1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, California

********************************************************

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

A. ROLL CALL

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

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous and Meeting Recorder Flanagan

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

There were none.

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Director Anderson reported he received correspondence from the Tiburon Court applicants asking that the Town Council not return this item to the Planning Commission; staff is urging applicant to return to the Planning Commission. He added that the last round of interviews is occurring for the Advanced Planner position to work on the General Plan update.

Commissioner Smith recommended a joint Planning Commission/Design Review Board meeting to discuss solar panels. Senior Planner Watrous said that he was working on setting up such a meeting.

Chair Stein noted the upcoming 2002 Planners Institute, sponsored by the League of California Cities, and recommended commissioners attend the conference.

1. MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2002

Changes include:

Page 2, 6^th paragraph, 4^th line, delete the second "not." Lines 7-9 to read, "…proposed unit and the house on the neighboring lot, which is on a steep incline, is at least 40 feet, with an elevation difference of 30 feet."

Page 4, 2^nd paragraph, 3^rd line to read, "…dwelling unit would not degrade the neighbors’ rights, if properly designed. The Balmains’ house…"

Page 4, 6^th paragraph, 1^st line to state, "…agrees that rentals do not necessarily imply affordability. The design…"

Page 5, 3^rd paragraph, 1^st line to state, "…like to believe that room could be made for the parking spaces…"

Page 5, 6^th paragraph, to read, "Chair Stein would find it difficult to approve the proposal…"

E.    UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2. 103 REED RANCH ROAD; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY DWELLING: Continued to 2/27/02

3. 2120 MAR EAST STREET; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A PIER AND BOAT DOCK. Fani and Gary Hansen, Owners and Applicants. Assessor’s Parcel No. 59-181-90.

Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the Staff report. In response to questions, he stated that the Design Review Board had directed Staff to prepare a resolution of denial for applicants’ proposed duplex on the site.

Chair Stein stated he presumes this proposal is for a dock that would be used with the existing structure on the property. Senior Planner Watrous concurred that it would be speculative how the dock would relate to a future structure on the property.

Commissioner Berger stated at the last meeting, the dock was considered in a vacuum by the Planning Commission because the Commission had no drawings for the proposed house; hence, Commissioners were, and are, to review this application relative to neighboring homes and the pertinent codes, but not in relation to the remainder of the applicants’ plans for developing the site. Senior Planner Watrous added the scope of Planning Commission is to determine if the dock is properly sited to avoid impacts on neighbors and is in character with the surrounding neighbors.

Fani Hansen, applicant, discussed the project. In response to questions, she stated that the property is approximately 82 feet wide.

Commissioner Berger asked if the dock, which appears to be approximately nine feet out into the water from the mean high tide line, could be moved back. Ms. Hansen responded that the dock was placed further into the water because of the existing rock than the other docks. Commissioner Berger stated it appears the dock would be above the rock; thus, the dock could be moved inward.

The public comment period was opened.

Jerome Denz, 2130 Mar East Street, stated the rocks are on the east side of his dock. He is thankful the proposed float has been eliminated; however, this proposed pier continues to create significant visual and privacy problems for him. He distributed photographs, and stated that the dock would be in his foreground view from his living room and upstairs deck. He stated that the dock would be seven feet from his bedroom window, and anyone on the dock could look into his bedroom. He believed that the dock will make it difficult to get his dinghy into the water. His dock is about five feet wide and the stairs are an additional three feet in width.

Chair Stein asked if the applicant and Mr. Denz had discussed the blocked access to his dock. Mr. Denz responded that they had discussed this before the first Planning Commission meeting. He added, a person standing on the dock could see into his downstairs unit. He felt that views, privacy and his personal use of the bay have not been addressed. He suggested making the proposed deck for the duplex into a dock, and eliminating the proposed dock.

Roger Freeburg, 2105 Mar East Street, discussed photographs of his view, and stated the proposed location of the dock would be within his view corridor to the left of the proposed building. He would like the dock moved to the west.

Sandra l’Heureux, 2108 and 2110 Mar East Street, stated that if the dock were located near her property, it might have to be at angle since her property line is at an angle to the east. She felt that the dock should be placed in the middle of the lot.

Ms. Hansen responded that there is sufficient space from Mr. Denz’ ladder for him to get his boat into the water. She said that the dock at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street is six inches below the lower floor level of her proposed duplex. She did not object to the neighbors’ dock and feels Ms. l’Heureux should not object to her dock. Her lot is open and she believes that the neighbors have trespassed on the lot for many ears. She felt that it is her property right to build the deck near the Denzs’ property.

There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Greenberg stated a dock is appropriate on this site. Parameters should be defined for the Design Review Board, including setbacks, relationships to mean high tide lines, height. She thought that the Commission could create a building envelope for the dock.

Commissioner Berger stated the Denzs’ dock has stairs and Ms. Hansen’s dock is lower. The seawall helps to screen the dock, which is tucked into the site. Compared to the float application, he said that this is a radical improvement to its effect on the Denzs’ privacy. He noted that other docks have been located close to the mean high tide line so a boat can be sailed in; this dock should also be tucked in even closer to the mean high tide line. He thought that BCDC would be unlikely to approve a deck for the residence beyond the mean high tide line. He felt that the height, look and size of the dock were appropriate, but the dock should be moved back to within three feet of the mean high tide line. He thought that the proposed dock location has merits, and would only be a little into the Freeburgs’ views.

Commissioner Snow stated the dock should be in the center of the lot. Three lots on the street have their docks in the center, although not 2108/2110 Mar East Street. He agreed that the Commission should establish parameters.

