AND THE SOROKKO PROJECT BOTH LOCATED OFF PARADISE DRIVE

1501 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Planning Commission Chairman Stein stated that this meeting was intended to be a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission, but that since no quorum was present, no formal meeting of the Planning Commission could be held. He stated that the two scoping sessions (Tiburon Glen project and Sorokko project) could be held as they do not require a formal hearing of any kind; however, the 70 Cypress Hollow Drive item on the agenda could not be heard and would be agendized for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

Chairman Stein then proceeded to serve as moderator for the two scoping sessions.

SCOPING SESSION #1: TIBURON GLEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; SCOPING MEETING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) TO BE PREPARED FOR A PROPOSED EIGHT-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 26 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON PARADISE DRIVE NEAR NORMAN WAY; XANADU PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., OWNER: TOM NEWTON, APPLICANT; ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 039-241-01

Planning Consultant Allsep noted this is the second of two scoping sessions and its purpose is to solicit input for the scope and content of the EIR. Items that do not create environmental impacts are not relevant at this meeting. Regarding an issue raised earlier regarding ownership of property, the Town requires a Title Report to verify the property owner is correct in his statement of ownership; beyond that, the ownership of the property is not a concern of the Town.

Staff is currently reviewing proposals from three EIR consultants. Topics in the initial study to be discussed in the EIR include aesthetics, visual impacts, air quality, biological impacts, and drainage. She noted there are two threatened or endangered species on federal and state lists. Topics also included are cultural resources/archeological resources, geology and soils. There will be 10,000 cubic yards of cut and fill; and a preliminary report defines landslides and remediation. Erosion and slope instability impacts will be reviewed.

Topics also include hazards and hazardous materials (i.e., the possible release of asbestos from serpentine rock); exposure to wildland fires (emergency response to the plan given the potential that Paradise Drive is blocked); hydrology and water quality; water functions including downstream effects; conformance with the General Plan, zoning policies and with the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan.

Allsep noted that land use policies regarding slope were questioned at the last meeting, since slopes exceed 30 percent. Her interpretation is that Policy LU-19(b) not applicable to this project since this is not a vacant legal lot or existing developed lot, as defined by the Land Use Element. Regarding noise, the primary focus is construction-related noise. A transportation and traffic study has been submitted, which states there will be additional trips, but trips are not expected to have a significant impact on the existing traffic load. There will be a peer review of the study. There are secondary impacts regarding utility installation/connections, e.g., sewer and water. Traffic will be discussed among the cumulative impacts of the project.

Chair Stein stated that he is not convinced that Planning Consultant Allsep’s interpretation of Policy LU-19(b) is correct. The Commission has received direction to discourage development on steep hillsides. He asked that this be reviewed.

William Simon, 63 Norman Way, stated he submitted a letter that emphasized aesthetics and view, which involve the tranquility and view from his home of woodlands and the bay. The project shows two large homes located such that they would damage his view, and the clear cutting of trees, which would damage his view and the setting of his home. He chose to live in Tiburon because the Town is sensitive to protecting aesthetics and because of the steepness of the slopes in front of his lot, on which he was assured it was unlikely development would be permitted. The Town and planners are sensitive to minute items such as size and location of windows, yet he thought that this project proposal is beyond belief. He asked that the Town consider alternatives that would be acceptable to owners along Norman Way.

Olav Norman, 42 Norman Way, stated he is concerned about cuts into the hillsides; a landslide on the site killed a neighbor of his. The soils must be seriously investigated.

Joanna Kemper, co-chair of the Last Chance Committee, stated committee members are concerned about this project and all projects on Paradise Drive and their cumulative impacts. The General Plan defines prime open space, so it must be ensured that the Town includes in the Draft EIR, as an alternative, the minimum development to allow some return on the land but to enforce all government regulations to protect the land. She suggested the developer put an overlay on the map where prime open space elements are located; hence, the location of homes would be determined early in the process.

Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, stated the traffic turning onto Trestle Glen Boulevard driving south on Tiburon Boulevard is ever-increasing and is becoming dangerous, and cumulative effects of future development on this intersection must be reviewed. The intersection needs mitigation. She asked that Planning Consultant Allsep’s interpretation of LU-19(b) be carefully considered. It is unfortunate that a quorum of Commissions is not present, because questions asked by Commissioners are educational. She asked that Commissioners’ questions submitted by hand be included in the public minutes. 

John Walters, conservation chair of the California Native Plant Society, stated he previously submitted comments, and he read those comments. He is concerned about the removal of a minimum of 314 trees on the project and the impact to the intact functioning of the native ecosystem. Trees on the site are subject to Sudden Oak Death and workers must be careful in the removal of any trees from the property. The serpentine grasslands on the site are endangered by the introduction of nonnative plant species. He concurred that there are two endangered plant species in the area and added, roaming domestic animals also will intrude upon the grasslands. The geology and soils in serpentine areas are supportive of the plants and should not be damaged. Landslides must be investigated. Rock formations under serpentine areas must be determined.

Sandra Swanson, Seafirth Estates, noted that wildlife does not know about staying within the map boundaries, and asked how the life of a species is tracked to determine where it might migrate to and that impact upon the Tiburon peninsula.

Mr. Walters responded, if water is diverted, or roads cut, or trenching made, that, with the limited existence of fauna in the area, the fauna will die. One never knows what will happen when cutting into serpentine exposures; hence, it must be determined how deep they are. Water may be considerable in serpentine areas and it could affect Keil Cove if springs are diverted.

Norman Traeger, 3700 Paradise Drive, stated he is concerned about the up to 100 homes that will follow and how the Planning Commission will deal with the cumulative impacts when the 99th house is built, because many lots are in the county. He asked how the imminent problem of bicycle traffic would be dealt with. He stated Sanitary District No. 5 is almost fully absorbed and asked what happens when development is approved but sanitation capacity is maximized. He asked how impacts to wildlife can be addressed, i.e., the impact of fencing and encroachment onto the deer habitat. These issues must be addressed early on. He urged the Planning Commission to seriously look, with the county, at the impacts of all new homes in this area.

Anne Norman, 42 Norman Way, stated the seven retaining walls proposed are from seven feet to twelve feet tall. Moisture from the hill can move retaining walls. Mudslides have occurred in this area. She asked what mitigation can occur for the loss of a forest, and added that these issues must be seriously reviewed.

There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Fredericks stated, regarding cumulative impacts, the forest is not just a stand of trees on a land; rather, it is an open space resource. This must be evaluated in the context of building out not only on the other houses to come, but the property below it, for effects on water and habitat. Cumulative impacts on open space must be reviewed. An overlay to show the prime open space is an excellent idea. The scope should be broadened to include undeveloped lands around the project as well as future projects. 

Chair Stein noted the cumulative impacts include those many projects in the pipeline. The Visioning Plan of Paradise Drive must be considered and also the "rural atmosphere" of the area. Paradise Drive is congested with traffic at times. Slopes are an issue. He asked Planning Consultant Allsep to provide a detailed explanation regarding her determination of building on 30 percent and 40 percent slopes. This EIR must have a good grounding because this is a very intense development. Large houses on steep ground are proposed. The initial study does not reference that the project started out being the Whole Systems property and depicted as potential open space in the General Plan. The application and initial study should have identified what potential open space really means—what prime open spaces exist on the site. Staff has not identified nor discussed this issue, and asked how the Planning Commission will get the expertise and knowledge of the prime elements of the open space.

Planning Consultant Allsep responded the General Plan discusses potential open space and criteria determining prime open space. It is usually helpful for someone with multi-disciplinary skills, such as an EIR consultant, to evaluate these concerns in an EIR.

Planning Director Anderson added prime open space analysis is found in General Plan policy, not CEQA analysis, and this is where it should be addressed. These scoping sessions are to make environmental concerns known so they can be addressed in the EIR. General Plan policy consistency is also reviewed in the EIR.

Chair Stein added that a distinction is drawn between CEQA and merits of a project and Staff must not postpone review of CEQA issues to the time that merits are reviewed. The Town should be cautious and ensure CEQA and the project merits are discussed separately and with equal importance.

Commissioner Fredericks asked that Staff review and discuss how impacts to other potential open space can be affected by changes to this potential open space.

There being no one else wishing to speak, the Tiburon Glen scoping session was called to a close.

SCOPING SESSION #2: SOROKKO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; SCOPING MEETING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) TO BE PREPARED FOR A PROPOSED FIVE-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 3820 PARADISE DRIVE; SERGE SOROKKO, ET AL, OWNER; SCOTT HOCHSTRASSER, INTERNATIONAL PLANNING ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 039-302-01

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the Staff Report. He noted the Town had selected consultant Leonard Charles & Associates to prepare the EIR for this project. Commissioner Fredericks asked if impacts to the sewer would be different and how the project would affect the availability of the sewer system to lands below the project. Senior Planner Watrous responded that a review by relevant Town departments would be made, e.g., the fire district would review water flow requirements for firefighting needs. The sewer effects on contiguous properties will be addressed.

Chair Stein asked why the EIR consultant had been selected at this point. Senior Planner Watrous responded that consultant selection can be made at any time. In this case, applicant wanted the project moved quickly. Mr. Watrous believed that is preferable to have a consultant on board for the scoping session to better understand the community’s issues.

Chair Stein noted the fire district changed its standards regarding fire roads; he asked how detailed the analysis will be regarding the location of fire roads. Senior Planner Watrous responded that Staff has not heard yet from the fire district. He noted the topography is not as extreme as the Tiburon Glen site and there should be no major problem to comply with fire district standards for driveway slopes.

Scott Hochstrasser, environmental planning consultant and applicant’s representative, stated the main sewer line exists nearby and the applicant already has the rights to hook up. Regarding potential versus prime open space, a resource conservation map is the best tool to define the prime resources on the site, and he felt that this project was planned accordingly.

Anne Norman, 42 Norman Way, asked if there will be public access to the beach.

Sandra Swanson, Seafirth Estates, stated there are identical issues between this project and the Tiburon Glen project, and care must be taken that Staff identifies the same issues for each project. Again, cumulative effects on traffic are a concern and water conservation may soon be an issue; Staff should consider cumulative effects on future water resources. She added she would submit detailed concerns for this project.

Joanna Kemper, Last Chance Committee, concurred that Staff should be aware that this project and Tiburon Glen have the same issues, which should be reviewed accordingly. She appreciates the understanding this is potential open space; she wants to see alternatives listed in the EIR as minimum development under state and federal laws and the minimum development feasible on the site and how the minimum feasible could be configured to have the least impacts on open space. A prime open space should be plotted on the plan before review of the project.

Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, stated there is very little data available at Town Hall and asked, when the initial study is released, if additional questions can be submitted. She asked that she be notified when it is released. Senior Planner Watrous responded there is no formal review period for the initial study and comments will be taken on the environmental process throughout. Ms. Greenberg noted that acreage differs in the General Plan compared to applicant’s figures, and asked the number of lots.

Planning Director Anderson responded that the acreage determinations in the General Plan are approximate; the total number of units possible is defined by the number of units allowed per acre cross-multiplied by an accurate final acreage determination.

Ms. Greenberg added that alternatives should be discussed to protect prime open space to the greatest extent feasible. She added, there appears to be very little grading proposed on the site and stated that what has been included in the figure of 10,000 cubic yards should be identified.

Julie Lanoza, 16 Norman Way, stated she bought her house one and one-half year ago because this is a rural area and 100 houses is not "rural." She asked if there is an overall plan for the back side of Tiburon, and what is out of bounds, aesthetically.

Carol Traeger, 3700 Paradise, stated she is concerned about previous developments’ effects on this area. Traffic on Paradise Drive is a concern. She added, the amount of hardscape being developed with the building sites and percentage of hardscape does not add up.

Walter Sanford, Seafirth Estates Corporation, stated he was not noticed for the meeting, and should be in the future. He added the potential impact on traffic on Paradise Drive is very serious as is the impact on Trestle Glen and Tiburon Boulevards. This proposal is a huge loss to Tiburon. The back of Tiburon being filled in no longer allows the area to be rural. An important resource will be lost if this project is approved.

Senior Planner Watrous responded that notification is required to be sent to owners within 300 feet of the site. Norman Estates and Seafirth Homeowners Association were notified as well since they are most affected by the potential development.

Ms. Swanson stated she lives within 300 feet of the project and Mr. Sanford is president of a homeowners association, both of whom did not receive a notice

Regarding waterfront access to the beach, Senior Planner Watrous stated this is private property. This issue may be evaluated in terms of its being prime open space; there are no pre-existing access rights across the property just because there is a beach at the end of it.

Planning Director Anderson added the applicant has not proposed public access; however, the Town strongly urges public access to the bay in several policies of the General Plan.

Commissioner Fredericks asked that the EIR evaluate the cumulative hardscape, which is greater than is evident by looking at the building envelope. Hardscape should be reviewed on prime and potential open space. She asked, when developing private open space, if more grading will be needed. She wants to see an evaluation of any loss of contiguous open space by the accessory uses; effect of the installation of utilities; an explanation and evaluation of pesticides and fertilizers especially in terms of water draining to the bay; and native species versus landscaping that requires fertilizers. It appears the homes are proposed to be larger than what is allowed and this impact should be discussed. The EIR should discuss tree removal impacts—what is removed; what will be replaced and what might die; and trees in private open space and cutting trees to accommodate the neighbors. The sewer issue also should be reviewed.

Chair Stein agreed the stated amount of grading does not compute and this should be clarified. The character of the entire area should be discussed and Staff should reference the Visioning Plan.

Senior Planner Watrous responded that he is not well-versed enough in the Visioning Plan to know if there is a conflict between the Visioning Plan and the Town’s obligation under its General Plan. It is the intent to make a good faith effort to analyze the project in terms of the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan. Regarding rural character, this will be discussed in the merits discussion. There is no definition of rural character. He noted that part of what makes up the feel of Paradise Drive, the rural character, are the vacant properties, which have the potential for development. How much can be developed without damaging the rural character is a subjective decision to be made by the Planning Commission.

Chair Stein stated subjective decisions are not preferred. Regarding the Paradise Visioning Plan and rural character, it is within the General Plan to maintain the neighborhood character. Conflict with land use is a CEQA element and rural character has conservation aspects to it. While 100 additional houses will not necessarily be built along this side of the Tiburon Peninsula, a large number of houses could be built, and he would like to know when the Planning Commission needs to look more broadly at what the Town is doing. He has been reminded that the Town must review its General Plan at least every five years. He suggested residents may find the Town is getting ahead of itself in reviewing development that is contrary to what anyone envisioned would happen and whether the General Plan is protecting residents in terms of the parameters of development. He asked all of Staff to read what Mr. Grassetti said at the last hearing and explore answers. Several people on both of these projects reminded the Town that developments are being reviewed that have the potential to change the character of the area.

Commissioner Fredericks asked that the impact of building close to the shoreline be reviewed as well as how building on the site of a shoreline is affected by water for landscaping, fertilizers, grading. Chair Stein asked that discussion in the EIR also include preservation of open space and alternatives.

There being no one else wishing to speak, the Sorokko project scoping session was called to a close at 9:40 PM.