HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Res 2012-02-15RESOLUTION NO. 08-2012
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 Projectwhich 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 February 15, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
JIMSER, MAYOR
TO. OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit "A"
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 08-2012 0211512012 Page I
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Tiburon (Town), as lead agency, has completed a Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for the Alta Robles Residential Development project (Project) (State Clearing
House No. 2007072104).
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, 9, 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 Page I
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
319 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
161 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 infonnation," 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[J" The same
statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in
Exhibit "A" to Tiburon Town COllnell Resolution No. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 (CNPS) ["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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 Page 3
1 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 comment 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 mitigation 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 FOR 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 PM 1 O 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 ntigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-
than-significant level; since the project would implement all BAAQMD recommended PMIO 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 229 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 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, 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 stormwater
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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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. 08-2012 02; 15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15!2012 Page 11
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-signifi cant
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. 08-2012 02/1 5!2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 292 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 .1-94 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. 08-2012 02/15;2012 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. 08-2012 021/15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 Page 16
Cultural Resources
Impact 5.9-1 Potential Subsurface 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:
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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 17'.) 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 EM 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 litigation 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 mapped 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. 08-2012 02!15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 Proj ect
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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 Page 23
Scope ofNecessary 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, "[fleasible 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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. 08-2012 02/15;2012 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 FEIR
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
project 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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 EIR, 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. 08-2012 02/15/2012 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.
Exhibit -A- to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 08-2012 02%151/2012 Page 29