Staff Update

Commission Information items

1.    MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2002 APPROVED AS AMENDED 4-0

2. PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; TO CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE; Amerippon, Inc., owners; Phillip Moss, applicants; Assessor’s Parcel No. 038-111-16 CONTINUED TO AUGUST 28, 2002

F. ADJOURNMENT 10:35PM a072402

PLANNING COMMISSION

July 24, 2002

Regular Meeting

Town Council Chambers

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California 94920

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chairman Smith, Commissioners Collins, Greenberg, and Stein

Absent: Commissioner Snow

Staff Present: Senior Planner Watrous, EIR Consultant Leonard Charles and Meeting

Recorder Hennessy

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

There were none.

COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Senior Planner Watrous stating the next General Plan workshops would be held on July 30^th and August 8^th.

At the present time, there were not items scheduled for the August 14^th meeting, and the Commission might consider canceling that meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes of July 10, 2002

Commissioner Greenberg requested the following statement be inserted in the minutes: "Commissioner Greenberg asked the applicant about the location of the landslides on the property. Mr. Weiss responded that he did not know where the landslides were on this site."

M/S, Smith/Collins (5-0) to approve the minutes as amended.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: TO CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENT ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE; Amerippon, Inc., owners; Phillip Moss, applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 038-111-16

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the Staff report, highlighting specific facts.

The plan would subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel into five lots for the development of a single-family dwelling on each lot.

Landslide complexes exist in the northwest corner of the site and in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of the property. Four separate watersheds on the site drain to the north and southeast of the property.

Access would be provided to all proposed lots from a 20-foot wide private street extending from the cul-de-sac at the end of Antonette Drive. Review by the Tiburon Fire Protection District indicates that the width, slope and turnaround area of the proposed access appears to be acceptable. The applicant proposes to dedicate this street to the Town, however, the Town is not inclined to accept such dedication at this time.

A total of 60.5% of the total area of the subject property would remain undisturbed by either the building envelopes or the proposed roadway. The proposed precise development plan does not specify the method which would be utilized to preserve this open space.

Secondary Ridgeline 0, identified by the Open Space & Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan traverses the center of the subject property from southwest to northeast. The location of the proposed street and residences along this ridgeline would involve construction work that would not minimize grading or represent sensitive site design that would preserve this natural feature to the maximum extent feasible.

The EIR states that open space views would be lost or significantly altered from a portion of the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, the six residences nearest the site, residences in Paradise Cay, and a few other homes in the more distance locations. The EIR recommends moving the future residences on Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5 downslope away from the Ridgeline 0, and the house on Lot 1 be relocated or reduced in height to avoid blocking the view of San Francisco Bay from the home at 4885 Paradise Drive.

The applicant estimates that construction of the street and the extension of Parente Road would involve extensive grading, with a total of 4,364 cubic yards of cut and 753 cubic yards of fill required. Only one significant tree and no other substantial vegetation are proposed to be removed, and the EIR recommends that this tree not be removed.

In conclusion, the EIR suggests that reduced density project alternatives could be designed that would be more consistent with the Town’s policies and guidelines. The EIR states that "the fewer the number of residences, the less impact to open space and grading." Staff believes that a three-lot alternative would substantially reduce the grading and view impacts resulting from the project, while allowing a reasonable level of development for this 10.3 acre property.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing; certify the Final EIR; recommend to the Town Council adoption of the three-lot alternative as being environmentally superior to the proposed project and more consistent with the General Plan policies; recommend to the Town Council that either a statement of overriding considerations be prepared and adopted in order to approve the three-lot alternative despite remaining significant adverse impacts on the environment even after implementation of all mitigation measures, or find that the approval of the three-lot alternative would reduce all potential impacts on the environment to less-than-significant levels after implementation of al mitigation measures; and direct Staff to return with an appropriate Resolution.

Commissioner Stein asked if Staff had had any conversations with the developer with regard to their opinion that there were overriding circumstances to preclude the three-unit alternative. Senior Planner Watrous stated the applicant does not believe a three unit alternative would be economically viable.

Phillip Moss, applicant and architect, made a slide presentation which depicted overhead views of the site; habitat areas, slide areas and placement of building envelopes. He noted that the house at 4885 Paradise Drive was located within 10 feet of their property line; to keep the roadway away from this house requires more grading, and they will landscape the roadway to prevent headlights from disturbing those residents.

Mr. Moss explained that due to the limitations of the slope, geology and habitat, they clustered the houses on the site. Lots 1, 3 and 5 would have one story on the upslope and two stories on the downslope. He said that pushing houses down the site would require more grading. They are trying to balance cut and fill on the site. He described various methods and modifications that could reduce the amount of grading required for the project. He acknowledged that due to the topography, views will be impacted from above and 4885 Paradise Drive.

In response to Chairman Smith, Mr. Moss stated he believed the tree at the center of the property would be saved; the tree in question would be in the front yard of lot #5.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated the height of the one story element of the homes would vary between 26, 24 and 22 feet.

In response to Commissioner Collins, Mr. Moss stated he believed the slide area in the northern section of the site was the more dangerous of the two landslides on the site.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated they did not intend to repair the entire slide area; an extensive repair would create more grading.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss said that they did not know whether they would need additional permissions or legal rights to widen the Antonette Drive roadway beyond its current foot width. Commissioner Greenberg emphasized that the Commission needed to know that information.

Commissioner Greenberg noted that she believed it was the Town’s policy that all slide areas need to be repaired, and if that is the policy, then the grading numbers provided do not reflect that repair. Mr. Watrous read from the Safety Element of the General Plan, Policy SE-8, regarding repair of landslides. Mr. Moss stated that landslide repair was not included in their grading calculations; their intent was to only improve the slides near the two proposed houses.

Leonard Charles, EIR consultant, stated that when the applicant gets to the design stage, they will need a more detailed geological study. A brief discussion ensued regarding the need for more detailed geologic information.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated that if Antonette Drive was used and Parente Road abandoned, the amount of grading would be about the same.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Charles stated the 1.76 acres of hardscape estimated was based on site plans submitted by the applicant; details of what would be included had not been designed yet.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss did not know what the noise level would be as a result of scoring the road in the areas where the grade is above 21%. Commissioner Greenberg asked that the applicant provide these answers at the next meeting. Commissioner Greenberg estimated that 650 feet of roadway would be scored, and noted that the sound engineer had not addressed this issue.

Commissioner Greenberg noted that the rock lining of the proposed drainage ditch that would run along the road would be a visual impact. Mr. Moss stated he thought an open ditch with natural growth would be preferable to pipes, saying that it would create a visual sense of waterfalls. Rocks could be placed in the ditch to slow the speed of water. He noted that northwest of Parente Road, there is a large existing swale.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated he believed a fence of approximately 400 feet in length would be needed to shield neighbors; that he would work with them regarding the fence height.

Michael Zischke, attorney, Morrison and Forrester, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, stated he would research the easements that run with the land. He wanted to address three issues: (1) General Plan consistencies, (2) ridgeline policies; and (3) feasibility of alternatives. He believed that development of this property with five lots was consistent with the General Plan policies. He said that these policies need to be balanced and the Town can never meet all of the policies for any one project. He noted that the General Plan states that there is a continuing opportunity to refine ridgeline analysis. He stated when you mitigate environmental impacts and determine consistency with the General Plan, you have to discuss project feasibility. He stated that it is important to consider that the project as proposed would preserve 60% of the open space and minimizing grading as much as feasible. He stated that an economic report shows that five units are economically feasible, and 4 units would be marginally feasible, but would not be acceptable to investors. He stated that Staff’s recommendation for three units is not economically feasible.

Mr. Zischke believed that when one looked at the site, what is designated as Ridgeline 0 is more of a slope than a ridge line; he said this is not part of the Tiburon Ridge but a sloping hillside that goes through the Parente property and does not connect different hills. He would like to work with the Staff on the identified issues, and asked the Commission to not direct that a three-unit project come back, but rather a project that will address issues within the five-unit density proposed.

Commissioner Collins questioned the Economic Report, including the rate of return figures and what the 15% discount meant. Mr. Moss indicated that they will get more detailed answers to these questions.

Commissioner Stein stated that he had a basic problem with the approach used in the Economic Report. The report estimates a selling price of $3.5 million per house, which would be approximately $650 per square foot of living space. He noted prices are going up and he believed a $900 per square foot estimate might be more accurate. He noted that if that is true, then the project would be feasible at three units.

In response to a question from the Commission as to whether the lot was being marketed as a 10 acre estate, Mr. Moss replied that one party had been interested in the property as one lot, but that person is no longer interested. He stated that the property was never offered as a 10 acre estate lot.

Mr. Zischke stated he would get answers from the people who prepared the Economic Report. He said that CEQA includes cost in its definition of feasibility, and cost should be a factor for the Commission to consider. He said that when a project alternative would take the project below the cost of developing the property, it makes that alternative economically infeasible. He also stated the Town has the right to purchase the property as open space. Commissioner Greenberg noted that given the environmental constraints, the Town could approve only one unit, as real estate is speculative. She asked if the applicant expected there to be a guarantee of return, and Mr. Zischke replied that there was no such expectation.

Chairman Smith stated since the economic feasibility of the project has been raised by the applicant, he requested that the author of the Economic Report attend the next meeting to respond to questions. Mr. Moss asked the Commissioners to prepare questions ahead of time so the author can come prepared to the next meeting.

Chairman Smith opened the public hearing.

Joanna Kemper, 1911 Straits View Drive, Co-Chair of the Last Chance Committee, asked what protection would be provided for primary open space. She asked the Commission to uphold protections for open space contained within the General Plan. She emphasized that the Town has identified a ridgeline on this property, and asked how many ways the General Plan can say "do not build on ridgelines" or "stay away from ridgelines".

Chairman Smith noted the Commission had just been handed a flier that identified the property "as 10 acres to build your own private estate."

Stacy O’Donnell, 4879 Paradise Drive, stated that she was speaking for the Roediger, Hicken, Ulshafer, Gambs, Levine and Javor families. She stated that they experienced flooding in the area in 1988 and 1989, and they have experienced problems from the excavation of other houses nearby. She said that the eucalyptus tree needs to be preserved to protect the Hicken and Javor houses.

Lynn Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, referred to the EIR estimate of 50 trips per day on Antonette Drive, and thought it was too conservative for 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. She did not agree that site lines at entrance to Antonette Drive were adequate; she stated there is a curve with a considerable dip in the road. She stated that Section E1 of the Geotechnical Report refers to slides and she stated the crevice referred to is their drainage ditch which goes into an 18" culvert on their property; during the winter months, this culvert could not take more runoff. She urged the Commission to select the three-unit alternative.

Joel Levine, 201 Taylor Road, said that he looks down on the property. He noted that the house at 151 Taylor Road is on the market for $7.5 million and three houses at that price would make the three-unit alternative economically feasible. He did not believe that the Town needs to consider whether someone can make a profit on a speculative property purchase. He asked that the Commission site the houses lower on the hill to minimize impact on animals. He said that five houses would look terrible looking down from Ring Mountain.

C. R. Bricker, 145 Antonette Drive, questioned how the applicants would control traffic. He also stated that Parente Road was a dangerous intersection with Paradise Drive.

Christopher Harney, 80 Reedland Woods Way, also owner of property at 140 Antonette Drive, thought these houses could only be seen from the water. He thought that 2 acres per home was generous. He noted that Vista Tiburon originally proposed 55 homes and was reduced to 22 homes, which is less than one per 2 acres. He noted that this proposal was between two existing areas of homes and did not think it affected anyone.

Jeff Walter, 131 Taylor Road, stated their view to the southeast is of an empty hill. He stated that if this project is built as proposed, they will see a box on the hill in front of them.

Barbara Harney, 80 Reedland Woods Way, stated that open space is important to the community, but this is a private piece of property. She suggested that if people want open space they should buy the property.

Phillip Moss wanted to clarify some issues. He stated that the eucalyptus tree referred to was not on their property. The large group of pines was also not on their property. They did have some concerns regarding six trees along the slope area, stating that if the proposal is to cut the slope back to 2:1, this might affect these trees. He stated that drainage is an issue. The applicant hired a well known hydrologist to look at rainwater and drainage and he can be asked to study it further. He stated that if culvert is inadequate they would have to improve it as a part of their agreement; he has looked at redirecting water on watershed from their site over to the other side, and the possibility of a "V" ditch as a mitigation measure. He will bring their hydrologist to the next meeting.

Richard Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, restated his and his wife’s concerns about drainage toward the 18" culvert.

Mr. Moss stated they could put two restrictors on their site to control runoff.

Chairman Smith closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Stein noted that Town Resolution 2859 specifically addresses ridgelines and delineates the Parente ridge on the map and includes specific findings. He read finding #13, and quoted from the General Plan regarding undeveloped ridge lines and how all new development shall be located well below the ridgelines. He noted that the General Plan gave extraordinarily detailed instructions as to what to do and not do when developing ridgelines, and noted that exceptions can be made if applicant was deprived reasonable use of the land. He congratulated the consultant in preparing one of the best EIRs he had ever seen, but stated that he still had questions he needed to address before he could certify the Final EIR.

Commissioner Greenberg agreed with the ridgeline policy; stated she served on the Planning Commission when this policy was adopted, and helped determine which areas were ridgelines. She said that the Town greatly values its undeveloped ridgelines. She said that, based on information in the EIR, Antonette Drive should be used exclusively; this access would not be great, but would be better than Parente Road. She said the Towns needs to know the width of the easement on Antonette Drive because if it is not sufficient to accommodate the traffic generated by this project, the applicant needs to think about reducing the number of units. She noted the grading amounts estimated are the minimum; the Town clearly did not have enough information regarding the amount of earth work involved in other aspects of the project, including slide repairs and retaining walls. She said that if houses are to be located on ridgelines, the structures have to be lower; 26’ tall one-story homes are unacceptable.

Commissioner Collins agreed that Parente Road is a very difficult intersection. He also had questions about the easement on Antonette Drive. He said that there might be alternatives without building so much on the ridgeline.

Chairman Smith noted that the constraints of the slide areas, ridgeline, and soils stability, creates a difficult development situation. He said that the Commission is charged with the duties of determining how to preserve ridgelines to the maximum extent feasible. He questioned the economic feasibility analysis and said it needed further exploration. He agreed with use of Antonette Drive for access, saying that it is unclear why there would be two different access points when one is so dangerous. He said that it is crucial to know as much as possible about the Antonette Drive easement. He said that hydrology and drainage are of particular concern, particularly the suggestion of moving water from one watershed to another and balancing drainage. He said that houses on the site need to be lower and stepped into the hillside.

In response to Chairman Smith, Mr. Watrous stated the Commission should specify information they needed to certify the EIR; if the Commission wants to recommend adoption of an alternative, there should be more feedback as to how that alternative would be designed. He suggested that the applicant return with the additional information on the design of the project and the EIR consultant can return with more information.

Commission Stein asked the consultant to talk to Marin County officials and find out how County policies about avoiding ridgelines, noting that the County and the Town share this side of the Tiburon Peninsula. He noted that the road requires most of the grading and the three-unit alternative requires 42% less grading; would feel more comfortable with a complete analysis of the grading required for 2 or 3 units. He also noted that it had been suggested by the architect siting units further down might require more grading; maybe the Commission needs to see a more thorough development of that idea.

Mr. Watrous summarized his understanding that Commissioner Stein wanted a more fleshed out grading estimate for two or three units; and wanted specifics as to the result of additional grading created by putting the houses as far off the ridge as possible without impacting slide area.

Commissioner Greenberg summarized the Commission’s need for additional geotechnical investigation if the houses are moved down the site. She said it is likely that there would be smaller houses and/or fewer houses. She also wanted to see smaller secondary envelopes, possibly around 10,000 square feet. She would like to see transition landscaping on the plans, with a visual transition to natural landscaping. She said that fencing should be limited to cover a smaller area, and that brick pillars with the fencing takes away the sense of openness. She said that the retaining walls and roadway should better fit into the natural landscaping. She would like to see open space owned by a homeowners association instead of individual property owners. She would like to see trail easement up to Ring Mountain, if feasible. She noted that the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan calls for a rural atmosphere and muted designs, rather than the stucco boxes proposed. The Commissions needs design guidelines with fence details, color, and materials. She noted that parking has not been addressed needs to be better understood. She also noted that the tree on Lot 5 should be retained.

Commissioner Collins stated that moving homes down the slope is an alternative, if the landslide areas are properly mitigated. He also thought that the homes should be reduced in size, and that the Town might want to consider dedication of a trail easement.

Chairman Smith noted that the geotechnical and hydrology reports did not provide information for the 2 or 3 lot alternatives. He thought that the 3-lot alternative is a step in the right direction, but the Commission does not have the geological and hydrological information to know if the alternative is feasible.

Consultant Charles stated that the applicant had the geology and hydrology reports prepared and he was hired to peer review those reports. The project alternatives were not reviewed because at that point the alternatives had not yet been identified.

In response to Chairman Smith, Mr. Charles stated they could provide the Commission with more information, but drainage information can be addressed as proposed by mitigation measures identified in the EIR; similar mitigation measures could be designed for a 3 or 4 lot subdivision. He stated that the main geologic constraints are on either side of the property; if the Commission wishes to examine an alternative moving the houses down the site, then more geologic information might be needed.

Commissioner Stein stated that eliminating Lots 4 & 5 and spreading out Lots 2 & 3 would reduce the grading necessary for the road, but otherwise might not be the best design for the project.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that moving units down further could increase view problems for the house at 4885 Paradise Drive. She said that the applicant should come back with a 3-unit alternative.

In response to Commissioner Stein, Mr. Watrous stated Staff prefers to have the Planning Commission direct the applicant to come up with the best design. He also noted the request for detailed grading estimates for the 3-lot alternative.

Chairman Smith asked if the applicant would be willing to submit an alternative design with 3 lots or less. Mr. Moss replied that the property owner has to make that decision whether he feels a 3 unit redesign is warranted based on factors discussed this evening and economic feasibility.

Mr. Watrous suggested the Commission continue the item to a date certain; if the applicants for whatever reason chooses to not submit a 3-unit proposal, Staff can attempt to define building envelopes and come up with a design that can be further evaluated, or the Commission can vote on the 5-unit proposal.

Mr. Moss asked the Commission to continue the item.

Chairman Smith asked the applicant to return with the additional information requested this evening.

M/S, Greenberg/Stein (5-0) to continue the application to the August 28, 2002 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.

 ______________________________

PAUL SMITH, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

 ATTEST:

 _________________________________

DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY