Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 1994-03-08 TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF TffiURON ".~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nygren called the adjourned meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to order at 7:35 p.m, Tuesday, March 8, 1994, in Room 5, Del Mar School, Tiburon, California. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer, Thompson, Friedman, Kuhn, Nygren ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Kleinert; Town Attorney Ewing; Town Planning Director Anderson; Town Engineer Bala; Minute Clerk Kearney B. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Mayor Nygren noted the presence of several television reporters and cameras and stated they would be accommodated as long as they were not disruptive to the meeting. There were no public questions or comments. ,,-.. C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. MARINERO ESTATES PRECISE DEVEWPMENT PLAN (A.P. #58-100-20, 21 - Continued Discussion) Mayor Nygren turned the chair over to Councilmernber Friedman. Chair Friedman noted that two new plans would be addressed this evening. John Collette, Applicant's counsel, referred to his letter to the Town Council dated March 7, 1994, forwarding the two subject plans in response to the previous direction of the Council. He reviewed the "21 Lot Plan" which reduces the height limits to 24-1/2' for the homes on the ridgeline, resulting in a 15' limit on the back upslope of the buildings. He noted that lots 20 and 21 are shown conditionally and requested the Council to reconsider allowing these lots for the following reasons: a) all the environmental concerns can be adequately addressed, b) these lots have less visual impact than any other lots on the site, and c) because the only way they can respond to the height reductions adequately is to eliminate two additional lots to allow for the increased spreading ofthe homes on the building envelopes. Mr. Collette stated that the applicant feels these restrictions are excessive and harsh and stated they are submitting the proposed 21 lot plan under protest which could result in legal challenge. ,,- TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1006 3/8/94 1 r ,- ,.~ , Further, he reviewed the "24 Lot Plan" which is essentially the same as the 21 lot pLm but includes 3 lots on the lower portion of the property and a proposed reduction of the 24' roadway to a 12' roadway which will reduce drainage impact. He recommended acceptance of this pLm which represents a 20% reduction in density; stated they are prepared to reach an accommodation based on the 24 lot pLm; and referred to two tables showing building envelopes and house size heights. tvlr. Collette: summarized by stating that the total area covered by building and hal dscape in the 21 lot plan would be a total of7.68 acres for entire project "ith 92% of the site remaining permanent open space. Total coverage for the 24 lot plan would be 9 acres or 91% of site remaining pemlanent open space. He stated that both plans have an added trail connecting Vistazo West through the central riparian corridor to L)lford Drive and allowing a connection to open spacc and the Martha property. Mr. Collette commented that the roadway to lots 21 and 22 is justified because since the original EIR was prepared, additional infomUltioJ) has identified the arachnids in this area as not being unique to this area and. therefore, there is no basis for any special restrictions relating to their protection, and the road would not cause any ham) to them. Additionally, the visual impacts of this road would be minim.! because this area is obscured by existing ridges. There was discussion regarding possible relocation of lots 21 and 22 to other areas on the site and subsequent difficulties; the efforts of the applicant to ease the clustering submitted in the previous plan; the reduction in height limits that could cause inconsistencies in lot sizes and houses in the development. Chair Friedman clarified that the maximum heights allowed will be subject to the design review process, as well as house square footages. Councilmember Thayer questioned rmder what conditions on the 21 lot plan would the applicant lift their protest; and Mr. Collene responded that the main concern is the density issue and the fact that they believe the three lots can be built in the central ridge area without significant adverse impacts. There was discussion about an agreeable e"'tension for review of the newly proposed plans. Mayor Nygren questioned the Town Engineer regarding the Fire District's questioll about the ability of turf block to support an 18 ton truck; and the Town Engineer responded that there would indeed be damage, but if there was a fire. there would be other damages as well, and he is not concerned about this. However, he stated that turfblock would be an e"l'ensive altemative and would require substantial maintenance by the property owners. Mayor Nygren questioned where guest parking would occur on the proposed 12' driveway to lots 20 and 21; and the Town Engineer recomm""ded a minimum of 18' driveway and stated this would be a safety issue because fire tmcks would not be able to park. On lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Mayor Nygren questioned whether hammer head turns were allowed OJ) a cw-de.sac of more than three homes; and the Planning Director responded that the cnt off TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1006 3/8/94 2 point for hammer heads is three lots and ahemative access would have to be provided on additional lots. ,- There was discussion regarding whether the proposed plan would be balanced in terms of cut and fill; the need for permanent siltation catch boxes to protect the marsh and plants; needed slide repair in the newly proposed plans; the square footage limits of 4500 square feet proposed in the EIR under the larger lot alternative; the costs and responsibilities of on going open space maintenance; the possibility of hiring an outside party to maintain the open space or establishment of a trust by the developer for open space maintenance. The Town Engineer responded that these issues can be resolved at the tentative map stage. Regarding sewer lines in the open space areas, the Town Engineer stated that damage would be done to the open space during installation of the sewer lines. Further, he stated sewer line locations could not be establi.shed at this time, but did state that even though heavy equipment will only be used ifnecessary, it would cause extensive damage to the open space and a consultant should be hired to determine how much damage will occur and report on a plan for repair before approval is issued by the Town Council. Further, he stated that turfblock will not be adequate on any steep driveway areas. Mayor Nygren pointed out that the Fire District requires that no driveway or road be over 18% in steepness and the proposed driveway would exceed that percentage. ,,- Councilmember Thayer questioned the Planning Director whether a view study would be useful to the Planning Commission when reviewing this project to determine primary views from each building envelope within the project; and the Planning Director responded that the applicant has intended to make the lots large enough to provide views from each lot and the Town generally is concerned with views from existing, surrounding lots. The Town Engineer noted that the applicant should respond to how proposed siltation boxes can be accessed for maintenance and cleaning. However, he did say there would be less siltation than now because the slides will be repaired. Further, he stated an adequate topographic plan should be provided to the Planning Commission outlining landscaping materials. Councilmember Thayer asked the Planning Director whether the applicant's plans for providing affordable housing as a condition for building the project would be useful for the Planning Commission during review of the proposals; and the Planning Director responded he would recommend as a condition that this issue be resolved before the tentative map is approved. Chair Friedman questioned Mr. Collette's statement that the 21 lot plan was being submitted under protest; and Mr. Collette responded that they did not want to give the impression to the Council that because they were submitting the 21 lot plan, they were agreeing to it. Vice-Mayor Thompson again questioned Mr. Collette whether the 21 lot plan was totally unacceptable; and Mr. Collette responded that they consider the restrictions placed on the applicant to be excessive and they are simply preserving their rights. Further, Mr. Collette noted several wild ,- TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1006 3/8/94 3 flower preserves near the proposed project owned and maintained without any problems by the County for many years. ;~ Regarding concerns about the preservation of the spider habitats, Mr. Collette stated the EIR consultants found that the spiders were not rare or endangered; therefore, mitigation is not required, particularly at the eastern rock outcropping. Regarding the sewer lines, Mr. Collette stated detailed studies cannot be done until it is known what the final project configuration will be. He pointed out that it is projected that the sewer lines need not be more than 2 or 3 feet deep; and secondly, the total surfilce disturbance for the sewer lines will be less than one-quarter of an acre and restoration of the grasslands can be accomplished according to Zander Associates. Regarding the sihation boxes, Mr. Collette stated there would be two stages, during construction and after construction. The siltation boxes should be used during construction to prevent erosion into the fresh water marsh. After construction, little sihation control will be required because of the improved conditions on the site. RECESS Chair Friedman called a recess at 9: 15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.rn. Chair Friedman opened the public hearing. ,~ George Landau, 82 SugarloafDrive, stated he is convinced this project is vital to the spiritual life of this community; stated the Town Council did not direct the applicant to produce the two proposed plans; stated the applicant's tone and posture has remained unchanged; stated the applicant is ttying to blackmail the Town by threatening a lawsuit; stated it is unfair that the IRS is threatening to bankrupt the Town; recommended compromise by allowing the citizens of the Town to purchase the property; stated most of the Town's citizens do not want any development at all on the property; and requested an opportunity to discuss this option. Carolyn Friedman, 108 Lyford Drive, stated that according to Salem Rice, who originally mapped the entire peninsula area, extensive testing of the property should be done prior to development because he suspects there are fur more slides on the property than originally mapped; and suggested the Town Council walk the property with Mr. Rice to obtain his comments. Frank Rox, SugarloafDrive, questioned the legal significance of the applicant submitting the 21 lot plan "under protest"; stated that filing a plan under protest has no place before the Town Council; stated the Town is entitled to know what plan is being submitted; stated Mr. Collette should be forced to express "what is on the table"; questioned the legal status of the land relating to the IRS; questioned whether the IRS has a contract with any other party to purchase this land; questioned who is paying the costs for processing this application--is it the Federal Government; questioned whether the applicant has made any investigation of the view impacts for the proposed plans; stated these new plans should be considered new and subject to review by the Planning Commission prior to the Council's consideration of the proposed plans; questioned whether the IRS will attempt ;- TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1006 3/8/94 4 .. ~, .,.... ,-- to sell off the property; will the IRS include a provision for servicing the property ...,ith water, do they plan to use the Sugarloaf water tank, and who will pay for enlarging the existing tank if necessary. Peter Friedman, 108 Lyford Drive, asked the Council to consider the scar tbis development will create on the land no matter how small tile percentage of development; questioned who the developer really iso-is it the IRS and if so, why; questioned if a developer will be required to reimburse the applicant for the development funds already e:,,:pended; questioned who the rcal beneficiary is; and stated that should a lawsuit result, there is a wealth oflegal professionals who would offer their services on a pro bono basis, Mrs. Terwilliger stated she would like the property to remain as it is; that it not be developed; that more opeD space is needed: and stated the citizens should try to purchase the land. Bill Atchley_ 1721 Mar West, questioned Chair Friedman which plan is being considered and ,tated the COUIlcil cannot vote when there is not a specific plan before them. Denis Rice. former Mayor and former ChairlIllUl of the Open Space Bond Election in 1972-73, noted the Agius case that went before the Supreme Court which upheld that a landowner is only entitled to a land's rea~onable use; therefore. he recommended the application be rejected. Jerry Riessen, 616 Ridge Road, stated the proposed plans would be too massive and would appear as a wall; requested a visual representation of the plans be presented; corrected Mr. Collette's previous statement that the wild flower preserves are maintained by tbe County when, in fact, they are maintained by the Landmarks Sodety. !v1:'. Riessen referred to a letter from the Marin County Open Space Disuict of December 1993, stating that a meeting took place with ML Collette. Mr. Riessen, and a representative of the Open Space District at which time the long term maintenance of the site was discussed, Conoem was expressed at that time that homeo'Allers would forget the proper (llaintenance of the site in the fimlIe: stated the Marin County Opctl Space Distri<-1: had offered to maimain the property, but Mr Collette had stated the applicant preferred respons.ibility for maintenance. Therefore, a maintenance plan wa, requested, but as of yet such a plan has not been submitted by Mr. Collette. Mr. Riessen reminded the public that the plans submitted propose private open space; stated this is inappropriate: and urged the Council officially state the Town prefers the County !l1;l . ',lin the property Further, he recommended the Council allocate a minimum of 90 days I". : ",iew of the newly proposed plans to address the concerns e"-pressed. Barbara Meislin, 116 Lyford Drive, urged the TOWIl Council deny this application; stated legislators are waiting for action preserve open space. protect the open space and vote to the Council to set an example to Mark Ginalski, 1828 Vistazo West, referring to the March 7 994,lelt,- 'rom the applicant was misleading by intimating that reduced density was first requesled by the Cmmcil at their March 1, 1994, meeting and he requested the record reflect that scores of meetings were held by the Planning Commission and the To\,n Council whereby the applicant was contin' asked to reduce the density: stated the EIR did not considcr any impacts on resource conservauon zones or easements and this is another example ofwlty the EIR needs to be recirculated; stated 11f" ,,,fonnation needs TOWN COUNCIL MlNUTES #1006 3/8/94 5 ~ to be addressed regarding the spiders; expressed concern regarding the proposed roadway to lots 21 and 22 and its inilingement on the spider habitat buffer zone; stated specific requests have been made by the TOVvTI Council to the applicant to eliminate lots 21 and 22 and they are still in the plan: stated the applicant's plan should be one they agree with and can accepL otherwise, these proceedings are a waste of time; added that ~en though the density is reduced, environmental impacts are not necessarily reduced as well; stated aU issues need to be studied by experts; stated the applicant is placing unreasonable time demands ou the Town; stated the applicant has created their 0\\11 predicameut ofmnning out oftim,,; recommended one of these plans be returned to the P1anniug Commission with the caveat that the applicant supports the plan submitted; sugge:.ted an appropriate time extension be allowed for the appropriate review of the plan. Carolyn Friedman verified that the Landmarks Society maintains the protected wild flower areas around Old St. Hilal')/s Church. Chair Friedman closed the public hearing. Upon questioning by Chair Friedman and Mayor Nygren. Tl-tJ. Collette stated that the tenninology "uuder protest" means that the applicant is simply following the Council's direction and their submittal of the plan does not necessarily mean they agree with it and reserve all tbeir legal rights. WIth respect to v.hieh plan is on the table. Mr Collette stated the 21 lot plan is the plan responding to Council direction; stated they will remove lots 21 and 22 if so directed: clarified that the proposed road would only be 12' through th" buffer area expanding to 18' after it leav"s the buffer area. . - Chair Friedman questioned what geotechnical studies have been completed on the site; and M.r, Collette responded that indepth studies have been completed by Mr. Miller in much mOle detail than those conducted by MI. Salem Ric". Further. Mr. Collette stated the 24 lot plan is not on the table unkss the Council so directs; stated he does not intend. as the court-appointed receiver of the property. to develop it; it is not the intent of the IRS to develop the property: but it is the intent of !'vir. Stonehill and Mr. Brooks, the ov.ners, to see the property improved and the IRS, as the li"n holder has consented to allO\\ the application to move forward; and it is his responsibility to enhance the property and/or get the property in a position for sale. When questioned who is actually paying for the application process, Me Collette stated there have been a series of properties taken over from Mr Stonebill and Mr. Brooks; proceeds from the sale of some of these properties are funding this process, and the IRS is not involved in the process a, a developer. Chair Friedman remarked that he would like the PlaJllliug Commission to revie\\ the sewers, roads, fire issues, catch basins, testing, story poles, etc. ofthe proposed pIau; stated he is not concerned about potential lawsuits, but about making s-ure the development is dooe correctly; rcquested the Town Attorney make sure the extension granted is concrete and the pIOpOSal complete, or it should be demed. Councilmernber Kuhn recommended an ex'teIlsion of 30 days bc granted subject to additional time required to complete a thorough analysis of the 21 lot plan; that the plan be referred to tIle Planning Commission; stated the filing "UIlder protest" by the applicant '. l!llIleCessary and offensive; stated ;-' TOWN COlTNCIL MINUTES # 1006 3/8/94 6 that contrary to Mr. Collette's legal explanation, he still views this as an IRS application; however, the Town should proceed with the 21 lot plan and act as expeditiously as possible. /~ Vice-Mayor Thompson expressed SUIprise at getting this plan at the last minute; stated the Council has had only four working days to review the proposal; stated the plans should not have been considered this evening; the Council should have gone forward with the denial without prejudice and start working towards a new proposal immediately thereafter. Further, he stated he has consistently requested no homes be built on subridges; suggested the far right riparian corridor be preserved; expressed concern about maintenance of the open space areas; stated it would be unwise for the Town to make a quick decision regarding the 21 lot plan; recommended denial without prejudice. Mayor Nygren stated the 24 lot plan is definitely not acceptable; lots 5, 6, and 7 still have the same significant impacts; stated she cannot see any circumstantial changes; stated all state and federal agencies have expressed concerns about the uniqueness of this property; stated the 21 lot alternate was requested many times for review by the Planning Commission; expressed concern over the shortness of time given to review this plan; stated there is a multitude of unanswered questions regarding the feasibility of this project, including cuts and fill, are fire regulations being complied with, questions regarding lots 20 and 21; direction of trenches and impacts; the completion of view studies; the long term management program for the open space; stated she would like the State Departments to review the proposed plan; issues of fences; who will pay for extension of the existing water tank; issues relating to cable T.V.; stated it should be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review; and stated 30 days is not enough time. .-. Councilmernber Kuhn emphasized that two alternatives are before the Council, to either deny the application without prejudice or proceed with evaluation of the 21 lot plan; stated that the Town should give opportunity to review the 21 lot plan. Chair Friedman stated that if a time extension was not available he would vote to deny the project without prejudice; noted receipt of a letter dated March 8, 1994, from Mr. Collette and stated that the Town has raised many concerns in addition to the density issues which must be addressed; stated that the Town actually loses money everytime a house is developed within the Town in terms of services and it is misleading to state the Town makes money in property taxes. Councilmember Thayer stated he supports referring this project back to the Planning Commission; stated a responsive showing has been made and it is reasonable for the Town to consider the proposed 21 lot plan within the time left and given a reasonable extension of time; stated that if the Town gets to the point that progress is not being made, then he would vote to deny the application without prejudice. Becky Clelland, Planning Commission Chairman, stated the Planning Commission has been reviewing this project for over six months and this plan is the first adequate response they have received; stated 30 days would not be adequate and requested at least 90 days for review. ,- TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1006 3/8/94 7 After discussion, Apri115th was the agreed upon deadline for review of the 21 lot plan. It was clarified that after the 30 day limit the application review is not completed, the applicant has indicated a willingness to extend the deadline. The Town Engineer requested the applicant provide a grading plan showing slide repairs; a geotechnical engineer statement that the plans comply with his requirements; computations regarding cut and fill; plans showing driveway in larger scale; that a consultant retained by the Town verifying the sewage proposal; plans showing the location of silt traps and whether grease traps are needed; a letter from the Fire District stating that the plans have been checked; and stated this information should be submitted at least 10 days before submittal to the Planning Commission for reVIew. Chair Friedman suggested a field trip to review story poles be conducted jointly with the Town Council and Planning Commission. The Planning Director recommended an addendum to the EIR be authorized to address the 21 lot plan. After discussion, it was agreed to schedule the joint field trip to review story poles and road markings to reflect the 21 lot plan on March 23, 1994, at 8:30 a.m. Further, it was agreed to place this matter on the Apri16, 1994, Town Council meeting agenda for a status report. D. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Chair Friedman adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of March 16, 1994. ATTEST: ~Yr(.~ THERESE M. HENNESSEY, TO CLERK TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1006 3/8/94 8