Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm going to call to order the June 18th, 2026 meeting of the Town of Fairfax Planning Commission. Can we have...

Yes. Kelly is absent. Cardozo?

Here.

Beffer?

Here.

Jansen?

Here.

Newton? Here. Chair Swift? Here.

Oh, I'm here too.

You missed one. Oh, Newton?

I can go. I'm also here. Thank you.

That'll teach you a lesson you don't have to worry about.

This meeting is being held in person at the Fairfax Women's Club. The meeting is also being held virtually on Zoom, and it is being broadcast on channels 27 and 99 and live streamed on the town's website. Can I have an approval of the agenda or any changes anyone wants to make?

I'll move to approve. Second.

Roll call.

Cardozo?

Aye.

Beffer?

Yes.

Jansen?

Aye.

Newton?

Yes.

Petrone?

Yes.

Chair Swift?

Yes. So I'm going to read the meeting protocol. The chair shall maintain order at the meetings in accordance with Robert's rules of order, and the Planning Commission has the responsibility to be a model of respectful behavior in order to encourage community participation and citizen input at Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission and the audience are expected to refrain from using profane language and or ridiculing the character or motive of Planning Commission members, staff, or members of the public and to maintain the standards of tolerance and civility. All interested persons are invited to participate in public hearings in order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard and to ensure the presentation of all points of view. Members of the audience should limit their presentation to three minutes, provide their comments by email, to the planning department, state their views and concerns succinctly, and submit any new documents to the planning staff first directly or via email at planning at townoffairfaxca.gov to be entered into the record. So this is the time for public comments on non-agendized items. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission must do so by email, in person, or via Zoom as described above. Presentations will be limited to three minutes or as otherwise established by the Planning Commission Chair. Does anyone here have Public comments that they'd like? Nope. All right. Anyone on Zoom? I see no hands on Zoom, Chair Swift. All right. Closing public comments on non-agendized items. We go to the consent calendar. There are no consent calendar items. So we're going to go to the public hearings. And the first item is 99 Wood Lane, application 26-08. Can we have the staff report for that? Thanks.

Yes. Hi. So my first presentation tonight covers application 26-08 for a minor level entry addition and remodel at 99 Wood Lane. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit because the underlying parcel and existing structure are legally non-conforming. A design review permit and structural variances are not required because it constitutes a minor remodel of under 50% of the structure. The application is categorically exempt from CEQA. The applicant's proposing a minder 70-square-foot street-facing mudroom, an entry addition, an interior laundry bathroom reconfiguration, and full window replacements. While the broader parcel encompasses hillside topography, the actual building itself and the envelope is on a flat part of it. The new entry mudroom, concrete walkway, excuse me, and accompanying structural footings are positioned completely on fat terrain. The project features a negligible impact on the site's overall density. The lot coverage transitions only from 7% to 8%, and the FAR adjusts from 0.05 to 0.06, sitting below the maximum. The build perfectly honors all the structural metrics. The front setback will align precisely with the town six foot minimum boundary line and the building height will remain completely untouched. This minor entryway expansion allows the property owners to modernize their interior framework within a highly compact, architecturally sympathetic design that perfectly mirrors surrounding residential patterns. Additionally, to enhance community connectivity and satisfy public works objectives, the plans are being adapted to incorporate a brand-new code-compliant four-foot-wide front and sidewalk. Sorry, staff has recommended that the plans be adapted to incorporate a four-foot-wide front and sidewalk across the property boundary. So in conclusion, the project safely addresses those interior updates on a flat footprint, and staff has confirmed the application fully aligns with the goals of Fairfax General Plan and recommends approval.

Thank you. Any questions for staff on my left? Am I right? I had one question, and you may have mentioned it in the compliance table that the combined front and rear setback was identified as no change. Did you correct that in the staff report?

Yes, we will correct that. There is a minor change. Okay.

So according to this, because the proposed front setback, the six feet, the combined front and rear would now be 381, correct? Correct. All right, thanks. So is R the owners here? And would you like to come up to the dais and speak?

Sorry. Oh, good evening. I'm the architect, Matt Peterson. This is the owner, Will Post. i think the staff report was well written um and we're not proposing to do much here just a 70 square foot addition to an existing building and what we've tried to do is keep the scope and the scale down to kind of match that village-like character of fairfax and sort of you know continue to beautify the street um And the interior work obviously has very little impact on the visual character from the outside. But the mudroom is in need of repair. There's a slab on grade that's deteriorated. So part of the scope of the project is to create a crawl space in that existing mudroom, create a nice laundry room. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.

Anyone on the left have questions for the applicant on the right? All right. Thank you. You can sit down. OK, I'm going to open public comments on this item. If anyone has comments on this item, they can come up to the dais. Seeing none, anyone on Zoom?

I have no hands on Zoom.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to close public comment and bring this back to the Commission for discussion.

Thanks, Chair Swift. I have a couple questions about the resolution. I just have editorial issues that I'm hoping to discuss with all of the commissioners about some of the form language that we include. I don't have any problems with the application, but I just have a couple things I wanted to clean up on the resolution. The first one's in the title. It says, uh, and remodel a single family residence minor remodel. Could we just delete the word mine, the words minor remodel there? Um, On the second page of the resolution, paragraph five, the development and use of property as approved under the conditional use property. Can we add the word the property? Just make it a real grammatical sentence. The development and use of the property under number five. Are you following me? And then the last sentence or the last couple lines got really confusing to me and I'm wondering if you could just give me an explanation. So it says the development and use of the property as approved under the CUP will not cause excessive or unreasonable detriment to adjoining properties or premises. or cause adverse physical or economic effects thereto, or create undue or excessive burdens in the use and enjoyment thereof, And this is the part I'm a little confused by. Or any or all of which effects are substantially beyond that which might occur without approval or issuance of the use permit. Is that word beyond the right way of saying what we're trying to say here? I really don't even understand that. Does anybody know what we're trying to say? Okay, I'm on page two of the reso. Under conditional use permit, there's seven paragraphs. Number five, the end of paragraph five is what I just don't even understand. It says, or any or all of which effects, meaning all these physical, economic, blah, blah, blah, burdens, are substantially beyond... that which might occur without approval or issuance of the use permit. So these burdens and effects go beyond that which might occur if we didn't approve or issue the use permit. That seems like it's saying the opposite of what it should be saying. Am I misunderstanding?

Yeah, we're working on pulling where that came from. As I am newer to being here with you guys, I have been using some templates and I thought Linda gave me this language from the code, but we will double check to make sure we're pulling that from the right place.

You know, in the other reso, many of the same questions came up. The other reso has the sites, I think.

So maybe we should, we can talk about it when we get to that landscape.

Well, it's literally, it's literally almost minus a couple of sentences, the finding from the conditional use permit section of the code. And I believe these findings are also like standard in state law. So it's not anything that we've come.

I'm sorry. If this sentence is from our code, I'd like a section number because I think it's the opposite of what is intended.

Oh, well, if it is, it's been that way for a long time.

Right.

Yeah. So it is section... There's application. Section 17.032.060C. It says... any or all of which effects are substantially beyond that which might occur without approval or issuance of the use permit. So the addition will not cause any negative impacts beyond what is already existing with the existing house. It doesn't make the impacts of the house any worse than it already is.

So there I just spotted minor difference. So in the resolution, we have the, the word or before that final clause, and I think taking it out makes it make sense, which is the word or is not in the code. So it's just enjoyment thereof, comma, any or all of which effects.

Yeah, and I'll make a note to make sure it aligns with what exactly it says in the code.

Well, I'd like to delete the or before we approve this. And I think if I can read it, the complete thing to you guys, just to make sure it makes sense when I read it. This time, the development and use of the property as approved under the conditional use permit will not cause excessive or unreasonable detriment to adjoining properties or premises or cause adverse physical or economic effects thereto or create undue or excessive burdens in the use and enjoyment thereof Any or all of which effects are substantially beyond that which might occur without approval or issuance of the use permit. Great. So those effects are beyond what might occur if we don't. Fabulous. We're going to delete the or. Now, keep going down to the end of that page under that whereas clause. There's a paragraph two. And it says prior to issuing any of the building permits for the project, the applicant or his assigns shall submit a construction plan to the public works department, which may include but is not limited to the following. I would think we would say which shall include but is not limited to the following. Why is that a may include?

Because every public works director has their own opinions on what these things should look like. And so different public works directors will either be more stringent or less stringent. And that's why. Okay. Every neighborhood is a little bit different. Some require tighter regulations because of the topography and others are like easy topography.

Okay. And then on the next page, I feel like in paragraphs four and six, we should start the paragraph with the applicant shall, because that's how we pretty much say in all the other paragraphs. And I'm being super nitpicky and I apologize. You have to forgive me. I know it's your first report, but again, this is all going to come up again when we look at the other one. So it's really the template I'm being nitpicky about. And this comment is kind of going to require that we deviate sometimes from the template and sometimes not. Under paragraph seven, we've got this language that is we could use it whether we're approving a tree removal or not. And that just kind of bugs me. So I'd rather just delete in paragraph seven instead of that language not approved by the planning commission through this action because we're not approving any tree removal here and have it just read prior to the removal of any trees the applicant shall secure. a tree cutting permit. And only put that not approved by the Planning Commission through this action language when we're actually approving a tree removal as part of our decision. Well, that's my comment on that one. OK. Now, moving right along here, this is what happens because I'm retired and I have too much time on my hands. Under the Ross Valley Fire Department on page five of the resolution, we've discussed before how this language is typically taken directly from the other agency and copied and pasted into our resolutions. But I have like a gut reaction to poorly drafted provisions, especially when they don't make any sense to me. So that's where these comments are coming from. I know that this is the language. I think sometimes we can correct the typo, but let's kind of go through them one at a time and see how you guys feel about that. What does in paragraph 17, what does it say? What does it mean when it says to be noted on plans with conformance?

Okay, so the fire department literally does like three reviews on a project, right? And they sign off on, they get the vegetative management plan. Every property is supposed to have a vegetative management plan, whether you're doing anything or not, right? We only get them when they're doing it. So what they're trying to say there is they're trying to say that you shall note on your building permit plans that you have an approved vegetative management plan, right? And then sometimes they'll have a fire sprinkler permit required. Well, there has to be notation on the building permit that the fire sprinkler permit plans have been approved by Ross Valley. So sometimes they have to make notations to Mark in the building department, letting him know that the other requirements have been complied with. So it's all in one place on the construction drawings. And it's a weird way to, you know.

Okay, but everybody understands that?

I have a different interpretation the way I read it. I think what it says is typically on the front page of any package that you send in, you list the applicable codes. And here they're referencing the 2025 fire code and the WUI code. So in that list where it says California building code. And

that's how i read it yeah to be noted on the plans that these two codes supply to this project it's a standard practice yeah and they require separate applications for them so is that to be noted by the applicant on the plan as opposed to a fire official who approves that they're in compliance yeah it might be helpful to think of it as like instructions to the applicant because that's what the applicant is the one following these conditions Okay. I just, you know, usually I like to work with full complete sentences with subjects, verbs, objects, nouns, you know, but all right, let's go to the next one.

Yeah. I think there's some, there's some like hesitation for me to like mess with the language because I am not a firefighter. So I don't want to, I don't want to cause further confusion just to give you context of why I'm not going in and making grammar corrections. No, I get it.

Maybe I can send my handwritten notations to the people that write these things and make a suggestion that they use better grammar.

We can give you their emails.

I would love that. Okay, on paragraph 18, oh, sorry, 19, not a sentence. A substantial remodel shall mean the renovation of any structure which, combined with any additions, alterations, or modifications to the structure, affects the floor area which exceeds 50% of the floor area of the structure. Not a sentence. Too many whiches. I recommend deleting the second which, and then it might be a sentence. It would say, a substantial remodel shall mean the renovation of any structure which, combined with any additions, alterations, or modifications to the structure, affects a floor area Oh, I guess it does. Which exceeds 50%. Nevermind. All right. Too many witches, but, uh, and then in number 20, we've got a reference to a deferred permit. I take it. That's the deferred vegetation management plan permit shall be noted as a deferred permit. Again, this is like telling the applicant, that when you submit your application, note that your VMP is a deferred permit?

Note that before you get a, what they're trying to say is you will not get a final inspection unless you have your approved vegetative management plan before you complete the construction.

That's what it means. Just want to make sure the applicant understands all these like wrinkly details here because it's not clear to this lay person planning commissioner. But we've got lots of other references in paragraphs 21, for example, to deferred permit. And I'll just leave that. Paragraph 22 refers to the fire hydrant capacity. And it says in the middle of paragraph 22, if not currently as required, a new hydrant shall be provided. Just strange to me. That I don't think I've ever seen this language before. So they're kind of indicating that again, this is something that the applicant is going to have to figure out their hydrant capacity.

We have places in town that don't have the right water pressure on their hydrants, and so the fire department takes the opportunity to require whoever's trying to make their property improvements to upgrade the pressure.

And it's already stating there what the pressure is of the closest hydrant.

I mean, a fire department should know too, and they could say this hydrant does not meet the pressure requirements, but...

I think that's what they're doing in that paragraph.

Yeah, it's a long-winded roundabout way of saying it. I mean, okay. And then in paragraph 25, I just feel like there's a typo in the sentence about these numbers must be internally illuminated or illuminated by... and adjacent light. Okay, in paragraph 28, I think it's applicant may propose alternate materials or methods, plural. In paragraph 29, we're referring to the date of the MMWD application. not the application they filed with Fairfax. So I think we just say date of MMWD application. Paragraph 29.

Can we clarify that that is what that's referencing, 120 days from an MMWD?

I believe that's correct, but we will have to check it. We don't have their standard language here.

Well, I don't know why they would say from the date the application was filed with us.

Yeah, no, I think you're correct that it's supposed to be. You file the application with MWD, you have 120 days to complete it.

Yeah, we could have taken much longer to make a decision, so that wouldn't have made sense. And then paragraph 30, this is the same typo we've corrected before, all indoor and outdoor requirements of district code title. Number 33 ordinance 420 requiring installation of a gray water recycling system. Paragraph 34 all of MMWD's rules and regulations in effect. Paragraph 35 a copy of the building permit must be provided to the district along with the required applications and fees just delete other. And number 36 is the truck limitation, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., seven days a week?

I believe it is.

Oh, my God, I've got to the end of my nitpicky little comments.

Before I do my comments, any other discussion items or questions? Yes. Okay.

So maybe just on the application itself before we do details. Um, I think it is indeed a minor addition. I think it is very well thought out. Um, it's also very well documented. Um, so I'd be fully support. So just make that clear. Thank you for that.

Um, and I had one comment other than going through my own reso changes. Um, In here, there's the potential that they're going to have to submit additional plans that incorporate a sidewalk, correct? So when I look, and I just want to make it clear, when I look at the site and try and find contiguous sidewalks, which There might not be. I note in front of this property, there's a tree close to the curb and a mailbox. And I just want to make it clear that if they're having to come in with new plans for a sidewalk and that sidewalk's going to impact, depending on where it's put, that tree, that's there that we make sure and make it easy for the applicant that they go before the tree committee beforehand if we know that that has to be removed to get a tree permit if there is one there.

Yeah, in our code.

Okay. So just helping the applicant to do that and make it as easy for them as possible. Okay.

Noting that the planning department doesn't process tree permits. Understand. Right. Staff person that does process. Right.

Right. So that's what I'm saying. Going to having to go to the tree committee. Let's kind of make that easy if we can.

We'll pass it along to the administrative assistant that works the front desk and processes those.

Okay. And with that, I had questions on the reso. So on page two, Under the whereas, and I also am in favor of this project, there's 1A and B. And 1B, 1A says the project's approved per following plans and documents. And I have questions that we're not identifying the correct date on the plans. But I'm looking at the B that is there. It says... The final design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. And I haven't seen that before. And we do have a paragraph in here that talks about if there are any changes that need to be made that aren't substantial, that aren't consequential, that the planning commission

I just want to correct you. You said the final design shall be subject to the approval of the planning, it says the planning director.

Correct. Okay. And we have another paragraph that talks about any changes that are not consequential could be approved by the planning director, right? But if there are consequential changes, then it would need to come back to us, potentially, right?

So I would delete

I would recommend deleting 1B under that whereas. Just making A part of the, take the A out too?

Yeah.

Oh.

And making it a sentence, the project is approved for the following. Yeah, yeah. Per the plans and documents prepared by Matt Zane.

Right. Yeah. And then adding the, and Commissioner Newton may have mentioned this, adding the code reference for conditional use permit.

I'm sorry.

And then also, I'm sorry, adding the code reference for conditional use permit.

Which page?

I'm sorry, two. And also adding There currently looks like there's a porch light and they're going to reconfigure the front. So I'm assuming that there'll be new lighting there, but we don't, I didn't see new lighting on the plans, but I didn't see a requirement in the reso that any exterior lighting has to be dark sky compliant. So if we would add that.

Yeah, we can add that.

to the reso. Those are my comments. Go ahead.

Since we're reading it word by word, I see one that you might change on page three, item three, the submittal of a videotape. I would remove the word tape. That would be very difficult.

This is crazy. This is like...

And that'll apply to the other one as well when we get there. So do we have a motion?

I will make a motion to approve resolution number 2026-12, resolution of the Fairfax Planning Commission approving application number 26, sorry, number 26-08 for conditional use permits to expand and remodel a single family residence at 99 Wood Lane. And that would include the detailed comments made by Commissioner Swift and Commissioner Newton.

Second.

Can we have roll call? All right. Cardozo?

Yes.

Pfeffer? Yes. Jansen? Aye. Petrone?

Yes.

Newton? Yes. Chair Swift?

Yes.

Yes. So the resolution carries. Congratulations. There is a 10-day appeal process. If anyone wishes to file an appeal, the planning department can provide information on that. Thank you. Now we're going to go on to item two, 145 Bolinas Road, design review, a conditional use permit, and a parking variance. Can we have the staff report on that one as well?

Yes, so the second application tonight is application number 26-09 for a historic craftsman cottage located at 145 Bolinas Road in the Central Commercial Zone with an active residential use permit. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to modify, sorry, a conditional use permit to expand the existing residential use, a design review permit for structural modifications and a parking variance. The primary driver of the project is to protect the structure from environmental hazards. They are proposing to lift the home by two feet and two inches to raise it completely above the base flood elevation. The cottage was built in 1920 and is verified as a local historic residence. All of the proposed work has been designed strictly under the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation as verified by a professional historic consultant. The applicant would like to add a modest 284 square foot addition to the rear and convert the failing front porch into a formal room to maximize the internal storage and space. They are not adding any bedrooms, meaning this project will not generate any additional traffic or population density. So the code strictly requires three parking spaces for this residential use with one covered. The site currently accommodates one covered space and they are asking to maintain this configuration. The adding more parking is physically impossible due to the property's unique hardships. The lot is exceptionally narrow, tapering down to just 21 feet wide at the rear, and it features an active access easement along the eastern boundary line. Forcing a multi-car driveway or covered carport would completely destroy the historic character defining features of the streets facing facade Because the bedroom count remains unchanged granting this variance will cause no traffic or safety impacts on Bolinas Road We have the materials board up by Daniel We have the materials board next to you if you want to pass it around and The exterior design plans to respect the original architecture. They're using custom-built windows matching the original profile, a Class A asphalt shingle roof, and redwood lap siding. Let's see here. The project plans to integrate all standard agency requirements that will be conditioned, including a full interior fire sprinkler system and structural vegetation management plan with Ross Valley Fire Department. So staff has verified that the project meets all development standards for height setbacks and lot coverage. The project appears to be a win-win. It saves an early 20th century local asset and upgrades it to current health and flood codes while attempting to maintain the exact character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval via resolution number 202613.

Any questions for staff on my left?

I just have one. I couldn't exactly tell from the plans or the staff report what's happening with the half height picket fence in front. I assume that'll have to be removed for construction, but is the plan to try and save and reinstall, to mimic it, to remove completely?

Yeah, we might need to ask the applicant that.

Okay. And then along those lines, when we in the staff report say that the applicant might consider using non-combustible materials for said fence, is that something that's just coming from staff, or is that at direction by Ross Valley Fire?

That came from our safety element.

From the safety element?

Yeah.

Okay. So it's not a requirement, it's just a suggestion that maybe we as planning commissioners might consider including in our resolution?

Correct. Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I have some questions about the square footage. Looking at the plans, and I think you just mentioned that the addition is 284 square foot in the rear of the house. And then there are some modification on the front, which I don't know the square footage. But then there's two things then going on. The first one is that it is noted to exceed 50% under the parking regulation. Looking at the drawing, it does not appear to be more than 50%. So could you explain?

So I think I might be able to explain that. When they first bought the house, they came in and they wanted to do a second story addition. And I have a feeling that might be a carryover from, is this the same? You can ask them if it's the same architect that they used when they submitted for the, and that was deemed by the historic architect to not be acceptable. It would change the character of the house. So if it's the same architect, otherwise I think you need to check with them on that.

Okay. Because if it's...

The front is, they are remodeling the front porch too. Okay.

No, understood. But just as I said, looking at the drawing and the area, it does not appear to be necessarily more than 50%. And if it's not, it would throw out the parking regulation requirements. So that's an important one, I think. The second one is about the parking itself. Looking at the plans, it appears to me that there is actually room for three cars. The third one being slightly askew on the side. So why, right, there's currently two in tandem, and then there's one indicated on the side of that area.

Like on the front of the house?

On the front of the house. That's on page, doesn't have a page number. It's the first page of the drawings. Well, it's the car is half is two thirds over the property line on one side. And so yeah.

Sorry, I don't want to talk over staff. But I thought there was mentioned in the staff report about a driveway easement for the neighboring property.

Yes, if you're looking at the hatched area with the car drawn in it, that actually is a dedicated space for the house next door that doesn't have any parking.

I see.

Questions on my right? Sorry.

My bad. No, that's okay. Am I recalling that there was a palm referenced that was going to be preserved? Okay. And then, all right. I just wanted to make sure that was the one I was recalling. Okay. Okay.

Um, question, so we say that we did not get any project specific comments from Ross Valley sanitary or, um, did they just not get back to us yet? Or did they say specifically they have no comments because I'm. Curious about the project timing with the work that's going to be happening on. It's true.

When we say no specific comments, we just mean specific to the project. They provided the standard conditions.

So they looked at this and know that I assume there will be some overlap in work?

There may be, but all those agencies get a second look when the building permit's submitted, and they may understand that a lot of times people will disappear literally for six months. They don't turn the projects. They don't submit their building plan. So I think that's why they don't address something that's going on right now. It could be done by the time, although now there's delays and that, so I don't know what's going to happen.

Okay, thanks. I had an afterthought. Go ahead. Thanks. Speaking of the sort of the interesting spot where this residence is located, we've got the road closure shall be noticed in the field a minimum of 48 hours prior to the event and individual written notification. delivered to each potentially impacted resident on a Lima Road and Manor Road. Yes, that's a typo. But I'm wondering if because we're really focused on, I mean, I think it would be Bolinas and Park, right, that you'd want to worry about, but really the impacts is so much bigger than bolinas and park it's literally everybody coming down bolinas could potentially be impacted so i'm wondering if that we could make them do 72 hours or something like that with notices on the intersection about any street closures and i wonder if they need to be coordinated with the fire department in advance because of the proximity of the firehouse.

Over. I think that would be a good condition to add.

Go ahead.

The PDF does not contain floor plans. Not sure we need them, but is it just a PDF?

Sorry, could you repeat that?

The PDF does not contain the floor plans. Maybe the printed version does. It's not that relevant, just curious.

Yeah, the last drawing in our packet is South Elevation existing, South Elevation proposed.

Our big sets have the floor plan, but even though we have a really high-end scanner and stuff, sometimes it'll suck two pages through. Do you remember if you took it from online?

Oh, you mean they didn't give us a review?

No, I didn't. Oh, okay. But they got some of them. I don't know. I thought.

Well, either way, so they are submitted.

Some of the pages, but not the page that showed the floor plan. That was on my hard copy.

Yes. Just making sure. So it's good. It's fine. Thank you.

Okay. I had some questions for staff. So on the compliance table on page two, we have side setbacks, 12 inches and one foot. We've got combined front and rear setback with no change, but we're changing the front setback. And it looks like the rear setback is 63 feet.

I believe the front setback is just in the place of the porch.

They're not supposed to be... They're rebuilding the failing porch, but it's not supposed to be going out any closer to the front property line. It's supposed to remain true to the original... Yeah, Bryn's looking at Did you check your plans, though?

I'll double check, but I actually think they're reducing it by a foot. And that's what the compliance table states.

Oh, you're saying the combined says no change. Okay.

I will just say that I think, and it's my bad, there's no reason to have this table for commercial. You're allowed to build right up to the property lines unless you abut A residentially zoned, unless you share a property line with a resident. So they talk about the rear setback. That's the only one that really applies to this because the rear property line is shared with a residentially zoned property.

Can I ask about the side setback though? Is it really 12 inches on the left?

Oh yeah.

And one foot on the right. So we're drawing a distinction between inches and feet for some reason. And why is the combined 13 feet?

well the one should have been the one i thought they had a lot more on the other side yeah so i mean this should have been this side set rack should have been six uh here's the here's the property line what does that say i can't read it 11 feet But as I said, since both of these residential properties are central commercial, there are no setbacks. I mean, what usually dictates keeping setbacks in the commercial zones, if you're building a new building, is you're required to put parking in, right? But these are historic buildings that were built. There's no... requirements but it would be nice if our table was accurate and read and well legible and what i'm saying is i don't believe this should have had a table it probably should have just said the only the only setback required on this property is the rear setback where it abuts the residentially zoned property on is that dominga or wrong yeah that's the only setback that this property is required to have Commercial properties you can build to the property.

But we have a table.

Yeah.

I don't think it's right.

Okay.

I think it's misleading. And I don't necessarily think we need to correct a staff report, right? But I'd like to understand the correct numbers. It's 12 feet. Thank you.

There you go.

Okay. Okay. Page three for the staff report. One, two, three, four. Fourth paragraph, you're referencing the town utilizes section 17.008.020 of the code to define structures of special historical or aesthetic interest, but you don't identify what part. I'm sorry, where are you? Page three of the staff report. What paragraph? Oh, okay. The fourth one down. And 17008020 is a list of definitions. So you don't identify what you're referencing there.

Yeah, so that's the definition section. So as Linda's showing me right now, I should insert, we should insert into the staff report definitions.

So do you know which one it is that we're utilizing?

Use your mic.

Oops, I'm not in definitions. So were you citing this thing, the historic district? That must be what you were using, right? Historic district. Okay. So they want you to say definitions, historic district, so they know. Okay.

So let me ask a question on that. Do we have a defined historic district?

In town, there's a definition for historic district in the code, but we do not have like an overlay or we do not have a historic district downtown.

So that's why I was trying to find kind of where we're going with that. There was also something that's why I was confused.

I think district is in a way not necessarily like a geographical boundary, but it falls within a district if it meets that criteria listed under historic district.

Yeah, there's criteria listed. It says if any area is a historic district, if it contains improvements which have special character or special historic or aesthetic interest or value, represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one or more eras in the history of the town, cause such area by reason of such factors to constitute a distinct section of the town?

Understand, but we do not have a defined historical district per, and I remember back a couple years ago, we had... a plan, theoretically, to have research done so that we could get a state recognition of the downtown as a historical district, like some other jurisdictions have. So we have not done that. So that is not... a historical district to find. The other thing that I didn't know if you were trying to pick out was there is also a definition of a landmark in there, and I didn't know if you were trying to use that or not. So if we're going to go ahead and put that in staff reports, it's helpful to get a little bit more specific so then we can kind of go from that.

We should look at landmark because maybe that would be a better way to do it if we have other buildings that are historic downtown that somebody wants to do things to.

Because the landmark definition talks about any building 30 years or older. And then we can get into other areas like the CEQA that we did on the housing element, which talks about older buildings and has different years in there. So I was just trying to get some clarity on that. And then on page six of the staff report, At the top, it says the applicant is requesting a variance to pursue the project without adding more parking. And one of the code references was 12-120-030. And I just wanted to see if that was an error. Because I couldn't find it.

Is it 1712030?

12120 is the driveway section. Driveway entrances. 1212030. Yeah, that's just the section that says any driveway or approach leading from the street into any premises for residential properties, right? It doesn't say residentially zoned. Residential properties cannot exceed 20 feet.

That might be an error in throwing that in here. Okay. Just trying to figure out. That's an error.

I'm sorry.

think it's an error i'm wondering why you would think that would be an error if she's saying it has to do with driveways for residences but what they're seeking is a variance for the amount of parking not a driveway but the driveway is the driveway where it can be limits the amount of parking you can provide you know what i'm saying all right um Those were all my questions. Anyone else have questions for staff before I ask the applicant? OK. So I'm going to open public comments. If the applicants would like to come up and answer any questions and anything you want to talk about regarding your project, be great.

Good evening. My name is Benjamin Herbertson. This is my wife, Samantha. With this, just being here tonight's really exciting for us. This is a long time coming. I wanted to just provide a little context. Our architect will talk about a lot of specifics, but samantha and i met back in college lived in san rafael for a long time and when we lived there we always loved this town we would come and visit we would go you know go for walks go hiking go eat food we love the the theater it's our favorite in alderman and so we always were intrigued by this place nine years ago i was fortunate enough to get hired with ross valley fire department where i continue to work as a fire captain And when that happened, we continued to be interested in moving here. Unfortunately, we couldn't afford to move here. So we were always looking, dabbling, and then we got very fortunate and we were driving by to go for a hike and we saw that property. Given that it's over 100 years old and completely falling apart, we were able to buy it for $200 under the asking, which made it possible. So we mortgaged everything we had. We We bought it and we had a plan three years after we bought it to do a remodel. We're eight years later. Here we are. So really exciting for us. The thing that. A couple times we talked about getting out from under it because it is such a big project. We identified that it was historical, which adds a whole other element to it. But instead of getting too discouraged, we ended up embracing it. And what we love about Fairfax is the people here, the vibe here, and the fact that I get to work and serve this place and live here with my family is a really big deal for us. We decided to put the work in. Matt has supported us through this whole process. And our approach, and hopefully you can see it in the design, is to not just maintain, but lean into the historical relevance of it. When we first bought the property, first thing I wanted to do was paint it a new color because it's purple. Instead, we're just going more purple. And you brought up the palm tree. The palm tree, when we bought the house, there was dead leaves to the bottom. We cleaned it up, and we have lights going up to the top. And many nights, we light up the lights all year round. So try to lean into it. We love this place, and we really appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

My name is Matt Owens. I'm a designer. I live and work in Fairfax. And it's been my sincere pleasure to work with these guys and finding a resolution for the renovations of their home. The structure is severely distressed. And when I first saw it, I had to let them know that it might have reached the end of its serviceable life. But they were pretty adamant that they wanted to preserve the place. And as it turned out, when we had it evaluated by the preservationist, it does have historical value. It's one of the first homes in that area, and it's a typical style of when it was built. Basically a four-square bungalow, very modest dimensions. What is it? 837 square feet. And... not in great shape. It has a failing roof. It has no foundation, just a mud cell. It's below the FEMA flood level and it needs to be leveled and plumbed and a series of other improvements are going to have to happen to it. So our proposal is to raise a house as required, obviously, rehabilitate the structure, and give the place a little breathing room for their family, and all the while preserving its character. We consulted with Alice Duffy at ADP, who was our preservationist, who guided and restrained, of course, the design. So the addition is going to be in the rear of the property, where it'll be away from the site or the view from the street. It's going to follow the original lines of the building in the same heights. We'll be using the same style window. We'll be replacing all the existing windows. All the new windows will all have to be custom built with windows. We're going to preserve the siding and have new materials milled to match the existing siding and trim. And where was I? Yeah, okay, so the front porch is kind of a later add-on. It's really poorly constructed, so it can't be lifted. It's also very narrow and enclosed, and as a front porch, it really doesn't serve us very well. The street has gotten very busy. There's 7-Elevens right there with trucks every day. got the emergency services building so we're going to recreate that front porch in the same style so it mimics exactly what's there but integrate it into the floor area of the existing house um but we have to also alter it a little bit to have a legal landing and add some stairs for the increased elevated floor level Um, the parking is, you know, unfortunate, but that's, that's all we got. And honestly, they thought they were getting the whole driveway, but the previous owner sold a easement to the neighbors. And it didn't get disclosed in the sale. And they didn't pursue any litigation, but we're going to pursue a variance for that right now. To answer your questions, we didn't propose second story addition. We did talk about increasing the roof pitch a little bit to get some attic storage, but Ellis wasn't having that, so that didn't happen. Second question, sewer's already been replaced. We may need a new water line once we get the area calculated for sprinklers. We don't know yet. And as far as pick a fence goes, we're not in a wooey area. But obviously, we're going to be very fire conscious. He doesn't want his coworkers coming uninvited anymore than they already do. So we'll try to keep this place safe. And I think that's about all I got to say.

Thank you. Any questions? Go ahead.

Yeah, I have one question. So that's the 50%. As I said, it looks to me that the addition is less than 50%. You mentioned 800-something square foot. That's the old house, I presume.

Yeah, and the addition is what, 284?

284 plus a little thing on the porch, so it's less than 50%. That's correct. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? No.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

So there's no one in the audience that would have public comments on this that hasn't already spoken. So I'm going to ask if there's anyone on Zoom.

I do have a hand on Zoom. And Scott, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Scott Hochstrasser. I'm the owner of 141 Bolinas Road, the neighbor. And I would point out one thing that the parking in tandem provides two spaces. And I've got to say, these are the most wonderful neighbors anybody could ever have. And this is exactly what the town needs, a fire captain that lives in the town right across the street from the firehouse. In an emergency, he's here, and Ben is a wonderful man, and his wife, they're just fantastic people. And they've done everything possible, like Ben said, for eight years to get this plan approved. It's an excellent plan. It's very sensitive to the historic structure, and I strongly support it, and I hope your commission will as well.

Thank you. Anyone else on zoom? I have no other hands. Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment and bring it back to the planning commission for discussion.

I may start. I think the most important thing, or not the most important, but the parking variance is not going to be necessary because we established this is less than a 50% expansion. So the only thing that we need to do is the conditional use permit.

So can staff, before we go further, can staff address the parking variance? Yes.

Are you asking us to speak to if it's required or not? Correct.

The remodel is less than 50%. And the parking variance is triggered by more than 50%. And it's not like very close or so. It's less than 50%. So...

they're trying to expand a property that doesn't have it. All the parking is nonconforming now. And so the variance is just to retain the tandem parking, which isn't allowed for residential structures. Right. And you were supposed to have three parking spaces, but the house is so the property is so narrow that there's no way to get a third guest space in the front yard. So there, the variance is to continue to have the nonconforming parking.

Yeah, no, I'm not suggesting that there would be three spaces. The staff report indicates that since the project scope exceeds 50%, the project is considered, et cetera. And since that's not true, you do not have to consider the non-conforming parking condition. But I'm reading into it.

So because we're dealing with a residence in the commercial zone, you're saying that the existing CUP includes a variance for parking? No.

You mean the existing CUP that the project has now? It doesn't include anything other than saying they're allowed to have it as a residence.

Yeah, except that the conditional use section says that parking can be varied with the conditional use permit. So technically, even though it might not have even been discussed in the staff report years ago when the then owner... asked to put it back to a residence, right? So yeah, that should be taken out. It's not requiring a variance. You need to remove any language to that. The conditional use permit is being granted to expand the residential use, which is operating on the ground floor with the use permit. And the use permit is varying, is allowing the parking to remain non-conforming.

Okay, so the conditional use permit Yes, it should. Includes the parking variance. No, it says parking.

If you read under the conditional use section, it says that it says that legal it says that legal nonconforming uses. Right. Like this residential use on the ground floor, it's operating with a conditional use permit, but technically it is legal non-conforming because it's been a house since before it was owned commercial. They want to expand it now. They're requesting the modification of the original use permit that the owner got for the existing footprint, right? And the parking can continue to be varied under that use permit because they're not adding a bedroom If they were trying to add a bedroom, I don't know that staff would have supported it. We might have said, you know, you have to give up your whole backyard to try to get more parking back in there. But yeah, that shouldn't say variance.

But to that point, the existing CUP that the prior owner got, The only because I asked for a copy of that. The only thing it said was to allow that to go to become a residence. It didn't say anything about any other conditions on it other than saying a residence, because I was looking for some of that within the.

I mean, all I can tell you is that. This code is very disjointed and whatever year it was, right, or whatever was going on at town hall, how busy people are if there was, right? Stuff like that can get left out because it's not an easy to follow code section. It probably should have discussed that. I can honestly tell you that I was here 30 years before that was brought to my attention by a new planning director that the conditional use permit section was says that for conditional uses, the parking can be varied with the use permit. Up until then, the planning directors had me having people apply for variances, and I was in that mindset. I continued doing it until, I can't remember if it was Ken Kirkey or, you know, finally said, hey, you don't need, they don't need variances. If they're a conditional use permit, if they're getting a conditional use permit, the parking can be varied Right, but I guess what I'm saying... You're just saying the staff report long ago, you can't look at anything done by the staff and say, hey, we have to be consistent. You're going to have staff changing and you're not going to have people going back. You have to just hope that the new people will be able to follow the code.

Right, but what I'm saying is that the conditional use permit that was issued to the former owner that made this back to residential, only said within that conditional use permit that it would become residential. It didn't address the specifics of that property in regard to parking or not to say that it's going to be residential and the parking's okay the way it is. It doesn't have to meet A, B, and C. It just said that it was going to be residential. And that's one of the reasons I asked for the copy of that CUP so I could read what it said about the project, about the property, to see how that influences what we're doing here. When we talk about that, and maybe what I would suggest when we get to that point with the commission is we address that In this so we don't have this issue going forward that just like when it was converted the first time or whatever to residential that we're sitting here now trying to figure out parking. We could either do that within the scope of a CUP or we could allow. the parking variance to continue as it's written here, whichever works better.

I would recommend the first rather than the, the variance, because what I hear Linda saying is the, The code is what allows the C.U.P. to allow for the variance of the parking as opposed to a variance. And I don't know what the implications down the road would be if we said it was a variance as opposed to leaving the trail of breadcrumbs that you're talking about in the C.U.P.

Right. And then within that reso, and we're sort of jumping the gun a little bit when we're talking about the reso. I mean, this is awesome, guys. I'm so in favor of this project. And there's other things that I want to fix in the reso. But Maybe part of that is when we talk about the CUP section in here, we also have a statement within the reso that addresses that the parking as it is, is a part of that CUP. However, we need to.

I see what you're saying.

And then take out the parking variance.

Just so you can all help. staff going forward i was incorrect the that's the language about the conditional use being able to the parking being varied is actually in the central commercial zone district under under conditional uses right it says can you tell me the section yeah it is 17.100.110 c 2 for conditional uses, the requirements of Division B, which is the parking, may be varied by the terms, provisions, or conditions of the use permit approving a use permit, approving a condition... The requirements of Division B of this section may be varied by the terms, provisions, or conditions of the use permit approving a conditional use permit in accordance with the facts, findings, and determination governing approval of the use permit as set forth in Chapter 17.032. You don't have to have someone pay for a variance. You don't have to discuss about parking. If the Planning Commission says they're not adding bedrooms, it's a small house, the parking has existed there since 1920,

So if I understand everybody correctly, what is proposed is that we do strike the separate parking variance findings, but we include under the conditional use permit somewhere at item number eight, a statement that references that the parking as is hereby incorporated.

Actually, I think you could just amend two. which says vehicular access and parking are adequate, and we could amend that to add something about the tandem arrangement or whatever.

Yeah, I think it would be good to have something more specific than the parking's adequate, but something specific to address this particular situation.

Yeah, but I would argue just enhancing number two to add another sentence to it so all the parking is in the same location in the

Yeah, and you could copy and paste that first bullet or the first sentence of the first bullet under the parking variance.

And I've gone through, when we get to it, I've gone through and whacked out all the references to variance in here already. So if we wanted to go through it line by line to get the resolution up to speed.

Well, we've got other changes to it, too. So, yeah. Yeah.

Maybe, sorry, maybe final. I'm also very well in support of the project. It's cleverly done, well done, and asset to the town.

Through the chair, can I ask an additional question? If we've ascertained that this is not a 50% remodel, does it still meet the definition of a substantial remodel and therefore is subject to all these fire requirements as well, like the fire sprinkler system?

The fire department, even though their definition is very similar to ours, they are a lot stricter than we are. They literally, if you remove sheetrock or something, they're going to count the square footage. We do not like rebuilding the existing entryway. We're not going to count that square footage. You know what I mean? It's falling apart. It needs to be fixed.

So it's not us as a town who told them this is an essential remodel?

No, they came up with it on their own. Got it. And we've always gone back and forth on that. We've had houses where people smoke heavily. And so people come in, they have to rip the sheetrock out. And it's a 50% remodel. You have to put sprinklers in. But they're not changing the floor plan or moving the plumbing or moving the electrical or moving the framing. They're just trying to make it so someone can live in it. We don't count that as a 50%. They will count it as a 50%. Okay.

I just wanted to double check that because I think if I can echo other comments, we're all very supportive of this project and anything we can do to make it more feasible and less costly. I'd love to explore that, but thank you.

So do we want, we're all in support, so we're going there. So do we want to start with the reso changes? Sure.

Do you mind if I jump in? Well, yeah, I just wanted to have my say about your house because I live in a little smaller house, probably around the same age, also the same color. thing, so I love that you guys decided to keep that color. It's like, yes! All right, so I'm gonna trust the planning director's edits of the deletion of the references to the permit variances throughout. On page two of the resolution,

Okay, we're back.

Okay, on page two of the resolution. We've got a really nice recitation of all the provisions in the town code. A through E. And then below that are basically our findings, but there's no introduction to the findings numbers one through seven. So before number one, could we just, I mean, I know this is under a, whereas the commission has made the following findings. Maybe we just say the commission's findings include colon. Just to differentiate the regs from the findings. And then paragraph number one. The site planning preserves identified natural features as much as possible while also complying with other agencies' regulations. Can we change that and to a while? While being designed to meet the owner's personal needs. Because I think the and being designed is just weird. We're going to change paragraph two. Maybe we add the first bullet from the parking variance findings. The project does not increase the number of bedrooms in the house or the ability of the house to cater to more residents. And then maybe therefore vehicular access and parking are adequate or something like that. I would not belabor it. So just add that first sentence. I don't know if you want to add that citation to that as well, 17.100.110C2. Do you want to add that in there, like C17.100.110C2? I don't know. Now, the whereas clause on the bottom of paragraph 3 says, doesn't refer to the date of submittal of the plans and includes the language that Commissioner, Chair Swift would have deleted from our previous reso about the final design being subject to the approval of the planning director. So first off, do we wanna add the dates of submittal of the plan documents here?

So yes, that's been our common approach to this. So I would add those in.

And the designer's name.

I know you can't be done anymore.

I'm just waiting for staff. Tell me that they want me to go on because I know you guys want me to keep going. All right. Paragraph six on page four, prior to the removal of any trees, delete not approved by the planning commission through this action because we aren't approving any tree removals. And I wonder if there should be a mention here of I thought I recall there being a palm protection plan.

Yeah, the applicant states on their plans there are in the application that they're going to use some fencing around the palm.

Can we just refer to that in this paragraph? Maybe in the sentence it says, to further minimize impacts on trees and significant vegetation, the applicant shall comply with its palm protection plan and submit plans, da, da, da.

I'm sorry, which one are you on?

This is paragraph six on page four. Okay. And then that might be it. I don't know. Wait a minute. All right. Page six, paragraph 13. This is a question for the lawyers on the commission. Conditions placed upon the project by outside agencies or by the town engineer may be eliminated or amended with that agencies or the town engineers written notification to the planning department prior to issuance of the building permit. And I understand that includes the specific provisions that outside agencies have asked us to include in this resolution. And so my first question, sorry, I'm on page six, paragraph 13. And this is about conditions that are placed in the approval by outside agencies or the town engineer. And that, as I understand this, includes the provisions we're actually writing and including in our resolution tonight. Okay. Should we say including those set forth herein? Or is it just clear to everybody that regardless of what we've written here, this stuff can be changed prior to the issuance of the building permit?

But I think the only other, if you're speaking about town offices, town departments, the only other one.

This says outside agencies or by the town engineer.

But I think if what we do in these is do kind of a form from each agency, although Ross Valley Fires can be a little different. But if we do standard remarks from the agencies, which we have been doing, and then once the applicant goes to those agencies and gets permits or discusses their project, and there are changes, like MMWD is not going to require A, B, and C, even though it's in our standard remarks here, All that's saying is that what is here could be amended by those agencies.

It actually, right now, says conditions of any sort. It doesn't limit them to the conditions here. It doesn't specify that it's referring to the conditions here. It's just any conditions that any outside agency puts on, and what I'm proposing is we make it clear that that includes the provisions that we've included in our resolution. That if those provisions were provided by an outside agency, whether it's Ross Valley Fire or Marin Municipal Water District, those provisions in this resolution can change. And so I'm just suggesting we add the phrase, including those set forth herein.

We think that could open it up to a situation where an outside agency not included in here would like not, it might be unclear if they can have input or not. Like the language here actually captures the agencies here and otherwise.

Okay, I don't know. I don't know if you and I are talking about the same thing.

You're worried that it's confusing, right? It's a point of confusion. For someone interpreting it or for the agencies themselves or for, so for the applicants, I'm just trying to help. Sorry. So I just think it's for the applicant and the agencies, like what I think it's trying to do is by being somewhat vague, by saying just the outside agencies or by the town engineer, I think it's, able, by being vague, it's including what's in the resolution, but also letting it be open to other agencies.

Right. And so my proposed language would do that as well. It would clarify that the stuff in here is potentially subject to change, but it wouldn't limit that potential change to the stuff in here. What it would do is it... I think it's more limiting to say including.

Can I offer it? I think we get at your point if we say the conditions in this resolution and any others placed upon the project by outside agencies.

If I may, I think, I believe that's already what it says. I have no confusion. It says the conditions placed upon the project by the agencies. It's only about the agencies or the town engineer. They may amend or eliminate their own requirements by writing, et cetera, et cetera. So it's as concise as it can be. But it's complicated, but it's concise. Yes.

It might be concise, but it's not as clear as it can be. And therefore, I appreciate Commissioner Pfeffer's suggested change. And it may not seem necessary to anybody other than a nitpicky attorney, but that's who I am.

yeah i'm sensitive to this just because it's still i find insane that an agency could place conditions on the project after we do this and then also get rid of them before the end i'm okay with your change to it if that's acceptable to commissioner newton all right any other corrections commissioner newton

Yeah, we talked about the, well, okay, sorry, I'll go back to where I was. On page 7, paragraph 21, the numbers must be internally illuminated or illuminated by an adjacent light. And then paragraph 22, applicant may propose alternate materials or methods, plural, in accordance with, I think this is fire code section 103.3. And then paragraph 23, The foundation must be completed within 120 days of the date of the MMWD application. Paragraph 24, all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13. paragraph 27 ordinance 420 requiring installation of a gray water recycling system paragraph 28 all of mmwd's regulation rules and regulations in effect paragraph 29 a copy of the building permit must be provided to the district along with delete the word other the required applications and fees Okay, and then the bottom of page seven, road closers shall be noticed in the field a minimum of, I'd like to make it 72 hours prior to the event. I'm not sure about individual written notifications delivered to each potentially impacted resident on Bolinas and Park. I would rather say and post it in the field. Yeah, like I would think like like sandwich boards on the street. at least 72 hours prior to the closure would be appropriate or some kind of maybe street signage of the closure of Bolinas, if that's what's gonna happen. And I would want you guys to coordinate with the fire department.

Posted on the street.

So, and... Can I, to your last one about posting in the street, I like saying posted in the field because some of this is going to be dependent on what police want to do or the town engineer wants to do. So I think that's more general.

Yeah, and there could be situations where the street superintendent, what's her name? Street director. Public works director. Sorry, it used to be the street department here. Now it's the public works department. That was a long time ago. She may decide in certain circumstances if the sidewalk is wide enough, she would put the sign on the sidewalk or like, you know, in the redwood trees for the, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, so. I think that's a good idea. And but didn't you want to say. Noticed on Bolinas at the on Bolinas Road and at the Bolinas Park Road intersection, didn't I thought you wanted to and I thought it was a good idea because it has to cover the fire truck. You know what I'm saying? I think there should be if you want to specify that. Otherwise, it'll be up to the public works director to figure out with with the fire department and police where they want all these things posted. They'll do a good job.

You know, I am sure they will.

Okay.

And again, just changing this to Bolinas and Park and then allowing our public safety to... Well, now you're talking about the written notifications delivered to each potentially impacted resident on Bolinas and Park, and that's not what I think we need because it's so far beyond the residents on Bolinas and Park, and I think that's unnecessary. I've given notices when we do the concert in the park to all the residences on Park. That's That's a lot. And I think if you put the signage out there at the intersection, that's much more effective for the people who are actually going to be potentially impacted going that way. You know, I hope we avoid it. The paragraph under now therefore be it resolved is all wrong. So you want to fix that.

Yeah, it was copied from a prior reso.

Got it.

Is that it for yours? Okay, let me go through and see what I have. A question for staff on page one, the first whereas. Was that from another application that that was copied from? Where it says construct a minor addition and remodel, could that be from the Wood Lane application or Rezzo?

No. The addition's in the back.

There is an addition. Yeah.

So did we also receive the documents May 30th and June 1st, which then we'd be putting into that other section?

No, right. It's Owens. So that was April 6th, April 15th.

I mean, I looked at, I think I looked at the other one and it seemed to be the same language. That's why I was asking.

Yeah, we can change it to our best product, but May 30th is May 8th.

Right.

April 15th and May 18th is when we received those. June 18th. Sorry. I would need to double check the dates. I think they both submitted items pretty close to the meeting. May 30th, Wood Lane is May 28th and 145 Bolinas is May 30th. They may have been declared complete on the same day, so I'll just need to check

I think that's it. Do we have a motion?

Say what a great project. I think this is you guys are to be commended for everything you're doing to preserve the historic character of the house. And so thank you.

Oh, and before we get there, we had a discussion, a brief discussion on the fence in front. You know, I don't have a problem with just replicating the existing wooden fence that were in the plans. I don't think we need to change that in relation to any kind of fire concern.

I think I might have missed that. The plans spell out replacing the existing fence. Is that right?

I think the question was that it was going to be wood, right?

Right. I just didn't see anything in the plan specifically about the fence itself. I think they just didn't omit any details. And so it wasn't clear to me as to whether or not it would even be rebuilt after it was removed for construction. So I don't know if we want to discuss any kind of condition on that. But hearing what we heard from the project team, I'm comfortable leaving as is.

I'll make a motion. A motion for resolution number 2026-13 from the Fairfax Planning Commission approving application number 26-9 for a conditional use permit, design review permit for a single family residence at 145 Bolinos. And that includes the removal throughout the document of the variance for the parking as indicated by the planning director and the commission. It includes the comments from Commissioner Newton, Commissioner Swift, and Commissioner Pfeffer, as discussed.

I will second.

Do we have a roll call vote, please?

Cardozo?

Yes.

Where am I? Pfeffer?

Yes.

Jansen?

Yes.

Petrone?

Yes.

Newton? Yes. Chair Swift?

Yes. So the motion carries. Thank you very much. And for anyone that would consider an appeal for this project, it's a 10-day appeal time frame, and information on the appeal process can be received from the planning division. Thank you. Thank you guys so much. With that, do we want to take a five minute break? Cool.

Yes, please.

All right, so we're back.

Recording in progress.

So item three, the planning application discussion.

Yeah, this is just meant to be kind of an informal discussion if you all had ideas about what needed to be included or not included in the planning application. And I'm actually going to turn it over to Robert because he has prepared materials for us.

Well, I copied something.

Then they're going to pick a subcommittee, right?

Yeah, that was the idea, was that we were going to potentially select a subcommittee and go into it in detail. Thank you for reminding me.

Thank you. Yeah, I just want to show the Commission and everybody some samples. I think just in general, I think our submittal forms, they have everything you need. But it's a lot about how it's organized, how it's presented, and specifically with the focus that Most applicants here are going for single family homes or changes. So it has to be abundantly clear what they have to do and what they don't have to do right from the beginning. So I looked at, and I think I mentioned that last time, I looked at the forms that other cities around us use. So Saint-Raphael would be a good one if we can put it on there. I want to point out a few things and then look at what my observations are for our submittal forms. See if Summerfell has a fairly condensed form. I think it's only 13 pages. We're waiting for it to show up. It's all right. These forms, of course, are available online. Sarah fell first, yeah. Okay.

Take...

Yes, you do not want to do that.

I...

Oh, yeah. No, I can talk it through. That's not a problem. Yeah. Sure. No, visuals just sometimes help, but that's okay. So I can talk us through. I think that what's interesting about the City of San Rafael's form is that it's condensed, but the most important thing is it starts out with a very simple summary of the things an applicant has to do. It's the general applications, the fees, primary title reports, narrative, the plan set. And so that's half a page, and it gives you a short description. And then when it continues, each one is a section. It numbers the sections, and it starts with what you have to do in those. So the fees, it references to another document because that goes directly to the town. For the narrative, it gets a section, and it gives you just bullet points of this needs to be in there. So in other words, if you start, if you are new to this, you have an immediate oversight of everything, and then it dials down to the specifics. So that's the interesting thing about that form. Our neighboring town, San Anselmo, well, they start with a table of contents. But beyond that, after a general introduction, they have something that's very interesting. They have a table. And in that table, they list for what kind of application you would need to provide what kind of thing. So that's basically a single pager that tells you graphically what if you are going to do A, then this is the things that you need to provide. So those are two great samples of things. Oh, there it is. So that is, you made it to work. That's great. So that is that first page of the city of San Rafael. And so A through F are on a very high level, the things you need to do. So if you're not a professional and you pull this up, you look at it, you know exactly, okay, this is what I have to do. We don't have to go down there, but so that if you were to go down, you get to section plan details, and then it tells you bullet point-wise what it is that needs to be in there. It's about the organization, and it's starting at high level and then drill down. I think that's, I think, sufficient. We go to the other one, our San Anselmo one. So then, as I said, they start with a very long... index which i'm not sure why but if you scroll to the first page with text so they have one summary page so that gives you a quick overview within in text form but the second page is the interesting one this one so you get a table now they have a very elaborate way on how they specify things our table would probably be much simpler but the idea of a table is very good it's one page I can read the headings. It says Town of San Anselmo planning application checklist. And then the top line of the table is permit types and application requirements. And then the second heading, they have a legislative developments, land uses, and property modifications. This is all in the yellow bar. So as I said, it's complicated. And then they use acronyms for application types. So this goes beyond just a planning application. I would not recommend to make it so complicated. I don't think we have that system. but it's the concept of a table. I'll come back to this because then now let's look at our application.

Before you leave this one, some of their boxes have empty squares and some of them have Xs. Do you know what that is?

The X is mandatory for that particular category. The box is if applicable. It's not something I would do that way, but that's how they have set it up. If you look at our form, because that's going to go to the point where I believe there might be some disaffection with ours. The third one that's on the... So this is our form, begins with an administrative piece, then just let's scroll through because it's interesting. You get a project description, item size, but I think you want to scroll through the whole page. So the introduction, how we become, Yeah, you can start there. Then you get general information. That's fine. It goes to construction costs. So that's an odd question early on, I think. Then you get into a table. You get into restrictions that apply. So you haven't done anything yet. Then you get to a calculation for floor area ratio. And then keep scrolling. And so you get bombarded with a lot of questions and then definitions. And then finally you get to the submittal requirements. So I think this is a matter of how it's organized. You want to start with an overview, like say San Rafael, or you start with an introduction and then you start with an overview. You may have a table to indicate what you need. And then you would go in those specifics that were before that, like your FAR or... So comparing that, and you can keep scrolling down, there are then at some point, and then you finally get to your plan requirements. So if you read the actual items that are in here, they're all quite similar. It's not necessarily the context, I think, that needs so much work. I think it's how it's organized. And so that's why I wanted to show you those forms. I think if you, again, if you are, if this is not your profession and you start at page one with our application form, you might get lost in the woods pretty rapidly. I think that's what I wanted to show you folks.

So I read through the whole planning application, which was fantastic. very informative, because I hadn't done that before. And what this shows me is that we have one form, one application form for everything. So when I looked at the front part of it, we've got administrative action. So an administrative sign review for commercial building is a part of this. And I also think that this has just been, you know, because of resources, right? This has been added to over time. You know, instead of looking holistically at this process, it's, okay, we've got to do this. I mean, it still talks about DERB on here, but... We've just been adding on to this and making it a packet. Before, when we talked about the application process, we were talking about it, for the most part, in relation to the applications that come before us, the housing applications related that come before us and the confusion there. But when I look at this, it's for everything. Um, and I, after I got done reading it, I thought, why do we only have one application for everything conceivable that has to go through the, the planning commission? I mean, the planning department for some purpose, whether it's an administrative, um, review of a sign under the sign ordinance, you go through this, um, and some of these other things that are different from what we were kind of basically talking about. And some of the samples that you showed with the tables, sorry, the tables and the checkboxes and what do you need for each application can be good, and that can be something that kind of is a general thing for, for planning. But I was looking at this from the standpoint of taking stuff out and having separate processes, separate applications for things. If you know, my easy example, you know, a business wants to change their sign. It comes in, it's going to get administrative review. It's never going to come to us. It's not complicated. Um, Why can't we have something simple for that and not be a part of this? You know, and there's probably other things along those same lines that can be separated out as, you know, planning form one, planning form two to do the business. And again, you know, what we're talking about, you know, is a whole revamp of planning applications or the work applications for people coming in, which is a project to do. But I think to address the questions we've had about somebody not understanding what they needed to submit, you know, not having good introduction or an information page separate to help them with that, it really needs that kind of level of effort to my mind. So those are my impressions just looking at this.

Can I respond just to what you've raised? So I get nervous at the idea that you would have separate applications because I think in some circumstances, you're going to need a number of those applications to fit your project. And I almost think that, you know, it makes more sense to, in this day and age, have a system that highlights what is applicable. You click on the first field, and it has all the various things that we've listed, you know, an application could be for, and you check the three things that that you want to apply for. And then those three things and the fields that are relevant to those three things are made live. So you're walked through it, but you don't have like application A and application B and application C. You have fields that when you check a box, make another entry field live. So you're going to have to go there to fill that out. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. But I would also say that that takes this beyond what we're trying to accomplish to a whole new level of effort and cost to have an automated program to do that, that you would then have to

um change all the time and have staff to do that i get that and and that's great i just don't think that fits us um and just to springboard off of that so typically right now what's happening is people are downloading a pdf filling it out and then bringing it over to town hall is that right

Yeah, they have to come in person to pay the fees for planning.

And so, yeah, I think some sort of online system like other cities like San Rafael do seems out of our financial capacity at the moment.

But I think... Well, we are looking at a super simple, very inexpensive system that we might play around with. Oh, that's exciting. It wouldn't be like what San Rafael has, though. A lot of them use this program called TrackIt or similar, which is $100,000 a year or more. Yeah. So, yeah, we're not going to have that. But there are since there are a lot of kind of startup companies that are doing very simple things. So we might be able to start using that type of thing, which would help with Robert's organizational.

Yeah, I think it would help immensely. But I think in the interim, at the very least, making this PDF fillable. Would be super helpful if it's not already. It's typically the architecture team who fills it out, but sometimes on the developer side, we also have to fill out portions and having to print it out and either manually insert via Adobe Acrobat if you have the application or you're lucky enough to subscribe to it. Or print it out and handwrite things. It's a very cumbersome process, and I'm not an IT guy, so I don't know how to convert a PDF to fillable, but I assume it's not a huge change.

But keeping in mind, though, am I going to do that if I want to get assigned? Right. So keeping in that's great, I think, for those situations or applications or end users that would do that to have a form that's fillable would be awesome. But again, we're still talking about one-form multi-use and including people that, you know, just citizens or whatever that may not have the technology.

I think all those things are good ideas, but that's automation. I think we first need to get it organized before you can automate it. And you will have, because part of it is that a lot of applicants will be less savvy than developers. The thing is really important for people who just want to add a bathroom or something like that. You can, however, the idea that was brought up by Commissioner Newton, you can simulate that, and that's where the table comes in. That's a paper version of that idea where I don't, it's not exactly the way they do it in our neighboring town, but with a table, you can make that basically simulate that on paper. And so if we built that first, then maybe in the future, it can be automated, but that would be just nice.

And that can take, you know, these items. as a beginning and put these into, you know, a table. But you're also going to have to have some information because this is pretty much broken out as to what is administratively handled and what has to go to the planning commission. So you kind of have to, I think, change that. approach with something like this but having something that you know i want to do a sign you know within the table i need to fill out a b and c and those a b and c's could be you've got supplementals in here that are kind of used for everything like a generic supplemental form so for some of these things what they're going to fill out like your supplemental information can be the same whether it's you know for a sign or or something else so that table could have that on there well the I think you're referring to the first box on our form but I think that's filled out by staff am I incorrect

I think only the lower right part is.

Just a comment. I was thinking about something.

On our form, the top.

Publicans fill that out. The table.

The first one for administrators now.

Information about their property that they fill.

They're picking that. Okay. So for official use only is the lower right price. Okay. And environmental review.

I'm trying to remember what page that's on.

And then it says for planning commission, then it has a whole list, a use permit, variance.

Oh, up at the top, yeah, the environmental review would be determined early on before they even submit. And if they needed environmental review, there's more fees because we usually have to get outside consultants involved.

Correct. No, but I'm trying to understand who fills that out, not the applicant. Right.

Right. The thing in the box at the beginning is filled out by staff. Yes. We X the boxes that identify which permits are needed. Correct.

Yeah. So important, but that's so the applicant. So I'll just, just with, before we get off the topic of an environmental review, what a lot of jurisdictions do is they'll have a kind of an environmental review checklist that the applicant will go through and answer some questions about their project. And then, then they'll allow staff to more easily make the determination about whether it will require environmental review. So that would be one thing we could probably do some simple version of.

Well, by itself, it's fine. It's just, it's how it's organized, right? If you open this form, that's where it starts. I wasn't even sure who fills it out. And then there's no introduction. Then it jumps into... You need that part. You need to have those checkboxes because you need to establish where it is so that it needs to live somewhere.

And then the third box, it says, for office use only, which makes it clear, you guys, you know, we're talking about the stuff that I want you guys to listen to. So in the third box, in the front, on the top of the first page, it says, for office use only. And that would tell me as an applicant, I'm not filling that out. You could repeat that for office use only above where it says for planning commission. The whole box could say for office use only, right? So you guys are filling that out and telling the applicant, you're going to need to go to the planning commission, see, because you need a use permit, right? And then they take the application and fill out the rest of it. But you filled out the box.

They call us on the phone and we tell them verbally what applications they're going to need. And they, they bring it in and Susan's at the front counter and no one else is around. You know what I mean?

But that first box on page one at the top is for us, for the town to fill out.

Right.

So it should be clear that this is for the town to fill out. They're not going to fill it out and bring it into you.

Yeah. These are the kinds of things I think that we're asking the committee to like identify all of them. Um, to try to get staff to, you know, take notes on different meetings and stuff. It's, it's that's why, that's why we suggested the subcommittee. And then, and then it will all be presented to all of you and you will have time to review it. And then you can identify, you know, stuff like this because we know there's issues with it. It confuses people. Believe me, it's a lot better than the forms we used to use. So that's all I can say.

So would this be a good time to identify a subcommittee?

I believe so.

And is there a limit on the number of people in a subcommittee?

Yeah, as BJ just indicated, it's three.

Less than a majority for the Brown Act.

And can we appoint members who are absent?

You could, but I don't know that that would work in the end. I thought...

I thought he wanted to...

Okay. I'll volunteer.

I was just going to say I'm happy to be involved for my... I haven't had to do this in years, but when representing private equity funds, I would have to guide random retirees, people who are foreign investors and massive pension funds through this. intentionally complicated, like, 58-page forms to decide whether or not they're allowed to invest. And so, you know, I appreciate the drop-down, fill-out form, but I was expecting... And when I reviewed this, I was like, this is just an organizational issue. I think our narrative page is a different form for some reason that gives you the intro to the planning department. But it's just, you know... Somewhat to chair Swiss point about making them all different forms. You can keep them all in the same form and just have appendix a. Exhibit 1 to and just hyperlink everything in the PDF. That was also my question about how people are submitting this because in the beginning it says we're sending PDFs to the planning department and asking. Mark Lockaby to make sure that he's receiving things. And then we're asking for four copies of plans later, which didn't make sense to me. But I did have one question about it for that. And this may be a sort of parallel or separate but related project. If there's a sort of beginning intro way to stage our fee and review schedule. So somebody can pay a fee, send the five page version and say, is this information so far what you need? Do I, am I going to need to do all of this before I hire somebody? Maybe I don't want to spend another hundred grand because you're going to say this type of project typically uses.

We have a preliminary application. That's one 75. And it's basically like, Hey, you have time with a planner to go over what you have and what's missing.

Okay. Yeah. I guess that's.

But it does end up, I've realized, being a reiterative process with people. Like they'll call you and they're confused and I'll be like, okay, come in. And then they come in and then you're at the counter and then you have to kind of tell them what they need to apply for. So that is like a tough piece of it. There's like a kind of a gap in knowledge that takes some explaining to just get people to know which even application they need. But that's a big problem that I don't think we can solve.

Yeah, I guess I was trying to see if there's a way to give at least a little bit more clarity. So they're not coming to you and asking questions of, did I send everything yet? Or are you reviewing this in parallel while I give you the outstanding items?

Like kind of like a status update? Yeah.

Yeah, like even if there's just a, so this is your application number, here's the stuff we've received from you so far, and waiting to review until X is received.

Yeah, I've done another agency where there's like an active log people can look at online, and they see the status of their application, like in review, missing documents, incomplete, things like that. And I think that is kind of like a hope and dream of...

If I hired a flaky architect and I don't know exactly what they submitted and I'm saying, why haven't you, why haven't, where are we? And I can look and say, this is what, this is the only thing that needs to be done for you guys to start. Like I would have just written you the check last week.

Well, that's really the purpose of the incomplete letter. And we have to follow the state streamlining process. Otherwise, we would get cooked by potentially an applicant's attorney. So, yeah, so that's why we have the 30-day complete letter. So we have to come up. And that's why the application has to be so lengthy, unfortunately, until we can fix the organizational problems. Because we have to tell them everything that they need to provide, like, up front. And if we don't, we can't ask for it ever. So they have to have the complete list up front. So sometimes we don't really know exactly what they need to provide because the parcels around here are so vastly different. So unfortunately we have to do overkill and give them more than they need versus tailored to make sure that we have the ability to actually get it. Because if we don't ask for a geotech report and we needed a geotech report, then we will never get a geotech report. So anyway, so that's just one of the considerations. We have to err on the side of overkill.

So do we have two individuals that are interested in?

I'd nominate Commissioner Kelly in addition.

Well, I think we should ask him first and then see if he's interested, and then if he is, fine. If not, we go to the next room.

I took it a completely opposite way. I go ahead and put him on the subcommittee, and if he says, I can't do it, then we rethink it.

I would, considering perhaps his schedule, he's not here tonight, I would prefer asking him first if this is something he's still interested in and go from there.

Can we ask him before the next planning commission meeting? I don't think we need to wait.

Because I assume the subcommittee would start before the next planning meeting. So we will ask him and then go from there.

But can we condition the approval of his appointment to the subcommittee on his consent? Otherwise, what are we doing? We're not making a subcommittee until next month.

So let me ask this of the remaining commissioners. Is there anyone else that is interested, assuming that Commissioner Kelly is not available?

I'm happy to be an alternate for Commissioner Kelly if he's not interested.

Thank you.

Of course.

all right i'll move to appoint a subcommittee of commissioner pfeffer commissioner jansen commissioner kelly with an alternate commissioner petroni if any of the foregoing are unable to complete their terms

We just, I think we'll want to say, and if we haven't started the work already, because if three people start it and then one person swaps out.

Yeah. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Cardozo? Yes. Yes. Beffer? Yes. Jansen?

Yes.

Petrone?

Yes.

Newton? Yes. Chair Swift? Yes.

So will staff contact Commissioner Kelly? Or would you like me to do it? I mean, we should contact him. All right. Thank you.

I suggest Commissioner Newton does that. I think she's very persuasive.

Laughter

Yeah, if he wants to back out, he has to go through me. Maybe that's the way.

Okay, we're going to go on to item four, the minutes of May 21st, 2026 and April 16, 2028. Does anyone have any corrections to the April minutes?

Yeah. Under the planning director's report, first paragraph, last line, planning commission is spelled planing commission.

um i have one comment on april's notes to my in the on the first page the the commissioner's present my first name is misspelled again it's fine i'm used to it most of the time you get it right any other corrections to the april minutes all right the may minutes

On the main minutes, I would like the minutes to reflect the fact that the commissioners separately scored the application for the cannabis application. application and that the scores were were the total score was calculated by the planning director over and i think because the commissioner's president was just copied and pasted my first name is also misspelled in the may minutes probably be easier if you just changed it i'll have to talk to my mom

Don't make him do that. I like it the way it's supposed to be, not the way.

So I've got some corrections. So if we changed, the meeting was called to order to 7.05, and I'll send these to you. Commissioners present, we had Commissioner Newton there, and I would like to see after her name arrived at 7.10. We also have Commissioner Pfeffer there. here and he wasn't here, so every place we identify him on the minutes to include the voting needs to be changed.

Reading or watching the videos or when you're taking notes, it's hard to tell who's seconding things. You can't look up and write. So if you guys could go through now and tell me who seconded stuff so that we can get it right.

I can't tell you that now, but if we come back next month, I could probably have all that identified. I could do that.

The people seconding won't remember that they seconded?

i can do that well i expect well so let me just ask the chair she has it um and i think i checked the the the motion who who made them and that was all correct on these okay and i will send you a list so um You're welcome. So add on the approval of the agenda, absent Newton, because she hadn't shown up until after we did that. That will clarify it. As to the comments from the public. I'd like to change that to a member of the public asked if the planning commission operated under any other rules besides Robert's rules of order. I'm going to send this to you. So don't worry about it. Um, as well as what type of planning commission meeting minutes are required. Um, On the motion to approve the Aleema project, we made some of the corrections that we did to the reso in the minutes. We didn't identify that we added new single family in the reso title or that we added a condition to require the dark sky compliant exterior lighting. On page three, The second bullet at the bottom, I'd like to change that to read the fact that the town council will need to address the location of this business in relation to zoning, a sign permit, and any variances such as for required parking. And that's it.

I have an objection to you having such a high bar for chairman review of minutes that you might expect the next chairman of this planning commission to review the tape to see if the motion and seconding is correct. I would request that you continue to do that even after your term as chair is over.

We'll discuss that at the time that my term is up with whoever is going to be the new chair. With that, do we have motions to approve the minutes with the corrections?

Motion to approve the April 16th meeting minutes.

Do you want to do them both or together?

Well, if somebody doesn't agree with one or the other.

Okay. Do we have a second on the April minutes?

I'll second.

Remember that.

So I'm calling roll in case someone has an issue, correct? You want me to call roll on both these? Cardozo?

Yes.

Pfeffer? Yes. Jansen? Yes. Petrone?

Yes.

Newton? Yes. Chair Swift?

Yes. So on the May 21st?

Motion to approve the meeting minutes of May 21st, 2026. I'll second again.

Okay.

Just like a well-oiled machine.

Cardozo? Yes. Pfeffer?

Yes.

Janssen?

Yes.

Petrone?

Yes.

Newton? Yes. Chair Swift?

Yes.

Yes. Sorry. The planning director's report.

You know, I just had a few things just to mention. to keep the planning commission up to speed on what's going on. So we were potentially gonna hold a study session on the formula business ordinance tonight, but I heard there was cake, so. decided to postpone it. No, I think we'll be, just be prepared at the next meeting to kind of talk about concepts and I'm going to, I have a few other, my plan is to kind of have a few other jurisdictions and kind of their approaches. So I'm just going to go through those. And if we have other examples, you can talk about at the meeting or if you want to give me information in advance, that'd be okay too. Second thing is there's a recruitment underway to replace the irreplaceable Linda. for the principal planner position. So that is ongoing and we have about a few candidates that have applied that look pretty promising. So we're going to be interviewing them over the next couple of weeks. The third thing is i am going to be giving a presentation to the town council on the short-term rental program as you may be aware we do have regulations in place that require people that are operating short-term rentals to register with the town and some have some haven't and we also have requirements that they pay hotel users tax which is pretty significant potentially funding source for the town um So we are looking at entering into an agreement with Airbnb to collect the taxes for us that are paid by Airbnb hosts. And if we ever can find, and fortunately, Bryn, I have to give Bryn credit for being able to track down the contact with Airbnb because they're not easy to find. But we did find their government contacts and they had an agreement that they were able to send to us to review. And so anyway, so hopefully they'll be in place within the next month or so. And we are going to doggedly track down the VRBO contact because that's the other one. So it's 91% is Airbnb and kind of the other 8% or so is VRBO, and then the rest is just miscellaneous people that are doing short-term rentals. And then we're also going to be starting to do, of course, we are very limited on staff, but we're going to kind of have an approach to kind of just go after the top hosts to do a little bit of code enforcement if they haven't registered. So there's been, there's a couple of people that we've sent multiple letters to and they're just ignoring us and continuing to rake in cash and not pay us any TOT. So.

So I had a question for you. When is the, um, cause I know the presentation of the town council was, um, continued on this. So do you have a date that you're going to do?

Oh yeah. There's going to be a special meeting, not just for this topic, but for other stuff. Um, so July 22nd, that's the special meeting.

Okay. Um, Because and I'll maybe I'll send you some notes because you know what I find with Airbnb and VRBO that they're supposed to work with communities to only list permitted eligible. um technically that is correct yes and that they also list can list the permit numbers which um and you know i looked on a property on vrbo that i'm aware of and it lists the permit number um airbnb says they will do that as well so that's something to consider um In that vein, that as we work with these different platforms to have them do things like that, which would make it easier. in some ways to identify the hosts that are in compliance or that have a permit, that type of thing. Yeah.

If you ever, if when you come across a jurisdiction that does that, it'd be great to get a link to it just so we can forward that to Alex at

I will send that information to you because I also looked at a jurisdiction's ordinance and their code for becoming a short-term rental. they're in a different area than the Bay area, but they also do things like, cause I think we have kind of, from my perspective, two things here, one, um, to regulate and collect the fees. Um, and two, making sure that these are compliant and that we don't have issues in the neighborhoods and that the neighborhoods, um, are safe or have that type of information. So this one jurisdiction requires a fire inspector for the property and that type of thing. And I know we've done things where we request that the host have certain information available for They're renters, and that might be something that I don't know if, I think the town, I'm not sure the town in the beginning identified the information that needed to be provided. I think it did, but maybe some samples would help. So there's a packet to give out to to renters. But anyway, I'll send you information on the jurisdictions and give you examples of what they look like with a permit number on their listing.

I have a question on that. It's sort of a basic thing. But if we know what properties are operating, can we just give the list to the Marin County assessor to see if they need to have a supplemental tax assessment? And that sort of gets them on the books because if you're operating in a short-term rental out of your apartment, you're not a licensed business, that should affect the value of your property.

Well, that's out of our purview. We're just going to implement the regulations that are on our books for the short-term rental, which requires them to be registered with the town and paying the hotel user's tax.

Right, but the county is who's going to collect the tax on our behalf, right?

No, no. Airbnb is going to collect the tax. The county does not collect our hotel tax.

Okay.

It's at the time of transaction.

Okay.

Yeah.

So people as of now have been submitting checks.

Okay. And it's the same thing with the current, like the small hotel that we have in town. They submit directly to the town. They don't go through the county.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah. Fascinating. Yes. Yeah, we don't want the county to have our hotel tax or have anything to do with it. So...

Anything else?

Nope. That's it.

So now commissioner comments and requests. Do we have any, I have one, but go ahead.

One of the things that we talked about in May was coming up with a process whereby the public can get answers to questions they ask during open time. We had a member of the public ask us about what rules we follow, what minutes, what kind of minutes we're generating. And I don't think we've answered that question. That just came up April or May. So I would still request from the planning director if at our next meeting you could outline in your report a process by which we could respond to public questions so they don't just go into a black hole and disappear. And maybe we could even, as part of your report, provide an answer to the question about what rules of procedure we follow and, uh, how our minutes are recorded. So I was going to do that tonight. Um, Okay, but so you're going to respond to the question. You're not going to lay out a process for responding to the question. Because I have a great process, which is Chair Swift always figures out the answers and comes up with them at the next meeting. That could work.

So... To the answer to that question, and I had already emailed the planning director suggesting that I was going to do this tonight. And if he wants to come up at the next meeting with a process, that's great. So at the last meeting, a member of the public asked what other rules of order, other than Robert's rules of order, The Planning Commission operated under, as well as the minutes. So regarding the first question, besides Robert's Rules of Order, we also operate in accordance with the Brown Act, which is Government Code 51. 54950 through 54963. Those are the two that I see that are applicable. Regarding the minutes, so looking at the Town Code, in 2008, the Town Council approved an ordinance which stated in part that action minutes and records shall be kept of the proceedings of the Planning Commission so long as an electronic recording of the meeting is available. If an electronic recording is not available, detailed minutes and records shall be kept. So I looked in the code to see if minutes were required by the code for any other in any other commission or committee, and I couldn't find anything. But I did find a reference to minutes in the town code as it relates to the town council minutes. And what it says is town council minutes shall be typewritten and maintained in a special loose-leaf journal book. And it also spoke to including how those minutes would be formatted. So that's probably... a little old. And I think from my perspective, what we've been doing since I've been on the planning commission is trying to make our minutes relevant and to provide an understanding of the actions taken and the comments from the public. And I think that's useful for the community. And that's definitely more than an action minute. And I would still try and continue to do that. So I think that covers those questions for this time. But a process would be great. Any other questions, comments from the commission? Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

I'll take it.

Awesome. The motion, the meeting adjourned at night. Do you want us to vote?

Oh, sorry. Can we do it like voice vote? She doesn't have to. Okay.

All in favor of adjourning the meeting?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. No nays. The meeting is adjourned at 9.55. And as soon as Zoom is over.