PLANNING COMMISSION

Draft Housing Element Update – May 22 meeting

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Stein, Commissioners Greenberg, Smith, Snow

Commissioners Absent: None

Vacancies: One

Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson , Senior Planner Bryant and Recording Secretary Evans

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS  None.

Planning Director Anderson introduced Senior Planner Kevin Bryant, who will be primarily working on the General Plan Update. He then informed the Commission that the Council approved the Tiburon Court project with three lots, and summarized upcoming projects for May: 1) an application for a second unit dwelling; 2) 41 Main Street is having parking problems and will be requesting a variance; and 3) update on the draft Housing Element.

1.    MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 2002

One correction: Delete duplicate "that" on Page 2, last paragraph, third line.

M/S Snow/Smith (4-0) to approve the Minutes as corrected.

2. 103 REED RANCH ROAD; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT; Richard De Nezza, property owner and applicant. Assessor’s Parcel No. 59-181-90

Planning Director Anderson stated that this matter has been reviewed by this Commission on two prior occasions. At the last hearing, the Commission asked the applicant to submit a more sophisticated landscaping and parking plan, which would provide better screening from the street, and that would demonstrate that the parking layout will function properly. In reviewing the information submitted, it is staff’s opinion that the revised plan is not viable because: 1) the parking space for the second unit is angled down approximately 45 degrees; 2) the space on the left side of the driveway would require a fairly sizeable retaining wall; and 3) the third space is at an awkward angle and would not allow clearance out of the garage. Although the landscape screening was improved, it may need further modifications. A letter from Miles Berger, who had previously reviewed the application project as a Commissioner, was received just prior to the hearing, and was distributed to the Planning Commission.

Planning Director Anderson stated that an option would be to reduce the number of people and vehicles in order to reduce parking requirements for the secondary dwelling unit to one space. Another option would be to require a viable landscaping and parking plan in order to accommodate two parking spaces.

In response to Chair Stein, Planning Director Anderson stated that two additional parking spaces could be accommodated, but he believed that it would be difficult given the topography and spatial limitations of the site. Commissioner Chair Stein agreed that the configuration of the pavement would interfere to the ingress and egress to the garage.

The hearing was opened to public comment.

Richard De Nezza, applicant, clarified that he did not have the opportunity to review the revised landscaping and parking plan, but agreed that further modifications could be made, including adding a retaining wall if necessary. He also clarified that the elevation as shown on the revised plan is inaccurate, because the site is not level as the drawing would lead one to believe.

In response to Chair Stein, Mr. De Nezza stated that he would agree to provide only one parking space depending on how that would affect the occupancy of the unit.

Stuart Foreman, neighbor across the street, expressed the need for providing adequate landscape screening both from the street and the uphill side. He concluded by supporting Miles Berger’s recommendations.

The hearing was closed to public testimony.

Commissioner Greenberg supported requiring one parking space only in order to minimize visual impacts. Commissioner Smith concurred, particularly since the resolution did refer to a maximum occupancy of three people in the secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Smith would support a parking plan that provides perpendicular or parallel parking, but not angled parking and suggested that the applicant consider the use of berms rather than retaining walls.

In response to a question, Planning Director Anderson preferred that the third parking space be located on the downhill side of the lot because no retaining walls would be necessary, and there would still be adequate pedestrian access to the gate.

Chair Stein suggested framing a resolution in a manner that would not require another hearing.

Commissioner Greenberg commented on the need to require that the small window on the north side be translucent, and to require that landscaping be installed prior to occupancy. Commissioner Greenberg also indicated the need to ensure that the garage is useable for two cars in order to minimize parking problems.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Planning Director Anderson explained the annual review process for second dwelling units indicating that it was simple to verify whether the residence was the property owner’s principal place of residence.

Chair Stein stated that the consensus was to require only one parking space on the downhill side of the property with a berm, rather than a retaining wall. Landscaping would be installed prior to occupancy, subject to review and approval of a landscape plan. Furthermore, the garage would remain useable for two vehicles.

The applicant clarified that the headlights would not be a problem because of the neighbor’s fence and the steepness of the hill.

The Commission’s consensus was to approve the project with the following modifications:

Condition #1- Add language indicating that occupancy should be limited to no more than three persons having no more than one vehicle.

Condition #8 – Modify the first sentence to read "One on-site, non-tandem parking space for the secondary dwelling unit shall be maintained at all times on the downhill side of the apron area. The space is in addition to the two parking spaces required for the principal unit on the property. The space shall be provided on the site prior to issuance of a building permit for the subject secondary dwelling unit. The final parking and landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.

New Condition – Require that the small window on the north shall be translucent and shall not be transparent glass.

New Condition – Require that landscaping be installed prior to occupancy.

New Condition – Require that the two spaces in the garage must be useable for parking vehicles at all times.

M/S Snow/Stein (4-0) to adopt the attached resolution approving a conditional use permit, as modified, to establish a secondary dwelling unit at 103 Reed Ranch Road.

Planning Director Anderson stated that LAFCO has begun its review and update of the sphere of influence for public agencies in southern Marin, which includes all the cities and other special districts. The last time this update was conducted was in the early ‘80s. The current General Plan Policies call for annexation of the entire SOI into the Town of Tiburon. These areas include Strawberry/Eagle Rock/Bay Vista Subarea, Paradise Cay and vicinity area, and south of Trestle Glen. However, previous discussions about annexing Strawberry to the Town clearly indicated that not only was there a lack of interest on the part of Strawberry, but little desire on the part of the Town of Tiburon to annex Strawberry. LAFCO Staff is aware of these recent events, and is contemplating the possibility of deleting Strawberry from Tiburon’s SOI.

Although at one time there was competition between Tiburon and Mill Valley for future annexation rights to Strawberry, that has changed. Mill Valley is apparently no longer interested in annexing Strawberry. There are still two sizeable undeveloped residential parcels in Strawberry, which are designated for low density under County zoning. However, the Strawberry Community Plan would allow one unit per acre on these parcels.

With respect to comments to LAFCO regarding the SOI boundary, the Town’s options are: 1) retain the existing Strawberry area SOI boundary; 2) amend the boundary to match the Town’s current corporate limits; or 3) establish a revised line somewhere in between. Staff recommends either option 2 or 3.

In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Planning Director Anderson agreed that passage of Proposition 13 has made annexing residential properties a money-losing endeavor for communities, based on the shrunken property tax revenue being outweighed by the high cost of providing public services to those properties. In addition, Strawberry is a very large area that has its own history, character, and neighborhoods.

Chair Stein stated that there are County policies that encourage annexation of unincorporated areas to adjacent municipalities. Planning Director Anderson stated that while this is generally correct, there are exceptions. Those exceptions occur where the County has adopted a Community Plan for a specific area. Strawberry has had its own County Community Plan since 1973, and all development since that time has occurred consistent with that adopted Community Plan.

The hearing was opened to public comment.

Scott Hochstrasser, Planning Consultant, commented on the importance of discussing annexation of Strawberry as part of the General Plan Update and the importance of Tiburon giving LAFCO guidance regarding this matter. Based on the current General Plan policies, annexation of the Paradise Drive Area south of Trestle Glen Boulevard can only take place if there is resident/property owner interest, consideration of cost/revenue implications of specific annexation requests, and provision of Town services to the property. Therefore, in reviewing the cost analysis to annex the area south of Trestle Glen Boulevard, it would not make sense to annex. Paradise Drive is not a stable road and needs expensive deferred maintenance. Annexation of this area would mean limited revenue and a large liability to the Town of Tiburon. He suggested that prior to making any recommendations regarding annexation of this area, that the Town conduct a feasibility study and also inform all potentially affected property owners in order to allow them to participate in the process.

In response to Chair Stein, Mr. Hochstrasser stated that the policy requiring annexation of the Paradise Drive areas was included in the General Plan in 1989. However, he pointed out that there has been very little effort by Marin municipalities to annex land in their SOI’s because there is really no tax advantage or benefit. The only possible benefit is to control land development. He indicated that if Tiburon was really interested in annexing these properties off Paradise Drive, then it should prezone them.

The hearing was closed to public comment.

Chair Stein noted that although multiple discussions regarding potential impact of planning policies on the non-incorporated areas of Paradise Drive have been held, none have been held for the Strawberry area. Additionally, as an individual observation, he has noticed that some unincorporated areas many times wished they were incorporated when considerable developments have been proposed, i.e., DeSilva Island. While he was quite aware of recent Town Council actions with respect to Strawberry, he did not believe that he was in a position to offer strong recommendations to the Town Council on this issue at this time.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that an area as fully developed as Strawberry should be incorporated as a separate municipality and be taken out of the SOI of Tiburon. Regarding the Paradise Drive area, she observed that this area was an unincorporated island completely surrounded by the Town of Tiburon. She agreed that annexation of the Paradise Drive area should be seriously considered, since maintenance and repair of Paradise Drive is a big issue that needs to be addressed. The Paradise Drive property owners are spread out and have no economic base to be able to incorporate. This area should remain in the Tiburon SOI.

Commissioner Snow found that it did not make sense to annex Strawberry. With regards to Paradise Drive unincorporated areas, he agreed that further consideration should be given with the public’s involvement.

Commissioner Smith also did not support removing the Paradise Drive areas from Tiburon’s SOI. With regard to Strawberry, he said he favored Option 2 or Option 3, but did not have enough information at this time to make a specific recommendation as to where the line SOI should be drawn.

Chair Stein concurred, and agreed with Mr. Hochstrasser’s comment that the public should be involved regardless of whether they are located in the incorporated or unincorporated area.

In response to Chair Stein, Planning Director Anderson stated that the Commission’s comments would be presented to the Town Council in June when LAFCO makes its presentation. LAFCO will accept comments and continue with the lengthy SOI update process. However, he clarified that this was not the last opportunity for comment and that once LAFCO has released a draft report, there will be additional time for review and comment.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

_________________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY