HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-06-29TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of June 25 - 29, 2012
Tiburon
1. Memo - Diane Crane Iacopi - AB1234 Mandatory Ethics Training
Requirements - Notice of Options and Due Date
2. Letter - Steven Herzog - Safety of Food Trucks Operating in the Vicinity of
School Sites
3. Letter - Tiburon Appointees to Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency -
Response to Two Principal Public Questions - Library Expansion
4. Letter - Paula Pincher - Library Expansion
5. Letter - Gayla G. Edwards - Library Expansion
6. Letter - David E. Bordon - Library Expansion
7. Email - Jeanette Carr - Library Expansion
8. Letter - Barry & Fran Wilson - Library Expansion
9. Letter - Steven Herzog - Library Expansion
10. Email - Karen Nygren - Library Expansion
11. Letter - Joan Don - Library Expansion
12. Letter - Jim Wood - Library Expansion
13. Email - Donald R. Share - Library Expansion
14. Email - Lane & Holly Sorrelle - Library Expansion
15. Letter - Jim Levorsen - Library Expansion
Agendas & Minutes
16. Minutes - Design Review Board - June 7, 2012
17. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - June 21, 2012
18. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - June 27, 2012
19. Meeting Cancellation - Design Review Board - July 5, 2012
20. Meeting Cancellation - Town Council - July 4, 2012
Regional
a) Annual Report - 2011 - Bay Area Air Quality Management District
b) Comcast California - May 2012 *
c) C & L Newsletter - Update on Public Law - Spring 2012
d) Estuary News - June 2012
e) Golden Gate Gazette - Summer 2012
f) Invitation - Marin Conservation league's 2012 Picnic on the Porch - 7/28/12
g) Save the Date - Annual Moose Feed Luncheon - December 14, 2012
Agendas & Minutes
h) None
* Council Only
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
0-11-1
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 19, 2012
To: Mayor Fraser and Town Councilmembers; Planning Commissioners; Town
Manager; Director of Administrative Services; Town Treasurer
From: Diane Crane lacopi, Town Clerk
Subject: AB 1234 Mandatory Ethics Training Requirements Notice of Options & Due
Date
AB 1234, the State law that became effective on January 1, 2006, requires specified local
officials to receive two hours of ethics training. For newly elected and appointed officials, the
requirement is to receive training within one year of assuming office. For everyone else, the
requirement is to receive this training within two years of receiving one's first training. Some of
you received training initially in 2006 and recertified every two years thereafter. The last required
training took place in June of 2010, therefore, our target is for you to recertify by June 30, 2012.
There are two options for complying with this requirement.
• Live trainings. At this time, there are no trainings scheduled in Marin County.
• Self Study. Training materials are available on-line, or upon request to the Town Clerk*.
(I can hand deliver or mail these materials to you. Otherwise, go to this website,
www.ca-ilq/org/AB1234compliance. )
The on-line self-study materials require that you read two articles on public service ethics laws
and principles, take a self-assessment test, and then submit it to the Institute for Local
Government (ILG) with a processing fee for each test. The Institute will review your test(s),
provide you with the correct answers to the questions and a proof of participation certificate.
For your convenience, you may return your tests to the Town Clerk who will, in turn, submit them
to ILG with the required fee on your behalf. (You will be reimbursed by the Town for the fee if
you apply on-line.)
Once you receive your proof of participation in the required AB 1234 training, please keep a
copy of the certificate for your records and provide the original to the Town Clerk. These records
will be retained as public records for at least five years.
If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact me at 435-7377. Thank
you for your complying with this state mandate.
*If you want me to provide you with self-study materials, please reply to this memo.
Cc: Town Attorney
_ .i
Teach '
June 22, 2012
Ms. Peggy Curran, Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
ww\v. reedschooIs.org
RE: Safety of Food Trucks Operating in the Vicinity of School Sites
Dear Peggy:
RECEIVEC,
JUN 2 5 2012
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Board of Trustees
Howard Block
Nancv O'Neill
Susan Lambe Peitz
Robert Scannell
Dana Linker Steele
Dr. Steven Herzog
Superintendent
John C. Frick
Business Manager
During the past two years I have received parent requests to remove the food truck selling ice
cream and candy to Del Mar students at the end of each school day. This vendor regularly parks
near the driveway to Del Mar Middle School on Avenida Miraflores. When I contacted you and Chief
Cronin to discuss the situation, you suggested I work with the Reed Union School District Board of
Trustees to make a formal request of the Town to change the zoning ordinance.
The Board of Trustees and I share a concern for the safety of students who congregate around the
truck at the end of the school day. Though the truck typically parks on the same side of the street as
the school, there is a tremendous volume of traffic congestion in this area at dismissal time.
Students have been observed running back and forth to the truck from the opposite side of the
street, which is certainly a risky move. Several members of our parent community recently
attended a Board meeting and spoke during public comment not only about the traffic safety issues,
but also expressed concerns about the poor nutritional value of the products offered by the food
truck vendor.
At our Board meeting on June 19, 2012 the Board of Trustees discussed their concerns for the
safety of students in this congested area of Del Mar's campus. The result of that discussion was
direction to me to write you a formal request for the Town of Tiburon Council to modify existing
ordinances to prohibit food vendor trucks within a given distance of our schools. Recently the
Novato City Council supported a similar appeal and now prohibits any food vendors from parking
within 1500 feet of any Novato school campus.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we can collaborate with the Town of Tiburon
to address this situation.
Thank you.
't, A- Y,4
Dr. Steven Herzog
Superintendent
DIGEST~
REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
277 A Karen Wav • Tiburon, CA 94920 • tel: 415.381.1112 • fax: 415.384.0890
3
y
t .
i
F ~
_ - vYe'r..1T
To: Members of the Tiburon Town Council
From: Tiburon Appointees to the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency
Date: June 29, 2012
Members of the community - from both Tiburon and Belvedere - have attended the last few
Agency meetings seeking more information on the library expansion. Many of the questions
concern the size of the proposed expansion and how much it is expected to cost. We think it's
important for you to know how we are responding to these questions.
Attached are two documents -"Why So Big?" and "What Will it Cost?" that directly address
both of these issues. While information on both topics has been discussed in various public
meetings and provided on the Library's web site, we understand the need to pull the
information together in a more concise way and to update it with the most currently available
projections.
Our plan is to disseminate the information in a variety of ways. We will soon be mailing a
newsletter to all Tiburon and Belvedere residents that summarizes the information contained in
these documents. Printed copies of the two documents will be available at the library and at
library meetings and events. Electronic versions will be hosted on the Library website. The
Agency meets on July 16 and the project costs will be on the agenda.
Our next public event is an Open House on Saturday, July 14`' from 11 am until 3 pm. This
will be the day after the story poles are put in place. The architects and others will be present
to help people understand what they are seeing. We hope you will have time to stop by and
participate.
We understand that the expansion has generated strong reactions both pro and con. We hope
that our communities will not miss out on the opportunity to substantially improve a valuable
public resource at no cost to taxpayers. Chances like this do not come along very often.
If you have questions, any of us would be happy to respond. We also welcome any suggestions
you may have about how to better inform the public about the expansion.
Beverlee Johnson 435-2620 beverleeyjohnson@comcast.net
Ric Postle 778-8300 ric.postle@lpl.com
Lois Epstein 435-1919 loisep@pacbell.net
Attachments (2)
Why So Big?
Anyone who spends time at the library recognizes the need for more space.
In 2007, the library engaged Page + Morris, a library planning firm, to conduct a
needs assessment. Page Morris is a very experienced San Francisco-based firm
that has prepared over one hundred library planning projects and been responsible
for the interior design of more than ten major libraries.
That study identified ""significant functional deficits" and recommended a library
totaling 30,999 square feet to adequately address the needs of our communities.
Subsequent planning, recognition of site limitations, and public comment caused the
design to eventually be reduced to a total of 26,500 square feet. (Further details on
the study, as well as an update conducted in August of last year, are available on the
library web site.)
Yet, even this reduced size is still a very substantial expansion. Here are the reasons
for it.
1. An independent library rather than a branch library
Our library was designed to be a branch of the Marin County Free Library
System. Most library administrative functions such as new book processing and
cataloging were to be done off-site. However, at the eleventh hour, the founders
of the new library realized that it would be much more economical for the library
to operate independently rather than to pay the assessment to the County. Mill
Valley and Sausalito had reached the same conclusion.
This has proved to be a prudent economic decision and undoubtedly contributed
to the enormous popularity of the new library. But the design provided no space
to accommodate the extra staff and activities that an independent library
required. Because of this change in direction, the library was already too small
when it opened in 1997.
2. A library for more than just adults
Back in the early 90s, the number of school-age children living in our
communities was in decline. This was likely a factor in the design of our current
building as an adult library. But, beginning around 2006, this trend dramatically
reversed.
Now our schools are overflowing and expanding. Enrollment in the Reed School
District has increased from 1,031 in 2005/6 to 1,403 for the past school year.
That's an increase of 30%. School District projections are for continued growth in
enrollments for the foreseeable future. As a result of this growth, services for
young people from toddlers to young adults are among the most popular services
that we provide. The existing library has very limited space for these services.
3. A bigger collection and more room to sit
Our library had more than 175,000 visits during the last fiscal year. Most days
find our computers in use, every available seat taken, and young people sitting
on the floors. We especially lack space for individuals and study groups.
In 1996, the year before our library was built, total circulation was about 85,500
items. The following year, with little change in population but a new library,
circulation jumped 64% to about 132,000. Current circulation has climbed past
315,000. With the extra space, added facilities, and much more welcoming
environment, the new library will likewise attract much higher use.
0/0/0000 Page 1
4. Expanded community programs
Last year, our library was home to 811 community events. These included book
discussions, art exhibits, and lectures by authors, museum docents, political
commentators, world travelers, and local adventurers. Our biannual week-long
series on issues for seniors is extremely popular. These events are entirely
organized and staffed by volunteers at no cost to the library or taxpayers. All that
is needed is the room to have them.
Our space limitations have caused us to max out on the number and diversity of
the programs that we can offer. The expansion adds a larger meeting room for
popular programs and the ability to offer multiple events at the same time.
5. Exploding demand for technology services
Today, patrons log on to our 18 community computers more than 34,000 times
each year. Nine of these computers are in the adult section, four in the children's
section, and five are dedicated to browsing our catalog. The expansion provides
space for 59 computers. Seventeen will be dedicated to a new training facility;
the rest will be located throughout the library. It's a critical technology update to
our library and reflects how training, reading, and research will increasingly be
done in the future.
Patrons now come to our Library to try out electronic media in our eReader
"Petting Zoo." They can try a Kindle, a Nook, and an iPad, each pre-loaded with a
selection of books. This helps them decide whether they like this form of reading,
and helps them make a more-informed buying decision.
Our weekly technology classes, taught mostly by staff, are always
oversubscribed. We can only offer these classes one day per week because of a
lack of space. The expansion permits a dedicated technology center for training
every day and throughout the day.
The new library will provide an opportunity to learn about and use technology
tools that are more elaborate than what most individuals could have for
themselves. One example is a multimedia lab with dedicated software and
hardware for creating films, music, photo editing, and other forms of multimedia.
We hope to provide exciting platforms for creative types of all ages, whether for
education, entertainment, or to support a mid-career change. Technology will
constantly change. What won't change is the need for a place to learn about new
ways of doing things and for help in the discovery.
6. Consolidate functions performed offsite
Corner Books is our used bookstore operated by volunteers from the Library
Foundation. Now open for two years, it has been a resounding success and is a
significant contributor of funds to our library. The proposed expansion creates a
larger space for Corner Books and moves it onsite from its current location at the
Boardwalk Shopping Center. In addition to streamlining the operation of the
bookstore, higher sales will result due to foot traffic at the library being many
times higher than at its current location.
The new expansion also provides space for the Library Foundation. In addition to
the convenience, consolidation of both uses at the library eliminates the rent
expense now being paid.
0/0/0000 Page 2
By the Numbers
It's complicated for most of us to read floor plans and get a sense of how the extra
space is actually being used. Here's an approximate comparison between our
existing library and the proposed expansion. Please keep in mind that these are just
preliminary estimates.
The proposal adds 16,000 square feet to the existing library's 10,500. A surprising
amount of the additional space is lost to common areas like hallways, restrooms,
stairs and elevators, and the thickness of walls. After subtracting out these common
areas, the increase in useable space is 11,194 square feet.
Here's roughly how the added space is split among the six needs that we just
described, as well as the common areas.
Category
Current Size
New Library
Space Added
Common Areas
2,492
71298
41806
Independent Library Operation
795
21619
11824
Children & Teens
1,544
4,426
2,882
Bigger Collection & More Room
41668
7,594
21926
Community Programs
707
11594
887
Technology Access & Learning
184
11981
1,797
Corner Books & Coffee Cart
110
988
878
Total (in square feet)
10,500
26,500
16,000
Why Technology Won't Replace Libraries
While Amazon's Kindle, Barnes & Noble's Nook, and Apple's iPad are transforming
our reading experiences, there are many reasons why physical books and libraries
will remain relevant and vital.
All of us would love to envision a future where we can get any book we want in
electronic form from the library for free. But there are very formidable barriers that
are likely to prevent that from happening in the foreseeable future.
First, eReaders and electronic books are expensive. Electronic versions of most books
are priced between the paperback and hardback prices. While many in our affluent
communities can afford these purchases, a great number cannot. Getting books for
free at the library is still the best deal in town.
Since electronic purchases can't generally be loaned to others or donated, many
consider them wasteful. And many publishers refuse to sell digital versions of their
books to libraries or impose painful conditions on their use. Wherever possible, the
library acquires digital books for use by our patrons.
0/0/0000 Page 3
How We Compare
The Mill Valley Library is probably the most direct comparison in both geography and
makeup of the population. The Mill Valley Library serves a population about 25%
larger than does our library, and they have about 17% more card holders.
They expanded their library in 1998 to its present size of 27,000 square feet. Our
current library serves about the same size population with a library that is little more
than one-third Mill Valley's size. We are seeking to expand to 26,500 square feet,
slightly smaller than the Mill Valley library, fourteen years after they did. Mill Valley's
circulation and number of annual visitors are larger than ours, precisely because they
have the room to accommodate them. This supports the position that a larger library
will be considerably more valuable to our town and will attract significantly more use.
In the East Bay, the town of Lafayette has a new library of more than 30,000 square
feet. It houses a community hall that seats 160 people, a technology center, a used
bookstore, foundation offices, and a Cafe serving food and beverages. It provides
dedicated children and teen centers, outdoor meeting and reading areas, and a fully
automated drive-through book return. Their old library was 6,720 square feet.
Our proposed new library is not unusually big for the community it serves;
our existing library is unusually small.
In Conclusion
Over the last eight years, the various Library Agency Boards considered many factors
leading to the present proposal. One factor was particularly important in addition to
those previously discussed: this expansion is likely to be the last one for a very long
time - most likely many decades. We have a responsibility to ensure that any
expansion is sufficient to meet not only the present needs of our communities but
also well into the future. The new library expansion plan does exactly that.
0/0/0000 Page 4
What Will It Cost?
The estimated costs for the new library break into two categories:
• Cost to build the new library
• On-going operating costs
Cost to build the New Library
Total costs of construction are broken into three areas: construction costs, soft costs,
and furnishings. Together they represent the total estimated costs of the project.
Construction costs include the necessary rework to existing space and the
construction of the new extension. They include mechanical, plumbing, data and
electrical systems, and all exterior work including landscaping and lighting.
Detailed engineering studies to determine heating and air conditioning, electrical,
plumbing, and other major systems do not take place until final approval is received.
So all cost estimates are based on rules of thumb for similar type buildings.
New construction including site work is estimated at between $400 and $500 per
square foot. Reworking existing space is estimated at between $150 and $200 per
square foot.
Under these assumptions, the total construction cost for the project would be in the
range of $8 to $10 million.
Soft costs primarily include design and architecture fees and the cost to obtain
permits. This category includes the work that has already been performed on the
project including the cost of the environmental impact report and design work
performed thus far. The total soft costs for the project are estimated at $3 million
dollars.
Furnishings is the cost to purchase new technology equipment, work stations,
furniture, tables and chairs, and any other equipment needed for the expanded
library. This cost is estimated at $1 million.
Adding these three estimates together gives a $12 - $14 million dollar estimate for
the total project. We hope to be able to complete the project at the lower end of the
range. The higher number is included to account for the possibility of higher material
and labor costs in the future as well as for other contingencies.
On-going Operating Costs
The library budget for the current fiscal year (2012-2013) projects operating costs of
$1,952,231. We don't know exactly when the new library will be constructed, or how
cash receipts and expenditures for the existing library will have changed by then. So,
to make a fair comparison, here's an estimate of how library operating costs would
change if the new library were to open today.
For the new library, annual operating costs would be expected to increase by
$218,092. While increases are forecast in all categories of operating expenses, most
of the increase is in personnel cost. We anticipate hiring a Manager of Technology &
Training, a part-time building maintenance person, and increasing the Teen Librarian
position from part-time to full-time.
Here's a table that provides more detail on the costs.
612512012 Page 1
Category
Current Budget
New Library
Difference
Personnel
$1,461,681
$1,600,000
$138,319
Books & Materials
190,050
201,683
11,633
Technology Services
129,600
149,040
19,440
Supplies
41,950
48,100
6,150
Utilities
102,850
144,500
41,650
Audit & Legal
26,100
27,000
900
Total
$1,9521231
$21170,323
$218,092
One may question how a large proposed expansion can be adequately staffed by a
relatively small increase in personnel.
There are several reasons for this. First, the severe space constraints in our current
library have created substantial inefficiencies. The new floor plans have been
carefully designed to make work flows much more efficient.
Second, the vast majority of the added space is to create more room for our patrons.
For example, a larger children's area accommodates many more children for story
hour but doesn't require any more story tellers. Also, the addition of self-service
units for checking out books reduces staff workload.
The new building will be designed to be as energy-efficient as possible, helping to
limit increases in utility costs.
We expect several factors to at least partially offset the projected increase in
operating costs. Based on current projections from Tiburon and Belvedere town
management, rising collections from local property taxes will likely increase our cash
receipts by approximately $136,000. We expect that the remaining deficit of about
$82,000 would be covered by a grant from the Library Foundation.
In addition to expected distributions from the endowment fund and the annual fund,
the Foundation anticipates that sales from Corner Books will increase substantially.
With a larger space in the expanded facility, greater foot traffic and lower overhead
costs, the Foundation reasonably projects that net sales will increase.
Fund Raising
The Belvedere -Tiburon Library Foundation supports the library through fundraising
events and private philanthropy. The Foundation expects to raise the funds
necessary to expand the library through private donations.
A capital campaign will not begin until after project approval by Town Council.
However, the Foundation has already received numerous generous gifts to support
the expansion effort, some of which were earmarked for and have been used to
underwrite the soft costs noted above.
Construction of the addition to the library will not begin until all of the needed funds
have been committed. Although we cannot know with certainty how long it will take
to raise the funds, the Foundation leadership estimates the process will take at least
three years.
612512012 Page 2
DIGEsor
Dear Tiburon Town Council,
RECEIVED 4414
JUN 28 2012
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
I am writing in support of the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion and the
proposed revised design for the new addition presented by the Library Agency.
The Library Agency and its architects have created an outstanding solution to
address the problems of overcrowding and cramped spaces in our Library that
considers the needs of everyone in Tiburon and Belvedere.
I strongly urge you to vote to approve the revised design for the Library
Expansion as it will be presented at Design Review on July 25, 2012.
Sincere
Signature
Name (print)
Address
Email
Date
June 27, 2012
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: I support the Library Expansion
Dear Council Members,
I
AL
e
My experience in living in different communities across the USA; is that the Library is the
foundation of every community.
When moving to a new town or city; I obtain a library card within two weeks. I also peruse the
community literature, most often located in the library's entranceway, so I may gain further
knowledge and connections within my new community.
My experience with the Belvedere-Tiburon Library (BTL) was amazing to read the "In the
Stacks" Newsletter and seeing this community's commitment for electronic education: with
hands-on experience with a librarian to answer questions, presentations by local authors and
knowledgeable business people willing to donate their time and skills which continues to
stimulate our citizen's personal growth and development. The Teen's and Children's variety of
programs provides a community resource for parent's participation as well as children's only
activities. The Director and Library Staff are very helpful and knowledgeable, giving great
information and direction for newcomers in the community.
Overall, the BTL is a people's library open to everyone. I have attended the evening programs,
artist's receptions, researched in the reference materials, checked out books and videos, and
have attended conversational language group meetings. Every week I am in the library.
I look forward to living fifty more years in this community. In addition, I appreciate knowing that
technology, cultural events, family fun events, educational and personal growth activities will
continue developing within my community.
Sincerely submitted,
Gayla G. Edwards
1807 Centro West St. #B
Tiburon, CA 94920-1909
415.755.3883
gayla.edwardscar@gmaii.com
11
CJ~GEST
David E. Bordon
49 Belvedere Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920
June 25, 2012 bordons cr;ao1.com
Dear Mayor of Belvedere and Members of the City Council,
In its meeting of June 11, 2012, the Belvedere City Council made it clear that financial
transparency is critical for gaining public support for any library expansion. With the financial
challenges facing all municipalities, the public is legitimately concerned about the fiscal viability
of new projects and any additional debt burdens. Further, transparency is legally required of
public agencies and good practice for 501 (c) 3 organizations.
The Council also strongly suggested that dialogue between supporters and opponents of the
proposed library expansion was critical, and that some compromise might be in the best interest
of the community. It was noted that the library should unite, rather than divide the community.
Unfortunately, both the Library Agency and Library Foundation continue to choose financial
obfuscation, rather than transparency, and position posturing rather than dialogue and
compromise.
Based on my recent exchange of questions and answers with the Agency and Foundation, which
followed the June 11 th Council meeting, and which I attach, I summarize below what is known,
what is claimed, and what is still unknown or undisclosed. While the City Council has no
jurisdiction over the Foundation, the Trustees of the Agency serve at the Council's direction. I
would hope that the Council either (1) direct its appointed Trustees to follow its suggested path
of financial transparency and dialogue/compromise or (2) replace the current Trustees.
RETENTION OF PR FIRM SOLEM AND ASSOCIATES:
KNOWN--The Library Agency retained Solem and Associates to garner support for the library's
expansion plans and push back against what it saw as growing local opposition. The Agency
spent $6000 initially; it then contracted for two additional months of services at $5000 per
"As month. The contract between the Agency and Solem spells out the goals of the PR campaign:
you have witnessed during the last several months, the community members that oppose the
library are organized and persistent in their attempt to derail the expansion approval process.
You will need to continue to educate and convince the citizens, community leaders and elected
officials of Belvedere and Tiburon of the need for the expansion while at the same time clearly
refuting arguments made by the opponents." Services include "team rehearsals";
"write... speaking points ...for meetings with ...city officials"; "Thematic messages for the library
web site"; and
critique community meetings".
NOW CLAIMED--In response to criticism that this was an inappropriate use of public funds by
the Library Agency, it is now claimed that the payment to Solem was reimbursed with funds
donated to the Foundation, that were earmarked for the expansion project.
(*n -
WRAT IS UNKNOWN OR UNDISCLOSED--Questions as to the timing of this
reimbursement, the identity of the donors, whether the donors understood that their donations
would be used for PR rather than construction, and why none of this is reflected in Agency
minutes remain outstanding. While the reimbursement by the Foundation of the funds paid by
the Agency to Solem appears to be a concession that the original expenditure of public funds was
outside the scope of powers of the Library Agency, it remains clear that the hiring of a PR firm
to push back against dissenting views is not good public policy. Further, it is inconsistent with
the desire of the Council that there be dialogue and compromise. The Council should demand
that the contract with Solem be terminated and the playing field leveled, so that all views are
heard and considered.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS:
KNOWN--The Library Agency Q & A suggests that there will be no additional operational costs
from the larger building, citing that it will be energy efficient and that there will be efficiencies
in maintenance, and that this will mitigate additional staff costs; further, it is expressly stated that
any additional operating costs will be covered by the Foundation. This was also affirmed in
public statements on June 11 thby the Agency and by the Foundation's President.
NOW CLAIMED--At the Belvedere City Council meeting it was stated for the first time that
additional operational costs, including staffing, would be $190,000. Further, the prior statement
of the Library Agency that all costs would be covered by the Foundation has now morphed into
the following: "These additional costs will primarily be covered by anticipated increases in
property tax revenue, and other sources as needed." The Foundation President has also back
pedaled, now stating: "How the Library Agency intends to cover this increase in operating
expense is a question best answered by the Library Agency..."
WHAT IS UNKNOWN OR UNDISCLOSED-- Despite requesting a detailed breakdown of
these additional operating (and staff) costs, none has been provided by the Agency. Further, with
the loss of the California State Library Funding (which has varied in recent years between
$70,000 and $90,000), the resulting budget hole is between $260,000 and $280,000. There are
additional tax revenues which are split between the schools and local agencies, including
libraries, which may be in danger. As noted, the Foundation has now declined to commit to
covering theses operating costs; further, questions to the Foundation as to whether its current
investment income can fund the lost state revenue and needed additional library expenses has
gone unanswered. Also, the Foundation has declined to state whether it will have the additional
revenue to support the Agency without an increase in the current Endowment, whether it
envisions a fund raising drive to increase the Endowment, and the targeted amount for the
Endowment. No one wants an expanded library which is fiscally unable to operate. The Council
should demand details as to the new operating costs, analyze the additional shortfall in revenue
due to the state budget crises, and require a second look at whether the community will be able to
operate and enjoy the expanded facility.
TECHNOLOGY AND THE LIBRARY'S SPACE NEEDS:
KNOWN--The original Needs Analysis was performed in 2006. The Library Agency has stated
that there was an update to this needs study, which affirmed that the original size of the
expansion was still required. In its presentation to the Belvedere City Council, the Agency stated
2
that there had been an updated Needs Analysis and that the on-line revolution had led to the need
for more space for hard copies.
NOW CLAIMED--The Agency no longer cites to any updated Needs Analysis in answering
whether technology advances have led to reduced space needs. Rather it states: "Some people
now want media electronically, some still want it in hard copy. That means the library now has
to have both".
WHAT IS UNKNOWN OR UNDISCLOSED--Simply put, there is still no answer as to
whether there has been an updated Needs Analysis, taking into account the impact of technology
over the last 6 years on the library space needs. Reference to "some people" as needing both is
hardly a justification for lack of a professional assessment of the issue. While my experience
with library needs is opposite (on-line access resulted in our company reducing its library space
by 2/3), I would not suggest that planning for a multimillion dollar facility should be based on
my lay experience. The council should require that professionals take a second look at the
library's space needs.
COST OF THE EXPANDED FACILITY:
KNOWN--The Library Agency has at various times cited figures of $12m and $15m as the costs
for the proposed expanded library facility. The Agency and the Foundation have both stated that
all funds will be from private sources; as of April 30, 2012, the Foundation has eannarked funds
of $1,714,182. The Agency has stated that it has expended $720,000 on architecture fees and
EIR reports to date.
NOW CLAIMED--The Foundation has declined to state whether it has received an accounting
for all the sums expended on the expansion by the Agency to date, whether it has reimbursed
those expenditures, and whether the $1,714,182 is net of all the expenditures. The Agency claims
that it has received no estimates of building costs from contractors or other building
professionals.
WHAT IS UNKNOWN OR UNDISCLOSED--The Council made it clear that professional
estimates of the cost of construction were needed, together with related architectural,
engineering, permitting, furnishing, and landscaping costs. To date, the Library Agency has
taken no steps to determine or publish those numbers. While the Agency and the Foundation
have been working hand in glove on the expansion project, they play word games when it comes
to accounting for costs of the project, fund transfers, and fund balances. Again, the Council
should demand information and transparency.
Very Truly Yours,
David Bordon
cc Mayor of Tiburon and Members of the Town Council
Kt: beiveaere amity 1-ouncii rresentanon rage i or z,
From: Riley Hurd <rhurd@rflawllp.com>
To: 'David Bordon' <bordons@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Belvedere City Council Presentation
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 2:15 pm
David,
My response to your 4 inquiries are as follows:
1. BTLA Only
2. The payment to SoIem came from funds donated to the Foundation that were earmarked for the
expansion project and transferred to BTLA for said purpose.
3. - I did not state the additional costs would be 290K, I said 190K. This increase is primarily staff costs,
but a breakdown will be provided in the Library's FAQ section in the near future. These additional
costs will primarily be covered by anticipated increases in property tax revenue, and other sources as-
needed.
4. I would refer you to the Needs Analysis performed in advance of designing the expansion project. It
can be found here: http://www.bel-tib-lib.orC7/info/expansion.litm Also, as I stated at the hearing, some
people now want media electronically, some still want it in hard copy. That means the library now has
to have both.
It would seem the Tiburon Peninsula is in the very enviable position of having a public facility run, and
possibly improved, with primarily private money. Thank you.
Riley F. Hurd III, Esq.
RAGGHIANTI I FREITAS LLP
874 Fourth Street, Suite D
San Rafael, CA 94901
Tel: 415.453.9433 ext. 126
Fax: 415.453.8269
Email: rhurdLy)rflawllp.com
Website: www.rflawllp.com
From: David Bordon [mailto:bordons L_i)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:58 PM
To: Riley Hurd
Subject: Belvedere City Council Presentation
Riley--I would like to follow up on some of the points made in your presentation to the Belvedere City Council on
Monday, June 11.
First, it was unclear to me whether you were presenting on behalf of the Library Agency, the Library Foundation, or both.
Could you please clarify that.
Second, you indicated that the payment to Solem and Associates was from a private donation or donations. Could you
please advise as to the identify of the donor or donors, the dates and amounts of the donations, and recipient--ie: the
Agency, the Foundation, or Solem and Associates. Was this donation referenced in any minutes of the Agency.
http://mail.aol.com/36472-112/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 6/23/2012
tcn: rseiveaere t_ny k,ouncii rresentation
rage of
Third, you stated that the additional costs of the expanded library would be in the area of $290,000. Can you provide a
breakdown of those costs? Also, you indicated that those costs would be covered by the Foundation. As the investment
income from the Foundation's Endowments has been in the area of $44,000 and $53,000 in the past two years, can you
advise how it will be able to cover the projected additional costs.
Lastly, you stated that technology advances have not led to reductions in the space needs of libraries--actually, I believe
you indicated that on line resources leads to additional demands for hard copies. Can you please provide the source for
your statements as the the impact of technology on space needs.
Thanks, David Bordon
http://mail.aol.com/36472-112/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 6/23/2012
Re: Belvedere Foundation Page 1 of 2
From: Heather Cameron <heather.cameron@9661.org>
To: David Bordon <bordons@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Belvedere Foundation
Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2012 6:13 pm
Dear Mr. Bordon,
Thank you for your message. Below are my responses to your questions in the order you posed them in
your email.
1. I indicated in my presentation that the endowment stood at close to $2 million. As of April 30, 2012, the
most recent financial report that I have available, the endowment fund balances are as follows:
General Endowment - $ 1, 728, 939
Restricted Endowment - $ 123, 279
2. I noted in my presentation that the Foundation had received a generous bequest of one million dollars.
This gift is not included in the endowment balance.
3. Please refer to the Library Agency for the accounting you request. Any funds transferred for expansion
expenses have been from funds earmarked for the expansion project.
4. The balance of funds earmarked for the expansion project as of April 30, 2012, the most current report
available, is $1,714,182. This amount is net of transfers to the Agency for the expansion project that have
been made as of April 30, 2012.
5. How the Library Agency intends to cover this increase in operating expense is a question best answered
by the Library Agency, although the number cited at the Belvedere City Council meeting was $190,000, not
$290,000.
Yours sincerely,
Heather Cameron
President, Belvedere Tiburon Library Foundation
On 6/13/12 3:42 PM, "David Bordon" <bordo_ns alaoi_com_> wrote:
Heather--I would like to follow up on some of the financial information which you provided to the Belvedere
City Council at its June 11 meeting.
First, you indicated that the endowment stood at $2m. My understanding is that there is both an Endowment
Fund and a restricted Endowment Fund. Could you please advise the balance in each Fund as of June 1,
2012.
Second, could you confirm whether the Barker funds have yet been received and whether they are included
in the Endowment Fund balance as of June 1, 2012, or whether they are part of some other funds of the
Foundation.
Third, it is my understanding that the Library Agency was doing an accounting of costs expended as part of
the library expansion project and that it was going to ask for reimbursement of those funds from the
Foundation. Has that accounting been rendered; if so, have funds been transferred from the Foundation to
the Agency, how much and when. Also, were the funds which were transferred from the Endowment Fund or
from funds earmarked for the building expansion .
http://mail.ao1.com/36472-112/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 6/23/2012
Re: Belvedere Foundation Page 2 of 2
Fourth, you indicated that funds had been donated to the Foundation, and specifically earmarked for the
building of the library expansion project. Can you provide the balance as of June 1, 2012 of those
designated building expansion donations. Also, is the balance before or after the transfer of funds to the
Library Agency for expansion costs to date.
Lastly, at the City Council meeting, Riley stated that the additional operating costs of the library would be
$290,000 and that that increase in costs would be covered by the Foundation. Could you shed some light on
how this additional sum would be covered--would it be from increased investment income from the
Endowment or some other source; would there be a fund raising drive to increase the amount of the
Endowment and what would the targeted amount for the Endowment.
Thanks, David Bordon
Heather Cameron
Heather.Ca_meron(d)9661.orn-
http://mail.aol.com/36472-112/aol-6/en-us/mall/PrintMessage.aspx 6/23/2012
5/31'/20]2
David Bordon
49 Belvedere Ave_
Belvedere
Mayor and City Council
Belvedere
l am advised that the Library Agency has been asked to make a presentation to the Belvedere City Council of
June 11, 2012. Unfortunately, I currently have a conflict and will be unable to attend that meeting. As I stated
at the Council meeting in May, I believe that the Library Agency, and particularly the Trustees appointed by
Belvedere, need to address certain financial and govemance issues which are material to the current and
future operations of the library. I have summarized the issues below, in the hope that they will provide an
outline to the Council in its question and answer period with the representative of the Agency and/or Trustees.
(1) Funding of the Library and the Impact of Loss of State Funds: The major sources of funding for the library
are property taxes, grants from the Library Society, and state funding. At the May meeting I brought to the
council's attention that the California State Library Funding had been reduced by 50%. 1 have now learned that
the entirety of that funding has been lost,. with the resulting hole in the budget being between $70,000 and
$90,000. Further, a second source of state funding (ERAF) is reportedly in jeopardy; The library budgeted
revenue for 2012 of $277,222 from ERAF. THE ISSUE FOR THE LIBRARY AND THE TRUSTEES is how it
will make up these known'and potential losses of state revenue. The proposed library expansion comes at a
time of state fiscal crises; as I pointed but at the May meeting, the Library Agency needs to openly address the
issue of funding.
(2) Additional Operating Costs Associated with an Expanded Library: There have been no studies done as to
the additional costs associated with operating the expanded library. As I pointed out to the Council. at the May
meeting, the Agency to date has not calculated the costs of operating the expanded facility, nor has it
determined how those additional costs will be funded. THE ISSUE FOR THE LIBRARY AND THE TRUSTEES
is what will be the additional operating costs---insurance, building and grounds maintenance, janitorial expenses,
electricity and gas, water, replacement furniture and fixtures-and what will'be the additional personnel costs.
Will additional staff be required to service the additional programs offered by the expanded library; will the
coffee shop require staffing; will monitoring of a doubling of space require more staff. Again, full disclosure
requires an analysis of the additional operating costs; further, the question needs to be asked--where will these
funds come from.
(3) Impact of Technology on Size of the Proposed Library Agene At the May meeting I pointed out that the
original needs study for the library was done in 2006; while the consultants recently stated that the needs of the
library would be met by the proposed library expansion plan, there has not been any positing of the following
question: what impact has technology had on the space needs of the library. THE ISSUE FOR THE LIBRARY
AND THE TRUSTEES is to explain whether technology will have an impact on expansion plans that are six
years old, and will probably be eight to ten years old by the time funds are raised for the expansion and
building is completed.
($aj Retaining a Public Relations Firm to Push Back Against Community Opposition: At the May meeting, I
expressed surprise that the Library Agency has retained Solem and Associates, a San Francisco public
relations firm, to garner support for the library's expansion plans and push back against what is saw as growing-
local opposition. Since that meeting, I have learned that $6000 has been spent to date, and that it has the
green light to continue its PR campaign for an additional two months at $5000 per month. The contract
between the Library Agency and Solem spells out the goals of the PR campaign: "As you have witnessed
during the last several months, the community members that oppose the library are organized and persistent in
their attempt to derail the expansion approval process. You will need to continue to educate and convince the
citizens, community leaders and elected officials of Belvedere and Tiburon of the need for the, expansion while
at the same time clearly refuting arguments made by the opponents." THE ISSUE FOR THE LIBRARY AND
THE TRUSTEES is how they can justify (legally and as a matter of public policy) spending tax revenues on a
PR campaign aimed at pushing back against public debate. As I stated at the May meeting, my experience on
the Council and as Mayor (although admittedly quite some time ago), was that when there were competing
views on an issue or project, the Council held meetings, sought input and debate, and tried to reach
consensus. Hiring a PR firm to stifle debate would have been unheard of. While the issue of whether this
expenditure of tax revenues is within the scope of powers of the Library Agency may ultimately have to be
decided by a court, the issue of whether this is good public policy should be discussed now.
A library should unite a community. The proposed addition tothe library is instead dividing the community.
While many are focused on'the plans from an architectural point of view-is the proposed building sited
correctly, what will its visual effect be on the current civic buildings, is it consistent with the small town
community character of Belvedere and Tiburon, my focus is on fiscal and governance issues. In addition to
getting answers to the questions outlined above, l would hope that the Council can give some direction to its
appointed trustees as to their obligations as fiduciaries of the community.
David Bordon
PS: I have separately forwarded.my exchange of e-mail correspondence with the Library raising many of these
issues; the exchange includes their answers. I have queried the Chair of the Board of Trustees as to whether
the Trustees had anything to add to these answers and been advised that they do not have additional facts,
observations or comments.
Original Message
From, Debbie Mazzolini <dmazXolin@bef-tib-fib org>
To: David Bordon <bordons@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, May 22, 2012 4:54 pm
Subject library questions
David,
Thank you for your inquiries. Let me know if you want to meet tomorrow.as my
calendar is starting to All. in
Please be aware that the only entitlement the Library is seeking at this time is Design
Review from the Town (i.e. what does the expansion look like). That being said, please
see my responses below:
From: David Bordon [n~;~iltc~:hclrctc~~~~Liraal.ca~~il
Sent: Moriday, May 21, 2012 12:24 PM
To: Debbie Mazxolini
Subject: Re: Library questions
Debbie---t am trying to clear my calendar for early Wednesday afternoon. In the mean time, I
thought it would help to let you know some of the questions I have, which don't seem to be
answered from a review of the minutes of the Library Agency:
--Library'Foundation: How much is the endowment of the Library Fund and of the total,
how much of that is restricted farads, how much is available for capital improvements (ie. an
expanded library facility) and how much is unrestricted. What has been the history of
contributions of both restricted and unrestricted funds since 2008. The April
2011 Minutes state that the ending value of thee portfolio as of March 31, 20.11 was $1.7m; is
this the total amount of both restricted and unrestricted funds. Also, those minutes reflect (as I
told the'Belvedere Council) that the donor base was down and contributions were down from
the prior year; is this. true? What are the major sources of revenue of the Foundation and are
there any projections as to the amount anticipated. in the next three years from each source of
funds?
6713/2012
Fage 2 of 2
]am the Director of the Library and work with the Library Agency. The Foundation is a
separate Sol c3.
--Library Agency: Are the budgets of the Agency available for the last three years. I am
interested in the sources and uses of funds--ie: how much has the library been receiving from
various sources and what have its expenditures been? As to public funds, have any projections
been made as to whether they will increase, decrease, or be flat over the next three years?
All budgets are available for your review at the Library. Please ask at the Reference Desk I'm
happy to discuss this with you in more detail when we meet.
--Library Expansion Planning Costs: How much has been spent on the proposed library
expansion to date (consultants; architects; engineers; publicity; etc) and what has been the
source of those funds. What has been budgeted as costs to get to the point of final construction
approval by Tiburon.
These numbers are currently being calculated and depend-on the size of the Library and follow
Design Review. Project books are being done as we speak and all costs will be available in one
place.
--Library Expansion Operating Costs: Has a study been done of the costs of operating the
library after the proposed expansion is completed. What are the projected increased costs,
Operation casts have been carefully reviewed, but cannot be fully ascertained until after Design
Review.
--Salem Associates: What was the purpose of retaining Solem Associates, what have they
been paid to date, and what is the source of the funding. I would like to get a copy of any
retainer agreements as well as correspondence relating to same.
Solem was engaged to facilitate communications with the community. We do not have a final
agreement with them yet but are working on a draft that should be final in the near future.
--Technology and the User Experience: Has there been any study of the impact of
technology on the space needs of the library. Who studied this, when and what was the result of
the study.
This was part of the needs assessment, which is available on our webstia We are also doing an
information paper on this topic.
As I explained to the Belvedere City Council, my focus is on good governance. I believe that
the Trustees should be asking these questions and have answers to all readily at hand. My
concern is that there is no record in the minutes that these questions are being asked or that the
answers are clearly forthcoming.
6/13/2012
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Jeanette CARR [carr.jeanette@gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:06 PM
To: Diane Crane lacopi
Subject: library expansion
Page 1 of 1
74
Q-
lip E ~
JUG L J 2012
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Diane,
Please forward this email in support of the library expansion to Mayor Fraser and the Town
Council Member.
I whole heartedly support the Library expansion plan. It has been proved that the expansion is
needed - we don't want to cut it back now and regret that decision in a few years. The design has
been well thought out and the expansion will enhance our wonderful quality of life in Belvedere &
Tiburon.
Jeanette Carr
6/25/2012
Dear Alice,
We believe the proposed Belvedere/Tiburon Library expansion project is badly out of scale
with our small Town, spoils our lovely Library's look and feel, crowds out views of open
space, will cost far more to build and maintain than is being claimed, leaves no room for
future needs of Town Hall and siphons money from our community that might be needed to
someday purchase and protect the Martha Property.
We have made a point of visiting the Library regularly to observe the overcrowding said to
underlie the impetus for expansion. We are sympathetic to the lack of staff and children's
space. But the building has yet to appear overcrowded-well used, yes-but not
overcrowded. As the digital revolution continues, the trend will be towards smaller, not
larger, facilities. And there are other, significant concerns.
The Library Agency points to its Needs Assessment (done in 2006, updated in 2011) in
answer to all questions and criticisms about the project. But, the Needs Assessment is not a
neutral document. It is an advocacy document addressing Library shortcomings. Three
focus groups participated all cheerleaders for expansion. There is no discussion of
opposing viewpoints such as keeping Tiburon's small town look and feel, giving Town Hall
some breathing room, retaining the view corridor to the Open Space and insuring taxpayers
don't have to pick up the bill.
The new building's costs have been variously estimated at $12 to $20 million. Past experience
indicates these capital cost estimates will rise significantly as the process unfolds. Further, it is
virtually certain that a much-larger building will cost much more to operate. The Library Agency
assures the Town it will cover whatever costs are incurred. However, state funding for libraries is
shrinking. And the Library's existing donors are about to be asked for millions of dollars in capital
costs for the new building. If the Agency comes up short, taxpayers will have to pay. Requiring a
very substantial escrow fund would be helpful but still no guarantee.
The job of arbitrating competing wishes and needs falls to Town Council, which has chosen to bypass
the Design Review Committee. We hope you will be objective when considering the project on July
25. Following a flood of complaints, the original 18,000 sq. ft. expansion proposal was scaled-back
by a mere 2,000 sq. ft. Rather than finessing the proposal through the system, councilmembers
should be responsive to the community's widespread opposition by calling for a vote from those who
will live with and possibly be asked to pay for the project.
We have several specificproposals:
1. Organize a town-wide vote on whether to approve the Library expansion project, or
2. Give the Library permission to expand by a specific percentage, perhaps 25% (2,625 sq. ft.) -
not bad for a 16-year-old building. Add two caveats: preserve the look and feel of our existing
building and views of the open space. Allocate the new space to the most pressing needs and
live within those constraints. Most of us accept that not every "wish" can be satisfied. We
constantly adjust our desires to live within our means. The Library should be no different.
I Specify a significant escrow fund be established before any construction begins to assure all
costs-capital and operating--are borne by the Library Agency as promised.
A modest expansion, carefully conceived and controlled, will save money as well as the look and feel
of both our lovely Library and our small town.
Yours truly,
-Barry and Fran Wilson
:tr
P ; ,
1990 Centro West, Tiburon
• leach •
REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
277 A Karen Way + Tiburon, CA 94920 • tel: 415.381.1112 • fax: 415.384.0890
www.reedschoo(s.org
June 22, 2012
Ms. Deborah Mazzolini, Director
Belvedere-Tiburon Library
1501 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Reed Union School District Support for Library Expansion
Dear Deborah:
Board of Trustees
Howard Block
Nancy O'Neill
Susan Lambe Peitz
Robert Scannell
Dana Linker Steele
Dr. Steven Herzog
Superintendent
John C. Frick
Business Manager
With the support of the members of our Board of Trustees of the Reed Union School
District, I am delighted to write to let you know that the Board voted at their
meeting on June 19, 2012 to state their unanimous support for the proposed
expansion of the Belvedere-Tiburon Library.
We recognize and value the many services the Library provides to the students of
the community, both in the Library and in our schools. The close relationship
between our teachers and the Library staff supports teaching and learning. With the
expansion of your facility, the children of this community will be better able to
access your materials and services.
We wish you success in your work to create a facility that will better meet the needs
of the children and adults of our community.
Sincerely,
" - - - 14,77
Dr. Steven Herzog
Superintendent
cc: Board of Trustees, Reed Union School District
Tiburon Town Council Members
Peggy Curran, Tiburon Town Manager
Page 1 of 1
1a
Scott Anderson
From: Karen Nygren [knygren@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:05 AM
To: Scott Anderson; Peggy Curran
Subject: Library Expansion
June 21, 2012
Re: Library Expansion
Dear Mayor Fraser and Tiburon
Councilmembers,
There hasn't been this degree of discontent, divisiveness, and polite hidden anger in our Tiburon and
Belvedere communities in a very long time.
Last time I remember it was where to place the Tiburon Town Hall. This issue didn't even include
Belvedere. And now for the first time Belvedere is included.
It's very unfortunate! And it all began over the plans for a library expansion.
I don't believe holding more workshops on this issue will bring harmony back to our town (although it would
be nice to know the true financial costs of this project, long term).
With this level of disagreement, a decision about the library should not be left up to a few members of the
town council. Whatever they might decide won't make people on either side of the issue feel satisfied or
happy. Discontent will continue and grow.
At this point, the only way to have the community feel they've had their say is to have Tiburon place this
issue, jointly with Belvedere, on the ballot. The library is a joint investment and both communities should
have their say.
For the Tiburon Council to do otherwise would be to disregard the public voice of the community it
is elected to represent. There is no one person on the council who should take on the responsibility of
saying s/he knows better than the community at large on this very divisive issue.
Hopefully my suggestion will be taken seriously.
It would be nice to have harmony back in our small community.
Sincerely,
Karen Nygren
Tiburon Mayor-1994
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-435-2233
Sent from my iPhone
6/21/2012
pew ~ I •
JUN Z 5 20 12
June 21, 2012 TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
Mayor Fraser and the Town Council members:
I support the library expansion. We all appreciate the hard work
and diligence of the original library Steering Committee-some of
whom are currently opposing the library expansion. The
Community owes them a debt and we wi I I be forever gratef ul to
them for bringing our library out of the dark ages in the post
office building into the light with the wonderful building we have
all come to love so much.
The current expansion is not intended to change the library--but
to adapt it to the present and f uture needs of the community.
Even as we held the Dedication ceremony on April 13, 1997
several areas of the library had to be modified from their initial
purpose: the library lacked the Administrative and "back room"
areas needed to run an independent library, so the staff and
volunteers adapted, and continue to do so today.
All institutions must keep up with changes in demographics and
technology--so must the library. According to the Rand California
School enrollment statistics, since 1997 there are 19% more
students enrolled at Bel Aire in grades 3, 4, and 5, 26% more at
Del Mar in grades 6 and 7, and 27% more at Reed in kindergarten
and 1St and 2nd grade. The largest, and perhaps the most
significant for the future, being the kindergartners and 1St grade
increase of 57% and 52% respectively. These children deserve a
library where they do not have to f ight for space, as they do now.
Some say technology will make libraries redundant, but
technology is merely changing the way we use libraries. Libraries
are no longer solely depositories for books. They are
multipurpose, dynamic sources of information and an arena for
exchanging ideas and gaining knowledge: a resource for the entire
community. Times have changed since 1997: that was then, this is
now. Let's move forward together into the future.
Joan Don
/ice President
Belvedere-Tiburon Library Foundation
7 Teal Road
Belvedere
435-3783
V a_a.r•
3
JUN 2Q 2Q92 f
n tt 7 o v
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
C-f~
To t ito TOWN OF TIBURON
.
Take a walk through the Belvedere-Tiburon Library and you'll see why
it needs expanding: Teens study on the floor, learning materials are
stacked in office hallways and every computer station is occupied. Now
the question is: Why does it have to be so large? In other words,
expanding from 10,500-sq.ft. to over 26,000 sq. ft. appears excessive.
However, that's not the case when you consider a few realities.
First, our library was built as branch library, with only limited
space for administration and staff functions Oust prior to opening, it
became an independent entity.) Second, our library was built as an adult
facility, with only minimal room for teen's and children's activities
which now constitute a major segment of the library's operations.
Finally, our initial library grossly underestimated it's popularity. In 15
years the library's circulation has increased by 400%, while meetings,
community programs and computer use have grown at an even greater
pace. After carefully looking into the matter, I am all for expanding the
Belvedere-Tiburon Library as it has been proposed.
The legendary American industrialist Andrew Carnegie said, "A
library outranks anything else a community can do to benefit its
citizens." I say Bravo!
Jim Wood, Tiburon
4a~ft/l~i CL7
From: Donald R. Share [mailto:DShare@greeneradovsky.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:30 PM •
To. jsfraserl@comcast.net , emmett@vikingind.com ; rctib2@gmail.com ; 'aska I icenow@usa. net'; 4
'standingstone@sbcglobal.net'
5
Subject: Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the planned library expansion. It seems incredibly ill-
conceived and an obscene waste of money. Given the arc of technological developments, it will likely
be a great white elephant before it is completed, let alone later. The environmental damage and the
loss of a lovely view from Tiburon Boulevard are also good reasons not to approve this proposed
monstrosity.
Don Share
6/26/2012
From: Isslss@comcast.net [mailto:lsslss@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:25 PM
To: JSFraserl@comcast.net
Subject: Support for Library Expansion
Mr. Mayor.
My wife and I wholeheartedly support the Tiburon Library expansion plans. Lots of
detailed planning went into the plans and the direct result will be a wonderful library.
This updated library will add to the rich fabric of our incredible town.
We encourage you to throw your support behind this well thought out addition to our
community.
Sincerely,
Lane & Holly Sorrelle
86 Marinero Circle
Tiburon, CA 94920
PH: 415-435-0471
Isslss comcast. net
154
James K. Levorsen
70 San Rafael Ave.
Belvedere, CA 94920
June 6, 2012
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Members of the Tiburon Town Council,
I am a retired architect and have lived in Belvedere some 48 years, since 1963. 1
was very active putting the existing library together from the year 1987, when the
former library was located in the Post Office building, to dedication of the present
structure in 1997. It is within that perspective that I write you this letter.
Those ten years bringing the present library to fulfillment were full of ups an
downs. There were naysayers: Three million dollars was too much to spend.
We could never build it for that amount anyway. Books were going to become
obsolete. Others said computers and the internet were just a flash-in-the-pan
and would not last.
Fortunately a group of supporting citizens and the local governments got
together and the project went ahead. If those community members had not
'carried the day,' we would now know nothing of what we would have missed.
The present library, which has become an icon within our community, would not
be here.
We are at that juncture again. Please join us to actively support the new library
so that your children and their children can once again have all the advantages
that our present community has enjoyed.
Thank you.
Yours very truly,
_,Z
Ja es . Levorsen
Tel 415.435.1511 fax 415.435.4795 e-mail JKLEV@att.net
/d.
MINUTES #8'
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF JUNE 79 2012
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson and Boardmember Johnson
Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Tollini
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous reported that the July 5, 2012 meeting is scheduled to be held as planned;
however, staff is discouraging items requiring substantial public comment.
D. OLD BUSINESS
440 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21204; Ridge Road LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for excess lot coverage
and excess fence height and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish an
existing dwelling and construct a new two-story dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a
total floor area of 4,438 square feet, which is greater than the 4,210 square foot floor area ratio for
a lot of this size. The house would have a lot coverage of 19.7% in lieu of the maximum 15.0%
lot coverage pernutted in the RO-2 zone. A 7 foot, 8 inch fence is requested in lieu of the
maximum fence height of 6 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-21.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family
dwelling on property located at 440 Ridge Road. The subject site is currently developed with an existing
two-story dwelling which will be demolished as part of this project.
This application was first reviewed at the April 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting,
the neighboring property owner at 430 Ridge Road objected to the design of the proposed house when
viewed from below and the location of the proposed swimming pool close to the property line. The owner
of the home at 450 Ridge Road raised concerns with the visual mass and potential view impacts that could
be caused by the two-story portion of the proposed house. The Design Review Board shared many of
these concerns and encouraged the applicants to redesign the two-story portion of the building, relocate or
shield the swimming pool and consider an overheight fence along the property line shared with 430 Ridge
Road. The application was continued to allow the applicant to address these concerns.
The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed house. The two-story portion of the building
has been moved back 21 feet, 10 inches from the previous project design. The lower floor has been
reconfigured to place two bedrooms and two bathrooms beneath the terrace to the rear of the main floor.
The swimming pool has been 14 feet from the rear property line.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
6/7/12
The floor area of the proposed house has been increased from 4,190 square feet to 4,438 square feet,
which is 228 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is
therefore requested for the project. The revised project design has also increased the lot coverage of the
proposed house from 4,140 square feet (18.9%) of the site to 4,358 square feet (19.7%), which would be
greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot
coverage is still therefore requested.
In addition, the applicants now propose to construct a 7 foot, 8 inch tall solid wood fence along a 22.5
foot long portion of the shared property line with 430 Ridge Road. As the maximum fence height allowed
along the property line is 6 feet, a variance is now requested for excess fence height.
David Holscher, architect, reviewed changes made to the project. He said that they moved the large
master bedroom suite to the other side of the house, moved back the playroom 22 feet 9 inches, and
installed a trellis to respond to the concerns of the residents of 430 Ridge Road. He said that they
removed the roof points, with only the main gable remaining. He said that they plan to install a 5-foot
solid fence as per the neighbor's request. He said that they propose a hedge, fence, and then the house in
that area, which is a very typical side yard. He said that there would be no view blockage. He showed
computer generated depictions of the shadows that would be created by the house and the trees and
showed there would be significantly less light blockage. He said that the primary view from 450 Ridge
Road is of Angel Island, and showed that they would not impede any views. He stated that the deck was
removed and the doors of the master bedroom would now go to the middle of the site and not to the
edges. He said that the master bedroom was pulled back 5 feet 9 inches and the story poles were no longer
noticeable from the Garay's house.
Phoebe Holscher, architect, said that they lowered the plate height 1 foot, changed the gable to a hip and a
5:12 pitch, moved the pool up the site and moved the poolside patio across the site to the east side. She
said they moved the poolside patio 29 feet, and it would now be 52 feet away from the property line. She
said that the only thing between the pool and the neighbor's property would be screening. She stated that
the poolside patio would be used infrequently, contrary to Mr. Garay's comments. She said that Mr.
Garay proposed a monolithic wall that would be excessive and overbearing and they are trying to protect
privacy for both parties. She presented three depictions of the proposed retaining wall at different heights
and stated that a fence higher than the 7 foot, 8 inch proposed fence would block views of the Golden
Gate Bridge. She said that they worked very hard to accommodate and address Mr. Garay's concerns and
believed that they have met these concerns very effectively with a 7 foot, 8 inch fence. She said that they
are requesting the variance for Mr. Garay and not for themselves, as they would prefer a 6 foot fence.
Lisa Lowell, applicant, said that they have redesigned the house 3 times over the past few months,
including 3 sets of story poles. She stated that they redesigned the roof and pulled in the pool, and she
thought that they had done everything they were asked to do at the last meeting. She stated that two weeks
ago Mr. Garay was happy with all of the changes they had made. She said that they worked with him to
try to decide on the acceptable height of the fence Mr. Garay requested a 7 foot 8 inch fence, which she
believed would be very high, but they agreed to do so. She stated that a few days ago she received an e-
mail requesting a fence with minimum height of 9 feet 7 inches, which she felt would be an unacceptably
tall fence.
Ms. Lowell said that the neighbor at 450 Ridge Road is an architect and designed a possible home for the
lot. Ms. Lowell said that they took as much as they could in their redesign from her suggested design,
which she liked, but felt that the driveway was technically infeasible because of the steepness and hairpin
turn. She said that they are willing to plant landscaping to screen the view of the house from the
neighbor's patio, which currently has a view of trees. She said that it is unfair to say one does not want a
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #S
6/7/12
view of the house when looking back from the edge of the lot, and she thought that landscaping could
address that concern.
The public hearing was opened.
Mark Garay thanked the Board for their time to inspect the properties and understand the context of the
two homes and the two lots. He said that one thing that had not been mentioned was the unusual
topography between these two properties. He stated that a 10 foot fence may seem out of context, but
when considered in the context of a situation where there is a 6 foot differential between the two lots, the
10 foot fence becomes a 4 foot fence, and he thought that that was very important to consider. He said
that the project currently presented was an overwhelming improvement over what was previously
presented and he looked forward to having the applicants as neighbors. He said he wanted the project
done in a way so the neighbors would not give up privacy. He stated that the two primary remaining
issues were the fence height at the front of the house, and the fence height at the back of the house around
the pool spa. He said that a 6 foot fence at the front would result in a fence 2 feet above the floor level of
the house but would create sufficient screening. He said that the photographs presented by the applicant
were all taken from a surface level position.
Fani Hansen said that she is an architect and thanked the applicant for listening to her ideas. She showed a
photo showing the configuration of the land, and stated that this property is one of the largest lots in the
area. She said that her goal was to diminish the negative impact on all sides and preserve the views. She
listed several concerns: size and scale, land coverage and height, removal of trees and vegetation, relation
to adjacent sites, privacy, views and sun blockage. She described the requested lot coverage as substantial
and said that it would impact privacy. She said that she would like to ameliorate the sunshine blockage
and preserve privacy by shortening the east wing length by 25 feet and reducing the height by 4 feet.
Angela Danadjieva said that when she saw the first building proposal it was an L-shaped building and
extended through the whole lot. She said that she was shocked when she saw it, as it would have blocked
150 feet of sunshine on the south exposure of her house. She said that sunshine is most important for her,
followed by privacy, and then by protection of views and she was very concerned about losing sunshine
to her property.
Ms. Holscher described the relative sizes of the homes in the area and pointed out that the size of the
proposed residence was similar to the size of neighboring homes. She described the view corridor from
450 Ridge Road as very broad, with the principal view of Angel Island. She stated that the proposed
residence would be in the side yard view, which is not the principal view.
Ms. Holscher responded to Mr. Garay's comments and said that the photos were taken from a platform at
the level of the proposed floor level. She also pointed out that the photos depict a lower fence than 10 feet
and it would already block views.
Ms. Lowell said that Mr. Garay asked them to trim the foliage so he could see the fence and they did so.
She pointed out that when the foliage grows back there will not be a view issue. She said that anyone who
stands in the location of the wall would notice it is a 10 foot wall.
Fred Lowell asked if there was an obligation for an applicant to build fences, and questioned whether the
neighbor could come before the Board and build a fence. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that it is the Board
who asks for the fence and not the applicant, and if the Board felt the fence was required, the Board
would be asking them to build it and not the neighbor. Planning Manager Watrous added that if a fence
was added to an application to address a specific issue, it would have to be constructed as part of the
house.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
6%7/ 12
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Johnson commended the applicant for addressing the feedback provided by the Board and
neighbors. He said that he did not see a view or privacy issues from 450 Ridge Road after visiting the site
that day. He said that some of the images with the house superimposed on the site were slightly
misleading, and that adding vegetation and the fence would help a great deal. He thought that perhaps
raising the sill heights for the- furthermost windows along that side might help. He said because of the
sensitivity of this project he drove around the entire neighborhood, which he characterized as not a
wooded environment and an area where one tends to see parts of other houses because of the topography.
He said that this project had gone along way to preserve privacy for 430 Ridge Road. He said that the
house fit into the scale of the property and the neighborhood. He supported a 6 foot fence between 430
and 440 Ridge Road and felt that that would more than adequately screen the area with the planned
plantings. He said that there would be some visibility from the new house but because of the angle one
would look right past the patio toward the view.
Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Johnson and pointed out that there was no solution that
would make everyone happy. She said that it is an unusual expectation to not see any other houses.
However, she felt that a 7 foot 8 inch fence was a good faith effort that would good a long way. She
added that once vegetation is planted there the screening would go over that height. She pointed out that
people will be unlikely to congregate in the location of the fence. She said that the view of the house from
450 Ridge Road would be blocked by the pittosporum hedge. She said that she could easily make the
findings for the requested variances and the floor area exception and agreed with staff s findings.
Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers and stated that the applicant had done a lot to bring
the house back and address the issues brought up at the last meeting. He said that Tiburon is not "out in
the country" and houses are going to be built nearby. He was amazed that an architect would design a
house to capture a view knowing that neighboring houses would be built. He supported the 7 foot 8 inch
fence and stated that Mr. Garay has the opportunity to plant something that would grow above it.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 440 Ridge Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 3-0.
2. 2308 MAR FAST STREET: File No. 21207; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for
reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants
propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the
existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches of the left side
property line, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions
would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage
permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet,
which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel
No. 034-271-03.
This application was previously reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 1, 2011. During the
meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street spoke in opposition to the
project, noting potential privacy, view, and lighting impacts. The Board also voiced similar concerns, and
encouraged the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be
substantial to both neighbors. The Board struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 4
6/7/12
requested, and continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the
neighbors on both modifications and an adequate compromise, in order to move forward.
The Board reviewed the new application at the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, at which time
several modifications were made to the project between the December and the May 3rd meeting, in order
to respond to both the Board and the neighbor's concerns. At the May 3rd meeting, several neighbors
spoke in opposition to the project, including the owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The neighbors
noted remaining concerns regarding the amount of glazing and lighting impacts, in addition to privacy,
noise and view infringements.
Overall. the Board was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, and agreed that more could be done to
reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts for 2306 Mar East, but ultimately felt that the project,
as designed, would improve privacy for 2310 Mar East. Regardless, the Board provided further direction
to the applicant to modify the project, which included pulling the upper level deck back to align with the
proposed lower level deck, reduce the amount of glazing at the entry area, and eliminate the horizontal
screening system on the upper level deck and replace it with a vertical screening system. The Board
continued the project and directed the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and consider the
design modifications provided.
Mohammed Sadrieh, architect described the changes to the project. He said that the size of the downstairs
deck had been reduced and will now function more like a balcony than a deck. He said that they also
reduced the amount of glass facing 2306 Mar East, which would have the same amount of glass as the
existing upper floor. He said that the lower deck glass screen had been raised to 6 feet and the screen
facing 2306 Mar East had been changed from a horizontal shelf to a screen. He said that the screen would
start at the base of the deck and will extend out 5 feet. He said that one option would be to have two sails
and provide a soft an organic feel, and another option would be to have aluminum louvers. He said that a
vertical screen that would extend up to 5 or 6 feet, whether louvered or solid, would destroy views of the
Bay and Golden Gate Bridge from the deck and from all vantage points from the upper floor. He said that
the currently proposed screen would provide greater privacy than currently exists.
Peter Wilton, owner, said that the main issues were the size of deck, privacy screen, and amount of
glazing on southwest elevation. He said that they had addressed all of those concerns with changes to the
project. He said that they reduced the top deck to 113.8 square feet, a 58% reduction; eliminated the lower
side deck; and reduced the lower deck to 280 square feet, which would be more like a balcony than a
deck. He mentioned that his neighbor added a 770 square foot deck, and the one he was proposing was
very modest. He stated that privacy would actually deteriorate if the deck was pulled back. He presented
photos of the existing view of 2306 Mar East from the deck and superimposed images of the louvered or
sail shade privacy screen. He said that sail screens are attractive and are built to withstand winds of 80
miles an hour. He showed a view of 2306 Mar East with the privacy screen as viewed from the kitchen
and said that it would provide total privacy. He said that they reduced the window in the kitchen by 40%
to provide more privacy, and reduced the sizes of windows on the southwest elevation to the existing area
of the glazing on that elevation. He said that light intrusion on the neighbors from these windows would
be very unlikely. He said that they tried to think about this very creatively and showed renderings of the
neighboring property with alternative privacy screen solutions. He said they have proposed to pay for a
screen of their bedroom of their design, and so far those offers have been declined by the neighbors. He
described the existing structure as very old and dilapidated and said that they are going to greatly improve
the property which will benefit the neighborhood.
The public hearing was opened.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
6/7/12
Magdalena Yesil said that the Design Review Board previously suggested clerestory windows in the entry
to reduce the lighting infringement to their courtyard and their second bedroom. She said that the lower
level sliding glass door should be converted to a solid door to reduce lighting infringement to her
property. She said there are two existing decks at the lower level totaling about 400 square feet that are
completely functional. She questioned why the applicants could not take advantage of the existing decks
instead of filling in the existing deck. She characterized the houses on Mar East as bungalows on the
water with small bedrooms and baths. She said that her house has 3 bedrooms and they share 1 shower.
She said that allowing a design with 4 large bedrooms and 4 large bathrooms would create an exception.
She asked that the lower level deck be eliminated, and felt that the proposed privacy screens would do
nothing for the noise and light pollution. She believed that alternative locations for the deck exist that
would not infringe on their privacy and bedrooms.
David Kulik said that what was being proposed was illegal according to the laws published by the Town.
He pointed out a gate was proposed on his property and requested it be removed from the project. He said
that they would have to close their curtains further to protect their privacy. He said that the kitchen would
be 8 feet from his master bedroom and said the smells and sounds would affect the lifestyle of his home.
He said that a wall would be turned into an open air deck which would be 8 feet from his living room
window and they would be able to hear every conversation on each other's property. He said that 2308
Mar East is a nonconforming structure and he read parts of the municipal code stating that nonconforming
units cannot be increased in size or altered in ways that are detrimental to the public welfare. He said that
they agree with the staff report that there is insufficient evidence to support findings for the variances
requested. He requested the Boardmembers state specific findings for each variance.
Mik Flynn said that she thought that it was very easy to think the applicant was being fair, but she thought
that it was forgotten that they were starting from a completely unreasonable position. She felt that there
ware a lot more negatives than positives for the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood regarding this
proj ect.
Mr. Wilton stated that what they were asking for was very minimal relative to the changes made at 2306
Mar East just two years ago. He considered the light pollution to be very minimal. He said that they had
tried to negotiate with 2306 Mar East many times and he hoped for some stability in their discussions. He
stated that any legal issues would be determined more appropriately outside the forum. He said that Mr.
Kulik knew that the shared easement had been acquired by the previous owner.
Mr. Sadrieh said that the Board should keep in mind that all properties on that waterfront are probably
nonconforming, and to make a decision solely based on that issue would condemn all future development
in the area to what is already built. He said that since this application was so modest he thought that it
would place a procedural straightjacket on anyone who wanted to do any development on that street.
Boardmember Johnson asked if most of the houses are nonconforming. Planning Manager Watrous said
that most of the houses on Mar East are nonconforming to some extent. Vice-Chair Emberson asked how
many other homes in the area have asked for variances, and Planning Manager Watrous answered that
quite a few because it is difficult to expand a home in that area without requesting a variance.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice-Chair Emberson thought that a "cookie cutter" zoning has imposed on a neighborhood that is
intrinsically very special. She said that most lots in the area seem huge but only a part of the lot can be
built upon, which causes most of the houses to have floor area exceptions. She said that she could make
the findings for the variances and exception. She pointed out that next door there is a 1,000 foot deck and
she thought that not many people would go out on the 5 foot deck to create a problem. She said that the
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6
6/7/12
sliding glass doors at the bottom look onto a fence and would not be injurious to the neighbor. She
believed that there is a tradeoff when someone chooses to live in this environment. She said that the
project would be a change for everybody and that is why everyone is upset by the project. She said that
telling an applicant that is at a disadvantage because it is pulled back so far that they cannot expand is a
practical difficulty. She said that the request would not grant a special privilege because every other home
in the area has been granted a variance.-
Boardmember Johnson agreed with Vice-Chair Emberson that the findings can be made. He said that the
applicant listened and had significantly reduced the size of the deck and was not significantly changing
the character of the building. He thought that this was a very challenging site He was troubled by the
nature of some of the comments and he did not think that this property should be "punished" because it
was the last to be expanded. He loved the concept of the sail privacy screen but he would not do it at this
location. He thought that the louvered privacy screen would work but was unsure whether the louvers
should be angled or vertical and suggested that was something the applicant could finalize with staff.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked Ms. Yesil if she was interested in the privacy screens suggested for her
home. Ms. Yesil said she likes to watch the sun rise over Berkeley and the screens would eliminate that
view.
Chair Kricensky said that the blanket zoning of the area caused the houses to become non-conforming. He
said that the houses on either side have improvements with very large decks. He said that the 5 foot deck
would be like a balcony and would not involve loud parties, and the screen would completely eliminate
the view of the bedroom next door. He said that he could support the project because of all of the changes
they had made and he thought that they should have the ability to improve their property.
Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board had adequately discussed the finding that the change in
privacy would not be injurious to the surrounding properties. He said that he would like to hear more
discussion on the finding for practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that the "cookie cutter" R-2 zoning works when one is in a landlocked
situation but does not work in this neighborhood because everything is nonconforming. She said that the
proposal was modest because of the size of the house. She said that every house around it has decks and
she thought that it would be a hardship not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water when all of the
neighbors enjoy such decks. She said that the only direction to expand on the site was seaward. She said
that the project would not be injurious to the other properties but would instead enhance their privacy, and
stated that residents in this neighborhood live in a very open environment that would not be made worse
by this project.
Chair Kricensky said that there are many houses that have been improved and expanded. He stated that
this house is smaller than the neighboring houses and the request is small. He said that the hardship was
that they would not be able to expand their house when others in the neighborhood have done so.
Boardmember Johnson said that the hardship and practical difficulty was that the zoning does not fit the
site. He stated that in other communities such as Newport Beach you are allowed to build 50-60% lot
coverage because a large portion of the property is over water.
ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Emberson) that the request for 2308 Mar East Street is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, with the additional condition of approval that the louvered design of the privacy screens will be
reviewed and approved by Planning staff. Vote: 3-0.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
6/7/121
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 12 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 21210; Kristina Wollam and Jonathon Lacey, Owners; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for
reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish more than
50% of an existing house and construct a new 2,302 square foot dwelling. The project would
extend to within 16 feet, 7 inches of the rear property line, which is less than the 19 foot rear yard
setback for this lot. The project would have a lot coverage of 36.9% in lieu of the maximum
30.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-06.
The-applicant is requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling with variances for reduced rear yard
setback and excess lot coverage, on property located at 12 Apollo Road. Currently the property is
improved with a single-story dwelling. As more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls of the dwelling
will be demolished, the application has therefore been deemed a new single family dwelling.
The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,302 square feet, which is below the maximum
permitted gross floor area for the property (2,567 sq. ft.). The proposal would result in lot coverage of
2,708 square feet (36.9%) which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%).
The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage.
In addition, the minimum required rear yard setback for the property is nineteen feet (19'). The proposal
to add an expanded master suite at the rear of the home would encroach into the rear yard setback a
distance of two feet, six inches (2'6") for a reduced rear yard setback of sixteen feet, six inches (16'6").
Therefore a variance has been requested for reduced rear yard setback.
Kristina Wollam, owner, thanked the Board for considering their plans. She said that they were trying to
keep the single-story house in keeping with the neighborhood and this has resulted in a smaller backyard
than they desire. She said that they feel incredibly lucky to be surrounded on every side by friendly
families with children the same ages as hers.
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that the Board often hears proposals from the Belveron community and to
preserve the single-story nature of the neighborhood has often approved building into the setbacks. She
said that this proposal would do exactly that, and the house was tastefully done. She said that the garage
would be fairly close to the street but the main living area would be set back and she therefore did not
have a problem with it. She thought that it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and she could
make the variance findings.
Boardmember Johnson agreed with Vice-Chair Emberson and said that he also noticed the closeness of
the garage to the street. He said that he drove around the neighborhood and saw other examples of the
garage close to the street. He commended the applicant for designing a single-story home with
architecture in keeping with the neighborhood.
Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers and agreed with keeping the house to one story. He
said that the 15 foot setback can be a problem when a truck is blocking the sidewalk, but that would
require changing the setback for everything, and he said that most of the people in that neighborhood who
are expanding are using the 15 foot setback.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
6/17/12
ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Emberson) that the request for 12 Apollo Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 3-0.
4. 40 DELMAR DRIVE: File No. 712029; Ashley Anderson and Jennifer Wang, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single family dwelling.
The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and attached to an existing single-
story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,412 square feet,
resulting in a total floor area of 4,399 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage
space. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-211-29.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 40 Delmar Drive. The project would add a second
story to the house, containing a master bedroom suite, family room and one more bedroom and bathroom.
A new mudroom would be added to the first floor. An existing attached carport would be removed and a
new two-car garage would be added to a different section of the house. Nine new skylights would be
installed.
The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,412 square feet, resulting in a total floor
area of 4,399 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage space, which equals the floor area
ratio for this site. The addition would increase the lot coverage on the site by 157 square feet to 3,762
square feet (15.7%), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone.
Ashley Anderson, owner, said that the house is close to meeting their needs but did not meet everything.
He said there is a lack of formal garage with tight access and small bedrooms. He said that they need to
fix the garage issue by adding a formal garage, and would also like an office and family room space with
more privacy. He said that he and his wife both work from home and need the office space. He hoped that
the materials they have chosen will be pleasing and blend into the hillside. He noted that they are not
asking for any variances or exceptions. He said that they know that the neighbors are sensitive to the
issues created by the second story, which he said would not affect their homes. He said that they also
received objections from homes that are not in the area. He said that they worked with their architect to
explore all options before submitting their plans. He said that they are trying to achieve a healthy buffer to
protect privacy and they decided to add the second story to achieve that. He said that the neighbor at 50
Delmar Drive cut down a mature palm tree that provided screening between the homes, and pointed out
that the majority of the rooms at 50 Delmar would not be impacted by the addition. He thought that it was
fair that they be allowed to do what most of the other homes in the area have already done.
Colleen Mahoney, architect, said that they did a full engineering analysis to put the addition on the home
and keep destruction minimal and very sensitively looked at this house. She said that the house was
remodeled in 2010 and so this would not be a complete tear down and rebuild. She said that she owns a
home in this neighborhood and knows it very well. She described the project as the average of 30, 40, and
50 Delmar Drive in size, setbacks, and height. She said that they dropped the house down as low as they
possibly could. She stated that the average size of the lots for the neighboring homes is over 23,000
square feet and the houses are all around 4,500 square feet. She said that they were attentive to the impact
the addition would have on neighboring homes and there was no way they could build the house without
any impact. She said that the roof pitch would be very low and less than 10 degrees, which was too low
for solar panels. She thought that they had made a significant effort to follow the hillside guidelines and
she asked the Board to scrutinize the photographs to be shown later this evening because they may have
been taken before the story poles were revised.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #S
6/7/12
Boardmember Johnson asked when the palm tree was removed. Ms. Mahoney said that it was removed a
few days after the preliminary story poles were put up. Vice-Chair Emberson asked when the olive trees
were planted and Ms. Mahoney answered that they were planted a few days after the palm tree was
removed.
The public hearing was opened
Julie Wu said that her father built the home in 1996 and showed some of the views that would be
obstructed by the proposed project. She showed photographs of the story poles showing the potential
blockage of views from the bedrooms, family room, and patio of the home.
Peggy Milson-Wu said that she and her husband are retired and are dealing with issues of aging now, and
that her husband has Parkinson's disease. She said that she opposed the addition because it would be too
big and too close to her property. She said that the addition would be visible from all parts of their dining,
kitchen, and living room space. She said that this design would intrude into all of their living areas and
bedrooms and blocks the views of Sausalito, Belvedere Island, and the Golden Gate Bridge. She
described her husband's bedroom as currently his primary living space because of his illness. She said
that the olive trees would grow up to 15-20 feet and should have been discussed with the neighbors before
being planted because they will grow into the upper level view.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked why the palm tree was removed, and Ms. Milson-Wu said that they removed
it to improve their view. She asked the applicant to consider excavating and lowering the roofline.
Jonathan Wu said that he has lived in Tiburon for 50 years, worked here and built a lot of houses here.
He said that when he built his house he was told it was a foot too tall, so he graded the whole lot down
one foot instead of redesigning the house. He said that the addition would cause him to lose all of his
views. He suggested an option to cut back the lower side of the lot and build new space there, which
would create a win-win situation for all. He said that he could support a floor area exception to allow
them to do this, but did not know of another solution.
Mert Lawwil said that he has a view directly over the current roof and he was concerned about the loss of
his view and the view of the Wu's. He said that he had been in his home for 42 years looking at this view
and it would now be obstructed. He hoped that the Board would give some consideration to people who
have lived in the area for a long time.
Noel Issac said that the size of this proposed addition was in proportion to the houses next to it, but said
that when approval was given to those houses the area was wooded. He said that in addition to its size, the
house at 30 Delmar Drive stands out and produces a lot of light pollution. He did not object to additions,
but was concerned that this would be another huge home overlooking the area and would be out of place
on this particular street.
Peter Huang said that he had the same experience as the applicant 3 or 4 years ago when he tried to
renovate the house that could not go higher than the existing roof. He said that they converted storage
basement area into their living space to gain extra space without bothering neighbors. He said that they
invested quite a lot of money in removing dirt and creating interior space. He said that this project was a
surprise and he wanted to share his own experience. He said that they concluded that the Town's actions
were for the best of all of the neighbors.
Thomas Unger said that they bought their house about 4 years ago and the architect was asked to curtail
the plans and set back the addition enough against the hill to ensure their privacy. He said that this
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 10
6/7/12
addition would look right into their entire house including the living room, dining room, and back yard.
He said that there is a potential loss of a lot of privacy for homes on Hilary Drive.
Deborah Diaz said that they live up the driveway and butt up against St. Hilary Church and School. She
said that they purchased their property 14 years ago and made their house work without major
renovations. She said that they would never consider adding to their house and obstructing views. She
said that they trim trees to preserve neighbor's views and said are fine with everyone improving their
home, but if an addition impacts the reasons why a person bought a house then they will lose that when
they sell it. She said that everyone needs to work to make improvements without impacting neighbors'
properties in that way.
Mr. Anderson said that they called Town staff to ask if they are allowed to plant the olive trees. He said
that the soil is unstable in that area and he was glad they did the planting. He said that the potential
impacts to 50 Delmar Drive were overstated. He said that excavation is not possible. He noted that the
staff report says that there would be no impact to 105 Hilary Drive. He said that they minimized the
windows and used frosted glass in that area. He said that the house at 30 Delmar is a shame and they are
not looking to build a house of that size or design.
Ms. Mahoney said that the Wu's house has 600 square feet of windows facing south, and she thought that
it was disingenuous to say that the addition would take primary views from the home. She believed that if
the neighbors want to continue to have views of the bay there are other bedrooms in the house that would
allow him to continue to have views of the bay. She presented the Board with a document showing that
they had kept the building as low as they possibly could. She said that she knows the community quite
well and they are not proposing to do anything like the house at 30 Delmar. She said that they intend to
add the addition over the house and not trigger the full code upgrades that would be required to take the
house down. She said that the project would comply with all zoning requirements. She said that she did
not know how to add an addition to the house that would not intrude into Mr. Wu's space. She said that
the addition was intended to be low key and minimal.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked for ceiling heights in the upper addition, and Ms. Mahoney said that the plate
height would be 9 feet.
Chair Kricensky asked if they looked at putting the second story over the garage instead. Ms. Mahoney
said that they did, but when the house was remodeled recently a new foundation was put in front of the
house and that is what can bear the weight of the second story.
Chair Kricensky asked if the landscape easement counts as side yard setback, and Planning Manager
Watrous said that the County Assessor's office considers it as part of the property.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Johnson said that this was a hard project for him to think about. He pointed out that this is
the last house on the street that wanted to add a second story. He felt that if the second floor could be
pushed further back up the hillside that would make it easier for him to support the project. He thought
that the primary views of 50 Delmar Drive were straight out and not to the side and would not be
impacted, but it was sad that this resulted in a tree issue. He thought that he could get behind a two-story
addition but it would need to nestle better into the hillside and would have less impact if so designed.
Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Johnson and said that it looked like another house was
being added on top of the existing house, which did not follow the contours of the hillside. She liked the
materials, said that the view obstruction at 50 Delmar Drive was a major issue, and thought that the view
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 11
6/7/1?
from Mr. Wu's bedroom was from a primary living space. She did not think the palm tree or the new
olive trees would have hidden the addition. She liked the design of the addition, but not for that site. She
said that the addition needed to be articulated and follow the hillside.
Chair Kricensky said that the massing of the building would work directly against the hillside guidelines.
He said that the two-story corner would accentuate the massiveness. He said that the addition would
affect views and is against the design guidelines. He said that the existing house was like an Eichler
design and the cedar siding is elegant. He stated that the addition would appear to set a large concrete
block on top of the house, and the design felt upside down. He said that the primary problem was the
massing and could work if it were pushed back into the hillside.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to continue the request for 40 Delmar Drive to the July 19,
2012 meeting. Vote: 3-0.
F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #7 OF THE 5/17/12 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2012 meeting as
written. Vote: 3-0.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 12
6/7/12
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7: 00 PM
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Action Minutes - Regular Meeting /74
Design Review Board
June 21, 2012
7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES #9
Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Johnson and Tollini
Absent: Boardmembers Chong
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Harper
OLD BUSINESS
1. 10 CIBRIAN DRIVE: File No. 711124; Diane Lee, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants
propose to construct a 546 square foot addition above the lower level of the existing
house. The project would result in a total floor area of 3,772 square feet. Assessor's
Parcel No. 038-011-40. Approved 4-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
2. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: File No. 712054; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc, Owner;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of exterior alterations to an existing
commercial building for occupancy by a grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market). The
project would modify the existing entrance of the building, parking lot and loading docks
and would install additional rooftop mechanical equipment for the new grocery store.
Assessor's Parcel No. 034-212-18. Approved 4-0
3. 33 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 21214; Brett Mock, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicants propose to
construct a second story addition and a lower story addition to an existing single-story
house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,284 square feet,
resulting in a total floor area of 3,168 square feet. The additions would extend to within
21 feet, 3 inches of the front property line and 12 feet, 9 inches of the side property line,
which are less than the respective 30 foot front yard and 15 foot side yard setbacks
required in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-301-01. Approved 4-0
Action Minutes #9
6/21/12 Design Review Board Meeting
Page 1
4. 87 RANCHO DRIVE: File No. 21211; Terence Andrews, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review to legalize as-built construction of additions to an existing detached
accessory building and walls and fencing, with Variances for reduced side yard setback
and excess wall and fence height. The applicant has constructed a 287 square foot
addition to an existing detached accessory building and also constructed a series of
retaining walls and fences in-the front yard. The addition extends to within 6 feet, 6
inches of the side property line, which is less than the 8 foot side yard setback required in
the R-1 zone. The walls and fences have a maximum height of 12 feet, which is greater
than the 6 foot maximum wall and fence height. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-202-14. [LT]
CONTINUED TO 7/19/12
MINT TTFQ,
5. Regular Meeting of June 7, 2012 Approved 3-0-1 (Tollini abstained)
ADJOURNMENT At 8:50 PM
Action Minutes #9 6/21/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2
/9 0
NOTICE OF MEETING
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2012
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2012
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
NOTICE OF'MEETING
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2012
Ql/
DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY
07o_
NOTICE OF MEETING
CANCELLATION
The regular Town Council Meeting on
July 4, 2012 has been cancelled.
Town Hall will be closed.
0
THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
is scheduled for
WEDNESDAY, July 18, 2012,
in the Town Council Chambers located at
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920.
DIANE CRANE I OPI, TOWN CLERK
Posted at Town Hall
cc: The Ark and Marin Independent Journal