SUBJECT: FILE #39902: PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #4) TO CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE; AMERIPPON, INC., OWNERS; PHILLIP MOSS/NEIL SORENSEN, APPLICANTS; ASSESSOR=S PARCEL No. 38-111-16

PROJECT DATA

Address: End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 038-111-16

File Number: 39902

General Plan: Low Density Residential (0.5 dwellings/acre)

Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development)

Property Size: 10.3 acres

Current Use: Vacant

Owner: Amerippon, Inc.

Applicant: Phillip Moss

Date Complete: July 1, 2000

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Precise Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel into five lots. The precise plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the five lots. Lot 1, on the lower, northernmost portion of the site, would have an area of 2.01 acres; Lot 2 would have an area of 2.01 acres; Lot 3 would have an area of 2.00 acres; Lot 4 would have an area of 2.05 acres; and Lot 5 would have an area of 2.10 acres.

The site consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The property slopes down from Ring Mountain toward Paradise Drive, with a north to south slope of 20% to 30%. Access would be provided to the site from a private roadway that would be installed as an extension of Parente Road and Antonette Drive, both of which connect to Paradise Drive.

Vegetation on the site consists of native grasses, scattered brush and a grove of toyon, bay and canyon live oak trees. No wetlands areas exist on the site. 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.

Various residential developments surround the subject property, including portions of the Lands of Kahn, Ring Mountain, and Taylor Road subdivisions, along with individual lots along Parente Road, Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive. These areas consist of detached single-family homes.

The Parente Precise Development Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning limitations for the five proposed lots. The proposed limitations for these five lots are described as follows:

1.    Lot 1 would be situated in the lowest, northeasterly portion of the site, with a centrally located 5,938 square foot primary building envelope; a 20,097 square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building envelope.

2.    Lot 2 would be situated immediately to the west of Lot 1, and would have a 6,052 square foot primary building envelope in the southern portion of the lot; a 21,310 square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building envelope.

3.    Lot 3 would be situated in the northwest corner of the site, with a 7,172 square foot primary building envelope located in the southeast corner of the lot; a 30,663 square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building envelope.

4.    Lot 4 would be situated in the southwesterly corner of the site, with a 7,202 square foot primary building envelope at the northeast corner of the lot; a 26,909 square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building envelope.

5.    Lot 5 would be situated in the southeastern portion of the site, with a 5,259 square foot primary building envelope on the northern portion of the lot; a 24,931 square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building envelope.

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. The private street would curve around the building envelope for Lot 1; curve to the west below the building envelope for Lot 2; curve south between the building envelopes for Lots 2 & 3; then end in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5. Previous review by the Tiburon Fire Protection District indicates that the width, slope and turnaround area for this access appear to be acceptable.

The applicant has indicated an intention to offer the proposed street for dedication to the Town of Tiburon as a public street. At this time, the Town is not inclined to accept such a dedication, particularly for a street that is only accessible via two other private streets (Antonette and Parente Drives). It is recommended that the project be reviewed with the understanding that the proposed street would be private, with the issue of future dedication to be resolved between the property owner and the Town as part of the subdivision process.

To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the proposed lots, the applicant has submitted conceptual plans for five houses which would meet the criteria for the proposed precise development plan. Although these plans are conceptual in nature, and would require subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are probably representative of the type of construction that would be expected for each lot, given the building envelope constraints proposed.

Each of the proposed homes would have a two-story design, with a maximum height of 30 feet. The maximum permitted floor area for the five lots would range in size from 4,795 to 5,590 square feet, with additional garage space of 772 to 960 square feet. The homes are proposed to be designed with stucco exteriors and tile roofs. The applicant proposes to use a color palette of "earth harvest tones," including brown, beige, green, ochre and burnt umber.

As noted above, each lot is proposed to include a primary building envelope for the construction of the residence, and a secondary building envelope for construction of recreational amenities. The area on each lot outside the secondary envelope would be designated as private open space. This open space area is intended to remain in a natural, undisturbed condition, with an open space easement dedicated to the Town to protect these spaces. Fencing on the site would be limited to the boundaries of the secondary building envelopes.

ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE

Section 4.08.04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance sets forth the following principles to be evaluated in the review of Precise Development Plan applications:

The location of the proposed building envelopes would leave well over half of the site in an open condition. The area outside of the primary and secondary building envelopes is intended to be preserved as private open space. 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, although the Planning Commission has often required that Aopen space easements@ be conferred to the Town over portions of the privately-owned lots located outside the building envelopes. Specific language needs to be drafted specifying what improvements, if any, would be permitted outside of the proposed building envelopes; a copy of a recently adopted open space agreement containing such language is attached as Exhibit 10. Staff does not recommend dedication of land in instances such as this project, where the remaining open space is small and is not directly connected to other dedicated open space areas.

Secondary Ridgeline 0, identified by the Open Space & Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan (as shown on Exhibit 9), 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 resource conservation report prepared for this project found that there were no special status species of plants or animals, and no wetlands or sensitive natural communities on the project site.

The property consists of non-serpentine soils, and therefore there are no serpentine grasslands on the site. The EIR has identified one significant tree on the site that is intended to be removed; the EIR recommends that this 30 inch diameter live oak tree on Lot 5 be preserved. Although there are four separate watersheds on the site, there are no significant water courses on this property. There is no riparian habitat and no identified wetlands on the property.

No proposed slopes on the property would exceed 30 percent. The proposed street would follow the contours of the ridgeline. The location of the building envelopes adjacent to the ridgeline would not result in contours or slopes that differ significantly from the natural land features.

The EIR states that open space views would be lost or significantly altered from a portion of the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, the 6 residences nearest to the site, residences in Paradise Cay, and a few other homes in more distant locations. The EIR recommends moving the future residences on Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5 downslope away from Ridgeline 0, and that the future 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.

As noted above, there are no rare plants, significant flora and fauna, or habitats of endangered species on the site. The EIR has identified one significant tree on the site that is intended to be removed; the EIR recommends that this 30 inch diameter live oak tree on Lot 5 be preserved. There are no areas of historical significance or established access corridors across the site.

As previously noted, Secondary Ridgeline 0 traverses through the center of the subject property. Much of the proposed street, the proposed primary building envelopes for Lots 1, 2 & 3, and the proposed secondary building envelopes for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 extend across this ridgeline. The proposed building envelopes for Lot 5 extend to within approximately 50 vertical feet of this ridgeline.

None of the proposed homes or the proposed street would be situated significantly below Ridgeline 0. However, the location of this ridgeline on the subject property leaves relatively little developable area that could be reasonably accessed without some construction either on or in the immediate vicinity of this ridgeline.

This property offers few opportunities to screen development through topography or use of natural features. The location of Secondary Ridgeline 0 through the middle of the site makes most of the property visually prominent from nearby residences. However, the placement of the proposed street and building envelopes either directly on or very close to this ridgeline is inconsistent with the direction to minimize the prominence of development and construction on the site.

The applicant has presented a table (Exhibit 7) that contains proposed future house sizes for each lot, as follows:

Lot 1 would have 5,355 square feet of living area and 880 square feet of garage space;

Lot 2 would have 5,002 square feet of living area and 772 square feet of garage space;

Lot 3 would have 5,590 square feet of living area and 840 square feet of garage space;

Lot 4 would have 5,457 square feet of living area and 853 square feet of garage space;

Lot 5 would have 4,795 square feet of living area and 960 square feet of garage space.

The Commission may wish to address the whether the potential size of the homes which could be constructed on each of these lots would be compatible with the generally smaller size of other homes in the immediate vicinity. By comparison, the Town=s floor area ratio limits would permit an 8,000 square foot house and 750 square feet of garage space on each lot.

In recent approvals, the Planning Commission and Town Council have limited the size of houses in new subdivisions to levels below the default floor area ratio otherwise determined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. In the most recent example, the Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan limited the future floor areas for three homes to 4,300 square feet and 600 square feet of garage space, for a project with lot sizes ranging from 2.16 to 5.56 acres.

Color and material guidelines are usually adopted as conditions of approval on a Precise Development Plan, normally specifying medium-to-dark earth tone colors and materials that blend with the natural environment. These guidelines are then used by the Design Review Board during its review of any homes eventually proposed on the site.

