Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2008-08-22 TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of Aagust 18 - 22, 2008 Tiburon 1. Public Notice - Dredging a Paradise Cay Yacht Harbor Agendas & Minutes 2. Minutes - Design Review Board - August 7, 2008 3. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - August 21, 2008 4. Agenda - POST Commission - August 26, 2008 5. Agenda - Planning Commission - August 27, 2008 6. Meeting Cancellation - Town Council- September 3, 2008 Regional a) None Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only -m ~~8r SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT US Army Corps of Engineers PUBLIC NOTICE PROJECT: Dredging - Paractise Cay Yacht Hamor NUMBER: 26655N DATE: August 25,2008 RESPONSE REQUIRED BY: September 15, 2008 Regulatory Branch 1455 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103-1398 PERMIT MANAGER: Robert Lawrence; PHONE: (415) 503-6808; E-mail: robert.j.lawrence@usace.army.mil 1. INTRODUCTION: Paradise Cay Yacht Harbor (Yacht Harbor) (through its agent Rick Moseley, Salt River Construction, in Tiburon, California) has requested a modification to its ten year Department of the Army permit to maintenance dredge the Yacht Harbor (including the entrance channel) in Tiburon, Marin County, California. A Public Notice was issued on April 14, 2003 for the original permit. That p~'ITIlit was issued on April 16, 2004 for dredging a total of approximately 84,000 cubic yards (cys) of material over a ten-year period. According to the agent, the amount (84,000 cys) was dredged in episodes from 2004 to 2007. The volume calculations for the original amount (84,000 cys) did not accurately take into account the sedimentation rate in the Yacht Harbor. The requested modification is to increase the volume of the pennit by 100,000 cys (total approximately 184,000 cys). The permit expires October 31, 2013. The overall dredge footprint remains unchanged (approximately 9.2 acres). The design depth for the whole marina and the entrance channel remains the same at -9 feet mean lower low water plus an additional I-foot overdredge allowance. The material would be removed using a clamshell or barge mounted backhoe and removed by barge to the Alcatraz Disposal Site (SF-Il), unless a suitable upland disposal site becomes available. Prior to any dredging episode, the Dredge Materia! Management Office (DMMO) will evaluate the sediments to be dredged for disposal or reuse suitability. The DMMO includes representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the U.S. ArnlY Corps of Engineers (Corps). The DMMO is tasked with approving sampling and analysis plans in conformity with testing manuals, reviewing the test results and reaching consensus regarding a suitable disposition for the material. 2. PUBLIC L'\'TEREST EVALUATION: The decision whether to modify the permit will be based on an evaluation of the -probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed modification on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed modification may have on the public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors that become relevant in each particular case. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the modification, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur. are therefore determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hw.ards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion. recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. 1 " " " 3. CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS: The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, Federal, State and local agencies and officials, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed modification. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to modifY this permit. To make this decision, commerJts are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are also used to determine the nced for a public hearing and to determine the overall public intcrest of the proposed modification. 4. SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS: Interested parties may submit in writing any comments concerning this modification. Comments should include the applicant's name, the number, and the date of this Notice and should be forwarded so as to reach this oflice wi thin the comment period specified on page one of this Notice. Co!!"..ments should be sent to: Mr. Robert Lawrence, Regulatory Division. It is Corps policy to forward any such comments that include objections to the applicant for resolution or rebuttal. Any person may also request, in writing, withm the comment period of this Notice that a publie hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Additional details may be obtained by contacting the applicant whose address is indicated in the first paragraph of this Noticc, or by contacting Mr. Robert Lawrence of our office at telephone (415) 503-6808 or bye-mail atrohert.j.1awrence@usace.army.mil. Details on any changes of a minor nature that are made in the final permit action will be provided on request. 2 MINUTES #10 TmURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2008 ()IG~ '8]- The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Doyle. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Chong, Glassner and Tollini Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner Phillips, Associate Planner Tyler, and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous welcomed Boardmember Mike Tollini as the Design Review Board's newest member. He reported that the item for 1865 Mountain View Drive will be continued to the October 2nd meeting instead of September 4th Planning Manager Watrous reminded board members to bring their zoning ordinance to the next meeting for Municipal Code updates. D. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR ACTION: It was M/S (Glassner/Chong) to re-elect Chair Doyle as Chair of the Design Review Board. Vote: 4-0. ACTION: It was MIS (Doyle/Chong) to re-elect Vice Chair Glassner as Vice Chair of the Design Review Board. Vote: 4-0. TffiURON D.R.B. MINUTES #10 8107108 E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 21 MARA VISTA DRIVE VOSTI, ADDITIONS 21 MARA VISTA COURT LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARlANCES/EXCEPTION EXISTING 8,120 S.F. 1,710 21.0% I I '8" 10' &8' 25' 42' NONE JEANETTE VOSTI PROPOSED REQUIRED NA NA 2.344 2,812 MAX 21.0% 30.0% MAX 20T 30' MAX 10' & 8' 8' 25' 15' 42' 25' The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition and alterations to an existing single-family home located at 21 Maravista Court. This application was first reviewed at the June 19, 2007 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the neighboring property owners at 12 and 25 Maravista Court raised concerns regarding potential privacy impacts that would be caused by the proposed second story addition and covered deck on the subject property. The Board reviewed the proposal, but continued the project to give the applicant time to rethink the proposed addition and to allow for additional dialogue between the neighbors. Several Board members expressed the option of switching the location of the covered deck from the side of the addition to the front of the addition facing Maravista Court in hopes of decreasing the potential privacy impact. The applicant has made no changes to the project design, but proposes to increase landscaping to screen views of the addition frorn the patio at 25 Maravista Court. John Belz, architect, said he has completed drawings that better show how moving the deck would impact views and how it would affect the shape of the bedroom. He proposed building a 6-foot fence between the Doctors' patio and the applicant's property to alleviate the neighbor's concerns about privacy. He said that the existing fence is only 4 feet high and the Doctors' patio is at a higher elevation than Ms. Vosti's patio. Jeanette Vosti, applicant, said she has lived in her house for 30 years, and had dreams of building a second story to incorporate the southern view when she first bought the house. She said that she has lost sorne of her original view by the growth of tall trees. She said that the second story addition would allow her to capture the better view toward the south and the bridge towers. She said that the plans were designed to minimize any impact on the privacy of neighbors and that there are no hornes in back of her house, and therefore, the addition will not block anyone's view or look into anyone' s bedroom. She noted that the deck would not be a roof deck and would be only 9 feet wide and too small for entertaining. She said that moving the deck would make it loom over the Jones' property and would give her the sarne tree-filled view she currently has. She felt that a 6-foot fence and landscaping would provide privacy and noise reduction for both TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 2 properties, and thought that she might request a variance for a 7 or 8 foot tall fence for increased privacy screening. The public hearing was opened. Karen Jones objected to the addition, stating that it would cornpletely destroy privacy in her backyard. She said that the addition would put a box in the middle of her tree views and the second story deck would project noise to everyone in the neighborhood. Hank Bruce, architect, represented the Doctors, who were out of town. He said the deck would create an overwhelming sense of people looking down on the neighbors' patio. He stated that the proposal to increase the fence height to 6 feet would not achieve the Doctors' privacy goals. He said that he contacted Mr. Belz, who said that they had no changes to make. Mr. Bruce stated that because the lots and houses in this neighborhood are small, there can be many conflicting issues that require a sensitive solution. He felt that the solution presented was not par1icularly sensitive and is driven by expense rather than by addressing neighbors' concerns. He requested more tirne to come up with options that are more agreeable to neighbors, as was suggested at the last Board meeting. John Bryant, attorney representing Ms. Vosti, presented photos showing that her westerly view is blocked by trees. He stated that a second story was approved in the 1990's for Ms. Jones' property and he distributed photos showing what that would have looked like. Mr. Bryant stated that the Doctors' patio should not be protected as a primary living space, adding that it did not make sense that they want privacy but only have a 4-foot fence. He said that a higher fence or shrubbery would rninimize the impact of the addition on their property. He said second-story additions to that neighborhood have already been built in the neighborhood and he asked if the Town had made any decision on whether second-story additions are allowed in that neighborhood. Planning Manager Watrous said it had not been decided and that the DRB reviews each application on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bryant asked if a patio is considered to be a primary living space. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Town's Hillside Guidelines and View Ordinance do not generally consider a patio to be a primary living area. Chair Doyle said that he understood that the deck was small and he was not concerned about the noise issue, but he wanted to know why putting a window in the place of the deck was not an option. Mr. Belz sketched a drawing of the deck moved to the side which he said would make the bedroom unusable, as it would be too narrow. Mr. Bryant added that people inside the morn want to view through the deck. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Chong said that he visited the site and stood on the applicant's roof and saw a lot of two-story houses in the area. He understood the desire for views, and said that the way the neighborhood is configured, there is no way to put in a deck that does not look into someone's backyard. He said that the proposed deck and addition are modest in size. He stated that an 8- TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 3 foot fence would block rnost anything on the neighbor's patio, but that additional landscaping and a shorter fence would block views of the deck from the Doctors' patio. Vice-Chair Glassner said he also visited the property and said the Doctors' residence is a high density household and their picket fence does nothing for privacy. He said that a solid fence and landscaping would certainly help with privacy and noise issues. He felt the Board might consider granting a variance for an overheight fence, but a fence that tall rnight be obtrusive. He felt that nothing could be done in the neighborhood that would not affect someone. Boardmember Tollini stated that it is difficult to find a balance between privacy and views. He felt that the Doctors' were fortunate to have a usable front yard to begin with, but he acknowledged that the patio does not qualifY as primary living area. Chair Doyle stated that there are many second stories in the neighborhood and no one has absolute privacy. He felt that a solid fence and trees or shrubs between the properties would solve the issue. He said that there was some distance between this house and the Jones' home and this house was uphill as well. He said that moving the deck to the front would not really solve anything and that this would not be a party deck. He said that there is not much else that could be done other than not building the second story. Plarming Manager Watrous said that the current application does not appear to have a 6-foot fence proposed along that proper1y line. Mr. Belz said he suggested a 6-foot fence and had a detail drawing. PI arming Manager Watrous said that there appeared to be a consensus from the Board about to require a fence and landscaping along the side property line, and suggested the Board could make that a condition of approval. ACTION: It was M/S (Glassner/Chong) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the project with the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition of approval requiring construction of a 6-foot high solid fence along the side property line extending to the end of the Doctors' patio, with the finished side of the fence facing the neighbors, and installation of mature landscaping that would provide immediate privacy, to be reviewed by Staff. Vote: 4-0. F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 85 SEAFIRTH ROAD 85 SEAFIRTH ROAD LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARlANCESIEXCEPTION HOLSCHER, ADDITIONSN ARlANCE JIM AND HELEN HOLSCHER EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 13,320 S.F. NA NA 2,684 2,896 3.332 MAX 23.6% 25.0% 15.0% MAX 18'l" 22'11" 30' MAX 19' & 13'6" 15' & 13'6" IS' 15' 15' 30' 54' 54' 25' EXCESS LOT COVERAGE TffiURON D.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 4 An application has been requested for Design Review approval for the construction of additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling located at 85 Seafirth Road. The additions would expand the kitchen, one bedroom and the dining room. A laundry room would also be added. Windows would be added and reconfigured around the house. With the exception of the dining room and kitchen, the roof would be expanded upward in angular manor. The roof material would be replaced with a dark brown standing seam metal. A variance is required for excess lot coverage. A variance has been requested for excess lot coverage. David Holscher, architect, described the proposed additions which would create an entry from the roadside and a pleasing roofscape, and add two bedrooms and a laundry room. There were no public comments. Boardmember Tollini stated that the design would help break up the mass of the house and the variance request was de minirnis, particularly due to the substandard lot size. Boardmembers Chong liked the design and the slanted roofline which would irnpact views. Vice-Chair Glassner stated that the project design was simple, clean and straightforward. ACTION: It was MIS (Chong/Tollini) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving the project with the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 3. 2 ROLLING HILLS ROAD 2 ROLLING HILLS ROAD LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCESIEXCEPTION GARVEY, ADDITIONS JACK GARVEY PROPOSED REQUIRED NA NA 4,250 4,747 MAX 14.6% 15.0% MAX 29'6" 30' MAX 22' & 29'6" 15' 89' 30' 52'6" 25' EXISTING 27,469 S.F. 2,630 12.4% 23' 50' & 38'6" 77' 72' NONE An application has been requested for Design Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2 Rolling Hills Road. The addition would be located on the right (north) side ofthe dwelling and would include a new two-car garage, an office, extension of the family roorn and a deck on the lower level. A new kitchen, master bedroom suite and extension of the living room would be located at the upper level. Also proposed are two new chimneys: one in the proposed master bedroom and one adjacent to the entryway, both at the upper level of the home. Improvements to the existing landscape are also included as part of the proposal. TffiURON n,R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 5 Mohamad Sadrieh, architect, described the proposed project. He said that the applicant liked the style of the existing house, and maintained the pitched roofs and broad overhang. He said that the entry trellis would provide shadow and depth and the addition would utilize the same rnaterials. Jack Garvey, applicant, addressed a neighbor's concerns about an oak tree that would need to be removed, stating that his arborist determine that the proposed project would not affect the existing oak trees. He distributed a letter from his neighbors attorney indicating that the neighbor had withdrawn her objections to the project. There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Glassner said that the applicant had done a good job working with the neighbors on this and that the landscaping was great. Boardmembers Chong agreed, stating that it was refreshing to see people having a dialogue and keeping their trees. ACTION: It was MIS (Glassner/Tollini) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the project with the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 4. 110 ROLLING HILLS ROAD LITTMAN, NEW DWELLING 110 ROLLING HILLS ROAD ALLAN LITTMAN EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED LOT SIZE 20,150 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 990 3,995 4.015 MAX LOT COVERAGE 4.9% 13.3% 15.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 15' 26' 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 14' &43' 15' & 18'6" 15' FRONT YARD 93' 55' 30' REAR YARD 65' 30' 25' V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION NONE An application has been requested for Design Review approval for construction of a new two- story single-family dwelling on property located at I 10 Rolling Hills Road. Currently the property is improved with a pool house and swimming pool. A recent two-lot subdivision resulted in the subject property, and as the proposal is for the construction of a new single-family dwelling, the existing pool house and swimming pool would be demolished as part of the project. The lower level of the horne would include the family room, kitchen, breakfast nook, dining room, living roorn, and a study. The upper level would include the rnaster bedroom suite three bedrooms, two bathroorns, a laundry room and a two-car garage. An interior stairway and elevator would service both levels. A deck would also extend out on the upper level with access from both the rnaster bedroom and one of the bedrooms. TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 6 Moharnad Sadrieh, architect, said that the lot slopes gently down to a flat area, and that most of the house would be situated there and the privacy of the uphill neighbors is preserved. He said that the intent is to have architecture that blends in with the surroundings. He said that they would maintain all of the trees outside of the building itself and add additional screening. The public hearing was opened. Mark Miravalle said that his property would be more directly affected by this proposal than any other property. He said that his home is a split level, not a three-story house as stated in the applicant's letter. He said that the proposed house would be rnassive and would block the view from his office, where he spends a lot oftime. He requested a differerJt design that would not be as high and massive. He believed that a I Yo story house that is spread out rnore on the lot would be more out of sight and mind. He said that the design of the house is beautiful, but needs to be lowered and screened to block the view between their two homes. He said that drainage has always been an issue in the neighborhood and requested the applicant share in the cost to fix this problem. Karen Peters said she lives directly across from the proposed new dwelling and wants to maintain beauty and privacy within the neighborhood. She said that she was especially concerned about privacy in her kitchen area and the large size ofthe new dwelling loorning over that area. She requested that the applicant find a way to lower the grade of the home by about 4 feet or perhaps move it a little bit. She said that she would definitely like the 18 inch oak tree to remain. She said that there is little room for plantings to screen the mass ofthe new house. Alan Rappaport said that he generally supported the project, but was concerned about the irnpact the house would have on his privacy. He said that windows would look onto the entirety of his deck and multiple areas of the house including hallways, a bedroom, and a bathroom. He asked for translucent windows on the side that faces his home. He also concurred with Ms. Peters' sentirnent that perhaps the house could be lowered to gain privacy and reduce its mass. Robin Fisher said that she lives further away frorn the proposed house, but was concerned about the double blind corner present when driving around Rolling Hills Road. She asked the Board to consider the traffic implications of the new dwelling and suggested a driveway mirror would help. Alan Littman, applicant, said that he responded to each neighbor's concerns. He said that the neighbors told him that they liked proposed design of the horne, which was inconsistent with them now saying that the house was rnassive. He said that the proposed new dwelling would have only two stories but other homes in the neighborhood have 3 stories. He did not believe that he had an obligation to be sure that neighbors have no view of the structure from their homes. He stated that the height of the house would probably be only about 14 feet above the height of the pool house. He said that translucent windows were possible and that although he would prepare a drainage plan for the proposed dwelling, he did not agree with exacting a contribution frorn him for neighborhood drainage improvements. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 7 Mr. Sadrieh noted that all that could be seen from the road would be one story of the house. He confirmed that the house would be 26 or 27 feet tall. Vice-Chair Glassner asked that given the size of the house and issues expressed by neighbors, if there was anything that could be done to reduce the bulk and rnass of the building. Mr. Sadrieh said they already designed the house with a low roof pitch and that if the house were lowered its views would be impacted. Chair Doyle questioned why the bedrooms were upstairs where there is a better view. Mr. Sadrieh explained that this was a preferred way of designing a house so that the yard can be accessed from the main living area. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Glassner said this is the first pass of what is likely to be a very beautiful house, but there are issues with the neighbors about the bulk and mass of the dwelling. He suggested that sorne work be done with the design to lessen the roof height, and that even lowering it 2-3 feet might help significantly. He said that he could not support the project as currently presented. Boardmember Chong said that this is a unique lot and a difficult situation because the neighbors have always looked onto an essentially empty site. He said that frosting the windows facing Mr. Rappaport's home would help. He said that there is more work that could be done and that he would like to see the mass and bulk of the house lessened somewhat. Boardmember Tollini said that new construction is the greatest change for a neighborhood and provides a clean slate for review. He said that the house would have quite a lot of mass when viewed from below. He said that the house would basically straddle the property, which places the building close to the edges of the setbacks. He said that he would like to see something that would have a little less impact to the surroundings. Chair Doyle said that the elevation plans are deceiving, as the house would appear like a one- story home from the street and would not appear as large as the neighbors believe. He said that the neighbors' concerns are minor, but he would like to see the size and height of the house brought down a little. He felt that this was a nice plan on a difficult lot, and he did not want to see frosted glass across the whole front of the house. ACTION: lt was M/S (Tollini/Chong) to continue the application to the Septernber 4, 2008 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 5. 1865 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE GRANT/PEARCE, NEW DWELLING/ VARIANCE/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION - CONTINUED TO 10/2/08 G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #9 OF THE 6/19/08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TlBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 8 ACTION: It was MIS (Chong/Glassner) to approve the minutes of the June 19,2008 meeting as written. Vote: 3-0-1 (Tollini abstained). H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 0 p.m. TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #10 8/07/08 9 ACTION MINUTES #11 DIG ~8,.. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD A. ROLL CALL: Present - Chair Doyle, Boardmernbers Chong, Glassner and Tollini Absent - None Ex-Officio - PI arming Manager Watrous, Assistant Plarmer Phillips and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD I 143 Blackfield Drive Madani Garage Conversion APPROVED 2. 96 Mt. Tiburon Court 96 Mt. Tiburon LLC New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 9/18/08 3. 55 Mt. Tiburon Road Alexandra Pacific Tr. New DwellinglVariances/Floor Area Exception CONTINUED TO 10/2/08 4. Variance Findings Study Session E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #10 OF THE 817108 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING .F. ADJOURNMENT - 8:30 P.M. " TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Community Room - 2nd Floor Tiburon, CA 94920 Inaugural Regular Meeting Tiburon Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission August 26, 2008 - 6:00 PM AGENDA ~/Q ~\S')- TOWN OF TIBURON PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION OATH OF OFFICE BY TOWN CLERK CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Commissioners Feldman, Leighton, McMullen, Sperber and Winkler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up rnay be referred to Town Staff or placed on a future Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission agenda. Please Iirnit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the admirristrative record. MAYOR JEFF SLA VITZ . Welcorning Remarks . Drawing for Terms (two 2-year tCffilS, one 3-year term, two 4-year terms) ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING . Update on Current Projects Tiburon Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission August 26, 2008 Page I BUSINESS ITEMS I. ORIENT A nON SESSION BY TOWN STAFF A. Introduction and Expectations by Town Manager - Oral Presentation B. Review of Duties as set forth in Authorizing Resolution No. 22-2008 C. Conflict ofInterest Memo and MapslBrown Act Cornpliance D. Parks Inventory and Open Space Inventory E. Tree Permit Review Guidebook - Oral Presentation 2. ADOPTION OF BY -LAWS ADJOURNMENT Tiburon Parks. Open Space and Trails Commission August 26, 2008 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting Tiburon Planning Commission August 27, 2008 - 7:30 PM AGENDA b'Q ~8.,. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman O'Donnell, Vice Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Fraser, Commissioner Frymier ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agerJda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding rnatters not on the agerJda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARING 1. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KOL SHOFAR SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY S\=HOOL; FILE #484040(C); Congregation Kol Shofar, Owner; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-291-31 [DW] MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of August 13,2008 Tiburon Planning Commission August 27. 2008 Page I ADJOURNMENT Future Agenda Items 80-E Main Street: Conditional Use Permit for Segway retail sales (September 10) 81 Paseo Mirasol: Amendment to the RIDg Mountain Precise Plan (September 10) a082708 Tiburon Planning Commission August '27, 2008 Page 2 /)IG~ '8]- NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLA TION The regular Town Council Meeting scheduled for ~tember 3. 2008 has been cancelled. The next regular meeting will be on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, in the Town Council Chambers located at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. 7 ~ / /,' ;" / L i" /. / C k"'f ( ?c~) ?( DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Posted at Town Hall cc: The Ark and Marin Independent Journal