences would continue to substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels. Because project construction is expected to last more than one year, and even after implementing these measures noise levels would substantially exceed current ambient levels, this would be a significant unavoidable impact. Visual Quality Impact 5.8-1 View Looking North from Middle Ridge Open Space Facts In section 5.8 (Visual Quality) the EIR found that for the view looking north from Middle Ridge open space (Viewpoint No. 1) implementation of the proposed project would not substantially affect a scenic vista, would not substantially damage any scenic resources, and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings. However, the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site and this would be a significant visual impact. Finding The Town Council finds that the visual impact on the view looking north from Middle Ridge open space is significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5.8-1 was proposed in the DEIR to reduce this visual impact by requiring modifications to Lots 3-6. Since that time, the project has undergone considerable revision and refinement, including a complete relocation of Lot 4 to a different position on the site, relocation of home footprints on Lot 3 and Lot 6, an increase in spacing between homes on Lots 5 and 6, reductions in the proposed height and square footage of all four homes, reductions in the lot sizes of Lots 5 and 6, and design changes to all of the homes to reduce the visibility of the homes from the open space. The Town Council finds that these modifications are material and substantial, and significantly reduce the profile and visibility of homes as seen from the Middle Ridge open space. However, the Town Council finds that no feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would avoid a co-dominant appearance of the project with its surroundings from that particular public vantage point, and therefore rejects Mitigation Measure 5.8-1 and accepts the project revisions made through Alternative 6 as feasible and reasonable measures to reduce, although not eliminate, the visual impact from the Middle Ridge open space. Even with these project revisions, this impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. This impact is overridden by project benefits as set for in Section 7 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 19 Rationale Visual impacts on the view looking north from Middle Ridge open space are found to be significant and unavoidable. Alternative 6 revisions proposed by the applicant and conditions imposed by the Town Council would reduce the obtrusiveness of proposed houses on Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 and would reduce the visual dominance of project features. Project elements in view from the Middle Ridge open space would, however, still appear co-dominant. The EIR, therefore, treats this impact as one that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level (see page 330 of the DEIR). SECTION 5. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT As discuss on page 1 of the Draft EIR, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, no Initial Study was prepared since the preliminary review determined that an EIR would be required. Analyses completed as a part of this EIR determined that the proposed Alta Robles project would have no or less-than-significant impacts for several significance criteria. The Town Council finds that based on the EIR and the record that the following impacts identified in the EIR would have no or less-than- significant impact and do not require mitigation. Transportation Impact 5.1-1 Existing-plus-Prof ect Impact on signalized Intersections Impact 5.1-2 Cumulative-plus-Project Impact on Signalized Intersections Impact 5.1-3 Existing-plus-Project and cumulative Impacts on Unsignalized Intersections Impact 5.1-4 Sight Distance Approaching the Unsignalized Intersection of Paradise Drive with the Project Entrance Impact 5.1-6 Project Impact on Transit Impact 5.1-8 Project Impact on Pedestrian Circulation Impact 5.1-9 Project Impacts Related to Site Access Impact 5.1-10 Parking Impacts Impact 5.1-11 Construction-Period Impacts Air Quality Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xxixx/2012 DRAFT Page 20 Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impact 5.2-2 Generation of Airborne Asbestos Impact 5.2-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Noise Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Expose persons to, or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Expose persons to, or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Hydrology Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as snapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; and Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xxixx/2012 DRAFT Page 21 Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impact 5.4-1 Drainage Alternative of Existing drainage Patterns and Erosion and On- and Off-Site Flooding Impact 5.4-3 Impacts on Water Quality Biological Resources Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan. Geology and Soils Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Public Services and Utilities Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impact 5.7-2 Wildland-Building Fire Exposure Impact 5.7-4 Increased Demand for Police Protection Impact 5.7-5 Cumulative Increased Demand for Police Impact 5.7-6 Increased Water Demand Impact 5.7-8 Cumulative Water Service Impacts Impact 5.7-9 Increased Project Wastewater Treatment Impact 5.7-10 Increased Cumulative Wastewater Treatment Demand Impact 5.7-11 Reed Union School District Impact 5.7-12 Tamalpais Union High School District Impact 5.7-13 Cumulative Public School Impacts Impact 5.7-14 Project and Cumulative Increased Demand for Solid Waste Services Impact 5.8-2 View Looking West from Paradise Drive Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx,'2012 DRAFT Page 22 Impact 5.8-3 View Looking East from Acacia Drive Cultural Resources Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. SECTION 6. ALTERNATIVES Where a lead agency has determined, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Alternatives to the project are discussed in the EIR at pages 357 to 400 of the DEIR and pages 9 to 60 of the Response to Comments. The project site consists of two contiguous parcels: the SODA property and the Rabin property. The 20.95 acre SODA property is located in an unincorporated portion of Marin County with the Town's Sphere of Influence. The 31.26 acre Rabin property is located within the Town. The following Alternatives were examined: Alternative 1: No Build/ No Project Alternative 2: No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative 3: Revised Site Plan Alternative 4: Revised Proposed Project In response to public and Planning Commission concerns and comments, the applicant refined Alternative 4 into Alternative 5, and subsequently, in response to Town Council direction further refined the project into Alternative 6 to further reduce impacts and address policy consistency issues. The applicant has since accepted Alternative 6 as superior to the originally proposed project and informed the Town that Alternative 6 (being a refined version of Alternative 4) would be the applicant's proposed project. The potential environmental impacts of the Alternative 6 are consistent with Alternative 4 as evaluated in the EIR, and Alternative 6 is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed and environmentally superior to the other "project" alternatives evaluated in the EIR. As discussed in the FEIR at pp. 53-57, the No-Build Alternative would have the fewest significant impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require that when the no project alternative is environmental superior, that another "project" alternative be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The environmentally superior alternative from among the other "project'" alternatives was identified as Alternative 4, which would reduce, but not fully avoid or reduce to a less-than significant level, impacts in several topical areas. The potential environmental impacts of the Alternative 6 project are consistent with Alternative 4 as analyzed in the EIR, and Alternative 6 is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed and environmentally superior to the other "project" alternatives evaluated in the EIR. Exhibit -A- to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 23 Scope of Necessary Findings and Consideration for Project Alternatives These findings address whether the various alternatives substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the Project (Alternative 6) and also consider the feasibility of each alternative with respect to each impact area. Under CEQA, "[fJeasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) As explained in greater detail in Section 1 of these findings, the concept of feasibility permits agency decision makers to consider the extent to which an alternative is able to meet some or all of a project's objectives. In addition, the definition of feasibility encompasses "desirability" to the extent that an agency's determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by substantial evidence. In identifying potentially feasible alternatives to the project, the following Project Objectives were considered: • Preserve the scenic beauty of the SODA / Rabin property while developing a world class residential subdivision. The residential development will be subject to building guidelines consistent with the Tiburon General Plan prime open space, conservation, and land use policies. • Obtain approvals for: 1. A Precise Development Plan permitting development of 13 new residential lots, three common open space lots, private open space and maintaining Lot 1 for an existing single-family home and private space. 2. Prezoning and annexation of the SODA, LLC property. 3. A future Tentative Subdivision Map which would allow the necessary land subdivision and infrastructure development to implement the Precise Development Plan and Tentative Map. • Through the approval process, obtain building guidelines for future development of residences, accessory uses and buildings compatible with Tiburon General Plan goals, consistent with zoning regulations governing the property. Ensure that development is: 1. Sensitive to the property's unique natural resources; 2. Respects the public interest in land conservation and scenic view preservation; 3. Balances the public's desire to leave large parts of the land open and undeveloped with the owner's desire for a reasonable economic return on the property; and 4. Creates the necessary public infrastructure improvements to protect health and safety. The Town Council finds that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, and that the Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and has selected Alternative 4, a refined version of which is now the applicant's proposed Project (Alternative 6), in favor of approval over the other alternatives. The Town Council finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the Town Council and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives achieve the Project Objectives. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 24 Alternative 1- No Project / No Build Alternative Facts The No Project / No-Build Alternative assumes that no development would occur on the SODA property and no additional development would occur on the Rabin property. There would be no changes to existing conditions on the project site, thus maintaining the status quo. Findings and Rationale Potential environmental impacts of the No Project / No Build Alternative are discussed on pages 357 through 360 of the DEIR. The Town Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project as refined through Alternative 6 and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: Although the No Project / No Build Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would avoid the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project this Alternative is rejected because it would not attain any of the project applicant's objectives or goals for the proposed project. The No Project / No Build Alternative would forgo the opportunity to acquire by voluntary offer of dedication a public recreational easement over the property that would complete a "missing link" section of the Tiburon Ridge Trail currently not open to the public and install a public access recreational trail within the easement immediately north of Hacienda Drive. The Tiburon General Plan designates the project site for residential development - with a land use designation of Planned Development - Residential (PD-R). The No Project / No Build Alternative would forego the opportunities to implement goals and policies in the Tiburon General Plan that are applicable to the project site. The No Project / No Build Alternative would forgo the opportunity to have a significant portion of the project site to be protected by open space, scenic, and/or resource conservation easements and to be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon. Alternative 2 - No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative Facts The No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative assumes that no additional development would occur on the Rabin Property for the foreseeable future. Under this alternative it is assumed that development would occur on the SODA property in unincorporated Marin County. The SODA property would not annex to the Town of Tiburon. Based on the Marin Countywide Plan land use designation and County zoning of the SODA property, it is assumed that the SODA property would be subdivided into eight residential lots consisting of one single-family home and accessory structures on each lot. Findings and Rationale Potential environmental impacts of the No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative are discussed on pages 360 through 367 of the DEIR. The Town Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project as refined through Alternative 6 and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 25 It would not attain most of the project applicant's objectives for the proposed project. The No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would forgo the opportunity to acquire by voluntary offer of dedication a public recreational easement over the Rabin property that would complete a "missing link" section of the Tiburon Ridge Trail currently not open to the public and install a public access recreational trail within the easement immediately north of Hacienda Drive. The Tiburon General Plan designates the project site for residential development - with a land use designation of Planned Development - Residential (PD-R). The No Project / Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would forego the opportunities to implement goals and policies in the Tiburon General Plan that are applicable to the SODA portion of the project site. Tiburon General Plan Policy LU-29 states that the Town supports the annexation of the unincorporated Paradise Drive area into Tiburon at such a time as annexation is economically, procedurally, and otherwise viable. With Alternative 2 (No Project / Foreseeable Development Alternative) the Town would forego the opportunity to annex the SODA property until some undetermined future time (if ever). Although Alternative 2 would have less new development (8 new units versus 13 new units, and therefore a lesser amount of physical change) than Alternative 4, there was not a significant difference identified between the extent of environmental impacts between Alternative 2 and Alternative 4. The refined site plan identified as Alternative 6 has reduced impacts as compared to Alternative 4, which was identified as the environmentally superior "project" alternative in the FEIR. Alternative 3- Revised Site Plan Facts Alternative 3 is a revised site plan. In response to a review of potential impacts associated with implementation of the originally-proposed project, a revised site plan was prepared. With this alternative the same number of single family residences would be constructed as with the proposed project (13 residences). Alternative 3 revisions include changes to individual lots and building configurations as well as revisions to the proposed landslide stabilization and grading. Exhibits 6.0-3, 6.0-4, and 6.0-5 in the DEIR show the revised site plan and the proposed lot and building revisions. Findings and Rationale Potential environmental impacts of Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan) are discussed on pages 367 through 390 of the DEIR. The Town Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and/or less desirable than the Project as refined through Alternative 6 and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: The proposed project designs in Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan) are inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-13. The maximum floor areas and visual impacts for the proposed homes would be inconsistent with the development pattern of the neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The proposed project designs in Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan) are inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-12. Several of the proposed lots would result in homes that would be inordinately large and would visually overwhelm homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 26 The proposed project designs in Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan) are inconsistent with General Plan policy OSC-12 in that several of the proposed homes would be located on Significant Ridgeline 5 or Significant Ridgeline 6. The proposed project design in Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan) is inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-7. Several of the proposed lots would be situated close to sensitive plant species habitats, including communities of serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. There was not a significant difference identified between the extent of environmental impacts between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 in the FEIR. However, Alternative 4 was identified in the FEIR as the environmentally superior "project" alternative and superior to Alternative 3. The refined site plan identified as Alternative 6 has reduced impacts as compared to Alternative 4, and is therefore environmentally superior to Alternative 3, and is rejected on that basis. Alternative 4 - Revised Proposed Project Facts In response to comments received on the DEIR plus comments of the Tiburon Planning Commission a Revised Proposed Project (Alternative 4) was prepared. The Revised Proposed Project refined the Revised Site Plan (Alternative 3) analyzed in the DEIR. With Alternative 4 the same number of single family residences would be constructed as with the proposed project (13 residences). Additional revisions to individual lots and building configurations to those proposed in Alternative 3 are included. Additional landslide stabilization and grading revisions are included. Exhibits 9.0-3, 9.0-4 and 9.0-5 in the Response to Comments show the revised site plan and the proposed lot and building revisions for Alternative 4. Findings and Rationale Potential environmental impacts of Alternative 4 (Revised Proposed Project) are discussed on pages 24 through 51 of the Response to Comments. Considering the proposed project and the three build alternatives (Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4) Alternative 4 was identified in the FOR as the environmentally superior alternative. The Town Council, however, finds that this alternative is infeasible and/or less desirable than the Project as refined through Alternative 6 and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: The proposed project designs in Alternative 4 (Revised Proposed Project) are inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-13. The maximum floor areas and visual impacts for the proposed homes would be inconsistent with the development pattern of the neighborhoods surrounding the proj ect site. The proposed project designs in Alternative 4 (Revised Proposed Project) are inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-12. Several of the proposed lots would result in homes that would be inordinately large and would visually overwhelm homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project designs in Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan) are inconsistent with General Plan policy OSC-12 in that several of the proposed homes would be located on Significant Ridgeline 5 or Significant Ridgeline 6. Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xxixxi2012 DRAFT Page 27 The proposed project designs in Alternative 4 (Revised Proposed Project) are inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU-7. Several of the proposed lots would be situated close to sensitive plant species habitats, including communities of serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. Although Alternative 4 was identified in the FEIR as the environmentally superior "project" alternative, the refined site plan identified as Alternative 6 has reduced impacts as compared to Alternative 4, and is therefore environmentally superior to and more desirable than Alternative 4, which is rejected on that basis. Conclusions Regarding Project Alternatives Based on the foregoing analysis and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Town has considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen certain significant effects of the project. Based on this analysis and substantial evidence in the record, the Town finds and determines that Alternative 6 is consistent with Alternative 4 analyzed in the EIR and would result in substantially similar but somewhat reduced environmental impacts as Alternative 4. Alternative 6 is environmentally superior to each of the other alternatives analyzed in the EIR, with the exception of the No Project Alternatives. As explained more fully above, the No Project Alternatives are not feasible within the meaning of CEQA, and are therefore rejected in favor of the site plan/design known as Alternative 6, which is a refinement of Alternative 4 that moves homes off ridgelines, reduces home square footages, and reduces visual impacts as compared to Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 are rejected as infeasible and/or less desirable and environmentally inferior to the revised project, Alternative 6. SECTION T STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21081 allow agencies to approve projects with significant unavoidable effects, such as those identified in Section 4, when the benefits of the project outweigh those significant effects, and thus render them "acceptable". In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Town Council, in determining whether to approve the Project, balanced the economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to less-than-significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. The following statements identify the reasons why, in the Town Council's judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section 2. After review of the entire administrative record, including, but not limited to the Final EM, the staff reports, applicant submittals, and the oral and written testimony and evidence presented at public hearings, the Town Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological and other anticipated benefits of the project outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore justify the approval of this Project notwithstanding the identified significant and unavoidable impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 20181; CEQA Guidelines, § 15093.) The Town Council, after review of the entire administrative record, does hereby determine that implementation of the Project would result in the following substantial public benefits: Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx%xxi2012 DRAFT Page 28 Public Recreational Easement Trail (Tiburon Ridge Trail) - As a part of the Alta Robles project, the applicant will dedicate to the Town for public recreational purposes a 50-foot wide easement and will install a public recreational trail within the easement immediately north of Hacienda Drive that will complete a missing segment of the Tiburon Ridge Trail that is of great public benefit to the community. The home designs incorporated into the Project approval provide for unique and cutting-edge residential design that minimizes the appearance of mass and bulk, incorporates "green" concepts such as living roofs, and better blends into the surrounding landforms as compared to traditional residential development in Tiburon. Open Space - The Alta Robles Precise Development Plan would establish a designation of "common private open space" for Lots A, B, and C. Lots A, B, and C shall be protected by open space, scenic, and/or resource conservation easements to be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon. Additional Open Space - Each of the residential lots would include a Residential Use Area (RUA). The portion of the lot outside of the RUA shall be protected by an open space easement or easements offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon. Rabin Private Zone - The area designated as Rabin Private Zone on Lot 1 shall be reserved for natural resource protection and scenic view preservation. A natural resource protection and scenic view preservation easement shall be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon. Protection of Biological Resources - The project site includes both special-status plant species (such as Marin western flax) and sensitive natural communities (such as serpentine bunchgrass). The Alta Robles Residential Development, as modified through Alternative 6, includes specific provisions to provide permanent protection to these plant species. Affordable Housing Monies - The project applicant would make a substantial in-lieu payment to satisfy the Town's inclusionary housing requirements. Said funds will be used to create affordable housing in the Town of Tiburon. Conclusion The Town Council has carefully balanced the benefits of the proposed Project (a refined version of Alternative 4 identified as Alternative 6) against the unavoidable adverse effects identified in the EIR. Notwithstanding the disclosure of impacts identified in the EIR as significant and which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the Town Council, acting pursuant to sections 15093 and 15096, subdivision (h) of the CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the public benefits of approving the Project outweigh the significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts for the reasons set forth above. S: WniinistrationiTown COunciAResolittions Alta Robles CEQA Findings Reso Exhibit A.doc Exhibit `'A- to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 xx/xx/2012 DRAFT Page 29 RECORDING REQUESTED RETURN TO: TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON, CA 94920 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMPLIFYING AND SUPPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 SECTION 16-21.020 (F) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING) WITH RESPECT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #20 BY APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ALTA ROBLES PDP) AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town of Tiburon has designated 52.21-acres of land located between Paradise Drive and Hacienda Drive Road as Residential Planned Development (RPD) on the Zoning Map and in the zoning regulations of the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 16, at Section 16-14.020 (B), with a further zoning designation of Planned Development #20 on the Planned Development Map in the aforesaid Section. All future Tiburon Municipal Code Section references in this resolution and its attachments shall be to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) unless otherwise specified. B. Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-21.030 (D[3]) provides zone regulations for the RPD zone, specifying the approval of a Precise Development Plan prior to subdivision, grading, or the making of improvements on property so designated. Basic zoning parameters such as density of development, floor area limits, height limits, and setbacks are to be specified in an approved Precise Development Plan for the property, based on site-specific characteristics to which an appropriate amount and layout of development may be tailored. The intent of the RPD zone is set forth as follows: The Residential Planned Development (RPD) Zone is intended to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource without depriving owners of a reasonable use of their property for residential purposes. The regulations of the zone are designed to insure, to the extent feasible, the TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT 4-42012 1 EXHIBIT NO.~ conservation of natural resources and the retention of land in its natural or near natural state in order to, among other things, assist in the containment of urban sprawl and protect the community from the hazards of fire, flood, seismic and other catastrophic activity, and to otherwise implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. C. Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-52.060 (B) establishes the Precise Development Plan purposes as follows: 1. To provide for review by the Town a detailed development proposal for a designated area with unique site characteristics or environmental conditions, in both written and graphic form, to ensure that new development in such areas is compatible with the existing land uses, development standards (including but not limited to, setbacks or building envelopes, coverage limits, and height limits) and identified constraints; 2. To demonstrate consistency of a development proposal with the goals and policies of the General Plan; 3. To preserve and conserve critically limited open space for the protection of the ecology and the environment, and to safeguard against the adverse impacts of fire, noise, water pollution, the destruction of scenic beauty and hazards related to geology, fire and flood, while at the same time providing a reasonable use of the land. Section 16-52.060 (E) sets forth principles to be applied in the review of Precise Development Plan applications. Section 16-52.060 (D) declares approval of a Precise Development Plan by the Town Council to be a legislative act. D. The Town of Tiburon has received and considered an application filed by Irving & Varda Rabin for a Precise Development Plan (the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan) to augment and supplement provisions of Section 16-21.030(D[3]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code specific to Planned Development #20 by proposing the development of fourteen single family lots and appurtenant improvements, and three open space parcels, on an approximately 52.21-acres of land. The proposed Alta Robles Precise Development Plan would establish a maximum density of 0.27 dwelling units per acre (exclusive of any secondary dwelling units), and provide a basic layout and RPD zoning district parameters for the property, including but not limited to, permanent open spaces, building footprints, residential use areas, height limits, and floor area limits. E. The Alta Robles Precise Development Plan application consists of File #30701, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this Resolution. The record includes TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT 442012 2 the staff reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearings. F. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Precise Development Plan application on January 26 and April 13, 2011. On April 27, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-10 recommending to the Town Council conditional approval of the project with, among other modifications, the elimination of Lots 8, 9, 10 and 13. G. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the project was certified by the Town Council on August 3, 2011. H. The Town Council has previously and by separate resolution adopted Findings of Fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and has adopted findings of overriding considerations to approve the project despite remaining significant environmental effects. 1. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Precise Development Plan application on August 3, 2011, at which it heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Town Council subsequently deliberated further on the application at public meetings held on August 31, 2011, November 16, 2011, and February 15, 2012. The Town Council finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the staff report and the certified Final EIR that the proposed project, as modified by conditions of approval, is on balance consistent with and furthers the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and in conformance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The facts in support of this finding are set forth in the official record for this project. J. The Town Council finds that the specific design characteristics of the proposed homes, as presented by the applicant, are a critical factor in the Town's approval of the project. The applicant has publicly agreed, and it is mutually understood between the Town and the applicant, that the homes to be constructed on Lots 2 through 13 shall be closely based on, and in exterior appearance shall resemble as closely as possible, the homes as shown in the Alternative 6 drawings revised through January 25, 2012, as presented to the Town Council on February 15, 2012, as may be modified pursuant to Condition No. 2 of this Resolution. Section 2. Conditional Approval of Precise Development Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (PD #20) subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. Contents. The approved Alta Robles Precise Development Plan shall consist of the following: TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT --/--/2012 3 Precise Development Plan for Alta Robles, Tiburon, California, including Architectural Design Guidelines prepared by IPA, Inc., dated March 1, 2007; plans prepared by CSW/Stuber-Sroeh Engineering Group, Inc., dated 05-08-07; and the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (a.k.a. Alternative 6) prepared by Kao Design Group, January 25, 2012, and as amended and modified by mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained herein. 2. Modifications to Precise Development Plan. The following modifications shall be made to the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan application, as modified through Alternative 6, shall be modified as follows: a. b. C. Within thirty (30) days following the effective date of this Resolution, the applicant shall submit a complete set of the drawings and documents referenced above incorporating all changes required by the conditions of approval and project modifications made in this Resolution to the Community Development Department for review and acceptance as being in substantial conformance with this approval. This update shall also include and required changes to the Landscape, Tree Removal and Vegetation Management Plans prepared by Jim Catlin, Landscape Architect, dated March 2006 (16 sheets). 3. Lot 1 Parameters. Lot 1 is currently developed with an 8,000+ square foot single family dwelling, tennis court, pool, pond, garden and landscaped areas and other ancillary improvements. Lot 1 is subject to the 8,000 square foot floor area guideline limit as set forth in the Tiburon Municipal Code. The height limit for the main building is 28 feet and the tennis court must be unlighted. Any additional floor area on Lot 1 must first secure a floor area exception as set forth in Section 16-52.020(I) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, or successor sections thereto. Additional improvements on Lot 1 shall be confined to the residential use area except as otherwise approved herein. The Rabin Private Zone portion of Lot 1 shall be subject to the provisions of Condition No. 11 below regarding establishment of open space, scenic and/or resource conservation easements. No additional buildings are allowed in the Rabin Private Zone beyond the existing storage shed located adjacent to Lot 5, which may be maintained in good repair but may not be enlarged or the use altered without prior approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Maximum Density Established. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (C[2]) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes a TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT -4-42012 4 maximum density of 0.27 dwelling units per acre (14 primary dwellings, not including any Town-approved secondary dwelling units incidental to primary dwellings) on the 52.21 acre site and is intended to reflect the ultimate development of the property. No additional subdivision for the purpose of creating additional lots and/or building sites is permitted, and a note to that effect shall be placed on the final subdivision map. 5. Floor Area and Height Maximums Established. In furtherance of Section 16- 52.020 (I[3]) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes the limit of "floor area, gross", as defined in Section 16-100.020 (F) therein, and "height", as defined in Section 16-100.020 (H) therein, that may be constructed on each lot as set forth in attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein. If any discrepancy between the approved drawings and Exhibit A exists, the latter shall control. It is understood that the floor area for each lot as specified above is a maximum allowable square footage, and the Town may, in its reasonable discretion in reviewing Site Plan and Architectural Review applications for each lot, approve a lesser amount of square footage and/or height. Exhibit A also establishes a floor area allowance not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet for the construction or installation of detached accessory buildings. The allowance shall not be used for detached garages, carports, or secondary dwelling units, but may be used for a pool house, cabana, tool/garden shed, or similar structure, the use of which is clearly subordinate and incidental to the main building. Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above grade. 6. Significant Ridgeline Setback. No swimming pools, spas, or structures other than wood and wire fences, driveways, and retaining walls supporting driveways shall be allowed within fifteen (15) linear feet of significant ridgelines 5 and 6 as depicted on Sheets EXH 22 and 23 of the approved drawings. 7. Accessory Buildings and Fences. Accessory buildings or structures and other improvements, including patios, decks, pools, spas, fountains and water features, built-in barbeques, play structures, arbors, gazebos, tool sheds, fences, landscape walls, and parking areas shall be limited to the "residential use area" (RUA) of each lot as shown on the Sheets EXH 22 and 23 of the approved drawings. Fences shall not exceed six (6) feet in height and landscape walls shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. All such fences shall be a wood and wire design matching specifications approved herein. 8. Tennis Courts. Additional tennis courts (beyond the single existing court on Lot 1) are prohibited. 9. Common private open space. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes a TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT 4-42012 5 designation of "common private open space" for Lots A, B and C, and in furtherance of Section 16-21.030(D[3] of the Municipal Code, said Lots A, B, and C shall be protected by open space, scenic, and/or resource conservation easements to be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the final map application. Said easements (if accepted) shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the final map and their official records reference shall be placed on the final map. Said easements shall acknowledge, as necessary, any existing improvements (such as the three 19 foot- high water storage tanks on Lot C), any required roadway, drainage and/or utility easements and any landscape installation (e.g. entry landscaping, retaining wall screening, and mitigation planting) and maintenance agreements that are required as part of this Precise Development Plan approval or permits issued in reliance thereon. All easement or dedication documents associated with this Precise Development Plan approval shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development prior to acceptance for filing of any final map application. 10. Improvements Outside of Residential Use Area. In furtherance of Section 16- 21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, no improvements of any type, including fencing, shall be permitted on any lot outside of the approved RUA for each lot, with the exception of driveways, retaining walls necessary to support driveways, subdivision improvements and other improvements clearly contemplated by this Precise Development Plan approval, including the project's mitigation measures. 11. Lot Areas Outside the RUA. In furtherance of Section 16-21.030(D[3]) of the Municipal Code, all portions of private lots outside the RUA shall be protected by an open space easement or easements offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the final map application. Said open space easement or easements shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the final map and their official records reference shall be placed on the final map. The open space easement limitations shall not apply to improvements clearly contemplated in this Precise Development Plan, such as, without limitation, the private roadways serving the subdivision; driveways, retaining walls necessary to support driveways; utilities; landslide repair devices and re-vegetation; drainage ditches; existing water tanks and other existing improvements, or other ancillary improvements necessary for installation of the subdivision improvements. 12. Rabin Private Zone on Lot 1. In furtherance of Section 16-21.030 (D[3]) of the Municipal Code, the area designated as Rabin Private Zone on Lot 1 shall be reserved for natural resource protection and scenic view preservation. A natural resource protection and scenic view preservation easement shall be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the final map application. Said easement shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT --/--/2012 6 of the final map and its official records reference shall be placed on the final map. Said easement shall acknowledge, if necessary, any existing improvements, any required roadway, drainage and/or utility easements and any landscape installation (e.g. mitigation planting) and maintenance agreements that are required or reasonably foreseeable in this Precise Development Plan approval. 13. Design Guidelines. All residential improvements constructed on the property shall substantially conform to the Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines dated 3/6/2007, as amended by this approval. Within thirty (30) days following the effective date of this Resolution, said Guidelines shall be updated and revised to reflect mitigation measures and conditions of approval herein to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Said guidelines shall also be part of the draft CC&R's submitted for review and acceptance by the Town Attorney with the tentative subdivision map application and shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map. 14. House Designs and House Footprints. Individual house designs and house footprints submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for Lots 2 through 13 shall be closely based on, and in exterior appearance shall resemble as closely as possible, the homes as shown in the Alternative 6 drawings as approved herein. It is the express intent of the Town Council that future amendments to the adopted Precise Development Plan regarding exterior house design characteristics (including footprint) be avoided to the maximum extent feasible through strict adherence to the approved PDP drawings. In reviewing Site Plan and Architectural Review applications, Town staff and the Design Review Board are directed to disallow substantive exterior changes, except for a reduction in house size and/or height, to the drawings approved herein, as being inconsistent with this Precise Development Plan. 15. Colors and Materials. Colors and materials of homes and accessory buildings and structures shall be low-reflectivity, medium and/or dark hues that minimize contrast with surroundings and reduce visual impacts. 16. Retaining Walls and Screening. The appearance of any publicly-visible project retaining walls (including debris catchment fences or walls) shown on the subdivision improvement drawings in excess of forty-two (42) inches in height shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board (DRB) prior to approval of said drawings. Where publicly visible, all subdivision improvement-related retaining walls and bridge piers shall have the appearance of rock, such as would be found native on the site, to provide a natural look, and shall be medium to dark in color to reduce contrast. Any DRB approval shall include appropriate landscape screening for such structures. Bonding or other monetary security for the irrigation, maintenance and replacement of retaining TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT 442012 7 wall landscaping for the lifetime of the retaining walls shall be secured by the Town prior to recordation of the final map. The amount of monetary security shall be acceptable to the Director of Public Works and the terms of the maintenance and replacement shall be acceptable to the Town Attorney. 17. Landscaping. Any disturbed open space areas shall be landscaped with native plants immediately following the landslide repair and/or subdivision improvement/home construction work. Additionally, all landslide repair areas shall be hydro-seeded with native grasses following grading for dust control and soil stability in accordance with geotechnical engineering recommendations. No new landscaping or vegetation shall be planted on any private open space area other than that approved as part of a detailed landscape plan and native plant palette to be submitted with the tentative subdivision map application and incorporated into the subdivision improvement drawings. 18. Landscape Transition. The Precise Development Plan landscape drawings for the private lots shall be revised to require a gradual transition of landscaping within the residential use areas from the suburban-type landscaping of the RUA to the more natural-appearing vegetation found in the private open space portions of lots and areas outside the residential use area. 19. Detailed Landscape Plan. A detailed landscape plan for the subdivision improvement phase of the project shall be prepared as part of the subdivision improvement drawing submittal and shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. This landscape plan shall include removal of any remaining invasive plant species; review of common area plantings, entry landscaping, retaining wall screening, and any landscaping required in adopted mitigation measures. Infrastructure and subdivision improvement-related landscaping must be supported by a functional, reliable, and appropriate irrigation system for which maintenance is guaranteed by the homeowner association. Mechanisms shall be instituted in the CC&R's and/or elsewhere as appropriate that provide the Town the right, but not the obligation, to compel maintenance of such landscaping at homeowner association expense if deemed necessary by the Town. 20. Tree Plan. A detailed Tree Protection and Replacement Plan shall be submitted with the subdivision improvement drawings to set forth protection measures for trees to be retained during project construction and to implement Mitigation Measure 5.5-5 and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works. Said Plan shall be subject to third party review by a professional biologist of the Town's choosing at the applicant's sole expense. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT 442012 8 21. Private Open Space Bollards. As described on p. 49 of the Alta Robles Draft EIR, three-foot high permanent bollards with plaques shall be installed at intervals of approximately 60 feet between the boundary of the residential use areas and the private open space areas of each lot. Said bollards shall be maintained in good condition at all times by the homeowner's association for the subdivision. 22. Roadway Lighting. If lighting is proposed for the project roadways, lighting details shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the approval of subdivision improvement drawings for the project. All roadway lighting shall be shielded downlights to the satisfaction of the Design Review Board. 23. Restrictions and Agreements. Draft CC&R's, deed restrictions, and/or joint maintenance agreements or other similar binding and recordable instruments for the subdivision shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development as part of the tentative subdivision map application ("CC&Rs"). Said CC&Rs acceptable to the Town Attorney shall contain provisions and limitations as set forth in this Precise Development Plan approval and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development. These CC&Rs shall contain, without limitation, provisions for ongoing maintenance of the private roadway, common areas, ongoing maintenance of drainage structures and facilities, ongoing maintenance and replacement of open- space bollards, landslide mitigation structures, and ongoing removal of invasive plant species (French broom, pampas grass, etc.) from the property, and shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map. Said CC&Rs shall also include the house design limitations set forth in Condition No. 14 and shall establish, to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney, the property owner and/or homeowners association for the Alta Robles subdivision as the primary and principal enforcer(s) of said house design limitations, such that Precise Plan Amendment requests to the Town of Tiburon regarding house designs or other lot development parameters are limited to the maximum extent feasible The CC&Rs shall grant to the Town of Tiburon the authority but not the obligation to ensure that the provisions of the Precise Development Plan are adhered to and implemented in an ongoing manner for the life of the subdivision. The Town of Tiburon will be a third-party beneficiary with independent rights of enforcement, as determined in the reasonable discretion of the Director of Community Development and Town Attorney. The CC&R provisions pertaining to the Precise Development Plan may not be amended without Town of Tiburon's prior consent, and shall contain a separate clause to that effect. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT 4-42012 9 24. Vehicular Access to Project. All vehicular access shall be from the primary access road connecting to Paradise Drive near the northern edge of the property. There shall be no vehicular access from Hacienda Drive except for emergency vehicle purposes. 25. Traffic Study at Project Entry. The certified EIR concluded that at present, traffic speeds near the proposed project entry are such that adequate sight distance would be achieved without additional mitigation. Applicant has agreed that this situation could change prior to installation of the subdivision improvements at some unknown future date, and that an updated study may reach a different conclusion than was reached in the EIR. Applicant has therefore agreed that, not more than ninety (90) days prior to submitting the final map application and subdivision improvement drawings, applicant will retain a qualified traffic consultant to perform a traffic study, at applicant's expense and to the Town Engineer's specifications. The traffic stuffy will ascertain the average speed of vehicles near the proposed project entry. The Town Engineer will determine, in his sole discretion, whether the retaining wall and associated improvements set forth in Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 from the Draft EIR are required as mitigation at that time, in which event such improvements must be installed. Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 shall be applied in any event. 26. Existing Project Entry. The existing access roadway leading from Paradise Drive to the residence at 3825 Paradise Drive, located at the farthest eastward edge of the property, shall be used for emergency vehicle access only and shall be secured and gated for that purpose to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Fire Marshal of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. This access point shall not be used for project construction. 27. Public Recreational Trail. Applicant shall survey, design, and install a traversable public access recreational trail within the easement immediately north of Hacienda Drive. Said trail shall be designed as part of the subdivision improvement drawings. The design shall include installation of six (6) foot-high solid fencing at the northwestern edge of the trail nearest 139 Hacienda Drive that will to the maximum extent feasible prevent trail users from approaching the shared property line of that property with the Alta Robles property and thus protect the privacy of occupants of 139 Hacienda Drive. Applicant-performed trail work shall be done as part of the subdivision improvement phase of the project. Alternatively, with Town Engineer consent, applicant may make a monetary contribution to cover fully the Town's estimated reasonable costs of designing, surveying and installing said path. If an in-lieu monetary contribution is proposed instead of applicant installation, then said payment shall occur prior to recordation of the final map. The amount of any monetary contribution shall be based on an estimate by the Town Engineer. Notwithstanding this condition, Town and TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT --/--/2012 10 applicant may agree to an earlier installation of the public path improvements by separate agreement that would satisfy this condition. 28. Removal of Junk Materials. As part of the installation of the subdivision improvements, applicant shall remove or replace dilapidated fencing and fence- posts, and shall remove litter, garbage, and other junk materials from the entire site. 29. Debris catchment fences. All proposed debris catchment fences and/or walls shall be shown on the subdivision improvement drawings. Where such fences or walls are proposed to be located in, or would require access through, sensitive resource areas, alternative solutions shall be explored that would avoid to the extent feasible impacts on sensitive resources. 30. Fire Access Easements. Fire apparatus access areas shown on Lot 1 shall be shown as easements for emergency vehicle use and offered for dedication as such on the final map to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Fire Marshal. 31. Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan contained in the March 2007 Alta Robles project submittal is illustrative only. A detailed Construction Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted with the final map application and subdivision improvement drawings for review and approval by the Town Engineer and Director of Community Development. The Construction Management Plan shall, without limitation, outline the sequence and estimated timing of subdivision improvement installation; and shall comprehensively address construction staging areas, construction parking, materials storage, soil stockpiling, debris boxes, portable restrooms, and protective fencing for the subdivision improvement installation phase of the project. The Construction Management Plan shall specify an aggressive subdivision improvement installation schedule. In no event shall installation exceed a period of two calendar years. 32. Grading Period. All grading involving the use of heavy construction equipment shall be limited to the period between April 15 and October 31. The Building Official may authorize limited extensions of time to this period in his reasonable discretion. 33. Smoking. No smoking shall be permitted on site by any person, contractor or employee during any phase of project construction. A water truck shall be present on the site during vegetation removal. These requirements shall be noted on the subdivision improvement drawings and shall be incorporated into the contract and the construction documents for the contractor(s) performing the work. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT --/--/2012 11 34. Expiration. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for thirty-six (36) months following its effective date, and shall expire unless a time extension is granted or a tentative subdivision map has been approved in reliance on this Precise Development Plan, in which instance the Precise Development Plan shall remain valid coterminous with the tentative map approval. Section 3. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. Applicant shall bear all costs associated with implementation of the MMP. Section 4. Effective Date. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Precise Development Plan approval shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Section 16-52.060 (D) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on 2012 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A (Table of Floor Areas and Heights) Exhibit B (Mitigation Monitoring Program) TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 DRAFT --/--/2012 12 MCI W 0 N A a W w W A V H a A I~--I Fil O O w F-~ O H O J N H W = U U Q in Ln in -1 Ln -1 Ln -1 U) -I Ln --I Ln l in i Ln -I Ln -I Ln -I u1 i Ln -I = r-I ri r r r r e r r r r r r r C7 = z U ~ J W ~ m ~ c G W = 0 0 0 0 0 0 t - 0 0 0 4 00 O N W 00 m N M (.0 w 00 N W N N N r-I N _ L/ N N N N vi rl rl N N N N N N X ~ Q O LU w u O Z N Q W u CT CT CT CT CS CT CT CT CT O - N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q Q Q 0 O 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Ln 0 Ln 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 Ln 111 0 ~ W C~ ~ O +r O +r O 4- O +r O 4-+ O O 4- O O +r O +r O +-j O +-1 O +r u O Z CL a a a a a a a a a a a a p > > > w ~ D co CC (D W O Q1 V 0 Q O a O Ln O 0 O o O 0 O O O Ln O Ln O 0 O Ln O Ln O 0 O 0 O o uLL Q t\ f\ 10 w w r- r- r- ~ r, ~ n w W W 0 w o w im z ( v r V V) W w Ln Lr) Z) Q r 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20 0 p 0 W 0 r-I 0 0 0 w 0 m M N Rct 0 14 Ln N m M w O m O m W W 00 r- r- cF w w r- l0 l0 W ~ l0 w d OC X Q = Q 2 -LU U Q Q 2 Q 1.0 r' I- Rt M Ln d' O H O r-I r-I r1 c o X W w ct O ri m Ln Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 N = o r4 r4 r4 r-I ri r4 r4 ri r4 r4 r., ri r4 Q a a O Q a D ~ a r-I N M IIZr Ln w ~ 00 Ol O r-I r~ N M d O Z J N M C N 4-0 L O O (U U E 0 4J C U 4-1 N M N N m a fO 4! 3 a 0 O 4- 0 U r\ M m 0 o aJ c r4 (A (U W L v cr a) t t c' U C ~ f0 m Cs aJ 0 N O 4- l0 3: U ~O f0 0 t 0 v 0 m :3 cu - c m 4 J O 0 C to - "a N ° m m O N "O ono 0 3 o O m C O O O j tko (A C O O _ a O Z C M N C U = tf L m p U c ) O :3 - a i = CL 0 O m 4 ( Q 3 L 4 N 0 U C Q p O N - 0 C m u t v m O D N U (U C1 t1A M aJ i r-I C "C3 w 4-0 v 4-1 0 c~ aU +-j m o m 4-1 _ C 0 O ~ 4-j `O N C 4J CA X O co C C C N :3 U a = - o +r o Cr m Cu W ^ -0 3 'C L Cr N f~ 0 4-J L m m w C O LL t m C O O L 0 + ' N 0 ~ C C3 U c i~ = a O a~ - OA C 4-J N Vi 0 N O a= O 0 L CL O O L E bn a s N 0 _ m Q t f13 to O -E N O N C O C p N a) t L O v bZ O O N N L 4- N m " m E O O M C3 N L N N E O O O N U O _ x m CL) L O a CU 4-0 L v o v N O C p a 00 U it a 'cu L O u a) C (U L m to Q1 L _ t m U Q ~ N N L- C (L) 0 U -0 m 0) OA O C O W L 3 ~ 0 3 U X O tio c0 m O m cu LL M %1-- :3 (U U r-I N N O Q' ~ -0 4= C E N N w w C p O O C OA J a N o ~ 3 N c C a OD L- _ x i " U O O U a1 N 4-+ w N p N a (U 4•+ O w N s aj - O 7 Ln L- N i L L O M w 4- V' U O O N 0 L 4-J "C3 O "C3 C d C C U .D (U N N Lr) N M :3 O U O C 4- (U t ri N CL O 'C m :LJ U O c x it L 0 3 E ° :E N p 4--A m 0 L (y 4-+ { CT o co a - m c 3 ~ r4 O J O Q~ c O N N 'L a C m oc Q, C O O m O L m N a, L U L N L O N on C 3 v c Exhibit B MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring program when approving a project or changes to a project, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code section 21081.6). The program is based on the findings and the required mitigation measures presented in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared on the project and certified by the lead agency. The reporting program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. ,Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) must cover the following: • The MMP must identify the entity that is responsible for each monitoring and reporting task, be it the Town of Tiburon (as lead agency), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (i.e., the project sponsor). • The MMP must be based on the project description and the required mitigation measures presented in the environmental document prepared for the project and certified by the lead agency. • The MMP must be approved by the lead agency at the same time of project entitlement action or approvals. MMP's are typically designed in chart and checklist format for ease of monitoring. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR was prepared to address the impacts of the proposed Alta Robles Residential Development. This document, entitled Alta Robles Residential Development EIR consists of two volumes (Draft EIR dated August 2009, and Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated December, 2010), and is on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department, along with all the other documents which constitute the record of proceedings. PURPOSE AND USE OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM The purpose of the monitoring program is to provide the Town of Tiburon with a simple guideline of procedures to ensure that the mitigation measures required under the Final EIR are implemented properly. Mitigation Monitoring Program Alta Robles Residential Development Since each required mitigation measure must be implemented, a monitoring chart was created, which is attached to this report. This chart provides the following information and direction for use. 1) The required mitigation measures are listed in the first column, corresponding to the list of measures provided in the Final EIR. 2) The second column lists the agency or entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. 3) The third column lists the timing as to when the mitigation measure is to be implemented. 4) The fourth column provides guidance on monitoring to ensure that implementation procedures are followed. 5) The fifth column provides a location for Town staff to verify that the mitigation has been implemented and the date of the verification. The Town's requirements for mitigation monitoring programs are set forth in the Town's Environmental Review Guidelines. I Section E.2.c states that "the Town's efforts shall focus on monitoring, not reporting. A memorandum shall be prepared by the case planner, upon completion of the implementation of all mitigation measures, for inclusion in the project file to document satisfactory completion of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan." I Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines, Town Council resolution No. 62-2002. -2- o`, E 0 0 o D ~ c o 0 0 ~ o c as as cc O ct *M.. Q z ct O Z OO Z Z O (~7 O i A ~ ~ O a~ u z ClIZ a Q p . (L) CZ ff. c n am to - o 4 o N cn ~ u R ~ , o 3 5 o U u a U o . . E•-~ E-~ O 4-1 N t► . •r••l U cz CZ > CZ: (4-4 CZ -0 C) a) Its 03 0 ;-4 ~ o aU o CZ o o U U con O O E O ct a~ .v > o u. E- a~ r, r. b.0 S bA J C,5 U cd vii U ° N rU c~ ~ C13 U En z =3 o c~ > C,3 u U bb -4 N 0 C) CZ co tA ct 65 s U C Z . o E c oQ .o 0 o Q) ~ o 9a ~ a A U 0 ti O 0 as CZ C5 cl.cz O,0 0 ~ o~ o O > a o 4- ° 1:4 ct o c! iz ° m 0 o 3 p o W o `4 a o o '0 cz 3 41 C4 v S 3' o O u U C 0 cn ~ `0 .0 cn U cz 0 cy 0 0 cz a~ U ~p o 3 -0 a~ p p a~ o U m a " o cam cz' c`~ c~ d un 1-4 , ct U* CA o, o > o 0 3 p o~p o 'C~ cn .4- t-, U CU 0 CCS 0 ° -d a~ ~ o o o a i U. (n CZ ~ b o. o o b a cn a _ E c o ~ ~ o O ~ a o ~ ~ o ~ w O Y r~ A a~ p O G U QQ~O QU o 00 Z $:i 03 as 0 bA O ' O fl a bA ~ O Q U U 14 s ti ° a Cl,~ 3 O 15. 4 _ O N O bA e a. ~ U =41 ct U O W c co Q" c~ r cn a~ N U O a O p cz c0 cn o N O . S~ p a~ 7:; en CZ ct ~s a~ o w, o a4 o ° o ° o ° a~ • a~ ct Q " . b o b v v ct o ° o 3 -d ~ y CZ , ~ C cz -4 ~ o o 0 11-4 -4 :3 ~ b ~ ~ are ~ U ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ Q. a~ 'ti ~ ~ ~ o o ~ -4= ~ cz ~ o ° ~ o ~ ~ 45 b o'° o a" a Q :z 1:14 CL4 *-.4 C) C) 4-4 ~-7.1 ~4 0 3 . ° Z H a . U • • • ao~ E c 0 0. ~ o m O a w A) ~o ~ w V CZ ~ H CZ aa3v UQwQHh° ctQa 0 00 y c `v cn cn c ¢ Q" p b4 ~ 0 a . w o w 15 o d . cn cn o U O ~ 3cl~ ~ 4-A o cn b CZ ° ~o = U o o cz ~ W o En ; Ct o ~ o U b O b~o r4 a~ 4 cti cn d. 3 rd t~, t_~, o o . o a~ a -4 O cz ' ct 6) oA cn cz v = .S' 3 cw o u bid ' u. °o U-4 -0 En o W ' o 3 L o 0 ° ot 4- C) ct Z - C) cn " 3 C', r r-4 -o a~ 3 cn a~ t o a~ o ° bb 0 a~ ~ C) cu ° ° N U a ° O m ct3 U c cl 13 13 E c o`, E 0 0 .o 0 c~~o ct ~ o cr_ cy'' 3 o~ 0 A -4 cn ~ u u 03 0 o o CA 0 0 C', o 3 w i o > O a a, 7d 03 Z ° C aJ ~ CZ a t,~ s~ `J c~3 O R U v~ r-- O O a~ O ~ u 1 cd 03 ' 'd dj 'd cz ct 03 in, ct U 0 C) C) C6 t C) cn CZ U Q U o (D a) 4-1 CZ u r cz u d o -.(:5 a) (44 u a b Q Q ' S a ° ~ tn. cn a U o C7 Z U . O zz r4 o Qo", W 4 , cz o? Q C) ct U o cz Z z 0 3 b1D H 3 a , c ° cat o ° ct 4- C) cz C) cy~ V) n= u CZ -C~ b° 'm ' t: U te ~ C4 ? ::S cz -c' cn cz CA ca .4- cz r-4 4-+ . n s ct o r. Z C CZ o a~ 3 0 0 'n ::3 cz 4- t7 1 o 14 C) • U H o o 3 Q, a? 3 o o c ti o o a t: C) CZ C,3 E tz , r U, Ec a,m a) E 0 0 CL. .0 0 o m ~ o Cc ~ A . ct (1) > 6 jc~ a~ a~ c 3 o te r' ;-d 3 C o En C14 ° V) o° o c ) o o o c n w o~ ti "ts w ti cn r,4 °O o W ~ ° ;-4 i M 3Q o C) cu o Cu cn 0o ~ o a) . > c,_, CZ U O N O o 0) v o U o° ti o Q. N! E -v Q t 1 'n C7 v o; m 1:14 • .--I V 1 ~1 3 bn ti ° / V yob a. VAU ~ o ° 4-~ ° o cn o a) C4 ' F+M 1 V 1 \l C/~ ~ 1 ' ° a ~ - .y y~ n r-4 ~y ' O F- " ~o O }C~/ Q" 1 ^ Y Q) Q) f i w! Q~ Q) Nti o C/5 > Q~ c 0 o W a C) .--I S-1 W O W W W ~ j C, 71 C13 F~ r b c a~ d d Q o b r a) a~ 3 q o r-4 _4 C) Cl~ _r- = b o ° o ; ~ o ° Q Tab o O a' Q c~ 4 ti o 7; -d c° U aD 1 o o o m s i u,~0 • 3 ~ • o ~,~~v~ E-~.~ ~ o. • o~ ~-a~U~,~ a,W C~ a~ ~ c 00 a CC ~ o ~a YA tb o C~3 aoW Q ~,W 0 j U j 'ts a~ ~ 3 ~0 0 cz O : > cz ~ U O bA N > -4 o +ct C ) Quo 7:~ U U cl b4 -0 . ~ H Z `n ~ ct U O CZ U N U u ct bb U v~ a3 cC U U EA b p Q. 1-4 w t2, O M~ b > Q ¢ U W W cz cz O U s, O s~ En Q. bA -0 o p U U s:), 3-4 a, Q+ t1 O ¢ ¢ O' U ai U 0 u cH N N O y U U C O ' ' 'j +r-a of L U CZ C/~ a o _ U a -;-o u o In ;z 7~ ct U O bQ U to O U (n U C>t c~ U) ' = `w ^d^' U co 0 En O bU4 3 U a~ o r, s ' U o bU ° o' b a~ y o a 03 b o ° /o• U rCZ ^ul yyyy. u. o $Z. p y~y~ u ~ r-4 Ct Z o co -C5 cn U cC1 U U ~U, N cd U U cr) U ' J Q U sU. .--i U U ct `n M En U v , rn -0 ° 4) O O bA C U > U ¢ > cn w' ^ . cd _ ~1. ~1. O O U cz O t O cC2 cC cn o O - c~ U = c~ J d N cn U ' O Q, O O can > U cz W ca v~ boo O o W 03 ° M ° t z Cl C ts b Cn c VC c . 4 U , U . cn . E c v, E 0 0 .o 0 ~ o ~A . 0 N Al A\ A 1 c~ N N ,.O ~ ~ O U N V~ ~ V1 c~„ O O v s 'd O . ~ ,n O C) r-I • cz a~ U b n a.' 4- boU 03 4-4 o o a U o (U N 3 a (4-4 > 4-4 4-4 o ° o Ct $-4 crn 7E, ~ o, cw -b cz . 7z C.) p , o o,o > o 3 b 4, a~ a~ Q o ct , Q a~ o ona~ 0 7~ b o ~ U M 0. o o cz 4- 4- ;z C,3 o 0 -Es a o V) 0 o o C) r-4 - 0 am) a~ w o> o a~ 3 r.4 b U o '41 4-1 Z o ° 'b oA ago a o oA o U o ° Q" U o CZ > CA cn 0-1 z Er- C-4) b o 45 tin - o ° o IS - E c c~ m % o Q o z i Q O a co ~ o ~ A y ~ O W . p U~1~lE~ cz ~ b1J 'C3 ° o c > cz CZ o u 3 C4° u 0 0 -O C~ U ~ ' ~ U U CC$ ' bU'"p b4 O CZ Z O rn En C~z ° to n s-• U " v U 3 O c p 64 O a~ rd U 0 ° bb ::3 , H c ~ b cz 3 o G 4-' r - cz ° b1'N - N~° ~ U a" U U 3 N cz ::3 p 5b ar -o cri m cz Lot Z bap 4- ? a~ cn bA a~ syo u O N o CZ ° a? z. N cz 5 ti U 'd > N U p O G o o- do `z b o ° CZ (:z ° ;-4 76 o t-4 a) 'C~ o ' Ct a CZ ^L3 0 ? cn -4- ~ ~ ° o bb bA o cat o o o o 4-1 U a) o o 7~ t a~ > C) a) cz a.4 M 142 r- -4-1 q c3 a) CL U^ ^ O U 'p p O o bA CZ N V ••w Ill cz 4- ~1 ~U?-1 ~ ° r ^ V l ' W./ 'ti V1 --I cz ~-1 ~V1 G ° i i•+. V/~ y., •~y~...y1~ ^ j.y p cn `v ~-1 Cn O ~y ° +A~l W U . , .yl ~ ••1 `y '-y O W -cn a~HUH 3 w oc, w a V d c U . I . . E c c~ o o n a o o ~ ~ o a o ~ o cr i A O N N ti ti lit w y o~ ^N` W r--I l l P•' c~ c~ bA CC v~ C13 •V . ~y cz ?ct V ' i i ,y?~ yyii CL m c l a) En o oo ° Q) ~I l o3 M cn C13 1-4 r-4 4-4 a) cn Z CIO I - o M ~ cl~ ct cn ;-4 a o E ° Z Q a~ > a~ o C40 a~ ' «3 ct C,3 ° ~ o, 'ti ago v o En _ ct C,3 > a..~ u U C) -15 ct ° o r Q m a ° o M o «3 . b i0 ct o > ct En s, o CZ M Q o ti ti ° o> Y) - a~ cn o Q En > 0 a~ cn cz a [In a E c o, E 0 0 ra, o 0 .2 a ~ o Q 9~ tall t ~A 'Zt w N o~ ti Q Z4 of w o~ N o~ ti ti cC,3 bA O _ bA > ct "d U rl O cn aj cC O ~ cn Ct cn O ' O U O m Oz C~s o o o U ~ .-r ~ o '7s u ~ b a~ U O ~ Oi M 03 r U U U ct ¢ O y U N cn -4 't~ cn 0+ ; cz U O 03 - .fl c~ c~ R U U cn V O O O C). O CZ CZ c~ c U cd n r 'd O v c ~ co U ~ O N U ° ~ Q, t~ v~ 4 4. -ti ° a C13 .d U ~ 0 cd N ° ~ C B ~ ct ~ o U o U p > ~ t u > ~ ~ U cC O O O O cUi) U > p p b O c~ CIZ: ca . cn O cn CZ U U • 44 ;Z Cn c~3 Z U Q U S-7, O ~:l 41 `n > O -4 a) U bA U > U p O O C Ct CZ J:L, a4 0 O ~ • ~ U U ' O O C). cz cn U cn CZ cUn U ~ cn 4-4 Cn 1 0 -0 C) cn CZ p 'V p c~ Ct N O U 3 4-4 > cn cC ~ ~ > U U Sy v, O Q O N O v C O c U C,3 r-- U Q U U C CZ cn CL h ~ ~ "C v z a 'a" •Fr °z ~ U Q a~ za r, E c M Q) ~Ei 0 0 CL 00 a ~u) o Cl~ ~ w ~ A p U ' p U v O U Q Q E-~ as C/~ ~ p ~ U" 4Z O 4° P+ cn Q. c~ bq cn V ~ cct O Q U E a cn ..ct CZ O ct - . U O o U= ct ° U cC ~ ~ ° u ~ ---4 a~ Q cz ~ ~ • cz r _SZ CZ -cz bA 0 O o ti b U o 3 -v u > u' ~ V ca 4o b ~ CZ ° ::1 " r b v o ( u sa, 17$ cn -b U kri ~ cn --4 coz j U 4; p, cam, C U U = C) ZI CZ cn 3 4-4 Cn p o . M o U a~ ~ cz ~ -0 CZ o U U p z ° e" U ^d O= ° U U E U C- O U U op F) u 7:$ :3 u u C) _r CZ cz U C) 'cz s., cz Q. _ C) r. U u v C) C4-4 C oi CZ U cz; -S4 En i••`•1 ' ' V V • 4 • Ste ) q - ~y O a C,, ° W H . , U Q 4/ O u . 3 ~ U ?./ti i-1 i-H cc ) U CZ C Ct z m . b 14 ~ . . . . .4- ~ c 0 0 .o 0 a c ~ :zz_ o ~ o ot ~ A r b o ~ U Q Q Q Q, 4i bb r. 'v ° b A ti M ti ~ ~ • U U U ~ _ bA En O o CE C', ° , ° o N ° U b4 cn :5 cz -4 -I ct u .4= U O O U - u t j S~ U U ~ ~ b U U s . .4 cc , ; t A CJO r, C,3 u "C~ 'U4 24 V] o b[1 > ~ o > o a, ~ b o Ct ct r a 4-4 U) ° ° l tt 3 ` ~ E o m o a 4 ~ o ° C.) 4-4 03 Z:s E c c0 aD E 0 0 a .0 0 a 0 0 ~ o 9~ rz w z A U ~1QE-+ r" 1 U O O O ' ^ • 61 w ~ a QQUfi~ d O O Ri ~ A -r ON r - U ° d s . _ O cC ~ 0 U 3 ° ors O O CZ bq 3 cti U H r U CZ c+, Cn u p aD o O O Q. O ; CZ C/) O Q.) C4 En 4-1 4., p m a~ ct3 C, 4, ? . o 0 0 - cn a) $-4 b 4- cz Q) V 4 o 7:1 o. CZ 3 a' U U ~ °Q•°•°~~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ O CA a o b cat ° cw ° 4 0 M U C) _7 t~o -4 ct o 4 a~ M t-4 o r-4 c 03 u r. 4- - r-4 ~ o b ~ cz r. ~O 4-4 Z) 1 ~ t. 4 O U N sU, U 1-4 O > , c~ , ¢ ' U cz to cz 'd bit b O . O O 4. Z y, O sU-, b O Z cn b O j O N cz N . bD O., O C) a) 4- V cn cz CZ O cz cz O bA N 'd O O cz J-, O r- cz , bf) 0 cC 'C3 .J 0 En U 'G U U • Z3 -C U~ cz Ec L 0 4 .o 0 O ~ A . lit Y Z O ~ V N r, r, pq O ti ~ U bA O P.. ,It Z! ti O l ll ct _ j U-4 p O U N 03 v O u O ~ O ~ > O U C ^d , U U C6 U) v~ r, ~ N Q N bb C). cz cu 54 : O U U O Q ' cd O ' v~ O N ~ N N cz U .1= cz C 3 U cz N > O U v~ t Ct co U Z CZ C, G C V O bA rn W C t~, CZ c C o 'n " Z:s t) CZ C) cn cz CZ En ;z In C cz o .4- ;s uU u b 03 U) En 7b j m z r-O en C'n CZ cz vi " cn P: a~ s Ct E c ca a> a, E 0 C c' a .i Q O a co co ~ o ~ w ~ A a ~ ° p W U Q Q h cn 4-4 ~ o~ y cam, ~ 3 U O b4 U ~ •O U En ? O U 0.' ^ C) Z:3 Z $-4 U U i c w o cn , C14 ;:L4 w Q, QUW > kA O ' O U O > O s-.~ s c cn ~ U 4- a-) cz N cC3 N U r" vn U s 'd ° an r U cts y, ~ ~ r, C." bU o ~ 3 ~ o o p~ ~ U ^O c~ ~ ~ a~ U ~ > a~•o , o o a~ a~ ct u o rn ° ° ° In ° ~-4 ~ on > o b-d o o ao 4, 0~ oz ct 0:5 CA cn CZ ° ct cp U U C - cd _U N p ' N > c~ ' U y O tom. Q. ° i-- N j ct ~ "C3 4 r O O -4 U bA ti N p ct 4-4 C+-4 r cn E 75 y cz bA s, U b U b4 ti H 'b U as to U U E c a~ E 0 0 a o ~ ~J) co m ~ o ~ A O O O ti N on "fl ti b U O b-0 s., s.. -4~ U r v O > ct p O O s~ > U Q" U A ct cCi N U ' t 3 O -5 , -C J, U cn U u 03 u O N 4 O a4 ca .O U `+a cl~ - U 'b U cam :3 tz S.w ft. cn U 3 O ~ p, N , N r. b Z abj ' 3 m C) o -d ° p o c° C) Z C) r-4 r- cl~ r O b~1 0 CZ cn C13 m U s~ O cv O N -I C"ll P., v' p U a nd cn ~b sm. cz 7:3 u- o In C~. •ti b U 3 o 'o a 3 ,1a o o' ~ c o Q ~ o .o 0 o) a c ~ 0 0 ~ o cr ~A o c~ C) o W U Q Q H Its kl~ ~n o C5 p s.. a) Cl - tb C~ r-4 ti O U U C~ U ~t U ~n U ~ U ti ~ U ,U L7 U 0 u -0 O 3 a~ CIO N v u -4 f" cz 4-4 kri ' co a~ o d a~ v cc ' cn o -d ' W o cz cz o u ry , o o o --r b 40-4 En tJ) 'I., 4-, 0 Aa o ¢ o Ct -tl o a b O u -75 d H 0 o o U rr ~ cl:5 a) ca O 3 u b o o tj) o ° O c~ o U 3 ' zs m U CA 0 u . ~ c~ ° En U o W U ° o rd C aA d : o U o , u - a~ U o, . CZ 0 -4-' u o'> w s~ ° and ou O o 3 . b, o ~ 4-4 65 C) • sy N i-+ U 1], v~ bQ U L1 N t) cn ° a U3 ~ M en z 0 40) (13 ° ~ ° o o 0 )cn u 3~C • u -d . ~ z~s UC - c - . , E c oQ a° ~Q) 00 ~2 ~ o ~ A a UQ Q a~ -d ° 4-a O M b ~ Cl) O . t O O 0 CZ O O '4 O En > U co tn U b4 U cn c~ N U U ci N t, n O O En N O O c~ CJO O c~ c~ cz M b N N O G bA O O O 4 r "C3 a~ 3 U U u U° `a ~ u ~ o ~ ao a~ • do ~ ~ ~ v ~ C15 CO 0 N C-) cz b o a b U -4 cC kr) O u -.4 con cz ::3 U Lo~ CZ -4 U) CZ U) C-n $:L, En cl, c ` ~ b A ca C ° 00.' 2 p F .4 U ' ~ y p G U N F-' o o o a, o ° o o° s' C', E Z c~ a) 0 0 '0 0 a CO ~ o O 0 0 ~ O U Hh~~ U 0 Q U ~ ~ U CZ r O A ~ ~ ~ U cC3 CZ U ~ O U s" U U u O 4-- y 7d > U CZ N U o -4 O 4~ in U O cz c'z CZ cn C 003 U 4 U U - o p U -d U s~. U cn ts, U CZ o c~ o U U `t U . o U U cz U. ~z .0 . fl v~ s, U p ono U a! U -4 ~ C) 03 0 - ; U a U cz o U d u, C j-, , CZ o U u. U cn " rd a, 3 . r • 4 t4. CO CZ 7~ CZ U CZ Q _CZ 0 cz U En - b C4 on U U 4 a U O -d 0 0 4, O r U U U U U 3 1.4 U CZ 0 ° bn ° a ° Q b C 'j O bA En . N r4 J p a? -O C7 -fl E--~ 0 b pg~ U Q y w y 'd S,, p Q U U 03 +z~ n p Q U U b4 ~ b b . A --n y" C cz z u 4N c~ U cn U U c~ p ct cn Q J p. bA cn CZ O U s~ 3 a ~ ~ Z ~ U) ~ ~ - b W bo u 'b o m ' Q . E on 3 d o~ - • . -d ~ • U C7 a rs., -b U . . E c 00 a o° a ~ o ~ A . "C ct3 ca C -d C,5 ~ b ~ b W O~ W ~ o~ W o w E-~ C7 U E--~ . C7 U cz E-' bUI1 ° 4-1 O co c O Z! p b4 N s-4 p cQ bA U U Q c~ U p Q. -b ^L3 O U~' bA S c~ n U t bA cn CA O . . O b4 b0 tb b o N U a.-. U N cn t c ~ y CZ w aL'7U a QC7U a Q o oC7U , . cz 0 -0 0 a~ > U cz cd m CZ -Ct N ^n G a) cz c n cn -4 C40 ° = r. c cn ¢ ° cz > ° N p cz 'b p p ct 'C7 CA r-- x. , U ° ~ o ~ ~Q o ~-o~ C41) ~ 3 0 cn C/) U W .-o Cn 0 CZ 4-4 _ C cz b > N v y cG 0 > 'b ~ N p c U th Q) N N ~1, O 4> , U S y cz "C~ C cz cn / V] N U O CZ r. N 'b i+1 N 'C3 r. O • . ~ m C ] W V] ° p Q) CZ U - CZ u" 7ti 0 h U Q, C ~ a~ ~s 30 w E ~ 0 0 '0 0 a ~ o ~ w s A j G ' C) 0 E~ -0 O ~ ~UQ ~ Q ~ o bA N U ti bb `n O U bo N Q,'C~ cz O CCZ A ~ O bUA ~ ° • U ~ O O bA ~ cd O 4~ bA b~A~ b m r Q O ~ CU O U N c O r. , -d .d S , N rd O U u U aq Q, U c~ a, Qn U En rd a 63 o C 1-4 COO tb a4 o nc~ ct r. r - x' 03 cz o o M 4-4 O Z C4--4 ct C13 "I U _ U -C~ ct v~ ~O : fl 'd «S N bq cz ct ~ N cam, p cn cC U Q, cn O v~ U X C ~ ° O O . L , 0 O U z 'C5 U b4 w U jc~ bU4 U , s-, ..C~ Q s~ o , u CZ a. ay o > Ul) Q" b C.) U -o o U a~ o. U j CC • - U U 'v . -v~ cC C14 " • -cn • U • ~s • bb 0 bq • 0 0 cn 0 U U Z c~ (D o a C o O O ~ Sw 2D C O o~ v o A _ a U c~ U O ~ y O A V ~ M c~ N w ~ y N N c~ N O w 3 03 fi ti bA ~ 3 o cz C4) Ir! cz o on i ° o o kn o o o- U 0 a~ - C; U .o > > o CZ o3 o UO.~ v U d o u o a~ U ~ o i ° CIO o Z r.1 a O 1#0 ~ a V c CZ - o . ~ cn 3 ° C13 Q) u d > 4-4 U > N a' ~ o o 4. u o 0 qn M o o -ci in. U o > I c a C ~ ° ' a~ a~ o CZ > 0..2 -C~ co v ' Cl o o a~ o o a cn '-4 0:3 _44 ;:s En bU a) :Z O ° o o ~ ~ b `o bA ° 3 CZ CZ N O cd o ° o -4 ° Q, U U ° a' . cn o M . cn CZ -v r4 f CZ D 4 bn r 040-0 - cz 4 r-4 -C; ct bb cr) 4 U o CZ $-4 Ct " > C7 r Q u ~o r0 cz 3 c $ a o -2 ° o U ° " ° ' • -o -4 QO 3 E~ Eo N • • 0 C n ~ E c c~ m 0 0 .o 0 ~ o ~ A . ' ~ an ~ o w W 3 0 H ~ o ~ U N ~ U z w' ^ ~ cn ~ U CJ U ^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ sU, ~ • ~ O b4 U bA "d U zs 121 N 4-~ sn, O 4-4 W 3 a o° a o o o a~ ° o o O o. Cz CA o COD 2 cn th rZ ~ 43 ~ _ p 4 N > ~ C) ; ~ o ¢ -r a~ o U° 3 b n C,3 u c o , ° 4 v ~n Z a~ ai . 0 U - C ti) u -0 ~ c 0 0 O ~ ,cB a Q) ~ o ~q Y r~ CG O bA n O U c ° _ W as ~Q 3 b a'' 4-4 c w > z ct cn Vn C/) 00 U a) 4~ bA O v~ 3 ° o ~ o CA n o o a Q a CA . o C/S C) -4- cz -d o Q j O Q -4 CA cn U 7~ cz C) ~ >1 o cl) rd z C). -4 -S ° O cc3 ° Ln cn U Q. oz >C o, a, d , o r. Cl) CZ 3 ti ° ~ 0 ~ a zs o . ~ , o ; r J . r. 3 o W 914 U 4- - ' o o Or CZ o 'n a dj ' Q V1 J ~ Lt) C40 bq cn a~ CA 'n bq N O Q t 2 N LL- 7 . ct a~ E 0 0 O a o (3) co _ T ~ o C~ ~ w i A O r4 Sj., s.; O U Q Q w ~ o, ~ 3 . y o a~ U Q U ~ U U Ln U N co U un R$ Q U ~ ~ ~ N O •V y ~ ~ c~i cn 44 N U U 4-a O CA cz p 0 v c O - c"' cn cn U 44 + 4 U cn bQ b U N l O cn O C U p o U U U .-r n 0 3 u Z by b4 s~ cz -4 O cl c 1) =4 4 .4 CZ m W U o ~ c 0 0 Cl- .o 0 a m cr- ~ o ~ a A . O U Q Q w a~ ~ cz N ~ U O ~ 'C U It 4~ 'b a d... o a~ o ct r4 .4.- ct i~.+ 1 Q) v r..+ r-~ ..~"..O V- Sir o ° cz o as r•~ 3--i . ti C~ U U > O -0 -0 u s^-a Q om/] rr~! En 1- co O > :1 C~ ~ im Q) U En 0 ;--4 s > Cn U co cn cu V) - Cn 7:~ v „ CO 7~ U cn • ; O U U 4-1 P4 ~ ~ p C*0 > s , CC O 03' m U Ln it cd _ 3, U N a n, a bA~ Ct a~ ~ o ct tb , p • C) > a~ s V 0\ o `z ° Ct r CIZ$ cz ID cn ;:j 4-1 -14 o U ~A U bQ U O • aj ~ ~ bA ~ sU,, ~ ~ U U cd ~ O U ti ~y N ct ctt 3 S C C s, O U C4-4 sU ~C U p 0 0 0 • c~ C/~ V • i~, v~ U cn . • U O t+'"+ c~ O E c o ~ ~ o .0 0 a ~ o y A i O N w o~ y ti ti ti ilk w o~ ti 7:1~ 4, Ct 3 cz c 3 o z o~~ U p U~ x~ b ~ ~ U U 3 Q U Q ~ n o Z 4-4 ° C6 p o b cz; .x U o o C~. ~ -o o 3 U U C'~ N O ° O O cl~ r. 00 7-~ r-4 o o U ct ~ o U o U U U ~n U 3 3 b ,C•~ u o y U (n U U r > O a Q" U a° ° ° o ° c~ o ° U o Z C) • 'd b 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 held a duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2011 and 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. G. The Town Council has advised the applicant, and the applicant has acknowledged, that the maximum pre-zoning density set forth below in no way commits the Town Council to approve a development at that density and a lesser density may be approved through the adoption of a subsequent Precise Development Plan applicable to the subject territory. 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 0.34 dwelling units per acre (exclusive of secondary dwelling units ancillary to single family Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N.S. Effective 4--12012 1 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 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 November 16, 2011, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , by the following vote: AYES: C OUNC ILMEMB ERS : NOES: . COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Exhibits: A. Legal Description B. Graphic Depiction S: Wministrationl Town Councill Ordinances 12 0121Pre-Zoning Ordinance Alta Robles DRAFT.doc Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N.S. Effective --1--12012 2 -r~r-rte DESCRIPTION ~~w~~. ~ ~~~ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate partly in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described below as follows: PARCEL ONE: Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map Snyder, Winslow, Kilgore, Mills College Land Division, a Portion of Parcel One, Two and Three under Recorder's Serial No. 84-0029582 and Under Recorder's Serial No. 86-0074047", filed for record March 26, 1997 in Book 26 of Parcel Maps, at Page 32, Marin County Records. PARCEL TWO: A Sanitary Sewer Easement over Land of Smith (2580 OR 89) and being described as follows: A) A strip of land 20.00 feet in width, lying 10 feet on both sides of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1978 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being South 000 15'20" West 27.10 feet from the intersection of the courses "N 0° 15'20" E 48.006 feet & N 45° 26'21" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence leaving said Westerly line North 460 19'07' East 344.18 feet; thence South 83° 29'26" East 87.49 feet; thence South 33° 44'32" East 95.00 feet; thence South 750 37' 39" East 38.16 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 160 3504", a distance of 46.31 feet; thence North 870 47' 17" East 112.62 feet; thence South 63° 33' 33" East 37.00 feet; thence North 700 14' 39" East 14.13 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding courses, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 200 36'27", a distance of 57.55 feet; thence North 490 38' 12" East 57.14 feet; thence on a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 9 24' 05", a distance of 26.25 feet; thence North 400 14' 07 East 184.56 feet; thence on a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 160.00 feet, through a central angle of 10° 48' 06", a distance of 30.16 feet; thence North 51 ° 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 330 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 250 21'58", a distance of 70.84 feet; thence North 430 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 680 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 210 27' 11" East 41.66 feet to the line of Corte Madera Del Presidio, a shown on said Parcel Map (15 P.M. 34); thence along said line of Rancho Corte Madera Del Presidio, South 661 06'48" East DESCRIPTION Continued 111.06 feet; thence North 771 53' 12" East 138.60 feet thence South 87° 06' 48" East 242.88 feet; thence South 670 06' 48" East 220.44 feet to the most'- Westerly corner of the parcel conveyed to Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County, recorded November 4, 1968 in Book 2283 of Official Records at Page 49, Marin County Records; thence along the Westerly line of said Sanitary District No. 5 Parcel, South 110 17'20" East 72.19 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, North 470 38' 09" West 59.16 feet; thence North 670 06' 48" West 198.16 feet; thence North 87° 06'48" West 230.56 feet; thence South 770 53' 12" West 106.68 feet; thence along a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 170.00 feet, through a central angle of 330 33'59", a distance of 99.59 feet; thence North 68° 32'49" West 61.29 feet; thence North 21 ° 27' 11" East 10.00 feet to the point of beginning, c) Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel 1, as shown upon that certain Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being the intersection of the courses "N 0° 15' 20" E 48.006 feet, and N 450 26'21" E 1036.625 feet", as shown on said map; thence along said Westerly line, North 450 26' 21" East 20.00 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line, South 430 40' 53" East 9.79 feet; thence South 46° 19' 07" West 29.14 feet to the Westerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Westerly line, North 00 15'20" East 13.17 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 451 26'21" East 370.74 feet from the intersection of the courses "North 0° 15' 20" East 48.006 feet and North 450 26' 21" East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence leaving said Northwesterly line, South 440 33'39" East 65.10 feet to the Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, as described herein; thence along said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, South 83° 2926" East 31.83 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 440 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 450 26'21" West 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel D subject to relocation during construction, should physical conditions require: e)Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of Parcel One, as shown upon that certain. Parcel Map entitled "Lands of Neill Smith", filed for record June 8, 1976 in Book 15 of Parcel Maps, at Page 34, Marin County Records; said point being "North 450 26' 21" East 288.15 feet from the intersection of the courses "North 01 15' 20" East 48.006 feet" and North 450 26' 21" East 1036.625 feet, as shown on said map; thence along said Northwesterly line, South 830 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 46 19'07" East 30.75 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line of Easement Parcel One, North 830 29'26" West 18.70 feet to the Northwesterly line of aforementioned Neill Smith Parcel One (15 P.M. 34); thence along said Northwesterly line, South. 450 2621" West 30.00 feet to the point of beginning. DESCRIPTION Continued PARCEL THREE: A Utility Easement, 20 feet in width to install and maintain one sewer line as contained in the document recorded November 30, 1999 as Instrument No. 1999 084666 and 1999 84667, Marin County Records. PARCEL FOUR: Portion of the so-called "Small Reed Ranch" as conveyed by John J. Reed to Clotilde Josephine Reed, by Deed dated November 21, 1899 recorded in Book 58 of Deeds at Page 168, Marin County Records. Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said tract, distant thereon South 45° 51' East 45 feet from the intersection thereof with the Southeasterly line of the lands conveyed by Hercules Powder Company to T.A. Kilgore, recorded January 26, 1925 in Book 64 of Official Records at Page 394, Marin County Records; said Southeasterly line being also the Northwesterly line of the lands now or formerly owned by Crowley; thence South 440 09' West 900 feet; thence North 450 51' West 1525 feet; thence North 440 09' East 875 feet; thence North 450 51' West 90 feet; thence North 440 09' East 25 feet to the Northeasterly line of the "Small Reed Ranch"; thence along said line, South 450 51' East 1616 feet to the point of beginning. City Parcels to ❑ Road Names County Boundary /-1 13 EXMITBIT No. 6 BayAreaCounty 11 OceanBay 0 SODA Property