The geotechnical report prepared for this application indicated the presence of several landslide deposits on the site. These deposits are generally situated on the northern and southern portions of the site, outside the proposed building envelopes for Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5. The EIR recommends mitigation measures that would allow the residences, street and other project improvements to be constructed without resulting in significant impacts. These mitigation measures include avoidance of the landslides as construction areas, and further evaluation and repair of the landslide deposits.

The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project found that almost all potentially significant environmental impacts which would be caused by this project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. The EIR identifies two significant unavoidable impacts of the project which could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the EIR:

The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by eliminating potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering views of potential open space; and

The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize grading on the property.

This proposed roadway slope and width would meet the minimum standards acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the Town Engineer. 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. The street alignment, in particular, would appear to be inconsistent with direction to design the street to minimize necessary grading.

The alignment of the proposed building envelope for Lot 1 would roughly center the future house on this lot between the location of existing residences on either side of the property, with setbacks from 70 to 100 feet between the future and existing homes. The future homes on the other four lots would have more substantial setbacks from nearby homes, with a separation of at least 170 feet between the primary building envelopes and any other residences in the vicinity. The location of the proposed building envelopes at different elevation would help avoid monotony of design.

The EIR has determined that the intersection of Parente Road and Paradise Drive is unsafe, with deficient sight lines to and from the north. The EIR recommends that all traffic from the proposed project instead utilize only Antonette Drive, where sight lines at the intersection with Paradise Drive are more than adequate. The EIR also recommends improvements to Antonette Drive, which is currently a private street, to meet Town standards for a public street.

Concerns were raised during the review of the EIR for this property regarding potential impacts on neighboring residents from the headlights of vehicles using the proposed street. The EIR recommends installation of landscaping or fencing at appropriate locations along the street that would mitigate these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Parking for the individual homes is limited to the provision of 3 or 4 garage spaces for each residence and additional parking on the driveway apron in front of each house. No parking is currently proposed along the street serving the project. The Planning Commission should require additional common overflow parking to be provided along the roadway or in some other location to handle additional parking demand during times when individual homeowners have parties or host other events requiring more parking than can be handled on-site.

As previously noted, the EIR states that the proposed project would impact the views from many nearby homes. However, the project would not appear to create privacy impacts or significant visual intrusion into the indoor and outdoor living areas for most homes. The EIR notes that the existing residence at 4885 Paradise Drive would be most affected, with vehicles passing approximately 60 feet from this home, and the future houses on Lots 1 & 2 clearly visible from decks and windows.

The EIR notes that noise from the construction of this project could result in significant impacts on surrounding homes, but recommends mitigation measures that would reduce the noise to less than significant levels. Although future traffic on the proposed street could cause noticeable noise to nearby homes (in particular the residence at 4885 Paradise Drive), the EIR determines that this noise would not be significant.

The proposed residential building envelope setbacks from the side property lines should provide an adequate buffer to avoid intrusion of noise on surrounding homes.

Landscape palettes have been prepared for each of the 5 proposed lots. Trees proposed to be planted on each lot include Coast Live Oak, Western Redbud and California Bay trees. Additional shrubs and ground cover are proposed, but would normally be reviewed in more detail during the Design Review process for each future home.

The submitted landscape palettes indicate the planting of trees and shrubs outside the proposed primary and secondary building envelopes for each lot. The Planning Commission should determine whether the areas outside these envelopes should be left in a native condition. The proposed landscaping plans could encourage future homeowners to install other inappropriate plantings in private open space areas, and otherwise begin to treat private open space areas as extensions of the yard areas around each house. The adoption of the language within the Town’s typical open space easement agreement, as previously mentioned, would also prevent such planting within the private open space areas.

No street lights are proposed for this project. Low level driveway downlighting would be appropriate, and would be reviewed by the Design Review Board during its review of any homes eventually proposed on the site.

This is a standard condition of approval for planned developments in Tiburon. As previously described, the applicant proposes to use a color palette of "earth harvest tones" for future house on the site, including brown, beige, green, ochre and burnt umber colors.

