Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2014-09-26TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of September 22 - 26, 2014 Tiburon 1. Letter — Patrick Barnes — Tiburon Blvd & Ned's Way Intersection — Pedestrian Safety Improvements 2. Letter — Scott Anderson — Town of Tiburon Carryout Bag Regulations re CVS Pharmacy 3. Email — Jay Potter — Tennis Court Lighting 4. Email — Dan Garfield — Tiburon Solar Ranking 5. Email — Alan Lefkof — AirBnB and VBRO in San Francisco 6. Email — Scott Anderson — Reply to Lefkof AirBnB Email Agendas & Minutes 7. Minutes —Planning Commission— August 27, 2014 8. Action Minutes —Planning Commission —September 24, 2014 9. Agenda —Design Review Board— October 2, 2014 Regional a) Estuary News — September 2014 * b) Breakfast Invitation — Marin Conservation League — Proposition 1 -The Water Bond — Yes or No * Agendas & Minutes c) None * Council Only DIGEST Town ofTibumn • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon. CA 94920 • E 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • w ..ci.dburon.mus office of the Director of Public Works / Tonm En_ineer - 415.435.7388 September 25, 2014 Mr. Bijan Sartupi, Director Department of Transportation, District 4 111 Grand Ave Oakland, CA 94612 RE: Tiburon Boulevard and Ned's Way Intersection — Pedestrian Safety Improvements Dear Mr. Sartupi; On July 23, 2013, the Town wrote Caltrans concerning opportunities to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety at the Tiburon Boulevard and Ned's Way intersection. Alice Fredericks Mayor Frank Doyle Vice Mayor .............. Jim Fraser Councilmember Emmert O'Donnell Councilmember Erin Tollini Councilmember On April 30, 2014, we received a response from Caltrans (attached) stating that Margaret A. Curran Caltrans had completed the investigation at this intersection and that Caltrans would Town Manager install hybrid pedestrian beacons as a proactive safety measure. The letter further stated a hope that this project could be programmed for construction in the 2018 -2019 fiscal year. We appreciate this response and the work done on our behalf by Phillipe Van of your staff. Sadly, this month, another pedestrian was struck in this crosswalk. This is the second pedestrian hit in this crosswalk in nine months. In both cases neither the drivers nor the pedestrians were impaired nor distracted. Given this we strongly urge you to expedite this project. We understand Caltrans has many competing needs for its funding and that a HAWK type signal might be impossible to fund at this time. We hope you can find the funds for rapid flashing beacons which we believe could be installed more quickly and at much less cost. FHWA studies indicate the rapid flashing beacon increased yielding from 18 percent to 81 percent with little to no decrease in yielding behavior over time. We urge quick response. If you would like to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me at 415- 435 -7388. 5mperel� � � Pik Director of Public Works / Town Engineer Cc: Tiburon Police Chief Tiburon Town Manager Mr. Phillipe Van; Caltrans District 4 /C Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Community Development Department Tammy Yanez, Store Manager CV S /pharmacy 1599 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 September 23, 2014 DIGEST RE: TOWN OF TIBURON CARRYOUT BAG REGULATIONS; CVS/PHARMACY; 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON Dear Ms. Yanez: L • O r r, ♦ �� BG i 3✓ o \ / COE- 114L, t Alice Fredericks Mayor Frank Doyle Vice Mayor Jim Fraser Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell Councilmember As you are probably aware, the Tiburon Town Council recently enacted regulations Erin Tollini regarding carryout bags that will apply to the CVS /pharmacy located at 1599 Tiburon Councilmember Boulevard in Tiburon. The Town Council's ordinance will go into effect on October 3, 2014, and two copies are enclosed for your information and use. Margaret A. Curran The Town of Tiburon's regulations are similar, but not identical, to those enacted by Town Manager other Mann County jurisdictions. For instance, the Town does not require a store to charge for recyclable paper bags provided to customers. Several communities in Marin have ordinances that require a store to charge the customer a nickel or a dime each for such bags. However, the Tiburon ordinance does prohibit stores from providing plastic carryout bags to customers. Please ensure that the employees of your store in Tiburon are aware of the regulations and are equipped to successfully implement them. If you have any questions regarding the ordinance, please don't hesitate to call me at (415) 435 -7392 or Dan Watrous at (415) 435 - 7393. 0 Very truly yours, 63 OD Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Enclosure: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 551 N. S. (2 copies) Scott Anderson y From: Jay Potter [Jay @BelvedereTennisClub.com] DIGEST Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:30 AM 1.7 To: 'sandy63smith' Subject: Tennis Court Lighting, Town Hall Meeting With Neigbors To our neighbors in Tiburon and Belvedere: Good Morning, I again write to you with much excitement about Belvedere Tennis Club's increasingly popular tennis programs for both adults and juniors. During the past decade, tennis has once again emerged as a desired activity in the United States. Locally, the Club has met this demand by offering adults and kids alike with the opportunity to enjoy this sport on both a social and competitive basis. As a result, BTC needs additional lighted courts. Indeed, during the winter months when daylight hours are limited, or during the early springtime when the USTA Marin League is underway, our club is disadvantaged with only two lit courts. At the end of this year, BTC will likely submit a formal application to the local planning department for three additional lighted courts to complement the two that have existed here for many years. We believe that the environmental impact of these lighted courts will be minimal, but we would like to hear from any of our neighbors who may have concerns. In addition, the Club will modernize the existing lighting on the two lit courts to minimize glare and output. As such, we will be holding a community meeting on Thursday, October 23, at 7pm, in the Council Chambers of the Tiburon City Hall. This meeting follows an earlier presentation that was held at BTC in June of 2012 when this idea first emerged, and thank you to everyone who attended that forum to express concerns and ideas. During this informational meeting, we would like to hear any ongoing concerns so that the Club's application may be tailored, if necessary, to address problems that you believe will emanate from additional lighted courts. Moreover, we will explain how modern lighting technology has greatly reduced emission as well as the intended hours for usage. So please join us at this event, as we greatly appreciate your input on this very important matter. Sincerely, Jay Potter Jay Potter, General Manager Belvedere Tennis Club 700 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Office: 415- 435 -4792 Fax: 415-435-3930 iav(@beivederetennisclub.com www.beivederetennisclub.com DIGEST #, Peggy Curran From: Dan Garfield <dgarfield @completesolar.com> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 7:42 AM To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) Subject: Tiburon Earns "B" in Solar Ranking As a city official I wanted to send you a copy of the Solar Ease Index report we're releasing. Tiburon earned an B and did better than 61.15% of Californian cities. The report ranks cities based on permit times and fees to install solar. Your city missed an 'A' because even though the permit fees were lower than 78.7% of cities, the permit wait time of 10 days dragged the score down. I've included the best and worst cities for comparison and you can view the entire report and methodology at completesolar.com/solar- rankings Let me know if you have any questions. -Dan Garfield Complete Solar 650- 610 -1788 Best Ranked Cities in Solar Ease Index 1. Menlo Park 2. Belmont 3. Mill Valley 4. Orange 5. Novato 6. Saratoga 7. Berkeley 8. Milpitas 9. San Francisco 10. Oakland Worst Ranked Cities in Solar Ease Index 1. Pico Rivera 2. Upland 3. Fullerton 4. Chino 5. Corona 6. Coronado 7. La Mirada 8. Monterey Park 9. Concord 10. Montclair 1 Scott Anderson To: Alan Lefkof, Dan Watrous; Peggy Curran p Cc: Donald Sung; Heidi Bigall Subject: RE: AirBnB and VBRO in SF Alan, The Town will be changing TOT (hotel) tax on all permitted seasonal rentals on a prospective basis starting next month. The Finance Division is aware of this and must send out notice to current permit holders. The issue of seasonal rentals may well be reviewed by the Town in the relatively near future. Complaints to date have involved a very small number of such uses; most tend not to cause problems. But when there is a problem, it tends to be egregious. Another instance of an unruly few giving a black eye to all others. We sent by certified mail a citation to the owners of 121 Sugar Loaf Drive on September le. The green certification card has not yet come back from the post office nor have we heard from the owners personally. We will follow up next week. Our Town Attorney has informed me that should this problem not be resolved by citation means, the Town would need suitable ammunition to make its case in court to stop the apparent abuse. That would likely include sworn statements from neighbors who actually witnessed seasonal rental use. Photographs and notes (documentation) also help build such cases. Please let us know if any additional violations are witnessed and send any documentation that would be supportive. Thanks again. Sincerely, Scott Anderson Director of Community Development From: Alan Lefkof [ma1lto:ablefkof(@qma1l.com Sent: ThUrsday, September 18, 2014 7:05 PM To: Dan Watrous; Peggy Curran Cc: Scott Anderson; Donald Sung Di V Es,r Subject: AirBnB and VBRO in SF Dan and Peggy An article in this morning's SF Chronicle seemed to indicate that SF is getting close to voting in the 14% hotel tax to be assessed on all short term rentals over the Internet shared sites such as AirBnB and VBRO. They are also debating limits on the amount of nightly rentals in various neighborhoods. I hope Tiburon can take a serious look at limiting such rentals to 14 nights per year in order to preserve neighborhood tranquility. An article in the ARK last week stated that Belvedere does not allow such rentals at all. The levy of a 14% hotel tax would seem to level the playing field with the two legitimate hotels in downtown Tiburon. Any specific update on the permit signing at 121 Sugar Loaf Drive ? We are having our annual homeowner's association meeting on October 19 and this subject is going to come up in a big (and negative) way. It would be good to have some official news to report. M Alan Lefkof, Treasurer Marinero Owners Association 510- 289 -0705 cell PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1048 August 27, 2014 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Kulik called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: Chair Jon Welner (7:50 p.m.), Vice Chair David Kulik, Commissioners John Corcoran, Lou Weller and Erica Williams Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager Dan Watrous, Assistant Planner Kyra O'Malley, and Minutes Clerk Lisa harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Planning Manager Dan Watrous reported that since two Commissioners needed to recuse themselves from participating in Item 1, he recommended that the Commission hear that item last. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 2070 PARADISE DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FLOATING DOCK; FILE #11404; Caroline Mead, Owner and Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 181 -85 Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report. He described the request to construct a dock on a currently vacant lot which would involve a 60 foot long gangway leading to a floating dock that would be 10' x 24'. The dock would serve a new single family residence as recently approved by the Design Review Board. The dock would be used for recreational purposes. The gangway would connect to the sea wall and float up and down with the tide, as would the dock. Mr. Watrous noted that there are a number of other private piers in the vicinity that are approximately 50 feet long, particularly at 2078, 2036 and 2038 Paradise Drive. A small buoy was installed at the location of the floating dock to serve as a form of a story pole, indicating that it would have a similar location as the other docks in the vicinity, although he noted that a 24- foot boat anchored at that spot could slightly intrude into views from other neighboring property TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 1 owners. Staff recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing, take testimony and adopt the attached resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit. Joe Sherer, applicant, stated that this dock design was the result of conversations with BCDC and in conjunction with building the house. He said that BCDC supported this design as long as certain conditions were met. He said that the dock was designed to allow a boat to be there even during low tide, so this dock design would allow a small boat to float even during low tide. He felt that the design was not unique since the immediate neighbor to the left has a similar dock, although the proposed dock would be far narrower and less intrusive because that dock sticks up in the air all year round whereas this dock would rise and fall with the water. He stated that the only structures in the bay would be two piers to support the dock. Mr. Sherer noted that the structure was designed by an engineer to be the approximate minimum size and the design also includes a see - through flow to allow light to pass through the dock and thereby encourage eel grass. Vice Chair Kulik opened the public hearing. Rick Barberia stated that he lives 6 properties to the north of the proposed pier and he felt that e the floating dock would be inconsistent with all of the other existing fixed docks in the vicinity. He stated that unlike other areas along the bay which are sheltered, Lyford Cove is not, and he would not want to listen to the noise created by the dock floating up and down with a 2 -3 foot tidal swell in the wintertime. He stated that this lot has probably the farthest reach from the Raccoon Straits and would need to reach 60 feet or more into the tidal basin to accommodate a boat at low tide. He said that no one else on Lyford Cove has the benefit of using their dock all year long, so building a 60 foot ramp and floating dock did not make sense. He felt that the dock would be visually disruptive and noisy. Sandra L'Heureux stated that the noise from a floating dock in this area would be magnified by the surrounding hillsides. She said that there are times that the bay tides change and are more active which could create more noise. She thought that the dock should not extend further into the bay than others in Lyford Cove. She said that the floating gangway would only add more noise. She stated that she and her neighbors have bedrooms facing the bay and she thought that the noise would be intolerable. Mr. Sherer stated that he did not believe that there would be additional noise from the floating dock as compared to the fixed pier docks there now. He noted that this property goes out 200 feet into the bay and the proposed the dock would only go out about 60 feet, which would be about the same size as the dock right next door to it. He said that the dock would line up with the other docks that are farther to the left, so he did not imagine that there would be a visual effect. Commissioner Corcoran asked if Mr. Sherer had any information about the noise issue. Mr. Sherer said that he had researched the dock for close to a year and no one had ever brought up noise as an issue. He said that he spoke with four different dock manufacturers but did not think that any noise would amount to any more than water hitting a fixed pier. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27.2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 2 Commissioner Corcoran asked and confirmed with Mr. Sherer that BCDC led him to this design. Mr. Sherer said that BCDC prefers the material and the floating dock construction, as well as the Army Corps and Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Sherer also thought that it would be more sensitive. Commissioner Williams asked how this dock compares in square footage with the other docks. Mr. Sherer said that the other docks appear to be much wider and similar in length, but he was not sure of their exact dimensions. Commissioner Williams stated the location of this lot seems to be fairly protected and it seemed that the pier would end in the bay at about the same point as other docks. Mr. Sherer agreed that this is a more protected location and said that the dock might appear slightly longer than the one to the left but would be very close in size but not intrusive. Noted Present: Chair Welner arrived at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Williams asked if there would be any banging noise. Mr. Sherer said that each pier would have four rollers around the post that would minimize any noise. Commissioner Williams asked how many new docks have been approved in the last 15 years. Planning Manager Watrous stated that there may have been one or two approved in that time. Mr. Sherer said that the immediate neighbor at 2078 Paradise Drive doubled the size of the end of his dock. Vice Chair Kulik stated that he lives on Raccoon Straits and has a basic working knowledge of this type of construction and the environmental issues of that area which are significant. He asked if Mr. Sherer looked at a seasonal study of tidal flows and winter surges and how this would impact construction, given every other pier on that strait is a fixed pier with pilings into the bedrock. Mr. Sherer said that they looked at records 100 years back of every tidal flow and based on this information decided that this was the appropriate dock design. Vice Chair Kulik asked what they would be sacrificing if the dock was the same length as the dock next door. Mr. Sherer said that it would reduced the proposed dock by 8 to 10 feet, but the proposed dock may not appear to be farther out into the bay because they would start at a point closer in. Vice Chair Kulik asked if there was any consideration as to what kind of a boat would work there and the potential destruction of the boat if it was moored during a low tide with a storm surge. Mr. Sherer said that they grappled with this issue as it would be nice to go another 30 feet out, but they felt that they could get a 24 foot boat and with 2 feet of water at low low tide, which would probably be good enough. He commented that these are all compromises and they thought this was reasonable and would fit with the area. Vice Chair Kulik asked if Mr. Sherer would be amenable to considering a fixed pier design with a boat lift that would elevate it out of the water if that was acceptable to the neighbors and to TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27,2014- MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 3 alleviate any concerns about noise or destructive action. Mr. Sherer thought that that would be a mistake. He said that he talked to a lot of people about this and they really thought it would better for the homeowner and for the neighbors. He did not think it made sense to put in a lesser dock that would be more intrusive because it would also mean he would have to go back and negotiate with BCDC, Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers. The public hearing was closed. Chair Weiner apologized for being late, and thanked the applicant for their presentation. He asked staff for an explanation the preliminary determination that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA. Mr. Watrous stated although any work done in the water environment can be sensitive, the areas along Raccoon Straits are not considered to be so sensitive so as to prohibit all construction. He said that staff would be concerned if there were excessive grading and that a fixed pier with more pilings would have more impact in terms of putting things down into the bay. He said that his discussions in the past with BCDC indicated that they have more problems with people removing piers because it tends to disrupt the siltation when removing the piers, especially if there is long -term corrosion that builds up on the pilings. He believed that the two piers that need to be installed would be relatively unintrusive from an environmental standpoint. He agreed with the applicant that on a quiet night a little noise might be audible, but the level of noise would not rise to the level of a significant environmental impact. He stated that no information has been presented to indicate there is a potentially significant environmental impact and staff is satisfied that this project would be categorically exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Williams asked if the Commission approved the CUP and noise became an issue whether the CUP could be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Watrous stated that it could, but added that if a noise situation can be resolved physically by modifying the construction after it is built, the Commission could modify the permit, but otherwise, the Commission can review the CUP and potentially revoke it. Commissioner Corcoran said that he appreciated the neighbors' concerns about potential noise and visual impacts. He said that it did not appear that the dock would be able to accommodate a very large boat that would significantly affect views. He was impressed with the application's minimal environmental impact thus far. On balance, he thought that this was a reasonable proposal. He stated that the Commission's guidance here was Policy LU -26 of the Land Use Element and in reading over this and weighing the application he thought that this was a minimal application. He felt that there was a reason all three agencies have found this to be a preferable design because it would be as narrow and as wide as it needs to be and would let sunlight through to allow eel grass to grow. He said that a pier with pilings every six feet would have multiple points of contact. From a noise and visual standpoint, he believed that a fixed pier would potentially be much louder, especially during the wintertime. He believed that allowing the dock to rise and fall with the movement of the tides was reasonable and he supported the proposal. Commissioner Weller said that unfortunately he did not have any facts but simply representation about what BCDC says, what the Army Corps of Engineers says, and what the applicants think the noise that would be generated. He said that if the applicant's statements are true he would TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27,2014- MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 4 agree with Commissioner Corcoran, but at this point, he was unable to reach a conclusion based on hearsay of what other agencies have suggested and no data at all about the noise issue the neighbors have raised. He said that he was therefore opposed to the application but was willing to allow a continuance to provide some confirmation of what has been offered to the Commission that would allow them make an informed decision with facts and not simply representations. Vice Chair Kulik said that the first things to be considered with anything extending into the bay are privacy and views. He felt that the neighbors' concerns on the design were valid and he agreed with Commissioner Weller about the speculative nature of everything that was presented. He said that having lived in this environment for the better part of a decade he knows that there are significant tidal flows and when a storm system rolls through everything rattles. He said that the water is very violent in that environment and it is a concern that this design, while perfectly suitable for a boat and use from the property in a vacuum, could be problematic when combined with the elements of weather, flood and drainage of the bay. He said that he would like more study on this and felt that fixed piers have been proven over time, especially in this area, but said that he was open to hearing further evidence that this would be exactly what it was represented. He asked that more firm data and proof of concept be provided. Commissioner Williams said that she concurred with Commissioner Weller and Vice Chair Kulik and she too would like to see more data specifically on the noise issue. She said that she was less concerned with the visual impacts and distance, given the site but she did not have enough information to make a determination on the noise issue. She appreciated that Mr. Sherer has worked with BCDC and was sensitive to environmental concerns, but she would like to know more about the evolution in pier design from fixed piers because floating piers seem better because there would be less visual impact. She wanted more clarity on the fixed pier versus floating piers regarding noise, given the neighbors' concerns, and said that she was unable to approve the request at this time. Chair Welner described his view of the Commission's role on such applications and said that there is a tendency sometimes for the Commission to slip into design review as opposed to land use review. He said that he takes his direction from Policy LU -26 and that policy encourages maximum feasible public access to the waterfront where not in conflict with other public or private uses which are of public benefit. He said that if the proposed dock was similar or identical to those that are nearby less proof would be needed to move forward, but the applicant's burden is higher because the proposed dock is different, although for him it was a close call. He said that he would side with Commissioners who would want more information before approving this. Chair Welner asked staff the options in terms of providing additional information and returning with the application. Mr. Watrous thought that it would be preferable to have a letter from BCDC stating that this is a preferable design and to have an engineer or someone familiar with design issues to address technical issues. He recommended continuing the hearing to the September 240 hearing to allow an acceptable period of time to address these issues. Chair Welner asked if this was agreeable with the applicant and Mr. Sherer concerned. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 5 Vice Chair Kulik said that he was concerned as to whether BCDC views any dock that has light transmission through aluminum construction as being a better design if or in this specific instance it was appropriate for that type of design in this tidal flow environment, both with the flood and drain of the bay but then also with the storm surge elements that happen every winter. Mr. Sherer said that there was some discussion about visual impacts and he said that he was somewhat unclear as to how a fixed dock would have less visual impact than a floating dock. Chair Welner said that his view would be that to the extent that the proposed dock would be similar in terms of volume and height the visual issue would not one stand out as problematic. Vice Chair Kulik agreed that this is not a situation where visual impact for neighbors or privacy intrusion was the concern, but he would like information about the effectiveness of the design and the comparison to a fixed pier design with a boat lift. Chair Welner summarized three issues —1) whether the current design would create noise; 2) communication from BCDC about their preferences; and 3) discussion of why a floating dock would be preferable to a fixed pier in this tidal flow and storm surge environment, presented by someone with pier design experience. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller /Williams) to continue the hearing to the September 24, 2014 meeting. Motion carried: 4 -0 -1 (Corcoran abstained). 3. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY; FILE #11403; Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; Sprint Wireless, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 212 -18 Assistant Planner Kyra O'Malley presented the staff report. She said that Sprint Wireless would like to expand their existing wireless facility on top of Peet's Coffee and add three new antennas and three remote radio unit heads inside the existing faux chimney. The existing three antennas would remain, resulting in a total of 6 antennas inside the chimney, which would not change in height or size. The existing equipment cabinets on the ground on the west side of the existing building would also be replaced. The worst case scenario for RF emissions is approximately would be 10.4 %. of the FCC standards. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the CUP for a time period of 5 years. Tony Kim, representing Sprint Wireless, said that the purpose of the three additional antennas was to provide effective data transmission where currently coverage and capacity is very poor and limited. He acknowledged that there would be no visual changes to the size or appearance of the rooftop chimney and the refrigerator -sized cabinets would remain in the ground- mounted equipment area. He agreed to install the RF signage and thanked staff for her assistance in the application process. Commissioner Weller asked how long the process would take to install the new antennas. Mr. Kim said that it would take no more than two weeks. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27.2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 6 Vice Chair Kulik asked if the increased capacity and would also increase the EMF or RF energy levels for the site. Mr. Kim said that adding additional antennas generally increases the RF/EMF levels of a facility, but noted that the RF levels would be 10.4% of the public exposure limit. He said that there would need to be 10 sites similar to this to get close to the public exposure limitations for a site like this. Vice Chair Kulik asked what the current RF/EMF level was. Mr. Kim responded that he did not know. Vice Chair Kulik asked if it was possible to share these facilities with other carriers or is the facility unique to the carrier given the type of cellular system they operate. Mr. Kim said that co- location it depends on the carrier and topography plays a role, but typically, this property could be a site for co- location. Chair Welner opened the public hearing. As no one spoke, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Williams said she that supported the permit, noting that the antennas are concealed within a false chimney, the RF exposure is well within limits, and signage would be installed. She confirmed that this would not generate any new noise. Vice Chair Kulik concurred. He said that the Commission must rely on FCC standards and this is clearly within the limits by 90 %. He said that there would be no change to the visual impact and it is an existing use. Chair Welner said he agreed, but stated that for prior approvals of similar facilities it was his understanding that federal law preempts the Commission from basing a decision on the level of EMF unless it exceeded federal standards, so the Commission is really reviewing the design. He noted that the staff report states that RF levels on the roof may exceed the FCC's general limit and asked if that enabled the Commission to deny this proposal on that basis. Ms. O'Malley said that from the worst case scenario a facility may exceed the RF levels 11 feet from the face of the antenna, but someone at ground level would not be affected. She said that the signage helps limit people occupationally know and be aware of these antennas. Chair Welner asked if somebody needs to go on the roof to shut the system down. Mr. Kim said that if there is maintenance, the property owner must be contacted and the roof must be climbed with a ladder. He said that since this is a sloped roof and there is no rooftop access, they will not need to stripe the roof or install a physical barrier that states not to enter. Commissioner Corcoran questioned whether a local body could deny an application on the basis that the EMF radiation may exceed limits at an area inaccessible to the public. Ms. O'Malley said that the Commission cannot deny the project over FCC standards because they meet the standards at ground level and occupationally. Mr. Watrous said that the higher levels within that area comply with the FCC standards, so the Town cannot use that as a reason to deny this. Commissioner Corcoran said that the Town has limited authority in making a decision on this type of facility and Sprint is within the parameters of what is allowable, so he could support the project on that basis. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 7 Commissioner Weller supported the project. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller /Williams) that the application for Sprint Wireless be approved and to adopt the resolution (Exhibit 6). Motion carried: 5 -0. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 23, 2014 ACTION: It was WS (Williams /Corcoran) to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2014 meeting, as written. Motion carried: 5 -0. Commissioners Kulik and Corcoran recused themselves from the next item. 1. 110 SOLANO STREET: REVIEW OF SEASONAL RENTAL UNIT PERMIT TO OPERATE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING TWO - FAMILY DWELLING AS A RENTAL UNIT; FILE #SRU 2013 -01; Courtney and Sandy Anderson, Owners and Applicants; Assessor's Parcel Number 059 - 143 -35 Mr. Watrous presented the staff report. He said that in March 2013 staff discovered that there was a seasonal rental unit at 110 Solano Street based on complaints from neighbors. The Town approved the permit on May 6h and the neighbors at 120 Solano Street appealed that decision to the Planning Commission who held a hearing on June 26, 2013. The permit was upheld with additional conditions including one that said the permit be reviewed in one year. Mr. Watrous summarized pertinent conditions of the staff report, noting that there had been complaints from the neighbors at 120 Solano Street regarding use of the pool and driveway and that the owners had replied in each instance to staff inquiries about these allegations. He stated that staff believes that the concerns between the applicants and neighbors that were apparent during the appeal have not been resolved but it was less clear that the applicants have substantially complied with the conditions of approval. Staff believes that there is little evidence of a pattern of non - compliance with the permit requirements and that the cross complaints and evidence in emails have more to do with ongoing issues between the neighboring property owners than the actual permit violations. He recommended that the Commission take testimony on the item, close the hearing, determine whether the applicants are operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of the seasonal rental permit and consider whether modifications should be made to the adopted conditions of approval for this permit. The public hearing was opened. Sandy Anderson, owner /applicant, stated that strengths of vacation rentals to the community include increased tourism, revenue and support of local merchants, and increased revenue via fees to the Town. He stated that a survey last year calculated that vacation renters contribute about $3.6 million per annum to Tiburon merchants and restaurants. He stated that vacation renters have caused little or no problems with the local neighborhoods and have co- existed quite easily, except with the case of the Mountain View Drive case last year, which he thought had to do more with renting to singles as opposed to families. He spoke of the desire for renters seeking safety and protection for their children, a relaxed atmosphere and a great place to go to TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27,2014- MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 8 surrounding areas. He said that their experience has been that during their stay, most vacation renters are gone in the morning out touring places and enjoying themselves. Mr. Anderson stated that since the Town has granted the seasonal rental permit they rented only to families with less than 4 adults and no singles. He stated that during the review of their permit procedure, the Town told them that they had to stop renting so they canceled 10 vacation rental contracts over a period of the next six months and any pending contracts that violated the restrictions of the permit. He stated that 10 guest families stayed both in their vacation rental unit and their lower unit for a month or longer since the permit was granted and have had quite a few long term renters. Mr. Anderson referred to complaints made by his neighbors and the confusion as to who is at their house. He said that they had 12 sets of friends visit them and stay overnight for a day to two weeks. Chair Welner clarified with Mr. Anderson that these friends were guests that did not pay and stayed for free. Mr. Anderson said that his son and their friends have come and stayed for several nights, as well as his daughter and grandchildren who visited for a week. Mr. Anderson stated that they have had 5 home exchanges and this occurs when friends exchange their homes with them, with no money exchanged and not done simultaneously. He explained how important it is for home exchanges to be positive, as they become longer term occurrences which establish friendships. He confirmed with Chair Welner that home exchanges usually last one to three weeks, and that over the last 13 months they have had 5 home exchanges. Mr. Anderson stated that they meet all guests when they arrive and help them with their luggage and that no one has arrived with more than one vehicle. He said that they are very cognizant of noise and added that 7 surrounding neighbors signed a statement last year indicating that they were never disturbed by any noise from their vacation renters or anyone else. He stated that they also had 3 other neighbors who confirmed in writing that they were not disturbed. Mr. Anderson stated they are very cognizant about noise and that over the last 13 months not a single seasonal renter has been in the pool area. He said that the only people allowed in the pool are family, friends, and families staying 31 days or more and not home exchange guests. He said that home exchange guests are told they cannot use the driveway or pool. He estimated that the grand total of all hours where family, friends and guests have been in the pool area over the last 13 months has been no more than about 15 hours. He stated that not a single seasonal renter was allowed to use the driveway and only the maid of a guest staying two weeks came onto the driveway because a family member who was meeting her was sleeping. He said that all seasonal rental websites that could accept bookings were updated showing that permitted that the two bedroom unit was available for stays of less than a month and any other rental on the property had to be for 31 days or more. He stated that they have not rented out the bedroom over the garage and only their family and friends have stayed there. He said that they have worked with staff on all of the violations alleged by the Haraburda's and have answered each one. Mr. Anderson said that he reviewed Mr. Sharp's letter and stated that the complaint regarding people coming up and down the driveway was actually one guest who stayed a month. He said TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 9 that they went to Napa and came back and that was the reason they loaded luggage in the driveway, which they have right to do. He said that there was one complaint about a long term guest staying in the lower unit that was a family who was moving from Boston and buying a home in Belvedere and staying from mid - August to mid - September. Mr. Anderson stated that they left early because of the negative treatment of their children and profanity in front of the children. He said that one parent of the children would speak at the meeting and he characterized the Haraburda's reaction as extremely exaggerated. He said that he should have at least been asked whether the person was a regular or long -term renter as opposed to having all guests confronted and intimidated. Mr. Anderson said that he went through Mr. Sharp's exhibits and explained that the two people in the driveway were his relatives. He said that he presented letters from individuals stating they have never seen parties or experienced noise in the pool. Paul Smith, attorney for the Anderson's, said that the Commission last year at the appeal hearing tried to arrive at a compromise to address both sides by adding conditions related to the pool, driveway, and from the amount of materials. He acknowledged the accusations, issues, responses and comments and he believed that these are not permit- related. He said that the Commission tried to come up with a solution by adding conditions of approval, but he felt that there is a better solution. He said whenever a property like this, where there are private residences and common amenities, is subdivided there is typically a recorded maintenance or easement agreement in place. He said that there was an agreement drafted in 1993 for this property by the prior owners and it addresses use of the pool, parking and the driveway. He said that this is a way of resolving these issues civilly between the property owners without having to involve the Town. He proposed sitting down with Mr. Sharp and the Haraburda's if they are willing and try to amend the agreement. Mr. Smith said that at the time the agreement was drafted, there were two property owners who were going to share the pool, driveway and parking, but they did not address the concept of the short or long -term tenants, and any impacts that might be created with the way the property is used today. He proposed that the parties meet and amend the agreement to address all issues. He asked that the Commission either renew the permit with the existing conditions or continue the hearing for 60 -90 days to provide time to try to work out an agreement. Chair Welner opened the public hearing. John Sharp, attorney for the Haraburda's, referred to his letter dated August 20th. He said that Town staff lacks the resources to police what happens at this property every day out, which is true with any town. He said that the best evidence of what is happening on the site and this comes from Mr. and Mrs. Haraburda, who are most impacted every day by what happens at 110 Solano Street. He said that the Commission is being asked to take the word of the applicant as to who stays at the property, where they stay and so on. He pointed to an aerial photo of the two properties and distributed photos showing the condition of the entry to both parking areas as of today, stating that the photos show impediments to anyone entering the parking area and violations of the parking requirements. He noted that the Commission has advertising attached to the staff report that shows that this property has been advertised for occupancy of all units by numbers of people in excess of the number allowed by the conditions of approval. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 10 Mr. Sharp said that he did not disagree with the concept proposed by Mr. Smith, but stated that the fact that there is a neighbor dispute does not exclude the Town from jurisdiction over this property via its permit process. He stated that there are violations to the conditions of approval of the permit. He stated that the only way to get control over the property is to rescind this permit. He characterized the property as a commercial enterprise that is operating in a residential neighborhood and said that the permit is not working. Joe Haraburda stated they have been through these issues over the last 13 months and a period before that where their personal lives have been impacted by disregard for their privacy from the use of the pool and driveway. He said that the restrictions imposed at the last meeting provided some comfort and relief, but he noted that the property is zoned residential and they believe that a seasonal rental is not appropriate in this type of residential neighborhood. He said that they oppose seasonal rentals throughout town and do not believe that such rentals bring $3 million into community. He said the staff characterization that this is a neighbor dispute could probably be supported in a couple of cases. He cited an example when there was noise coming from the pool area and his wife was concerned, so they had the police come to the site. He said that he lives three stories up from the center of the pool, so any noise from there is dramatically amplified. Chair Welner asked if the children were part of the group that was allowed to use the pool. Mr. Haraburda replied that this was unclear, but he did not believe that they were there for the full one month period. He said that they were never notified of any tenant's circumstance, so they really do not know all of the circumstan ces for who is using the pool or the driveway and whether or not they are friendly. He stated that the reoccurrences of over - occupancy, noise and lack of street parking demonstrates non - compliance with the permit. He asked how a property owner should be asked to react when they get no direct response from the Anderson's. He noted that on one occasion a woman asked him if he owned the pool and Mrs. Anderson, who was standing by the pool, could have said that who owns and has use of the pool, but she did not mitigate the situation. Mr. Haraburda said that there are unintended consequences by allowing thousands of seasonal renters to come into the neighborhood. He said that the ordinance gives the rights to one but takes rights from others and he felt that they should maintain a quiet, residential community and he asked the Commission to rescind the permit. He said that the Commission may hear comments that he has been labeled as loud, awful and he has screamed at people, but he said that he never approached people in anything but a friendly way and asking people if they are renting and for how long was logical to him. He said that they have never gotten cooperation to understand who the renters are, why they are there and what the circumstances are. Matthew Manoley said that he is Mr. Anderson's stepson and had lived at 110 Solano Street when he was in high school and middle school. He said that he did not observe many issues in the beginning, but lately it has gotten much worse. He said that he had not gone in the pool for a long time because he does not feel comfortable going there and the only time he does go in is with friends who want to use the pool. He said that he recently had two friends join him in the pool and were there for 10 to 15 minutes before Joe Haraburda walked outside. Mr. Manoley said that he introduced himself but Mr. Haraburda ignored him and went straight to his TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27,2014-MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 11 stepfather, asked who he was, whether he was a seasonal or vacation renter. Mr. Manoley said that he identified himself as the son who lived there for 11 years. Mr. Haraburda said that he did not recognize him, but when he tried to say hello, Mr. Haraburda gave him the finger. Mr. Manoley described other incidents where he had a few friends over and went outside at about 10:00 p.m. and told his friends they had to whisper. He said that someone came outside and told him that they would call the police. Mr. Manoley said that he stated his name and then was told that they would not call the police. He said that he has lived next to the pool and the noise is exactly the same when heard from all units, but the Haraburda's unit looks right down on the pool. Paul Steinberg stated that he was the referenced long -term renter from August to September and, contrary to the comments made, the unit was fully paid for. He explained that he and his family are recently relocated from Boston to Marin and prior to moving to their house in Belvedere they rented from the Anderson's for a period of one month. He said that their experience was not good as a result of the events that occurred during their stay. He said that the Anderson are great landlords, greet all guests, and gave them the rules, including the use of the driveway and areas to park. He said that they were warned to keep noise levels low. He said that the Anderson's helped their transition quite a bit, but unforhmately this was offset by the actions of the Haraburda's which led them to leave a few days early from their rental contract and not renew. Mr. Steenberg said that the specific altercations are outlined in the record, but they included direct and aggressive action between the Haraburda's and his family, which included police showing up to address his children being in the pool. He described a direct interaction by Mr. Haraburda in the pool where his children recounted that he walked into the pool fully dressed as a scare tactic. He said that heated argument resulted and following that his children refused to use the pool and were quite frightened to be anywhere in the area. He said that a lot of shouting from windows occurred, many shouts from a darkened room overhanging the property, some profanities, and both direct and indirect interaction that made the situation caustic. He recognized that he was in the middle of more of a personal battle than a permit battle, but said that he can definitely attest to the aggressive nature and caustic environment that his family was directly involved in and he expected was the case for any renters that are guests of the Andersons. Chair Welner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Weller said that it is sad to see neighbors at each other's throats and he wished that both parties had more wisdom than they had shown. He said that it is probably true that this property is not the best setting for a seasonal rental, but the Town permits these uses which are legitimate uses of property. He said that the difficulty here is compounded by the fact that the Anderson's have turned the property into a business. He found it specious to say that that a 31 day rental has significantly different characteristics than a seasonal rental. He said that the toxic nature of the numbers and turnover of people in rental unit, combined with the unfortunate siting of this property which is a common interest subdivision, is causing the problem. Commissioner Weller stated that this is the property the Haraburda's bought and they must live with the applicable laws that apply to the property and with the physical characteristics that their home sits above a pool which people are entitled to use and make noise. He said that if the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27,2014- MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 12 Haraburda's want to limit the noise, he suggested installing double or triple pane windows or other measures that will mitigate the noise. He said that they cannot complain about children making noise in the pool that are legitimately there. He said that in his view there is blame to be placed on all sides. He also noted that both Mr. Smith and Mr. Sharp, as attorneys, recognize that it is not the Town's job to police this property. He stated that when the Commission issued the permit, they tried to address competing concerns and he thought that they did a good job, but in practice, there are challenges. He believed that the appropriate approach was the one Mr. Smith suggested. He said that private parties can have a much more defined set of rules that they can take to a mediator, court or other dispute resolution forum. He said that the Commission cannot judge the veracity of all the complaints. He said that he would like the parties to attempt to reach a resolution, which is in everyone's interests. He said that the Haraburda's have to understand that they own a property in a common interest subdivision with neighbors who have an irrevocable right to use the swimming pool. He said that the Anderson's must understand that the Haraburda's are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their property and the way the Anderson's property is used cannot violate that. He said that hopefully, with the help of Mr. Smith and Sharp, an agreement can be reached which will establish rules by which everyone can abide. Commissioner Williams said that she read through all the materials and has compassion for all involved. She believed that this is a very difficult situation that has escalated. She thought that this was an almost untenable situation given the shared easements and that it might not be workable. She was glad that Mr. Smith made his proposal. She recognized that it is impossible for staff to determine or monitor what is short term, long term, home exchange or family stays, and she thought that this was an unfair burden to be placed on neighbors to monitor this. She was skeptical that negotiations would work as mediation had been proposed in the past and did not seem to be fruitful. Mr. Smith said that in the past mediation did not result in a solution, but they are optimistic that a different result will occur. Commissioner Williams said that the intent of seasonal rentals was to allow periodic rentals, and to her, this feels like a bed and breakfast with constant activity in and out. Mr. Smith said that the permit specifies no more than 200 nights a year of seasonal rental and he has heard no challenge that this has been exceeded, but this is not a bed and breakfast. Commissioner Williams asked staff about how the rental activity is monitored and investigated Mr. Watrous said that when staff receives complaints they are passed onto Mr. Anderson for response. Staff has not taken steps to do the level of investigation where they ask for submission of contracts or proof of payments, or auditing records, but has depended upon Mr. Anderson's response to inquiries. Chair Welner asked how home exchanges are classified. Mr. Watrous said that they considered to be are seasonal rental units. He said that a home exchange may not involve money, but exchanging the value or use of another home would be considered to be rent if it less than 31 days. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 13 Commissioner Williams said that in terms of community input, there were 7 to 10 neighbors who support the seasonal rental unit and at least 1 or 2 people who oppose it. Chair Welner said that the original purpose of the seasonal rental ordinance was not to encourage or make possible seasonal rentals but to enable the Town to regulate them since they were happening. He did not think that one should confuse having an ordinance with regard to seasonal rentals with a policy promoting them, but rather making sure seasonal rentals are occurring where appropriate. He stated that when the Commission reviewed this permit the last time they recognized that this is probably not an ideal spot because of the shared property situation, but they identified sources of conflict. He said that by far the greatest source of conflict was the use of the pool which resulted in a condition of approval to prohibit use of the pool for seasonal rentals. He said that the Commission's attempted solution has resulted in attempts to identify who is using the pool, but he felt that as terrible as this dispute is today the discussion about the pool last time was far worse. Chair Welner stated his main observation is that there are long - standing problems between the neighbors. He thought that Mr. Smith's suggestion of revisiting the maintenance agreement and coming up with more straightforward ground rules would be helpful. He thought that there is a lot of room for dispute resolution but most of this is a private matter between neighbors and something into which the Town should not insert itself. He said that the Commission's task at this time was different from the one last year, as this time it is a review as to whether the applicant is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the permit. He said that the Commission has the ability to think about further actions if they are not in substantial compliance. He said that in his view, based on the staff recommendations, presentations and comments tonight, he believed that the Anderson's are in substantial compliance with the terms of their permit. He stated that suspicion of non - compliance is not proof of non - compliance. He thought that there are a lot of private issues between neighbors that need to be worked out and he urged the parties to follow the suggestion of revising the agreement. He reiterated that the Commission's role at this meeting was to identify whether or not there is evidence as to whether the Anderson's are in substantial compliance and he believed that they are. He said that he was open to continue the hearing, but he did not think that it was the Commission's job to be a dispute resolution service. Commissioner Weller said that the reason that he would prefer to continue the review whether or not any resolution is reached is that he would like to be able to address the decision in the context of knowing whether a successful resolution has been reached. He said that he tended to agree with Chair Welner that based on the evidence that the applicants were in substantial compliance, but he was skeptical and wanted to take this issue up in the context of a resolution that would not require the Commission to deal with this every year. He thought that the parties may have more incentive to reach agreement and the Commission's job was to make a decision about whether the permit should stay in effect. Chair Welner said that he would expect staff to raise issues of noncompliance and bring them to the Commission. He also respected that a continuance could create an incentive for the parties to come together, but he was somewhat pessimistic about that. Commissioner Weller said since the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27,2014- MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 14 suggestion was made he wanted to accept the offer and in doing so, hopefully this would result in a resolution between the parties. Mr. Watrous noted that procedurally the conditions of approval do not require an annual review. He said that if the Commission continues the review, it did not have to make any motion other than a continuance to a date certain, and it was up to the parties to see what they do during the continuance period. Commissioner Williams agreed with Chair Welner that staff has not alerted the Commission to any non - compliance, but she noted that staff s resources are limited to monitor compliance and the Commission is limited to evidence provided by both parties. She said that she took a lot of time to review the materials and she was unsure if there was substantial evidence of compliance as to use of the pool because she cannot track who is a seasonal renter and who is not. She said felt that because there are new attorneys involved, she would like to see them work together to resolve the conflict, assuming that the parties are amenable to that, and she would want to accept that proposal. Chair Welner asked if the parties would agree to a 60 -90 day continuance to attempt to resolve the disputes. Joe Haraburda referred to comments about their purchasing the property and knowing that the conditions were there and said that the conditions are totally different now. He said that they now have a commercial property as a neighbor as opposed to a residential property. He said that it is difficult to fathom the opportunity to sit down and have a meaningful discussion with the Andersons. He described the experience they had in the past with arbitration where they made a firm offer and where they were represented by Riley Hurd and the offer was rejected. He said that there is nothing he would like better than to find their property somehow separated by 100 yards on each side, but in reality, it is what it is. He said that he and his wife will discuss this, but more importantly, if it is truly an offer on the part of the Anderson's then he would want to see something from them before he could ever made a decision. Chair Welner asked if Mr. Haraburda was willing to accept a continuance to engage in a discussion. Mr. Haraburda said that at this point, knowing what they know, they would not be agreeable to such a discussion. W. Anderson said that the prior mediation related to getting an extra parking space and storage space on their property. He said that he was not interested in continuing this, as this is not working very well and that is the reason that he and his attorney discussed it. He said that he wanted to see something more reasonable, possibly allowing limited hours for using the driveway or the pool. He said that staff has been overburdened by this and he felt that it was onerous to the Town. He said that he would prefer to settle something that is reasonable with teeth in it so they know where they stand. Mr. Smith stated that if the Commission does consider a continuance, his experience was that the holiday period is not ideal as this type of mediation takes a lot of time. He said that a practical suggestion would a continuance to either early November or the end of January. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 15 Mr. Sharp confirmed with the Commission that the photographs they submitted are part of the record. Commissioner Weller commented that the photographs indicate obstruction or access to a couple of different parts of the property, but he did not believe that the issue of obstruction has anything to do with the seasonal rental permit unless it can be shown why this issue relates to the permit is the point. Mr. Sharp referred to the condition of approval requiring that there shall be a minimum of two off - street parking space provided for the seasonal rental unit when used as a seasonal rental. He said that the photos demonstrate that there are no off - street parking spaces at this property. Mr. Anderson stated this is a temporary situation, as they are moving furniture into the garage and changing furniture in their house. He said that this would be gone in another two days. Mr. Watrous asked Mr. Anderson if there was a seasonal rental at this time. Mr. Anderson confirmed that there is currently a seasonal renter. ACTION: It was M/S (Welner/Weller) to find that the applicants are operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of their seasonal rental unit permit. Motion carried: 2 -0 -1 -1 (Williams abstained, Corcoran and Kulik recused). ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. JON WELNER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 27, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1048 PAGE 16 DIGLZ43)T 5. TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 24, 2014 — 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING CONBUSSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM Present: Chair Welner, Vice Chair Kulik, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Williams Absent: Commissioner Weller 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 Wemarmims 2070 PARADISE DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FLOATING DOCK; FILE #11404; Caroline Mead, Owner; Joe Sherer, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 181-85 (Continued from August 27, 2014) [DW] Approved 3 -1 ( Kulik Opposed) MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 27, 2014 Approved as Amended (4 -1) ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 PM ao92414 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 1 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL DIGEST C? Regular Meeting Design Review Board October 2, 2014 7:00 P.M. Chair Cousins, Vice Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and Kricensky 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) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 1. 136 LELAND WAY: File No. 714088; Alex Kypriadis and Miriam Connaughton, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The project would include a new master bedroom suite and expanded living room, dining room, and kitchen. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 1,801 square feet and lot coverage of 2,086 square feet (26.3 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 175 -07. [KO] 2. 25 NORTH TERRACE: File No. 21423; Robert and Lynn Wong, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage. The proposal involves the construction of a detached carport and a new trellis connecting to the house, along with a new 6 foot tall redwood fence along the side and rear property lines. The proposal would increase the lot coverage on the site by 563 square feet to a total of 2,287 square feet (23.0 %), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO -2 zone (15.0 %). The proposed carport would extend to within 6 feet, 9 inches of the southern (left) side property line, which is less than the 15 foot side yard setback required in the RO -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 242 -09. [DW] Design Review Board October 2, 2014 Page 1 515 HILARY DRIVE: File No. 714094; Rich and Christi McElreath, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a fence for an existing single - family dwelling. The project would involve the construction of a 6 foot tall fence on top of a 1 to 3 foot tall retaining wall along the rear property line. Assessor's Parcel No. 039 - 133 -10. [KO] MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of September 4, 2014 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board October 2, 2014 Page 2