Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2015-08-19 (2)
TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 19, 2015 Agenda Item: P# STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Subject: 25 Gilmartin Drive; File No. PDPA2015002; Request to Amend the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) to Expand the Primary Building Envelope on Lot 3; Darol and Tara Ryan, Owner; Mohamad Sadrieh, Ap 1'cant; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-253-30 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: 25 Gilmartin Drive (Lot 3, Tiburon Shores) Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-253-30 File Number: PDPA2015002 Lot Size: 28,375 square feet Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development) Precise Plan: Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) General Plan: M (Medium Density Residential) Current Use: Vacant Lot Owners: Darol and Tara Ryan Applicant: Mohamad Sadrieh BACKGROUND This application is proposing an amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan for property located at 25 Gilmartin Drive. The applicant proposes to expand the primary building envelope for the property to provide a more appropriate location for future construction of a new single- family dwelling. On July 8, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-05 (Exhibit 2) recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Plan amendment be approved. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner proposes to expand the existing primary building envelope to the west and north to accommodate a proposed new 4,330 square foot single-family dwelling with an attached 2 -car garage. The existing secondary building envelope would be reduced in size with a portion of this envelope changing to primary building envelope as part of the proposal. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 HISTORY Torn (-ouncil \-lccting August 19, 2015 The Tiburon Shores Precise Plan was originally approved in 1985 by the Town Council. The Precise Plan established primary and secondary building envelopes for each lot and set other zoning parameters. A precise plan amendment was approved for Lot 5 of the Tiburon Shores subdivision in 1998, which was at that time one of the few remaining vacant lots in the subdivision. That proposal essentially combined the primary and secondary envelopes for the lot. ANALYSIS The subject site (Lot 3) is located at the end of a private driveway off Gilmartin Drive. It is the last remaining vacant lot in the Tiburon Shores subdivision. The lot slopes downwards towards Tiburon Boulevard with views of Richardson Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge and Sausalito. The proposal to expand the primary building envelope for this parcel would decrease the setbacks on the north, west and east side the property. The west and east setbacks would minimally decrease, but the north setback would substantially decrease the 45 foot setback from the front of the property provided by the current primary building envelope to 10 feet for the proposed envelope. The proposed expansion of the primary building envelope would allow the applicant to explore more design options for this property and to be consistent with the other primary buildings envelopes in the vicinity, such as those found on 21 and 31 Gilmartin Drive. The future single- family dwelling would be required to adhere to the goals and principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines, especially regarding the potential view impacts for uphill neighbors. As an example, the Design Review Board limited the height of the adjacent single-family residence at 21 Gilmartin Drive to an elevation of 117 feet to reduce view impacts on uphill neighbors. The Town Council has historically supported precise plan amendments to modify building envelopes in similar instances, where the approved envelope that was established decades ago when the subdivision was raw land does not support an appropriate house location now that all other homes in the immediate vicinity have been constructed. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application at its July 8, 2015 meeting. There was no public comment on the application at the meeting. The Planning Commission supported the proposed request and found it was in conformance with the overall intent of Tiburon Shores Precise Plan and the Tiburon General Plan. The Commission voted 4-0 to recommend the application for approval. Draft minutes of the July 8, 2015 meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that the subject application is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Tcv'tFTIREROS\ Pigs 2 of 1 Town Council \lcctink August 19, 2015 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item 2. Adopt the draft Resolution (Exhibit 5) finding the project exempt from CEQA and conditionally approving the application. EXHIBITS 1. Application form and supplemental materials 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-05 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 8, 2015 4. Draft Minutes of the July 8, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Draft Resolution Prepared By: Kyra O'Malley, Associate Planner Z"cOV \ .1-1B] .R0 Pap.' of TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICA o Conditional Use Permit Precise Development PlantWei d o Secondary Dwelling Unit o Zoning Text Amendment o Rezoning or Prezoning o General Plan Amendment o Temporary Use Permit TYPE OF APPLICATION o Design Review (DRB) o Design Review (Staff Level) o Variance(s) o Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Permit ��((�� JUN 1 0 2015 j T'P'CRNNING DIVISION o Tentative Subdivision Map o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment o Condominium Use Permit o Seasonal Rental Unit Permit o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: .Z 5 G 1 or4/1r2-Ti SO 011 v e. PARCEL NUMBER: o 5- Z r;3 - -3 o PROPERTY SIZE: ZOr 57 S. S. f ZONING: RPD PROPERTY OWNER: 0)ao 4 - A A`r14-t MAILING ADDRESS: 1 d Clt t.rm& rz -n r4 b� . TI S 12-0 , CN PHONE/FAX NUMBER: i- 1-7 - 5 517 - 5- E-MAIL: -*APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner) : t`40 4,3 s o Q PA) tz i�- MAILING ADDRESS: 1 CL Plc' C� t Al-c.ss:,o, Com<<� PHONE/FAX NUMBER: 1. 4-1C- 33 1 31(,3 E-MAIL: INt o h a m d S 0,kr i e h ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER )=I5 26,F eve- MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL: Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): li1-40-4014c, pc. fI -f Pte,/ Leff -V1 11 12-43e-2- T EXHIBIT NO. 1 1, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and 1 hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. 1 therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge _— Signature:* • ' . r Date: /a 45 - The property involving this permit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which may restrict the property's use and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon. Consequently, development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact the appropriate homeowners association and adjacent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding with construction. Following this procedure will minimize the potential for disagreement among neighbors andpossiblelitigation. Date: (ik 1 (v ! 1 s Signature:* *1f other than owner, must have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this application NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65945, applicants may request to receive notice from the Town of Tiburon of any general (non -parcel -specific), proposals to adopt or amend the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plans, or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits. If you wish to receive such notice, then you may make a written request to the Director of Community Development to be included on a mailing list for such purposes, and must specify which types of proposals you wish to receive notice upon. The written request must also specify the length of time you wish to receive such notices (s), and you must provide to the Town a supply of stamped, self-addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the Town for the duration of the time period requested for receiving such notices. The notice will also provide the status of the proposal and the date of any public hearings thereon which have been set. The Town will determine whether a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application, and send the notice on that basis. Such notice shall be updated at least every six weeks unless there is no change to the contents of the notice that would reasonably affect your application. Requests should be mailed to: Town of Tiburon Community Development Department Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-7390 (Tel) (415) 435-2438(Fax) www.townottiburon.oro DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING .GP Designation Received By.: Application No: P D PA201S OJT Date Received: (A i01 ! Date Deemed -Complete C01241 Acting Body Conditions of Approval or Comments: Action INFORMATION Fee Deposit:4 1546 Receipt #: 2 q 1 By: \(9 .. Date: Resolution or Ordinance # EXHIBIT NQ.� MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING J:7/Z.-Iv rt -c9 r-1 6-.W , Z©EOWED JUN 10 Z015 PLANNING DIVISION 1-/1/ ' [(At o w ?-1 a r- s r c- 7-G �'t 1 c i1y'1A 12 -TI. ►,f) Kb I' LI KE 10 AM e-/-4- --r e 13 is PF— o N Ti4 E) r e -o r E Vim. 7 4 4 1`i-1 re -R -6-7.1r I 5.4_6 Pe„, t407- S 7-�->! o c c o w c, I' -b -A So nN S' SPA t'r-Thal L-� Tv,E.►J ,zk►Zo 0-14 o . )44A-0-4 774 I Cr O `ta_LO P>✓ w »-5 -S•rft& u S ti11-5) J 1440 r oV 1 S / o Q tA)d9 S N1i4b 4- Foe- A- F,e,442-r1-7, 4-T' TO re --4 acs , f 'o s r• C.ogi 649 u c——Ti 014 ror-- ,Thle 4 1e4 -45'i 4/ U t l..ocr9-7--, o o r- 77-11--e iz ,gyLb 9 a o ! S o 1,1 774.5 u rrov' — )9- 09 m F Ti's L- r t 4,9-0E hLv t w ( - Gf Me -44A l4 -r S ,-&'-! s c_42. TJ ©o r Tim 77,L;. A1 r d6 0 Iv Pit? 2 - 4P• C 'cJ/ 44.5 P w 1 J 2 TD 5?? '2-6z- t•/�' T/fc .c -s /".,1 GvI2.e.e r '/ V, ..z f51 //1/4/ sI 6/19 /2 2_ s Tvist, 3e>)( &/Cil`' o.e._ A'�-e.79 S Lod -G-7 IA -9g eta/90(.1r 77) TZ) T74 -E LEST rla A-84aG i71 This s s9-- s -r res / m'4 -u --f• c, pow nl Pr9— ►D Th tbP 6X/Sr ,/ ht)''*-i�DP • Te7 /l EI eit_C rrrn9-1,1 E [ocod� P")-4.7 of= 72>zg 6)1,15 i`i l y' 4.-e) /767j l l' (*1 GI's' 449 r !J 5 GO A5 74- iii je o T lc -s ta Yor91z-- "Prrertr >,c TZ 71, s 1 GATE SIX ROAD, BLDG. A, SUITE G • SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965 • 415-331-0410 1 EXHIBIT N{,� RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIBURON SHORES PRECISE PLAN (PD #28) TO EXPAND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON PROPERTY AT 25 GILMARTIN DRIVE (LOT 3) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 055-253-30 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town has received and considered an application filed by Darol and Tara Ryan for an amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) to expand the building envelope at 25 Gilmartin Drive (Lot 3). The application consists of the following: 1. Application form and supplemental materials, dated June 10, 2015 2. Site Plan dated June 10, 2015 B. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on July 8, 2015, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. D. The Planning Commission finds based upon application materials and analysis presented in the July 8, 2015 Staff Report, as well as visits to the site and testimony received from the applicant, that the project is consistent with the intent of the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan. E. The Planning Commission finds the project to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU -11 states that "property owners cherish their views. Development, new construction, and associated landscaping shall be so situated or kept low to interfere minimally with existing primary views." The expanded building envelope would not appear to be within the primary view of the uphill neighbors and the future design would appear to cut into the existing hillside to minimize the height of the dwelling to reduce any potential view impacts on the uphill neighbors. Land Use Element Policy LU -13 states that "neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible." As noted previously, the proposed expanded building envelope would appear to be consistent with the intent of the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan to retain the open visual appearance of the site. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05 JULY 8, 2015 EXHIBIT NO. 2-+ 1a�z Section 2. Recommendation for Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the precise plan amendment expanding the building envelope at 25 Gilmartin Drive (Lot 3) to the Town Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. The expanded building envelope for the property at 25 Gilmartin Drive shall be amended as reflected on the drawing prepared by Mohamad Sadrieh, date- stamped "Received June 10, 2015", on file with the Town of Tiburon Planning Division in File #PDPA2015002, Planned Development #28, 25 Gilmartin Drive. 2. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan not specifically modified herein. 3. This Precise Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on July 8, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corcoran, Kulik, Weller, Williams NAYS COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Weiner DAVID KULIK, CHAIR TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: KYRA O'MALLEY, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05 JULY 8, 2015 2 EXHIBIT NO._�� 1 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2015 Agenda Item: 3 STAFF REPORT To: From: Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department Subject: 25 Gilmartin Drive; File No. PDPA2015002; Request to Amend the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) to Expand the Primary Building Envelope on Lot 3; Darol and Tara Ryan, Owner; Mohamad Sadrieh, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-253-30 PROJECT DATA Address: 25 Gilmartin Drive (Lot 3, Tiburon Shores) Assessor's Parcel Number: 055-253-30 File Number: PDPA2015002 Lot Size: 28,375 square feet Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development) Precise Plan: Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) General Plan: M (Medium Density Residential) Current Use: Vacant Lot Owners: Darol and Tara Ryan Applicant: Mohamad Sadrieh PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan) for property located at 25 Gilmartin Drive. The applicant proposes to expand the primary building envelope for the property to allow for a more appropriate location for future construction of a new single-family dwelling. The property is currently a vacant lot and is bordered by single- family dwellings to the north and south, a single-family dwelling currently under construction to the east and St. Hilary Church and School to the west. The property owner proposes to expand the existing primary building envelope to the west and north to accommodate a proposed new 4,330 square foot single-family dwelling with an attached 2- car garage. The existing secondary building envelope would be reduced in size with a portion of this envelope changing to primary building envelope as part of the proposal. BACKGROUND The Tiburon Shores Precise Plan was originally approved in 1985 by Town Council Resolution No. 2327 (Exhibit 3). The Precise Plan established primary and secondary building envelopes for each lot and set other zoning parameters. A precise plan amendment was approved for Lot 5 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 EXHIBIT NO. __ ['limning Commission vv1cctillg July 5, 2015 of the Tiburon Shores subdivision in 1998, which was at that time one of the few remaining vacant lots in the subdivision. That proposal essentially combined the primary and secondary envelopes for the lot. ANALYSIS Project Design The subject site (Lot 3) is located at the end of a private driveway off Gilmartin Drive. The lot slopes downwards towards Tiburon Boulevard with views of Richardson Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge and Sausalito. The current primary building envelope for this parcel occupies a square shaped portion of the center of the lot near an existing driveway. A secondary building envelope occupies most of the southern portion connecting to a small portion on the western side of the lot (see Exhibit 4). The proposal to expand the primary building envelope for this parcel would decrease the setbacks on the north, west and east side the property. The west and east setbacks would minimally decrease, but the north setback would substantially decrease the 45 foot setback from the front of the property provided by the current primary building envelope to 10 feet for the proposed envelope. The proposed expansion of the primary building envelope would allow the applicant to explore more design options for this property and to be consistent with the other primary buildings envelopes in the vicinity, such as those found on 21 and 31 Gilmartin Drive. The future single- family dwelling would be required to adhere to the goals and principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines, especially regarding the potential view impacts for uphill neighbors. As an example, the Design Review Board limited the height of the adjacent single-family residence at 21 Gilmartin Drive to an elevation of 117 feet to reduce view impacts on uphill neighbors. Compliance with the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan The building envelopes established by the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan were designed to allow adequate space for the development of each parcel, while providing a buffer between the building envelopes and nearby residences while optimizing the views. The requested building envelope amendment would allow for a more appropriate location for construction of a new single-family dwelling with a similar layout as the other homes in the vicinity, which would be facing towards the views. The proposed building envelope would be generally similar to the other building envelopes in the neighborhood with a primary building envelope uphill and the secondary envelope downhill for each lot. The subject property is one of the last lots in this area to be developed. The Planning Commission has historically supported precise plan amendments to modify building envelopes in such instances, where the approved envelope that was established decades ago when the subdivision was vacant land does not support an appropriate house location now that other homes in the immediate vicinity have been constructed. .I'O\\'\ 01'1 IBI -R )\ of 4 EXHIBIT N0. 3 Planning Com mi!,.�ion Meeting July 8, 2015 General Plan Consistency Staff reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the Tiburon General Plan and with requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise plan amendments. Land Use Element Policy LU -11 states that "property owners cherish their views. Development, new construction, and associated landscaping shall be so situated or kept low to interfere minimally with existing primary views." The expanded building envelope would not appear to be within the primary view of the uphill neighbors and the future design would appear to cut into the existing hillside to minimize the height of the dwelling to reduce any potential view impacts on the uphill neighbors. Land Use Element Policy LU -13 states that "neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible." As noted previously, the proposed expanded building envelope would appear to be consistent with the intent of the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan to retain the open visual appearance of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that the subject application is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application. FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED The Planning Commission's action on this project would be in the form of a recommendation of approval to the Town Council or a denial by the Commission. A Commission denial could be appealed to the Town Council, while a recommendation for approval would be automatically forwarded to the Town Council. If the precise plan amendment is approved by the Town Council, any future residence would require Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and building permits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this application: 2. Consider the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) recommending approval of the amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan to the Town Council. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Application and Supplemental Materials f c \v\: Of •I IRl -Ro\ rage lot EXHIBIT N0� 4 Planning Com mitision Meeting July 8, 2015 3. Town Council Resolution No. 2327 4. Precise Plan Building Envelopes Map dated 1985 5. Submitted Plan Prepared By: Kyra O'Malley, Associate Planner T('\V\ or rim ar)N I'a ?r - of 4 EXHIBIT NO. 3 Commissioner Weller concurred. Chair Kulik stated that the store is the anchor tenant in one of the most prominent commercial properties in town and anything the Town can do to help the enterprise thrive and serve the community in a way that is not disruptive at all is a good thing. ACTION: It was M/S (Williams/Corcoran) to adopt Resolution approving the conditional use permit for Woodlands Market. Motion carried: 4-0. 3. 25 Gilmartin Drive: Request to Amend the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) to Expand the Primary Building Envelope for Lot 3; File #PDPA2015002; Darol and Tara Ryan, Owners/Applicants; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-253-30 [KO] Associate Planner Kyra O'Malley gave the staff report. She said that the project proposed to amend the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan for the last vacant lot, located at 25 Gilmartin Drive. The applicant proposes to expand the primary building envelope to the west and north to accommodate a new single-family dwelling. The existing secondary building envelope would be reduced in size with a portion of this envelope changing to the primary envelope as part of the proposal. The proposal would decrease the original setbacks on the northwest and east side of the property very minimally to what is there now. She recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing and recommend approval to the Town Council. Mohammad Sadrieh, applicant, stated that the owners requested expansion of the primary building envelope in order to build a house that would take better advantage of the property and allow the applicant to more closely conform to the Town of Tiburon design guidelines. He said that the current envelope is inadequate, as it is considerably smaller than all other envelopes in the vicinity, which would force a future home into a boxy straightjacket and not allow it to step down the hillside. He added that this envelope does not take advantage of the northern part of the lot, which is flat and on level with the driveway, out of everyone's view and the perfect spot for a garage. He said that a fire turnaround must be built, which was not anticipated when the building envelope was designed, and therefore locating the garage as shown made a lot of sense and would also minimize paving. He stated that if the amendment is approved, they would still have the smallest envelope in the vicinity and they want to be sure that the house would not negatively impact adjacent neighbors. He said that they installed story poles to reflect the future building heights and met with three neighbors who supported the proposal. He believed that the revised envelope would provide the flexibility needed to design an attractive home on the site. Chair Kulik said that when he visited the site it looked as though there were some potential to impact the immediate downhill neighbor at 19 Gilmartin Drive and he asked if the applicant made contact with the owner. Mr. Sadrieh said that they did not but certainly would during the design review process. Commissioner Weller asked what if the proposed change would affect the FAR for this lot. Associate Planner O'Malley said that it would not. Chair Kulik opened the public hearing. There were no speakers and the public hearing was closed. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 3 EXHIBIT NO. ark Commissioner Weller said that it was good to expand the envelope to allow a house with the same floor area to better step down the hill. He commended the applicants for talking to neighbors and said that the Design Review Board could address any specific issues with the house design. He supported the project. Commissioner Corcoran concurred and thought that this was a reasonable modification which would make for better relationship of the buildings on the adjoining lots, giving greater separation and avoiding view blockage. He thought that there was more that could be done to step the house back into the hillside and the Design Review Board can consider that. He supported the project. Vice Chair Williams agreed and thought that the expanded building envelope would minimize view impacts and potentially enhance aesthetics. She found that the request was consistent with the Precise Plan and with the evolution of the plan over time. She acknowledged that this was the last lot to be developed and felt that this would not impact primary views or the character of the neighborhood. Chair Kulik concurred with the other Commissioners' comments. He said that when he saw the story poles relative to the uphill neighbor, it was clear that a lot of effort was made to minimize any view impacts. He felt that the Design Review Board could deal with any potential impacts on the downhill neighbor and encouraged communication with the neighbor. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Williams) to adopt the draft resolution recommending approval of the amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan to the Town Council. Motion carried: 4-0. 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (File MCA 2015-07): Consider Recommendation to Town Council to Adopt Amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code Regarding Prohibition of Seasonal Rental Units; Town -initiated Amendments Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report, stating that this amendment would amend Section 16.40.040 of the Tiburon zoning ordinance to replace the current provisions for issuing seasonal rental unit permits with a prohibition of such uses. He described the history of seasonal rental unit regulations in Tiburon and stated that when the Town Council considered possible amendments to the regulations earlier this year, the Council directed staff to draft amendments that would prohibit seasonal rental units altogether and begin the process of the public hearing to consider that amendment. The proposed ordinance amendment would replace existing seasonal rental unit provisions with a ban on vacation rentals, which is a more commonly used term, add those terms to the zoning ordinance and then replace the current ordinance provisions with a prohibition on vacation rentals, and a section on enforcement of this prohibition. He recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing, take testimony, consider and discuss the text amendments, and, if appropriate, adopt the resolution recommending approval of the text amendments to the Town Council. Vice Chair Williams asked if staff could comment on whether seasonal rental units generate revenue for the Town and increase business activity. Mr. Watrous said that the Town collects TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 4 EXHIBIT NO,� RECORDING REQUESTED, RETURN TO: TIBURON TOWN CLERK 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON, CA 94920 Record without fee per G.C. 27383 RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT -2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIBURON SHORES PRECISE PLAN (PD #28) TO EXPAND THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENVELOPE ON PROPERTY AT 25 GILMARTIN DRIVE (LOT 3) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 055-253-30 WHEREAS, on July 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the approval of an amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan (PD #28) to expand the primary building envelope at 25 Gilmartin Drive (Lot 3); and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and considering the application (File # PDPA2015002) at that hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-05 recommending to the Town Council that the precise plan amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2015, the Town Council held a public hearing on this application and after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents on the record, the Town Council concurred with the findings made by the Planning Commission and found that the proposed precise plan amendment to expand the primary building envelope for the property at 25 Gilmartin Drive (Lot 3) would be consistent with the overall intention of the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan and the policies contained within the Tiburon General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the requested amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. The expanded building envelope for the property at 25 Gilmartin Drive shall be amended as reflected on the drawing prepared by Mohamad Sadrieh, received July 8, 2015. Said drawing is on file with the Town of Tiburon Planning Division in File #PDPA2015002 of Planned TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT -2015 August 19, 2015 1 EXi—If a. (I- rlo.a 1..,_ 7 Development No. 28, 25 Gilmartin Drive. 2. This approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date. 3. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan not specifically modified herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on August 19, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT -2015 August 19, 2015 2 ayskt gvf No. 1 ,. L TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 19, 2015 Agenda Item: Ali - STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of Town Council Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Consider Amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to Prohibit Seasonal Rental Units; File MCA 2015-07; (Ordinance ---Introduction and First Reading) Reviewed By: SUMMARY The Town has initiated amendments to the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance that would prohibit seasonal rental units in Tiburon. The amendments would amend Section 16-40.040 of the zoning ordinance to replace the current provisions for issuing seasonal rental unit permits with a prohibition of such uses. The ordinance has been considered by the Planning Commission, which has proposed recorrunendations for consideration by the Town Council. The matter now comes to the Town Council for public hearing and consideration of first reading of the ordinance. BACKGROUND On March 4, 2015, the Town Council considered an appeal regarding the Planning Commission's review of the seasonal rental unit permit at 110 Solano Street. At that appeal, as well as at the Town Council -Staff retreat earlier in 2015, the Council raised the issue of possible modifications to the Town's regulations regarding these uses. On May 6, 2015, the Town Council revisited the issue of seasonal rental units. Staff prepared a report (Exhibit 1) which included possible amendments to the existing regulations of Section 16- 40.040. After extended discussion, a majority of the Town Council directed staff to draft amendments to the municipal code that would prohibit seasonal rental units altogether and begin the public hearing process for consideration of adoption. Minutes of the May 6, 2015 Council meeting are attached as Exhibit 2. Staff subsequently prepared an ordinance (Exhibit 3) that would replace existing seasonal rental unit permit provisions with a ban on "vacation rentals" (a more commonly -used term for such uses), and would also add the terms "vacation rental" and "short-term rental" to the zoning ordinance, as these terms are frequently used to identify this type of use and make it easier to locate the Town's prohibition through online searches. The proposed ordinance would replace the current ordinance provisions (Exhibit 4) and add a section on enforcement of this prohibition. All currently approved seasonal rental unit permits are set to expire on December 31, 2015. T.}wNr11 Tim 7RON Page l of Town Council \•kering August 19. -'0.15 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On July 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would prohibit seasonal rental units. At that meeting, several Tiburon residents opposed prohibiting seasonal rentals and instead suggested possible amendments to the existing ordinance. Other residents expressed support for the proposed ban. After extended discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Town Council that a ban on seasonal rentals not be enacted, and instead offered specific suggestions for regulatory amendments to address problems and concerns raised by these uses. The Commission recommended that the Town Council remand the item to the Commission for fine-tuning of the revised regulations. Specific regulatory provisions suggested by the Commission to be considered for adoption were as follows: 1. Change the term "seasonal rental unit" to "vacation rental." 2. Require adequate on-site and/or off-site parking as a condition of approval. 3. Require a 7 -day minimum for any vacation rental. 4. Do not allow permits to be issued for properties with commingled rights (common areas, pools, access, parking, etc.) with neighboring units, unless there is unanimous consent among property owners or there are written CC&Rs in the case of a condominium or townhouse complex. 5. Require permittees to submit an annual reporting statement to the Town. 6. Require courtesy notices to be sent by the Town to neighboring property owners prior to issuance of a vacation rental permit. 7. Increase fees and penalties to recover ongoing costs of enforcement. 8. Allow permits only for homes that are the "primary residence" of the property owner. OPTIONS Town staff sees two primary options available to the Town Council. These are discussed below: Option 1: Proceed with Prohibition. The Planning Commission has held a public hearing, considered the draft ordinance, and made its recommendations to the Town Council. The Town Council may choose to move forward with adoption of the ordinance. TOWN 11Th,, ,N ]', . 2 n[ Town Council',4iceting August 19. 2015 Option 2: Remand to Planning Commission. Alternatively, the Town Council could accept the Planning Commission's suggested approach and remand the item to the Commission for further study and recommendations with the intent of modifying the current regulatory provisions to address identified problems and concerns with seasonal rental uses. If so, the Council may desire to provide direction or preliminary feedback to the Commission regarding specific elements of future seasonal rental regulations. ANALYSIS In order to get a better understanding of the current extent of local seasonal rentals, staff reviewed the AirBnB and VRBO websites in July for listings in Tiburon (summarized in Exhibit 5). A total of 38 listings were found on AirBnB and 18 listings on VRBO, although some properties appeared to be listed on both sites. Analysis of the listings revealed the following: • Most of the homes were available for short stays, with only 7 of the 56 listings requiring a 7 night minimum stay. • Few of the homes were very large, with only 8 of the 56 listings showing more than 3 bedrooms. • Similarly, most listings did not allow large groups, with only 10 of the 56 listings allowing more than 6 guests at a time. Based on these listings, it appears that a 7 night minimum requirement for rentals would either eliminate the vast majority of these listings or force them to rent only for longer stays. The previously suggested limitation that would not allow rentals for units with more than 3 bedrooms would only affect a minority of these listings. As noted in the May 6, 2015 Town Council staff report (Exhibit 1), enforcement of the current seasonal rental unit ordinance is often problematic and time-consuming, as it is difficult to accumulate definitive evidence of such rentals. Most vacation rental websites do not include addresses for listings and staff has only been able to identify listing locations from website photos. Of the 56 listings analyzed above, staff was able to identify 10 by address, which included several rentals that currently have seasonal rental unit permits. The remainder could not be positively identified and would require substantial additional staff time to track down for enforcement. The Planning Commission has recommended that the Town increase fees and penalties to recover ongoing costs of enforcement, but increased fees alone will not remedy this situation. Planning Division staff has limited time to pursue code enforcement and generally conducts such actions based on complaints. The current administrative citation process has had limited effect in deterring violations, as the fines set by the Town for such violations (usually $462 per day) have not been enough when compared to the relatively high daily rental rates for homes in Tiburon. Increased penalties might have more effect, but collection of these fines is also often problematic. Tenon Council Meering August 19, "2015 The Planning Commission acknowledged that adding regulations could potentially add to staff's enforcement burden and the difficulties in monitoring compliance with the Town's regulations. It is unclear whether prohibition would require substantially more staff enforcement time than creating additional regulations. Additional regulations would create more details to review for compliance for each rental. Although prohibition is a more definitive regulation that is easier to interpret, such an action would likely drive rentals underground, providing fewer property details on website listings or other deceptive actions to avoid enforcement. In either case, the Town's limited staff availability would continue to be an impediment to thorough enforcement of these rentals. The City of San Francisco, which has adopted new vacation rental regulations in consultation with AirBnB, has had to create a new staff division just to handle permitting and enforcement of these regulations. Although the scale of this issue is much smaller in Tiburon, the ability of Town's small staff to actively enforce this ordinance will continue to be a limiting factor in effectively policing vacation rentals. Comments from Tiburon residents have been effectively split between those who support a prohibition of vacation rentals and those who would like them to be regulated but allowed. Letters on the subject are attached as Exhibits 7-16. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that the proposed amendments are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations) and are also exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Town Council would finalize this determination if it adopts the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on the item and hear all testimony from interested persons. 2. Either: A. Move to read by title only, waiving any additional reading, pass the motion and read only the title of the ordinance, then move to pass first reading, pass the motion, and hold a roll call vote Or: B. Remand the item to the Planning Commission for its further review and recommendations, providing any desired direction to assist the Commission with its future deliberations. To\t' OF •[IBt `at:1: P.ipc 4 of Town n Council llccring :August 19, 2015 EXHIBITS 1. Town Council staff report dated May 6, 2015 2. Minutes of the May 6, 2015 Town Council meeting 3. Draft ordinance 4. Current provisions of Section 16-40.040 5. Summary of seasonal rental website Tiburon listings 6. Minutes of the July 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 7. Letter from Alan Lefkof, dated May 25, 2015 8. Letter from Christopher and Judith Armstrong, dated June 3, 2015 9. Letter from Joe and Cathy Haraburda, dated July 5, 2015 10. Letter from Robert and Elizabeth Paterson, dated July 6, 2015 11. Letter from Urik Binzer, dated July 6, 2015 12. Letter from Alastair Mitchell, dated July 7, 2015 13. Letter from Bruce Powell, dated July 7, 2015 14. Letter from Camille Bosworth Chong, dated July 8, 2015 15. Letter from Bruce Powell, dated July 9, 2015 16. Letter from John Simmons, dated July 9, 2015 Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager "11L\\". or Tim hk.r. l'ai?c 5 of l TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting May 6, 2015 Agenda Item: la al witimramal To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Discussion of Possible Changes to Seasonal Rental Unit Regulations PURPOSE During a recent appeal regarding a seasonal rental unit permit and at the Town Council -Staff retreat earlier this year, the Council raised the issue of possible modifications to the Town's regulations regarding these permits. This item has been scheduled to obtain Council direction on the preparation of possible amendments. BACKGROUND Regulatory History Since roughly the year 2000, short-term vacation rental of individual homes has become more common in Tiburon and elsewhere. The success of web -based vacation rental sites (such as VRBO.com and Airbnb.com) has greatly facilitated this practice. Eventually, Town staff began to hear complaints from residents about individual homes being used for this purpose, and about the increasing occurrence of short-term rental uses. In 2009, the Town began a comprehensive update of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. As a part of the process, the Town and its planning consultant prepared draft regulations governing "seasonal rental units" to be considered for incorporation into the updated zoning ordinance. The draft seasonal rental unit regulations were first discussed by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2009. The draft regulations presented to the Commission at that time would have required review of all seasonal rentals by the Commission through a conditional use permit (CUP) process. The Commission discussed the issue and determined that the CUP process was too onerous for a seasonal rental unit and directed Staff to investigate more streamlined methods of regulating these uses. In response, staff prepared amended regulations that labeled seasonal rental unit as a type of Home Occupation, and that required only staff -level approval subject to the application of certain review criteria and operating standards. The following amended language was presented to the Commission on November 11, 2009: TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO.� PAGE 1 OF 6 Town Council Meering May 6. 2015 16-40.040 — Seasonal Rental Units This Section establishes standards for the seasonal rental of a dwelling unit in any residential zone. The intent of these provisions is to ensure compatibility between seasonal rental units and adjoining zones or uses. General criteria. Prior to its establishment and/or operation, a seasonal rental unit shall be required to obtain a Home Occupation Permit, tailored to seasonal rental purposes, pursuant to the requirements of Section 16-52.110, including Subsections D & F, except that the following general criteria shall be used instead of the general criteria and operating standards contained in Section 16-52.110 (B & C): 1. Signs. Signs shall be installed/maintained in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 16A (Signs). 2. Parking. On-site parking shall be provided as required for a single-family dwelling unit in compliance with Section 16-32 (Parking and Loading Standards). 3. Fire safety. The seasonal rental unit shall comply with applicable Fire District regulations. 4. Outdoor space. The use of outdoor yard areas, open decks, pools and the like shall not result in the production of excessive off-site noise, odor and other external disturbances. Said determination to be based on the judgment of the Director. Approval of the seasonal rental unit may be conditioned upon the installation of screening, fencing, plantings and/or other such installations and conditions to help ensure compatibility of the seasonal rental unit with the surrounding area. 5. Limitations. In no event shall the owner of the seasonal rental unit or their agent rent an individual room in the seasonal rental unit to a person, family, or other group of persons. 6. Business license. A seasonal rental unit shall have a valid business license from the Town. A revised definition of a seasonal rental unit was also proposed, which read as follows: A dwelling unit that is rented on a repeated basis for less than 31 consecutive days, or is advertised or marketed on a repeated basis to be rented for any period less than 31 days. The Planning Commission found the revised language to be acceptable and adopted Resolution No. 2009-09 recommending approval of the updated zoning ordinance to the Town Council. On March 17, 2010, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 519 approving the updated zoning ordinance, including the seasonal rental unit requirements as recommended by the Commission. TOWN OF TIM. r R 'N Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT NO. 1- Town Council Meeting May c . 2015. Seasonal Rental Unit Permit Applications Since the adoption of the seasonal rental unit permit requirement, the Town has received eight (8) seasonal rental unit permit applications. Although five (5) of the permits were approved by staff without controversy, and have been operated without incident or complaint, three (3) other applications involved a more extensive review: 1830 Mountain View Drive: In September 2012, the Town began receiving complaints from residents in the vicinity of this residence about its apparent use as an unpermitted seasonal rental unit. The neighbors noticed a variety of vehicles, including catering and party rental trucks, coming and going from the house and objected to noise from parties on the premises, overflow parking and trash left on the street. After being contacted by staff, the owners filed an application for a seasonal rental unit permit. Based on the number and seriousness of complaints received from neighbors, staff referred the application to the Planning Commission for review. The Commission reviewed the application on November 14, 2012 and found that the proposed use was inconsistent with the intent of the seasonal rental unit regulations to allow homeowners to periodically rent out their residences in a manner that would not be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission also found that the size of the 6 bedroom house lent itself to seasonal rental uses by larger groups of guests that would generate noise, traffic and other impacts that would adversely affect nearby residents. The Commission adopted Resolution 2012-15 denying the seasonal rental unit permit application. 121 Sugarloaf Drive: In 2013, staff first received complaints from neighbors about the apparent unpermitted use of this 5 -bedroom single-family home as a seasonal rental unit. Staff wrote a letter to the homeowner stating that either the use must cease or be permitted as a seasonal rental unit. In 2014, several neighbors complained that the residence was again being used as a seasonal rental. Staff issued an administrative citation and the property owner subsequently applied for a seasonal rental unit permit. On November 20, 2014, staff denied the application, determining that the scale and manner in which this seasonal rental unit was operated resulted in noise, parking, trash and other impacts that were inconsistent with the quiet residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also found that the size of the 5 -bedroom house lent itself to seasonal rental uses by larger groups of guests that generated noise, traffic and other impacts that adversely affected nearby residents. On December 1, 2014, the applicant filed an appeal of this decision to the Planning Commission, but withdrew the appeal prior to the Commission meeting. 110 Solano Street: In March 2013, the Town received complaints from the owners of the property at 120 Solano Street about the apparent use of a two-family dwelling at 110 Solano Street as an unpermitted seasonal rental unit. On May 6, 2013, staff conditionally approved an application for a seasonal rental unit permit for the upper dwelling unit only. The adjacent property owners appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. Tov.. (PT1131 LZ.)N Paw. ; D1 EXHIBIT NO. T;,wvn Cnunril N4 etinS May o. 2015 The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal on June 26, 2013 and concluded that the primary issues raised related to noise from the swimming pool shared by both property owners and shared off-street parking spaces. On July 24, 2013, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013-07 partially granting the appeal and adding conditions of approval to the permit prohibiting seasonal renters from using the private driveway and swimming pool shared by the two property owners, and requiring a review of the permit after one year. The Planning Commission conducted the one year review of the permit on August 27, 2014. As part of that process, the Commission reviewed numerous e-mails sent to Town staff by the applicants and the appellants alleging or refuting potential violations of the permit requirements and conditions. The Commission acknowledged that it was difficult for the Town to determine the veracity of complaints regarding the seasonal rental unit, but noted that suspicion of non-compliance was not proof of non-compliance. The Commission voted to find that the applicants were operating in substantial compliance with the requirements and conditions of their seasonal rental unit permit. On September 8, 2014, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. The Town Council heard the appeal on March 4, 2015 and on March 18, 2015 adopted Resolution 10-2015 denying the appeal. At that time, the Town Council directed that the seasonal rental unit regulations be placed on a future agenda for review. POTENTIAL REGULATORY AMENDMENTS There are a range of options available to the Town in regulating these uses. Some communities do not allow them to lawfully operate, while others choose not to regulate them on a land use basis but simply as a revenue source, collecting both a business license fee and transient occupancy taxes. All the regulatory frameworks have their pros and cons, with effective enforcement being a universal problem. Previously, the Town has chosen a middle course of regulation that attempts to provide for reasonable protection for neighbors while allowing seasonal rental uses subject to payment of fees and transient occupancy taxes. Based on earlier Town Council comments and staffs own experience with the implementation of the current seasonal rental unit regulations, staff suggests that the Town Council consider the following changes to the Town's existing regulations: 1. Change the term "seasonal rental unit" to "vacation rental". This change would reflect the terminology now more commonly used to describe and advertise such uses, and which more accurately reflects the nature of these uses. 2. Do not allow vacation rental permits for units with more than 3 bedrooms. Larger homes often have a greater potential to be advertised and used on a short-term basis for parties, retreats, corporate get-togethers and family reunions, often advertising space for 2 or 3 guests per bedroom. More guests usually results in more cars parking on or near the site, generates more trash and more noise, and results in spillover effects on neighboring residents, such as those experienced around 1830 Mountain View Drive and 121 Sugarloaf Drive. Smaller homes with TOwN ()F -Jill 110N r:igc 4 of C EXI IBIT--- T wn Council Meering flat CS. 2015 fewer bedrooms would be more likely to be used by a single family, rather than by larger groups or extended families, and result in fewer impacts on neighbors. 3. Require adequate on-site and/or off-site parking. Neighborhoods with limited on - street parking often feel the strain of overflow parking from vacation rentals. Making sure that 2 to 4 parking spaces are provided on-site and not approving rentals in situations where on-site parking is inadequate and/or on -street parking is limited (for example, Corinthian Island or parts of Old Tiburon), would lessen the occurrence of off-site parking impacts. 4. Limit the number of days that units can be rented. Placing a cap on the number of days a unit can be rented during any month or year would limit how often nearby residents could expect short-term guests in their neighborhood and further reinforce the expectations that homes are primarily intended to be occupied by longer-term residents, whether owners or leaseholders. Enforcement of such limits could be problematic, although staff envisions that most permit holders would comply with such limits. 5. Do not allow permits for properties with commingled rights (common areas. pools, access. parking. etc.) with neighboring units. The situation of the homes at 110 & 120 Solano Street illustrates the difficulties that can be caused if short-term renters use shared improvements unbeknownst to the residents of adjacent dwellings. Larger condominium and townhouse complexes do not necessarily raise the same issues and usually have homeowners' associations and recorded restrictions that can or do address use issues between units within a complex. 6. Require permittees to submit an annual reporting statement to the Town. Such a report could include a calendar showing which dates the property was rented as a vacation rental and an accounting of the transient occupancy tax paid to the Town. 7. Require notices to be sent to neighboring property owners prior to a vacation rental. The appellants for the permit at 110 Solano Street asked that a condition of approval be added requiring the permittee to send notices in advance of any new short-term rental. Many seasonal rentals are not booked in a manner that would allow timely notification of neighbors. This would also require permit -holders to find and maintain correct contact information for property owners in the vicinity, which can be difficult even with access to Town and County records. Staff sees limited benefit to this requirement in nearly all instances. 8. Increase fees to recover costs of enforcement. Enforcement of the current seasonal rental unit ordinance is often problematic and time-consuming, as it is difficult to accumulate definitive evidence of such rentals. Most vacation rental websites do not include addresses for listings and staff has only been able to identify listing locations from website photos. In addition, Planning Division staff has limited time to pursue code enforcement and generally conducts such actions based on complaints. Increased fees alone will not remedy this situation. TOWN OF 7.1.131 EXHIBIT N0. PagQ 3of<; Town Council Meeting May o. 2015 9. Only allow permits for homes that are the primary dwelling, for the property owner. This relatively extreme measure would go well beyond Item #4 above and prohibit absentee landlords from renting out their properties repeatedly on a short- term basis. On one hand, it would reinforce the intent of the ordinance to allow people to rent out their own home while they are out of town, rather than encouraging people to use homes as short-term rental investment properties more akin to a commercial business. It would also stress the primary intent of homes in Tiburon as dwellings for longer-term residents, whether owners or leaseholders, and be more in the spirit of traditional '`seasonal" rentals. On the other hand, it would greatly reduce the number of units in Tiburon eligible for vacation rental status, probably leading to increased skirting of the law, and would likely be extremely difficult to enforce. Determining what constitutes a primary dwelling for a particular property owner is difficult at best, and such circumstances change from time to time. Most of the above regulatory revisions could best be accomplished by amending the existing seasonal rental unit provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, while others could be implemented as direction to staff that could be adopted as departmental policy in reviewing future permit applications. Staff also encourages the Town Council and public to suggest any other possible changes to the seasonal rental unit process and regulations at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council take any public testimony, discuss the issue, and provide direction to staff on possible changes to be made to the seasonal rental unit regulations. Any resulting Zoning Ordinance amendments would be scheduled for a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, and subsequently for a Town Council hearing at a later date. Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager �[ V'.flF.jini—.1zo EXHIBIT NO. �^ Councilmember O'Donnell made a correction to page 9 of the February 4, 2015 minutes (Item No. 1). Allan Bortel, resident of Ned's Way, suggested that the Council remove Item No. 5 from the Consent Calendar to allow for input from the residents of Ned's Way. Council removed Item No. 5 from the Consent Calendar and continued it without hearing until the next regular meeting. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as amended, and Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, as written. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fraser Vote: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Seasonal Rental Units — Discussion of possible changes to Town Code related to seasonal rentals and direction to staff (Planning Manager Watrous) Planning Manager Watrous gave the report. He said that during a recent appeal regarding a seasonal rental unit permit, and at the Town Council -Staff retreat earlier this year, the Council raised the issue of possible modifications to the Town's regulations regarding these permits. He said that staff had agendized the item to obtain Council direction on the preparation of possible amendments. Watrous said that since roughly the year 2000, short-term vacation rental of individual homes has become more common in Tiburon and elsewhere. He said the success of web -based vacation rental sites (such as VRBO.com and Airbnb.com) has greatly facilitated this practice. The Planning Manager said that in 2010 the Town had instituted regulations on this use under the auspices of a Home Occupation Permit (business license) when the Town Council adopted a new section in the Zoning Ordinance to define and address the use. Nevertheless, Watrous said Town staff began to hear complaints from residents about individual homes being used for seasonal rentals, and also heard about the increasing occurrence of short- term rental uses. Since the adoption of the seasonal rental unit permit requirement, Watrous said the Town had received eight (8) seasonal rental unit permit applications. Although five (5) of the permits were approved by staff without controversy, and have been operated without incident or complaint, three (3) other applications involved a more extensive review: One on Mt. View Drive, one at 121 Sugarloaf, and the most recent one, 110 Solano, which was addressed by the Planning Town Council Minutes #10-2015 May 6, 2015 Page 6 EXHIBIT NO. 2 Commission but appealed to the Town Council. He summarized the complaints relating to noise, traffic, garbage and other adverse impacts that had caused disruption of the neighborhoods. Since the Town Council/Staff retreat, Watrous said that Council had expressed a desire to "rethink" solutions to the issues expressed. Watrous enumerated some possible solutions, as more fully described in the staff report: 1. Change the term "seasonal rental unit" to "vacation rental". 2. Do not allow vacation rental permits for units with more than 3 bedrooms. 3. Require adequate on-site and/or off-site parking. 4. Limit the number of days that units can be rented. 5. Do not allow permits for properties with commingled rights (common areas, pools, access, parking, etc.) with neighboring units. 6. Require permittees to submit an annual reporting statement to the Town. 7. Require notices to be sent to neighboring property owners prior to a vacation rental. 8. Increase fees to recover costs of enforcement. 9. Only allow permits for homes that are the primary dwelling of the property owner. Watrous said that most of the above regulatory revisions could be accomplished by amending the existing seasonal rental unit provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, while others could be implemented as direction to staff that could be adopted as departmental policy in reviewing future permit applications. He said that staff also encourages the Town Council and public to suggest any other possible changes to the seasonal rental unit process and regulations, as well. Council questions: Council asked how other cities addressed these issues or whether they banned the use outright. Watrous described the difficulties of "proving" a rental and the process of surfing the internet to find out whether a home was listed. He did note that the City of San Francisco was working with Airbnb to enter into an agreement whereby the company would pay a transient occupancy tax to the city as part of its regulatory process. Mayor Doyle opened the hearing to public comment. Jerry Riessen, Vistazo West, said that he had been part of a homeowner's association that ended up adopting regulations to ban the use due to complaints, and to fine those property owners quite heavily who did not comply with the rules. He said that eventually the "problem" rental property in his development had been sold to new owners. Director of Community Development Anderson said that other options were to re -name seasonal rentals as "vacation rentals", or possibly "short-term rentals". He said that some cities prohibited using second units as seasonal rentals and/or considered setting a maximum to the number of guests in these rentals. Councilmember Fredericks said there was legislation sponsored by Senator Mark McGuire that Town Council Minutes #10-2015 May 6, 2015 Page 7 EXHIBIT NO. would make the hosting platforms responsible for record-keeping, collection of fees, and adherence to local ordinances. Councilmember O'Donnell said it sounded like a good bill. O'Donnell went on to say that he lived in the Mountain View Drive neighborhood where a seasonal rental had been a problem. He said that it was obvious to the neighbors that this was a "party house" and that if the primary concern of residents and the Town was protection of neighborhood character then our homes should not be turned into commercial establishments. O'Donnell said he would be in favor of a ban on short-term rentals of less than 30 days in Tiburon to address this issue. Planning Manager Watrous said that other cities are also going in that direction. Vice Mayor Tollini asked to play the devil's advocate. She said that many people who rented out their homes a couple times a year, for a couple of weeks at a time, were responsible and that these rentals did not cause any disruption to the neighborhood. In her opinion, Tollini said the problems were two -fold: The "churn" of high turnovers, and enforcement. Councilmember Fraser agreed with Councilmember O'Donnell that Tiburon is primarily a residential, rather than an urban area, and its residential character was important to preserve. He said that regulating the rentals could be a nightmare; he thought that perhaps a 30 -day limit was a good threshold, or possibly outright prohibition. Councilmember Fredericks said that if the aforementioned legislation passed, it would take some of the regulatory burden off of Town staff. But she noted that "limiting is harder than prohibiting". O'Donnell said that the 30 -day limit would protect our citizens from abuses. Fredericks asked whether anyone wanted to consider another suggestion by the Vice Mayor, that is, to negotiate contracts with the hosting platforms. Tollini said she agreed with the statement about limits being used as parameters, but she still expressed concern about enforcement. Mayor Doyle agreed that it would not make sense to have Town staff spending lots of time tracking down seasonal rentals for the purpose of enforcement. Fraser suggested the Town might consider adopting a trial period of 30 -day rental limitations, and widely publicize it through the Town newsletter and other means. In any event, Fraser said that it was important to address the seasonal rental issue because if nothing is done, it will only grow into a bigger problem down the road. Director Anderson pointed out that 30 -day rentals did not need regulation, as that was the historic standard rental agreement (i.e., month-to-month). He said that it might be cleaner to ban short- term rentals outright. Town Council Minutes #10-2015 Ma}'6, 2015 Page8 EXHIBIT NO. 2-- Watrous concurred that that the 30 -day standard would lessen the "churn" in neighborhoods. But he noted that the demand for the majority of rentals on the host sites were for less than 30 days in duration. Vice Mayor Tollini said that her concern in limiting the number of days is that such a limitation (or ban) would penalize the responsible citizens and also, enforcement would continue to be an issue. She gave the example of the appeal where a renter had said he was the owner's Cousin Bob and did not need a permit because he was given permission to be there. Mayor Doyle wondered if there was a way a homeowner could get some sort of permit or register with the police department so that their neighbors knew what was going on. Councilmember Fraser said that Tiburon is really just a small part of a large, international rental market. And Councilmember Fredericks noted that there are many non-resident homeowners here. But she said that the Town would not be giving up a current source of income (if it banned the rentals), and agreed that regulating short-term rentals is difficult to enforce. O'Donnell asked if a lien could be attached to a property in violation. Anderson said that the Municipal Code allows staff to issue a citation, which is an infraction. It is followed by a hearing, abatement and judicial enforcement. O'Donnell, Fredericks and Fraser said they would favor an outright ban at this juncture. But Fredericks also said that if SB 593 passed, it could have an impact on the Town's regulations. Vice Mayor Tollini said that if the bill contained a means for enforcement, she would be in favor of allowing short-term rentals for small numbers of people and was against blanket prohibition. Fredericks asked which communities had banned the rentals outright. Anderson said that if a community had taken no action to allow short-term seasonal rentals, they were effectively not a permitted use. He said the City of Belvedere fell into this category. Director Anderson said that another issue was that the Town had a handful of seasonal rental permits had been approved by the Town, and that, if a ban was instituted, the Planning Commission might need to revoke or amortize these [existing] permits, depending on how they are structured. Town Manager Curran said that staff could obtain legal advice on how to best deal with existing permits. MOTION: To direct staff to create an ordinance banning seasonal rentals of under 30 days in duration and to develop an enforcement mechanism for violators; to send to the Planning Commission for its review and hearing prior to returning to Council. Town Council Minutes #10-2015 May 6, 2015 Page 9 EXHIBIT NO. 2 Moved: Fraser, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell NOES: Doyle, Tollini 2. Blackies Pasture Improvements — Discussion of proposed improvements to a portion of Blackie's Pasture and direction to staff regarding design of project (Director of Public Works Barnes) Director of Public Works Barnes said that at the Council Retreat this year, a plan was presented by Mayor Doyle for improvements to a portion of Blackie's Pasture. At that time, he said staff was directed to proceed with a design of the project. Barnes said that staff met with the Mayor and a landscape architect to develop ideas and flush out the design concept and further define the costs of the improvements. He said the project will be reflected in the proposed CIP for construction in the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2015, and that Council will consider the budget on June 3, 2015. Barnes said the estimated cost for construction, based on the conceptual design, is about $155,000. He said that final project costs will not be known until bids are received. Funding would come from The Town's General Fund Parks and Measure A, according to the Director. Director Barnes reviewed the conceptual drawing attached to the report. As expressed in the drawing, the area would include a relocated path, picnic tables and native grasses. Improvements would include leveling the current mound, moving existing bike paths to open up space, adding three picnic tables, and sowing native grasses. Trees, shrubs and benches would be provided around the decomposed granite areas at each table to provide privacy, a sense of place and, in the future, some shade. A fence is provided at the south side of the area to prevent cyclists from cutting thorough the area off the path. Barnes said the fence would be a split -rail, cedar fence. Councilmember Fredericks asked about the placement of trees to provide shade throughout the day, and what impact the State drought regulations might have on the project. Director Barnes said that any trees and shrubs selected for the project would be drought tolerant. Fredericks requested that any plantings be deferred until drought rationing is resolved. She also recommended that this and other future bayside projects should take note of whether sea level rise would impact the project. Vice Mayor Tollini expressed her support of the project, noting that the improvements to the area would be a welcome addition to Tiburon's parks and family -friendly spaces. She asked if barbeques were part of the project; Barnes said they were included in the plans. During public comment, Jerry Riessen asked whether the Town might use reclaimed water for the landscaping. The Mayor noted that the Town had approached the Sanitary District and discovered that there were no additional allotments available. Town Council Minutes #10-2015 May 6, 2015 Page 10 EXHIBIT NO. 2 1 ORDINANCE N. S. (DRAFT) 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON 4 REPEALING TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16, SECTION 16-40.040 (SEASONAL RENTAL 5 UNITS) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE IV, 6 CHAPTER 16, SECTION 16-40.040 THAT PROHIBITS VACATION RENTALS 7 8 WHEREAS. the Town consists of just over four square miles of land on a narrow 9 peninsula jutting into San Francisco Bay, which is home to 9,000 residents and numerous visitors 10 from the world over on any given day of the year; and 11 WHEREAS. Tiburon's housing goals include preserving its housing stock and preserving 12 the quality and character of its existing single and multi -family residential neighborhoods; and 13 WHEREAS, the Town must also preserve its unique sense of community which derives, 14 in large part, from residents' active participation in civic affairs, including local government, 15 cultural events, and educational endeavors; and 16 WHEREAS, Tiburon's unparalleled geography, climate, natural beauty, its charming 17 downtown, distinct residential neighborhoods and proximity to San Francisco and other parts of 18 the San Francisco Bay Area have drawn visitors from around the United States and around the 19 world; and 20 WHEREAS. the Town affords an array of visitor -serving short term rentals, including, 21 hotels, motels, seasonal and/or vacation rentals, not all of which are currently being undertaken 22 as authorized by local law; and 23 WHEREAS, operations of vacation rentals, where residents typically rent out entire units Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. _ N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 Page 1 1 EXHIBIT NO. 3 24 to visitors and are not present during the visitors' stays, are found to be detrimental to the 25 Town's public welfare because occupants of such vacation rentals do not have any connections 26 to the Tiburon community and to the residential neighborhoods in which they are visiting; and 27 WHEREAS, the presence of such visitors within the Town's residential neighborhoods 28 has on well-documented occasions disrupted the quietude and residential character of the 29 neighborhoods and adversely impact the community, resulting in noise, parking and litter 30 complaints from adversely affected neighbors; and 31 WHEREAS, judicial decisions have upheld local governments' authority to prohibit 32 vacation rentals. 33 NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DOES 34 HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 35 SECTION 1. REPEAL. 36 Title IV, Chapter 16, Section 16-40.040 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed. 37 SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS. 38 (A) Title IV, Chapter 16, Section 16-21.030 (Table 2-1) is amended to read as shown on 39 attached Exhibit "A". 40 (B) Title IV, Chapter 16, Section 16-50.020 (Table 5-1) is amended to read as shown on 41 attached Exhibit "B". 42 (C) Title IV, Section 16-40.040 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby adopted to read as 43 follows: 44 16-40.040 VACATION RENTALS Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N. S. DRAFT Effective —/--/2015 Page 1 2 EXHIBIT NO. 3 45 16.40.042 Vacation Rentals Prohibited 46 No person shall undertake, maintain, authorize, aid, facilitate or advertise a Vacation 47 Rental, as defined herein. Any permits previously issued for such uses (also known as Seasonal 48 Rental Units) shall not be renewed and shall expire according to the terms of those permits and 49 become null and void on December 31, 2015. 50 16-40.046 Enforcement 51 (a) Any person violating any provision of this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, 52 which shall be punishable by a fine as established by Resolution of the Town Council and 53 amended from time to time. 54 (b) Any person convicted of violating any provision of this Section in a criminal case or 55 found to be in violation of this Section in a civil case brought by a law enforcement agency shall 56 be ordered to reimburse the Town and other participating law enforcement agencies their full 57 investigative costs, pay all back -owed transient occupancy taxes, and remit all illegally obtained 58 rental revenue to the Town so that it may be used to return payment to the affected vacation 59 renters. 60 (c) Any person who violates any provision of this Section shall be subject to 61 administrative fines and administrative penalties pursuant to Title VI, Chapter 31 of this Code 62 and to recovery of collection costs pursuant to Title II, Chapter 1, Section 1-10 of this Code. 63 (d) Any interested person may seek an injunction or other relief against any person who 64 is alleged to be violating this Section in order to prevent or remedy violations of this Section. 65 The prevailing party in such an action shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's 66 fees from the person determined to be in violation. Under no circumstance shall any person be Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 EXHIBIT NO. Page 1 3 67 entitled to maintain an action seeking an injunction or other relief or recover any reasonable 68 costs and attorney's fees against the Town to enforce the provisions of this Section. 69 (e) The remedies provided in this Section are not exclusive, and nothing in this Section 70 shall preclude the use or application of any other remedies, penalties or procedures established 71 by law. 72 (B) Title IV, Chapter 16, Article X, Section 16-100.020 is amended as follows: 73 (1) The definition of "Seasonal rental unit" in Section 16-100.020 (S) is amended to read 74 as follows: 75 Seasonal rental unit. See "Vacation rental". 76 (2) The following definition is added to Section 16-100.020 (S): 77 Short term rental. See "Vacation Rental". 78 (3) The following definition is added to Section 16-100.020 (V): 79 Vacation Rental. Rental of any dwelling unit, in whole or in part, within the Town of 80 Tiburon to any person(s) for exclusive transient use of 30 consecutive calendar days or 81 less, in instances where the unit is only approved for permanent residential occupancy 82 and not approved for occupancy by transients, as that tern is defined in Title II. Chapter 83 7 of this Code. Rental of units within Town -approved hotels, motels and bed and 84 breakfasts shall not be considered Vacation Rental, nor shall providing room and board 85 for one guest in a single family dwelling. 86 87 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. 88 If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, 89 or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or 90 unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of 91 the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of 92 this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. _ N. 5. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 Page 1 4 EXHIBIT NO. 3 93 Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, 94 subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 95 more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof 96 be declared invalid or unenforceable. 97 SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 98 This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. 99 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall 100 be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at 101 which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a 102 newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town 103 Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this 104 ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in 105 the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the 106 ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance. 107 108 This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the 109 Town of Tiburon, held on 2015, and was adopted at a regular meeting 110 of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on , 2015, by the 111 following vote: 112 113 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 114 NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 115 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 116 117 118 119 120 ATTEST: 121 122 123 DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK 124 125 Attachments: Exhibit "A" ---Revised Table 2-1 FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. _ N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 Page 1 5 EXHIBIT NO. 3 126 Exhibit `B" ---Revised Table 5-1 Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N. S. DRAFT Effective --1—/2015 EXHIBIT NO. Page 1 6 16-40.040 — Seasonal Rental Units This Section establishes standards for the seasonal rental of a dwelling unit in any residential zone. The intent of these provisions is to ensure compatibility between seasonal rental units and adjoining zones or uses. General criteria. Prior to its establishment and/or operation, a seasonal rental unit shall be required to obtain a Home Occupation Permit, tailored to seasonal rental purposes, pursuant to the requirements of Section 16-52.110, including Subsections D & F, except that the following general criteria shall be used instead of the general criteria and operating standards contained in Section 16-52.110 (B & C): 1. Signs. Signs shall be installed/maintained in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 16A (Signs). 2. Parking. On-site parking shall be provided as required for a single-family dwelling unit in compliance with Section 16-32 (Parking and Loading Standards). 3. Fire safety. The seasonal rental unit shall comply with applicable Fire District regulations. 4. Outdoor space. The use of outdoor yard areas, open decks, pools and the like shall not result in the production of excessive off-site noise, odor and other external disturbances. Said determination to be based on the judgment of the Director. Approval of the seasonal rental unit may be conditioned upon the installation of screening, fencing, plantings and/or other such installations and conditions to help ensure compatibility of the seasonal rental unit with the surrounding area. 5. Limitations. In no event shall the owner of the seasonal rental unit or their agent rent an individual room in the seasonal rental unit to a person, family, or other group of persons. 6. Business license. A seasonal rental unit shall have a valid business license from the Town. EXHIBIT NO. 14 AirBnB Tiburon_ Listings for Seasonal Rentals Minimum number Maximum number Number of Price/Night of nights of guests Bedrooms 1. $245 3 2 1 2. $500 5 6 3 3. $250 7 4 2 4. $650 7 5 3 5. $325 1 4 1 6. $425 2 6 2 7. $475 3 5 2 8. $195 1 2 1 9. $799 2 6 4 10. $150 1 2 0 11. $500 5 8 3 12. $550 1 5 3 13. $165 5 2 1 14. $285 1 6 2 15. $99 1 2 1 16. $850 3 6 3 17. $325 3 7 3 18. $124 1 2 1 19. $175 2 3 1 20. $105 2 2 1 21. $115 1 2 1 22. $440 1 6 4 23. $235 5 5 4 24. $500 7 6 4 25. $112 2 2 1 26. $260 2 4 1 27. $250 7 4 3 28. $345 2 4 2 29. $350 5 8 3 30. $120 1 2 1 31. $60 2 1 1 32. $275 4 5 3 33. $390 2 7 4 34. $475 2 6 3 35. $125 3 3 2 36. $148 1 3 2 37. $175 3 2 0 38. $250 3 6 3 Based on Planning Division staff survey of listings shown on AirBnB website conducted in July, 2015. EXHIBIT NO. p. to 2- VRBO Tiburon Listings for Seasonal Rentals Minimum number Maximum number Number of Price/Night of nights of guests Bedrooms 1. $500 2-7 6 3 2. $300 7 4 2 3. $415 1 6 2 4. $$185 2 4 1 5. $500 7 8 3 6. $400 1 6 2 7. $500 4 10 3 8. $400 3 11 3 9. $171 3 4 1 10. $450 7 6 3 11. $595 3 4 2 12. $850 2 6 3 13. $425 3 6 3 14. $350 3 6 3 15. $500 5 6 3 16. $475 3 8 4 17. $455 2 8 4 18. $490 2 8 4 Based on Planning Division staff survey of listings shown on VRBO website conducted in July, 2015. EXHIBIT NO. `J Commissioner Weller said that it was good to expand the envelope to allow a house with the same floor area to better step down the hill. He commended the applicants for talking to neighbors and said that the Design Review Board could address any specific issues with the house design. He supported the project. Commissioner Corcoran concurred and thought that this was a reasonable modification which would make for better relationship of the buildings on the adjoining lots, giving greater separation and avoiding view blockage. He thought that there was more that could be done to step the house back into the hillside and the Design Review Board can consider that. He supported the project. Vice Chair Williams agreed and thought that the expanded building envelope would minimize view impacts and potentially enhance aesthetics. She found that the request was consistent with the Precise Plan and with the evolution of the plan over time. She acknowledged that this was the last lot to be developed and felt that this would not impact primary views or the character of the neighborhood. Chair Kulik concurred with the other Commissioners' comments. He said that when he saw the story poles relative to the uphill neighbor, it was clear that a lot of effort was made to minimize any view impacts. He felt that the Design Review Board could deal with any potential impacts on the downhill neighbor and encouraged communication with the neighbor. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Williams) to adopt the draft resolution recommending approval of the amendment to the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan to the Town Council. Motion carried: 4-0. 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (File MCA 2015-07): Consider Recommendation to Town Council to Adopt Amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code Regarding Prohibition of Seasonal Rental Units; Town -initiated Amendments Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report, stating that this amendment would amend Section 16.40.040 of the Tiburon zoning ordinance to replace the current provisions for issuing seasonal rental unit permits with a prohibition of such uses. He described the history of seasonal rental unit regulations in Tiburon and stated that when the Town Council considered possible amendments to the regulations earlier this year, the Council directed staff to draft amendments that would prohibit seasonal rental units altogether and begin the process of the public hearing to consider that amendment. The proposed ordinance amendment would replace existing seasonal rental unit provisions with a ban on vacation rentals, which is a more commonly used term, add those terms to the zoning ordinance and then replace the current ordinance provisions with a prohibition on vacation rentals, and a section on enforcement of this prohibition. He recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing, take testimony, consider and discuss the text amendments, and, if appropriate, adopt the resolution recommending approval of the text amendments to the Town Council. Vice Chair Williams asked if staff could comment on whether seasonal rental units generate revenue for the Town and increase business activity. Mr. Watrous said that the Town collects TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DR4T PAGE 4 EXHIBIT NO. revenues from the seasonal rental units and are supposed to be collecting transient occupancy tax (TOT), but he was unsure how successful the Town has been in collecting TOT. He said that the Town receives a fairly small amount from these rentals in comparison to the TOT the Town receives from the local hotels. Community Development Director Anderson added that he believed that the Town has only been collecting TOT for these units for about one year. Vice Chair Williams asked about Town enforcement procedures. Mr. Watrous described the Town's administrative citation process and fines and said that offenses sometimes result in multiple violations for not obtaining a business license or a seasonal rental permit, etc. He said that it is often a difficult matter of proving that they actually were operating on those particular days and then trying to follow-up and collect. He noted that staff has held extensive discussions about what other next steps they can take on enforcement, realizing that often the administrative citation process is not as effective as it could be. Vice Chair Williams asked how much staff time is devoted now to monitor compliance as opposed to what was spent prior to 2009. Mr. Watrous said that very little staff time is spent on most applications. He noted that the Town's code enforcement process is complaint -driven and when complaints are received, staff can spend a fair amount of time on an application, such as the enforcement at 121 Sugarloaf Drive and 110 Solano Street. Vice Chair Williams asked if there are current requirements for applicant to notify neighbors or homeowner associations prior to applying for a permit. Mr. Watrous confirmed that there is currently no such notification requirement, but that was presented to the Town Council as an option to consider. Vice Chair Williams said it could be helpful to know that all neighbors consent to the overall use of the vacation rental. Mr. Watrous said different notice approaches can include sending notices to contiguous neighbors or those within 100 feet, or following the precedent in the bee -keeping ordinance where staff requires written approval from the contiguous neighbors before granting approval. Commissioner Weller asked whether home exchanges or swaps would be included in the vacation rental definition. Mr. Watrous stated that the Town's interpretation of home swaps is not explicit but such uses would likely fall within the definition, as people are receiving a compensation for the use of their home that comes in the form of a use of a home elsewhere. He said that this would be more difficult to track in terms of TOT because money would not change hands. Mr. Anderson said that generally home exchanges fly under the radar because it does not happen on a regular, on-going basis. Commissioner Corcoran recalled that when the regulation was drafted in 2010, the Commission struggled with defining it to begin with and now the Town has had difficulty in enforcement. He thought that it was unclear whether the home at 121 Sugarloaf Drive was in violation with the current ordinance due to concerns raised in a letter that mentions one rental over a weekend. Mr. Watrous stated that a seasonal rental unit permit is needed to rent it for a period of 31 days or less and they have never obtained a permit. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 5 EXHIBIT NO. (v Commissioner Corcoran said if the Town prohibited seasonal rentals, would that change what was happening with 121 Sugarloaf Drive. Mr. Watrous said that instead of a violation for not having a seasonal rental unit permit, the violation would be because it was a prohibited use. Chair Kulik asked if there was any mandate to change insurance on the property with a change from a primary residence into a seasonal rental unit. Mr. Watrous said that the Town does not regulate such insurance requirements. Chair Kulik noted that the staff report indicates that other towns have moved towards a banning seasonal rental units altogether. Mr. Watrous said that the City of Santa Monica has banned these uses. Mr. Anderson said that Santa Monica went to great lengths to explain why they thought it was not a good thing primarily dealing with erosion of the character of neighborhoods and actually promoted home sharing instead. Commissioner Weller asked staff if they have any data on which of the approved seasonal rental properties are the owner's primary residence as compared to non -primary residence. Mr. Watrous said that to his knowledge all approved units are the owners' primary residence. Commissioner Corcoran referred to the menu of different suggested amendments which included limiting the number of days units can be rented, and asked if there was discussion with the Town Council to allow renting up to two weeks per year without a permit. Mr. Watrous said no. Vice Chair Williams asked if the current ordinance is kept as is if there is any other way to deal with problem properties. Mr. Watrous said that staff considers the 110 Solano Street property as being well controlled, as it has a permit and staff and neighbors continue to monitor it. He said that for other homes that appear to be violating the ordinance, staff hoped to increase its capabilities for enforcement regardless of whether the ordinance is changed to prohibit these uses or to continue allowing them in a different capacity. Chair Kulik opened the public hearing. Bruce Powell said that he is a 20 year Tiburon resident and since 2009 they have offered their home for rent while they travel 4 to 8 months every year on a sailboat around the world. He said that if they are not able to rent their home out during these periods of time, it would sit vacant, sometimes for a few weeks or a few months, and there would be problems with that. He said that he has never had a problem or received a complaint in the time he has rented the home out and has forwarded a letter from his next door letters strongly supporting him. He stated that he has screened guests very carefully, has security cameras and has very strict occupancy limits. He said that he refuses to rent to people who plan to hold a wedding or party, and those rental activities are explicitly prohibited in his rental agreement. He said that he has been a good neighbor and he would hate to see these activities to be prohibited because it would put an end to their ability to travel around the world with their two college -aged sons. Peter Kaiser said that he has been a Tiburon resident for 16 years. He said that the Commission should consideration whether the Town wishes to be a promotional or preventional association. He said that short-term guests are somewhat more liberal in their expenses so the Town benefits. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 6 EXHIBIT NO. (0. He said that there are always a few bad apples compared to the majority of responsible people. He stated that similar to the earlier application for wine tasting at Woodlands Market it would be wonderful for the Town to start looking towards being a promotional association that benefits the business community here. Joe Haraburda said that they have been at meetings several times talking about their desire to retain the quiet nature of the Town. He said that although they appreciate the work of staff, he thinks that the Town Council is going in the right direction to prohibit any rentals less than 31 days. He said that this would still allow people to rent, but would create less turnover which has been a challenge for them over the past several years. He strongly recommended that the Commission support prohibiting rentals less than 31 days. He referred to a letter they wrote and in consideration of those who have already made reservations and he believed that a provision which calls for this ending at the end of 2015 would allow anyone currently under contract to not be penalized, He said that maintaining the quiet nature of the neighborhood was critical and if seasonal rentals proliferate it will change the character of the Town. Margot Zender said that she supports short-term vacation rentals but she understood the consequences of weekend rentals. She felt that a minimum of two weeks or one month for such rentals would be fine. She believed that these uses have a significant secondary economic impact on Tiburon and she would like to see comments from the Chamber of Commerce regarding this. Nancy Holland said she is a 5 year resident of Tiburon and also a realtor, said she supported Mr. Kaiser's suggestions that rentals do support the community. She believed that these uses add inclusivity instead of exclusivity to the community. She said that people sometimes do not behave perfectly. She thought that a two week minimum was better than having weekend visitors at some properties. Chair Kulik closed the public hearing. Commissioner Corcoran said that he did not feel that banning rentals would solve the problem. He said that Town staff came up with a menu of different solutions that could help address the issue of a couple of a few bad apples and preserve the economic vibrancy and vitality the Town gets from people corning in and renting properties. He said that since the zoning code was updated in 2010 the Commission has seen how the "rubber hits the road" with changes that were made and have had to make tweaks here and there. He acknowledged the difficulty of enforcement but believed that this was a case where a tweak should be made but not to throw the ordinance out entirely. He supported allowing some vacation rentals at perhaps a one week minimum, which would allow people some flexibility. He said that Airbnb has only been around for a few years and now it is the world's largest overnight accommodation provider and these types of companies are about making use of unused resources, which he thought was a good thing especially when there is a housing crisis. He did not believe the Town should be decreasing the housing supply even on a short term basis. He said that if the Commissioners agree, they could talk about the menu of items the Commission could propose to the Town Council. Commissioner Weller agreed and said that an outright ban was like using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. He favored an outright ban of seasonal rentals with shared common area, noting that the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 7 EXHIBIT NO. Co property at 121 Solano Street is unique. He said that totally banning vacation and shared home rentals because of a couple of problems amounted to overkill. He shared Commissioner Corcoran's approach of requiring a 7 night minimum which would eliminate weekend -only situations, which would allow the Powells to continue their rentals. He said that he might support allowing vacation rental permits only where owners have their primary residence because that avoids using homes for commercial enterprises. He said that ownership is easy to verify through address verification. He supported discussion about alternatives as opposed to an outright ban. Vice Chair Williams said that she agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She said that she was struck by the fact that 5 of the 8 applications have been operating without any controversy or complaints and there were few complaints on the other properties. She felt that the ordinance had worked in many ways and she did not want to swing the pendulum wildly to an outright ban just because there have been a few complaints, but instead to craft a better ordinance. She thought that enforcement was the key, but she recognized the regulatory burden on staff because they are the ones having to deal with complaints and have the duty to maintain Tiburon neighborhoods. She said that adding regulations could potentially add to staff's enforcement burden and monitoring compliance. She said that she liked the idea of obtaining neighbor consent prior to approving an application. Chair Kulik said that he believed that Tiburon is a magnet for this type of rental business more than other Marin communities. He said that parts of Tiburon are much more affected than others. He felt that the Town is at the front end of a large wave, given the scale of VRBO, Airbnb, and Homeaway rental sites. He was concerned about adverse impacts on local homeowners now and the burden of enforcement on staff. He was concerned for the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring residents. He commended Mr. Powell for being a good neighbor in this situation with his cameras and contracts, but he felt that someone buying an investment property and immediately putting it up on a website and renting it out on a short term basis was a cause for concern. He felt that the current 8 seasonal rentals only have a small economic impact on the Town, but more units might be problematic in certain areas of the Town. Commissioner Corcoran suggested that the Commission discuss the possible proposed amendments included in the previous staff report to the Town Council. The Commission discussed the following items: 1. Changing the term "seasonal rental unit" to "vacation rental." The consensus of the Commission was that this was acceptable. 2. Do not allow vacation rental,permits for units with more than 3 bedrooms. Commissioner Corcoran felt that this was an arbitrary distinction. Commissioner Weller felt that it would be setting an arbitrary line to let people with smaller properties make money from vacation rentals but not those with a bigger house. The other Commissioners concurred with this reasoning. 3. Require adequate on-site and/or off-site parking. Chair Kulik believed that staff could easily look at the parking situation because it may be problematic for non-standard streets in Old Tiburon. Mr. Watrous agreed that staff can address this and understands there are TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 8. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 8 EXHIBIT NO (D certain areas where parking is more difficult. The consensus of the Commission was that this was acceptable. 4. Limit the number of days that units can be rented. Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Weller and Vice Chair Williams supported at least a 7 night minimum for rentals. Chair Kulik favored a greater number of days. Commissioner Weller thought that a cap on the cumulative number of days rented per year was unnecessary, citing Mr. Powell as an example, particularly if the Town limited rentals to the primary residence of the property owner. 5. Do not allow permits for properties with commingled rights (common areas. pools. access. parking. etc.) with neighboring units. Commissioner Weller said that it should be banned except where there was unanimous consent of all people who share common areas that are usable and for condominiums and townhouses where there are clear CC&Rs. The consensus of the Commission was that this was acceptable. 6. Require permittees to submit an annual reporting statement to the Town. Vice Chair Williams thought that this data would be helpful and Commissioner Weller agreed. Commissioner Corcoran said that there should be a report to at least deal with the TOT issue. The consensus of the Commission was that this was acceptable. 7. Require notices to be sent to neighboring property owners prior to a vacation rental. The consensus of the Commission was to require notices to be sent to neighbors prior to approval, but not to require approvals from neighboring property owners. 8. Increase fees to recover costs of enforcement. The consensus of the Commission was to support a more appropriate fee structure and increased penalties or fines for violations. 9. Only allow permits for homes that are the primary dwelling for the property owner. Commissioner Weller supported this requirement and stated that there are clear methods of determining whether a home is a primary residence. The consensus of the Commission was that this was acceptable. Mr. Watrous said that a summary of the Commission's suggestions would be recommended to the Council in the form of a motion that seasonal rental units not be banned but instead consider amendments that would include the agreed upon changes described above. Commissioner Weller asked whether the Commission was trying to draft an ordinance for the Council to consider or simply making recommendations for what an ordinance should contain. Mr. Watrous said that if there is consensus by the Commission, they could make a recommendation to the Town Council to not prohibit seasonal rental units, but to instead consider an ordinance that would address certain changes, and encourage the Council to begin a more thorough process of evaluating it. Commissioner Corcoran suggested drafting an ordinance and giving the Council something to decide rather than sending them the minutes of the meeting. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1055 DRAFT PAGE 9 EXHIBIT NO. (67 Mr. Anderson said that that was a valid long-term approach, but in the short-term the Council needed to hear the Planning Commission's thoughts. He said that the Council may choose to do what they had said at their earlier meeting which would be to ban seasonal rentals. However, he recommended that the Commission should alert the Council as to its recommendations regarding amending the ordinance. He said that this would take the form of a minute action recommendation to the Council and the Council could ask that the Commission provide more information or go back to their prior direction. Mr. Watrous clarified that staff would provide a memorandum to the Town Council outlining the Commission's recommendations. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Williams) to recommend that the Town Council not prohibit seasonal rental units but instead approve amendments to the zoning ordinance with the changes described above. Motion carried: 3-1 (Kulik opposed). 5. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (File MCA 2015-08): Consider Recommendation to Town Council to Adopt Amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to Modify Provisions Regarding Interpretation of Zone Boundaries Vis- a -Vis Public Streets and Highways; Clarify the Separation of Fences for Purposes of Height Measurement; and Modify Certain Provisions with Respect to Processing of Permits for Wireless Communication Facilities; File MCA 2015-08; Town -initiated Amendments Director of Community Development Scott Anderson gave the staff report, stating this is a series of minor text amendments to the zoning ordinance. The first deals with zone boundaries relating to streets, where the zoning stops at the center line and there is ambiguity when half of the street is in another jurisdiction. He said that there is a situation along Tiburon Boulevard which is unique because it is a state highway and the State of California will occasionally surplus properties. He said that the amendment would place the Town in a good position and be in the public interest to have the entire Highway 131 right-of-way be designated as Public/Quasi-Public instead of having the zoning only go to the centerline of the state highway. Mr. Anderson said that there was also a request to clarify the separation distance versus height requirement for fences and walls. As the result of a recent and ongoing lawsuit this clarification would ensure that this provision only applies to fences or walls on the same property and not on different properties. Mr. Anderson described the final set of amendments dealing with the recently adopted wireless communications amendments. He said that upon further review and constructive comments by AT&T, staff has been advised there are a few more amendments needing to be made dealing with the 60 day shot clock that the FCC has put in place for acting on these applications. It is clear now that this applies also to the appeal period and not just to the initial decision by staff on a particular application that is subject to the 60 day shot clock. Chair Kulik opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 8, 2015 - MMUTE�H1B.lT NO _DLL PAGE 10 Dan Watrous From: Alan Lefkof [ablefkof@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:24 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Donald Sung; Lynn Fox; Ann Gordon; Barbara Wilson; Robert & Kathryn Dougherty; brian lantier; caria lantier; Alice & Rich Shelton; Ilse Broadway; William Coomber; Sarah Sung; Janice Anderson -Gram; Ted Kozloff; Carolyn Friedman Subject: Holiday Weekend Rental at 121 Sugar Loaf Attachments: 121 Sugar Loaf on May 25.jpg Dan The members and officers of the Marinero Owners Association were glad to read in the Ark that the Town Council is seriously discussing the banning of home rentals that are less than 30 days in individual duration. That move is absolutely necessary to preserve the neighborhood goals of Tiburon. We cannot rely on the monitoring by the online rental websites such as AirBnB etc. Unfortunately, we have just experienced a holiday weekend rental at 121 Sugar Loaf. The attached photo shows 5 parked cars (one of those cars is the owner's car). But the 4 visitor cars brought with them at least 7 weekend renters as confirmed in a live discussion with one of them on Sunday. However, the worst news is that I personally observed one of the visitor cars leaving the property by GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION ALL THE WAY AROUND ON THE ONE WAY SECTION OF SUGAR LOAF DRIVE. If someone else in the neighborhood had innocently been driving uphill (legally !) on this one way section of Sugar Loaf, it would have been a colossal accident with serious injuries ! Please pass along this information to the entire staff and the Town Council. Thank you. Alan 510-289-0705 mobile 415-789-0726 home Alan Lefkof Treasurer, Marinero Owners Association EXHIBIT ta=z CHRISTOPHER AND JUDITH ARMSTRONG Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Re: Comment on Proposal to Ban Short Term Rentals DIGEST c�� RFCEiVE JUN 0 3 2015 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OFTI We, Chris and Judy Armstrong, have resided at 2160 Vistazo East Street for nearly three decades. Bruce and Pascal Powell have been our next door neighbors for the past fourteen years. During those periods of time when Bruce (a former commodore of the Corinthian Yacht Club) and his wife, Pascal, have been out of country on their boat, they have from time to time rented their home under strict self-imposed guidelines to protect their own property interest and to preserve good relations with their neighborhood. There has never been an occasion when the Powell home has been rented that either of us has had reason to complain or to be concerned. Having somebody in residence next door is not only not a problem for us; it enhances our sense of security on a quiet cul-de-sac potentially attractive to person bent upon doing mischief when nobody is seen to be in residence. Bruce and Pascal are advising the Town that, if they should be.barred from renting their home on a short term basis during the intervals when they are travelling, they would be forced by economic circumstance to sell. For the Town to precipitate such action by the Powells would have the effect of further destabilizing what is an owner maintained "right or way" for which the Town has never accepted the responsibilities which it commonly accepts in respect of most Tiburon residential streets and roadways. The Town does not maintain that portion of Vistazo East upon which the Powells and others reside; the Town has never installed a storm sewer to capture storm runoff on such portion of Vistazo East; and neither the Town nor Sani District 5 accept any responsibility for the function of the "private" sewer line that serves the homes on this right of way plus one home on Centro East. Bruce and Pascal do their share to maintain the right of way thus assuring that vehicular traffic may pass to and from (a) a vacant property long for sale on the up slope side of the street for $1.7 million, (b) a home at the end of the cul-de-sac whose owner has been an absentee landlord for the entire three decades we have owned 2160 Vistazo East, and (c) an additional home near the end of the cul-de-sac which was functionally unoccupied for 25 years and which, since its somewhat recent sale, has been the subject of desultory and sometimes very noisy renovation by the new owners. It is urged upon the Town Council by some that "long term renters" are good but "short term renters" are bad. The experience of Vistazo East proves the opposite. In addition to maintaining a reasonable portion of the right of way, Bruce and Pascal contribute generously (more than their share) to the maintenance of the private sewer line and have worked diligently with us to create and maintain EXHIBIT N0.______ T. rcFz drainage channels to redirect the flood of waters from the Ridge Road homes which otherwise pour across our properties and into the backyards of Centro East homes on account of the absence of a storm sewer system on Vistazo East. By contrast, the absentee owners of properties on Vistazo East, including the property with a longterm renter, do not contribute to the maintenance of either the right of way or the drainage or the private sewer system notwithstanding that they and their real estate agents make regular use of the right of way. What public good will the Town Council have accomplished if it drives the Powells out of their home and they are replaced by another new owner who has no personal attachment to Vistazo East Street and who is interested only in either speculative redevelopment or long term rental in hopes of property appreciation? We urge that the Town Council take a more nuanced view of the short term rental situation, that it ramp up its licensing requirements for all rentals, that it deal with the limited number of reported abuses by imposing monetary fines on the property owners who (or whose tenants) are engaged in anti- social conduct and by revoking their licenses to rent, and that it not, in response to some vocal editorializing by what we suspect is a small minority of Tiburon residents, impose overbroad prohibitions on an already overregulated citizenry with the counterproductive consequences adverted to above. Yours sincerely, • C ChristcWher S. and Judith R. Armstrong KBIT NO._ 2- DC-: L July 5, 2015 Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Tiburon Town Council and Staff: LATE MAIL # 4 1.111 JUL 07 2015 PLANNING DIVISION The purpose of this letter is to support the Council's discussion from the May 6, 2015 meeting regarding discontinuing seasonal rentals. We are thankful for your efforts to retain the Town's residential character. We support the Council's sentiment expressed at the May 6th meeting that rentals of less than 30 days are effectively commercial enterprises incompatible with our residential community. In our experience, the burden upon Town resources to monitor compliance far exceeds the benefits bestowed to the community. We ask that the Council revoke all seasonal rental permits. If there are extenuating circumstances relating to advance reservations, consideration could be given on a case by case basis to honor those contracts so long as it is demonstrated by a date certain that future reservations actually exist. However, a definite sunset provision (e.g. December 31, 2015) should be established. If the Council decides to enact an exception to the anticipated repeal of seasonal rentals, we respectfully request that exceptions only be granted where the nine points suggested by Mr. Watrous at the May 6th hearing are reconciled with the application. Any exception request should be presented at a publicly noticed hearing. Thank you for taking on such an important local land use issue. Sincerely, Joe and Cathy Haraburda 120 A Solano Street EXHIBIT NO. July 6, 2015 VIA HAND DELIVERY Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 LATE MAIL #/-1 RE: Proposed Amendment of Sec. 16-40.040 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 9E@EFLER 1:1.1 �IUI.. 0 .I 2015 PLANNING DIVISION My wife and I have resided in the Town of Tiburon for over 16 years. We remain here because of the Town's dedication to the peaceful use and enjoyment of our community. The Town deserves to retain its quiet, residential style of living. Short term vacation rentals of homes are inconsistent with this achievement, now and predictably in the future. For this reason, we strongly SUPPORT adoption of the ban of short term/vacation rentals of residential homes in Tiburon, as set forth in the Proposed New Section 16-40.040 of the Municipal Code. erely, d0A1 Robert and Elizabeth Paterson 35 Corinthian Court, #32 Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO. 1 Dan Watrous LATE MAIL #_S From: John Corcoran [johncorcoran@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:14 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission topic for the July 8th meeting; Potential Ban of Short Term Rentals in Tiburon Hey Dan - FYI - see below... John John Corcoran SmartBusinessRevolution.com/email IA in 071015 J PLANNING DIVISION Forwarded message From: Ulrik Binzer <binzer a,gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:08 PM Subject: Planning Commission topic for the July 8th meeting; Potential Ban of Short Term Rentals in Tiburon To: John Corcoran <johncorcoran car gmail.com> Hi John, I hope all is well. As you may know there has been some talk about outright banning short term rentals in Tiburon, and according to Erin, the topic will be on the Planning Commission's agenda on the July 8th. As you probably guessed I am against the potential ban and would like to voice my opinion to the members of the planning commission. I have therefore drafted an email (below) that I would like to send to all of the members. I am however not sure where to get their respective email addresses. Do you happen to have them, or know where I can find them? Thanks in advance for your help. Ulrik LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Dear John, My name is Ulrik Binzer and my family and I live on Corinthian Island in downtown Tiburon. We have lived here for the past 6 years and we have been sharing our home with guests through AirBnB and VRBO for the past 2 years. We are writing to ask you to support the passage of reasonable legislation that will protect considerate home sharing here in Tiburon and NOT ban it outright as some have suggested. Specifically I encourage you and the rest of the Planning Commission to come up with legislation that allows residents like us to share our omes to 1 EXHIBIT NO. reasonable and quiet people like ourselves as opposed to banning the entire practice of home sharing because of a few specific incidents at a few specific houses. To me this can be easily achieved by enacting simple, enforceable and economically feasible rules such as: • Requiring all hosts to have a permit (as is the case today) and enact a large fine ($1000 per day) to all hosts that are caught advertising their homes on sites such as AirBNB and VRBO without having such a permit. Enforcing such a rule would be very easy and potentially lucrative to the Town as the address has to be listed on all postings on these websites and the searching and mapping functionality of the sites is such that all homes listed in Tiburon can be identified in minutes. • Make it a condition of all permits to include the specific language in their lease agreements and property descriptions that address the following topics: o The maximum amount of people allowed at the rental property at any given time is equivalent to the amount of permanently installed beds in the home (this way we can avoid guests having large parties) o All guests cars/motor cyles etc. must be parked either on the property's designated parking spaces or parked at public parking areas (this way we can avoid guests parking their cars in a way that it is inconvenient to the neighbours) o By leasing this property, the guest agrees to adhere to the Town of Tiburon's rules, regulations and ordinances including the towns sound ordinance which can be found here: https://www.rnunicode.com/library/ca/tiburon/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=TITVIP UHESAWE CH250FIS 25-1NO (this way we can make sure that o All rentals are subsject to the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax (enforcing this is very easy as all of the rental companies such as AirBNB and VRBO issue 1099's at the end of each year, and the Town should just make it a condition that all permit holders submit their 1099's when they want to renew their annual permit). o Any violation of the rules above can result in immediate eviction of the guest and a fine of no less than $1000 By implementing sensible, enforceable and strict rules like the ones above, we avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the event hosts or guests are ever found to be in violation of the rules (which would be as easy as monitoring the behavior of regular permanent residents) the penalties would more than compensate the town's personnel for their time and effort. Home sharing is important to us because it allows our family generate supplemental income that makes it possible for us to travel with our 3 young boys during the summers. As an example, we have rented out our house for about 4 weeks this summer, which has enabled us to take the boys to visit their cancer sick grandmother in Denmark. Without home sharing we would not have been able to afford the trip. This would have been a great loss not only for our kids but also for their grandmother as she given her chemo treatment regiment is unable to travel. Sharing my home with guests does not just benefit us and our family, it also contributes positively to the businesses in downtown which is only a 2 minute walk from our home. To be specific our guests spend a significant amount of money at the restaurants, cafes, and boutiques downtown and we always make sure to give them specific recommendations to check out the many new and exciting businesses in Ark Row, such as Don Antonio's and the new wine bar. These are businesses that would otherwise not see many tourism dollars since they are not on the more visited part of Main Street Also, many of our guests are visiting my neighbors who do not have spare space in their own homes or attending weddings at St. Hillary's or China Cabin. We have also hosted sailors who come to compete at the 2 EXHIBIT many races at the Corinthian and San Francisco Yacht Clubs, and who may not have been able to attend those great event's if it wasn't for affordable small group lodging options like ours. As you consider the legislation currently proposed, I hope you take into account how important home sharing is to the many reasonable and responsible hosts just like us, as well as the benefits our guests bring to our local businesses in downtown. Given our before mentioned trip to Denmark to visit my cancer stricken mother, we will unfortunately not be able to attend the planning commission's meeting in person, but I hope that this letter will inspire you to come up with a policy that works for all interested parties including the respectful hosts like us who rely on the extra income to be able to make this beautiful town our home! Sincerely, Ulrik Binzer + Family 3 EXHIBIT NO._ l 1 B Lith - # L4 Dan Watrous From: John Corcoran [johncorcoran@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 3:30 PM To: Alastair Mitchell Cc: kate dutton; Ulrik Binzer; Dan Watrous Subject: Re: Planning Commission topic for the July 8th meeting; Potential Ban of Short Term Rentals in Tiburon Jul, 0 7 2015 J PLANNING DIVISION Alastair - Thanks for your email. I'm cc'ing Dan Watrous on your email`3here so you can share it with the rest of the planning commissioners - I am just 1 of 5. Thanks, John On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Alastair Mitchell <alastair@huddle.com> huddle.com> wrote: John Ulrik passed on his email to you as it's been a hot topic of conversation in our street and amongst many of the community. We 100% endorse Ulrik's suggested path forward and his comments about the importance of sensible home sharing to Tiburon's community and businesses. I would also add that there is a huge difference between multi-week/month rentals (of the type Ulrik and ourselves use when we are in Europe) which have an incredibly low risk rate — and weekend/daily rentals. We have operated home rentals for 4-8 week periods over the summer and Christmas since we arrived from the UK, and have had zero issues from either renters or neighbors. In fact our neighbors enjoy meeting interesting new people and are much happier that we are bringing life and economic benefit to the area, than risking Tiburon turning into a ghost town in summer— which you can see in Belvedere. Our guests are carefully screened (They have to be to ensure we maintain a good rating) and affluent — in fact one couple had such a great time they have since bought a house here! Many thanks for passing this on Very best Alastair Mitchell President & Founder— huddle.com EXHIBIT NO. 12• LATE MAIL # Dan Watrous IJ 0 2015 J PLANNING UIVISiuN From: Bruce Powell [bruce@calou.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 5:58 PM To: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous; Kyra O'Malley; Councilmember O'Donnell; Councilmember Jim Fraser; Vice Mayor Erin Tollini; Mayor Frank Doyle; Councilmember Alice Fredericks Cc: Judy Ragland Armstrong Subject: re: JULY 8 7:30 PM meeting: SHORT TERM RENTALS Attachments: Memo to Town of Tiburon.pdf; CSA and JRA Ltr to Tiburon Town Council re Property Rentals (6.2.15). pdf Dear members of the Tiburon Planning Department and Town Council, It has come to my attention that the Town of Tiburon will be discussing policy regarding short term rentals in Tiburon. As a homeowner and licensed short term rental property owner in good standing, I would like to present my case that such homeowners, properly licensed, can be the best of neighbors and of benefit to the Town and the community. Whereas I deplore those few irresponsible owners that have given the rest of us a black eye, I urge the Town not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please see the attached letter making my case, and I have also attached a letter written by my neighbors, Chris and Judy Armstrong, stating their unequivocal support for our rental activity, and their reasons for same. respectfully, Bruce Powell 2180 Vistazo East 1 EXHIBIT NO. t 3 p< (0E-3 Memo to the Town of Tiburon Dear council members, It has come to my attention that the Town of Tiburon is considering the question of whether to continue to allow short-term rentals. As a resident with a permit for such rentals, I wish to explain my case. My wife and I and our two sons have been a residents of Tiburon since the 1990s, and my father and his second wife, a resident of Tiburon since the 1960s. Unlike many of my neighbors, I'm not a wealthy person, but am of modest means. We have always dreamed of extended travel to see the world, but this was always an unaffordable luxury out of our financial reach. However, thanks to the possibility of renting our house on a short-term rental, this has made it possible for us to travel, keeping our home and our belongings intact, and still be able to return to our Tiburon home whenever we wish to. None of this life -enriching experience would have been possible without offering our house as a short-term rental. A long-term rental would never work, since such tenants would need 30 or even 60 days notice to move out, and would have to be evicted in case of nonpayment of rent, which is of course very complicated, since our house is full of all of our personal property. And a long-term rental (30 days or more) would mean that we couldn't return to our house again when we wanted to. I would also point out that the short-term rentals provide much needed additional income for families that are on a fixed income trying to make ends meet. It would be a shame if we had to sell the house where we expect to retire because this additional income was cut off. Unlike a few irresponsible short-term rental owners in Tiburon, we have taken great care to be respectful of our neighbors and to make sure that our rental guests don't cause any disturbance. For example, we have a very strict policy of 5 person maximum occupancy. And we have a very strict policy to NOT ALLOW PARTIES, WEDDINGS, OR COMMERCIAL EVENTS OF ANY KIND. In short, we have taken every precaution to ensure that our guests shall not annoy our neighbors. Now, to address the issue at hand regarding short-term rentals in Tiburon: I would strongly suggest that the Town not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am appalled by the irresponsible few homeowners who have shown disregard for their neighbors by renting their houses out for large and disruptive parties. This, however, should not be a reason to abolish all legal short-term rentals. Certainly those persons, such as myself, who have bothered to acquire a permit, have EXHIBIT N0. ) -. 220 demonstrated civic responsibility and shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few irresponsible bad actors. The issue of short-term rentals in Tiburon is not going to go away. By banning them, the Town will simply be driving them underground. The Town of Tiburon will be in a much better position to regulate this activity, by issuing permits, and by regulating the actions of the permit holders to ensure that they act as good citizens. Our next-door neighbors, Chris and Judy Armstrong, have been fully supportive and understand that this activity offers a net benefit to the community, because our house would otherwise sit vacant and possibly neglected for much of the year while we travel. And of course, they realize that we have been careful and respectful of our neighbors. I sincerely ask the Town of Tiburon to continue to allow short-term rentals for those homeowners that have secured permits. Sincerely a3riLt, (.2 /,/ Bruce M. Powell 2180 Vistazo East EXHIBIT NO. 3 p.3oF3 Dan Watrous �r From: Camille Bosworth [camillebosworth@yahoo.com] ��'�`MAIL.:#� Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 9:18 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: (Tiburon Planning Commission) John Corcoran; (Tiburon Design Revie �n.-ia•. gg, Subject: For 7/8 Meeting - Support for Allowing Short Term Home Rentals III L s J is iJ..r LV b Dear Dan Watrous and Planning Commission Members, 1 PLANNING DIVISION I am traveling and unable to attend tonight's meeting so I am writing to express my opposition to a complete ban on short term home rentals. Two years ago my husband, 7 month-old son and I spent three months traveling.through Europe staying primarily in short term home rentals through AirBnB. These rentals provided our family a comfortable, affordable opportunity to stay in great places and meet and interact with local residents. It was an unforgettable experience. We now have our own Tiburon home posted on AirBnB and VRBO and are hosting two families, one from San Francisco and one from Australia, while we are on vacation this summer. I believe home sharing through short term rentals benefits us all and an outright ban on short term rentals will be a detriment not only to my family but to the community. First, home owners who rent their home with a short term rental permit, like us, remit the 10% tax directly to the Town. This is revenue that would otherwise not be collected. Visitors also eat at local restaurants and shop at local stores. This is good for everyone. In a town where the demand for short term housing exceeds supply, it would be a shame to lose this revenue and opportunity to support local businesses. Second, many homeowners, like my family, benefit from the additional income generated from occasional short term rentals. We appreciate the money we can earn renting our home and it's reassuring to know that in the event we need to travel for a longer amount of time, or move temporarily, we have this option available to help pay the mortgage. Surely many responsible local families also benefit from this additional income. Finally, I understand there is concern as to how to regulate short term rentals to avoid disturbing neighbors. I believe this concern may be exaggerated because of one or two problematic houses. A home near us was rented on a short term basis for nearly a decade and we enjoyed meeting the different visitors that came through - from a British couple here to adopt their first child (they brought the baby to dinner at our house!) to families in town for weddings. It has never been a nuisance to us. If particular rentals do create problems, however, the Town already has ordinances in place to protect neighbors (noise ordinances, parking restrictions, etc.) and there is always the option of revoking their short term rental permit. Many towns successfully allow short term rentals and there are many options available besides an outright ban that will allow the majority of responsible owners to continue renting their homes. After consideration, I trust the Planning Commission and Tiburon Town Council will continue to allow local homeowners, like us, to rent their homes on a short term basis so everyone can benefit from this new way to share our lovely community. .,Thank you, Camille Bosworth Chong 100 Eastview Ave. Tiburon, CA. 94920 858.232.4016 EXHIBIT NO. i'l , Scott Anderson From: - Bruce Powell [bruce@calou.com] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:25 AM To: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous; Kyra O'Malley; Councilmember O'Donnell; Councilmember Jim Fraser; Vice Mayor Erin Tollini; Mayor Frank Doyle; Councilmember Alice Fredericks Cc: Judy Armstrong; christopher Armstrong; pascale@calou.com �1E P Subject: short term rentals discussion July 8 Dear council and planning committee members, r `1.- OP 2016 PLANNING D I1/ I •''. I wish to thank you for considering my input at this evening's planning meeting regarding the issue of short term rentals. I would like to provide my further 2 cents on some of the topics discussed, and I think you will find that I have below some important information that was not otherwise considered. 1. I would suggest that a "maximum occupancy limit" be imposed, and that this limit should be considered during the permit application process based upon factors such as the size of the property (number of bedrooms), etc. For instance, we have always imposed a strict maximum occupancy of 5 persons for our 2 bedroom house (we have a 3 -bedroom house but keep one bedroom locked with our personal items in it when we are away). We also prohibit and will not rent for any of the following: weddings, parties, celebrations, ceremonies, meetings, conferences, or any commercial use. We also prohibit any persons entering the property other than previously approved and vetted guests. After all, this is our personal, private residence, and the last thing we want is a bunch of strangers having a party in our house!!! We also do not rent to any person in the local area (someone from the SF Bay Area), unless they have a very good explanation as to why they wish to use the house and for what purposes. I would fully support prohibitions against "weddings and parties" etc., but it might be more useful to simply enforce maximum occupancy rules. I also support the requirement that the property be the owner's personal residence. 2. I would suggest that a "Vacation Rental Owners' Association" could be formed by the owners themselves, so that vacation rental owners can educate each other and police each other, thus reducing the chance for problems, and so as to reduce the burden on Town officials for enforcement. In order for such an association to be successful, however, a prerequisite would be that the Town of Tiburon not be too aggressive and punitive of law-abiding property owners who just want to play by the rules. If the Town is excessively zealous in trying to constrain this activity, this will drive the activity underground and thus discourage owners from becoming part of such an Association. I might be willing to play a part in organizing an effort to bring about such an organization. Such an association can only thrive, however, if the owners do not feel threatened by the Town. 3. Much was made of the possibility of investors potentially buying Tiburon properties solely for the purpose of using them as income properties in the short term rental market. I can tell you that this is not a sustainable business model. For one, no lender would consider making a loan to someone for a house that is not that person's principal residence, for short term rental purposes, because lenders CAN NOT CONSIDER short term rent income in order to qualify for a loan. Also, the vacancy factor for short term rentals is very high (at least 50% and often higher), and so higher returns can be made with traditional long term rentals, and also the management and maintenance costs are several times higher. I would be very surprised to see any instance of an "investor" purchasing a Tiburon house solely for the purpose of short term rentals, it doesn't make financial sense, and no bank will make the loan. So this is really a non -issue. NOT GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAY. EXHIBIT NO. S 4. Regarding the minimum number of days that a rental period should entail, 7 days was proposed, but this really wouldn't accomplish anything. Most of my guests have stayed a week or more, but there are some people who would like to stay just 3 or 4 days, because that is all their schedule permits. The real losers will be Tiburon's local restaurants and shops, since these visitors typically eat out and spend lots of money in the Town, much more than "local" residents. The shorter the stay, the MORE likely they are to eat out and shop. The problem is NOT how long a guest stays, but rather the mind -set of the property owner. I would suggest the minimum of 3 days, which would eliminate most "weekend" rentals, without having an adverse effect on local businesses. 5. A few have suggested a 30 -day minimum. However any 30 -day rental agreement automatically puts the rental into an entirely different legal status: that of a month-to-month rental, and the "guest" instead becomes a "tenant" with all the legal protections against eviction, etc. that this entails. And the owner loses possession rights. Imagine renting your house out to a guest for 31 days, and when that person refuses to leave, you have to file a 3 Day Notice to Quit and begin Eviction proceedings! No one in their right mind would do that. Besides, most homeowners can't or don't want to be away from their home for a whole month. Keep in mind, these houses are being rented solely when their owners are on vacation or traveling somewhere else. How many Tiburon homeowners do you think regularly take a vacation for more than 30 days? 6. Regarding placing a maximum limit on the number of days per year to be rented, let me use our example. Some years, we have been traveling 3 months out of a year. Some years, we have been out of the country 8 or 9 months out of the year. This last year, we were in Mexico the last 8 months, with the exception of 3 weeks in March. It's silly to put a maximum, since every person's circumstances are different. Furthermore, the Town would lose TOT revenue for any rental period exceeding 30 days. I realize the Town's TOT revenue has been small for now, but if the Town would stop discouraging owners, and instead reach out to them, the Town would find they have a much higher percentage of legally permitted, tax -paying owners. 7. It was suggested that the fee to obtain a permit should be higher. I submit that this would discourage permit applications and would be entirely counterproductive. By taking such an action, the Town would have even fewer permit applications, less influence over the law abiding owners, and less TOT revenue. I suggest the Town should take the opposite tack, keep the current permit fee in place or eliminate it, and make it clear to property owners that the Town welcomes permit applications, offer a streamlined permit application process, and work together property owners to educate them regarding what it takes to be a good neighbor and successful short term host. This will maximize the Town's influence and control, as well as TOT revenue. 8. A lot of restrictions have been suggested to try to solve problems that don't exist. Minimum number of days. Maximum days. For most of us who are responsible homeowners and neighbors, none of these restrictions solve anything. What is needed is to first of all, streamline the permit process and lay out the welcome mat so that the greatest numbers of property owners as possible can be brought, from underground, into legal status. Then secondly, make it clear that annual renewal of each property owner's permit can be revoked, or suspended, if sufficient complaints from the neighborhood are received. 9. We have a house at Tahoe Dormer, in the Town of Truckee, which we also occupy from time to time, and which we also offer as a short term rental when it is not being otherwise utilized. I would recommend Tiburon emulate Truckee's very successful and welcoming short term rental policies, which work well for the Town, have not harmed or degraded the exclusive and quiet nature of Tahoe Donner's neighborhoods or the quiet enjoyment of its residents, and provides a stable and significant additional tax base for that town. To the contrary, Truckee's restaurant, shopping and tourism business would not exist were it not for the area's significant number of short term rentals. EXHIBIT NO. 2 10. I wish to emphasize finally, that, the vacation rental market is in part a response to the extreme shortage of hotel accommodations in the Tiburon area, that vacation rental guests spend a disproportionately large amount of money at local shops and restaurants, and help the local business economy thrive. (Have you tried to book a room at the Tiburon Lodge lately? No vacancy). When properly and responsibly managed, the vacation rentals help local residents to utilize an untapped resource, that is, temporarily vacant and underutilized housing, making it possible for families, which are poorly served by traditional hotels, to get to know our community. Our guests typically eat out at Tiburon restaurants two or three times a day, shop at local stores, buy gifts and souvenirs, and very often end up shopping for real estate. All of this benefits the Tiburon community. sincerely Bruce Powell PS: I have been renting since 2009, that is, 6 years, without a single complaint. EXHIBIT NO._ I.® 3 Scott Anderson From: John Simmons [jsimbuster@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:14 PM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: Ban on vacation rentals Dear Sirs: As a 33 year property owner and intermittent resident of my three unit property located at 2265 Mar East Street in Tiburon I must admit to a mistake. Last November I included in a new lease with a tenant the privilege of "sub -leasing" her unit for short term vacation rentals through VRBO and AIB&B. I did it to accommodate the tenant as I was to receive nothing as the property owner and thought that it would be on a very limited basis and would not become a problem. I was mistaken. Instead of an occasional short term vacation rental I've found my tenant, a realtor, is seldom living at the property.With many different parties coming and going the normal quiet homey residential nature of the property and neighborhood have become more the nature of a commercial income enterprise. lam now objecting to its abusive use as a vacation property and have had complaints from my other tenant who is paying a substantial monthly lease payment and is concerned with his car being hit on the parking deck by renters inexperienced with the sloping driveway. Needless to say that at the expiration of the primary tenants lease I will not allow any vacation renters under any circumstances and will be reconsidering her as a tenant as well. In the planning commission meeting on July 8th approximately half of those who spoke against a ban on vacation rentals were realtors. It is easy to understand realtors being against the ban as these vacation rentals add to their already substantial incomes both by brokering such rentals for property owners and by renting to vacationers properties they own or occupy. I can attest as an owner and occupant to the negative effect on the ambiance and quiet enjoyment of this residential property and can only imagine the restiveness in the total community as I learn of the explosion of this new industry in Tiburon. I suggest that the argument of the benefits to the town merchants by having such visitors is completely unsubstantiated and that many, if not most, vacation renters arriving here at some considerable expense are balking at $19.00 hamburgers, $14.00 glasses of wine and $185.00 dinners out in Southern Marin. I can further attest that the vacation renters coming to my building on Mar East very seldom leave the property for anything as they would rather sit on the patio with a glass of $14.00 a bottle wine with dinner on the BBQ while watching the never ending boat traffic passing the San Francisco water front and under the Golden Gate Bridge. I've even overheard people from out of state comment on the cost of everything here in Marin and Sonoma counties; including the cost of gasoline; particularly those people from the South and the Mid West. The argument made by the owner who does not want the ban because it would interfere with his world travels is laughable. Being gone 8 or 10 months of the year makes him an absentee owner of a rental property not a concerned resident. Somehow my sympathy falls short for a world class sailor who life style is much supported by rental property in Tiburon. As for the realtors wanting to mask their eaming potential from vacation rentals by claiming an upside for the merchants of Tiburon I suggest the opposite. The more likely users of the merchants of the town have left the town and rented their home to vacation renters that have no care, concern or vested interest in the community or the property they have rented. And. as stated. in many cases will be hard pressed to use the merchants in town due, in no small way, to sticker shock and the draw of enjoying those things on decks and patios without the extra Southern Marin Surcharge as I call it. No the negative impact on our quiet neighborhoods far outweighs the assumed benefits to any others than the realtors collecting fees and spreads and the added income to the owners using these services. It is even more negative when you consider that the city coffers are not receiving enough revenue to pay for regulating and administrating this growing out of control industry. My understanding is that the city officials that administer this program readily admit that they receive very little revenue and have no idea how many property owners are allowing short term vacation renters and are not receiving many volunteered applications or have the man power to properly administer the application process much less see to receiving the fees due the city. Its a great gift to the owners and realtors but what does the city administration and the town in general receive that can be documented other than the non reimbursed expense of administrating a negative profit center. Most Sincerely, John L. Simmons E%I3IBIT NO. 140 8-16-15 Tiburon Town Council Members Subject: Vacation Rental Ordinance LATE MAIL #(?-/?-6-) Did you ever encounter a stranger walking on your driveway? In your yard? Not likely if you have a single family home. However if you share a driveway or property easements a stranger unannounced can be disconcerting. What do you do? Is that anyway to live where the average home sells for a price well above most of the region. We have encouraged the Town Planning Commission and as well you as members of the governing body for the Town to preserve the quiet nature of the Town. Don't sacrifice property values for a few dollars of transient occupancy taxes. Our neighborhood is zoned residential which by most definition means families and permanent residents as owners or long term renters. We should strive to maintain that profile. At the Planning Commission meeting, on July 8, 2015, it was suggested to increase rental terms, restrict to single family units only, prohibit homes used as commercial/investment properties or otherwise classified as non -owner occupied homes and homes with shared driveways or special easements. Both Staff and the Commissioners voiced concern about how the Town Staff could monitor the vacation rental ordinance leaving everyone on the panel (Town Staff and Commissioners) puzzled as to how the program could be monitored to protect the 'Quiet nature of the Town'. Mill Valley now has an estimated 180 to 259 Airbnb units within Mill Valley ZIP codes according to a July 2151 Marin IJ editorial. Is that what we want? Now is the time to consider the long term. The Town is on a strong footing financially with property values increasing and vacancy low so why continue the vacation ordinance policy that has unintended consequences. We should strive to encourage long term rentals with the hope the renter will eventually purchase a home preserving what we all prize about Tiburon, a friendly and quiet residential neighborhood. Reject vacation rentals completely. restrict for monthly rental only, restrict to private single family homes that are not commercial. only allow permits for homes that are the primary dwelling for the property owners. do not allow permits for properties with commingled rights (common areas. pools. access. parking etc.) with neighboring property that share an easement. Sincerely, Joe and Cathy Haraburda 120 Solano Street rull AUG 1 7 [Uib0 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON INIOI..... Tuesday, July 21, 2015 )) MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/MARINIJFAN AN Editorial for Mill Valley wrestles with nodal rentals Add Mill Valley to the list of towns wrestling with popularity of web -driven short-term vacation rentals. The proliferation of rentals, thanks to "sharing economy" _ websites such as Airbnb and VRBO.eom, has City Hall trying to get a handle on that growth, including leveling the market playing field when it comes to regulation and revenue. Like most cities, Mill Valley collects taxes from local hotel rentals. But the growth of unregulated and mostly untaxed short-term rentals is competing with those businesses that are following the rules. Still, the rentals open the door to more visitors and bring in more business for restaurants and stores. The rentals also help homeowners afford the cost of - buying a house in Marin. Their role in making it economically possible for some homeown- ers to be able to afford to live in high-priced Marin should not be underestimated. The problem is, how does the town regulate businesses whose popularity is driven by its lower cost and under -the -radar avail- ability? Marin's representative in the state Senate, Democrat Mike McGuire, tried to level the play- ing field and give cities more control over short-term rentals. His bill would have required the websites to report to cities and counties the addresses of rent- als, how many nights they are being rented and for how much. That information would take the detective work out of City Hall's effort to locate and reg- ulate egulate the units. But his bill has been tabled in the Legislature, Airbnb users opposed Mc- Guire's bill, arguing that it would require the release of pri- vate information to municipal- ities. . Mill Valley Mayor Ken Wach- tel says he wants to establish a minimal charge that would en- courage rentals to be registered at City Hall. Registration would also enable the city to set max- imum occupancy limits and es- tablish good -neighbor policies, mostly to save neighbors from headaches involving parking and noise. These don't seem un- . reasonable. A search of Airbnb offerings showed 180 to 259 units within Mill Valleya1Y codes. Likely, some are outside of the city lim- its. VRBO showed 100 rent- als looking for paying guests in Mill Valley. Based on those numbers, if the city collected a $20 room tax per rental two days a week, these rentals could generate more than $700,000 per year • in city revenue. That's no small sum. It also points out the inequity of hotels and bed-and-break- fasts ed-andbreakfasts having to pay their fair share for city licenses and room taxes and abide by city rules, while their unregulated compe- tition grows. E nll U AUG "ii nth TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Diane Crane Iacopi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Dan Watrous Monday, August 17, 2015 8:15 AM auITC (Tiburon Town Council) Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Diane Crane Iacopi FW: Ban Tiburon Vacation Rentals! Letter to City Council 8-13-15 (2).docx; Mill Valley Problems with Short Term Renters.pdf High Late mail for the seasonal rental unit discussion... From: Cathy Haraburda[mailto:c.haraburdaCalcomcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 9:40 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Ban Tiburon Vacation Rentals! Importance: High Dan, Please have this information for the City Council meeting this week. Let me know the date for the Council meeting. Regards, Cathy Haraburda 415 435-9476 1 Home Sharing in the New Economy BY TREVOR RUSIN AND ANDREA VISVESHWARA LATE MAIL #(73 /9. 75-) pH z With short-term residential rentals exploding in popularity in the "new" or "sharing" economy, many cities are taking a hard look at the impacts of such rentals in the community. Online hosting plafforms such as Airbnb, HomeAway and Flipkey' have created a direct connection between hosts (for example, residential owners) and travelers or other temporary visitors and make it easy to rent a home or room for short periods of time. Opponents are concerned with loss of housing stock and the residential character of neighborhoods. Neighbors may complain about impacts from parking, traffic and noise, as well as other public safety issues. Hotels may also complain that short-term residential rentals do not have the same overhead costs and regulation that they face. Alternatively, proponents may desire to supplement their income with such rentals for a variety of reasons, such as to offset a job loss_ The business community may also welcome the positive effects of more visitors who frequent city restaurants and purchase other services. Although not specifically designed to address the sharing economy, cities' traditional regulatory tools allow communities to address short-term rentals and their potential impacts. This article provides an overview of these tools and their reach. Short -Term Residential Rentals Can Be Regulated as a Land Use The California Court of Appeal in Ewing v. City of Caramel -By -The -Sea considered whether a city ordinance that banned short-term rentals (residential property rentals of 30 days or less) was valid.''The ordinance was based on the city's General Plan policies related to strengthening the residential character of neighborhoods in the city by limiting commercial uses in residential neighborhoods."' The plaintiffs owned a single-family property in a residential district and rented the property to tourists for short stays.'" They argued the ban ordinance did not advance a legitimate government interest, citing a lack of complaints about the rentals." However, the court found that the short-term rentals alone sufficiently threatened the residential character of a. neighborhood because "short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry.""' Accordingly, the court upheld the city's prohibition. A city is not limited to imposing a strict prohibition or ban and may use its constitutional police power to allow short- term rentals subject to conditions designed to address potential negative impacts. Options include a density restriction or allowing the rentals only in certain areas to mitigate against harm to a neighborhood's residential character. Alternatively, a city may allow short-term rentals where the host is present (for example, renting a room or guesthouse), but prohibit them where the host is not present (for example, renting the entire residence). Cities may also consider limiting the number of days in a calendar year that a property can be used as a short-term rental or implement related parking or noise restrictions. One option for implementing conditions is requiring hosts to obtain an administrative permit or otherwise register with the city pursuant to an ordinance. A key benefit of this practice is that it makes the host known to the city and facilitates communication. The city may also charge a permit fee, which can offset the cost of administering the permitting program. Short -Term Rentals Mav Be Taxed Short-term rentals also present a potential source of revenue for cities. Revenue and Taxation Code section 7280 allows a city to tax "the privilege of occupying a room or rooms, or other living space, in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel or other lodging unless the occupancy is for a period of more than 30 days." Thus, these rentals may already be subject to a city's transient occupancy tax (TOT) ordinance, depending on how the jurisdiction has defined its ordinance. In addition, SB 593 (the Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act) is a two-year bill in the Legislature that may be taken up again in January 2016. If passed, the bill would amend section 7280 to declare that existing law allows a city to levy a tax on short term rentals pursuant to its TOT ordinance on either a host or a hosting platform. A short-term rental may also be considered a business, subject to a city's business license and tax requirements. Enforcing Compliance With Local Ordinances Permitted Use by Right in All or Certain Zones. The easiest and most cost-effective ordinance to enforce is one that allows short-term rentals. This type of ordinance may include a requirement that hosts register with the city. Such an ordinance will also generate the greatest tax revenue if the rentals are subject to the city's TOT. It encourages registration and payment of taxes because: • There is no benefit to avoiding registering; and • There are heavy financial penalties (including back taxes, penalties and interest) for not complying. Cities that employ this type of ordinance will not only be able to take enforcement action against problem rental properties (for example, properties that violate nuisance, noise or special -event permit ordinances), they will also be able to educate and communicate more effectively with hosts. If short-term rentals are permitted in only some areas of the city, the benefits will decrease proportionally. This type of ordinance may work best in a city where there are not significant concerns about housing stock being depleted. Bans. This type of ordinance is the next easiest to enforce because a single violation is enough for city staff to take enforcement action, and once a violating property is found it can be monitored. Although a ban may eliminate some short-term rental use, it may also drive the hosts underground. Some hosts may disguise their properties online, falsify or eliminate the rental paper trail and use middlemen to avoid detection and repercussions. Such deception makes enforcement costly and time consuming, with no tax revenue to offset the cost of enforcement. One option to simplify enforcement is to adopt an ordinance that bans advertising of short-term rentals. There is no right to advertise illegal activity, which opens the door to taking action directly against websites that facilitate such rentals." If passed, SB 593 might provide another tool for enforcing a ban as it would prohibit website platforms from advertising short-term rentals in cities where they are not allowed. Allowed Subject to Conditions. These ordinances are seen as a compromise between local proponents and opponents of short term rentals. However, the conditions imposed: • Are harder to prove. A city must show not just that a rental occurred, but that the rental violated the conditions because, for example, it exceeded the number of rentals allowed in a year for the property or rented out an entire home instead of a room (depending on the conditions in the ordinance); • Make violators harder to detect because renting is allowed. It is much easier to detect rental activity than to determine if specific conditions are being violated; and • May discourage host registration if conditions are too complex or burdensome. The effect conditions will have on registration should therefore be carefully considered. If SB 593 passes in 2016, enforcement of such ordinances may be more feasible because of the information that hosting platforms will be required to provide to cities. For now, enforcement may prove challenging. Enforcement Tools Short-term rentals can be easily disguised to look like legitimate long-term rentals. A few tools exist to make enforcement efforts easier. They include education efforts, legislative subpoenas, undercover operations, using advertising against hosts, and TOT collection by the hosting platform. Education. Educating the community about an ordinance should be a primary focus. The hosting platforms may be open to assisting such efforts. Legislative subpoenas. All Califomia cities can issue subpoenas to aid investigation and enforcement related to short term rental ordinances. These subpoenas are a powerful tool and can be used to: • Obtain information from hosting platforms; and • Obtain information directly from hosts. While effective at gathering information from hosts or websites based in the same county as a city, enforcing a legislative subpoena against more distant hosts may face stiff resistance. If enacted, SB 593 would also require hosting platforms to produce quarterly reports detailing the addresses, dates of stay and amounts paid for short-term rentals booked on their platforms. This information could aid a city in assessing TOT owed and detecting rentals that violate an ordinance."' Undercover operations. These efforts can be an effective tool if a city has a ban or allows short-term rentals subject to conditions. However, a substantial investment of staff time is needed for the investigations. Use advertising against hosts. Without online hosting platforms, short-term rentals would exist only on a small scale. As a result, most hosts advertise on the platforms. Information from hosting platforms should be downloaded, preserved and investigated. TOT collection by the hosting platform. If a city collects TOT from short-term rentals, the city can request or require' the hosting platform to collect and remit the tax directly to the city. Thus far, Airbnb has been the only hosting platform willing to collect TOT at the request of a city and does so in San Francisco, San Jose and Malibu. Consider Local Options Carefully Cities have a variety of options available in crafting an ordinance that best addresses short-term rentals in the community. The right ordinance may differ greatly among cities, depending on the local goals for the regulation. Ordinances that focus on the key impacts of concern and that are easy to understand and straightforward to enforce will have the best success in meeting the community's needs. For more information about short-term rentals, visit the League's "Hot Issues" page at www.cacities.orgfvacationrentals. Vacation Rental Benefits for Tiburon Merchants Tiburon Seasona Based on Survey of 26 Family Vacation Renters m m u1 w 0 I. G • >` . vel c0 . o a. Q1f7 as 0 t a a `n a Entertainment Per Person ro 0 0. co m Ol ih c0 _ E 0 O c o i 4- LU e 113 @. O to O ri 1.11 0 N: m a! ni h ih 14 O O 0 o VI- NJ N 0 tO O ca - 1 O O O O r-1 O O O O O M r-( O O O O O h 0 0 0 00 0 00 h 0 6 0 0 in ui C O O Ci C tri tri O t11 to o0 h M 00 O N O d M O i/} N i)} {/} i/} i/1 1.41.4 Q ri 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U.' O O o 0 0 4./1 IPF i/1 V). i/1 V). VI - 0 !1 0 o O o 0 o O O O O O O O O N 0 O O 0 0 0 et m 0 0 1• 0 00 Vl VI. N N i/} .-i to i/1 i/1 if} E O O (0 O ro c to co c 0 O C7 L (O u co (0 (a ) a) 0 O (O 00 00 00 0 T (O O (a E o2S (0 0 O o O 0 rl e-1 i!1 O O O 41 - *JD in• E O u E O CO U 0. 0 T 7 0 a) u C 0 O O O O 00 .N a) (0 U E 0 0 131N 0) 00 (a 0) 00 (o Z (0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 6 0 0 0 O C)1 0 0 0 0 tO N N r1 u1 1/1 i/1 r-1 iR 411. E O u a) a (0 co 0 0 0 0 X 0 U V1 i/1 E 0 0 (0 E m a) 4- 0) C a) .0 0 (0 0. In0) O 0 O (,0 N' O O o N ih i/1 0 0 O O if} 4.4 E 0 co O E O O L (0 c .0 O Q. • T N Q qJ 0- (a all E c 0)) (o C C O co L N . cc o_ c a) CO c c E O V • 0 co @J (o 0. co c O m co ifl 03 0 N i/1 ri tO 0 O c -i CoCS .1 to ih t/1 VI. O o O 0 O O O O O O O u1 O 0 t0 CO N ih iR ih 0 0 O 0Ln 0 LO i)} E O V O to 0) 0 L V ((0 E 0 N ((00 2 7 CU O 0) a) 0 E L 1 co tri (0 T (0 1.070 U E a) c (0 C7 u 2 O roL (A 0 o 0(JD 00 o ih N