Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-02-25TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of February 21- 25, 2011 Tiburon 1. Press Release - Meeting Announcement - Downtown Vibrancy Project 2. Letter - the Lodge at Tiburon - Support of the Increased BID Tax 3. Announcement - Walk Your History 2011- Sat., May 7, 2011 Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes - Planning Commission - January 26, 2011 5. Minutes - Design Review Board - February 3, 2011 6. Minutes - Planning Commission - February 9, 2011 7. Action Minutes - Design Review Board -February 17, 2011 8. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - February 23, 2011 Regional a) Workshop Announcement - Risk & Crisis Communications - March 3, 2011 Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only DIGEST TOWN OF TIBURON • February 25, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Next Meeting Set for Downtown Vibrancy Project Following on the heels of its "business community" meeting on February 10, 2011, another Town-convened gathering of parties interested in revitalizing Tiburon's downtown has been scheduled for: Thursday, March 10 at 6:30 p.m. Tarantino Hall, St. Hilary's Church 761 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Like the first session, this meeting will be facilitated by Barbara Maloney of BMS Design Group in San Francisco. Ms. Maloney has a wealth of experience in helping communities craft downtown revitalization efforts. The Town's Ad Hoc Downtown Committee, Vice Mayor Jim Fraser and Councilmember Dick Collins, encourage all interested Tiburon residents, business and property owners to attend. The goal of this series of meetings is to facilitate a community-driven process, one in which the interested parties, business owners, landowners and residents can discuss the problems, issues and opportunities facing the downtown and other commercial parts of Town. The Committee hopes this effort will yield a strategy for short, medium and long-term practical and implementable revitalization objectives for our downtown. The next step will be to present this strategic plan to the Town Council for its review and consideration. "The goal for the Downtown Committee goes beyond the identification of problems and their possible solutions", Fraser said. "It aims to bring the community together on this issue with new energy and focus. We are now embarked upon an initiative that we hope will have far-reaching and long-term positive outcomes for our entire community and our downtown area." Contacts: Jim Fraser, Vice Mayor, 254-0253 Dick Collins, Councilmember, 789-5205 Peggy Curran, Town Manager, 435-7383 Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development, 435-7392 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 d'! THFELODGEATTIBURON 16 February 2011 Re: Support of the Increased BID Tax Ann R. Danforth Town Attorney, Town of Tiburon adanforthAci.tiburon.ca.us Ole 0 E C E I Y E FEB 1 6 2011 D TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Ms. Danforth, Please accept this letter as a vote of support to increase the BID tax to 2%. The Marin County Convention and Visitor's Bureau has made great strides in increasing visitors to Marin. Whether it is bringing meeting planners for potential group business through FAMs, exhibiting at tradeshows or advertising- the efforts of this group has made a positive impact upon our business. The Lodge at Tiburon has benefited from our relationship through added group business, especially in months when we have needed group business. The MCVB is keenly aware of what our County needs are when it comes to driving additional revenue to our businesses. They are seasoned professionals with a singular focus which is Marin County and always includes Tiburon in their efforts. The MCVB team is very concerned about each dollar they spend and invest their time wisely. The organization is very transparent and seeks for everyone to participate towards our County's success. Thank you for your time and the Councils consideration of this important increase. I am confident the additional monies will be utilized with the utmost interest of our business betterment in mind. Sincerely, Michaela Winn General Manager The Lodge at Tiburon 1651 TIBURON BLVD. TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 T 415.435.3133 F 415.435.2451 www.THELODGEATTIBURON.com r S j! 1\ DIGEST FREE Family Event • Walk-- Y\,our into 49 POP Walk Your History 2011! Saturday, May 7, 2011 9:30 - 2:00 Here's Your Chance To Be A Part of History! You and your group are invited to participate in Walk Your History 20111 The 2009 Walk Your History event was extremely successful with more than 1,000 walkers and participants! The 2011 Event will feature two FREE family walks in Belvedere and Tiburon dotted with living history docents in period attire. The two walking tours begin and end in Belvedere Community Park where there will be music, a bar-b-que lunch cooked by volunteer firefighters, and plenty of opportunities for community booths! That's where YOU come in! Your group is invited to showcase your organization with a dedicated space for a shade tent and table at the Park during the Walk Your History activities. Increase your membership, showcase your achievements, spotlight your upcoming fundraisers, and sing the praises of your group by educating the community about your organization and the good work you do. The exposure is meant to be informational only and is not designed as a fundraiser specifically for your group, but each group is welcome to hand out free items, information packets, or other items that might be of interest to the event participants. At the last event, the Rotary handed out free water bottles and the Bel Aire School's Green Team gave out free cookies that they baked in their solar ovens during the day. What can your group do? Booth set up will be at 7:30 am and your group will be assigned a space at the Park. Lunch is offered between 11:30 am and 1:30 pm. The event winds down at approximately 2 pm so booths typically close down about that same time. If you are interested in showcasing your organization and having a booth, please call Dana Thor or Lauren Wagner at 435-4355 to make your reservation. See you at Walk Your History! PLANNING COMMISSION 4i~,' MINUTES NO. 1005 I Chair Frymier called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Fryrnier, Commissioners Corcoran, Doyle, Kunzweiler, and Tollini Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Community Development Scott Anderson, Planning Manager Dan Watrous, Contract Planner Diane Henderson, Environmental Consultant Bob Berman and Minutes Clerk Alexis Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Community Development Director Anderson stated that the Commission's approval of the recent CVS application was appealed by both the applicant and neighbors. Both appeals will be heard at the Town Council's February 16th meeting and one Commissioner is needed to attend. Chair Fryinier agreed to attend. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 40 MAIN STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 100 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE TIBURON PLAYHOUSE THEATRE AND TO ALLOW THE SERVING OF ALCOHOL FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES; FILE #11001; Main Street Properties, Owner; David Corkill/Cinema West, Applicants; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-102-27 Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report, stating the application is to construct an addition to the Tiburon Playhouse movie theatres located at 40 Main Street and to serve beer and wine to theatre patrons. The applicants propose to expand and reconfigure the existing theatre. The existing 250 square foot office at the rear of the building would be demolished and replaced with a 350 square foot addition. The additional 100 square feet would be created by making the covered porch area to the rear of the existing office into enclosed space. The interior of the building would be reconfigured into four screens, with upgrades to the furniture, fixtures and equipment, including digital projection equipment for all screens. Beer and wine sales for theatre patrons would be part of an expanded line of food concessions, along the lines of a "dinner TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 1 theatre." The exact number of theatre seats is uncertain at this time, but would not exceed the current approved seating capacity of the theatre of 477 seats. The only exterior change to the building would be the addition to the rear, details of which will be reviewed through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Staff finds the project to be consistent with the Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. David Corkill, applicant, said that the remodel and addition are desperately needed. They would like to revitalize what is the oldest and most tired theatre in Marin to the newest and nicest theatre. Martin Perlmutter said that the Tiburon Playhouse has grown old and tired and he felt strongly that the application should be approved. He said Mr. Corkill is a wonderful supporter of and contributor to the Town and the proposed wine service would be both creative and innovative. Chair Frylnier closed the public hearing. Commissioner Doyle said that this would a nice and simple addition that he could support. Vice-Chair Corcoran concurred and echoed Mr. Perlmutter's words of support. He said that the application was a welcome contrast to rumors that the theatre might leave the Town. He said that he has heard great things about a San Francisco theatre offering similar service and believed that this would be an innovative addition to both Tiburon and all of Marin. Commissioner Kunzweiler concurred that the services and amenities would help the theatre. Commissioner Tollini said that she attended a similar theatre in Orlando, greatly enjoyed it, and thought that this would be a great addition. Chair Frymier voiced full support for the project and commended the applicants on their desire to make such an improvement. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution approving the subject conditional use permit. Motion carried: 5-0. MINUTES: 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 12, 2011 Commissioner Tollini requested the following correction to the Minutes: • Page 3, 5th paragraph - "...the proposed property Iene line wall..." • Page 4, 5th paragraph - "...to get out of their cars deer is not asking too much." ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2011 meeting, as amended. Motion carried: 5-0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING 2. ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 3825 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #30701; CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPLICATIONS FOR PREZONING AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 14-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSED ON 52.12 ACRES; Planned Development #20; Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-12 and 039-301-01 Diane Henderson, contract planner for the Town, presented the staff report. She described the project and the EIR process thus far. She noted that the Draft EIR concluded that the project could result in potentially two significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Those impacts were related to temporary construction noise and to views of the site from Middle Ridge Open Space. The Draft EIR also identified five significant unavoidable cumulative impacts from the project in combination with all other development at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula. She stated that numerous public comments were received both in writing and verbally regarding the need to look at an additional alternative to the proposed development. The applicants subsequently developed Alternative 4, a reduced development plan that sets out to address the significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Alternative 4 has been adopted by the applicant as the project and as such, can be included in the Final EIR without the need to re-circulate the document. She described additional photosimulations prepared as part of the Final EIR that indicated that there would not be significant impact when viewed from the bay. Updated studies have been provided and are included in the Final EIR, which identified no new significant impacts. She stated that staff has reviewed the Final EIR and believes it to be compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommended that the Commission recommend certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council. She described issues related to ridgeline setbacks with the revised project design. As currently proposed, Lot 4 still remains within the vertical Tiburon Ridge setback and it is unlikely any development could occur on that lot without violating the setback. As a result, staff has recommended elimination of Lot 4 and any development in that location. Alternative 4 adjusted lot lines of Lots 4, 5 and 6, moved lot lines of Lots 13 and 14, and reduced the house size of Lot 14 by 1,800 square feet. The alternative also greatly reduced the amount of grading proposed, much of which was in response to the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. The revised project now includes only 3 retaining walls that exceed 6 feet in height, and most walls become either walls of the house or will not be visible from off-site. Alternative 4 made significant changes to the roadway connecting the two sites, which previously required significant grading and retaining walls. The new solution essentially constructs a bridge connecting the two terrains. She stated that staff believes that the applicants have truly addressed the concerns raised, with the one outstanding issue being impacts to Significant Ridgelines 5 and 6. Staff believes it would be very difficult to develop this site without violating some of the terms of policies regarding developing on ridgelines. Ms. Henderson noted the Town has shown some flexibility with TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 3 significant ridgeline setbacks in the past and, in fact, the location of the existing roadway is in violation of what the current ridgeline policies would allow. Commissioner Kunzweiler requested more information on cumulative impacts and how this truly relates to an individual project application. Director of Community Development Anderson said that cumulative impacts have previously been identified in the Tiburon General Plan EIR as impacts that will occur with build-out of the Tiburon peninsula. He said that these impacts do not amount to much at an individual project level, and only become cumulative at the General Plan build-out level. He stated that in approving its General Plan, the Town accepted and agreed to live with these cumulative development impacts. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that he was taken aback by Alternative 4, which makes modest changes to Alternative 3 but does not address the significant unavoidable impacts. He asked what guidance CEQA offers in determining the adequacy of an alternative and whether Mr. Berman was satisfied with the analysis provided by Alternative 4. Environmental consultant Berman stated that the intent of Alternative 4 was to look at ways to reduce specific impacts identified in EIR. He said that the alternative was successful in terms of reducing those impacts to less than significant levels with the exception of views from Middle Ridge Open Space. He said that the Commission now has a range of alternatives with a range of units from which it may choose and to which it may also snake further revisions. He noted that alternatives typically deal with physical impacts as opposed to policy conflicts, and some of the remaining issues with this project are not the types of variations to be dealt with in an EIR. He believed Alternative 4 to be an adequate response in keeping with the EIR process and that the EIR provides the Commission with adequate information to proceed. Ms. Henderson said that staff concurs with the position that Alternative 4 is a separate and adequate alternative. She reviewed the additional modifications recommended in the staff report, which do attempt to address policy impacts further than was done in the EIR. Chair Frymier noted that the Commission had read all correspondence items related to the project, including late mail, and she asked the public to limit comments to new information. She opened the public hearing and requested the applicant's presentation of the project. Shira Rabin, applicant, said that her family takes great pride in having created a sustainable and environmentally harmonious development that would minimize the impacts associated with such a constrained site. She said that since the last project hearing, they have further revised and improved the plan to address additional concerns and constraints. She said that they hosted an additional community meeting the previous week and were pleased to hear some praise and thoughtful comments. She said that the primary theme of concern was related to the potential for a "bait and switch" on the proposed home designs, and this has never been their plan, nor is it what they want. In addition to the Town's own practices and policies, she said that they would like to commit that the Ken Kao-designed homes proposed would be what would actually be built on the property and they would agree to language that deviations fiom this plan would require individual property owners to obtain a PDP amendment. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 4 She said that her family has been an excellent steward of the land and as they would be most affected by what happens here; they have designed a project that they can live beside. She thought that this application was one of the most thorough and well thought out ever submitted the Town and encouraged the Commission to certify the EIR. Scott Hochstrasser, environmental consultant, presented a PowerPoint slide show. He discussed both existing and approved development in the surrounding area and said that the SODA parcel, if developed under the County's jurisdiction, could likely yield the same significant development potential as the Sorokko property below. He reviewed the studies commissioned by the applicant, which were combined in an overlay map to demonstrate the development constraints identified in the general plan. He stated that this leaves two relatively small envelopes of developable area on the site. He noted that a significant portion of the project's ridgeline impacts result directly from these site constraints. He discussed what he felt were concessions on the applicant's part, including reducing the density from the maximum 20 units allowed under the general plan to 14 units and proposing homes mostly ranging from 6,500 to 7,500 square feet in size on 1.5-acre lots. He noted that some homes were further reduced in size as a result of the EIR findings. He added that the applicant was offering 21.5% more open space than required by the general plan as well as development of a trail adjacent to Hacienda Drive. Ken Kao, project architect and master planner, continued the PowerPoint presentation. He demonstrated how the project attempts to cluster buildings and how each home would be individually shaped to conform to the contours of the land. He discussed the latest revisions to Lots 4, 5, 6, and 14. He also discussed the green design elements of the project, which attempt to minimize the perception of massing by limiting exposed volume and appreciable view. He stated that this would be accomplished through bermed-type homes, terraced designs, reduced exposed apertures, natural materials, and earthen forms. He said that the project presents a wonderful opportunity to expand on passive home design, perhaps through geothermal or solar energy and vegetative covering. Mr. Hochstrasser stated that approximately 776 trees currently exist on the property, only 323 of which are native. While the project proposes to remove about 261 trees, he said that 253 trees would be planted. He explained that the removal to planting ratio is just short of one for one because of the extensive native grassland and plant habitats that should not be changed. He discussed Alternative 4 in greater detail, stating that in addition to reducing landslide repair grading by roughly 5%, it would eliminate 362 linear feet of retaining walls and limit the average visibility of retaining walls to 2 to 5 feet in height. He briefly discussed the proposed bridge and landscape design. Varda Rabin said that as stewards of the property, she and her family focused on the selection of an architect who truly understood the land and could offer the most integrated design. She said that Mr. Kao is the foremost architect in the field of environmentally integrated design. She is not a professional developer and as such, is looking to preserve the valuable features of the land while also creating something where she, her children, and others would be proud to live. She TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 5 believed that the proposal truly captured the spirit of Tiburon and requested the Commission's support. Chair Frymier asked if her fellow Commissioners had any questions of the applicants. Commissioner Kunzweiler acknowledged the applicant's comments regarding stewardship, but said that he had trouble reconciling that with such an intense use of the land. Mr. Hochstrasser replied that it is unlikely there are many projects of this size that would show similar sensitivity to and use of the guidelines and direction provided within the general plan. He said the general plan indicates that this site has potential for up to 20 units, but in respecting the other goals and constraints identified, the applicant reduced that back to 14 units. He said that the home size proposed would be consistent with the character of the community and surrounding land use patterns. He also noted that while Lot 4 would present some ridgeline setback issues, a close look at the surrounding area would show no less than 16 other homes violating ridgeline constraints. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that the conceptual designs are lovely, but he asked how the applicant proposed to enforce what was presented. Mr. Hochstrasser said that that would be more an issue of how the Town would propose to enforce its own approvals. He said that the Town has the policies, programs, and laws in place to ensure that the project as proposed would be the project that would be built. He stated that the Rabin family is committed to building the cutting- edge project outlined through the design criteria proposed, and approval of the project should offer the Town the ability to enforce those criteria. Chair Frymier asked Mr. Kao to discuss his experience with residential projects of this size. Mr. Kao said he has worked on several projects with homes ranging in size from 3,500 to 15,000 square feet. He said that most of his work relates to the master planning phase and few clients see the need to design as intensively in this phase as the Rabins have. He said that none of the projects are complete developments yet, as something of this magnitude takes a significant amount of time. Commissioner Doyle asked how the applicants see this proceeding, should the Commission approve the project. Mr. Hochstrasser said that there would be another 2.5 to 3 years of additional processing before any work could begin. He said that there is no intent to construct the entire development at once, but they would likely address all infrastructure improvements up front. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing to comments from interested persons. Mark Goldstein said the architectural work done for the project is phenomenal but he voiced concerns with the utopian sense of vision. He fully supported the applicant being able to profit from their land, but he could not understand why stewards of the land would propose this density, mass, and grading. He was hoping for much more than a nip and tuck in Alternative 4. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 6 He said the Sorokko property was a poor model to cite and what happens there or has happened in the past is less important than what will happen in the future. Eva Buxton said that she had many concerns relating to the project, portions of which she addressed in a letter to staff. She noted that the project calls for removal of roughly 165 native oaks trees, a number of which are heritage trees and would result in a great loss. She requested that tree mitigation measures be expressed in more detail and that a specific in-lieu fee value be determined. She also asked that the applicant consult with a botanist before installing plantings, as some of the species shown in the presentation were not native. Douglas Currens said that he has been an immediate neighbor of the Rabins for 20 years and he strongly supported the application. He said that he should be generally opposed to any development here, but he found this to be an acceptable compromise over what is allowed under the Town's general plan. He said that the project does an excellent job of integrating design into the natural environment while still allowing for expansive views. He thought that the desirable and visionary design elements would bring architectural and environmental acclaim to the town. He said that the applicants, who would suffer most from poor planning, were clearly just trying to preserve their legacy and have done an exemplary job of trying to meet the high standards set forth in the Town's guidelines. He felt that the project was worthy and he would be pleased to see such homes built across from his own. Sharon Strauss said that she has known the applicants as philanthropists, supporters of many community causes, and environmentally sensitive. She said that they designed their project with the utmost attention to green design because it is the right thing to do. She supported the project without hesitation and hoped that the Commission would do the same. Norm Traeger said that he owns 23 acres contiguous to the Sorokko and SODA properties. He supported this project, but greatly regretted that it was not proposed 20 years ago. He felt that a project of this scope and sensitivity would have sent the right signal to the Design Review Board, the Building Division, and other developers. He said that the project would forever change the character of Paradise Drive for the better and he asked the Commission to both support and to encourage this sort of landmark construction. Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League, said that she has watched the progressive increase in size, density, and insensitivity to scene and character along Paradise Drive. She questioned the Commission's ability to make the finding of overriding considerations needed to certify the EIR. She characterized Alternative 4 as a variant, not an alternative, and asked why Alternative 2 was not given greater attention. She was baffled by the continued creep of home size, particularly as recent surveys are finding that larger homes are becoming obsolete in the demography of increasing age. She asked how the common open space areas would be managed over time so that they truly constitute a whole and viable open space. She said that although individual areas of concern have been mitigated, the project as a whole was too much for this site. Annette Gellert said that she is a long-time environmentalist and has worked with Varda Rabin in the advocacy of green planting. She asked the Commission to envision what a different community this would be if each home were designed with the sensitivity shown here. She said TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 7 that the applicants have done an amazing job of evaluating how the project will impact the community and said that from an environmental standpoint, the Town can do no better than what is proposed. Alex Gerson said that the project would provide the community with a tremendous amount of open space in exchange for a low density development. As a close neighbor, he was pleased with the proposal, said that this showed the hard work and diligence of the Planning Commission. He said that the applicant's record of accomplishment supported the green concept and the proposal was in line with market demands. Regina Waldman said that the Rabins are staunch and relentless defenders of ecology, clean air, and open space, and the project directly reflects the nature of their philosophy. She supported the project as something the Town could be proud of and future generations would benefit from. Dan Waldman said that he views this property directly from his home and he travels past the proposed project frequently. He expressed concern with what the visual impacts would mean for him and the community, but said that he had great respect for the applicants and their vision. He appreciated that 1/3 of the property would be dedicated in perpetuity to open space and also that the applicant was willing to lock in the scope and forward thinking design presented as part of the project. He understood the applicants to be great stewards of the land and felt that their high ethical standards would ensure the implementation of this design. Sandra Swanson said that the California Supreme Court calls the general plan the Town's "Constitution" for future development. She read from the general plan, noting particular areas that speak to land use. She said that the Seafirth neighborhood would be tremendously affected by the significant unmitigated impacts, and asked the Commission to consider what 15 years' worth of construction noise would mean for the community. She requested that controls be put in place to require that Mr. Kao's specific designs be built. She also requested that the Commission either re-establish the original traffic study or require a new one using a consultant not hired by the applicant. She said that the remaining impacts could be greatly reduced by requiring fewer and smaller homes, increased clustering, and no ridgeline interference. Randy Greenberg stated that Alternatives 3 and 4 were identical in terms of impacts and mitigation measures. She said that the inability to provide an alternative that both accomplishes the project objectives and minimizes impacts made the project merits questionable. She said that the project did not give ridgeline policies the respect they are due and only applies general plan policies where convenient. She said that these policies, which are very clear and important to the residents of Tiburon, should be defended. She stated that ridgelines give a sense of place and space and, as many were lost to development that preceded implementation of these policies, those that are left should be protected. She said that the Commission's direction to the applicant should not be about what specific number of units would be suitable, but rather that the project must be amended to bring impacts more in line with the Town's goals and policies, and to leave the most visible portions of the ridgelines undeveloped. Becky Pringle said that she supported the efforts of the applicants but hoped the Commission would be able to balance private property rights with the rural character of Paradise Drive, traffic TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 8 from both existing and approved development using Paradise Drive and Trestle Glen Boulevard, and a more appropriate concept of home size. She said that the applicants have done a nice job, but there was still room for more thoughtful care of these concerns. Judith Thompson said that she lives immediately next door to the applicants. She said that she had repeatedly raised issues with the proposed trail head which begins right in her front yard. She said that the applicant had proposed plantings to separate the entrance from her property, but this would obstruct her views. She said that there would not be suitable access and parking at the proposed trail location, leaving the public to park on and traverse her property, and she was frustrated that the issue has not been addressed, but she otherwise supported the project. Robert Swanson said that many of the concerns with the EIR that he raised at the last public hearing have not been addressed. He said that while there has been a drastic erosion of private property rights over the years, the applicants' efforts to exercise their rights would greatly infringe upon his rights. He asked what assurances the applicant could provide that future site owners would be constrained to build a home as designed by Mr. Kao and questioned how they would know what is expected of them. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. She asked the Commissioners to provide their comments at this time on the issues of EIR certification and the prezoning of the SODA property. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that this is a very challenging project. He said that it was unfortunate that a richer and more illustrative range of alternatives was not offered in the EIR, as the project had improved with each revision. That said, he believed that the Commission had the opportunity to review and refine the project during the merits phase. He continued to be very concerned with the traffic studies, noting that the most recent study conveniently came up with speeds that were perfectly in line with the site distances available. He expressed specific concern with the use of the fire road for construction equipment. He thought that there was no question that the applicants had good intentions but the project needed to be better balanced with the general plan's objectives. He doubted that the EIR process would offer anymore assistance in this area and said that he would support certifying the EIR so that the merits phase and project refinement process could begin. Commissioner Tollini concurred. She said that the Draft EIR, response to comments and Final EIR were all quite extensive. She did not necessarily agree with all their conclusions, but felt that any other issues could be addressed during review of the project merits and she recommended certification of the EIR. Vice-Chair Corcoran concurred. He said that both the Conunission and members of the public requested an additional alternative that would provide concrete changes over what was previously presented. He was rather disappointed with what came back [Alternative 4] and did not think that it was in line with what was requested; however, he felt that the EIR was adequate and complete and he could support recommending its certification. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 9 Commissioner Doyle also agreed. He said that what was presented by the applicant was clearly the product of considerable work, which was exactly what this project deserved. He voiced support of certification of the EIR but said that there was clearly much more to discuss. Chair Frymier echoed the previous comments, stating that most of the comments heard at this meeting relate to the project merits, and she was prepared to move forward with very specific direction to the applicant. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution recommending certification of the Alta Robles Final EIR to the Town Council. Motion carried: 5-0. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to adopt the resolution recommending prezoning of the SODA property to the Town Council. Motion carried: 5-0. BREAK - Chair Frymier called a brief break, and thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. She asked Commissioners to provide their initial comments on the merits of the Precise Development Plan (PDP). Commissioner Kunzweiler said that his concerns in no way reflect his opinion of the applicants' intent, but there is debate over what constitutes intense development, reasonable development, and good stewardship. He said that he approaches his position as a Commissioner with the belief that the general plan is in fact the Town's equivalent of the "Constitution" and that it contains guidelines that both the Commission and the public spent much time developing. He said that this site presents real difficulties in balancing a profitable development with the general plan's policies, which very strongly discourage construction on ridgelines. He said that the general plan also discusses neighborhood compatibility, and while this project may be consistent with certain developments that have not yet been built, such as the Sorokko project, it would be inconsistent with the Seafirth, Acacia and Norman Way neighborhoods. He said that the project flies in the face of much of the general plan. He said that he was prepared to be flexible, but he could not see an argument to support the contention that the proposed density and size would be consistent with the general plan. He said that it was disconcerting to see so little progress made with [Alternative 4] since the last meeting, but did commend the applicants' willingness to encourage innovative design and to keep Mr. Kao involved. He said that he was not prepared to vote on the PDP at this time but would ask the development team to return with a design that demonstrates consistency with the general plan. He wanted to see if there were other alternatives, including reducing the number and/or size of homes or clustering dwellings, that would be more consistent with the general plan or lessen the impacts of the project. Commissioner Tollini said that she believes in the applicants' rights to develop their own property, but it is the Commission's role to ensure it is done responsibly and in accordance with the general plan. She said that while the proposed density was technically supported by the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 10 general plan, the overall project was not in line with its direction regarding ridgelines. She said that she would like to see another project design that better addresses ridgeline policies, whether that is achieved by decreasing the density or perhaps by clustering homes away from sensitive areas. She was impressed with the amount of work done thus far, loved the design of the homes, and said that she would be more comfortable if it could be guaranteed that the homes presented this evening would be the homes that would be built. She said that there was not sufficient protection of the ridgelines. She said that she would also like to see more in the way of traffic studies and alternative locations for the public trailhead for the Ridge Trail. Vice-Chair Corcoran said that he was impressed with the comments received so far and echoed Commissioner Kunzweiler's comments that the project merits are not related to the applicants' character. He noted the Commission's responsibility to enforce the zoning ordinance and the general plan. He said that there is a lot he liked about the project, including green design, open space, and the public trail easement, but he concurred that more refinement was needed. He said that the project needed more clustering, less grading, smaller residential use areas and smaller home sizes. He said that the proposed home sizes were not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and did not like the fact that numerous homes approached the crest of a ridgeline. He said that he mostly agreed with the staff report and recommendations, and thought Ms. Greenberg's suggestion (addressed in her letter) relative to paragraph 10 of the resolution would be appropriate. He said that the recommendation that the Rabin's existing driveway be limited to emergency access needed further discussion, noting that the general plan recommends that there be few access points to Paradise Drive. He said that the Commission had been quite clear in its obligations to the general plan and, while he appreciated the work invested to date, the project was not quite at a point that he would be comfortable supporting it. Commissioner Doyle concurred with the previous comments. He said that development on Red Hill Circle was an important impetus in Tiburon establishing itself as an incorporated community and as more and more of the town is developed the general plan provides the guidelines by which to do it properly. He said that there is an opportunity to preserve the ridgelines on the site and the project could do a little better in that regard. He said that he would be quite pleased if he knew these homes would be built exactly as shown, but he was unsure how to guarantee that. He said that he was not as concerned about home size because the reality is that by digging homes into the hillside, one can increase floor area without increasing bulk. He questioned whether clustering was really the answer but said he would like the benefit of seeing how that could work, and felt that both the applicant and the Commission were in the position to require something even better than what is currently proposed. Chair Frymier said that she concurred with the majority of the Commissioners' comments. She agreed that clustering is not always better and said she liked the way the project was laid out, which does an exceptional job of connecting residents to the land. She agreed that much of what was previously developed in town is not ideal and that this is an opportunity to do it right. She felt that just because there are larger homes nearby did not mean that large homes were appropriate at this location. She said she found the home sizes to be in conflict with the theory of green design, though she very much appreciated the green elements of the project. She had no issue with the proposed density but had a significant issue with the potential ridgeline impacts, noting that the Commission's role is to look at the general plan on balance and weigh what is TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 11 proposed against what is ultimately possible. She said that while the project was very positive overall, the Commission needed to provide very specific direction to the applicant on further refinements to the project. Commissioner Kunzweiler recognized that ridgelines take up a large portion of the site, but the Commission seemed to be unanimous in the position that the Tiburon Ridge is off limits. He suggested that the Commission request an alternative design that eliminates interference with the Tiburon Ridge and minimizes or significantly reduces impacts to Significant Ridgelines 5 and 6. He said that the applicant could decide whether they prefer fewer, larger homes or a greater number of smaller homes, and then identify footprints that would have the least damage. The applicant was recognized as wishing to respond to the Commission's comments. Mr. Hochstrasser said that he was frustrated with the lack of direction provided by the Commission. He stated that he had provided the Commission with a composite analysis demonstrating that nearly all development opportunities on the site are limited to areas on or near the secondary ridgelines. He requested more specific direction from the Commission on the number of homes that would be acceptable. Chair Frymier said that the Commission was very specific in requesting that they limit the size of homes or lower the number of homes. Commissioner Doyle said that some concerns relating to size and bulk might be alleviated with better visualization of what the overall project would look like. He said he understood the concept that had been presented, but many people might not. Vice-Chair Corcoran respectfully disagreed, noting that the staff report pointed out that reduced mass on Lot 4 would still encroach into the Tiburon Ridgeline. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that Mr. Hochstrasser's reaction and comments surprised him. He said the Commission was attempting to be reasonable and consistent in its direction, rather than spoon feed the applicant when it knows little of the specifics or costs of the project. He said that the applicant would not be well served by having the Commission design the project for him. Mr. Hochstrasser asked if the Commission would be open to some sort of subcommittee to facilitate the process, as he felt that the current proposal was their best attempt. He said that the record reflected a constant desire to preserve ridgelines, which he felt was accomplished. He felt that the project balanced the goals of the general plan on the whole and the applicant would require specific direction to snake any more changes. Vice-Chair Corcoran said that while the Commission does not all speak with a single voice, he felt that there had been little change in its direction to the applicant over the past two years. In reviewing the minutes of prior meetings, he felt that it was evident that direction was given for specific changes to be made. He recognized the changes that had been made and acknowledged the constraints of the site, but said that more changes were needed to bring the project in line with the general plan. He said that the staff report provided some solid direction and, while he TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 12 would argue that the resulting home sizes would still not be compatible with the surrounding area, these changes would go a long way toward minimizing ridgeline impacts and increasing support for the project. Commissioner Tollini said that she could not suggest anything specific but generally felt the project encroached on the ridgelines. She said that the staff report provided solid recommendations that she fully supported. She said that she could likely get behind a project that moved further in that direction, particularly with more concessions related to home size and height and perhaps eliminating a lot or two. Commissioner Kunzweiler said that the staff recommendation was certainly a step in the right direction but should be looked at only as a starting point. Chair Frymier echoed the previous comments. She said that she would like the applicant to better demonstrate how the language of the general plan and Zoning Ordinance supports what is being proposed. She said that she would like to see Ms. Greenberg" s comments regarding Mr. Kao's designs incorporated into the resolution and asked if a deed of trust would be appropriate for this situation. Mr. Anderson stated that a deed of trust is a possible tool and Chair Frymier said that she would strongly favor that sort of requirement. She said that she felt very strongly about this particular development and would like it made very clear that anyone purchasing a future lot in this development would need to comply with these requirements. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kunzweiler) to continue the item to the March 9, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING) TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1005 PAGE 13 MINUTES #1 'low TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2011 The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Tollini. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tollini, Vice-Chair Kricensky, and Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and Weller Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous informed the Board that the DRB will meet upstairs in the Community Room of the Town Hall for the February 17, 2011 meeting because another group has use of the Council Chambers that evening. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2431 SPANISH TRAIL; File No. 21020; Paul and Jannette Mussche, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks. The applicants propose to demolish an existing garage and add a new garage with a second story master bedroom suite, and expand an existing dining room. The 620 square foot additions would extend to within 26 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, 5 feet, 6 inches of the left (northern) side property line and 17 feet, 6 inches of the rear property line, in lieu of the required 30 foot front yard setback, 15 foot side yard setback and 25 foot rear yard setback. APN: 059-091-31. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing two- story single-family dwelling on property located at 2431 Spanish Trail. The existing attached garage would be demolished and replaced with a new attached two-car garage. A new master bedroom suite would be added on top of the proposed garage. The existing first floor living and dining room would be expanded to the side. The proposed additions would not change the existing lot coverage on the site. The proposed project would increase the calculated floor area of the house by 620 square feet to a total of 2,300 square feet, which is less than the 2,762 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Variances are requested for reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks. Mollamad Sadrieh, architect, said that his client currently lives in Singapore and will be moving to Tiburon. They are requesting a modest expansion to their home because the current home is small and their parents often visit and more space is needed to accommodate them. Mr. Sadrieh stated that there was no room to expand on the first floor of the house due to the setbacks around it and they have therefore requested to expand above the current garage and living room. He said that the existing foundation of the garage cannot support a second story and will need to be demolished and rebuilt. He said that the owners TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 2/3/11 would also like to create a proper dining room by expanding the side of the house that is currently a covered porch. Mr. Sadrieh said that the owner is requesting variances for setback encroachments, but the existing building already encroaches into the required setbacks. He stated that the owners met with adjacent neighbors and the Schneidewinds have requested 8-foot privacy screening at the location where there is currently a solid fence between the properties. Mr. Sadrieh said that the owners would like to go on record as being agreeable to this arrangement and are willing to build a 6-foot solid fence with a trellis on top or a 6-foot solid fence with an 8-foot screen of landscaping. He stated that they would like to have the option of choosing one or the other of these alternatives when they arrive back in Tiburon. Planning Manager Watrous noted that a 6-foot fence with a trellis on top would require a variance, but the 6-foot fence with 8 foot landscaping would not. The public hearing was opened. Anne Drew said she met with the new neighbors and found the plan very attractive. When the story poles went up she became concerned about the bulk of the structure, stating that from any of her east-facing windows the project would look huge. She said that the existing house is small and is on a tiny lot. She asked the Board to consider the size of the lot and the request for three variances. Scott Schneidewind said that the project would be very close to his house and would have a major impact on his privacy. He said that there would be many new windows and activity that does not currently exist. He said that an 8-foot privacy fence would be necessary to preserve his privacy. Mr. Sadrieh said that he had communicated with Mr. Schneidewind to discuss concerns and they are all in agreement that a privacy screen is needed. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Emberson said that she could make the findings to support the addition. She said that it would be practically difficult and create a hardship to add on to the house in the turnaround area. She was concerned about the window concerns of the neighbors and suggested the fence be made a condition of approval. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board cannot require an 8-foot tall fence as part of the condition of approval because it would require a variance. He noted that a 6-foot tall fence with additional landscaping would not require a variance. Boardmember Emberson said that the Board could require the landscaping to create a visual barrier. Planning Manager Watrous agreed and said the applicant could return and apply for a variance if they want to change it to a fence. Vice-Chair Kricensky agreed with staff on the findings to support the variances. He was concerned about the fact that many of the existing windows would be replaced and enlarged. He appreciated knowing the neighbors' concerns and that they tried to work something out, but felt that the height of the garage and the tight side yard would make the project seem very close to the northern neighbor. Boardmember Chong said that it was no surprise that there would be privacy concerns on Spanish Trail where the houses are in close proximity to each other. He agreed with staff on the variances based on the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 2 2/3/11 lot size and shape. He also thought that the project would be a dramatic improvement from a design standpoint. He agreed with adding a condition of approval that specifies a 6-foot fence with landscaping. Boardmember Weller agreed with the other Boardmembers that the variances required are a result of the size and shape of this particular site and the location of the existing structure. He asked Ms. Drew about her concerns on the west side of the property and asked her to comment on how the windows would affect her property. Ms. Drew said that those windows were not a concern, but rather the bulk of the project. She said that the project would not cut off much of her view. She also expressed concern that the neighbor on the north was not well and could not attend tonight's meeting. Planning Manager Watrous noted that he spoke to that neighbor and she had no objections to the project. Boardmember Weller said that the bulk issue was a product of this property. He said that the windows could have been remedied, but the bulk cannot be modified effectively and still accomplish what the applicant is requesting. Chair Tollini agreed that the findings can be made for the variances. He said that this is an extremely difficult lot and there is almost nowhere else left to build upon. He found the turnaround extremely tight, and pushing back the garage made sense and was a justifiable remedy. He noted that the majority of the glazing is on two sides of the house, to take advantage of eastern views of the water. He agreed that the property to the north would be the most impacted and he was relieved to hear that the owner was contacted. He viewed the property from all sides and agreed that there would be some impact on the neighbors, but the impact would be within the same outline of the house. He did not see the bulk of the addition as a problem for these reasons. He was amenable to putting in a condition of approval requiring a 6-foot fence with landscaping that will grow to 8 feet to provide privacy. Mr. Sadrieh clarified that they want the fence to replace the existing fence. Planning Manager Watrous suggested he contact the Scheidemans to go over landscape options to be sure an acceptable option is chosen. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Emberson) that the request for 2431 Spanish Trail is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval and the additional condition of approval that the applicant construct a 6 foot tall solid wooden fence along the southern property line to replace the existing fence and plant vegetation as landscape screening that will provide an adequate privacy barrier. Vote: 5-0. 2. 10 SEAFIRTH ROAD; File No. 21021; Dion and Tracey Cominos, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct a 364 square foot office addition and bathroom to the side of the existing garage. The addition would extend to within 18 feet, 6 inches of the rear property line and would result in lot coverage of 17.9%, in lieu of the required 30 foot rear yard setback and 15.0% maximum lot coverage. APN: 039-092-06 [ The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage and a floor area exception, located at 10 Seafirth Road. Currently the property is improved with an existing two-story dwelling. The main level of the home includes the kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, and two-car garage. The upper level TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 2/3/11 of the home includes the master bedroom suite, family room, two bedrooms and a study/office area. The proposal would incorporate a small addition adjacent to the existing two-car garage at the lower level of the home for an office with a bathroom. The proposed addition would increase the floor area of the home by 364 square feet, for a total gross floor area of 3,728 square feet. As the maximum gross floor area for the property is 3,310 square feet, a floor area exception has been requested. The addition would also increase the lot coverage by 364 square feet, for total lot coverage of 2,345 square feet (17.9%). As the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone is 15.0%, a variance for excess lot coverage has also been requested. A variance is also requested for reduced rear yard setback. Dion Cominos, owner, said that the application implicates three issues: a floor area exception, a lot exception, and a rear yard setback exception. He believed that there is justification for these three requests. He noted it is true that there is an existing small office area in the house, but it is bordered on one side by the master bedroom and the children's' bedroom and a playroom on the other. He said that it is very difficult for him to have a quiet area to work with that configuration. He asked his architect to come up with a plan that would be least intrusive and cause the least disruption to neighbors, and the community has supported it unanimously. He suggested that it is a hardship to maintain the office as a usable space, as it is very small and the noise is an issue during conference calls. He said that the area where they propose to construct the office is in the back of the house and is not intrusive to neighbors. Elizabeth Suzuki, architect, said she that had nothing to add but is available to answer questions. Boardmember Chong asked what other locations were explored for building the office. Ms. Suzuki said the first thing she did was look at ways to reconfigure the existing space, and there was nothing minor that could be done without requiring a complete gutting of the house. She then looked at putting the office in the location of the garage, but that did not work well because it was right at the living room. She said that the least impact to the house for construction purposes as well as the least impact to the neighborhood was the current location. Vice-Chair Kricensky cited the unusual floor plan configuration and said that there were two separate structures that were now connected, resulting in the hall-like common area. Chair Tollini opened the public hearing. He confirmed that there were no public comments and closed the public hearing. Boardmember Chong said that there is a big trend toward home office positions, and having a space that is quiet for early morning conference calls is important. He said that he would not call the current space an office because it is squeezed in between two bedroom walls. He felt that this is not where the office would be located if the house was designed from scratch. He saw the need for having a separate space away from noise and bedrooms. He believed that having an office that is practical is necessary when someone works from home, and that it is a hardship to not have that when working from home is required. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that he understood the need to build the office in the location, and that it is a logical place for it. His only major concern was that the project would be over both the floor area ratio and maximum lot coverage. He questioned whether the need for an office justified exceeding both the floor area ratio and lot coverage. Boardmember Emberson asked why a complete bathroom is proposed for the office addition. Ms. Suzuki said that currently there is no bathroom downstairs, and they felt it would be convenient to use the new TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 4 2/3/11 bathroom on Mr. Cominos' way out of the house in the morning instead of waking up everyone in the house using the upstairs bathroom. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that this is a small lot and he had no trouble with the rear yard encroachment and the screening between neighbors. Boardmember Emberson said there is no other way that is feasible to stay within the existing footprint, and that putting the office in the location in the back would not impact any other property. She said that there would be a hardship because there is not much else that could be done. She said that other people in the neighborhood enjoy office space that is quiet and practical. She felt there is a hardship given the odd way the house is configured and the need for a quiet space to work. Boardmember Weller said he had changed his mind after listening to his colleagues. He was convinced that living in this century, home offices are relatively more important and more significant to people than was the case when the houses were built. He said that there is a practical difficulty and necessary hardship in the configuration of the home, and the need for home office use is legitimate. He thought that the lack of alternatives available to create a usable home office space would create a necessary hardship. Chair Tollini said that his biggest issue with the project is the "kitchen sink" variance request. He had a hard time getting behind the two variance requests and exception. He said that this is not a small lot, well over'/4 acre, and the house is quite large. He recognized that the floor plan upstairs does not make sense from a practical standpoint because it makes it difficult to use the space. He was sympathetic to that, but the prior owner did it this way and this is therefore a self-created hardship. He had a hard time saying this is a pre-existing condition. He said that the addition proposed is huge and was also designed to be a guest suite because it includes its own entrance and its own bathroom. He also thought that the applicant does not only work from home, but works a lot from home after getting home from work. Chair Tollini stated that his own house is much smaller and he takes his laptop downstairs to work at home. He could not make the hardship finding, particularly for all the requests combined. Boardmember Emberson shared Chair Tollini's concern that this could also be an in-law unit. Boardmember Weller noted an in-law unit would require cooking capacity. Planning Manager Watrous said it would take no permits at all to use it as a guest bedroom and explained the process for having a legal secondary dwelling unit. Chair Tollini said that his concern was not that it would be converted to a secondary dwelling unit, but rather to show that there is not a necessary hardship in this situation to justify the variance. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that this is considered a small lot for the R-02 zone. He said that while there are several houses that have received a variance for lot coverage, most of the additions have been within the floor area ratio. He felt that he could make the findings for the variances but not the floor area exception. Chair Tollini asked if there was a consensus of the Board to approve the project as proposed. Boardmember Chong and Boardmember Weller said they were still in support of the project. Boardmember Emberson suggested the office space could be smaller. Boardmember Weller summarized Emberson's concerns and suggested reducing the lot coverage. Chair Tollini said that he is most concerned with the lot coverage and would have an easier time if it were about one-third less square footage. Boardmember Emberson agreed this would be a very large home office and one could work just as comfortably in a smaller space. Boardmembers Chong and Weller said that they were still in support of the project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 5 2/3/11 Boardmember Chong disagreed and said lie did not think one can have too big of a home office. He believed that having a comfortable place where one spends work time is important. Boardmember Weller agreed that he would be more amenable to this project if it were smaller. Chair Tollini said that he would like to see the home office around 200 square feet, which would be a nice-sized home office. Boardmember Emberson agreed that 200 square feet would be sufficient. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that he wished that the house had not already maxed out the site, as granting significant variances to something already over the limit is difficult. He said that he would be more accepting of the application if the addition was smaller. Chair Tollini summarized the consensus of the Board to request an addition that is smaller and asked the applicant if they were amenable to that. Mr. Cominos said if the other option is denial then they are amenable to reducing the size. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kricensky) to continue the application for 10 Seafirth Road to the March 3, 2011 meeting. Vote: 5-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #21 OF THE 12/16/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2010 meeting as written. Vote: 5-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 2/3/11 _ • L Ae, L PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 1006 February 9, 2011 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Fryinier called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Frymier, Commissioners Corcoran, Doyle, Kunzweiler, and Tollini Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: The Planning Manager noted Commissioner Kunzweiler would be absent from the next meeting and confirmed the Commission would have quorum for that meeting. He stated that representatives of the Alta Robles project have indicated they are unlikely to be prepared for the March 9, 2011 meeting, and it is likely the hearing will be rescheduled for the April 13, 2011 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 700 TIBURON BOULEVARD: ANNUAL REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY (BELVEDERE TENNIS CLUB), FILE #10503; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-201-36 Mr. Watrous presented the staff report, stating that in 2006 the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of the Belvedere Tennis Club (BTC). One of the conditions required a review after 6 months, which was conducted in January of 2009. An annual review was conducted February of 2010, at which time the Commission directed that an additional review be held again in one-year time. The BTC was found in substantial compliance with the conditions of the use permit at both reviews however, there was discussion regarding a memo from the Town Engineer recommending several traffic signage improvements. Caltrans has declined to install those improvements that are under its jurisdiction but the club has installed the stop sign and stop bar on the pavement at the parking lot exit. The Police Department has indicated there were no accidents at the driveway intersection in the past three years. He also noted that BTC has requested an amendment to their ABC license to increase the number of TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1006 PAGE 1 times they can serve alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. The original ABC license predates the incorporation of the Town and an amendment to the CUP is not required for the requested change. Staff recommends that the Commission receive public comment and determine whether an additional annual review is appropriate for 2012 or whether future reviews should be warranted only on a complaint basis. Vice-Chair Corcoran requested clarification on complaint-driven reviews. Mr. Watrous stated that staff attempts to deal with complaints on an administrative basis and encourage the club to reach a resolution with neighbors. If a repeated pattern begins to present, staff would return to the Planning Commission for additional review. Jay Potter, general manager, said that the club has acted in good faith with regards to neighbors' concerns. He hoped that the Commission would support extending the review period to at least two years. John Tantum, President, said it had been three years since the completion of construction. He stated that many of the items in the CUP related to construction and the club felt that it was reasonable to forego annual reviews for a complaint driven basis going forward. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. John Hermansky asked that two years be the maximum period between reviews given that the club has requested a full liquor license and that the traffic situation remains unresolved. He said that there is general concern relating to the speed of traffic and continued attempts to make left- hand turns out of the club onto the highway. He suggested that limiting the speed to 35 mph could improve the situation. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Mr. Tantum confirmed that the club had applied for modification of its liquor license. He said that the original license is 50 years old and very restrictive in terms of the number events allowed each year. He said that the club was simply trying to expand on that to accommodate, not increase, current usage of the club. He said that the ABC request was not part of the CUP and should remain a separate issue. Commissioner Doyle said that he had heard only positive comments since the club was redone. His experience was that traffic typically slows in this area and he appreciated staff's comment regarding the lack of traffic accidents at the club intersection. He said that he would favor either a two-year review or a complaint-driven review. Vice-Chair Corcoran said that staff s description of the complaint-driven process seemed more than adequate given the lack of complaints received regarding BTC operations. He said that he was confident that Mr. Hermansky's concerns would be heard through the administrative process. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1006 PAGE 2 Commissioner Kunzweiler said that the club's record speaks for itself. He agreed that a complaint-based review should be appropriate; it would minimize the bureaucratic impact on the BTC and he believed the club to be in substantial compliance with the use permit. Commissioner Tollini concurred. She stated that BTC had been responsive to the concerns of neighbors, as demonstrated by the lack of complaints. Chair Frymier also concurred. She stated that the club had responded to all comments and suggestions provided by the Commission at its previous reviews and recommended review on a complaint-driven basis only. ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Corcoran) to find the BTC in substantial compliance with the CUP and to eliminate annual review of the CUP in favor of reviews on a complaint-driven basis. Motion carried: 5-0. 2. 20 VISTA TIBURON DIRVE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR A TREE PERMIT TO REMOVE EIGHTEEN (18) EUCALYPTUS TREES FROM COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPERTY; Vista Tiburon Precise Development Plan (Planned Development #12); Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association, Owners and Appellants; Assessor Parcel No. 038-450-24 Mr. Watrous presented the staff report, stating the Town Council approved the Vista Tiburon Precise Development Plan (PDP) in 1991 for the development of 22 single-family homes on individual lots. The PDP created three lots (Parcels A, B, & C, further indicated as Groves A, B & C) as commonly-owned open space. These parcels were intended to preserve an existing grove of Eucalyptus trees. The preservation of the grove was a key element of the project approval and had been a major issue of contention at the time. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project specifically recognized the benefits of the grove as wildlife habitat, erosion protection, and a visual separation between neighborhoods. The CC&Rs for the subdivision included an annual maintenance plan for the grove that requires an arborist to conduct annual inspections but does not specify removal of trees as part of this plan. In 2002, the Homeowners Association filed an application for a tree permit to remove or substantially alter 34 Eucalyptus trees in three groves. Town staff approved removal of only the three trees in Grove C , and denied the alteration or removal of trees in Groves A and B. finding that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the Vista Tiburon Precise Development Plan and might require additional environmental review. The applicants appealed that decision to the Design Review Board and the Board ultimately granted the appeal, approving the tree permit. The decision of the Board was final. The current application proposes removal of 18 Eucalyptus trees from Grove B only. The application includes an arborist report, which contains recommendations regarding 33 Eucalyptus trees and a reforestation plan. Town staff reviewed the application and determined it was incomplete, explaining to the applicants that to complete the application would require an amendment to the PDP to reflect substantial elimination of Grove B, payment for an independent TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9. ?011 MINUTES NO. 1006 PAGE 3 arborist evaluation of the tree removals and replacement planting plan, and an enhanced replacement planting plan at a 3:1 replacement ratio. The applicants filed an appeal an appeal to the Commission regarding the determination of incompleteness. Mr. Watrous summarized the grounds for the appeal and staff s rationale for determining that the tree permit application would be inconsistent with the PDP. He recommended that the appeal be denied. Commissioner Kunzweiler requested clarification on the issue before the Commission. Mr. Watrous said that the real question before the Commission is whether this request should be reviewed as part of a tree pen-nit or is a larger land use issue that should be reviewed as a Precise Development Plan amendment. Kip Jones, Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association, stated that the trees in question have changed considerably since the original subdivision application was filed nearly 30 years ago and he hoped to discuss the issue in the context of what they are now. He said that while the maintenance plan does not specifically allow removal of trees, it does not preclude it. His interpretation of the plan was that they are to take the appropriate action based on the condition of the trees and arborist's recommendation. He stressed that in 2002, the Design Review Board found the request both consistent with the PDP and exempt from CEQA. Mr. Jones cited issues with trees falling in Grove B, at which time the Homeowners Association filed its 2002 request. He said that nearly 10 years later they are faced with similar issues and recommendations from the arborist, but staff is now suggesting that a PDP amendment is required. He said that the arborist has found these trees to pose a danger to both people and property and recommended removal of any trees that are found to be both unhealthy and in proximity to targets of value. He noted that Vista Tiburon is comprised of only 22 homeowners and the $100,000 spent 10 years ago on removal, reforestation, and erosion control was a significant cost. He asked that the Commission address the issue directly, rather than requiring a PDP amendment that would cost even more time and money. He cautioned that the Town would not like to find itself in the position of having not allowed the Homeowners Association to resolve a dangerous situation. Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. Dennis Sakai said that he had been fearful since reading the arborist's report. He said that when he purchased his home in 2004 he was told that the Town's primary concern was with the safety of the people and that removal of dangerous trees would not be an issue. He characterized the discussion on what "maintenance" means as a matter of semantics, and stated that in 2002, the Design Review Board defined maintenance as caring for healthy trees and removing dangerous trees as recommended by a qualified arborist. He said that Eucalyptus trees grow and change rapidly, and it was fortunate that the trees have only damaged property to date. He said that the trees present additional threat in the event of an earthquake or 100 year storm, and it was the Town's responsibility to facilitate mitigation of these potentially dangerous situations. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1006 PAGE 4 Eric Young supported and echoed the comments already made. He found that it reasonable to read that "maintenance" means to maintain the safety of the grove and its surrounding residents. He said that the trees need to be addressed regardless of the process and it seemed to be appropriate to do so now. Chair Frymier closed the public hearing. Commissioner Doyle said that Eucalyptus trees are notorious for creating conditions that do not support the growth of other plants and trees, and he found the proposed reforestation with oak, cherry, and plum trees to be odd. He acknowledged the likelihood that certain mature Eucalyptus trees present a safety issue and said that he would support the removal of those that are indeed dangerous, but questioned what happens the trees are removed. Commissioner Tollini said that she visited the site and, while the grove is beautiful, it is situated close to some homes. While she understood the concerns of residents, she said that this was not the issue before the Commission at this time. She stated that the inclusion of the grove was a material component of the PDP for all the reasons identified and she did not believe removing another 1 /3 of the original grove was consistent with maintenance of the grove. She said that the matter would be more appropriately addressed through a PDP amendment that outlines a successful reforestation plan for ongoing maintenance, though she hoped the process would be expedient. Chair Frymier inquired about the PDP amendment process. Mr. Watrous said that if the project is exempt from CEQA, a PDP amendment could be finalized in a matter of months. He noted that as the original EIR clearly identified the grove and discussed preservation of tree stands, an exemption would be unlikely. He said that the amendment would likely require an initial study, followed by either a negative declaration, EIR amendment, or a subsequent EIR. He noted that the Town also typically requires the applicant to pay for an independent arborist. Community Development Director Anderson said that it would likely be a significant process. He recounted the history of Vista Tiburon, noting that at the time the Town Council approved the PDP, it identified the grove as the only natural resource of any magnitude on the site and was adamant regarding its preservation. He stated that to reverse that decision, although it may be appropriate after all this time, deserves review by the Town Council rather than the Design Review Board. Commissioner Tollini asked if removal of the dangerous trees could be expedited in any way, particularly if the independent arborist's report concludes the same as that presented by the applicant. Mr. Watrous said that it would be dependent upon the number of trees proposed for removal. He thought the Town might be amenable to eliminating a few of the more problematic trees, but that anything on the order of half of the existing grove would need to go through the PDP amendment process. Mr. Anderson explained that CEQA does not exempt the removal of mature scenic trees. He said that a determination would have to be made as to whether removal would present a significant TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1006 PAGE 5 environmental impact, which might in turn require an EIR. He concurred that removal of such a substantial portion of the grove would likely trigger a more complicated process. Vice-Chair Corcoran said that regardless of any discussion regarding the value and safety of these trees, the PDP is an agreement negotiated by both parties many years ago and cannot be thrown out without the proper procedure. He said that the issue is clearly limited to whether staffs determination of incompleteness is appropriate. He said that it was clear to him that the PDP was, in part, focused on protecting this grove and it cannot be said that preserving only 1 /3 of what originally existed there would not be a substantial change. He could support staff s determination but thought that the discussion and aim of removing these trees would change significantly if the applicant were to return for a PDP amendment. Commissioner Kunzweiler concurred. He said that this level of protection for Eucalyptus trees would never happen today for all the reasons articulated. He stated that nonetheless, the PDP highlighted these groves as a natural resource with value related to views, drainage, shelter, and habitat. He said that times do change and there is a process to facilitate this change, but the correct way to do this is not through the tree permit process. He said that the applicants' request was logical but the alternative proposed was insufficient. He supported a PDP amendment and updated environmental analysis, but also encouraged the Town to address any areas of true danger as soon as possible. Chair Frymier concurred. She said that the approval granted in 2002 was likely much less of an issue because it did not represent obliteration of the grove in the way that this would. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Kunzweiler) to direct staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal for adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DANIEL WATROUS, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1006 PAGE 6 TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 3, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson & Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) CONSENT CALENDAR 2097 CENTRO EAST STREET; File No. 710145; Michael Lafayette and Heather Cairns, Owners; Adoption of resolution denying Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a rooftop deck and ramp access from the rear yard for an existing single-family dwelling. APN: 059-132-27. [LT] OLD BUSINESS 2. 10 SEAFIRTH ROAD; File No. 21021; Dion and Tracey Cominos, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct a 364 square foot office addition and bathroom to the side of the existing garage. The addition would extend to within 18 feet, 6 inches of the rear property line and would result in lot coverage of 17.9%, in lieu of the required 30 foot rear yard setback and 15.0% maximum lot coverage. APN: 039-092-06 [LT] MINUTES 3. Regular Meeting of February 17, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board March 3, 2011 Page 1 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 7* 1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 17, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #2 lkwt TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD w CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.00 PM Present: Chair Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Emberson & Weller Absent: Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting NEW BUSINESS 1. 2097 CENTRO EAST STREET; File No. 710145; Michael Lafayette and Heather Cairns, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a rooftop deck and ramp access from the rear yard for an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 15 foot by 17.5 foot wooden deck that would lead up from the rear of the site to the roof ridgeline of the existing house. APN: 059-132-27. [LT] Denied 4-0 MINUTES 3. Regular Meeting of February 3, 2011 Approved as amended 4-0 ADJOURNMENT At 7:45 PM Action Minutes #2 2/17/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 s TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 23, 2011- 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 7:30 PM Present: Vice Chair Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Tollini Absent: Chair Frymier, Commissioner Kunzweiler, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Plaiming Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report NEW BUSINESS 1. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR APPROVED, UNEXPIRED DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS; TOWN COUNCIL INITIATED APPLICATION; File # MCA 2011-01 [SA] Recontntended Approval to Town Council (3-0) 2. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2010 [DW] Recontin ended Acceptance to Town Council (3-0) Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 1 3. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR A TREE PERMIT TO REMOVE EIGHTEEN (18) EUCALYPTUS TREES FROM COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPERTY; Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association, Owners and Applicants; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-450-21 (Adopted (3-0) MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 26, 2011 Approved as Amended (3-0) Regular Meeting of February 9, 2011 Approved (3- ADJOURNMENT 7:55 PM a022311 Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 2 DIGEST RISK AND CRISIS ae COMMUNICATIONS A Workshop for California's Public Officials Thursday, March 3, 2011 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Mt. Tam Room San Rafael Corporate Center 750 Lindaro Street San Rafael, CA 94901 F The Risk Isis Communications Workshop is based on the 3r need for leaders to prepare for the management of the aftermath of both man-made and natural disasters in California. The program provides public officials with an introduction to the tools needed to engage in effective risk and crisis communication during times of disaster. All interested public information officers, emergency managers, and public officials are welcome to attend, but space is limited. For more information or to RSVP, contact Angela Del Ponte, Emergency Services Coordinator City of San Rafael Office of Emergency Services Office: 415-458-5002 Email: Angela.DelPonte@cityofsonrafael.org Fax: 415-485-3177 Presented by The California Emergency Management Agency The UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation C MA al E r_r,i tf 0 4.1F A V_Eg0 NCT r k+AN?a;;AMII N'" A~Yk;Wd UC INSTITUTE ON ....C.NFUCT AND COOPERATION