F.      ADJOURNMENT 10:10 PM

44 Main Street – Conditional Use Permit – June 12 meeting 1870 Vistazo West Street – Secondary Dwelling Unit – June 12 meeting

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

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

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson, Advance Planner Bryant, Senior Planner Watrous, Planning Consultant Newman, and Meeting Recorder Morales

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS  None.

Planning Director Anderson informed the Commission that staff is setting up three General Plan workshops in June and July as the kickoff of the General Plan Update. Specific dates would be forthcoming.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1.    MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2002 

         Revisions were as follows:

          Page 4, last sentence – Insert the wording "consideration of" prior to "cost/revenue implications".

M/S Snow/Smith (4-0-1) to approve the Minutes as modified (Commissioner Collins abstained).

2. MINUTES OF MAY 8, 2002

Revisions were as follows:

Page 5, Commissioner Greenberg’s comments, fourth sentence – include the wording "in downtown areas" at the end of the sentence.

Page 6, Commissioner Smith’s comments – Revise to read "Commissioner Smith . . . If this suggestion is off the mark, he would suggest that a reduction of the intensity of use be considered under the Zoning Ordinance. There currently is no mechanism in the Zoning Ordinance to address this. The Town Council may wish to consider amending the Zoning ordinance to allow an exception for circumstances such as this."

Page 6, last paragraph – Delete the wording "and to not require a long-term lease" at the end of the sentence.

M/S Smith/Snow (4-0-1) to approve the Minutes as modified (Commissioner Collins abstained).

OLD BUSINESS

3. 41 MAIN STREET; REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PERMIT VARIANCE FOR AN APPROVED 6,740 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL RESIDENCE BUILDING AT THE SITE OF THE FORMER TIBURON TOMMIE’S RESTAURANT; Doris Caceres Trust, owner; Ron Caceres, applicant; Assessor’s Parcel Number 059-151-04

Planning Director Anderson stated that the consensus of the Commission at the May 8^th meeting was that a parking variance for five retail spaces could be supported if a lease could be secured for the residential component of the project. After meeting with the applicant and Mr. Zelinsky, a parking lease agreement was reached for six parking spaces for a term of ten (10) years to be renegotiable at the end of the term. Parking would be either in the Beach Road or Tiburon Boulevard parking lots, or a combination of both. The rates would be based on the current rate for daily parking with an annual adjustment built in, but not necessarily used. Twenty-four hour parking will be allowed, seven days per week, year-round. The applicant also contacted Chong Cook, owner of the Point Tiburon Plaza parking lot, who also agreed to a 10-year parking lease. Since the owners of the private parking lots were not willing to tie up their parking spaces with leases for more than 10 years, the Town should review the conditional use permit at intervals to address parking issues on a regular basis. In order to do so, the conditional use permit should be modified as follows: 1) change the 50 year provision to 10 years; 2) require that all parking leases be executed prior to issuance of a building permit; and 3) review the permit every three years on on-going basis to monitor parking situations and explore a more permanent parking solution. Planning Director Anderson concluded by recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution granting the parking variance and amending the conditional use permit as set forth in the resolution.

The hearing was opened to public testimony.

Ron Caceres, applicant, stated that he has made every effort to find a long-term solution to parking problems, but has not been able to. However, he will continue to explore alternative solutions. He concluded by endorsing staff’s recommendations.

In response to Chair Stein, Mr. Caceres stated that all leased parking will be dedicated to the residential component of the project.

The hearing was closed to public testimony.

Commissioner Snow was pleased with the efforts made subsequent to the last meeting. He agreed that a 50-year lease was unrealistic, and supported staff’s recommendation.

In response to Chair Stein, Planning Director Anderson stated that granting a variance to the retail portion of the project would not constitute a special privilege because there were several other retail uses in the area that did not provide any parking either.

Commissioner Smith stated that one of his concerns was that follow-up review be conducted on a regular basis and in a timely manner. He was pleased that the resolution included a provision addressing his concern.

M/S Greenberg/Smith (5-0) to adopt the Resolution granting the parking variance and amending the conditional use permit.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

4. 141 TAYLOR ROAD; REQUEST TO AMEND A TENTATIVE MAP TO MODIFY A BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; Douglas and Birgitta Engel, owners; Mohamad Sadrieh, applicant; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 038-071-20 & 22

Senior Planner Watrous stated that as part of a Subdivision approved in 2000, a building envelope was established for the subject lot. However, at the time the final map was recorded for the property, the building envelope had changed. On July 19, 2001, at the direction of the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board considered the project with emphasis on the height and mass of the structures from the perspective of the neighboring residence at 131 Taylor Road and required adequate landscaping to mitigate potential impacts. After review of the project, the Design Review Board determined that the proposed home was massive and did not appropriately utilize the approved building envelope. Since the applicant was not willing to redesign the home, the Design Review Board denied project. The applicant appealed the Board’s determination and on September 19, 2001, the Town Council remanded the application back to the Design Review Board with the goal of revising the design to mitigate the impacts identified and to allow the applicant the latitude to go back to the Planning Commission and amend the building envelope if necessary. On February 7, 2002, revised plans were presented to the Design Review Board who determined that the revised design was a significant improvement. However, since the revised plans located the home outside the approved building envelope, the Design Review Board can not approve the revised project until the Planning Commission and Town Council approve amendment of the tentative map for the subject subdivision. The Design Review Board recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment.

In response to Commissioner Smith, Senior Planner Watrous stated that the building envelope recorded as part of the Tentative Map was not the one approved by the Planning Commission. However, said modification was not caught until after the Tentative Map was approved.

The hearing was opened to public testimony.

Mohamad Sadrieh, applicant, stated that the building envelope was modified in response to the Town Council’s direction to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Some of the revisions to the project include: 1) relocation of the house further away from the downhill neighbor without changing the elevation of floors; 2) pulling the second story further back to avoid a two-story appearance; 3) reducing the overall size of the home by 465 square feet; and 4) pulling the garage further away from the downhill neighbor by 16 feet. Although the building envelope was expanded to accommodate the revised plans, the revised proposal better fits with the topography of the site by rotating and tucking the home into the hillside. He concluded by agreeing with the Design Review Board in that the revised project is a far superior design.

In response to Commissioner Snow, Mr. Sadrieh stated that the elevation from existing grade between 131 Taylor Road and the subject property has not changed. Additionally, in response to Chair Stein, Mr. Sadrieh stated that the revised building envelope would not require additional tree removal. He then used drawings to show an overlay of the revised design in comparison with the previously approved.

Commissioner Collins stated that while serving in the Design Review Board, the Board did prefer the modified design.

Doug Engel, co-applicant, clarified that the story poles that have been erected represent both the previous and revised designs, and were color coded. The red and blue stakes represent the previously applied for home and building envelope, respectively. The yellow poles and orange stakes represent the revised home and building envelope, respectively.

Jeff Walter, 131 Taylor Road, thanked the applicant for the collaborative efforts in addressing his concerns. He then stated that while the modified design would screen the proposed home from the rear of his property, it would not screen it from the front. Therefore, he requested that view and visual impacts be kept into consideration.

The hearing was closed to public testimony.

Chair Stein stated that when the project was approved in 1999, he was uncomfortable with approving a building envelope without conceptual drawings for the home.

Commissioner Smith found the revised project acceptable.

Commissioner Greenberg clarified for the record that approval of the modified building envelope did not in any manner apply to the design of the home or landscaping since that portion of the project was within the purview of the Design Review Board.

Commissioner Collins clarified that the blue outline was the building envelope previously approved, the pink outline reflected the building envelope as it was recorded, and the green outline represented the revised building envelope as conceptually approved by the Design Review Board.

Chair Stein pointed out that the proposed resolution retained all the conditions previously imposed in terms of bulk and mass, and clarified that the Commission’s action tonight strictly applied to the modified building envelope only.

M/S Smith/Snow (5-0) to adopt the Resolution amending the approved Tentative Map.

5. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE – AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, SITES, AND DRAFT HOUSING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Planning Director Anderson introduced housing consultant Lisa Newman.

Ms. Newman stated that in May of 2000, the Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss the Housing Element Update Process, including ABAG’s allocation for Tiburon, evaluation of the 1991 Housing Element Policies and Programs, potential sites for affordable housing, and new policy and program options. Based on the input obtained at that workshop, a preliminary list of potential sites for affordable housing and new policy and program options were prepared for the Commission’s consideration. She then explained in detail the three tables included in the staff report: 1) Table 1 lists potential affordable housing development sites and units both in incorporated and unincorporated areas, site characteristics, current zoning, and potential density for each of the sites; 2) Table 2 lists Housing Goals for 1999-2006; and 3) Table 3 lists Draft Policies and Programs.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Ms. Newman stated that the intent of the wording "allowing flexible development standards" as shown on page four of the staff report was simply to allow discussion of FAR, setbacks, and height standards. She also stated that the potential number of affordable units as based on the potential density of a property was not an exact calculation, but that a more explicit figure could be researched.

Planning Director Anderson stated, in response to Chair Stein, that affordability was calculated based on the County’s median income.

Commissioner Greenberg asked why a Housing Committee was no longer mentioned in Policy H-6. Planning Director Anderson responded that such a Committee was in place at one point, but was disbanded in 1994 after completing its tasks. He agreed that a Housing Committee could be useful on an ad hoc basis.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that the use of the word "allow" in Program H-15 may be interpreted as vested rights, therefore it should be replaced with "consider". She also noted that the title of Policy H-14 seemed to be in conflict with the actual wording of the policy. Planning Director Anderson stated that the title could be modified to better reflect the policy wording. He also stated that since Program H-30 of the current Housing Element regarding exemption of affordable units from Town fees has already been implemented through the Zoning Ordinance, it was not included in the updated element.

The meeting was opened to public comment.

Allan Bortel, 8 Corte Palos Verdes, informed the Commission that he has been appointed to the County Commission on Aging and asked how housing for senior or retired people was being handled. Ms. Newman stated that seniors were included in the special housing needs group with a target of 5% of the units to meet the needs of said group. However, a specific site for the special housing need group has not been identified.

In response to a gentleman in the audience, Planning Director Anderson stated that the research conducted has not taken into consideration the aging population of Tiburon because census data was still being collected. However, from the data available, it appeared that the 65+ population in Tiburon increased in the last ten years, while the population of children and middle-aged persons has dropped. He further noted that the vast majority of affordable housing developed in Tiburon in recent years has been senior housing.

Karen Nygren, 22 Paseo Mirasol, made the following comments:

Language in the previous Housing Element discussing ways of accommodating affordable housing other than in-lieu fees should be carried over to the updated element.

Many of the potential sites identified in the downtown area are unrealistic unless the property owner is given incentives. Therefore, an incentive program, i.e., tax credit, should be included.

The Shark’s Deli is a potential site to consider, as well as the nursery in the Cove Shopping Center.

Housing in-lieu fees for retail or commercial development, especially when there is a change in use, should be considered.

When exploring potential sites, the historic character of the downtown area must be seriously considered.

Bill McLaughlin, 2334 Mar East Street, commented in support of providing workforce housing in order to provide local housing for people who work in Tiburon, developing an incentive program that allows flexibility for development standards under special circumstances, and including a policy reflecting that 50% of the properties identified as potential sites are church-owned.

Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, informed the Commission that as Chair of the Marin County Economic Commission, she spent a day touring mixed-use development throughout the Bay Area. As a result, she was impressed with the fully developed mixed-use developments in Palo Alto and Mountain View. Furthermore, in response to Mr. Bortel’s comments, she stated that she has been working with one of the property owners and staff on a potential senior housing project. She then noted that some of the sites identified were unrealistic, and concluded by suggesting that the Element be written in a way to encourage development of housing for seniors and workers and to only consider in-lieu fees as a last resort. She believed that the Housing Element needed more gusto and a greater sense of energy and resolve.

Polly Smith, 10 Barner Lane, stated that environmentalists are in favor of housing, particularly affordable housing for local workers.

Dave Coury, 3312 Paradise Drive, concurred with all statements made by members of the public.

Marigold Bayshore, Point Tiburon Marsh condominiums, agreed that additional affordable housing was necessary, but urged staff to carefully reconsider the Bell Market and Bank of America sites given the existing parking problems.

Ms. Nygren pointed out that affordable housing did not have to be all for sale; it could also be rental. She also agreed that when identifying potential sites, that parking be seriously considered.

Janice Bickel, 34 Marsh Road, commented on the importance of preserving the diversity of the Town. In her opinion, segregating affordable housing in the downtown area would eliminate the opportunity to spread diversity throughout Tiburon.

The hearing was closed to public comment.

Commissioner Smith commended members of the public for their valuable input. Recognizing that the update of the Housing Element is a State requirement which was due in 2001, the focus should remain on the actual construction of affordable housing. He agreed that on-site affordable housing should be the priority. However, when not possible, then off site affordable housing should be explored, and that the last resort should be in-lieu fees. He pointed out that significant private development incentives, such as density bonuses, were already included in addition to tax breaks. He also agreed with the following comments made: 1) the Town and school districts should work together to find mechanisms for teachers and other workers to afford to live locally since the district does own some of the properties identified as potential sites; 2) there should be a nexus between commercial development and workforce housing; 3) mixed-use is an option that would also benefit businesses; 4) affordable housing is not all for sale, it also includes rental units; and 5) second units are a significant source of affordable housing that can be interspersed throughout the Town.

Chair Stein stated that second units do not necessarily always provide affordable housing, unless it was made a requirement. Most of the second unit applications processed were in-law units which could become market rate units when the in-law moves out or the property is sold. Therefore, he asked whether affordability could become a provision directly tied to second units. He also said he was not sure that it would be appropriate to discourage the conversion of two-family and multi-family dwellings in Old Tiburon to single family dwellings, as proposed in Policy H-13, because the conversions mitigate existing substandard conditions such as limited parking.

Commissioner Greenberg asked that incentives for affordable housing in the downtown area be clearly drawn out, as well as the provision for affordable rentals.

Commissioner Collins agreed that parking in the downtown area should not be undermined.

Commissioner Snow also concurred with the concerns raised regarding parking in the downtown area.

At the request of Ms. Brunini, Chair Stein opened the public portion of the hearing to further public comment. Ms. Brunini pointed out that the project she has been working on with the Zelinsky family on a project involving rental senior housing in the Downtown.

Chair Stein expressed caution regarding the use of density bonuses. He would like to see them refined to not be open-ended or subject to abuse.

The Commission commended the informational input by members of the public present.

Planning Director Anderson stated that Staff would be revising the sites list, policies and programs based upon the input received, and send a copy to the State for comment, probably in July. It would likely be 3-4 months before the State’s comments were received.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

 ______________________________

STEVE STEIN, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY