HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2008-05-21
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Slavitz called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 21,2008, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Collins, Gram, Fredericks and Slavitz
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
PRESENT:
EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney
Danforth, Director of Community Development
Anderson, Associate Planner Tyler, Director of
Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police
Chief Cronin, Director of Administrative
Services Bigall, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS (6:20 p.m.)
The following applicants were interviewed for positions on Town Boards and Commissions:
· Eva Buxton - 6:20 p.m.
· Jill Sperber - 6:30 p.m.
· Sandra Esposito - 6:40 p.m.
· Michael Tollini - 6:50 p.m.
· Erin Tollini - 7:00 p.m.
· John Corcoran -7:10 p.m.
· Kaeso Maas - 7:20 p.m.
Mayor Slavitz said additional applicants would be interviewed on June 4 and June 18, prior to
making any appointments.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (6:00 p.m.)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
Town ofTiburon v. Sylvia; Sylvia v. Town ofTiburon
Wayne v. Town ofTiburon
Mayor Slavitz reported no action was taken in Closed Session.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 1 of 18
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Slavitz said Item 2 would be removed from the Consent Calendar for Discussion.
1. Town Council Minutes - Adopted minutes of May 7, 2008 meeting (Town Clerk Crane
Iacopi)
2. Tiburon Against Shark Killing (T.A.S.K.) -Considered the adoption of proclamation in
support of Bel Aire student committee T.A.S.K. (Town Manager Curran)-REMOVED
3. Caprice Restaurant Remodel- Approved contract with Leonard Charles & Associates to
prepare an Initial Study for the Caprice Restaurant CUP application (Planning Manager
Watrous)
4. 100 Rolling Hills Road Subdivision - Approved Parcel Map for two-lot subdivision at 100
/110 Rolling Hills Road (Associate Planner Tyler). Owner/Applicant: Allan Littman.
Assessor Parcel No.: 058-132-40
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1,3 and 4.
Fredericks, seconded by Collins
AYES: Unanimous
Item Removed from the Consent Calendar:
2. Tiburon Against Shark Killing (T.A.S.K.) - Adopt proclamation in support of Bel Aire
student committee T.A.S.K. (Town Manager Curran)
David McGuire, Field Associate, California Academy of Sciences, said in 2007 following a
screening of his film ("Sharks: Defenders of the Reef') at the Tiburon Film Festival, a group of
local residents had circulated a petition in opposition to shark killing in Tiburon and worldwide.
He said that they had collected over 125 signatures, which had been presented to the Town
Council. Subsequently, he said a group of students at Bel Aire School had become interested in
the issue and had formed a group called TASK (Tiburon Against Shark Killing) which now had a
petition before the Town Council. He introduced Bel Aire student Andrei Dolezai, who spoke on
behalf of the students in the audience.
Andrei Dolezai, Bel Aire student, read the TASK petition to the Town Council; he asked for the
Council to support the health of the ocean and protect sharks and to speak out against the practice
of shark "finning;"; he said that Tiburon means "shark" in Spanish, and that sharks were an
important symbol to people in the Town.
The Council moved and voted to adopt the draft proclamation.
Mayor Slavitz thanked the students for their efforts and read the proclamation into the record..
ACTION ITEMS
1. Tiburon Glen Development Project - Review of Broom Eradication and Habitat
Restoration Plan (Off-Site Tree Mitigation Plan) proposing broom removal and tree planting
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 2 of 18
on a Town open space parcel along Paradise Drive below Mateo Drive, and broom removal
on a Town open space parcel off Gilmartin Drive; AP Nos. 038-381-18 and 039-290-39
(Director of Community Development Anderson)
Director of Community Development Anderson stated that in April of 2006, the Council
approved a Precise Development Plan allowing three homes on 26 acres off Paradise Drive,
which was known as the Tiburon Glen project. One of the mitigation measures and conditions of
approval required off-site tree planting and habitat restoration. At the time of approval, the
Council looked at three possible off-site locations where tree planting and broom removal could
occur, along Paradise Drive near Mateo Drive; along Gilmartin Drive, and on the slopes below
Via Los Altos near Ring Mountain. The Council required the applicants return with a more
detailed broom eradication and oak tree planting plan for Council review and approval prior to
the subdivision improvements moving forward. Those plans were submitted to the Town and staff
has confirmed that they are in compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions of
approval.
Anderson said that the property owners surrounding the site were invited to a neighborhood
meeting on May 8, 2008 at Town Hall. According to Anderson, one neighbor who supported the
project had attended the meeting; he said that staff was advised that 13 of the 14 homeowner
association member households had expressed support for the plan.
The Director recommended that the Council take public testimony, approve the broom
eradication and habitat restoration plan, and direct the Town Engineer to issue an encroachment
permit for the work, subject to appropriate conditions.
Councilmember Berger asked about the status of sudden oak death syndrome and questioned if
precautions were being taken as to the proposed species. Don Blayney, landscape architect for the
Tiburon Glen project, said there is nothing that can be done to stop the disease at this time, but
that planting small, healthy trees is the best method to avoid the adverse effects of the disease.
Councilmember Collins referred to the provision in the contract to replace plant materials; he
asked Director Anderson to confirm that maintenance of plants and replacement of any dead or
dying trees would be covered through the landscape maintenance bond for a period of five years.
Public Comments:
John Larson. President of the Paradise Estates Homeowners Association, thanked Town staff for
the wonderful project, sees no problems with any view blockages, said they spent a lot of money
on their common areas removing some of the broom, but are happy more broom is being removed
since it is a significant fire hazard. He also acknowledged concerns of sudden oak death
syndrome, said there are many oaks on the hill, but he does not remember a single case of disease
in the immediate area.
Don Blayney discussed the new "gel pack" watering system, manufactured by the Rainbird
Company, that would be placed around the trees at their base and which keeps moisture intact,
and he said it will be the first time he has used this particular watering method but that he has
faith in Rainbird products.
Vice Mayor Fredericks confirmed with Mr. Blayney that the area was a good habitat for oak
trees.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 3 of 18
Scott Hochstrasser. Planning Consultant for the Tiburon Glen project, thanked the Council,
Planning Commission and staff for keeping an open mind in allowing them to explore some of
the unique mitigation opportunities and said this is a win-win project for the area and for the
Town.
Councilmember Collins again requested clarification of Section 7.0 of the specifications
regarding replacement, and Director Anderson said he would add language ensuring that
replacement is required for the full five years.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve the Broom Eradication and Habitat Restoration Plan and direct the
Town Engineer to issue an Encroachment Permit for said work subject to placing
appropriate conditions of approval thereon.
Berger, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Unanimous
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Slavitz requested that Item 1 be moved to the end of the meeting.
2. 7 Wilkins Court - Request to Amend Planned Development #19 (7 & 9 Wilkins Court) to
modify a building envelope and create a landscape envelope at 7 Wilkins Court (Community
Development Department) -2nd reading and adoption of ordinance. Address: 7 Wilkins
Court. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-070-32. Owners: Quentin Keith Hills. Applicant:
Ruschmeyer & Associates
Council waived the presentation of the staff report.
Mayor Slavitz opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read the Ordinance by title only.
Gram, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Slavitz read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending the 7
& 9 Wilkins Court Master Plan (PD #19) to modify a building envelope and create a landscape
envelope on property located at 7 Wilkins Court."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt the Ordinance, as written.
Collins, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz
3. Amendment to Town Contracts Ordinance - Consider repeal of existing Chapter 3A and
adoption of new Chapter 3A of the Town Code pertaining to Contracts (Town Attorney
Danforth) - Introduction and 1 st reading of Ordinance
Town Attorney Danforth said it had been 10 years since the Town first adopted its Contracts
Ordinance and minor modifications have been made since that time. She said in reviewing the
Contracts Ordinance, staff found a number of areas warranting modification and that an entirely
new Chapter 3A is being proposed due to the large number of changes being proposed. She said
there had been several substantive changes, for instance the threshold between major and minor
public works projects in the ordinance is currently $70,000 but that State law has adjusted that
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 4 of 18
figure upwards to $125,000. Therefore, staff is recommending it be increased to $125,000 and an
escalator clause has been added to reflect any future changes to the statute so that the ordinance
would automatically track the new amount.
The Town Attorney said the existing ordinance gives the Town Manager the authority to execute
contracts up to $20,000 for purchases, general services and public works, and $10,000 for
professional services. Staff recommends the authority for all contracts increase up to $40,000 to
streamline the process. This would apply only to contracts for items that are budgeted and the
monies already appropriated, according to Danforth.
Danforth said the ordinance also requires the Town Manager to obtain Council approval before
allowing the uncompensated use of Town property for more than one day, and staff recommends
this be increased to five days. The ordinance now authorizes the Finance Director to execute
contracts up to $5,000, and other Department Heads' authority goes up to $2,500. She said that
staff found in practice, the Department of Public Works has the largest contracts and therefore
recommends increasing the Director of Public Works' authority up to $10,000, and the other
Department Heads up to $5,000.
Chapter 3A also provides that service contracts that exceed $5,000 be based on at least three bids,
and staff recommends that this limit increase to $30,000, according to Danforth. Three price
quotations will be required for such contracts, with the exception that environmental review
service contracts will require only two bids.
Lastly, the current ordinance requires competitive bidding for minor public works contracts of
$5,000 or more. Danforth said that staff recommends this be increased to $30,000, with the
addition of an escalator clause that would automatically adjust the threshold to reflect changes in
state law.
Ms. Danforth said staff does not anticipate any financial impact from the new ordinance. She
recommended that the Town Council conduct a public hearing, read the ordinance by title only
and pass the first reading by roll call vote.
Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Slavitz closed
the public hearing.
Councilmember Collins referred to Section 3A-6, stating the Town Manager has discretion to
reject any or all price quotations or bids, and questioned Section 3A-5 and a 4/5 vote for
emergency purchases.
Town Manager Curran said that if she is unable to convene enough members for a Council
meeting, she has a great deal of discretion to do whatever she feels must be done to ensure public
safety.
Councilmember Collins confirmed that State law has the limitation of requiring a 4/5 vote and
this was why the Town Manager was to be given this specific authority, if not enough
Councilmembers can be reached to convene a meeting.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read the Ordinance by title only.
Fredericks, seconded by Gram
AYES: Unanimous
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 5 of 18
Mayor Slavitz read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon repealing the
existing Chapter 3A and adopting a new Chapter 3A governing Town contracts."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To pass first reading of the ordinance.
Collins, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz
4. Chapter 16 (Zoning Code) Ordinance - Consider approval of text amendments to Chapter
16 of the Town Code (Zoning) to repeal sections concerning the Parks & Open Space
Commission (Director of Community Development Anderson) - 2nd reading & adoption of
Ordinance
Council waived the presentation of the staff report.
Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Slavitz closed
the public hearing.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read the Ordinance by title only.
Gram, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Slavitz read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon repealing certain
sections of Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code concerning the Parks
and Open Space Commission."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt the Ordinance, as written.
Collins, seconded by Gram
AYES: Berger, Gram, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz
Public Hearing Item No. 1 - taken out of order.
1. 430 Ridge Road - De novo review of a site plan and architectural review application for
exterior modifications to an existing single-family dwelling (Associate Planner Tyler)
Applicant: Mark and Lynn Garay
Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-22
Councilmember Berger recused himself from participating on the item and left the meeting.
Associate Planner Laurie Tyler gave the staffreport, stating the Town had received a Site Plan
and Architectural Review application on June 1, 2007 for the construction of exterior
modifications to a single-family dwelling under construction at 430 Ridge Road. The applicant
requested approval to increase the height of several stone veneer panels at the front of the home
(north elevation) by 15 inches. On June 19,2007, staff approved the application with the
condition that certain skylight shrouds could be removed at the option of the applicant following
installation of the raised stone never panels. Prior to making a determination on the project, staff
visited the subject site and the neighbor's home at 440 Ridge Road. Staff viewed the raised panels
from the uphill neighbor's master bedroom and living room, and took several photos of the
property from the exterior and interior of the home at 440 Ridge Road. Staff concluded that the
raised panels would block most of the view of the skylights along the roof top. Between each
panel, the neighbors at 440 Ridge Road would still be able to view the rear of the skylights from
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 6 of 18
the upper level master bedroom and rear patio. It did not appear that any light and glare would be
seen from the neighboring home due to the angle of the skylights and the limited visibility of the
skylights between the panels, according to Tyler.
On June 26, 2007, Ms. Tyler said the uphill neighbor at 440 Ridge Road filed a timely appeal of
staff s decision to approve the application. The Design Review Board considered the appeal on
July 19,2007 and voted 4-0 to grant the appeal, denying the extension of the raised panels and
thus requiring the skylight shrouds to remain in place. It was the consensus of the Board that the
raised panels would not effectively screen the skylights from the uphill neighbors and therefore,
the shrouds should remain.
Ms. Tyler said that on November 1,2007, the owners of the subject property, Mark and Lynn
Garay, filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the Design Review Board's decision. As a
compromise settlement of this case, the Town agreed that the Town Council would hold a hearing
on the merits of the application. Through an amendment to the original application, she said the
applicant has now requested the Town Council review removal of the shrouds around all of the
skylights that were previously approved for installation on the roof.
Tyler said that staff recommends the Town Council take public testimony on the item, close the
public hearing, deliberate on the project merits and take one of the following actions:
1. Decide whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application to increase the
height of the stone veneer panels;
2. If the Council finds that it has sufficient information, decide whether to approve,
conditionally approve or deny the request to remove the skylight shrouds; and
3. Direct staff to return with an appropriate resolution.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said she thought the issue of the settlement dealt with the skylights that
were behind the proposed panels and that the consideration of the shrouds around the main
skylights was just an additional issue to expedite public process and was not part of the
settlement. Ms. Tyler confirmed that this was correct.
Town Attorney Danforth said the settlement agreement only addressed the application as it was
submitted in June 2007. This application requested permission to raise the height of the stone
veneer panels themselves and did not deal with any of the shrouds. At some later date, there was a
verbal request to discuss the shrouds immediately behind the panels and still more recently, the
request was expanded to the other shrouds. Under the settlement terms itself, it is just the stone
veneer panels that are at issue; however, she said the Council may wish to expedite final
resolution of these design issues tonight.
Mayor Slavitz stated that the two issues before the Council are: 1) whether all shrouds can be
removed from all of the skylights, and 2) should the stone veneer panels be raised.
Town Attorney Danforth clarified that the stone veneer panels are directly before the Council as
part of the Town's agreement with the Garay's. She said the shroud issue that Mr. Garay has
asked the Town Council to also consider at the same time is not an all or nothing proposition.
Danforth said the Council might find some shrouds can go and others should stay, depending on
what the potential for off-site light pollution impacts are. She said the conditions of approval of
design review did involve shrouds, however, Mr. Garay is not required to comply with all of
those conditions until he has finaled the project. Since he has not finaled the project, he is not in
violation now by not having the shrouds in place, according to the Town Attorney.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 7 of 18
Mayor Slavitz said project neighbor Paula Little had sent the Council an email about the
clerestory windows, and he questioned whether this was also included in this discussion.
Town Attorney Danforth said this is a hearing on Mr. Garay's application and he can request that
the application be amended if he so chooses, but other property owners do not have the same right
with respect to Mr. Garay's application. She pointed out that the clerestory windows are already
approved and built and there is no basis for challenge. The only means she would see of the
Council discussing the issue of the clerestory windows would be if they somehow find there is an
off-site light pollution impact connected to this application that could be ameliorated by changes
to the clerestory windows. Danforth said she did not see such a connection, but noted that she was
not completely familiar with all details of the project.
Councilmember Collins asked staff if the Town had granted permission to the applicant to
remove the shrouds. Town Attorney Danforth said the prior Design Review approval does require
the shrouds, but it does not require that they be up in any point in time prior to occupancy.
Mayor Slavitz discussed public hearing protocols and speaker time limits and opened the public
hearing.
Mark Garay, applicant and appellant, said that he and his wife own the home at 430 Ridge Road.
He said that they have some differences with the Town over what the settlement document
actually encompasses, but that he thinks those differences have been communicated in various
mailings.
To clarify any confusion that may exist, Mr. Garay said they have never erected the shrouds; they
were never built. The only thing that was put up at one earlier time was a plywood mock-up of
what the shroud would look like if it were up. It was pretty bulky and visible from their driveway
and front entry court.
Mr. Garay distributed photographs to the Council. He said they are seeking the raising of the
stone panels by eight inches above the approved height, adding that the original application was
for raising them 15 inches above the approved height. The conclusion they came to during the
mock-up was that 15 inch higher panels would result in a very flat monotonous roofline, carrying
the garage structure across the panels, across to the front entry. From an architectural point of
view, Garay said they wanted to bring this down to create an articulation in architecture.
Mr. Garay noted that all the Councilmembers had visited the site and had seen the two yellow
lines strung up. He said the lower line represented the currently approved height of the top of the
panel and the second line eight inches above it represented the currently-requested height of the
stone panels. He said the requested height is set at a level where from their driveway area it
conceals the skylights beyond it. From a functional point of view, the impact of raising the panels
eight inches needs to be considered in relationship to the Hannahs' property.
Garay said photos taken by staff in June 2007 are Exhibit 4 of the packet. He said as a courtesy,
he had produced some better color photos. He said the photo taken inside the Hannahs' home
shows that you can barely see the roof at all. He said in the photo, the panels are mocked up at the
15 inch height, so they would be reduced by exactly seven inches. Garay said the second image is
from the top bedroom in the Hannahs' home, the third and fourth images were taken from their
yard looking at his roof from their fence line. So, even at 15 inches, the elevated panels do not
have any impact whatsoever on the Hannahs' view, according to Mr. Garay. The only impact
from raising the panels is that less of the roof-top is visible.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21, 2008
Page 8 of 18
Mr. Garay said staff also concluded in their report that the raising of the panels by eight inches
will not impede or affect the status of the proj ect in any manner.
Mr. Garay said that the skylights have now been installed and their installation was done in such a
way that they are all facing away from the Hannahs' home at a decent angle. He said the skylights
themselves are also made of glass tinted and treated in such a way that there is a minimum
amount of life escaping through the glass.
Mr. Garay referred to the Councilmember's nighttime visits and the fact that no light was
emanating from the skylights. He also noted that the skylights themselves are in secondary
rooms; above the pantry, the existing children's bathroom, the master bathroom and walk-in
closet of the master suite. He said that the simulated lighting was from 70-watt bulbs, however,
they were not recessed which means that the light was greater than the final lighting would be.
Mr. Garay said that the shrouds had been recommended as a "precautionary" measure but that
they were an unnecessary expense and an unsightly element. He said that the visual inspection by
the Council supported their removaL
Councilmember Collins and Vice Mayor Fredericks questioned Mr. Garay about the mock-ups of
the panels and shrouds. Ms. Fredericks asked whether there was a mock-up of the panels and
whether they were visible from the Hannahs' bedroom. Mr. Collins asked whether Mr. Garay's
photos were taken before the skylights and roof were completed, and whether his offer to remove
certain skylights still stood. Mr. Garay said that the Hannahs' had rejected that offer. Ms.
Fredericks asked whether the back of the skylights would be concealed; Mr. Garay said that the
panels were now an equal height to the top of the skylights.
Fred Hannahs, speaking on behalf of he and his wife, Casey, read a letter into the record:
"Wednesday, 14 May 2008 15:09:49
Dear Mark:
In the second week of March 2008, acting in your capacity as the Garay's general contractor, you
approached us with a request that we support the Garays' de novo appeal to the Town ofTiburon
(1) to eliminate the Town of Tiburon 's requirement of shrouds on the rooftop skylights for 430
Ridge Road residence.
I responded to you by email dated March 14, 2008, stating that before making any decision on the
Garay's request, we would need to see working drawings and plans for the shrouds you proposed
to eliminate, as well as of the remaining skylights. We also advised you we would need to see if the
panel extensions would negatively impact our view.
You responded by email dated March 17, 2008 stating "I will provide you with the drawings and
plans for the shrouds as you have requested. I will also mock up the panel extension for you and
Mrs. Hannahs to see. " We waited in anticipation of receiving the promised drawings and plans
and the construction of a mockup for our review. However, by March 28, 2008 we had received no
drawings and plans and no mockup panels had been provided for our consideration. I again
emailed you asking "When will you provide us with the information we need to enable us to give
serious consideration to your proposal to eliminate at least two skylights as stated in your
communication of March 17th?"
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 9 of 18
Without the courtesy of responding to our inquiry regarding the missing drawings and plans you
had promised to produce, you emailed me on March 28,2008 advising that "We have strung a
yellow line along the top of the north elevation of the house t 0 show the proposed elevation of the
panels." You reiterated that the Garays would be willing to eliminate the Au Pair's skylight and
the Powder room skylight in exchange for our supporting the removal of the shrouds at the girl's
bathroom and the approval of the stone panels and opaque glass to the height of the yellow string
line and closed your email by again promising that "I will bring photographs and a rendering of
this detail to you for further study, should it help in explaining this scenario ", all the while
knowing, full well, that we had again asked for these pertinent materials. The stringing of a yellow
line to delineate the location of the panel tops is inadequate information from which we or the
Town Council can determine the visual effect of the extended panels.
In fact, you have never delivered the drawings and plans for the shrouds or set up a mock up of
the panels for our view of any visual impacts to our vies and residence. In hindsight, this is
understandable in light of the fact that the Garays have once again baited and switched a
proposal relating to construction and are now threatening the Town with yet another law suite if
they are not allowed to eliminate all the shrouds from the rooftop skylights and to increase the
height of the panels. You never afforded us the courtesy of advising us of this change of direction,
or that your proposal to us was off the table, and left us to discover the fact for ourselves when we
were provided copies of correspondence and emails between the Garays and the Town of
Tiburon.
From our perspective, the panels will not change or eliminate our view of the skylights day and
night. We will see them whether or not the Garay's appeal is granted. Additionally, the simulation
of lighting by the Garays to test whether artificial lighting penetrating from rooftop skylights will
be an offensive light is complete. We will simply not know until the entire interior lighting is
installed and turned on after dark. Simulated lighting will not tell the story, and we don't want to
have a lighting problem when the approved lighting is finally installed. Since the Garays have not
erected shrouds, have not installed thefinallightingfor the interior of their home, and have only
strung a string line in an attempt to simulate the raised panel height, we cannot and do not believe
the Town can conduct a fair evaluation of the view and other impacts of their requested changes
on our home. Clearly, the simulated lighting cannot show the true impact of eliminating the
shrouds, which are, according to the Town of Tiburon, not an issue of the appeal. The requested
increase in the height of the panels may affect our views while adding no perceivable benefit to the
Garay residence raising the question of when will the design change requests ever end.
Having had ample time to persuade us that there would be no impact on our home, and having
failed at every turn to provide us with the promised materials to evaluate, and having yet to install
the final approved interior lighting fixtures, we will oppose the Garay's appeal and urge the Town
to do so as well.
Casey and Fred Hannahs. "
Mr. Hannahs made some additional comments. He said that the remodeling on the site had gone
on since 1999, adding that Mr. Garay keeps "moving the goal posts" so that the project is never
completed. He said the original house was gone; that there had been at least seven variances
granted by the Design Review Board which, when confronted with testimony by the neighbors,
said they could only review the application before them [and not the cumulative impact on the
neighborhood] .
Hannahs said that the "damage has been done" and that his property had been devalued. He said
that the Council must find a way to prevent this happening to other neighborhoods, through
ordinance or policy. He pleaded with the Council to put an end to the "parade of variances and
administrative issues."
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 10 of 18
Council asked Mr. Hannahs ifhe could see the glow from the skylights. He said not really,
perhaps a dull glow, but that it was less than it was. However, he warned that there might be a
different effect when the proj ect was finished.
Ruben Becker, attorney representing the Hannahs, agreed that it was difficult to judge the interior
lighting at this stage of the project; he suggested that the Council not decide this particular issue
until the project was finished and then view it with the lights turned on.
Paula Little, uphill Ridge Road neighbor, said that since the Garays had purchased the home in
1995, there had been non-stop changes to the property. She said that this was not the way she and
her neighbors wished to spend their lives. She said that the neighbors should feel secure in their
homes but that "bad things have happened" which precluded this.
With regard to the shrouds and panels, Mrs. Little said that there should be mock-ups rather than
"strings." She said that the roofline was not attractive and had 15 skylights; she said that the
skylights were not evident in the drawings provided by Mr. Garay.
John Posin, Ridge Road, said that although he could not see 430 Ridge Road from his home, the
process is "flawed" to allow a remodel to take a decade to complete. He said that this project was
a "poster child" for a problem project that "tortures neighbors."
Diana Cavalieri, neighbor downhill from the project, said that "enough is enough." She said that
she was tired of slides, rocks rolling downhill onto her property, steel beams swinging over head,
loud noises, radios blaring from workers, dust and noise. She said that the time comes when
"tolerance becomes acquiescence" and asked the Council to consider her plea.
Rose Rhodes, another neighbor, also asked the Council to consider the negative effects of the
project on the neighborhood.
Mark Swanson, general contractor for the Garay's, said he did write Mr. Hannahs a response
letter and he asked to read his letter into the record:
"5/19/2008
Dear Mr. Hannahs:
I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence dated 5/14/08, which I receivedfrom
you at your home on 5/16/08.
In your letter, you express concern with regards to having not been provided adequate
information so as to make an informed decision on the skylight shroud removal and the panel
extensions as requested by my clients, Mark and Lynn Garay.
I would like to provide you with a recap of the information that has been exchanged and the
meetings that have taken place regarding this matter. With that, it is my hope that you will feel
better informed and thus can potentially make a decision that you are most comfortable with,
based upon the facts.
On March 28th, I sent you the following email:
Hi Fred:
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 11 of 18
We have strung a yellow line along the top of the north elevation of the house to show the
proposed elevation of the panels.
The windows that you see currently installed below the string line will have a opaque "frosted"
glass installed in front of each of them that extends up to the height of the string. Just beyond this
string (to the south) you will now see two skylights installed. The skylight closest to the garage is
one of the skylights that the Garay's propose to eliminate. This is the "Au Pair's" skylight.
The skylight centered behind the string is above the girl's bathroom. This skylight is to remain,
and this skylight is the one that the Garay's would like you to approve the removal of the shrouds
from. Tonight, and throughout the weekend, I am going to illuminate this bathroom so that you
and Mrs. Hannahs can see the amount of light, if any, that will be visible from the skylight,
without the shrouds. I feel that it is of significance to note that this bathroom is to be used by the
Garay's two young girls, and that the lighting will be installed on a timer. Thus, the lights would
not be left on for extended periods of time due to the timer, and since children typically sleep
during the night hours, the opportunity for lighting to be on during the evening hours is limited. In
addition to the above, the skylight is sloped away from your property, which should further reduce
any light visibility.
If you look to the left (east) of the girl's bathroom skylight, you will see a "curb" that extends out
from behind the clerestory. This is the powder room skylight and the Garay's are also willing to
eliminate this skylight as part of the proposal.
To reiterate, the Garay's would be willing to eliminate the Au Pair's skylight and the Powder
room skylight. In exchange, they are askingfor you to allow the removal of the shrouds at the
girl's bathroom, and the approval of the stone panels and opaque glass to the height of the yellow
string line. Please note that this string line is not as tall as the adjacent roof heights.
I will bring photographs and a rendering of this detail to you for further study, should it help in
explaining this scenario.
Sincerely,
Mark Swanson"
Two days later, on Sunday, March 30,2008, Mr. Garay sent you the following email (which I
have retyped in this letter):
"Dear Fred,
It's 8:44 pm and I am standing at the top of your driveway looking down over your home at our
roof I can see the lights burning in the au pairs and kids bedrooms through the slotted windows
but can't see any light emitting from the skylights. I trust that you are looking at the same
conditions and that any concerns you have had over light pollution are now dispelled. I am
pleased that the tilt and tint of the skylights worked to mitigate any potential light intrusion and
that you will not be disturbed. I have taken photographs and would appreciate you doing the
same if your point of view is any different.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. If you are still
opposed to removing the shrouds at the front skylights, I would be pleased to meet with you and
the Council member's tomorrow night to view this and discuss it.
Sincerely,
Mark Garay
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 12 of 18
On Monday, March 31, 2008, I stopped by your front door to check in and make sure that you
had received all of the materials and to be sure that you had viewed the skylights during the
evening hours to see if any light was emittingfrom them. I also asked if you would like me to
point out any of the roof top details from your property location so that you could be sure to
understand clearly what it is that we are talking about. I then invited you down to the house so
that you could see any conditions or details related to this matter up close. I was pleased that
you and Mrs. Hannahs accepted my invitation and hoped that your visit would answer any
remaining questions that you may have had. While on the Garay property, I showed you the
skylights in question, opened up the plans and reviewed the roof plan with you, produced copies
of the shroud details for your review, showed you the planned panel locations, explained the
string line elevations, walked you through the interior of the house to again review skylight
locations, reviewed the planned panel finish materials with you and answered any and all of the
questions that you had. I felt as if I had adequately addressed all of your questions and
concerns, and was not under the impression that any items remained unclear.
During the month of April, we did not correspond about this issue and you did not inquire about
any related details. This gave me the impression that you were content with the information and
physical displays provided.
We continued to illuminate the house during the evening hours last week (the week of May 12th)
during which we had meetings scheduled with the Town Council members. It is my
understanding that you met with Mayor Slavitz during the evening hours of May 1lh. On
Friday, May 16tgh (last Friday) you called me and asked me to visit with you as you had several
items for me, one of which was the letter dated May 14th, 2008 to which I am responding.
During our meeting, I asked you if you had noticed any light illumination from the skylights
during your meeting with Mayor Slavitz and you replied that it wasn't quite dark enough to
really tell, but that you noticed a "glow. " I did take photos while you were meeting with Mayor
Slavitz, which are attached below. The time was about 9: 1 0 p.m. and it appeared to be very dark
out. Perhaps these photos will give you a better perspective of the conditions at that time. "
Mr. Swanson thanked the Council for being able to read the letter into the record. He said that
from his point of view, the project had not been going on for nine or ten years, but from when
they received their permit 20 months ago. Also, he said he was not speaking on the Garay's
behalf but as a member of the public and as an experienced contractor building homes for 21
years.
Swanson said that what they have is a fairly simple design. He said the question is whether
removal of the shrouds would cause unreasonable amounts of light pollution and whether raising
the stone panels would cause a negative aesthetic impact to the neighbors. He said that the raised
panels were an improvement and that it had been clearly demonstrated that there was no evidence
of light pollution from the skylights. He said the shrouds were costly and would not add anything
but time and expense to the schedule.
Mr. Hannahs asked Mr. Swanson whether he had shown the skylights to the Council in a closed
or open position. Mr. Swanson said that the Council had viewed them in the closed position.
Councilmember Gram asked how the skylights were opened. Mr. Swanson said that they were
opened by a crank, approximately five inches, away from the Hannahs' view and toward the
water side. He said that they were not on a level "for drainage purposes."
Mayor Slavitz closed the hearing and opened the rebuttal period to the appellant.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 13 of 18
Mark Garav expressed dismay at the instances of character assassination, lies, untruth and
personal attacks on him. However, he said that wanted to move on and deal with the objective
facts and issues before the Council tonight.
Mr. Garay said that Mr. Hannahs had made it clear that he did not see any light from the
skylights. Mr. Garay said he believed no Councilmember had seen light from the skylights,
either. He said that Councilmember Berger, who had stepped down, sent an e-mail which is part
of the record which acknowledges that he was out on the front porch of Mr. Hannahs' home and
that Mr. Hannahs told him he did not see any light emanating from the skylights. Mr. Garay said
he did not know what more he could say on this subject.
In terms of the requested eight eight inches of the panel heights, he said this was an insignificant
amount and that all they do is take up more of the roofline. He said the shrouds were intended to
deal with the potential of light pollution which longer was an issue, so the shrouds are no longer
necessary .
Councilmember Fredericks raised a question about whether the shrouds were necessary to
conceal the skylights. Mr. Garay said the skylight profile is relatively low and that there is a curb
about six inches high and then the skylight itself is a dark or bronze metal of another eight inches
high. He presented a picture of an unfinished roof but said that on the finished roof, they "hot
mop" the curb of the skylight and bring the stone up on the curb. Mr. Garay said he would be
happy to answer any additional questions of Council.
Mayor Slavitz clarified with Mr. Garay that all of the skylights are operable, and that they crank
open to a height that is less than a full 90 degrees; that there would be no light impact because the
curb the Hannahs are looking at is higher than where the skylight would settle.
Mr. Garay confirmed none of the skylights were open when the Council visited the property. He
invited the Council was invited to revisit the house when the skylights were open, if they thought
it would make a difference.
Councilmember Collins confirmed with Mr. Garay that the home is not air conditioned.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked for clarification on the change of the height of the panels off the
roofline. Mr. Garay said he had originally applied to make them 17 inches higher than the
approved roofline, but tonight they are asking for a reduction down to eight inches, which is
something that had been put into the file previously through communications with staff.
Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said she could not find such a reference [to the height of the panels] in the
staff report, and questioned if the request was being brought forth as a verbal request. Town
Attorney Danforth said the original application requested 15 inches. She said she was not aware
of any official communication with the eight-inch number, but since eight is less than 15 inches,
the Council would be free to approve this if it so wishes.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said in the past the panels were being offered instead of the shrouds to
hide the skylights so a reduction in height to eight inches mayor may not be an advantage,
depending upon what everybody thinks about light pollution.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 14 of 18
Town Attorney Danforth said she believes this was a somewhat different issue. Originally the
panels were raised to mask the shrouds that were immediately behind them. The June 2007
application asked for a IS-inch increase in height. If the Council decides to remove the shrouds as
well as approve an increase in height, it would not be a light pollution issue.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said at the staff level, there was approval of installing a IS-inch panel and
it was also mentioned that if the panels were put up, then it would be okay to consider removing
the shrouds. She questioned if this was the procedural posture of the issue now notwithstanding
what the Council is being asked to do. She said that so many changes made for confusion as to
what was being decided.
Community Development Director Anderson said staff is not aware of any subsequent proposal
to reduce the height. He said that what was before the Council is a de novo hearing of what went
before the Design Review Board. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether the Council should even
consider it [panel height].
Councilmember Gram said "shroud" was a rather morbid term; he said he would prefer to call
them baffles, as we had done in the past. Gram questioned how high the baffles were or if they
had even been designed. Associate Planner Tyler said what was on top of the roof were mock-
ups, so it is unclear exactly how high an actual shroud, as constructed, would be.
Mayor Slavitz said he thought he read that the shrouds were supposed to be a certain number of
inches above the skylight and he questioned if there was a typical dimension used. Community
Development Director Anderson said staff would attempt to determine that height from the
building permit construction drawings.
Councilmember Gram stated that he had no problems with the light emission as demonstrated.
Gram said that he is pretty sure that when the real down lights are installed they would not pose a
problem, but he asked if there was a way for the Council to provide some sort of protection so
that once the skylights are lit up, the Town could require the applicant to address any possible
lighting problems.
Town Attorney Danforth suggested that one means would be to require that before the project
receives its final occupancy permit, staff verify that the lighting visible from the skylights is no
greater than it is now with the demonstration lighting. She said the Council could have staff view
the skylights in both open and closed positions and verify it.
Councilmember Gram said he is convinced this is not a problem having seen the demonstration,
but agreed with the neighbors that they do not have the final configuration. Town Attorney
Danforth said this could be added to conditions of approval based on Council's desire. She said
staff would return with a resolution to the Council which would include all conditions of
approval.
Councilmember Collins said he had some comments regarding the settlement letter and specifics
of the application. He said that when he looked back at the application itself, the applicant's
description of the project provides that the applicant requested only the raising of the approved
stone panels at the north elevation by IS inches to conceal the skylight shrouds. This was
approved by staff and appealed by the Hannahs. Collins said that at the Design Review Board
hearing, Mr. Garay said the only issue before the Board was consideration of the appeal and
raising the stone panels at the front of the house.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 15 of 18
Then, according to Collins, the settlement agreement dated February 25,2008 stated that the
Town Council will hold a de novo hearing on the merits of the appeal within 60 days of the
application. He said the direction from the Town Attorney to the Council is to address the issue of
the raising of the panels. He said there was an email dated May 20th from Ann Danforth to Mr.
Garay stating that the sole issue is that of the height of the panels. He felt the Council is here for
that purpose; however, the Council can discuss the shrouds.
Vice Mayor Fredericks commented that the shrouds were still an issue for the applicant and that it
is her understanding that the matter may end up in court.
Councilmember Collins believed the Council should also act on the shroud matter, stating he did
see a bit of a glow from the skylights on the left side and that the house is not finished. He said he
was not sure whether light would be visible, particularly if the skylights are in the opened
position, which the Council has not yet seen.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said with the light model they were asked to look at, she did not see much
light either. She thought she saw a little bit off on one side, but her problem is that the rooms
were very dimly lit and she questioned whether the model was a good one to judge from. She also
said she was concerned with respect to not having a good grip as to what the lighting mayor may
not be in the final project. Fredericks said she felt it was very hard for the applicant to prove that
there is no light; however, she said these kinds of considerations by the DRB and Council are
meant to protect the neighbors.
Fredericks said that although the shrouds are very expensive, the original application for the
higher panels really could take the place of the shrouds in a central section. So, if they didn't have
the shrouds there and you had the higher panels, if there was light, there is a good possibility that
those panels would screen them.
The V ice Mayor said the panels originally proposed were supposed to be high enough to provide
adequate screening and also not be higher than the farthest edge of the roof as viewed by
neighbors so they would not disturb the view. She said that the glass was engineered to minimize
light intrusion and what the Council saw was no light; but, now there is an issue of whether the
skylights will be open. It is not clear as to how effectively the engineered glass will work when
the rooms are actually lit for use when occupied. She acknowledged the skylights were not
located over highly-used rooms, but nevertheless, even in a bathroom, people need to see and
tend to have bright lights.
She also said what happens in her household a lot is that people leave the lights on in the closet
and this could be bad, as light could emanate up from that. She understands all the lights are
required in the plan, thinks that if the panels stay the way they are and there is no light dispersion,
there is no need for any of the shrouds. She agreed with the suggested condition of viewing the
light emissions prior to final, with skylights in both the open and closed positions.
Councilmember Gram said if the house were finished, he would allow the applicant to absolutely
proceed. He said Mr. Garay had made his case but said that the Council needs to build in
protection in the end. Regarding the panels, Gram said they are permanent and still need to be
designed and installed. He said if they were cut down to eight inches, it was a gamble for the
applicant. He asked Mr. Garay ifhe would be willing to assume the risk and Garay said yes.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 16 of 18
Gram said he heard the concerns of the neighbors regarding the ongoing construction. He said
that he himself had been the victim of a six-year remodel project which might never end, so he
encouraged Mr. Garay to finish his house and enjoy it.
Mayor Slavitz said he thinks the idea of leaving the shrouds for discussion until the project is
complete is a great solution. He said the Council needs to make sure their decision specifies
whether the skylights will be open or not because they were not seen open.
Regarding the height of the panels, Slavitz said he believed either eight or 15 inches was fine, but
either way the applicant runs the risk that the shrouds may still be required.
The Mayor said that the biggest message for him is that the process did not work in this particular
application and that this is something that the Council, more globally, needs to address in the
future.
MOTION:
To direct staff to return with a resolution memorializing Council's decision, with
an added condition that before the project receives its final occupancy permit,
staff will view the skylights in both positions and verify the lighting visible from
the skylights is no greater than it is now with demonstration lighting; also, to
allow the stone veneer panels, approved not to exceed 15 inches, to be cut down
to eight inches.
Mr. Garay acknowledged that the panels would have to be retrofitted if light was visible.
Moved:
Vote:
Collins, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Berger
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Mayor Slavitz reopened public comments due to a speaker not
being able to be present at the beginning of the meeting.)
Sarah Barr. Senior at Redwood High School and Tiburon resident, requested the Council's
support in passing a resolution in support of the suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. She
said that the original design of the bridge included a suicide barrier--Joseph Strauss designed it to
be practically suicide proof, but another engineer took down the barrier prior to the opening of the
bridge which resulted in a suicide in its first week. She said her opinion on the issue of whether
there should be a barrier or not had changed on January 9th when Casey Brooks, a 17 year old girl
who lived down the street from her, jumped from the Bridge. She discussed the pressures and
stresses of teenage life; she said they often see an escape and not death. She asked the Council to
step up to protect its youth because the Bridge District Board had voted 7 times against a barrier.
Ms. Barr said she had personally written letters to the Bridge District. She said that the other
"wonders of the world" like the Eiffel Tower have suicide barriers; she asked the Council to
adopt a resolution calling for the installation of one on the Golden Gate Bridge.
Mayor Slavitz confirmed that no decision could be made by the Council tonight. He said that the
situation was tragic and agreed there needs to be a long-term solution. He suggested that Ms.
Barr make her presentation to every city in Marin County, and asked her to discuss the matter
further with Town staff.
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 17 of 18
Mr. Brooks said Casey was his only child; that she grew up in Tiburon and had planned to go to
Bennington College, but now she is gone. He said that he was proud of Ms. Barr's work and
asked the Council to support her efforts.
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS - None
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT - None
WEEKLY DIGESTS
. Town Council Weekly Digest - May 9,2008
. Town Council Weekly Digest - May 16,2008
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz
adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
ATTEST: ,
ji'/j / t ///
.. / U__0_ - "-)~Ll_' \/, --. ,
l. \_.} .~'<'-
,
DIANE CRANE IAQOPI, TOWN CLERK
/,/
Town Council Minutes #09-2008
May 21,2008
Page 18 of 18