Chair Stein stated the dock would be less obtrusive near the seawall; however the dock at this location would be more obtrusive to two neighbors. He is unsure how the dock would relate to future structures on the site. Approval of the dock could affect approval of a house design.

Commissioner Berger stated, as evident from the photo, even if the Hansens built a dock the same length as the Denzs’ dock, it would barely be seen by the Freeburgs. He suggested the Commission should approve the size of dock to be comparable to that proposed, with its location to be within three feet of the mean high tide line, anywhere on the site.

Commissioner Smith stated that the dimensions of Ms. Hansen’s dock are acceptable. He believed that the siting of the dock should shift the impacts of the dock from the neighbors to the applicants. He noted that there are rocks in the center of the lot that make that location less viable and an opportunity would be lost by not tucking it into the seawall. The dock would be shielded a bit and would break up the seawall, which is high and noticeable, so close to the water. If the dock were pushed back a bit, it would help the Freeburgs’ slot view, and would be more consistent with the dock at 2108 & 2110 Mar East Street. He noted that the Denzs’ dock extends beyond the mean high tide line.

Commissioner Greenberg stated there are benefits of placing the dock near the seawall, but the Denzs would lose the use of their dock.

4. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE; MID-SCHOOL-YEAR REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KOL SHOFAR SYNAGOGUE AND APPURTENANT DAY SCHOOL USE FOCUSING ON JEWISH COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL USE. Assessor’s Parcel No. 38-351-34

Commissioner Snow stated the Town Attorney informed him, even though he is a member of the congregation, he is not required to recuse himself from this hearing and he would not, unless a member of the public requested his recusal.

No one from the public asked that he recuse himself from this hearing.

Planning Director Anderson reviewed the Staff report and stated a letter and telephone call were received, both of which stated expressed concerns that the emergency/delivery access road off Reedland Woods Way is used too much. He distributed a copy of the late letter from Mr. Kranefuss and Ms. Frank dated February 13, 2002.

Anderson indicated that the entire use permit would have its annual review in July or August.

The public comment period was opened.

Ron Brown, Kol Shofar Synagogue, stated he concurred with Staff’s report. He added, the high school will be leaving but no one from that school has used the road. Upon receipt of a telephone complaint, he notified congregants and put flyers on cars advising that the access road should not be used, except for its approved purposes.

Commissioner Greenberg asked about Kol Shofar’s neighborhood notification procedures and practices. Mr. Brown described the procedures and practices, but indicated that neighborhood outreach could always be improved.

Mr. Brown responded, regarding the high school, it was not noticed; however, the Town did notice the neighborhood.

There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Smith stated that he is personally familiar with the rear access road and that it is difficult to police this entry, but that the applicant is making great effort to do so. This difficult issue is being addressed as well as possible by the users of the site.

Commissioner Greenberg concurred that it appears the permit holder is making efforts to be a good neighbor.

M/S, Berger/Smith, passed 5-0, to find the Jewish Community High School in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit.

5. 2 AND 4 OLD LANDING ROAD (WINTER LAND DIVISION); REVIEW OF A TREE PRESERVATION, LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING PLAN PURSUANT TO A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITION OF APPROVAL. Marty Winter, Property owner. Kelsey Moldenke for C.S.W. Stuber-Stroeh, Applicant.

Planning Director Anderson reviewed the Staff report.

Commissioner Greenberg asked if this is an opportunity, as part of the infrastructure, to require landscaping that accomplishes screening. Planning Director Anderson responded that it was, especially in the sense that specific direction to the Design Review Board regarding screening could be provided at this time.

J.T. Wick, Stuber-Stroeh, representing the Winter family, stated he concurred with the proposed conditions of approval set forth in the staff report. He would prefer that any additional requirements for screening be implemented at the Design Review stage. It is in the interest of each property owner to preserve trees to screen his/her property. A change to a drainage pipe versus the originally-designed v-ditch has saved four trees more than the original design. In response to questions, Mr. Wick stated that the applicants are trying to avoid oak trees as replacements, due to the Sudden Oak Death (SOD) syndrome.

The public comment period was opened.

Diane McEwen, 12 Old Landing Road, said she thought the Tree Preservation Plan was excellent, but asked that toyon trees be included in the landscape palette. She prefers additional screening wherever possible. She has to move her fence line and wants to lose as few trees as possible.

There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Smith stated additional landscape screening, as part of the individual home applications, is appropriate.

Commissioner Berger stated he supports the language as recommended.

Chair Stein noted the Planning Commission directed that the square footage of houses was to be limited but if certain criteria were met, additional square footage could be approved. There is language in the resolution that addresses additional screening whenever possible.

Commissioner Greenberg asked what "tree removal may require mitigation" means as to what and when.

Planning Director Anderson explained this means that unhealthy trees’ removal will require a tree permit and a 3:1 replacement ratio.

Commissioner Greenberg stated it should be understood that many of the existing trees that will remain on the site after the subdivision improvements are installed are in poor health or have been poorly maintained over the years. It is likely that the homeowners will want many of these trees replaced. The Design Review Board should clearly understand that a substantial amount of new and replacement screening will need to be required along Paradise Drive and Old Landing Road at the time of each new home approval.

Commissioner Smith recommended amending the conditions to direct the Design Review Board to maximize landscape screening at the time of home approvals.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that on page 4, item 1 language should be "…in order to preserve as many trees as possible rather than "as many trees as necessary." The goal should be to replace and intensify the screening.

Commissioner Greenberg noted that toyon trees also are subject to SOD, and may not be a suitable replacement tree for the site.

G.    ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

 ________________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

  ___________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY