Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-04-29TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of April 25 - 29, 2011 1. Letter - Scott Anderson - Easton Point (Martha Company) Project: Comments on Draft EIR 2. Letter - Diane Crane Iacopi - Term Expiration - Allan Bortel - Marin Commission on Aging Agendas & Minutes 3. Minutes - Planning Commission - April 13, 2011 4. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - April 27, 2011 5. Agenda - Design Review Board - May 5, 2011 Regional o a) Sierra Club Yodeler - May/June 2011 Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 - www.daburon.ca.us Community Development Department April 26, 2011 Rachel Warner, Interim Environmental Coordinator , Marin County Community Development Agency'` s' 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 RE: EASTON POINT (MARTHA COMPANY) PROJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR Dear Ms. Warner: Thank you for the opport unity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact . Report (DEIR) for the Easton Point (Martha Company) Residential Project. Emmett O'Donnell Councilmember The future of the Martha property has long been a matter of serious concern to Town residents. The property is immediate adjacent to established Town neighborhoods and the proposed development would potentially have major impacts on the quality of life Margaret A. Curran of Tiburon residents and the integrity of local open space. The 43-unit plan that Martha Town Manager submitted to the County in 2008 confirmed our community's fears. In 2009, after long and careful discussion, the Town and the Martha Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which they agreed to support a reduced density 32-unit alternative to the 43-unit project. In the firm belief that the 32-unit project would prove to be a much better alternative than the original project, the Town committed to support that alternative unless the Town determined that it would cause dangerous health and safety conditions. Therefore, the Town's comments on the DEIR will focus on the 32- unit alternative, and primarily on health and safety issues of that alternative. Where appropriate, we will also recommend modifications that would enhance or clarify the EIR's analysis. First and foremost, the Town is pleased that the DEIR identifies the 32-unit alternative as the environmentally superior development alternative for the site. This alternative clearly reduces numerous environmental impacts as compared to the 43-unit project submitted by the applicant. Most notably, the DEIR's photo simulations show a dramatic improvement in the visual impacts on ridgeline areas. That being said, there are three impact areas where Alternative #2 would have greater impacts than the applicant's 43-unit project, including impacts on loss of oak woodland (loss increased by more than I I acres), loss of 238 more ordinance-sized trees, and increased impacts on the California Red-legged Frog (CRLF). However, the DEIR identifies mitigation measures to decrease these impacts, and to the extent that such mitigations can be implemented within the context of the Town's MOU with the Martha Company, and for the benefit of the federally threatened frog and the ever-shrinking closed canopy oak woodland on the Tiburon Peninsula, we urge that the County adopt those measures. The Final EIR should clarify whether implementation of the identified r~ Jeff Slavitz Mayor Jim '`Fraser Vice Mayor Richard to' llins Councilmember Alice Fredericks Councilmember 1► Rachel Warner, Interim Environmental Coordinator Page 2 of 6 mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a level similar to (or less than) that of the applicant's 43-unit project. Second, the Draft EIR recommends several mitigation measures that call for actions by the Town of Tiburon to mitigate traffic, safety, or other project impacts. The document also mentions annexation of the entire project site on several occasions. Given that only the Town of Tiburon could impose these mitigations, we believe that that the Final EIR should list the Town as a Responsible Agency, both on that basis and as a likely issuer of trailing permits such as design review approval and building permits for homes. The following technical comments are ordered by environmental topic: Geolozv and Landslides 1. The temporary construction road would run through Landslide 16. How would the developer repair that landslide before construction of said road? Where would the construction equipment access the site for this work and to perform the estimated 5,000 cubic yards of grading necessary to repair the landslide? 2. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative #2 proposes public trails running through the project. These trails are seen as a major public benefit. Please clarify in the analysis of Alternative #2 whether the proposed landslide mitigation would protect the public trails that are contained within this alternative to the same degree as other public improvements (such as Paradise Drive) are protected in the 43-unit submittal. Please describe the specific measures for each landslide that would act to protect the public trails. The landslide mitigation program associated with Alternative #2 should be discussed as to its sufficiency to protect these major public assets from landslide disruption in the foreseeable future. 3. Mitigation Measure 6.4-1 describes a "long-term maintenance program.....for periodic inspections and maintenance [of landslides]..... for the life of the project". The Final EIR should include more detailed explanation and clarification. How will such a program be monitored and how will sufficient monetary resources be guaranteed to fund it? Is this possibly a role for a Geological Hazard Abatement District (GRAD)? Transportation 4. Mitigation Measures (MM) 6.1-7(b) and 6.1-10 seek to prohibit placement of debris boxes and dumpsters in public streets in the Hill Haven and Old Tiburon/Lyford Cove neighborhoods. The Town already requires a permit to place such objects in the street, and rarely issues any in this area precisely for the reasons set forth in the DEIR. This mitigation does not appear to meaningfully address traffic safety issues over the current situation. Rachel Warner, Interim Environmental Coordinator Page 3 of 6 5. On page 604, MM 6.1-7(b) calls for prohibiting parking along both sides of Diviso Street and along other Hill Haven neighborhood streets narrower than 20 feet wide to improve pedestrian safety. One minor correction: Diviso Street is part of the Old Tiburon (not Hill Haven) neighborhood. Please identify which specific streets would be affected by this mitigation measure. Vehicular entry/egress from many Easton Point lots would entail travel on the following Hill Haven and Old Tiburon neighborhood streets: either Ridge Road or Mountain View Avenue; Diviso Street, Centro West Street and Esperanza Street; or Centro East Street, Solano Street, and Paradise Drive. The DEIR should explain both the extent of the suggested parking prohibition and this mitigation measure's impacts on parking and those neighborhoods. We are concerned that this mitigation measure might create more problems than it would solve, affecting the surrounding neighborhood residents, some possibly living as far as a half-mile from the project site. Furthermore, the EIR should more fully address sight distance limitations at existing intersections involving the above-listed streets that would be adversely impacted by the project, especially during construction when large construction vehicles would be moving to and from the site. For both the 43-unit project and the 32-unit alternative, please provide a table or chart describing precisely which aspects of the project (from inception to completion of last home) would be expected to use the Hill Haven and Old Tiburon streets referenced above. The DEIR narrative description is unclear. 6. To ameliorate safety risks to pedestrians and bicyclists, the final mitigation measures must minimize new truck traffic (especially large trucks) on existing substandard neighborhood streets. Please describe the length of trucks that would be expected to be used during project construction. Would tractor-trailers be involved? The Final EIR should consider safety mitigation measures that limit the length and/or weight of construction vehicles using these streets during project construction. 7. The temporary construction road analysis seems truncated. Did the EIR traffic analyst offer an opinion as to the safety of this roadway for its intended purposes? Did a traffic safety expert with knowledge in this particular area of safety actually assess the situation? We strongly recommend that the Final EIR include a third party review is to ensure that the construction road is safe for its limited lifetime and intended purposes. Also, the DEIR should say whether any retaining walls would be associated with the temporary construction access road. If the developer would construct retaining walls, would they also be removed when the road is removed? 8. Please include in the Final EIR the maximum grade of the driveway leading to the Remainder Parcel. Add this figure to Exhibit 6.0-5 of the DEIR. 9. The Final EIR should also clarify the proposed extent of likely Paradise Drive improvements and widening. MM 5.1-3, 5.1-6, and 5.1-7(a), and their counterparts in the Alternative #2 analysis, are unclear as to the linear extent of Paradise Drive frontage widening. The Final EIR should explain whether the widening would be "selective" or Rachel Warner, Interim Environmental Coordinator Page 4of6 affect the entire project frontage. Has the County Public Works Department stated that it will require widening beyond that identified in the DEIR? If so, please explain the basis for that requirement in the Final EIR. Lastly, the Final EIR should analyze (a) whether the Paradise Drive right of way can physically accommodate the recommended widening; and (b) any physical impacts of such widening. 10. The Final EIR must include additional analysis of bicycle safety impacts along Paradise Drive. The various improvements specified in association with Impact 5.1-6 do not address construction-related bicycle safety issues, but focus on post-construction bicycle traffic. Please add an analysis of both bicycle and pedestrian-related traffic safety impacts during project construction. 11. The DEIR discusses the project's internal street system and parking at length in the DEIR and proposed mitigation calls for widening of the streets, construction to public street standards, and provision of eight (8) parking spaces per lot. The County clearly intends to require compliance with public standards for street design and construction, but it is unclear whether the County intends to accept these streets as public streets or leave them as privately-maintained. This is an important issue for the Town of Tiburon, which might well annex the property in the future, and could be burdened with maintenance of the streets should they be accepted by the County for public street purposes. Please clarify this in the DEIR, and be advised that the Town's MOU with the Martha Company calls for the internal project streets to remain privately-maintained but open to public use. 12. The DEIR appears inconsistent regarding the nature of overlapping signal phasing for the Rock Hill and Avenida Miraflores intersections with Tiburon Boulevard (pp. 598-599 in Alternative #2 and their counterparts in the 43-unit project analysis). The signal phasings are variously described as "southbound left turn" or "southbound right turn" overlap improvements. Please correct and clarify. The Avenida Miraflores intersection already has an existing right-turn overlap feature for cars making right turns onto Tiburon Boulevard from Avenida Mirafores. The Final EIR should clarify whether the mitigation measure suggests a new lane or duplicates an existing condition at that intersection, and clarify the exact nature of the proposed improvement at Rock Hill Road. 13. We agree that construction traffic impacts can be mitigated, but the Final EIR should expand Mitigation Measure 6.1-13(b) to include all project traffic control elements. Construction traffic on Paradise Drive will present some conflicts with motorists and cyclists given the narrow lanes. The mitigation measure should establish speed limits for construction traffic and require strict enforcement of those limits. The measure should also prohibit any queuing in an active travel lane and require that the developer identify shoulder areas wide enough for stacking of construction traffic before start of construction. Rachel Warner, Interim Environmental Coordinator Page 5 of 6 Public Services 14. The Final EIR should include an expanded discussion of envirommental impacts from the installation of a 3,750 linear foot water line and a 4,800 linear foot sewer pipe in Paradise Drive. 15. At page 479, the DEIR states that the project would not use existing sewer facilities in Hill Haven neighborhood. Please explain how sewer service would be routed from Lots 1-3 in the project and from Lots 1, 2, and 6-8 in Alternative #2 without using these facilities. 16. We expect that the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) and Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) will address fire flow issues in their comments. Accordingly, we note only that some of the DEIR's mitigation measures for inadequate fire flow require further explanation. For example, Mitigation Measure 6.7-8(a) calls for the applicant to "acquire approval of reduced fire flow requirements from the TPFD...." What is the likelihood of such approval being obtained? If not, what are the repercussions to the project? 17. Low water pressure service is a health and safety issue. The DEIR proposes to address this impact through various mitigation measures. Is the installation of pumps to off-set low pressures acceptable to MMWD? Is MMWD willing to accept a low pressure agreement and liability waivers from individual lot owners? Are these feasible mitigations or are they speculative mitigations? Lastly, the Final EIR should consider whether substandard water pressure at some homes and hydrants at the highest reaches of the site would contribute to wildland-urban interface dangers and retard emergency access and/or egress efforts in the event of a wildland fire. 18. For the most part, we agree with the DEIR's analysis regarding impacts on police services. However, the Final EIR should further discuss the problem of MERA coverage (page 457-458). The document discusses several options to provide adequate coverage on the project site and we agree with the recommendation that the applicant reach agreement to resolve this important safety issue. However, to provide adequate public safety protection on-site, public safety personnel on the site must be able to communicate with related off-site persons. This continuum of communication is critical for rapid and effective response and deployment in the event of fire or other emergency. The general area of the project site is not well-covered by MERA and the project will introduce a considerable number of new persons and structures into that area. Accordingly, the Final EIR should include a mitigation measure that would improve MERA coverage for the entire area. Any new communication facility should be located adjacent to planned or existing water tanks to minimize their visual impact. With respect to other impacts on public services (i.e., water supply, wastewater management and fire protection services, etc.), we defer to the agencies that would Rachel Warner, Interim Environmental Coordinator Page 6 of 6 provide those services to the proposed project, with the understanding that these agencies will submit written comments on the DEIR. General 19. Section 2.5 (Major EIR Conclusions and Issues to be Resolved) should also include a recitation of the significant unavoidable cumulative impacts of the project, which are separately set forth in Section 7.3. These appear to include significant unavoidable cumulative impacts in the areas of transportation, air pollution and greenhouse gas emission, noise, biological, and visual resources. Thank you in advance for consideration of these comments. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 435-7392 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, a Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Cc: Digest S: IAdministrationlTown Councilftblic MemoslMartha DEIR draft Town comments letter fnal.doc E. I G- E Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • wwwci.tiburon.ca.us Office of Tiburon Town Clerk/415.435.7377 April 22, 2011 Mr. Allan Bortel 8 Corte Palos Verdes Tiburon, CA 94920 SUBJECT: TERM EXPIRATION - MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING Dear Allan: According to our records and correspondence we recently received from the Marin County Health & Human Services Department, your current term on the Marin Commission on Aging will expire in June of this year. Please let me know, in writing, if you would like to be considered for reappointment as the Town's representative to the Commission. Town Council policy requires publication of a notice of pending vacancies on all Town Boards, Commissions and Committees. This notice will be published within the next week or two in the Ark, and the Town Council will interview applicants at one of its regular meetings in May or June. As an incumbent, you are not required to be interviewed for the position. The Town of Tiburon has certainly benefited from your time, energy and effort during your terms on the Marin Commission on Aging. We appreciate your dedication and service to the community, and look forward to your reply. cc: v4own Manager Curran Very truly yo ri' v/1 mac Diane Crane j pi /Town Clerk a. Jeff Slavitz Mayor Jim Fraser Vice Mayor Richard Collins Councilmember . . . . . . . . . . Alice =Fredericks Councilmember Emmett; O'Donnell Councilmember Margaret A. Curran Town Manager 3. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1008 April 13, 2011 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Kunzweiler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. '1 q -7, Present: Chair Frymier, Commissioners Corcoran, Doyle, Kunzweiler and Tollini Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Laurie Tyler and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: The Planning Manager recommended adjourning the meeting in memory of Supervisor Charles McGlashan. Vice-Chair Corcoran stated that Supervisor McGlashan was a good friend and had done much for the Town. He said that there was some consolation to be found in what he achieved for the community and cited several examples of his efforts. Commissioner Kunzweiler echoed Vice-Chair Corcoran's comments. He stated that Supervisor McGlashan accomplished a tremendous amount in a relatively short amount of time and served the community well. NEW BUSINESS: 1. END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE AND END OF PARENTE ROAD: PARENTE VISTA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD #4): VESTING AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION (FILE #61002) FOR THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS ON A 10.2 ACRE PARCEL; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-111-16 Mr. Watrous presented the staff report, stating that in the end of September 2010 the Town Council approved the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan to subdivide 10.2 acres into 2 lots. The applicant has now filed the trailing permit for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the actual subdivision. Lot 1 consists of 2.07 acres and Lot 2 of 8.11 acres. Staff has reviewed the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. ?011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 1 application and found it to be in compliance with the requirements of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance. He recommended that the Commission take public testimony and adopt the draft resolution granting conditional approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. There was no public comment. The Commission expressed support for the Resolution, as drafted. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to adopt the Resolution granting conditional approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. Vote: 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 2. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: PRESICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #20) FOR A 14- UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES; (FILE # 30701); Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-12 and 039-301-01 Mr. Watrous presented the staff report, stating that the application is for a Precise Development Plan (PDP) and prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres. The Planning Commission most recently reviewed this application on January 26, 2011. At that meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about the project that focused on its consistency with the Town's ridgeline policies, neighborhood compatibility and consistency policies, and the lack of changes presented by Alternative 4. The Commission suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of reducing the number, size and height of the proposed homes and better cluster the dwellings on the site to achieve improved consistency with the General Plan policies. The Commission also requested clarification on how the Town could ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. He stated that the applicant had submitted a revised alternative project design known as Alternative 5, which moved from its previous location within the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback to a location within the previous Lot 1. He stated that other changes had been made to the residential use areas of Lots 2, 3 and 6 and the submitted materials included calculations on the fagade surface areas based on the conceptual house designs for each lot. He said that no other changes have been made to the previous 14-unit Alternative 4 project design and the number of lots and maximum floor areas and building heights remain the same. Planning Manager Watrous described a previously distributed memo providing additional information and analysis regarding the project's relation to the two Significant Ridgelines on the site and additional comparative information on neighborhoods surrounding the site. He noted that the analysis was based on a review of Alternative 4 prior to the applicant's submittal of Alternative 5 and assumed inclusion of the project modifications that had been recommended in the January 26th staff report. He said that in staff's opinion, the changes to the project design included in Alternative 5 are not substantially responsive to the direction provided by the Commission at its January 26th meeting, and therefore the memo listed numerous project TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 201 1 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 2 revisions that could produce a level of improved policy consistency and attempt to meet the expectations expressed by the Commission at the previous-meeting. He encouraged the Commission to use this checklist as a tool with which to build consensus on a revised project design to recommend for approval to the Town Council. He also recommended the inclusion of condition of approval No. 14, which specifies that the house design shall closely resemble the conceptual designs presented by the applicant, in order to ensure that the architectural design of the homes built on the potential lots would be consistent with the designs included in the PDP. Planning Manager Watrous summarized that in order to achieve improved consistency with the policies of the Tiburon General Plan the Commission should take action to further shape the project design. He recommended that some or all of the measures recommended in the staff report should be utilized to come up with a project design that the Commission can recommend for approval by the Town Council. He stated that the resulting project design, as revised by these recommended measures, would be substantially consistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines and neighborhood consistency and compatibility. Daniel Rabin apologized that the remainder of his family was unable to attend the meeting. He thanked the Commission for attending the property tour and hoped that it helped theirs to realize the uniqueness of the project. He stated that the current proposal was one of the most thorough and carefully thought-out development projects in the history of Tiburon, and had been further revised and improved to respond to concerns raised by the public and the Commission. He said that the changes made this a much better project. He stressed that the applicants are not absentee developers and that his family sincerely hopes to live in the homes proposed by this project. He said that as the residents most impacted by the project, they have crafted something they would be proud to live alongside. He encouraged the Commission to recommend the project as presented to the Town Council for approval. Scott Hochstrasser, land-use and environmental consultant for the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the changes proposed by Alternative 5. He noted his late mail submission and stated that the memo referred to by Mr. Watrous was done without the benefit of the Alternative 5 application. He stated that the staff report failed to properly analyze the new alternative. He compared the recommendations of the memo with the changes proposed in Alternative 5. He said that Lot 4 was not eliminated but reduced in size, relocated and clustered tightly between Lots 1 and 2. He said that while Alternative 5 did not propose the recommended reductions to size and height for Lots 2 and 3, this would be mitigated by landscape screening and an increase in the open space buffer. He said that Lot 5 was reduced in size and additional vegetative screening added to Lot 7. He stated that the maximum height of the lower buildings and vegetative screening of Lots 1, 8, and 9 would effectively shield them from view. He said that the staff recommendation that would combine Lots 11 and 13 seemed contradictory to Commission concerns relating to ridgeline proximity, as these lots were closer to the actual ridgeline than other lots. Ken Kao, architect, continued the PowerPoint presentation. He presented illustrations of the revisions in Alternative 5 and provided visual comparisons between standard hipped roof homes and the conceptual designs of larger homes substantially embedded into the hillside. He said that the average vertical surface area for the project would be 36.39% below grade and he stressed TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 3 that while the square footage of the proposed homes seems large, the massing style would be consistent with the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines. He-provided visual demonstrations of screening and views from Paradise and Acacia Drives. He stated that the access to the Ridge Trail had been moved as close to the pillars on Hacienda Drive as possible. Riley Hurd, attorney for the applicant, said that numerous residents had already expressed their support for the project. He asked the Commission to focus on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was prepared by an independent consultant of the Town's choosing and at great expense to the applicant. He said that the EIR identified Alternative 3 as the environmentally superior alternative, and that Alternatives 4 and 5 improve the project even further. He asked that the Commission provide specific findings supported by evidence in the administrative record if it determines that further deviance from those recommendations are warranted. He recited the requirements relating to the Commission's decision and argued that the proposed resolution lacked legally adequate findings or evidence to support the deletions or size changes recommended by staff. He requested that any evidence supporting how such a change would achieve a measurable net positive difference be stated for the record. Mr. Hurd discussed neighborhood compatibility and argued that the nearby Sorokko project was indeed worthy for comparative purposes. He said that if the Commission truly sought neighborhood compatibility the project would consist of numerous, 5,000+ square foot wholly above-ground structures with little to no articulation or spacing between them. He said that instead, the applicant has proposed primarily subterranean residences with considerably less visual mass than the outdated designs of the past. Mr. Hurd stated that the Town's attempt to rezone the Rabin and Martha properties in the early 2000's was defeated by Measure M and that the Town simply embedded the same concept in its General Plan under the guise of ridgeline protection. He discussed the property's significant ridgelines, noting that both staff and site visitors essentially found them to lack visual prominence. He cited the ridgeline evaluation characteristics contained in General Plan Policy OSC-12 and concluded that the caliber of ridgelines found on the applicants' property warranted less protection than other, more prominent ridgelines. He said that the proposed house designs essentially preserve all landforms on the site and that while the ridgelines should not have been mapped, they would not be truly affected by the project. He discussed views and cited the Hillside Design Guideline principle that views over undeveloped property are temporary or borrowed views and characterized any views across the undeveloped site as borrowed views. He said that despite this, the applicant has proposed only 13 new bunker-like residences that would preserve nearly all of the borrowed views. He questioned whether the Town was more concerned about the numbers and square footages as they look on paper rather than the actual visibility of the future homes and stated that the proposed homes represented the superior choice. He challenged the Commission to have the wherewithal to recognize that the application is based on data, mapped constraints and economic viability. He asked that the Commission not just eliminate lots just to do so, but to point to specific evidence of measurable improvement that would result from eliminating lots. He characterized the project as a strategy litmus test, as the applicant had not submitted a larger "straw man" application to be reduced in density by the Commission, but rather an appropriate level of development from the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 4 beginning. He asked that the Commission judge the project on its actual merits rather than using an arbitrary list of changes that would lead to a capricious result. Commissioner Kunzweiler stated that the conceptual house designs were a key rationale for supporting the project and asked how the applicant proposed to guarantee that the homes would be built as presented. Mr. Hurd said the concern has been raised repeatedly and stemmed from a lack of understanding of the Commission's ability to condition the project. He stated that the applicant was committed to the house designs and was willing to accept a condition of approval requiring that the houses be built as designed. He said that any future property owner who did not want to build the homes as designed would need to request an amendment to the PDP. Commissioner Kunzweiler stated that the current proposal includes a number of other assumptions, such as screening offered by existing trees, and he asked who would make sure that the trees would remain to screen the homes. Mr. Hurd stated that vegetation is the most commonly used screening tool following good design. He said that the issue would fall to the Town to enforce the landscape plan. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. Eva Buxton said that the impacts on natural resources had yet to be mitigated in her opinion. She reiterated her request for new grassland mapping. She asked if the project would entail a construction staging area, adding that such an area might disturb more vegetation. She appreciated the concept of sod roofs but questioned whether native species would be used on the roofs. She noted that sod roofs are not conducive to rooftop solar installation, and asked if solar panels would be allowed on private open space. She expressed concern with the proximity of the story poles to existing oak trees, noting that most would not survive the impacts of construction and environmental changes. She supported the elimination of Lots 5 and 6 due to their proximity to wetlands and native grasslands and Lot 13 due to its proximity to federally endangered plant species. She also recommended that Lots 11 and 12 be decreased in size to reduce impacts to sensitive species. Jerry Riessen submitted a late mail item to Mr. Watrous. He questioned the value of segmented open space and recommended the Commission alter lot lines as needed to make this space more contiguous. He doubted the value of private open space and requested specific oversight of common open space. He disagreed with Mr. Hurd's comments regarding Measure M, stating that ridgeline protection existed long before that ballot measure and that the measure was defeated due to threats of lawsuits. He asked the Commission to respect the will of the people by protecting the Town's ridgelines from development. Craig McDow cited several complaints relating to noise coming from the Rabins' property. He said that the construction of the fire road on the site was an example of the applicant's disregard for neighbors' private property and the preservation of native vegetation. He said that he was strongly opposed to the visual nuisance of homes along the ridgeline from his vantage point. Sandra Swanson stated that drawing vegetation on plans is an art, not planning. She said that when the applicant originally came forward with plans for his own home, he sited the house on TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 5 the least constrained part of the lot and the Planning Commission advised him that he would be unlikely to develop the rest of the site to its maximum density. She read from General Plan Policy LU-4 that projects may not achieve their maximum density if other General Plan policies require lower density. She said that there was no guarantee that the conceptual house designs would be built. She said that while the applicant's proposal focuses on green design, it makes no acknowledgement of the environmental desecration resulting from excavating over 100,000 cubic yards of dirt, encroaching into ridgeline setbacks, constructing hundreds of feet of retaining walls, and destroying hundreds of trees. She said that Alternative 5 only included minor changes to the project and could not be characterized as "green." She asked the Commission to protect and preserve the Town's natural resources by applying the General Plan policies as intended. Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League, said that the EIR found impacts to views from Middle Ridge to be a significant and unavoidable impact of the project and that it was incumbent on the Commission to mitigate this impact to the extent possible. She stated that while the applicant was relying on innovative design and LEED Platinum Certification to sell the project, LEED fails to properly address the issues of traffic impacts, excavation, and home size. She questioned whether the excavation quantities stated include that grading required for recessing the homes into the hillside. She said that LEED also fails to account for ridgelines protected by local policy, views, neighborhood compatibility, removal of trees and other vegetation, and fragmentation of habitats. She recommended that the Commission reduce all home sizes and residential use areas, reconnect at least a portion of the open space areas, and eliminate parcels as needed to truly achieve an ecologically sound master plan. Randy Greenberg stated that the Commission has both the right and an obligation to reduce impacts beyond what is considered significant by the EIR. She expressed concern with the concept of private versus common open space, noting that the proposed private open space would exceed the size of the common open space and includes areas of sensitive species. She read from the Easton Point EIR which states that habitat is not protected by private open space and that one could expect its loss regardless of oversight. She said that the applicant had repeatedly failed to respond to the Commission's request for appropriate changes. She said that the applicant continued to treat the site as though it has only nominal constraints rather than 18 landslides and 3 ridgelines and took a disproportionate share of the land for his own house. She asked the Commission to consider changes that address home size and the fragmentation of open space parcels, including possible elimination of lots. Barry Wootton said that he shared the same concerns already expressed. He said that while he appreciated the concept of green building, many of the design features proposed present real challenges. Larry Gelb, Secretary, Seafirth Estates Association, stated that the association shared many of the concerns expressed, particularly those related to house size, neighborhood compatibility, and design guarantees. He said that he was very impressed with the most recent staff report and found he could support much of its analysis and recommendations. He also cited concern with the ongoing wear and tear to Paradise Drive and asked who would be responsible for mitigating further damage to the road. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 6 Mr. Hurd said that his client was aware that densities are not guaranteed, as evidenced by a proposal containing significantly fewer than the 24 units allowed at the time of purchase. He said that the applicant mapped the site constraints in advance of the application and had positioned units in response to those constraints. He said that the application would offer 70% of the Rabin's private property as open space that would be contiguous to existing open space. In addition to design conditioning, he said that private CC&Rs would ensure that homes would look like what was proposed in the PDP. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Corcoran asked if solar panels are allowed in private open space. Mr. Watrous stated no but noted that there is no restriction on their placement in residential use areas. Vice-Chair Corcoran asked if the public has access to all portions of open space for recreational purposes such as hiking. Mr. Watrous said that there is little that can be done to enforce restrictions on that type of use on open space. He said that the establishment of specific trails is fairly effective at maintaining remaining open space areas in a relatively natural condition. Commissioner Tollini commended the applicant for the time and energy invested in this process and stated that the architectural designs were beautiful. She said that the Commission gave clear direction regarding density and ridgeline policies at the last hearing, and although Alternative 5 had made some changes, it did not go far enough. She said that this is a very constrained site. She cited General Plan Policy LU-4 with respect to density and Policy OSC-12 with respect to Significant Ridgelines, noting that while the ridgelines did not appear to be obvious when viewed from the site, they are more noticeable from nearby properties. Referring to the menu of possible project revisions contained in Exhibit 7, she supported the following: 1(a), 2(a), 3(b), 4(a) and (b), 6 (c), and 7(a). She said that Lot 13 would be very visually prominent, and even more so once the trees on the Sorokko site are removed. Additionally, Commissioner Tollini recommended reducing the floor areas for the homes on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 based upon their proximity to the ridgelines and neighborhood compatibility. She said that most of the house sizes should be reduced in size to match home sizes in surrounding neighborhoods. She also recommended that the residential use and private open space areas on Lots 5 & 6 be reduced in size to eliminate areas of serpentine bunchgrass and include those grassland areas as part of common open space. She said that the project would still have three homes over 7,000 square feet, which was appropriate given the sizes of other nearby homes. She recommended that open space areas across the roadway from Lots 1 through 4 and private open space areas fronting the road on Lots 2-4 be added to common open space Lot A. Similarly, she said that the area of the eliminated Lot 8 should be included in Lot A common open space to protect Marin flax and bunchgrass habitat. She also recommended conditioning approval on the use of Mr. Kao's architectural plans. Vice-Chair Corcoran stressed that the Commission's decision was not a reflection on the applicant's personality or demeanor but was based on the fact that the current proposal fails to comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan. He stated that the General Plan is the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. ?01 1 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 7 Town's constitution and the current proposal is not consistent with the General Plan. He said that the Commission asked for a lot of changes to the project and did not get many. He acknowledged the constraints on the site and said that he appreciated the public trail dedication, relocation of Lot 4, open space preservation, and home designs, but said that the main issue was the combined impacts of the number and size of proposed homes. Referring to Exhibit 7, Vice-Chair Corcoran recommended the following: 2(a), 5(a), 6(b) and (c), and 7(a). He recommended reducing Lots 2, 3, 7, and 11 to 4,500 square feet plus 600 square feet of garage space; eliminating Lots 5 and 6 or reducing their residential use areas to place sensitive plant species in common space; and eliminating Lots 9 and 10 to create a broad swath of open space connecting to the opposite end of the site and better habitat protection. He recommended that if Lots 11 and 13 were combined, the size of each home should be reduced to 3,500 square feet. He felt that Lot 13 should be eliminated due to the visual impacts from the Paradise Drive, the Seafirth neighborhood and Acacia Drive. He said that the residential use areas should be reduced in size to avoid large paved areas that could create a visual eyesore from a distance. He discussed the concept of adding the Town to the CC&Rs as an interested party and said that there are many examples of this in other jurisdictions. He explained that this would give the Town the ability but not the obligation to enforce those conditions and said that that would be important for a project of this significance. He also said he would like the Town to have some oversight over common open space. He also recommended that private open space across the road from Lots 2-4, as well as a significant portion of Lot 7, be added to common open space. Commissioner Kunzweiler gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the project's progress, outstanding issues and his recommendations. He said that the project has a level of complexity that is beyond the normal scope of the Planning Commission. He said that no one had ever brought forward such a "big idea" to the Town before and he wanted to preserve the idea but make sure it would be consistent with the General Plan. Rather than contemplating every critical detail, he recommended providing the Town Council with meaningful direction that balanced public and private interests and best reflected the intent of the General Plan. He stated that the applicant's premise of an implied right to enjoy maximum use of this site lacked basis and that the project's consistency with the General Plan was still being debated. He said that that the factors driving the consideration of the project were the number, location and size of proposed homes. He said that the applicant had made virtually no progress in addressing these factors over nearly 3 years of public discussion and, in fact, had achieved only a 2% to 6% reduction in total home floor area in that time. He said that he wanted to avoid reducing the sizes of individual lots or homes, as this creates an ongoing cycle of redesign. He stated that downsizing the project would reduce critical environmental, aesthetic, construction, and traffic impacts. He felt that it would be bad policy to promote a project that is too complicated. He recommended the following eliminations: Lots 5 & 6 for open space considerations; Lots 9 & 10 for their proximity to ridgelines; Lot 13 for the size of the house itself, and Lot 14 for neighborhood character. He did not recommend relocating or reducing any other lots but did say much could be accomplished by reducing residential use areas. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 8 Commissioner Kunzweiler requested a more meaningful traffic study that would better account for speed of traffic as well as retaining walls and bike lanes, consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.1-7. He also recommended that the applicant and staff seek opportunities to reduce private open space in favor of more common open space. He said that the remaining houses should be built exactly as proposed. Commissioner Doyle said that at the last meeting the applicant asked what the Commission wanted, was told what to do and did not do it. He noted that there was a certain level of frustration surrounding the applicant's failure to apply the Commission's recommendations in a meaningful way. He said that he concurred with much of Commissioner Kunzweiler's comments. He said that he hoped to apply a common sense approach to the project. He said that he was less opposed to the size of homes than other Commissioners, as he felt that the perceived impacts of homes can vary greatly depending on architectural style and massing. Referring to Exhibit 7, he supported revisions 2(a) and 7(a). He also supported elimination or reduction of Lots 5 and 6. He said the value of private open space was often diminished by homeowners wishing to enclose it and recommended reducing the private open space areas on Lots 5 and 6. He cited concern related to the guarantee of the proposed house designs and particularly appreciated the draft Condition of Approval 14, though it would place a significant burden on the Town. Chair Frymier referred to Condition of Approval 14 and asked whether requiring this as a deed restriction would lessen the burden on the Town. Mr. Watrous stated that the concept of a deed restriction was intended as an additional way to inform property owners of their parcel's design limitations. He said that regardless, there is burden onus on staff and the Design Review Board to ensure that each project complies with the Precise Development Plan and the originally approved design. Commissioner Kunzweiler noted that the Design Review Board has a fair amount of latitude in its deliberations. Mr. Watrous said that that would remain a critical point no matter what, as the Board always has to interpret how a house design complies with zoning or PDP requirements, but that is not an unreasonable burden on the Town. Chair Frymier supported Councilmember Kunzweiler's comments regarding micro-management. She discussed floor area which she felt should be reduced significantly throughout the project for purposes of neighborhood compatibility. She noted that most of the larger neighboring homes were developed prior to the Town's floor area restrictions and therefore using the size of those earlier, larger homes for comparison was not a valid argument. She added that the homes on the Sorokko site were in an unincorporated portion of the county and had not yet been built, and therefore did not present a strong argument for neighborhood compatibility of the larger proposed homes. She cited General Plan Policy LU-13, which specifically speaks to neighborhood character. She stated that the language in the General Plan protecting ridgelines is very strong and the project needs to respect Ridgelines 5 and 6 more closely than Alternative 4 and 5 do. She cited General Plan Policy LU-4, which states that any maximum densities are maximums that may not be achieved. Referring to Exhibit 7, she recommended the following: 1(a),(b),(c) and (d), 2(a), 6 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 9 (a),(b) and (c) and 7(a). She also recommended elimination of Lots 3, 9, 10, and 14 as well as reduction of Lot 11 to 6,000 square feet. The Commission held further discussion and ultimately reached consensus on the following: • Eliminating Lots 8, 9, 10 & 13; • Reducing the floor area for Lots 5 & 6 to 4,500 square feet and their maximum building height to 16 feet, and eliminating the bunchgrass areas from the residential use areas and private open space, moving it to common open space; • Reducing the floor area for Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet and 750 square feet of garage space; • Converting the private open space on the north sides of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 (across the roadway) to common open space; • Making reference to Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 in Condition of Approval No. 25 requiring the traffic study; • Adding language giving the Town the ability to enforce CC&Rs, based on language in the Martha DEIR; and • Include language within the resolution reflecting the rationale that the Commission has expressed to support these changes. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kunzweiler) to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of the Precise Development Plan to the Town Council, as drafted in the staff report and with the following changes: 1) to eliminate Lots 8, 9, 10, and 13; 2) to reduce the floor area for Lots 5 & 6 to 4,500 square feet and their maximum building height to 16 feet, and eliminating the bunchgrass areas from the residential use areas and private open space, moving it to common open space; 3) to reduce the floor area for Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet and 750 square feet of garage space; 4) to convert the private open space on the north sides of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7 (across the roadway) to common open space; 5) to snake reference to Mitigation Measure 5.1-7 in Condition of Approval No. 25 requiring the traffic study; 6) to add language giving the Town the ability but not the obligation to enforce CC&Rs, based on language in the Martha DEIR; and 7) to include language within the resolution reflecting the rationale that the Commission has expressed to support these changes. Vote: 5-0. BREAK: Chair Frymier called a 5-minute break at 10:15 p.m. and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting. 3. EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS - REFERRAL FROM TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW TIME EXTENSION ORDINANCE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; FILE MCA 2011-01 Mr. Watrous stated that the Planning Commission held its hearing on February 23rd about language to extend the Design Review approvals. The Town Council held a public hearing on the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 10 draft ordinance on April 6th and introduced it, but made one change to delete the last sentence reading: "Additional one-year extensions may be authorized by resolution of the Town Council." Since this deletion was not considered by the Commission, the item was referred to the Commission with no public hearing required, and discussion is limited to the deletion only. He said that the Town Council expressed its discomfort with the concept of additional extensions beyond the one-year authorized in the ordinance, noting that the result would be de facto five- year approvals for certain Design Review applications. He recommended that the Commission forward its recommendation to the Town Council supporting the deletion of the sentence regarding additional extensions. Mr. Watrous advised that changes to the language to retroactively apply this to previous or expired approvals were discussed and ultimately defeated by the Town Council. He further advised that any public comment should be limited to the deletion in question. Vice-Chair Corcoran asked if other towns have retroactively applied this type of ordinance. Mr. Watrous could not confirm, but thought not. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. Riley Hurd respectfully disagreed with the suggestion that the Commission could limit public testimony. He stated that he was unable to speak before the Commission at the previous public hearing. He said that his client's situation triggered this amendment and the client did not receive notice of the ordinance. He said that approval of this amendment, with or without the deletion in question, fails to help those that it should be looking to protect. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Corcoran stated that the originally proposed amendment was the direct result of one letter from one resident. He supported the principle of applying the extension to those most blindsided by the real estate downturn and he could not see the rationale in applying it solely to applications that have not expired. However, he also noted that the Town has a generous three- year design review approval period compared to other jurisdictions. He expressed support for the deletion. Commissioner Kunzweiler expressed support for the deletion and also voiced concern about the genesis of the ordinance, in that the revision essentially ignored the resident who requested the extension. Mr. Watrous stated that the Town's discussion on the matter was not solely initiated by that resident, nor was that request the primary genesis for the ordinance. Chair Frymier and Commissioners Doyle and Tollini expressed their support for the deletion. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 11 MINUTES: 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 23, 2011 Vice-Chair Corcoran requested the following amendments to the Minutes: • Page 2, 3rd paragraph -"...information indicates it that Tiburon's downtown, including Town Hall,..." • Page 9, 1" full paragraph - "...and suggested that the str-eteh proposal to paint the red curb Commissioner Kunzweiler requested the following amendments to the Minutes: • Page 2, 6th paragraph- "...take a stfen supportive..." • Page 8, last paragraph- "...improve the L °r appearance ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to approve the minutes of March 23, 2011, as amended. Vote: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. in memory of Supervisor Charles McGlashan. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 13, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1008 PAGE 12 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting • Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard April 27, 2011 - 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES r r TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION'' CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Chairman Frymier, Vice Chair Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report OLD BUSINESS 1. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE # 30701; ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #20; Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 [DW] Adopted with Amendments 3-0 NEW BUSINESS 2. 1501 AND 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD: ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON A REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RDEIR) FOR THE PROPOSED 1800 SQ. FT. BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT; FILE #s GPA 2008-02, MCA 2008-14, 40801, and 30804; Belvedere- Tiburon Library Agency and Town of Tiburon, Owners; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency, Applicant; Assessor Parcel Numbers 058-171-92, 93, 94, and a portion of 058-171-62 [SA] Comments Accepted Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes April 27, 2011 Page 1 MINUTES 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of April 13, 2011 Approved as Amended 3-0 ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 PM a042711 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes April 27, 2011 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson & Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 65 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 711011; James Parsons & Andrea Hong, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single- family dwelling. The applicants propose to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new 1,436 square foot, two-story addition including a new three-car garage, a workshop, guest bedroom and a train hobby room. APN 038-301-35 [DW] 2. 4 MCCART COURT: File No. 711022; Bruce Lavine and Lisa Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct 864 square feet of additions to the main and upper floors of the existing house, convert existing living space into an attached garage, change the roof design and add 5 skylights. The additions would increase the total floor area to 3,592 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 3,408 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-171-22. [LT] 3. 1915 STRAITS VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21101; John Jiang & Ning Lang, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct a 4,099 square foot house with a 3,612 square foot basement, along with an attached two-car garage, swimming pool, spa and new retaining walls and landscaping. The proposed lot coverage of 4,151 square feet (19.1 would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. APN 038-301-35 [DW] CONTINUED TO 7/7/11 Design Review Board May 5, 2011 Page 1 Regular Meeting Design Review Board May 5, 2011 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 4. S WILKINS COURT: File No. 21103; Randall Doctor, Owner; Site Plan-and - Architectural Review for construction of deck additions, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicant proposes to construct additions to an existing deck to the rear of the living room and a connecting exterior stairway. The deck would extend to within 7 feet, 4 inches of the western side property line, which would be less than the 15 foot required side yard setback in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-032-10. [DW] MINUTES 5. Regular Meeting of April 7, 2011 ADJOURNMENT