See the General Plan discussion below.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

The following section addresses the policies of the Tiburon General Plan that relate to this proposed project:

Land Use Element

LU-12 In Planned Residential Districts, new development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive and least hazardous portions of vacant land wherever feasible to promote sound land development and planning practices. Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelines open and unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible.

The proposed project would site the street and future homes away from the identified landslide deposits on the site, and would not impact any sensitive biological areas.

As previously noted, much of the proposed street, the proposed primary building envelopes for Lots 1, 2 & 3, and the proposed secondary building envelopes for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 extend across Secondary Ridgeline 0. The project design would therefore be inconsistent with the direction to keep this ridgeline "open and unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible."

LU-16 The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest extent possible feasible wildlife habitat in the open ridges, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other biologically sensitive areas.

The proposed project would retain much of the site as undeveloped private open space, including the more heavily wooded areas on the property that would continue to be available to wildlife. The EIR notes that the development along the ridgeline would remove some habitat used by deer and other wildlife.

LU-17 Future land use decisions shall be consistent with Diagram LU-3, Proposed Land Use. However, the densities and intensities specified in the Land Use Element are maximums… which may not be achieved if other standards of the general plan pertaining to environmental, physical or offsite constraints such as steep slopes, soil instability or limitations on necessary infrastructure require lower densities or intensities.

Diagram LU-3 of the Land Use Element designates the subject property for Low Density Residential Development, with a maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre. This density is echoed by Table 1 of the same element, which designates a maximum development potential of five dwelling units for this currently vacant 10.3 acre parcel.

The project, as currently designed, is inconsistent with several general plan policies relating to the preservation of ridgelines and minimizing grading on the property. Therefore, the maximum allowable density of 5 homes for this site may not be achieved in order to comply with these general plan policies.

Open Space and Conservation Element

OSC-1 Open Space. The Town has long been favored with large amounts of undeveloped land and open water providing a sense of open space. This character should be protected to the maximum extent feasible.

The proposed project would place new development on the most prominent portions of the site along Ridgeline 0. Areas proposed to be devoted to open space would be located on generally lower elevations south and northwest of the ridgeline. The proposed development pattern would be inconsistent with this policy, as the open space character of the site would not be protected to the maximum extent feasible.

Diagram OSC-3 of the Open Space and Conservation Element designates the entire subject property as potential open space. This element also contains criteria for evaluating potential open space to determine if this land qualifies as "prime open space." Prime open space is defined as "that open space which because of its characteristics and attributes is worthy of protection to the extent such protection is feasible." This definition further includes specific characteristics to be used in determining whether a property should be classified as prime open space.

The Final EIR for this project includes a detailed analysis of the criteria used for determination of prime open space. Although the FEIR determines that the site does not include most of the characteristics for prime open space, the report concludes that "the project site is prime open space because it contains significant visual resources and a significant ridgeline." The FEIR also states, however, that the ultimate consistency with these criteria must be determined by the Planning Commission and Town Council.

OSC-2 Growth. While accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it should be so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant vegetation, habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent feasible. New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas.

As previously noted, the proposed project would place new development on the most prominent portions of the site along Ridgeline 0. Open space views would also be lost or significantly altered from a portion of the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, the 6 residences nearest to the site, residences in Paradise Cay, and a few other homes in more distant locations. The size and visual prominence of the future houses on this site would not appear to be in harmony with the development pattern of the adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas.

OSC-3 Outward Views. Property owners cherish their views. New structures and associated landscaping should be situated or kept low to avoid interference with existing outlooks.

OSC-4 View Corridors. Principal inboard and outboard vistas should be defined and development should be located to protect such vistas to the maximum extent feasible.

See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (d) above.

OSC-5 Ridgelines. Undeveloped ridgelines have an overriding visual significance to the Town. To the maximum extent feasible, all new development shall be located well below the ridgelines. In addition, the following ridgeline guidelines shall be applied to the Tiburon Ridge.

Development should be set back 150 horizontal feet to either side of the Tiburon Ridge.

To the maximum extent feasible, development should not break the Tiburon Ridge as viewed from the opposite side (from the line of sight to the highest elevation).

No development shall be allowed within 50 vertical feet of the major ridgeline, measured from the highest point of a structure.

If this policy prevents all reasonable use of the property, encroachment into the setbacks may be allowed provided that structures are limited to a maximum of one story of 15 feet in height.

See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (e) above.

OSC-9 Private Open Space. In all projects, the Town should encourage the provision of private open space where public open space would result in public spaces which are not readily accessible or for other reasons are not readily useable by the public.

The proposed project would designate approximately 5.5 acres of land as private open space. The EIR concludes that the areas designated as private open space are "not particularly useful as public open space since [they are] located primarily on lower and steeper portions of the site." The northwest corner of the site is adjacent to the Ring Mountain Open Space, and therefore a connection could conceivably be made between open space on the subject property and the adjacent open space. Currently, access to this portion of the Ring Mountain Open Space is provided at an entrance at the end of Taylor Road, which includes a large cul-de-sac for parking purposes and a well-marked and gated entry point. Trails leading from this established entry lead to areas near the project site. There does not appear to be a significant need for an additional public pathway leading to this portion of the adjacent open space area. However, the Planning Commission should evaluate whether such a connection between the adjacent open space and other properties below would serve a substantial public purpose.

OSC-11 Grading and Tree Removal. The Town shall encourage location of structures in a manner which minimizes tree removal and grading. Specifically, grading shall be kept to a minimum and every effort made to retain the natural features of the land including ridges, rolling land forms, knolls, vegetation, trees, rock outcroppings, and water courses. Where grading is required to stabilize areas of geologic instability, the graded area shall be returned to a natural land form. Excessive grading to stabilize soil is not in the best interest of the Town and is inconsistent with the Town=s desire to retain natural land forms. Therefore, excessive grading is to be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.

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. The street alignment, in particular, would appear to be inconsistent with direction to design the street to keep grading to a minimum, and inconsistent with direction that excessive grading is to be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.

Grading necessary to stabilize landslide deposits on the subject property would return the graded area to a natural land form when completed. Only one significant tree and no other substantial vegetation is proposed to be removed as part of this project, and the EIR recommends that this tree not be removed.

OSC-15 Site Coverage. To the maximum extent feasible, a goal of 50% of large undeveloped parcels should be considered for retention in permanent open space outside of any parcel or lot which has development potential. Such open space shall be contiguous and link up with adjacent open space whenever practicable. Where a more desirable site plan would result, consideration may be given to larger individual lots. In the latter case, to the maximum extent feasible, 50% of the large undeveloped parcel should be retained in open space and the portions of open space within a parcel or lot with development potential should be restricted from development by open space easement or other appropriate means. This policy shall not require or preclude clustering and protection of open space views shall be accomplished through appropriate building and site coverage restrictions.

See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (a) above.

Circulation Element

C-1 Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic impacts.

C-20 Driveways along Paradise Drive should be discouraged. New development shall explore other options for access, and where feasible avoid driveways on Paradise Drive. Additional new roads that will intersect Paradise Drive shall be kept to the minimum number possible and be situated in safe locations.

See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (j) above.

Grading work for this project would result in an estimated 581 one-way truck trips, or 1,162 two-way truck trips. The applicant estimates that most of this traffic would occur during the initial grading phase of the project, which is intended to last approximately 10 days. Concerns were raised during the review of the EIR for this project that these projections would result in 116 truck trips each day during the grading process, or almost 12 trucks passing through the surrounding neighborhood each hour (one truck every five minutes). This construction traffic is a another impact on other residences in the vicinity resulting from the amount of grading needed for this project.

Parks and Recreation Element

PR-8 The Town should require publicly-accessible off-road connecting trails between recreation areas (developed, developable, and open space) and neighborhood areas.

The proposed project does not include any publicly-accessible off-road connecting trails between the adjacent Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve and the future homes on this site.

PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PLAN CONSISTENCY

In 1999, the Marin County Board of Supervisors accepted the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan, which contains goals and recommended actions to preserve the natural and manmade features of the residential community along Paradise Drive. The following goals were included in this plan:

Preserve the rural character of the community. North of Trestle Glen, this should include design standards that maintain the open hillsides.

Locate new development away from ridges and visually prominent subridge areas.

The EIR concludes that the proposed project would "remove open space views on a ridgeline that is visible from the Paradise Cay neighborhood as well as residences near the project site," and therefore would be inconsistent with these goals.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project. The Draft EIR has been circulated, and comments on the DEIR were received at the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. On November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the DEIR as being prepared in conformance with CEQA and the Town's local CEQA Guidelines, and directed the consultant to prepare the Final EIR and respond to comments.

The FEIR has been prepared, and has previously been distributed to the Planning Commission. As previously noted, the FEIR identifies two significant unavoidable impacts of the project which could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the EIR:

The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by eliminating potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering views of potential open space; and

The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize grading on the property.

In addition, the EIR identifies the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following categories:

- Geology and Soils

- Hydrology

- Biological Resources

- Traffic

- Aesthetics

- Noise

- Air Quality

The EIR includes analysis of several "alternatives" to the project as proposed. These alternatives include the potential for reducing the number of homes to be developed on the site, and moving the location of the homes further downslope on the property. The reduced density and lower elevations would likely reduce the amount of grading necessary to construct the roadway further up the site. As the precise building envelope locations for a reduced number of residences have not been clearly established, the potential visual and privacy impacts of a lower density project alternative cannot be accurately estimated at this time. The EIR concludes that "the fewer the number of residences, the less the impact to open space and grading."

The applicant has indicated that the reduced densities recommended by the EIR would not necessarily result in significant improvements to the amount of grading required for this project. To illustrate this point, the applicant presented an estimate of the grading required to accomplish the 3-unit project alternative identified in the EIR (Exhibit 8). The applicant estimates that the grading needed to construct the roadway for the 3-unit project would involve 2,010 cubic yards of cut and 19 cubic yards of fill (in comparison to the 4,364 cubic yards of cut and 753 cubic yards of fill required for the project as currently proposed); this would reduce the net amount of grading for the project by 1,620 square feet. However, the estimates also indicate that the development of a proposed Lot 1A would require 1,375 cubic yards of cut and no fill, and Lot 1B would require 977 cubic yards of cut and no fill; in comparison, the most grading required for any of the currently proposed lots would be the 735 cubic yards of cut (and no fill) for Lot 3.

The applicant contends that the net grading required for the 3-unit project alternative would decrease only 192 cubic yards from the net grading required for the 5 house project as currently proposed (from 4,649 cubic yards to 4,457 cubic yards). However, the total amount of grading required for the 3-unit alternative would be reduced from 6,341 cubic yards of cut and 1,692 cubic yards of fill (8,033 cubic yards total) to 4,558 cubic yards of cut and 101 cubic yards of fill (4,659 cubic yards total). This alternative would therefore reduce the overall amount of grading required for the project by 3,374 cubic yards, a reduction in grading of 42.0%.

The pertinent guidelines and policies of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Tiburon General Plan encourage projects that minimize grading in general, rather than simply balancing cut and fill for a project. The intent of these policies is to encourage projects that work with the natural physical characteristics of a site, and discourage project designs that attempt to reshape the property to suit the desires of the developer. The reduced density project alternatives, and/or reductions in the sizes of the homes permitted for each lot, would therefore be clearly more consistent with these policies than the project as currently proposed.

The subject application as presented has resulted in a proposed precise development plan for this property that is inconsistent with Precise Development Plan principles and General Plan policies. The proposed roadway and building envelopes have not been sited on the property to minimize excessive grading or view impacts on neighboring properties. Although the EIR determines that all other potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels, the project would be inconsistent with several significant general plan policies and the guidelines for such development contained within the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.

The EIR suggests that reduced density project alternatives could be designed that would be more consistent with these policies and guidelines. The EIR does not designate a preferred alternative, but states that "the fewer the number of residences, the less impact to open space and grading. Staff believes that the 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 a public hearing on this item and indicate its intent to:

1.    Recommend to the Town Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report;

2.    Recommend to the Town Council adoption of the three-lot alternative to the project as being environmentally superior to the proposed project and being more consistent with General Plan policies.

3.    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 all mitigation measures

4.    Direct Staff to return with Resolutions to this effect.

Given the above, the Planning Commission should either: