1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Stein, Commissioners Fredericks, Smith, Berger

Commissioners Absent: Snow

Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous and Recording Secretary Morales

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS       None.

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING         None.

(Item 2 was taken out of order)

   375 TAYLOR ROAD: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR AN APPROVED PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD#7)

Planning Director Anderson stated that this was an application for an additional extension of time on a Precise Development Plan that was approved in 1992, extended in 1995, 1997, and again in 1999. The applicant has filed a Design Review application, which has been tentatively scheduled for the Design Review Board’s meeting of December 6, 2001. However, it is unlikely that the Design Review Board will approve the project prior to expiration of the Precise Development Plan. Therefore, since the applicant has demonstrated good effort to proceed, Mr. Anderson recommended adopting the resolution granting an extension for one year to the Town Council.

Chair Stein opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak,. The public hearing was closed.

Chair Stein indicated that the application for design review indicated a clear intent to move forward with this project.

M/S Smith/Fredericks (4-0) to adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of a fourth extension of time for implementation of planned development #7 at 375 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G), Assessor’s Parcel No. 38-182-42.

1. "TIBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A 13.34 ACRE PARCEL AND REVIEW OF A FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD. Round-Two Development, LLC, Owner; Don Henderson and Craig Pilgrim, Applicants; Assessor’s Parcel No. 58-061-80

Planning Director Anderson summarized the background history of the project, stating that this project has been heard previously three times by the Commission since October of last year. At the July 25, 2001 hearing, the applicant was given specific direction primarily focusing on modification to Lot 4, reducing visual impacts, enhancing the buffer edge of landscaping along Trestle Glen Boulevard. The Planning Commission also requested that new photo simulations be provided and story poles relocated to reflect the current project. The Commission’s comments focused on the following issues: 1) preservation of the buffered edge along Trestle Glen Boulevard and lowering the visual mass, particularly on Lot 4; 2) moving the residential use area and building further back from Trestle Glen Boulevard, while maintaining the angle to the Trestle Glen Boulevard; 3) reducing the size of the residence on Lot 4 by 300 square feet, and shortening the length of the house as seen from Trestle Glen Boulevard; 4) moving or redesigning the proposed sanitary sewer easement on Lot 4 in order to minimize intrusion on the landscape buffer along Trestle Glen Boulevard. Upon review of the revised application materials submitted, Staff concludes that the project modifications have significantly improved the project and resulted in a superior development consistent with the General Plan’s Goals and Policies, and the principles of the Planned Residential District. Noting that the key to success was to ensure that the project actually built and landscaping installed resembles the approved application materials, including final photo simulations, Mr. Anderson concluded by recommending adoption of the resolution approving the modified project.

In response to Commissioner Fredericks, Planning Director Anderson stated that based on the definition of basement, it was not required that the entire basement be below grade. However, although there was limited possibility to get some light to certain portions of the basement, for the most part the basements were below grade and were not visible from the outside. He also stated that it would be difficult to provide separate access from the outside to the basement areas. If an area was proposed to be regraded to provide exterior access it would no longer qualify as a basement and would be considered as another story, thereby triggering a Precise Development Plan Amendment

The hearing was opened to public testimony.

Scott Hochstrasser, Planning Consultant for the applicant, explained in detail the revisions made to the project in response to the Commission’s direction, including: moving the house on Lot 4 further away from Trestle Glen by 20 feet for a total of 110 feet and reducing the size down to 2,600 square feet and its length to 87 feet; moving the house on Lot 1 further back by 10 feet; and redesigning and relocating the sewer easement outside the landscape buffer area. Using photograph simulations taken from different locations, he explained how the proposed bonded landscaping would adequately screen the entire project from Trestle Glen Boulevard in five to seven years. He also stated that in addition to the buffer, 10-15 feet tall trees would be planted around the homes for additional screening. Mr. Hochstrasser agreed with staff’s finding that the key to success was to ensure the project’s consistency with the General Plan Goals and Policies. He concluded his presentation by clarifying that all vehicles related to the construction operation will be parked on site, that the proposed homes are compatible in site since most surrounding homes are 2,900 square feet or greater, and that visual impacts will be mitigated by the proposed bonded landscaping and the existing topography of the site.

Discussion was opened to the public at 8:05 p.m.

Michael Lagios, 11 Benton Court, stated that notwithstanding the efforts made to accommodate the development, the proposal was a mistake. Given the importance of the site, he disagreed that the proposed landscaping, most likely exotics, would mitigate the loss of the grassy open space. At some point, the Town will have to accept the fact that the entire area of Tiburon should not be developed. He asked that staff reconsider its recommendation.

Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, stated that although significant improvements have been made to the project, it was still not enough. Homes of this size clustered on a hillside are inconsistent with the General Plan policies. The proposed homes should be more dispersed in order to increase visual separation, particularly since the subject property was located on a transitional corridor between an urban and a rural area. Depending on landscaping to screen the project was not a reliable solution. She concluded by stating that although density for the subject site allowed four homes, development did not have to be maximized.

Jean Sullivan, 23 Juno Road, thought that the proposed access road to the site has not been shown so it is unknown what the impacts will be in terms of visibility and traffic. She then stated that traffic is a concern, particularly since the project proposes two entrances to Trestle Glen in close proximity to one another. She questioned the thoroughness of potential traffic impact analysis since it appears that the impacts of a pending project nearby were not considered.

Margaret Peterson, 26 Juno Road, stated that it is unlikely that the proposed landscaping will adequately screen the homes given the type of soils and the northern exposure of the hillside. She concluded by stating that if the access road is to be off the extension of Juno Road, then a stop sign would be needed at the intersection.

Mr. Hochstrasser responded to the issues raised in the following manner: 1) all landscaping will be native and no exotic vegetation will be used; 2) the homes have been separated as much as possible based on the constraints of the site; 3) although screening of the project heavily relies on the proposed landscaping, the proposed design will also play an important role; 4) plant species were carefully selected based on the type of soils and exposure of the hillside; and 5) the proposed square footage of the homes is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood since most of the homes in the surrounding area are well over 2,900 square feet.

Mr. Lagios noted that most of the homes on Benton Court were 1,500 square feet or less. He also questioned whether the proposed native vegetation and shrubs would grow up to 20 or 30 feet in five to seven years to adequately screen the project.

The public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m.

Commissioner Fredericks stated that when the Commission discussed clustering, they were not talking about clustering within the whole parcel, but rather clustering in the portion of the parcel that would be built. One of the issues raised was that the project had the appearance of one building. Although the home closest to Trestle Glen Boulevard has been lowered and reduced in size, the project as a whole still had the appearance of one big building because of the way it has been clustered. The intent was to push the building closest to Trestle Glen further back in order to accomplish a greater distance from the transitional corridor, thereby eliminating the massive appearance. However, relocation of the home on Lot 4 has only uncovered the remaining three lots giving the homes the appearance of one big structure, which will not be adequately screened by the proposed landscaping. In her opinion, square footage was not the issue, since floor area ratio is simply a benchmark for important attributes such as views from the road and surrounding neighborhood, as well as the protection of the transitional feel along the corridor Therefore, since the subject site is the first along the corridor, it should conform with the intent of the General Plan with respect to the character of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Smith questioned the appropriateness of clustering in all cases, particularly this one based on the constraints and limitations. Noting that preservation of undeveloped properties as open space was always desirable, he also stated that their acquisition as public open space was not always desired due to issues such as maintenance and liability. If it is highly valued to preserve undeveloped properties for public access, then they should be purchased as public open space. In his opinion, this project has been significantly improved and, to the extent feasible, open space has been preserved, visibility has been minimized, and the project has been reduced in size.

In response to Chair Stein, staff clarified that the term "bonded landscaping" meant that landscaping will be required to be installed and maintained as shown on the approved plans. Should any of the landscaping die, it is the property owner’s responsibility to replace it. If not, the Town will replace it and will put a lien on the property to cover the cost. Such landscaping agreements have been required for commercial projects in the past. However, imposing this agreement on a residential project in perpetuity will be "a first" for Tiburon.

Commissioner Snow found that the project has been significantly improved and reduced in size to the maximum extent feasible. Although he agreed that density could be reduced from four units to three, he recognized that the homes could be much larger in size. He concluded by agreeing that any development of the property would look significantly different than the existing grassy area.

Commissioner Fredericks pointed out that the actual height of the structures will be higher and more visible than currently depicted by the story poles since the site will be graded.

Chair Stein stated that if clustering of the homes resulted in them being too close to one another, that the Design Review Board be given the flexibility to further reduce the foot print of the homes since they did not have the authority to change the building envelopes. Therefore, he suggested that the resolution be framed in a manner to give the Design Review Board such flexibility. He also noted that due to the fact that the project has been in process for quite some time now, there has not been continuity in the membership of the Planning Commission. Not withstanding, he agreed that the fact that an EIR was not required was questionable. Therefore, he hoped that no precedent would be set regarding the need for an EIR on other nearby properties. Other properties superficially similar in nature may need an EIR, therefore, he encouraged fellow Commissioners to make the same statement. Chair Stein did recognize that the applicant had followed the specific direction given by the Commission at the last hearing. Chair Stein concluded by asking that the resolution be modified to specify that should the Design Review Board find that final design of houses will result in the appearance of one single, massive building, that further reduction in square footage may be necessary.

Commissioner Smith stated that emphasis should be on maximizing visual separation of the structures, and that one way to achieve such separation may be by further reducing the square footage and/or shifting the homes within the building envelope.

Chair Stein clarified that once the building envelopes are approved by the Commission, the Design Review Board can not change them. However, the Board could be given other options.

Mr. Anderson pointed out that if not all homes were approved at the same time, as sometimes occurred, it would be difficult for the Design Review Board to evaluate the visual impacts of the project as a whole. Therefore, it may be appropriate to include a condition requiring some sort of analysis when the first application is submitted that would fold onto the others. Anderson suggested the construction of a model or similar device with the first house application.

Commissioners discussed at length options to deal with a potentially massive appearance, agreeing that language be expanded to indicate that should clustering become an issue during the design review process the square footage of the remaining homes be could further reduced by the Board.

Staff suggested that an added condition should read "It is recommended that the Design Review Board further reduce the floor areas for any or all homes in the subject subdivision if the homes appear to be clustered too close together." The Commission found this language acceptable.

In response to Commissioner Fredericks, Anderson clarified that the actual bicycle/pedestrian path shown on the schematic plan will be addressed and finalized by the Town at a later date. He also stated that by law, all new utilities serving a project are required to be placed underground at the time it is developed.

M/S Smith/Berger (4-0) to adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan (Planned Development No. 18B) and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, to the Town Council as modified.

2.    REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PC #4) TO CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE; Amerippon, Inc., owners; Philip Moss/Neil Sorensen, applicants; Assessor’s Parcel No. 38-111-16

Senior Planner Watrous explained that the purpose of the hearing was to obtain public comment on the adequacy of the EIR and not on the merits of the project, since those will be addressed at a separate hearing. The comment period on the DEIR will end on November 8, 2001. Explaining the location on a site plan, he summarized the proposal by stating that the Precise Development Plan would establish building envelopes for five homes on five lots. The site is covered with native grasses, scattered brush, and some additional trees, but no wetlands. Some of he key findings of the DEIR relate to:

Geology - The presence of landslide deposits on the site, for which mitigation measures have been recommended so that development can be constructed without resulting in significant impacts.

Because of the location of the proposed residences and street, the DEIR does conclude that the project would be inconsistent with Policy OSC-11 which encourages that grading be minimized to maintain existing landforms, and therefore, is considered a significant impact. The DEIR concludes that the only feasible mitigation for this significant impact is to approve a project alternative that reduces the number and relocates the residences.

Hydrology – Four watersheds have been identified at the site. Although the potential for increased water runoff and erosion exists, mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels have been recommended.

Traffic – Although no significant impacts were identified on any nearby intersections in terms of level of service, the DEIR concluded that the intersection of Parente Road and Paradise Drive was dangerous. Therefore, it is recommended that Antonette Drive be used as the sole access, or that Parente Road only be used for access to the project from Paradise Drive, with Antonette Drive used for egress.

Aesthetics – The project was deemed to be inconsistent with Policy OSC-5 of the Open Space and Conservation Element which states that to the extent feasible, all new development be located well below ridgelines. The DEIR concludes that the only feasible mitigation would be to approve a project alternative reducing the number of residences and changing their location.

Noise – Mitigation measures to minimize construction noise have been recommended.

Land Use – the project was deemed inconsistent with OSC-3 of the Open Space and Conservation Element, which identifies the subject property as "potential open space". The recommended mitigation measure is to approve a project alternative reducing the number of residences and changing their location.

Mr. Watrous concluded by recommending that following the conclusion of public testimony, the hearing be closed, Commissioners provide verbal comments, and this matter be continued to the meeting of November 28, 2001 for determination as to whether the DEIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA.

The hearing was opened to public testimony.

Michael Zischke, legal counsel for the applicant, informed the Commission that the applicant would try to resolve as many of the issues as possible early in the process, but that they would be submitting their comments on the DEIR in writing. He then took issue with some of the conclusions of the DEIR, not with respect to its adequacy, but with the way the conclusions are stated. The DEIR singles out the subject property to be treated differently than other properties similar in size in the vicinity. The conclusions on geology and grading are an example, since the DEIR questions the amount of grading and its consistency with the General Plan. He said that the type of grading required for the subject project is similar to the type of grading that would be required for surrounding properties. In his opinion, the proposed project is consistent with the Town’ General Plan and zoning of the site, and is compatible with the surrounding character.

In response to Chair Stein, Mr. Zischke stated that they would be expanding on their comments regarding the zoning and density of the project, in terms of compliance with the Town Plan and current Open Space designation.

Discussion was opened to the public at 9:20 p.m.

Richard Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, summarized his previously submitted letter, that had been revised, commenting on the fact that the DEIR document fails to acknowledge the deteriorated conditions of Antonette Drive, which would be exacerbated by construction traffic. Noting the potential landslide, slippage, and water problems related to the proposed excessive grading, Mr. Payne pointed out the project’s inconsistency with Policy OSC-11, which encourages that grading be minimized to maintain existing landforms. He agreed that mitigation to this concern would be to reduce the number of units. He concluded by pointing out that increasing runoff in watersheds 1, 2, and 3 will result in major flooding to his property

Michael O’Donnell, 4879 Paradise Drive, stated that Parente Road was one of the most dangerous roads off Paradise Drive given its alignment.

Joanna Kemper, Last Chance Committee, stated that since the DEIR does recognize that the subject property has elements associated with prime open space; the General Plan policies should be upheld. She asked that visual impacts, not just from Tiburon, but also from the bay, be addressed. In her opinion, the property owner should be required to repair any landslides if they occur as a result of the project. She concluded by asking that staff consider providing common, homeowner private open space rather than granting open space for each of the homes.

Walt Bilofsky, 4804 Paradise Drive, shared the concern regarding safety at the Parente Road/Paradise Drive intersection, and asked that the cumulative impacts of the pending Paradise Cay project be taken into consideration. He noted that although his property was not within one of the watersheds to be impacted, based on past personal experience drainage should be carefully considered, particularly directly to the east of the subject property

C. R. Bricca, 145 Antonette Drive, noted that the conclusion of engineering studies done on his property indicate that soil stability is a concern. Therefore, his concerns related to potential landslides and privacy intrusion based on the location of the proposed homes.

Lynn Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, read a letter from a neighbor sharing the concerns raised by Mr. Payne. She then stated that turning left from Antonette Drive onto Paradise Drive was very dangerous given the alignment of the road.

The public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m.

Commissioner Fredericks asked that an accurate and consistent number of truck trips for removing excess soil be provided.

Commissioner Smith asked that geotechnical information, in terms of potential landslides and impacts off site, be expanded upon.

Chair Stein asked that any potential prime open space areas be identified. The extent of such prime open space would have potential impacts on density and the project alternatives to be considered. He expressed concern that the DEIR did not adequately address the proposed size of homes or the potential elimination of prime open space. Although the amount of open space would dictate the density allowed, the EIR does not provide guidance. He asked that expert testimony regarding the uniqueness of the property as open space be evaluated, and that this information be provided prior to finalizing the EIR.

M/S Fredericks/Berger (4-0) to continue this matter to the hearing of November 28, 2001, for determination as to whether the DEIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIRMAN

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

_________________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY 102401pcmin.doc