HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2012-09-05TOWN o TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard.
Tiburon, CA 94920
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
INTERVIEWS - (7:10 p.m. & 7:20 p.m.)
Heritage & Arts Commission - One Vacancy
• Francella Hall
• Lee Erickson
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
September 5, 2012
Interviews - 7:10 p.m.
Meeting time - 7:30 p.m.
Councilmember Doyle, Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Vice Mayor
O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this
time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended
discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to
the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future
Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless
a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for
separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item,
please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time.
1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 18, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk
Crane lacopi)
2. Town Council. Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 25, 2012 special meeting (Town Clerk
Crane Iacopi)
3. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of August 1, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk
Crane Iacopi)
4. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of August 15, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk
Crane lacopi)
5. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for period ending July 31, 2012 (Director of
Administrative Services Bigall)
6. 2308 Mar East Street - Adopt resolution granting appeals of Design Review Board
decision to approve a request for site plan and architectural review to construct
additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard
setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception (Associate Planner Tyler)
Applicant: Dr. Peter Wilton
Appellants: Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, David and Kathryn Kulik
AP No. 059-195-01
ACTION ITEMS
1. Appointments to Town Boards, Commissions and Committees - Consider
appointment to fill a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission (Town Clerk Crane
Iacopi)
2. Establish Standards for keeping of Honey Bees and Chickens - Adopt resolution
establishing standards for keeping of honey bees and chickens pursuant to adoption of
ordinance (Community Development Department)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tiburon Redevelopment Successor Agency Actions - Consider_ adoption of an updated
Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project (Town Attorney Danforth/
Director of Community Development Anderson)
2. 440 Ridge Road - Consider appeals of Design Review Board approval of an application for
site plan and architectural review to construct a new single-family dwelling, including
variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height, and a floor area exception
(Planning Manager Watrous)
Applicants: Ridge Road, LLC
Appellants: Lynn & Mark Garay; Fani Hansen & Angela Danadjieva
AP No. 059-082-21
TOWN COUNCIL REPOR
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - August 17, 2012
• Town Council Weekly Digest - August 24, 2012
• Town Council Weekly Digest - August 31, 2012
ADJOURNMENT - In mcmoiy of Irving Rabin
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-
7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to
Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website,
1A,xv7.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least S days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda.
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fraser ed the reguIal mee 'ng of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m.
on Wednes ay, July 18, 2012, in To n Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Collins, Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director
of Community Development Anderson, Director of
Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Chief
Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt Minutes of June 20, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk
Crane Iacopi)
2. Lyford Drive Multi-Modal Parking Project - Recommendation to award the contract for
the Lyford Drive Multi-Modal Parking Lot Project to Michael Paul Company, Inc.
(Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen)
3. Del Mar Neighborhood Street Improvement Project - Recommendation to approve
plans and specifications for the 2012 Del Mar Neighborhood Street Improvement Project
and authorize solicitation of bids (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen)
4. Tiburon Police Association - Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Town of Tiburon and Tiburon Police Association, July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2015
(Director of Administrative Services Bigall)
5. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for period ended June 30, 2012 (Director of
Administrative Services Bigall)
DRAFT /,r---
own Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012 Page I
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through, as written.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Cypress Hollow Landscaping and Lighting District - Conduct protest hearing and
consider adoption of a resolution adopting an assessment for continuation of the district
in fiscal year 2012-13 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall)
Director Bigall gave the report. She said the $378 annual assessment for the property owners in
Cypress Hollow was a continuation of an assessment that originated when the subdivision was in
the County of Marin. She said that the ongoing costs for maintenance of the district by the Town
totaled $16,750.
Director Bigall said that a notice had been mailed to all property owners in accordance with state
law. She said that no protests had been received by staff.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing. There were no comments or protests.
Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution continuing the assessment district.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
2. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to Chickens and Honey Bees and other
amendments - Consider text amendments to Title VI, Chapter 20 (Animals) and Title
IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Town Code) - Introduction and
first reading of ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) - continued
without hearing until August 1, 2012
ACTION ITEMS
1. Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees - Consider appointments of the
following Town Council representatives: a) voting delegate to League of California
Cities Annual Conference; b) representative to Transportation Authority of Marin
Sustainable Communities Strategy Ad Hoc Committee (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi)
In her report, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi described the vacancies and asked Council to consider
making the above appointments.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012
Page 2
MOTION: To appoint Councilmember Fredericks a) as the voting delegate to the League of
California Cities Annual Conference; and b) to reaffirm her appointment as the
Town representative to the TAM SCS ad hoc committee.
Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Collins
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
2. Wildland Fire Agreement - Consider adoption of agreement for fire suppression services
with State of California (Cal Fire) for Angel Island (Town Attorney Danforth)
Town Attorney Danforth said that in 2008, a fire consumed nearly half of the vegetation on
Angel Island before it was brought under control within 24 hours by the combined efforts of the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("Cal Fire"), the Marin County Fire Department and
the Tiburon Peninsula Fire Protection District ("TPD"). She said that while no lives were lost or
structures burned, the firefighting costs totaled $700,000.
In the aftermath of the fire, the Town Attorney said the Town discovered that neither the Tiburon
Fire Protection District nor Cal Fire had Angel Island within its boundaries. She said that Town
staff commenced to find a way to remedy this gap in protection.
Over the past three years, Danforth said Town staff had worked with Cal Fire and the State
Department of Parks and Recreation ("State Parks"), the other parties to the proposed
agreement, to provide fire protection services to Angel Island. She said the Office of
Assemblyman Jared Huffinan had been very helpful in actively facilitating the negotiations.
Under the proposed agreement, Danforth said that Cal Fire would provide fire protection
services to Angel Island for three years, including fire prevention, reporting and suppression,
incident management and public education. Danforth described the terms of the proposed
agreement and said it would cost $17,655.89 in the first year, $18,538.68 in the second and
$19,465.61 in the third, for a total cost of $55,660.18. She noted that there was a one-year
cancellation clause in the contract.
Town Attorney Danforth said staff believes the agreement to be the best available opportunity in
the short run to secure fire protection for Angel Island. For the longer term, she said a possible
legislative solution was being sought that would fund provide State funding to pay the cost of
adding the island to the TFP's territory.
Councilmember Fredericks asked what would happen after the contract expiration date.
Chief Streblow, Cal Fire, responded. He said thereafter, it would become an "assistance by hire"
agreement to be negotiated. He said this type of agreement was for the protection of State
resources and wildland resources that were contiguous with local jurisdictions. He said it would
provide air attack and equipment, and machinery such as bulldozers.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012 Page 3
Chief Streblow noted that Angel Island was unique and there was nothing quite like it [a
contiguous property not under fire district control] in the entire State. He said that before the
2008 fire on Angel Island, he, too, thought the island was under the State's [fire] jurisdiction.
Streblow said the agreement that had been worked out with the Town was one that provided the
services described above and would cost no more than normal protection of this sort.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell, in expressing his appreciation for the services provided, asked for greater
cost breakdown. Chief Streblow that firefighting costs were calculated on a formula based on
high, medium and low dispatch conditions. He said, for instance, that the provision of only air
support in a "low" condition would cost $6,000; $31,000 for a medium condition, and the like.
Streblow noted that the proposed agreement was a "not to exceed" contract (based on averages)
and that the costs would no go higher than described.
Councilmember Collins asked if this was an insurable peril by the Town. Town Attorney
Danforth said that there might be a possibility of obtaining private insurance, however, she said
the longer term solution was to get Angel Island into the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing.
Preston Petty asked to which parties the "not to exceed portion" of the contract pertained. Town
Attorney Danforth said it pertained to the Town's payment [to Cal Fire].
Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell thanked Town Manager Curran and Town Attorney Danforth for their
work in obtaining the agreement. He said that it was a good stop gap measure.
Councilmember Collins thanked the Tiburon Fire Protection District for its services, as well.
Town Manager Curran offered to draft a letter for the Mayor's signature thanking Assemblyman
Huffinan for his assistance. The Council agreed.
Motion: To approve a resolution approving an Agreement with the State Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection and the State Department of Parks and Recreation to
provide fire protection services to Angel Island, and authorizing the Town
Manager to negotiate and execute the final agreement.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
3. Marketing & Communications Task Force Presentation - Report by Downtown
Committee and Marketing & Communications Task Force members on their process and
recommendations regarding downtown revitalization (Mayor Fraser, Councilmember
Collins, Town Manager Curran)
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012
Page 4
Town Manager Curran introduced the item and said the members of the Marketing &
Communications ("M&C") Task Force would make a presentation.
Councilmember Collins said the idea of a task force was first conceived in the aftermath of the
economic downturn of 2008 when the Town was looking for a way to attract more residents and
visitors to downtown Tiburon. Collins noted that in 2010, the Council had appointed a
Downtown Committee comprised of Mayor Fraser and Councilmember Collins, and that after an
extensive community process including two public workshops, a downtown vibrancy report was
issued which recommended the creation of a Marketing & Communications Task Force to
develop a branding message and communications strategy for the downtown.
Mayor Fraser introduced the task force members: Janice Anderson-Gram, Todd Garrett, Michael
Koskie, Hank McWhinney, Colin Probert, and Patrick Sherwood. He noted that each one had
substantial depth and experience in advertising and marketing. Mayor Fraser said the Town was
indeed fortunate to have such experienced and committed volunteers.
Mayor Fraser said that what was being brought forward to the Council tonight was a singular
branding message to promote the Town, and that at a subsequent meeting the Council would
receive a report on a parking and circulation analysis for Downtown Tiburon, the other major
recommendation of the downtown vibrancy report.
Colin Probert and Janice Anderson-Gram presented the research methodology of the task force
and its findings. Mr. Probert said they had taken an "old school" (traditional) approach to
marketing research. Ms. Anderson-Gram said that the task force had worked hard to ensure that
the marketing research was thorough and complete.
Ms. Anderson-Gram said that the Task Force interviewed downtown retailers, restaurateurs and
business owners, the San Francisco and Marin Visitor's Bureaus, as well as service providers like
the Blue & Gold Fleet and San Francisco bicycle rental concessioners. She said all of these
interviewees were eager to help but she said they were also very candid about current problems.
Anderson-Gram said downtown was described by some as a"ghost town;" she said the
interviewees had described the need for more public restrooms, bike racks, and the like.
Anderson-Gram said that it was pointed out that better integration was needed between Ark Row
and Main Street, and better and more consistent hours for businesses, among other suggestions.
Mr. Probert said that the goal was to improve upon what our downtown has to offer; for the
enjoyment of residents and to bring more foot traffic, energy and money to the area. He said that
the Task Force had learned that there were 16 million visitors to San Francisco each year and that
80% of the tourists who came to Marin were "day trippers". He said the Task Force's mission
was to "get the word out" about Tiburon in the form of a solid, long-term marketing plan
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012 Page 5
Ms. Anderson-Gram and Mr. Probert said that the Task Force had been asked to come up with a
marketing message; a timeless, true and powerful brand. Anderson-Gram said the Task Force
built on the idea of what makes Tiburon unique and special; its breath-taking views of mountains
and the Bay; it's biking and hiking trails; the only place in Marin where the Golden Gate Bridge
was also visible from its shore; and that getting here, especially by water, is half the fun. Probert
said that the energy and expertise of marketing partners (such as Blue & Gold Fleet) could be
harnessed and that this, in turn, would create a "virtuous circle" that would bring more visitors to
Tiburon, more revenue, more investment, and the like.
Patrick Sherwood spoke next. He said he was humbled to represent the group; he said that
although it had been hard work, it was also fun, and a privilege to serve on the Task Force.
Mr. Sherwood agreed that the branding message was not just to fill an important need,and that it
was not solely about commerce. He said that the purpose of the message was to create a better
downtown for the benefit of residents. A better downtown is essentially a quality of life issue,
one that makes our life more interesting and validates our reasons for living in Tiburon. He said
the message was both professional and personal. He said that the Task Force wanted to join
forces with the Chamber and speak with one voice. He showed some proposed directional sign
prototypes that would build on icons of the Town, such as the "Coining About" fountain.
Sherwood said the Task Force thought about how to best express the appeal of Tiburon. He
introduced the branding message visually on the screen:
TIBURON
By the Bay
Near. Perfect.
He said it described the Town in an emotional way but that it worked with both sides of the
brain.
Mr. Sherwood said that the Town's website would do the "heavy lifting" to promote the
message, and was the most affordable way to get the message out. He said that the site was a
work in progress, but that it would be a powerful visual experience, with photos showing the
beauty and attractions of Tiburon. He said that key word searches of content to be written would
drive traffic to the site. He said this was an art as well as a science. Sherwood said that the
resident portion of the site would be upgraded as well.
Mr. Sherwood said that branding would only succeed as part of an overall marketing plan and
strategy. He said that the key was to develop and implement such a plan. He turned the
discussion over to Hank McWhinney.
Mr. McWhinney said that the brand message was the core but would include at least 10 strategies
(below) which he went on to describe in more detail:
1. Website
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012 Page 6
2.
Signage
3.
Events
4.
Publicity
5.
Publication of a brochure
6.
Promotions
7.
Personal selling
8.
Marketing partners-
9.
Holiday ads
10. Social media
Town Manager Curran then spoke, saying that the Task Force was willing to continue meeting
to ensure the success of this program. She said the Chamber was also willing to help carry the
load. However, the Town Manager said that there was a substantial workload and that for a
successful outcome, a concerted push was needed in the coining year.
Curran described some examples of the work load-1) to develop content for the website that
would be responsive to Google and other search engines; 2) to establish a framework in which to
work with hotel concierges and to develop collateral materials; 3) to delineate the roles of the
Chamber and the Town and to "up our game" for a vital, successful partnership; and 4) to
develop projects and programs and momentum with which to work with the marketing partners.
The Town Manager said that someone was needed to run with this ball and she said the Town
had set aside funds in the current budget to hire a part-time contract person for one year. She
said that the Council was not being asked to endorse a specific proposal tonight.
Mayor Fraser said the Task Force had completed its initial mission, to create a branding message
and marketing strategy. He said it now sought the endorsement of the Town Council to move
ahead with this program. He said the Task Force was proud of its work; he thanked the
community for participating and contributing to the process.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell also thanked the Task Force and all the people who had participated in
the process. He said he knew little of marketing strategies but that this seemed to be the right
direction to move in.
O'Donnell asked about the Town's hotel tax and who received it. Town Manager Curran said
that all of it (2%) went to the Marin Visitor's Bureau at the behest of the two hotels in Town
[through the formation of the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District]. O'Donnell
asked whether these funds might be redirected (to local marketing efforts). Ms. Curran said that
the funds were not the Town's to control; she said that it might be possible to redirect these funds
with the consent of the hoteliers, but that currently, the funds were assessed pursuant to State
Law which very specifically proscribed their use.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he loved the downtown fountain and the prototype signs; he said the
concept combined the new and the old. He also agreed with and liked the idea of unified signage
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 AN 18, 2012 Page 7
throughout the Town. The Vice Mayor said he was not sure about the "perfect" part of the
branding message and that he was a little taken aback by it.
Councilmember Doyle said he liked the branding message. He said that this was his business and
that what he had learned was that the hardest thing to do is to make something seem simple.
Doyle said he liked how simple the message was; he said "it says so much more" and makes you
think about it which makes it even more interesting. He said the message was easy to remember.
He said that he knew how much effort it took to arrive at this point. He gave kudos to the Task
Force.
Councilmember Fredericks also thanked the members of the Task Force, stating that the work
was masterful. She said it was also apparent that they had fun doing the work.
Councilmember Collins thanked former Mayor Tom Gram for championing the "Coming About"
fountain and making it a reality.
Mayor Fraser opened the item to public comment.
Mike Gornet, former President of the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, asked whether
landlords were represented in the marketing research. He agreed that the mix of downtown
businesses was eclectic and that the hours were not perfect; he asked how consistency could be
attained and whether the Town could somehow influence the mix of businesses through an
ordinance, or some other [zoning] mechanism.
Mayor Fraser said that the Marketing & Communications Task Force had spoken with all of the
downtown property owners and that they had "stayed connected." Town Manager Curran noted
that Mrs. Zelinsky wanted to be at tonight's meeting but had another commitment and sent her
regrets.
Steve Sears thanked the Task Force for doing the "heavy lifting." He said the branding message
was "brilliant" and the marketing strategy was "fabulous". He said that moving forward, all 10
items needed to be dealt with one at a time. He said that he was committed to work with the
Town over the next year to achieve the results.
Mr. Sears said that the Chamber's director was also "ready to go," but he said there was a lot to
do which would require more than just one representative from the Town and one from the
Chamber. Sears said it would also take the participation of the landlords and the merchants,
many of whom were not active in the Chamber.
Jim Allen, Belvedere Land Company, past Chamber President, said that most of the marketing
ideas presented had been considered by the Chamber but that there was a lack of motivation,
funding or money to do them. He said that support was sorely needed.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012 Page 8
Allen said he liked the signage and thought it was very distinctive; said it should be used for
everything, including shops. He said it should be made available for wide use and that it could
help implement the branding message.
Mr. Allen asked who the Town's "point person" would be for the effort in the short term. Mayor
Fraser said that Town Manager Curran was the one.
Mr. Allen commended the Task Force and the Council for a great team effort.
Gary Lucas, current Chamber President, echoed the remarks of Mr. Sears and Mr. Allen. He, too,
thanked the Council, the Task Force, and the Town Manager. He said he thought the message
was "just perfect" and a breath of fresh air.
Klaus Meinberg, former downtown restaurant owner and current retail business owner, said the
questions that he got from tourists all the time were, "what can we do or what is there to see
here"? He said attention should be paid to answering these questions. He suggested more
signage for visitors who come off the ferry "by the hundreds." He said better signage was needed
to direct people to restrooms; said the branding message should be on signs at the Oakland and
San Francisco airports.
Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Collins thanked the members of the Task Force and Mayor Fraser, for his
leadership. He also thanked Task Force member Todd Garrett for his contributions, even though
he did not have an oral report tonight.
Councilmember Collins thanked Town Manager Curran for her tireless efforts and for her ability
to create results at "warp speed"; he described her as a "one-woman crew". Mayor Fraser echoed
these comments. He also thanked other members of the Town's support staff, particularly Town
Clerk Iacopi and Receptionist Joan Palmero.
Mayor Fraser asked what the direction was from the Council. The Council was unanimous in its
message: "Full speed ahead."
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
None.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - June 22, 2012
• Town Council Weekly Digest - June 29, 2012
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 July 18, 2012 Page 9
• Town Council Weekly Digest - July 6, 2012
• Town Council Weekly Digest - July 13, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #13 -2012 AN 18, 2012 Page 10
cc_ z
TOWN COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fraser ca t` e specia eting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:10 p.m.
on Wednesd ,July 251 2012, at t e Del Mar School Gymnasium, 105 Avenida Miraflores,
Tiburon, Cali is 9492
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Collins, Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Community Development Anderson,
Planning Manager Watrous, IT Coordinator
Monterichard, Police Captain Hutton, Police Chief
Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 1501 & 1505 Tiburon Boulevard: Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project
- (Director of Community Development Anderson; Planning Manager Watrous)
Review and Consider for Approval the Site Plan and Architectural Drawings for the
Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project, a proposal to construct 16,000
square feet of additions; File #S2012-07; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town
of Tiburon, Owners/Applicants; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-92, 93, & 94 and a
portion of 058-171-62; and
Consider authorizing the Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment
extending the 2007 Agreement to Convey Real Property between the Town of Tiburon
and the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency involving approximately 16,000 square feet of
land located behind the existing Library building; Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-62
(portion)
Mayor Fraser introduced the item and ground rules for the hearing. He said the matter was of
great interest to the community; he asked that people be respectful of what others had to say and
refrain from applause or acknowledgment of their comments. He also stated that it was his
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 1
intention to stop the meeting at 11 p.m., and possibly continue the public hearing. However,
Mayor Fraser noted that everyone who wanted to would be allowed to speak.
The Mayor said that if there was time after the Council conducted its review of the architectural
drawings, and the public hearing, the Council would also consider an extension of an agreement,
approved earlier this year, for conveyance of land by the Town to the Library.
Director of Community Development Anderson gave the staff report. He said that the
Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency proposed an expansion of its existing 10,500 square-foot
Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library building. He said the expansion would increase the floor area
of the building by 16,000 square feet to a total of 26,500 square feet. Anderson said that
environmental review was completed and initial legislative approvals for the project (general
plan amendment, rezoning, master plan and precise plan amendment) were granted in November
2011.
Director Anderson said that in February 2012, the Town Council adopted an ordinance
establishing streamlined review and decision-making procedures for this project, vesting the
review in the Town Council. He said this review is to include the building additions,
landscaping, parking and other ancillary improvements associated with the project.
The Director said that in March 2012, the Town Council received a presentation of "interim"
drawings that depicted a reduction in the total size of the proposed additions by approximately
1,000 square feet compared to the conceptual drawings approved in 2011. At that meeting,
Anderson said a majority of Town Council members indicated that it was timely to file the
application for review of the site plan and architectural drawings; he said the Library Agency
filed that application on June 4, 2012.
Director Anderson said that he would leave it up the applicants to describe the project application
in more detail during their presentation. He summarized it as follows:
The proposed library expansion would consist of two components, an area of one-story addition
and an area of two-story addition, for a total of 16,000 square feet of additional floor area. The
second-story addition would be 6,000 square feet, while the first floor additions would total
10,000 square feet. The additions would extend out from the existing library into the area
currently occupied by the parking lot between the Library and Tiburon Town Hall, and also
toward Tiburon Boulevard in front of the existing library building. The highest roof ridge of the
second story addition would be the same height as the existing library building.
The Director said the Town Council certified the EIR for this project on October 5, 2011. On
November 2, 2011, the Town Council approved the legislative applications for a Library
expansion in the proposed location; imposed conditions and mitigation measures on the project;
rejected all of the other project alternatives and locations analyzed in the EIR; and made findings
of overriding consideration regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable environmental
effects of the project. He said the site plan and architectural drawings currently before the Town
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 2
Council are consistent with these earlier findings and decisions regarding environmental impact.
Therefore, no additional environmental review is required at this time.
Anderson said the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project analyzed consistency with
applicable General Plan goals and policies. He said the Town Council approved the application
for general plan amendment for the project on November 2, 2011, and said that the Town
Council found that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, was consistent with the goals and
policies of the Tiburon General Plan. Anderson said that because the site plan and architectural
drawings are substantially consistent with the approved 2011 conceptual drawings (other than a
redesign of the addition intended to reduce square footage and view blockage), CEQA does not
require any additional analysis of general plan consistency beyond that set forth in Condition No.
1 of Resolution 55-2011, which states in part as follows:
The building design and architecture shown on said drawings shall be revised to reduce
the excessive mass, bulk and scale as viewed from Tiburon Boulevard. These revisions
will likely require square footage reductions prior to approval of detailed site plan and
architectural drawings by the Town Council. The Town Council intends that these design
and architectural revisions will reduce the significant view blockage impact of the
Tiburon Ridge from Tiburon Boulevard.
The Director said that a primary determination to be made during Town Council review of this
application is whether this condition of approval has been adequately satisfied.
Anderson said that Ordinance 537 N. S. establishes the Town Council's review procedures for
this project and exempts the project from all provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. This
ordinance states that the Council "shall utilize those guiding principles, design review guidelines,
purposes and special considerations that the Planning Commission and Design Review Board
would have normally applied to applications for a conditional use permit and site plan and
architectural review absent the adoption of this streamlined processing procedure."
The Director said that in the absence of Ordinance 537 N. S., the Planning Commission would
have applied the items contained in Section 16-52.040 B. (Purposes) and the factors contained in
Section 16-52.040 D. (Special Considerations for Conditional Use Permits) in its review of the
use. Similarly, the Design Review Board would have applied the principles contained in Section
16-52.020 H. (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan & Architectural Review
Applications), and the Hillside Design Guidelines and Downtown Design Handbook in its review
of the drawings. Economic and/or financial matters are not among the items listed. He said that a
summary of the project's relationship to these items was listed on pages 4 through 18 of the
written staff report.
Anderson said that there was one other action before the Council, that of the conveyance of real
property. He said the agreement was set to expire in July 2013 and staff recommended that the
term be extended to coincide with the Design Review permit, if granted.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 3
Finally, Anderson said an approval of the application would also require the Library to apply for
encroachment permits from the Town of Tiburon as well as the California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans), and that all mitigation measures, including adequate parking, must be
met prior to receiving a building permit.
Mayor Fraser asked if there were any questions for staff from the Council.
Councilmember Fredericks said it would be her preference for the Mayor to close the public
hearing tonight; she said that a continued public hearing would raise questions of fairness, such
as who would be allowed to speak at a subsequent meeting.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he agreed with Councilmember Fredericks that the Council should
strive to conclude the public hearing tonight.
Councilmember Collins asked staff whether public hearing notices had been sent to property
owners within 300 feet of the project. Director Anderson said that they had.
Architect Andy Sohn gave a power point presentation of the project application that included an
historical overview of the various designs. He said that in March 2004, an EIR had been
conducted and a Negative Declaration completed for an 18,000 square foot expansion. Between
2004 and 2007, he said the Library Agency had conducted community meetings about the
proposed expansion and had also commissioned a needs assessment.
In 2007, Mr. Sohn said his firm, EHDD, began design work on the project which explored two
approaches, the first being an expansion to the rear of the existing building, and the second being
a "civic center" connection, the design concept finally chosen. He reviewed the reasons for
selecting this as the preferred design. One of the reasons, according to the architect, was that the
Town's General Plan (updated during that time) called for a better streetscape (and parking in the
rear). He said the second reason was that the Library was precluded from building over the sewer
easement at the rear of the property. He said that there were arguments for and against the
expansion to the rear, but that the issue of spanning the [sewer] main, as well as the impact on
the Railroad Marsh from such an expansion made the "civic center" design preferable.
During the EIR process, the proposed 18,000 square foot expansion included a 32-foot distance
between the Town Hall and the Library; he said that the Alternate D 17,000 square foot design
previously presented to the Council created a 48-foot distance between the buildings, and the
refined Alternate D [in the current plans] included the 48-foot corridor at its narrowest point, but
also rotated the building to increase the view corridor. He said that these cumulative reductions
over time reduced the project from the 21,400 square foot addition in 2007, to the 16,000 square
foot addition currently under review. The current design and refinements improved pedestrian
access to Zelinksy Park and from the Children's Library, reduced the hazard of automobile traffic
between the two buildings, and did not block the view to the ridgeline, according to the architect.
He showed slides from different angles-from the front, side and back; and a bird's eye view of
the design which he said was similar to viewing a cardboard model.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 4
Mr. Sohn said the building elevation was 38-feet, six inches off grade compared to the 35-foot
Town Hall (with 54-foot clock tower). He said the building materials would be the same as the
current building; he also said it would be a LEED-certified building, designed for daylight and
views, low water usage, and the like.
Mr. Sohn then reviewed the floor plans. He said the design was organized around the lobby for
circulation to the other areas. He showed the Children's Library with patio, and the new
Founder's Room which he said would be dividable, with a conference room, and accessible
[opened out onto] to the plaza. He said the adult services and the nave areas were largely
unchanged. He said there was a "tech" center off the nave, as well as the administrative services.
Mr. Sohn said that a large part of the building could be utilized after hours, and had access to
restrooms. He said the murals in the current Children's Library would be reapplied in the new
room. He said the upstairs of the design would house a quiet reading room, a Teen Library with
a variety of seating types, and a staff station.
Mr. Sohn turned the program over to the Landscape Architect, Manuela King of Mill Valley. Ms.
King described the project as "more than an expansion;" she said it would create a new gateway
to downtown, a new public plaza, and garden promenade. She described the plans for relocated
parking; also the outdoor public areas with "seat steps" in the front, a "stramp" (gently-sloping
ramp to the front entrance), and tables and chairs for patrons along the side near the proposed
bookstore/cafe. She said the beloved herons [statue] would be relocated.
Ms. King said the relocation of Zelinksy Park [for the parking lot] would result in a larger park
and a habitat control fence to the Railroad Marsh and that drainage would go into bioswales. She
said that the landscaping would utilize low water usage plantings.
Mr. Sohn then showed some additional photo modeling of the proposal, along with a video
animation showing the approach to the Library along Tiburon Boulevard, showing street frontage
and views from that approach.
In summary, Mr. Sohn said the proposed design was based on present as well as future needs of
the Library, and that the Library Agency had responded to the Town's request for reduced visual
impacts.
Bonnie Spiesberger, Chair of the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency, said the current Library
experienced severe overcrowding and a lack of space for its 4,000 visitors per week. She said the
agency had listened to the Town Council and had taken significant steps and made numerous
revisions to its plans, reducing space as a result. She said that the Agency's needs assessment had
helped determine the design based on function and utility. She said the design is sensitive and
respectful to the surrounding areas, and enhances the interior as well as the exterior vistas of the
Railroad Marsh and Old St. Hilary church. She said the (expanded) Library will become a vital
and vibrant use of public space and would draw people to downtown Tiburon. She said the
Agency had been working on this expansion for 10 years; she said the style matches the existing
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 5
building and was in compliance with the Town's General Plan. She urged the Council's prompt
approval of the application.
Mayor Fraser asked if the Council had any questions of the applicant.
Councilmember Collins asked from what location on Tiburon Boulevard the slide/drawing No.
20 had been taken. The architect said it was from the location of current [landmarks] plaque.
With regard to a question about slide/drawing No. 28, the architect said that he could not say for
sure what exact location its perspective was from.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked about the distance from the street to the northwest edge of the
Founder's Room in the drawings. The architect said that it was 19-feet, six inches from the curb;
similarly, he said the closest point from Town Hall to the street was 18-feet, six inches.
Councilmember Doyle asked to see the first part of the animation again and asked the architect to
stop on a segment that showed the view corridor from the perspective of a car approaching on
Tiburon Boulevard. The segment showed two large (sycamore) trees and other trees and
shrubbery which appeared to obstruct the view of Old St. Hilary. Councilmember Fredericks
asked if these were existing trees. The landscape architect said that the trees along Tiburon
Boulevard would be retained and the trees in Zelinsky Park would be relocated to the new park.
Councilmember Fredericks pointed out that some of the proposed landscaping shown in the
drawings (in the plaza area) appeared to be in the view corridor.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing. Over 60 people spoke.
1. Sharon Bass, representing READ, not in favor of current expansion, said Library really
had no real public meetings other than with members of their own group; asked for
postponement of decision to try to reach compromise.
2. Kathy Silverfield, person helping READ with on-line petition, suggested the idea of a
town-wide vote on the expansion; said that READ had gathered more signatures in less
time [than the petition in favor]; suggested delay of decision because once the ball starts
to roll it is difficult to stop.
3. Susan Wolfe, complemented the architect and Library Agency on their work; said that
change was difficult; also read a letter from Barry and Jane Moss stating the critical need
for public facilities like the library which would meet the test of time; that it was in the
public interest to approve the project.
4. Jacki Schafer, Assistant to the Library Director, said the plans represented years of work
by Library staff, the Library Board, experts, and the community, and that the current
design met the needs identified by this process; used the analogy of dressmaking, stating
that the Library design would not "fit" if it were shrunk or made smaller.
5. Dellie Woodring, stated the expansion was too big and blocked important views which
was in conflict with the Town's General Plan; showed a photo taken from the location of
the plaque on Tiburon Boulevard which she had enhanced to show the view blockage of
Old St. Hilary church; asked the Council to postpone until a plan was developed that was
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 6
acceptable to the community as a whole.
6. Mel Owen, recommended approval of the project.
7. Doug Scott, Cove Road, new to the neighborhood, said he and his family love the library
but once the story poles went up and blocked the view of the hillside, changed their
opinion of the expansion.
8. Lloyd Silverman, said he had a different perspective on views and complained that there
were too many parking lots visible on Tiburon Boulevard; said that the community was
suffering growing pains with this expansion; said the Library would provide a sanctuary
and a view of the future for our children, not just a view of a hillside.
9. Julie Coffin, said she was involved in the first Library effort which was build on a modest
budget without embellishments; said this project was very disappointing and needed to be
scaled down;
10. Mary Defenderfer, self-described "oldster who welcomes challenges and is looking
forward" said there was a need for the expansion to make room for the influx of children
in the community, as well as other programs; said she was proud of the Library, staff and
current plans.
11. Connie Peirce, Cove Road, said she strongly opposed this expansion as excessive, too big
and too tall for the site, and out of scale for a residential area; stated it was antithetical to
what the community stands for, that is, a unique small-town feel and identity; said the
expansion should be scaled back and sited behind, or under the roof.
12. Enoch Callaway, citing his background as a psychiatrist, said the plans reminded him of
an edifice complex.
13. Roy Crumrine, said the petition opposing the plans had close to 600 signatures; said there
was silliness in the idea of a coffee shop and other features to the plans; said the schools
should cooperate with adding hours to their libraries so that students had a place to go to
study.
14. Rita Fink, said the opposition encountered in 1990 to building the Library is the same as
the opposition to the current expansion; said the needs assessment contained the answers
to all the questions raised about the expansion; said she supported the future of the
Library.
15. Becky Pringle, said it was a good idea to consider compromise because the proposed
building was too big and out of scale with other buildings in the area; said the Library had
secret plans for community service activities, that the expansion would block views of the
open space which residents had not finished paying for; said a smaller footprint should be
considered for many reasons, including energy conservation [reducing carbon footprint].
16. Ric Postle, Library Agency boardmember, read from his July 23 letter to the Council;
suggested that the Council's deliberations should be based on the facts contained in the
[Katharine Page] needs assessment; said that opinions about how to reduce the size
seemed arbitrary; said he never had noticed the view corridor the whole time he had
driven past the Library, but said that the view would be enhanced from the new park in
the rear of the project.
17. Bill Smith, 43-year resident, said he had seen all the major projects on the Peninsula; said
he agreed with Mr. Postle re the view; said his wife also served on the Board and agreed
with the needs assessment findings; suggested listening to the experts and trusting their
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 7
judgment.
18. Ann Aylwin, Reed Union School District representative to the Library Board, wanted to
give a voice to the many families on the Peninsula who are excited about the expansion
plans; said the kids and teens really needed the space; asked the Council do support the
project and build them a library.
19. Steve Silberstein, Belvedere, said we were lucky to have the Library but that it was too
small; said the expansion plans were beautiful and that we should get going on it.
20. Steve Herzog, Superintendent, Reed Union School District, spoke on behalf of the Board
of Trustees who had voted on June 19 to support the expansion; said it was consistent
with their mission to educate the community; said that schools were really under siege
with regard to the State budget and that they relied on public libraries; noted RUSD had
grown by 30% in recent years.
21. Eric Artman, commented that architects and engineers always want to build more; said
the current proposal offered no specific suggestions for a reduction of the building size;
also challenged the integrity of the process by stating that the Council had waived story
poles and had voted on a design under the guise of holding a public workshop; suggested
this might result in a "house-cleaning".
22. Linda Tripp, suggested the formation of a task force to work on the needed expansion of
our library; said parking was an outstanding issue; that an 150% expansion only netted
four new parking spaces; that the two handicap spaces will be dangerous; that the latest
census said there had been a 40% increase in population of 60+ years and that warranted
even more safe, handicap parking in future.
23. Ellie Bloch, 40-year resident, said she served on the Marin Commission on Aging and the
California Senior Legislature; concurred with the previous speaker and noted that there
was no parking for frail seniors nearby in the plans; said the majority of people in the
audience tonight were over the age of 66.
24. Lane Sorrelle, said it was a professional, well-thought-out design; said the Library was
the one place where everyone in the community comes together; encouraged the Council
to take this giant step forward and increase the sense of community.
25. Victoria Fong, librarian by profession, said she loves libraries but that the plans needed
more public input; said she never received a notice or mailing; said she was Library
Agency Chair at the time of the needs assessment but that private funding does not entitle
the use of space; suggested that the public might want to spend money to fund libraries at
the schools; encouraged more listening and compromise.
26. Larry Drew, commented on how little attention was being paid to the needs of the Library
staff, said they had collaborated with the architects and design professionals; said he
believed the needs based on their input.
27. Janice Anderson-Gram, said she was excited about the idea of a public plaza; said she
was on the initial planning committee for the Library and was a co-founder of the film
series at the Library; said this program was always overbooked; said the design was well
thought out and that the expansion would encourage people to come to downtown
Tiburon.
28. Ann Davis, 44-year resident, wholeheartedly endorsed the expansion but not the massive
proportion; said she understood the arguments about demographics but said that
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 8
demographics don't last; said the plans would change the approach to our Town and the
vistas; said she was concerned about the divisiveness in the community; recommended
mending some fences.
29. Steve Sears, 35-year resident, said he was in favor of the expansion and that the aspect of
the Library as a community center was important; agreed that it would bring people
downtown; said the design was beautiful and that it would be a fabulous addition to
Town; said he remembered the old "wars" over Town Hall but that it was better because
it was in that location.
30. Gerry Silverfield challenged the 4,000 visitors a week figure; suggested separating
``needs" from "wants"; questioned the need for the [large] expansion if a recreation center
was also being built; said that the same expert performed a needs study in Sausalito and
Larkspur and that in the latter, she only recommended a 12,000 square foot library.
31. Diana Nhuch, not present but Jacki Schafer read her note endorsing the expansion on
behalf of her daughter and other teenagers.
32. Terry Hennessy, former mayor and member of the Town Council in 1996 at the time the
Town donated the land to the Library, said only three former mayors supported this
expansion; said that Town Hall would no longer be the focal point and that time should
be spent to balance out the size of Town Hall versus the Library; said the expansion was
too large, and should be in a different location.
33. Eric Schoenberg submitted a photo into the record of the story poles taken from uphill
behind the Library; said they looked very small from that perspective; said he supported
the expansion as presented and said there were too many parking lots fronting Tiburon
Boulevard.
34. Genny Chapman, said she was opposed to the plans, as presented; said that it would be
difficult to keep an eye on children in the Library in such an enormous space.
35. Anne Briggin, Belvedere, said the expansion was way too big; disagreed with the claims
of overcrowding; suggested maybe using other locations for some of the uses.
36. Tom Gram said he supported the design presented by the architect; said he liked the idea
of a civic plaza and promenade; said that Zelinsky Park was underutilized and that the
new configuration would complement the fountain plaza at the other end of this stretch of
downtown; said this was a great opportunity to revitalize the frontage along Tiburon
Boulevard; encouraged the Council to do something spectacular for the community.
37. Carol Benet, 42-year resident, said she wholeheartedly endorsed the architectural design
that met all the needs of the community; said that continued discussion was a waste of
time; said that the schools were now facing the consequences of selling off school sties
and not planning for future expansion.
38. Hal Schmidt, 52-year resident, said he had installed the A/V systems in the Library and
Town Hall; said he had been asked to investigate the possibility of conferencing between
the Town Hall and the Founder's Room; said that it was possible through Marin Net; said
he loved the Library the way it is.
39. Ms. Anyu Silverman, user of the Library for over nine years, said it was a social gathering
spot but that there was no room for teens and they were pushed into a corner; said that
they deserved a Library to meet their needs.
40. Diane Lynch, 25-year resident, concurred with the Borden letter regarding comparable
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 9
square footage of libraries in other, larger communities; said that the building would be
too much for the size of the lot and was out of character, and too urban, for our
downtown; said that the process had been secretive and should have been inclusive;
suggesting an audit of the Library's finances and postponing the decision until consensus
could be reached.
41. Carol Forell, said she loves the Library and liked the 2004 design idea approved by the
Town; said the current plan was too big, too tall, and too close to Tiburon Boulevard;
asked how the construction would be staged; said the planning process had taken place
behind closed doors and needed an open debate.
42. Lynn Feinerman, 20-year resident, said she too loved the Library but said that parking
would not be near the entrances and would be a problem for seniors; asked where the
project boundary would be and whether parking might be expanded to the detriment of
the Railroad Marsh; said that in Mill Valley, the streets around the Library were clogged
from patron parking.
43. Joan Bergsund, former mayor and Town Council member, said she was not opposed to
expansion but rather to the enormity of the project; said the current library was a jewel;
said the expansion created too many problems and unhappy people; said the on-line
READ petition had 540 signers and that the Library Agency should acknowledge the
points raised by the opponents to the project; said the expansion must represent "our very
best work".
44. Margaret Jones, said the Library had accomplished so much in its 15 years and
acknowledged architect Jim Levorsen for holding the initial steering committee together;
said the proposed expansion raised public policy issues-a divided community which
suggested that the proposal should be sent back to the Board and beginning a planning
process that would include all people who wanted to have a voice; and before turning it
over to a foundation that was counting on raising the money.
45. Tom King, asked what the dilemma and to let the Library expand; said that size and
money were issues in many communities but not here; said that Library is the most
important building in any town and that a large library should be a badge of honor.
46. Joanne Norman agreed with the previous speaker; asked why there was an argument over
the expansion; said that kids and teens are our future.
47. Ron Helow, Library Boardmember, said that he, too, had questions about the size of the
project but had since studied it in depth and had received rational, logical answers to his
questions; that the needs analysis had been extensive and was done by a reputable firm
and had been updated over time; that this was not Larkspur and that population was only
one factor in considering the expansion.
48. Ann Bolger, Belvedere, said the design was for a beautiful, integrated structure, said that
history of the process was compelling and that this represented a mature design; that it
addressed issues of overcrowding; that the building had bee too small since its inception;
that the needs assessment is concordant with the existing [population] trends.
49. Ann Harrison, 12-year resident, said her family was well educated but not wealthy and
that they found public spaces welcome; said she strongly and wholeheartedly endorsed
the expansion; that the Library was the heart of our community; that children needed
more places to read, learn and study.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 10
50. Bill Kuhns, Library Boardmember and former chair, said he supported the plans before
the Council and that the Foundation would be successful, however, people needed to
know what a project looked like before they would support it.
51. Bob Peirce, Cove Road, said the plans were out of scale with the character of the Town
and were inconsistent and inconsiderate of the neighbors; said the architects had stated
that they did not consider how they were impacted; suggested challenging the Library to
use the existing roof space and creative engineering to come up with a [more compact]
design; suggested compromise and addressing the concerns of the community.
52. Susan Wolfe, read a note from Robert Wolfe saying that he wholeheartedly supports the
Library expansion and was a regular attendee at Tuesday and Thursday events; said he
could not hear or find room at many events.
53. Ruth Carlson--Mary Defenderfer said she had to leave but was in favor of Library.
54. Charles Auerbach, 56-year resident of Belvedere, spokesman for the previous Library
Steering Committee, echoed Margaret Jones' praise of Jim Levorsen, said he believed in
public input and had attended dozens of meetings at which the Library and architect had
listened; said that through this long process, they had made a better design; corrected a
previous speaker's judgment that they were planning a coffee shop-said it's a cart, and
not a threat to any downtown merchants; said that the bookstore was a successful
operation and a better way to do it than the current way [off-site].
55. Stephen Wanat, 36-year resident, architect and urban designer, applauded the removal of
parking between the Library and Town Hall, said this was a step in the right direction and
that parking in the rear was good; however, he said that parking was a serious problem
which should be addressed; also asked if people would have to walk all the way around
from the back to attend an event in the Founder's Room at night; said there was also a
problem with massing of the eastern, two-story portion that was over-powering and way
too big; said the existing building was a beautiful building.
56. Gayla Edwards, one-year resident, said it was a dynamic community that complimented
the Library staff, said the Library enhanced her "home" office.
57. Joan Don, 36-year resident, Vice President of the Library Foundation, said that in April
1996 few could conceive of what a success the Library had become; said the expansion
would address the deficiencies; asked where cuts could be made; recommended relying
on the advice of the experts for space planning.
58. Jim Malott, architect and author of the Hillside Design Guidelines, said these guidelines
should be used in reviewing the Library application; showed some alternative drawings of
his own which he said demonstrated that the original Library had been built ten feet
higher necessary [to create the nave];said this was a classic architectural mistake and
resulted in a lot of unused space; said that the top 10 feet could be changed dramatically;
asked the audience to envision two buildings the size of the Del Mar gym side by side in
considering the scope of the Library's proposed design; said the building should not be
built to this scale; also said that it was a long way to the parking lot, as well.
59. Mo Newman, said she had supported the expansion but said that it would take away the
last unobstructed view of the Open Space; asked what the point of having open space was
if you couldn't really see it; said the narrowness of the walkway [corridor] was not really
shown in the presentation; asked why the CVS space couldn't be used, which already had
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 11
existing parking; said she had withdrawn her support of the project which would form "a
wall" along Tiburon Boulevard.
60. Scott Nirenberski, Belvedere, said the expansion was an investment in the future, said the
community should be thankful to have such an asset and not to pick it apart; said the
Library should be larger than the Town Hall.
61. Allan Bortel, 43-year resident, 10 years on the Marin Commission on Aging, and former
Library Agency Boardmember, said that seniors like to read and socialize; said the
number of seniors and kids were growing; said he was on the board during the first needs
assessment and became convinced it was right; said that only one person came to a public
meeting in the six years he served on the board; said that the designs had gotten better
over time and that the expansion would be a tribute to the cultural and intellectual life of
the community.
62. Nancy O'Neill, said the job of the Council was to ensure that the process was complete,
consider the case, and decide; said there had been years of discussion and ample
opportunity for input; that the opposition was not a representative group and that what
was missing was the voice of the kids who wanted books and a place to go; asked the
Council to make a decision, to relay on the input of staff, and not delay.
63. Daphne Nhuch, 15-year-old sophomore at Redwood High School, said she had a passion
for reading and that the Library was her favorite place; spoke on behalf of teen patrons of
the Library; said the expansion was brilliant.
64. John Scarborough, 23-year resident of Belvedere, former self-described skeptic, now in
favor, says a decent compromise would be hard to achieve and that there had been 24
public hearings; asked the Council to vote affirmatively for the project.
Mayor Fraser asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on the subject. No one came
forward. Mayor Fraser announced that the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Fraser gave the Library time for rebuttal.
Attorney Riley Hurd spoke on behalf of the Library. He rebutted the comment that there had been
little or no ability for the public to have input into the design process. He said that the comments
he heard about the dearth of public hearings were usually made during public hearings.
He said that an issue had been raised as to the purpose of the Library; an issue of whether the
Library is a library or a community center. He said that one way to think about this is to describe
the library as the center of the community rather than a community center. He said that an
editorial in the Marin Independent Journal described it as a place that "brings people together";
Mr. Hurd said the purpose of the meeting tonight was design review of the Library's submitted
plans. He said that the issues of parking would be worked out as the plan progressed; he said that
the ramp [in front] was required by the American with Disability Act (ADA); he said that to "buy
into" Mr. Malott's design review comments would be a mistake. Mr. Hurd said the Council
should not listen to perceived threats and instead take the opportunity to be the Council that
approved the Library expansion now, and for the future.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 12
Mayor Fraser said he was prepared to adjourn the meeting at 11 p.m., as intended, and begin
deliberations at a subsequent meeting. He noted that many members of the public had already left
the meeting and he said that he would prefer to conduct the deliberations with everyone possible
present. A majority of the Council said they would prefer to "soldier on".
The Mayor called for a 10=minute recess.
Mayor Fraser opened the Council deliberation by sharing a few thoughts on the process. He
thanked everyone for coming and participating tonight, noting that this was an example of
democracy in action. He said that the Library application was an application of great significance
and he reviewed part of the history and process of review already undertaken by the Council. He
said that the Council had taken the necessary actions to enable it to sit as the Design Review
Board for this review. He said that the focus of the Council was also to provide leadership and
support to enhance the process of reviewing a community asset, for seniors, children, and the
future. He said that the question was one of how the expansion impacts the community, and how
to bring forward an outcome that is fair and balanced, one where there are no winners or losers.
Mayor Fraser noted that this was the first time the Council had seen the completed application, as
well as story poles for the project. He suggested that the Council evaluate the application very
carefully and perhaps amend it, if desired. He said the community has an interest in what the
Council decides and that it was clear that the community was not united. The Mayor pointed out
that while some thought nothing should be done, a majority supports enhancing and expanding
the Library in some fashion. He said the issue was about the degree of expansion. He noted that
passionate opinions on all sides had been expressed.
Mayor Fraser encouraged the Council to "get it right" and that this was an opportunity for
divergent voices to unite. He said there was strength in unity and the Town Council had an
opportunity to model consensus. He said the Council had a proven track record of doing so, and
cited the examples of the expansion of St. Hilary School and Congregation Kol Shofar. He said
in these cases, the Council had appointed an ad hoc subcommittee to work through the issues
with the interested parties; he suggested that a similar approach be taken with the application in
front of the Council. The Mayor said this would help bring unity to the process and make the
focus the greater good of the community. He said that he personally supported the expansion but
questioned the matter of degree.
He asked for comments from his colleagues on the Council.
Councilmember Doyle spoke first. He said that his wife, Leslie, is the daughter of the late Mayor
Al Kuhn, who had always maintained that the Library was too small and should have been built
larger, according to Doyle.
Councilmember Doyle said that he relied on his five years of experience on the Design Review
Board and two years on the Planning Commission in evaluating the application. He said he
found it difficult to determine how much of a reduction would "make it better" for those who
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 13
opposed it on the basis of size.
In addressing the issue of view loss, Councilmember Doyle said that if this were the only place to
view Old St. Hilary, he would have a different opinion; but he said that it was possible to move
the [Landmarks] plaque over few feet over [on Tiburon Boulevard] and continue to see the view
that many claimed was significant from that vantage point. He agreed with Mr. Hurd that the
ADA ramps were required and not just a design element. He said that they were graceful and
integrated into the design. He also agreed that the Library was and would become even more of a
hub, a gathering spot for people, and that the Library should be a focal point more than Town
Hall.
Councilmember Doyle said that it was well documented that the student population was on the
rise in Tiburon and that expanding a public space for kids is a positive thing. He quoted a line
from a popular song that goes, "I believe that children are our future" to illustrate his feeling
about the expansion.
With regard to the overall design, Doyle said that the proposed addition was an extension of the
existing building, and that its look and feel was appropriate. He acknowledged that it had taken a
lot of effort to reach this point. Doyle said he thought the building was still too close to the street
in the proposed design, and he thought the bookstore "juts out" and congests the entryway; he
also said the entryway appeared to be too hidden. The Councilman thought that these features
might be reworked a little. He said that the amount of space [needs] had been well covered and
did not seem overly large.
Doyle said that someone had raised a question of Council integrity during the hearing. He said
that a lot of good intention had gone into the review process and that if someone wanted to recall
him, they should feel free to do so.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell also thanked the community for coming out to the hearing and said it was
a good crowd, expressing a lot of passion.
O'Donnell said that he had read every email that had been sent to him; he said the community
had ample opportunity for input into the process and that this was unfair criticism of the Library
Agency. He said the needs assessment amply demonstrated the reason for the size and scope of
the project, and that it was clear that the current Library was not meeting the current needs of the
community. O'Donnell said that the Council was aware of the population growth trends, with
many younger people, as well as seniors, comprising the new demographics.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell agreed with Councilmember Doyle that the [Landmarks] plaque might be
moved a few feet to capture the view. O'Donnell also said that it was a fleeting view, at best, as
one drove down Tiburon Boulevard. He said another way of looking at it would be that one view
might be lost from one small area but would be enhanced from the [new] park and promenade.
He also addressed the issues raised by some of the neighbors on Cove Road. He said that one
family had purchased a home a few feet from the main commercial thoroughfare of Town; he
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 14
wondered what the expectation of retaining a "small-town" atmosphere was in this regard. He
also said that the Library expansion had been going through the process for the last 10 years and
was well documented.
With regard to parking, Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he had requested enhancement of
parking for seniors and people with disabilities at a previous meeting. He said that request had
resulted in the creation of accessible parking being moved to the front of the building. He said he
would like to ensure that there was adequate parking for handicapped people and seniors in the
final plans. He said this was an example of the Council listening to input from the community.
With regard to an issue raised by one of the speakers concerning energy efficiency of the project,
the Vice Mayor said he thought the energy efficiency would be enhanced in the design, and the
project would be energy cost neutral despite its size.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell made additional design review comments, one being that the size of the
addition (16,000 square feet) was a bit misleading because in his opinion the current building
already looked much larger than its 10,000 square feet. He said the proposed addition would
utilize space more efficiently within the building footprint.
O'Donnell agreed with Councilmember Doyle that the entry area needed to be reworked slightly,
as the three different entrances seemed confusing. He also asked whether the Founder's Room
could be pulled back from the street, not necessarily shrinking the size but perhaps reconfiguring
it somehow.
The Vice Mayor said that for him the size and scale of the building would not be a problem; he
said that the [Library] building should have some gravitas, commensurate with its benefit to the
community. He said the architects had done an excellent job of integrating the "old" building into
the new plans and it was something the community could be proud of.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he supported the expansion because education and learning were
keystones of the community; he said the entire project would create not just a whole, complete
Library, but would create a new civic space through enhancement of the plaza and surrounding
area.
The Vice Mayor agreed that it would be prudent to have a condition added to the approval to
ensure that proper funding of the project, perhaps by utilizing a threshold of some sort, was met
prior to commencement of construction.
Councilmember Collins said he, too, had read all the correspondence from citizens on this
matter. He said that for him, it answered the question of why he served on the Council-because
it was good to be part of a community that really cares. He acknowledged the involvement of
citizens on both sides of the issue.
Collins said that he no longer held the opinion that the expansion of the Library should be to the
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 15
rear of the existing building, rather, he said his concerns were size (mass and bulk) and view of
the current application. He said the Town should not approve a design that would impact the
views of neighbors; he said he would prefer a one-story addition. He said that function should
lead form; that the proposed building was too tall and out of scale, and the Town Hall would
appear smaller as a result. He said the promenade was actually a narrow slot between buildings.
Collins recommended postponement of a decision so that the Library could scale the project
differently to address these issues. He said that the project was already 10 years in the making
and could stand some additional time. He also said that he wanted to see a signed contract and
funds in the bank before construction began; he said that the staging of the construction should
also be addressed, and all the [required] parking should be in place prior to construction.
Councilmember Collins said he could not support the project application as presented. He said it
was too big, out of balance, and did not really address the issues of mass and scale as viewed
from Tiburon Boulevard. He said the latest revisions had merely widened the "slot view" of Old
St. Hilary. However, Mr. Collins acknowledged the time and effort of all the people who had
worked on the project.
Alice Fredericks said she echoed some of Councilmember Collins' comments, as well as those of
Councilmembers Doyle and O'Donnell. She said the Town Council's role was to address design
review at this hearing. She said the design was driven by users of the Library, and that it truly
was a civic center and community gathering place. However, Fredericks said the needs of the
users were not a license to building anything in contradiction to the process. She said that the
Library [Agency's] role was to determine the needs and assure people [of its mission]. She said
the Town Council's role was to conduct the design review and to safeguard the integrity of the
decision-making process.
Fredericks said that she had been asked what her role was in the expansion planning of the
Library. Fredericks said that she had played no role in the planning process and had merely been
a recipient of information about it. Fredericks said that while it had been established that she had
no conflict of interest [while serving on the Library ad hoc subcommittee], she said it had been
inferred that she had some sort of social or moral conflict of interest. Fredericks rebutted this,
and said that socially, she had friends who supported the expansion and those that did not.
Fredericks said that the Library had come to a workshop with the Town Council and had asked
whether they were going in the right direction. She said it was a "show and tell" session during
which the Council provided feedback and direction, but not a [formal] vote.
Councilmember Fredericks addressed the issue of the size of the expansion. She said it was big,
and that the size was driven by need. She said the size had been reduced many times, since the
original expansion concept of 30,000 square feet. She said the question of further reductions was
difficult and called into question which needs would be [adversely] impacted. She said it would
also have unintended consequences, for instance, by cutting out the bookstore, funding [revenue]
for the Library would be reduced.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 16
With regard to view loss, Fredericks said that a reduction of the view blockage had been
accomplished in the application; she asked whether it could be further mitigated by a smaller
building and concluded that it might be, but then the smaller building would not meet the
identified needs of the Library.
Fredericks said the other question to consider was whether there were better [design] alternatives;
she said that no new ideas had been presented that she was aware of, and some had been in
conflict with Town guidelines and requirements.
Councilmember Fredericks said she would defer to her colleagues on the issue of whether to
reduce or revise the design of the Founder's Room. She said she agreed with the architect's
description of creating a mirror element to the Town Hall for design unity.
Councilmember Fredericks said that consensus on this issue is a gold standard; she said she felt
that unity would come after the project was complete. Fredericks said she supported the
application, as submitted, and would agree to a condition for making sure that a minimum
funding was available, even though she was unsure that this was the Town's call.
Mayor Fraser said he echoed his colleague's comments regarding the entryway. He also asked
whether the teen room could be stepped back a couple of feet to address view blockage. He said
that views are what our community is about; he said we've spent our tax dollars on the purchase
of open space and view preservation. He said that addressing this, combined with "decongesting"
the front of the entryway, might result in Council consensus.
The Mayor also agreed with providing an additional condition to verify available funding for the
project to demonstrate responsibility to the community.
Mayor Fraser said the Council's role was to "get it right"; he suggested that spending an extra
week or two on resolving issues surrounding the application would be time well spent.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked about the distance from the street and whether the Founder's Room
could be moved back from the street. Andy Sohn said that pushing the building back was within
reason.
Mayor Fraser asked if the teen room could also be pulled back and also if it was possible to
widen the promenade. Mr. Sohn said that any of these changes would impact the programming,
so it was not his decision. However, he said that it was technically possible.
Councilmember Fredericks asked Mr. Sohn if he had a sense of how pulling back any of these
elements would affect the view. She also asked whether it would actually accomplish what [the
view proponents] wanted. Mr. Sohn said that he would recommend pulling back from the side
rather than the front.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 17
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he thought that pulling back the Founder's Room would change the
pitch of the roof, he said that changing the size of the teen room would represent a major change,
however.
Mayor Fraser also responded to Councilmember Fredericks' question. He said that standing at
Station No. 6 [the Landmarks plaque], and looking toward the open space view, the eaves of the
teen room blocked the view corridor. He said that perhaps the suggestion to reduce the size of the
room by a couple of feet was not correct, however, he said he thought that if there were a way to
significantly improve the view through a small adjustment, he would be in favor of it.
Mr. Sohn said that he could not offer a suggestion without studying it further.
Councilmember Doyle said the question of what would be given up and what would be gained.
He asked whether reducing a foot here or there, or pulling back, would make significant gains.
He said that he thought computer modeling might be used to show some of these suggestions; he
said he just felt a little uncomfortable with the way the building "jutted out" in the front.
Councilmember Fredericks said she was not sure she could support the formation of a committee
but said that if the Library was willing to come back to the Council and address some of these
suggestions, she would be interested in hearing what they had to say.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he would support another look at the entryway and possibly
stepping back the Founder's Room a few feet from the street.
Glenn Issacson, Library project manager, asked the Council to call the question and the Library
would be willing to work with the Town going forward.
Mayor Fraser replied that in the design review process, the Board [Council] asks the applicant to
come back with changes prior to making a final decision.
Councilmember Doyle said he would be willing to vote on the application tonight. He said that
he was merely suggesting some "low key" changes, of one or two feet, that might be worth
looking at.
Councilmember Fredericks said she would be willing to approve the application with the
conditions previously discussed and allow the Library to make some of the proposed design
changes.
Town Attorney Danforth said that it would be unusual to approve a project and then come back
and review a major design element.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked what the actual terms of the financial agreement might be. Mrs.
Don, representing the Library Foundation fund-raising committee, said the committee had agreed
to obtain 100% funding prior to construction.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 18
Town Attorney Danforth said that the Town had a draft [land conveyance] agreement in place
and that language could be added to state that sufficient funds must be on hand prior to
construction. Councilmember Collins said that the term "funds on hand" was meaningless to
him.
Town Manager Curran proposed a possible course of action: a non-binding approval of the
project application to address the first two design issues (the entryway and Founder's Room
siting), for the Library to come back to the Council with additional information on these two
design issues at a subsequent meeting, noting that the public hearing had been closed, and also
direct staff to return with a resolution for Council's approval.
Councilmember Collins questioned the suggestion not to re-open the public hearing. Town
Attorney Danforth said that the Council did this on a regular basis when it continued an item.
Town Manager Curran suggested continuing the matter to the August 1 regular meeting, if it
pleased the Council.
Mayor Fraser summarized his understanding of the Council's direction: to generally endorse the
Library project proposal, to require the Library to come back with adjustments to the entryway
and Founder's Room, and possibly look at stepping back the design so that the view corridor is
widened as seen from the exact location of Station No. 6.
Town Attorney Danforth said that staff could prepare a resolution stating the direction of Council
and bring it to the August 1 meeting for adoption.
Councilmember Fredericks asked for an opportunity to clarify at that meeting whether any of
these changes would affect the needs identified in the Library's needs assessment.
Town Manager Curran suggested that a motion might be made to conditionally approve the
application, that the Library would return with proposed adjustments to the entryway to make it
less cluttered and more prominent, to explore adjustments to the Founder's Room vis-a-vis its
siting to the street, and explore what it would take to enhance the view as seen from Station No.
6, and how this would impact the view corridor as well as the interior of the Library; also, to
return with amended land grant agreement stating the financial conditions prior to construction.
This motion was moved and seconded (Fredericks, O'Donnell).
Mayor Fraser asked for a roll call vote. The clerk called the roll:
AYES: Fredericks, Doyle, O'Donnell, Fraser
NAYES: Collins
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 19
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
There were none.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT -
There were none.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - July 20, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting 12:40 a.m. and continued the item to the August 1, 2012 regular meeting
at Tiburon Town Hall.
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #14 -2012 July 25, 2012 Page 20
CY-- 3
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fraser calle re-guffla suing of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m.
on Wednesday, August 1, 2012, in own Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California. -
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Collins, Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director
of Community Development Anderson, Director of
Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police
Captain Hutton, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to Mobile Vending Vehicles - Consider
amendments to Title VI, Chapter 23 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic) of the Tiburon
Municipal Code prohibiting the parking or standing of mobile vendors on certain street
segments during certain hours (Chief of Police Cronin) - Introduction and first reading
of ordinance
Chief of Police Cronin said that in June of this year, the Town had received a letter from Reed
Union School District Superintendent Herzog requesting that the Town take action to prohibit ice
cream trucks from selling their products near schools. He said that St. Hilary School
representatives had informed the Town that they would support a similar prohibition on the
streets surrounding St. Hilary School, as well.
Chief Cronin said that Reed School officials believe the trucks pose a hazard for congregating
children, particular because the truck comes at dismissal time when there is a great deal of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. He said he concurred with their assessment. Cronin
also said that school officials voiced concerns about the poor nutritional value of the products
offered. (The Chief noted that he was personally a big fan of ice cream, however.)
QDRAFT
`
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 cugust 1, 2012 ) Page I
Chief Cronin said that staff has prepared a draft ordinance for the Council's consideration that
responds to the School District's request. He said it would prohibit ice cream trucks and other
mobile food vendors from parking in the immediate vicinity of schools.
The Chief said that while the current Town Code (Section 23-6) regulates all mobile food
vendors, including ice cream trucks, the existing ordinance prohibits such vendors from parking
for more than ten minutes, but does not limit their right to make sales near schools.
Cronin said that should the Council move to adopt the recommendations and amend the Town
Code, the police department will contact and advise vendors before undertaking any
enforcement action. Subsequent violations could result in an administrative citation and a fine
approximating $150.00 for each violation.
Councilmember Collins asked about the $150 fine. Chief Cronin said this was a standard find for
unspecified offences under the Town's administrative citation procedure. Collins asked if the
fine might be raised for subsequent violations. The Chief said that he thought that it could be.
Councilmember Fredericks asked if Town staff had received an email from a resident asking
whether a certain street, Corte Palos Verdes, had been included in the draft ordinance. Director of
Community Development Anderson said that staff had received the communication and noted
that the street was listed in the ordinance.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked the Town Attorney whether the proposed ordinance would survive
any legal challenges. Town Attorney Danforth said that she believed that it would.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing.
Dr. Steve Herzog spoke. He said that the issue had been raised in conjunction with the area
particularly around the Del Mar School. He said that at the June 19 Board of Trustees meeting,
parents shared their concerns and submitted petitions asking for the ban. HE said that school
officials on site had voiced similar concerns about safety and nutrition. He said the Board of
Trustees voted unanimously at that meeting to ask for the Town Council's support.
Trustee Dana Linker Steele also spoke on behalf of parents and the RUSD Board. She said that
parents had sought these changes for some time.
Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he would be happy to support the trustees in this matter.
Councilmember Collins also said it was a good idea but suggested bumping the second violation
to $500. He also suggested clarifying language on pages 1 and 3 of the draft ordinance to define
mobile vendor and add the words, "or any other means of transport" in several paragraphs.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 2
MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only.
Moved: Collins, seconded by O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Fraser read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending
provisions of Title VI, Chapter 23 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Motor Vehicles and Traffic)."
MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance, waive second reading, and adopt on
Consent Calendar at the next regular meeting.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins
Vote: AYES: Collins, Doyle, Fredericks, Fraser, O'Donnell
NOES: None
2. 1501 & 1505 Tiburon Boulevard: Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion
Project - (Director of Community Development Anderson; Planning Manager Watrous)
- continued from July 25, 2012
Review and Consider for Approval the Site Plan and Architectural Drawings for the
Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project, a proposal to construct 16,000
square feet of additions; File #52012-07; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town
of Tiburon, Owners/Applicants; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-92, 93, & 94 and a
portion of 058-171-62;
A) Consider adoption of resolution approving the site plan and architectural drawings for
the project subject to the conditions set forth therein;
Consider authorizing the Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment
extending the 2007 Agreement to Convey Real Property between the Town of Tiburon
and the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency involving approximately 16,000 square feet of
land located behind the existing Library building; Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-62
(portion)
B) Authorize Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the Agreement to
Convey Real Property to extend the fundraising deadline and add an exculpatory clause.
Director of Community Development Anderson gave the report. He said the Council had voted
four to one to endorse the Library's expansion plans at the July 25 meeting, but did not give final
approval of the design application at that meeting. He said the Council had closed the public
comment portion of the hearing and continued the item to the meeting of August 1, 2012, after
providing direction to the Library Agency and Town staff.
Anderson summarized the Council's direction as follows:
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 3
I. The Founder's Room portion of the proposed expansion should be moved back slightly
from Tiburon Boulevard. The square footage need not be reduced if widening or other
reworking is possible.
2. The Tiburon Boulevard entry to the Library should be modified to reduce a cluttered
appearance from the Town Plaza and to enhance its prominence and visibility as a major
entrance to the building.
3. In an attempt to widen the view corridor in order to increase views of the backdrop as
seen from Landmarks Photo Display Station #6, the Library shall explore options for
reduction or movement of the Teen Area portion of the addition. The extent of
potentially increased preservation of scenic views from Station #6 shall be ascertained,
and the corresponding effects on program space shall be described.
Director Anderson said that Town staff had concluded that the first two items above could be
effectively addressed as additional conditions of approval for the application, and suggests that
condition #3 of the draft Resolution be modified to read as follows (changes highlighted):
3. The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan, Floor Plans, Roof
Plan, Exterior Elevations, Landscape Plans and Detail Drawings, and Color Palette
(15 sheets, dated July 5, 2012), modified as follows:
a. The Founder's Room portion of the proposed expansion shall be moved
back from Tiburon Boulevard a proximately two feet, attempting to do so
without reducing the square footage of the room.
b. The Tiburon Boulevard entry to the project shall be modified to reduce a
cluttered appearance arising from numerous other nearby doorways, and to
enhance its prominence and visibility as a major public entrance to the
building.
These two modifications shall be approved on a ministerial basis by the Director of
Community Development.
The above-referenced drawings. as modified herein, whieh constitute the approved site
plan and architectural drawings for the Project. Said drawings plaxs are on file and
available for public review at Tiburon Town Hall during regular business hours. Any
future substantial modification to the approved drawings as determined in the
reasonable discretion of the Director of Community Development, shall receive
Town Council approval.
Anderson said that a draft resolution incorporating this revised condition was attached to the staff
report. In addition the Director said that staff had also added a CEQA recital to the resolution, a
copy of which had been provided to the Council and the public.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 4
Director Anderson went on to say that the third item in Council's direction, involving potential
stepping back or modification to the Teen Area portion of the Library expansion, in order to
widen the view corridor between the buildings and increase views to the backdrop, required
additional Town Council consideration to assess the potential effectiveness and impact of the
modifications to be proposed by the Library Agency.
He said that following a presentation by the Library Agency, the Town Council should:
1. Consider whether modifications to the Teen Area portion of the addition should be
required.
2. Consider adoption of the draft resolution approving the site plan and architectural
drawings for the project subject to the conditions set forth therein, making any
amendments to the resolution as deemed appropriate to address the view corridor
expansion issue.
Mayor Fraser asked if there were questions of staff.
Councilmember Collins asked if the public hearing would be reopened once the new information
to be presented to the Council.
Town Attorney Danforth said that there was no need to reopen the hearing. Collins said that his
opinion differed from the Town Attorney.
Danforth clarified that it was, of course, the Council's prerogative if it wished to reopen the
hearing, however, she noted that since it's the same project under review, the Council was not
obliged to do so.
Mayor Fraser noted the amount of public feedback received by the Council after the majority
opinion to approve the plans in concept last week. He said that what he heard was the
divisiveness caused by the degree and scope of the project, and that if the Council was going to
receive a presentation about this degree and scope, in the interest of transparency, this new
information should also warrant public comment. He said that he would make a motion to reopen
the hearing.
Councilmember Fredericks said she heard the idea of a task force raised at the last meeting; she
said that rather than putting the Library in an unfavorable position, she suggested simply
including this in the Council's discussion tonight.
Councilmember Collins asked her to clarify what she meant. Fredericks said she did not
recommend reopening the hearing since there were no new issues to discuss.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 5
Collins said the Council would not know whether there were any new issues, or not, until it had
received the presentation tonight. He said it was impossible to determine this until the Council
had seen what the Library proposed. Councilmember Fredericks said this process could lead to a
"game of dodgeball" for the applicant.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell suggested talking through the issue. He asked the Town Attorney
whether, if the Council chose to reopen the hearing after hearing the information presented, it
someone "taint" the process.
Town Attorney Danforth said that there would have to be a very significant change [in the
design] to require the reopening of the hearing. She said the danger of "tainting" the process
actually went in the other direction, that is, a fairness argument might be made by those not
present tonight that they had received no notice that the hearing would be reopened.
The Vice Mayor noted that the Council had received a letter from an attorney and wanted to
ensure that the Town was proceeding properly to avoid any claims.
Town Attorney Danforth said that it might be easier for the Council to decide the question once it
had received the Library's presentation. The Vice Mayor said this would be a good compromise.
Councilmember Collins said that he also wanted to reserve the right to open the matter to
reconsideration. He said that he was aware that he would not be able to make such a motion but
he wanted someone on the Council to do so.
Town Attorney Danforth asked for clarification; she noted that no action had yet been taken on
the agenda item. The Mayor asked why the vote taken by the Council last week could not be
considered an action taken. Town Attorney Danforth said that although a majority of the Council
has indicated their intention to approve the project, the Council had not formally approved.
Accordingly, she said, the Council still had the latitude tonight to take whatever action it deemed
appropriate on the application.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell suggested hearing the applicant's presentation, review the changes, and
taking a preliminary vote regarding whether or not to reopen the public hearing, to start. He said
the Council could then come back, deliberate and take a vote on the project application, as
amended.
Councilmember Collins said if the public hearing were to be reopened, then to make it fair to
those who were not present, the matter should be continued to a subsequent meeting. Town
Attorney Danforth noted that the next available meeting would be in September.
Collins went on to say that he thought there had been a vote taken [on July 25]. Town Attorney
Danforth said that the Council did not adopt the resolution needed to approve the project at that
meeting, so all options were still open to the Council. Collins said he would move to reconsider.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 6
Mayor Fraser noted that the Council was acting as the Design Review Board and said that the
final decisions about the application, including any revisions to the resolution, should be made by
the Council rather than have them made ministerially [by staffJ.
Mayor Fraser asked for a presentation by the applicant.
Architect Andy Sohn gave a powerpoint presentation. He said the Library had done what the
Council had asked it to do: 1) move the Founder's Room back from Tiburon Boulevard, and
although it had not specified how far, the concept of two feet was proposed; 2) improve the entry
to make it less confusing and more prominent, and 3) improve the view as seen from Landmark
plaque No. 6 (he said this had been accomplished by pulling back the southeast corner of the
second floor roofline).
With regard to the first direction from Council, Mr. Sohn said that the Library Agency proposed
pulling the Founder's Room back by two feet, six inches (30 inches). He said this would result in
a net loss of 150 square feet, 100 square feet from the Founder's Room and 50 square feet from
the adjacent Conference Room. He aid this setback would give a greater sense of space to
Tiburon Boulevard.
With regard to the entryway, Mr. Sohn presented two alternatives for Council's consideration. In
the first alternative, Sohn said the three trellises had been removed, the balustrade had been
removed, and the teen area had been moved three feet to the west. Sohn said the second
alternative took a larger chunk out of the teen room and would move the bookstore back three
feet. This alternative also removed the balustrade and improved the trellis design; he said that it
would move the teen room away from Town Hall by six feet and would result is 100 square foot
loss of the study area.
Sohn said that the first alternate resulted in a programming loss of 125 square feet, while
alternative two would result in a loss of 215 square feet. The latter, combined with the square
footage loss to the Founder's Room, totaled 365 square foot reduction to the plans.
The architect showed slides of the two alternatives from the perspective of looking down on the
project to illustrate visually their effect. He then showed slides of the impacts of Alternative 1
and 2 on the storypole configuration from the perspective of Landmarks station No. 6, followed
by the rendered views to Town Plaza.
In summary, Mr. Sohn said that the Library Agency had earnestly responded to the Council's
direction; he said the entryway had been made more hierarchical and that alternatives had been
provided to address the view corridor expansion. He asked that the Council accept the
presentation and noted that the Library would prefer Alternative 1 as it would result in less
impact to the Teen Library.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 7
Library Agency Chair Spiesberger echoed these remarks and said that the Agency had done the
best it could to demonstrate the impacts and show the changes to the exterior design. She agreed
that Alternative 1 was preferred also because it was more symmetrical to the design with Town
Hall. She said it provided a balanced and aesthetic solution.
Councilmember Doyle asked what the height of the Library entryway was above grade. Architect
Sohn said that it was the same as existing, or 30 inches.
Councilmember Doyle asked if the balustrade was once a balcony. The architect said that it had
been a terrace at one time but this was not a preferable design feature off the teen room.
Councilmember Doyle also asked if the windows over the entryway were the same as the
windows over the teen room. The architect said they were, and that they were divided windows,
similar to the windows on the Town Hall Building, not large sheets of glass.
Doyle asked the architect for his candid opinion about the proposed changes. Mr. Sohn said he
thought the changes made the design better; that Alternative 1 was better than the design
presented last week, and simplified the entry.
Councilmember Collins asked for the height of the steps, in the entry area. The architect said they
were actually step seats, one foot in height, and he pointed out the actual walking steps in the
drawing.
Collins asked about the 40-foot roof height. He asked whether the roof height could be 20 feet,
instead of 40 feet. The architect said that the ceilings in the plans were 10-foot ceilings, but that a
20-foot roof would not work in this Library. Mr. Sohn said that they had studied a one-story
expansion at one time. He said there was a lower piece [structure] in the original EIR, but that it
looked like a "tacked on" one-story addition.
Councilmember Collins said that it would decrease the mass of the structure. The architect said,
technically, it would but it would be hard to speculate at this juncture.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he liked the way the re-design accentuated the front door
[entryway]. He asked whether a side door had been considered for the care. Mr. Sohn said that it
had been considered but that the preference was to keep the picture window as a way to showcase
books (inside the bookstore).
Councilmember Doyle asked about whether the front entry area would be attractive to
skateboarders. Mr. Sohn said that it was a well-organized public space; he said the ramp was an
ADA requirement. Sohn also said the ramp was not a 1-in-12 (ADA) ramp, but rather, more
gently sloped.
Mayor Fraser applauded the architectural team effort; he said the presentation was easy to
understand. He asked about the large windows in the front of the Library and whether they might
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 8
be an issue of reflection or glare, especially toward Cove Road, and whether this could be
mitigated.
Architect Sohn said this was a valid question, and that there were ways to mitigate it with
controlled shades. He said there would not be reflection in daylight and that the windows were
south-facing, like the ones in Town Hall. However, Sohn said there might be a night-time issue
of light.
Councilmember Fredericks asked if there could be a condition of approval to require automatic
shades to be lowered at dusk. Director Anderson said that similar conditions have been imposed
by the Town in the past and that such a condition could be included in the resolution.
Councilmember Doyle asked why the trees [along Tiburon Boulevard] should remain if they
blocked the view. He asked whether they might be relocated to in front of the windows
described above.
Mayor Fraser said that to be fair to the concern expressed about view loss, the existing view
would still be there if a building was not erected in that location. Councilmember Doyle said that
it would not cost much to relocate the [Landmarks] plaque and keep that particular view intact.
Mayor Fraser moved to reopen the public hearing. Councilmember Collins seconded the motion.
In considering this motion, Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that the emails he had received since the
July 25 hearing pertained to issues other than the Design Review changes presented tonight. He
said that if the Library had presented something "radical"' he would think differently, however, he
said there was nothing new being presented to the Council this evening; also, there was no notice
of a new public hearing.
Councilmember Fredericks agreed.
Councilmember Doyle he would consider voting to reopen the hearing if the comments pertained
to what had been presented by the Library; if not, he would not support it.
Mayor Fraser said his intention in making the motion was not to "regurgitate" old issues; rather,
it was to promote transparency and allow the public, and the Council, to comment, on what had
been presented tonight.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that all the letters received over the past week had already been
submitted into the record. Mayor Fraser said the public would want to talk about the Library's
presentation just received tonight.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked the Director of Community Development about meeting protocol
of Design Review Board meetings. He asked specifically what happened when an applicant was
asked by the Board to bring back a modification for consideration by the Board, whether the
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xa -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 9
Board reopened the public hearing. Director Anderson said that the Board had the option to
reopen the public hearing if it chose to do so. Councilmember Collins said that's what the Board
did when he was Chairman.
Councilmember Fredericks said that the public hearing, if reopened, should be limited to the
issues of the redesigned entryway and the issue of loss of square footage versus gain in view.
Councilmember Collins asked how the discussion could be limited to how people talk about the
view. Fredericks said that going over the same issue again by an enormous number of people
was not persuasive.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he would support reopening the public hearing.
The rest of the Council concurred and the motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Fraser reopened the public hearing. The architect put the slide entitled "Summary" up for
public view.
The following people spoke:
1. Delli Woodring said that where there were stairs or a slope in the entryway, a handrail
was needed; said the (3) changes proposed by the Library represented an overall reduction
of 1.5% (225 square feet out of 16,000 square feet) and did not constitute a revision to the
plans.
2. Joan Bergsund said the architect described a loss of between 125 and 215 square feet to
the project but also said the addition was still 16,000 square feet; she wondered where the
square footage was added back; said the view corridor was not improved at all and the
proposal was an exercise in futility.
3. Margaret Jones said the proposed change to the front door area was a significant
improvement.
4. Joyce Tayer asked how fewer people would fit into the Founder's Room if it was moved
back; said it had a capacity of 43 now with an intended increase to 100; said this was a
necessary feature of the plans.
5. Carol Forell said that half of the community did not like the loss of view and said if the
changes intended to address that issue, she did not understand how it did that; said she
thought the Council was no where near reaching consensus on the issue and had even
heard that the Library might bring back a parcel tax in future.
6. Dana Linker Steele addressed the view issue from her perspective; said that as a parent
and long-time resident nothing would make her happier than a "view" of being able to
look into a library filled with children of all ages.
Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing for a second time and thanked the Council for reopening
it. He asked the applicant if they had any additional comments.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 10
Attorney Riley Hurd responded to one of the comments. He said that 10 seats of capacity would
be lost in the Founder's Room.
Hurd addressed the comment of view corridor versus loss of square footage. He said the Library
was not asked to reduce square footage; he said they had taken out linear feet, and that the only
thing more revealed in Alternative 1 and 2 was skyline. He said that Alternative 1 was the better
design choice; that Alternative 2 created a "smashed-looking" building. He also stated that
Alternative 1 has a better cost benefit than Alternative 2.
Mayor Fraser asked if the Council had any questions for the applicant.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked about the comment regarding the need for a handrail. The architect
said that a rail was not required [on a ramp] with a 1 in 20 pitch. He pointed out, however, that
there was a handrail on the entry area stairs.
Councilmember Collins asked if a rail would make the [ramp] safer. The architect said that it
probably would.
Councilmember Doyle asked if the new ramp would have the same angle [slope] as the current
ramp. He was told the ramp in the proposed plans had a lesser slope than the existing ramp. Ms.
Spiesberger pointed out that the current Library ramp did not have a rail. Someone in the
audience said that the rail was next to the trellis.
Councilmember Fredericks asked about the design impact of adding a rail. Vice Mayor
O'Donnell said that there was also a ramp in the rear, as well.
Councilmember Collins said that in a shopping center he owned, rails were required on ramps.
The architect said that those instances were usually due to the requirements of retrofits, while the
new design (and landscape architecture) had been engineered not to necessitate rails.
Finally, the architect said that the square footage reductions described above would reduce the
overall square footage of the project.
The Council began its deliberations.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell thanked everyone for participating in a long, open, public process. He
said the expansion had generated a lot of interest and passionate involvement by the community.
He said he liked the changes presented in Alternative 1 and would support that proposal. He said
the [current] placement of the Landmarks plaque was arbitrary and it could be relocated. He also
said that moving back the Founder's Room created a more gracious space between the building
and the street. He said the loss of 10 seats (in the Founder's Room) was regrettable but that the
plans should be approved, as amended.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 11
Councilmember Doyle agreed. He said that after serving on the Design Review Board, he had
come to realize that numbers did not tell the whole story. He said the Library had done what the
Council had asked it to do. But he said that the removal of bushes and trees in the 100 feet in
front of the building could open the view. He agreed that the view (beloved by many) was
beautiful but was not the only view; he said he would oppose the design if it were.
Doyle said that Alternate 1 was preferred, that it made a cleaner, better entryway, and that
nothing was gained in Alternative 2. He said that the Library had done a needs assessment, and
that the design held validity in the eyes of the architect. He also agreed that moving the building
farther back from Tiburon Boulevard was good.
Councilmember Fredericks said she, too, approved of the improvements made to the entryway
and Alternative 1. She said the distance between the two buildings (Town Hall and the Library)
was almost as wide as Tiburon Boulevard (56 feet) at the widest point. She said she knew the
view would not be the same [as before] but what was gained was the fulfillment of the needs for
a larger library utilized by the community, and a cultural center, something the community had
said it wanted.
Councilmember Collins said that he endorsed the library but the problem was that he did not
endorse this design. He said that whether or not it was an "open" process, there was a perception
that for some, it was not open. He also said the issues of view loss raised by the Cove Road
neighbors had not been addressed in the staff report.
Collins said that when it came to view loss, it was the principle as well as the view itself. He
recommended talking to any open space advocate to understand this point of view.
Collins said that the design could be different, that many did not like it, and that he would like it
to be a team project, a Belvedere-Tiburon project, rather than a "Library Agency project". He
said this troubled him.
Councilmember Collins said that he thought the entry changes were acceptable, but that he would
prefer to see handrails installed, and that he would prefer a one-story project.
Mayor Fraser expressed his appreciation and thanked the Council for supporting his motion to
reopen the hearing. He applauded the Library Agency on making its revisions, and in such a short
turnaround time. He also thanked Project Manager Glenn Isaacson for taking the time to review
the revisions with him on site, along with architect Hank Bruce.
The Mayor said that it was not his favorite design, due to its bulk and mass, however he said that
it would result in a good outcome for kids, teens and seniors in the future. He said that "many of
us don't like change but history will prove us right." He said he would support Alternative 1 and
a slightly reworked resolution.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 12
Councilmember Collins said that while he did not agree with the Library Agency proposal, he,
too, appreciated the hard work that went into it.
The Council asked staff what the next step was. Community Development Anderson said that the
resolution could be revised to incorporate the Alternative 1 revisions and recommended specific
language to be added to Condition No. 3, A, B and C ("as shown on the Alternative 1 drawings
presented to the Town Council on August 1, 2012 and dated `Revised August 1, 2012.
Staff noted that some other conditions had been raised by the Council, such as the drop-down
shades and possibility of relocating two trees in front.
Mayor Fraser said there was also the issue of a parking plan and recommended that the Library
bring it forward to the Council prior to the issuance of a building permit. He said that plan should
not just include existing parking in public lots. He said there was adequate time to review these
conditions prior to a permit being issued.
Councilmember Collins said he would like to see a copy of the mitigation plan in the resolution,
as well, so that people did not have to search [other] records to find it.
Councilmember Fredericks said that the [parking] plan had already been certified as adequate.
Mayor Fraser noted that it did not spell out the parking plan exactly and it was worthy of review.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked whether the issue could be addressed as part of the downtown
traffic study. Mayor Fraser said he thought these were two separate issues.
Councilmember Collins went on to say that parking should not be a cost to the taxpayers, and
that there was a requirement to have one parking space per 1,000 square feet [of building space].
Director Anderson said it would be possible to insert the three conditions regarding parking from
the November 2011 approval, as well as the mitigation measures regarding parking, into the
resolution as a separate exhibit.
Councilmember Fredericks asked what methods existed for addressing the addition of parking.
Councilmember Collins said that one way was to provide permit parking along Mar West, but to
whom would that cost enure.
Anderson said that several options were laid out to address the parking mitigation. He said those
options include turning all-day parking on Mar West Street into two-hour parking.
Mayor Fraser asked about the Library funding issue and whether it should be included in the
resolution.
Town Manager Curran said that staff had discussed this and noted that Design Review approvals
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 13
did not deal with finances or conveyances of land. Town Attorney Danforth agreed; she said that
the Town had never considered an applicant's funding source be within the purview of design
review, but the amended Land Conveyance agreement would address the issue. .
Councilmember Collins asked about the construction of walkways and other infrastructure, and
where these kinds of issues were addressed in the approval process.
Director Anderson said that an Encroachment Permit would be required to build walkways and
other structures [on Town property] and that the permit might include construction phasing and
staging, as well.
Collins said that a staking plan should be required even prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Town Attorney Danforth suggested it could be added to condition No. 25 of the resolution.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that you don't have to wait for an encroachment permit for some of
the issues raised above, and that including every single aspect might create practical problems for
the Library and its contractors; he suggested leaving the condition [No. 25] as written.
Mayor Fraser said that as long as there was something about construction staging included
somewhere in the approvals, he would be satisfied.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell also suggested adding Caltrans approvals to Condition No. 25. Town
Attorney Danforth and Community Development Anderson said this would be better in
Condition 19A.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution approving the Library application as presented and
revised, and amended by Council at the August 1, 2012 meeting.
Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks
Mayor Fraser called for a roll call vote:
Vote: AYES: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
NOES: Collins
Councilmember Collins asked for a motion for reconsideration. He said that for all the reasons
expressed in all the emails, the difficulties of fundraising in a divided community, the suggestion
to create a task force, etc. He said that "we'd all be winners," and it would help heal wounds and
get the community back together to reconsider the project.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he could not support this motion and expressed the view that the
community is overwhelmingly behind the project. He said that the young families supported the
idea of getting a first rate library at zero cost; he said this demographic did not come to the
Council meetings (because they were busy working and taking care of their families). He said he
recognized the opposition and respected it but disagreed with some of the opinions expressed.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 14
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that fundraising will be challenging but he said that the Library
expansion had been talked about for a long time. He said it was included in the Town's General
Plan and that now there was an opportunity to exercise it.
The Vice Mayor said the General Plan also called for a community center; he said the Library is
the de facto community center, an intellectual community center, and would be a wonderful,
civic treasure. He said its approval would become less divisive over time and become something
to celebrate.
Councilmember Fredericks said she, too, supported the expansion as presented. She said in
thinking about consensus, she came to realize that what people were calling consensus was
actually a desire for unanimity. She said that she did her own study of the on-line petitions and
paper petitions, and after weeding out duplicates, she found that there were 592 supporters versus
356 opponents. She said that the opponents deserved consideration, and she said she understood
this opposition "in her gut," the attachment to the open space and other issues. However,
Fredericks said that sometimes there is a compromise to be had; she asked that the Council not
delay its decision due to a lack of unanimity. She said that is why the Council was elected-to
make decisions. Fredericks said that the Council could continue to deliberate with no resolution;
she said she felt that would be an abrogation of her responsibility as a member of the Council to
do so.
Councilmember Doyle said that contrary to what some people thought, he respected both sides
and the people who had expressed opinions different than his own. He said that if it had not been
for the support of one of these people, his son would not have had as much academic success to
get to college.
Doyle said that now was the time to come together on the issues; that the Town had been given a
"gift". He said the Council had put enough conditions on the project so that a positive outcome
was guaranteed. He said the new library would be beautiful and would serve the Town for a long
time. That being said, Doyle said the decision-making process was by far the hardest thing he had
to do on the Council, to date.
Mayor Fraser said that he had considered all of the opinions expressed carefully. He said that
difference within a community was not a bad thing; that the open, democratic process is what our
country is all about. He said the Council had provided the opportunity for open debate. He said
he had personally responded to many of the emails he received and that he was proud of the way
the Town Council had conducted itself in its deliberations on July 25 and tonight.
The Mayor said that there was a time for continuing a discussion and a time for healing; he said it
was now time for the latter.
Fraser said that this represented a change of mind for him. He said that he really did not like the
bulk and mass of the proposed project, but that even if the building was not perfect, what it
would do for our community would be perfect. Fraser said that he had wanted to support
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 15
Councilmember Collins, who he called his mentor, and that it pained him to not do so. However,
he said he could not move for reconsideration at this juncture.
Mayor Fraser asked for a staff report on the second part of the agenda item, the consideration of
an agreement with the Library.
Town Attorney Danforth gave the report. She said that the Town's 2007 agreement for
conveyance of land required the Library to raise funds for the expansion within six years or the
agreement would terminate. She noted that this deadline would expire in 2013. Danforth said
that staff recommended a five-year extension, to reflect the time frame of the Design Review
approval. Danforth also said staff had added language at Council's direction that would clarify
that all fundraising requirements had to be met in order to trigger the Town's obligation to
convey to the Library.. She said this would require satisfactory evidence of cash on hand, a bank
guarantee, or a combination of both.
Secondly, the Town Attorney said that at Councilmember Collin's suggestion, language had been
added to require that the Library include an exculpatory clause in all project contracts with third
parties, such that those contracts would project that the third party had no recourse against the
City [of Belvedere] or Town of Tiburon, and to acknowledge that the Library Agency was the
sole agency responsible for the contract.
Danforth said that staff recommended that the Council make a motion to authorize the Town
Manager to negotiate and execute this agreement.
Councilmember Collins asked what exactly there was to negotiate. Town Attorney Danforth said
that she could imagine very little, except minor tweaks. Town Manager Curran said this is the
normal language used by the Town, however, she said it could be changed to read that the
agreement would have to come back for Council review if any substantial changes to the
agreement were contemplated.
Councilmember Collins said that the Town owned the land and should set all the conditions. He
said that he would vote in favor of the agreement, as amended and modified above, because the
last Council had voted to convey the land and "a deal is a deal".
MOTION: To authorize the Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amended agreement
for conveyance of land to the Library Agency.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
3. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to the Keeping of Chickens and Honey Bees
and other text amendments - Consider text amendments to Title VI, Chapter 20
(Animals) and Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Town
Code) (Director of Community Development Anderson) - Introduction and first reading
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 16
of ordinance - continued without hearing from July 18, 2012
A) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) by Making Various Text Amendments including but not
limited to adding, deleting and modifying definitions, adding a section regarding
reasonable accommodation [for the disabled], requiring site plan and architectural review
approval for demolition of structures, making amendments to requirements for
Temporary Use Permits, Tidelands Permits, vehicle gate setbacks, secondary dwelling
unit s and termination of nonconforming uses, and modifying affordable housing overlay
zone incentives consistent with the Tiburon General Plan;
B) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20 (Animals) with
respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-Keeping Regulations and Miscellaneous other
Amendments
A) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) by Making Various Text Amendments etc.
Planning Manager Watrous said that the zoning ordinance was fully updated in 2010 and since
that time staff had identified items that were not working well or discrepancies in the ordinance.
The Planning Commission had reviewed these amendments and recommended approval to the
Town Council, according to Watrous.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing.
MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Fraser read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending
Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) by making various text amendments."
MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance, waive second reading, and adopt on
Consent Calendar at the next regular meeting.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Collins, Doyle, Fredericks, Fraser, O'Donnell
NOES: None
B) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20 (Animals) with
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 17
respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-Keeping Regulations and Miscellaneous other
Amendments
Associate Planner Tyler gave the report. She said that in recent years, there has been a nationwide
trend toward increased chicken-keeping and bee-keeping in urban and suburban areas. In
Tiburon, she said this trend manifested itself in the form of recent conditional use permit
applications for chicken-keeping at residential locations. Tyler said that currently, the Town of
Tiburon requires a conditional use permit for keeping chickens and bees.
Ms. Tyler said that following review of information collected by staff and three public meetings
on the issue, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of text amendments to the
Town's zoning and animal regulations that would replace the current conditional use permits
requirement for chicken-keeping and bee-keeping with a ministerial application process governed
by Town-adopted standards; a process similar she said was similar to that used for approval of
secondary dwelling units in Tiburon.
Tyler said that an approval of the recommended amendments would create a new section (16-
40.070) of the zoning ordinance, entitled "Chicken and Honeybee Keeping". The new section
would establish a ministerial permit process for chicken-keeping and for bee-keeping uses, and
would also authorize the adoption by Town Council resolution of performance standards for each
type of use. She said the Planning Commission had voted 3-1 to recommend that the Town
Council adopt an ordinance establishing a ministerial permit process and performance standards
for both chicken and bee-keeping.
Tyler said that under the new ordinance, applicants would be required to submit a $250 flat fee
for a chicken or honeybee keeping permit, an amount anticipated to recover the Town's cost of
processing these ministerial applications in most instances. Ongoing enforcement and review of
permit conformance is likely to result in relatively minor but unknown soft costs, primarily in the
form of staff time.
Associate Planner Tyler recommended that the Town Council hold a public hearing on the
proposed text amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Chapter 20 (Animals) of the Municipal
Code. She said in its deliberations the Council could consider the draft two ordinances provided
by staff. one to establish a ministerial process for both chicken and honey bee-keeping, or for
chicken-keeping only, and provide direction to staff.
Mayor Fraser opened the item for questions from the Council. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that
he was concerned about honey bees and related a story of a friend whose yard was invaded by a
hive from a neighboring yard. He also voiced concerned regarding the dangers to people who
were allergic to bee stings. O'Donnell said that he thought bee-keeping should continue to
require a conditional use permit (CUP) which would necessitate a public notice being mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of an applicant's property.
Tyler said that the Vice Mayor was correct in his assumption that a ministerial approval would
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 18
not require a public notice. She also noted that the matter would automatically be heard by the
Planning Commission if a CUP application was required, as currently exists.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked what would happen if a neighbor objected to the approval of a
conditional use permit for this use. Councilmember Fredericks asked what the guidelines would
be for the Commission to make its decision.
Planning Manager Watrous said that the Commission would use the guidelines currently in the
Town's zoning ordinance concerning CUP approvals; he said there were no specific guidelines
for bees, or chickens for that matter. Director of Community Development Anderson said there
would be a number of reasons the Planning Commission might find the granting of a CUP
appropriate. He said the proposed standards could act as "guideline" in review of a conditional
use permit, but would not be "black and white" like the standards used for approval of secondary
dwelling units.
Councilmember Fredericks acknowledged that there were concerns about Africanized bees and
that although swanns had not been thought to have moved into this area, they had moved into
some coastal areas. She said these bees would sting in swarms and were thought to be a risk to
children and seniors. What worried her about the approval process was that a "complainer" might
have to provide substantial evidence to warrant a denial of a CUP. She said there was a concern
about protecting people who were allergic to bees and the risk of Africanized bees. She asked
how this would be demonstrated in the process.
Planning Manager Watrous said that while the Planning Commission had recommended an
administrative [ministerial] approval process, it had also discussed a hybrid process of review.
He said this had the downside of putting staff in the middle of the deliberations. He went on to
say that the Planning Commission said that because bee-keeping was becoming more common in
communities, it would follow the lead of other communities who were adopting this process. He
said the minority opinion was that more protection and public input was needed in the process.
Councilmember Fredericks asked about having the neighbors sign off on a permit.
Mayor Fraser asked whether the Town regulated the number of cats, dogs, or small animals.
Director Anderson said there was a definition of kennel in the Town Code, but that this would be
an oblique way to regulate bee-keeping.
Mayor Fraser said that staff had done good work developing the information, but that it seemed
to him that the Council needed some additional information before it could decide the issue.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if bees might be restricted to certain zoning areas and whether the
Planning Commission had discussed this. Planner Tyler said that the Commission had left the
idea open.
Tyler said that Town staff has continued to receive more and more requests for the keeping of
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 19
chickens, but not so much for bees. She said that staff was not hearing a lot of negative feedback
on the issue (of bee or chicken-keeping).
Councilmember Collins asked about setting a limit on the number of hives. Planner Tyler said
that staff really had no idea how many hives were kept in Tiburon.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that it would be useful to have regulations in place. Town Manager
Curran noted that the CUP permit process was required now.
Councilmember Doyle asked about perhaps requiring certification of some sort for bee-keeping.
Tyler said that there was a best management practices clause in the proposed standards,but
nothing more.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Fraser closed the
public hearing.
Councilmember Fredericks said she liked the idea of requiring certification for bee-keeping. She
agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation for a ministerial approval process. She
also recommended the idea of getting signatures from contiguous neighbors.
Mayor Fraser asked what would happen if a neighbor did not sign off on the permit application.
Watrous said that it could be denied on that basis.
Mayor Fraser asked for more information to be developed about bee-keeping certification, and
standards used for approval. He noted that the Town had a CUP process in place. He asked staff
to find out what other cities were doing. Planner Tyler said that most cities had no process in
place; that Corte Madera had a minor review process.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he favored Councilmember Frederick's suggestions.
Planning Manager Watrous summarized the direction of Council: to consider limiting bee-
keeping to certain residential zones in the standards; for applicants to provide documentation of
training or knowledge of proper bee-keeping procedures, etc. Planner Tyler said that there were
a number of organizations in the Bay Area and that the Marin Bee Keepers Association was a
good resource.
Director of Community Development Anderson said that these ideas could be incorporated in the
standards that would be developed for the resolution, and that consideration of ordinance could
proceed.
Councilmember Fredericks said that she had received an email from a constituent that
encouraged the keeping of chickens and said that single chickens would get lonely. Planner Tyler
said that it had been verified that chickens do better when there is more than one.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 20
MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Fraser read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending
Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20
(Animals) with respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-keeping regulations and miscellaneous other
amendments."
MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance, waive second reading, and adopt on
Consent Calendar at the next regular meeting.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Collins, Doyle, Fredericks, Fraser, O'Donnell
NOES: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Major Crimes Task Force JEPA - Approve amendments to Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA) to reflect current practices and language changes required by new
liability insurance carrier (Chief of Police Cronin)
2. Grand Jury Report on Shared Services - Approve response to the Grand Jury's Report
regarding Shared Public Services (Town Attorney Danforth)
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2, as written.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
None.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - July 27, 2012
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 21
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 22
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fraser ed the regular in ting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m.
on Wednesd August 15, 2012, i Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director
of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police
Captain Hutton, Planning Manager Watrous,
Associate Planner Tyler, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to Mobile Vending Vehicles - Adopt ordinance
amending Title VI, Chapter 23 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic) of the Tiburon Municipal
Code to prohibit the parking or standing of mobile vendors on certain street segments
during certain hours (Chief of Police Cronin)
2. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to the Keeping of Chickens and Honey Bees
and other text amendments - Adopt ordinances amending Title VI, Chapter 20
(Animals) and Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Town
Code) (Director of Community Development Anderson)
A) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) by Making Various Text Amendments including but not
limited to adding, deleting and modifying definitions, adding a section regarding
reasonable accommodation [for the disabled], requiring site plan and architectural review
approval for demolition of structures, snaking amendments to requirements for
Temporary Use Permits, Tidelands Permits, vehicle gate setbacks, secondary dwelling
unit s and termination of nonconforming uses, and modifying affordable housing overlay
zone incentives consistent with the Tiburon General Plan;
DRAFT
Totivn Council Minutes #xy -2012 August 15, 2012 / Page 1
B) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20 (Animals) with
respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-Keeping Regulations and Miscellaneous other
Amendments
3. Management/Mid-Management Compensation Program - Adopt resolutions repealing
Resolution No. 22-2012 and No. 23-2013 and adopted amended resolutions for Fiscal
Year 2012-13 to correct clerical errors (Director of Administrative Services Bigall)
4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) - Approve MOU between Town of Tiburon and SEIU Local 2021 effective July
1, 2012 through June 30, 2015 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall)
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 4, as written.
Moved: Collins, seconded by O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ACTION ITEMS
1. Establish Name for new Joint Recreation Facility at 600 Ned's Way - Consider
recommendation of Heritage & Arts Commission and detennine appropriate name for
new building at 600 Ned's Way (Town Manager Curran)
Town Manager Curran gave the report. She said the project that has been known as "Ned's
Way" for some time now needs a better naive. She said this would also assist the Jt. Recreation
Committee in its fundraising for furnishings for the new facility. Curran said that one name that
had been proposed and discussed was "Dairy Knoll;" she said this referred to the fact that a
Portuguese dairy was located near the site.
In originally considering a name for the building several years ago, the Town Manager said that
several governing concepts were employed. These included finding a name that: a) was unique
and evocative rather than routine; b) was rooted in Tiburon history; c) had not been used in other
major place or building naives in the Town or County; d) avoided the use of bureaucratic or
institutional sound names like "facility"; e) was perhaps a bit whimsical, in light of its
recreational use; and f) was not overly specific to "recreation" in the event the use of the building
expands over time.
Town Manager Curran said that pursuant to the Town's naming policy for public spaces, the
Heritage & Arts Commission had been consulted for its recommendation about the proposed
naming of the site. She said that at its June 26 meeting, the commission recommended a slightly
different version of the name: "Dairy Hall." Curran said the commission thought it would be
descriptive of the new building that was being constructed at the site. She said that either name
would seem appropriate and that the ultimate decision was in the Council's purview.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 2
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked which name, if any, was preferred by the Jt. Recreation Committee
members. Town Manager Curran said that in her discussions with Director Andreucci, a
preference was given for "Dairy Knoll." She noted that there had not been a formal
recommendation by the committee; however, Curran said that the committee members had
``adopted" the name and were enthusiastic about the concept of "Dairy" in the name, whatever it
might be.
Mayor Fraser opened the item to public comment. There was none.
Councilmember Fredericks said she, too, liked the reference to a dairy, especially since the
calving barn still stood at the Public Works Corporation Yard. She said that naming it after the
site rather than a building might be the better course, as the uses of the site could broaden in
future. On the other hand, Fredericks said she would be willing to defer to the expertise of the
Heritage & Arts Commission in this matter.
Councilmember Collins said that he thought the name was adequate but that he was not
enthralled with it. He asked whether the committee was open to, and had pursued, other ideas.
Town Manager Curran said that some time had passed since she had discussed the name with the
Jt. Recreation personnel; she said that it might be possible to pursue this recommendation.
Councilmember Doyle said he liked the choice of "Dairy Knoll". The Councilman said his home
was located in the vicinity of the fann that had once been in that area; he said the name fit the site
well since it was a knoll, not a hall. He also said that Ned's Way was built with the idea of
preserving some of the open space in the area, so in his opinion, it also worked to name the site
with that in mind.
Mayor Fraser said the name also rang true for him and that it brought meaning to the site. The
Mayor said that he was not opposed to Councilmember Collins' suggestion, if the rest of the
Council wanted to pursue it.
MOTION: To adopt the name "Dairy Knoll" for the new facility at 600 Ned's Way.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
2. Encroachment Permit for Staircase at 1877 Centro West - Consider approval of
encroachment permit for the installation of a staircase in the public right-of-way at 1877
Centro West Street, Assessor Parcel No. 059-07-16 (Director of Public Works/Town
Engineer Nguyen)
Director Nguyen gave the report. He said that in June 2012, local contractor Mark Swanson
submitted an encroachment permit application for work at 1877 Centro West Street to replace an
entry stairs, handrails, a steel gate and retaining walls. The Director noted that the previous
staircase and retaining wall had been installed years before in the public right of way (ROW) and
that the new staircase and retaining wall proposed to do the same. Nguyen said that since the
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 201 2 Page 3
proposed staircase is of a permanent and substantial nature, Town staff was required to bring the
application to the Council for its review.
Nguyen said that staff had reviewed the plans and finds the encroachment to be in general
compliance with Town requirements and guidelines. He said that if the Council voted authorized
the encroachment, staff would prepare additional conditions of approval and require recordation
of the encroachment pennit, making it revocable [per Town policy].
Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the proposed structure would encroach less than the
existing one. Nguyen said that statement was correct.
Councilmember Collins asked whether stairs in various other places along the same street also
encroached onto the ROW. Director Nguyen said that they did.
Collins also asked whether the applicant had looked at constructing the improvements in another
way. The Director said that staff had asked the applicant to consider not encroaching into the
ROW but was told that it created too many difficulties; he suggested allowing the applicant to
explain the reasons.
Mayor Fraser noted in the staff report that the staircase existed before the garage was built.
Director Nguyen said that he was not familiar with the garage construction; however, Planning
Manager Watrous said that the previous stairs existed prior to construction of the new garage.
Mayor Fraser said that the neighborhood had a history of problems with speeding cars. He noted
that the ROW was used by pedestrians, cars and bicycles; he asked if an encroaching staircase
might exacerbate an already dangerous situation. He asked whether the stairs might come down
the left side of the house instead.
Director Nguyen said that staff had also discussed this question with the applicant; he said that
staff s premise was that the applicant should be allowed to replace the existing staircase for
ingress and egress, however, staff also believed there was an opportunity [for the Council] to
determine whether there were other ways to access the property.
Contractor Mark Swanson handed out a timeline of the project and described the history of the
project to date. He showed the configuration of the existing stairs when the garage was built in
2005 (page 1); he then showed the site plan approved by the Town in 2010 (page 2); he said this
also showed the site at the start of the current construction, with an existing concrete retaining
wall and stairs that come towards Centro West Street. Swanson said that his clients thought that
it would be better for the stairs not to spill out onto Centro West so they had proposed bringing
theirs back even more than the 2010 plans allowed.
Mr. Swanson said that he started work on the other improvements in 2010. In 2012, Swanson
said they came up with the revised plan [for the stairs] which seemed to be a better solution for
his clients and the community. He said the plan was circulated to the neighbors and received their
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 4
endorsement.
Mr. Swanson said that a lot of time and money had been spent to date on building new retaining
walls and a swimming pool. He said that this work included cutting back the slope and removal
of walls which would also improve the sight line at the corner. Swanson said that he had relied
upon prior approvals from the Town to proceed; he said it would be difficult and that he did not
have authorization to change his course of action now. He reiterated that his clients think the re-
oriented stairs are in the best interest of the Town, as well.
Mayor Fraser asked if there was any public comment on the matter. There was none.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he supported the application, as submitted. He said that he lived in
the neighborhood above the property in question and passed the home on took Centro West.
O'Donnell agreed that it was a narrow street with a difficult corner; he said that although the
encroachment was a taking of a public space, there were no good alternatives, and it was a
significant improvement for both the property owner and the Town.
Councilmember Collins said that he, too, supported the application and that it would make the
area safer than before.
Councilmember Doyle concurred with his colleagues.
MOTION: To approve encroachment permit #12-75 for installation of a staircase in the
public ROW at 1877 Centro West Street, as presented.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 1 Blackfield Drive - Consider appeal of Design Review Board decision to approve a
request for site plan and architectural review to construct exterior alterations to an
existing commercial building (Planning Manager Watrous)
Applicants: Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Markets; Nadel Architects
Appellants: Darren Wein, Jennifer Rasmussen, Lynde Selden, Kyle and Ann Mary
Belek, Murray and Tiffany Dunn
AP No. 034-212-18
--Application withdrawn on August 15, 2012.
2. 2308 Mar East Street - Consider appeal of Design Review Board decision to approve a
request for site plan and architectural review to construct additions to an existing single-
family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage,
and a floor area exception (Associate Planner Tyler)
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 5
Applicant: Dr. Peter Wilton
Appellants: Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, David and Kathryn Kulik
AP No. 059-195-01
Staff presented the report detailing the history of the project and described the appeals procedure.
Councilmemmber Fredericks asked for clarification regarding the problem identified in
determining lot size and floor area ratios (FARs) for some of the lots because of the mean high
tide. Ms. Tyler stated that in order to determine the lot coverage and FARs for the properties that
are on the waterfront, the amount of dry land must be determined using the mean high tide line.
Generally, BCDC can help determine where this mean high tide line is.
Councilmember Fredericks said she reviewed the data and did not have a sense of whether the
applicant's lot is smaller or larger than the other two, and she asked if there was any information
about this at all or would this only be available if one has the mean high tide boundaries. Mr.
Watrous replied that the Town only has the mean high tide boundaries in the calculations for the
dry land area for lots that have submitted applications within the last 20-30 years. The Mayor had
asked for additional information on this and staff found 6 parcels out of 29 parcels with
information on them, not including the ones on either side. He added that the Town has not been
given the lot line information in connection with detailed maps to make those calculations. This
is not something they normally do until somebody applies for an application for the property and,
at that time they ask the applicants to provide this information.
Councilmember Fredericks asked if the proposed kitchen is within the appropriate setback or is
the variance on the setback to accommodate the kitchen structure. Ms. Tyler replied that the
variance is for the kitchen addition expansion because it intrudes into the side yard setback. She
explained that when the project was initially submitted, the applicants had requested two side
yard setback variances, but upon revisions, they eliminated the west side yard setback variance.
She said that the only one that was approved was for the eastern side adjacent to 2310 Mar East.
Councihmeimber Fredericks questioned the basis of the finding that the privacy was improved for
2310 Mar East. Ms. Tyler noted it had to do with how the expansion of the kitchen's projection
out would actually block certain windows now viewed from 2310 Mar East Street.
Councilmember Fredericks further confinned it was a combination of the fact that there was a
window in the solid wall and how the windows were placed in the kitchen. She stated when there
is a lot which has various forms of non-conformity that comes in on an application, she asked if
there is any particular policy for curing non-conformity, and Ms. Tyler stated "no."
Vice Mayor O'Donnell stated that along Mar East when a property has a deck that extends out
into the Marine zone of the property, he asked if this goes towards their FAR within the property.
Mr. Watrous replied that an open deck would not count towards FAR whether it is on dry land or
not. It does count toward lot coverage; however, the Town's zoning allows decks to extend into
the marine zone but does not allow floor area to necessarily extend into the Marine zone.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 6
Councilmember Collins asked and confirmed with Mr. Watrous that he was not aware of whether
or not 2306 Mar East was a double lot. Councilmember Collins asked when the applicant
purchased 2308 Mar East, and Ms. Tyler said she was not sure of the date but the applicant was
present and could answer the question.
Mayor Fraser said a comment in the staff report states, "The Board articulated findings for both
variances but noted that the hardships on the applicant were the standards of the R2 zone."
When he was on the Planning Commission he remembered they talked about zoning and, in
some instances, they would make a recommendation for a change to the zoning ordinance and he
asked what the process is for the Council to address or zoning issues through such changes. Mr.
Watrous said this would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which requires hearings
before the Planning Commission and Town Council and adoption by ordinance. He said they
have had this discussion in workshops regarding other zones. The one that often arises is the RO-
2 zone which has 15% lot coverage, and they end up approving many variances for this. In that
case, the Council has discussed on a number of occasions whether to change that ordinance to
better fit the neighborhood and has chosen not to. He added that there has not been a global
discussion on the R-2 zone.
Mayor Fraser asked and confirmed that the Council has not had discussion with regard to the R-2
zone or as it relates to Mar East and as it relates in terms of looking at the zoning there in recent
times. Vice Mayor O'Donnell added that they have not held this discussion for most of Tiburon
for that matter and he said as Councilmember Fredericks stated the flavor of each property is
unique.
Mayor Fraser asked for the appellant's presentation.
Magdalena Yesil, Appellant, said she is here with her husband, Jim Wickett and her son, Justin
Wickett. They own and live in 2306 Mar East. She said they are here because after numerous
visits, the Planning staff could not make the finding for variances for 2308 Mar East, yet the
DRB could. They are appealing the decision because they believe what the Planning staff said,
as she quoted; "There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the
variances requested specifically for physical hardship and injurious to neighboring properties."
She asked how the DRB made the findings that Planning staff could not. Regarding physical
hardship, they already heard from Ms. Tyler that the way the DRB made this finding is that the
hardship and practical difficulty is that zoning does not fit the site. She said in other communities
like Newport Beach, one is allowed to build 50%-60% lot coverage. The question as to what lot
coverage currently this house has, according to the application it actually currently has 69% lot
coverage. Even if it were in Newport Beach, it would be above the lot coverage required.
On the variance finding that the project would not be injurious to other properties, the
Boardmembers made this finding by saying the 5 foot balconies in the back would not be party
decks and the project, in general, would not be injurious to neighboring homes. This decision
was reached with three of the five members present.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 7
Ms. Yesil said one reason they bought their home was because it was a wide lot. They knew it
would provide them with more frontage and it already had an existing pier and dock which was
in fairly bad shape. They bought this home about 5 years ago and did a retrofit as approved as a
conditional use permit in 2008. Unlike the applicant's letter which indicated they added 770 feet,
they actually added 703 feet, but this did not require a variance. She also pointed out that the
screening between the two homes at the water level is very difficult. She provided a picture
showing the proximity of the two homes to each other and said they are quite close in one area
which she showed as the view into the master bedroom.
Regarding two issues of hardship, Ms. Yesil said Vice Chair Emberson of the DRB said that to
live on the water and not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water is a hardship. In fact, today the
home at 2308 Mar East has two decks totaling about 400 square feet at the lower level. The
applicant has said the decks do not have sunlight and rear views, but both decks get quite a bit of
sun, have furniture and other items on them, and have direct views toward Angel Island. She
said the applicant is planning to fill this deck and make it into a fourth bedroom, and then push it
out 5' 10" and build a new deck downstairs, as well as new deck upstairs. She believes this is
exactly the kind of self-induced hardship that the variance process does not allow for. To fill in a
deck that already exists and then to say they need another deck is not a hardship argument
because the lack of decks does not apply. She also pointed out that the hardship argument that
the applicant has put forth on maintaining the rear of his home does not apply. He has said he
cannot maintain the rear of his home; therefore, he needs decks at both levels for maintenance.
But as the picture shows, during low tide there is plenty of dry beach for external maintenance.
Her home was painted about 1.5 years ago and they have no decks, docks or any access on two
sides of their home and have no difficulty painting the whole house because they basically timed
it and worked with the tides.
She displayed a picture of their master bedroom and said today, outside light, sounds, and views
from 2308 Mar East are limited in the present condition. Now two decks are being proposed and
they do not really know what those two decks will do because they are not architects and cannot
visualize it. They were told that the decks with their privacy screens would not be injurious to
them. She went and retained an architectural and structural engineering firm and asked them to
provide their expert opinion. The firm works as expert witness in cases of this kind, and they are
extremely careful in what they say because they must appear in court at times and defend their
findings. She asked theirs to help them visualize whether the two decks would be injurious to her
or not from a privacy standpoint.
Ms. Yesil then presented a perspective from overhead showing the two homes as they exist and
the master bedroom roof (in yellow) and the two decks proposed at the upper and lower level. At
the lower level, there is a triangular deck connecting another deck. The two new decks add 5' 10"
at both levels which add up to about 410 square feet of new deck, bringing 2308 Mar East's
outside living space 25% closer to their master bedroom at two different levels. She said the
Council may think 5' 10" is not that much, but from a percentage or relative closeness point of
view, it brings outside living space with all of its issues 25% closer to their master bedroom at
two different levels. The 410 square feet of outside living space means they will hear
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 8
conversation. During the DRB hearings they were told that 5 feet decks are not likely to support
large parties. They understand this but do not know how one could stipulate that, but the bottom
line is there does not need to be a loud party to hear what is going on next door because of their
proximity. They can hear conversations and laughter, and this is furthermore exacerbated by the
fact that there is water, and when calm, sound waves reflect off the water and make the situation
worse for them. The injurious situation can be conversation, laughter, an intimate gathering and
not necessarily loud parties. She said same as sound waves, light waves also will project out and
its reflection off the water will cast into their bedroom. They have no ability to screen with trees
or bushes.
Regarding the proposed privacy screen which the DRB discussed and approved for the upper
deck, she presented a picture from the applicant's packet. She believes that the upper deck was
granted based on this privacy screen functioning. She presented a picture of the proposed decks
and, while they are not architects, they asked for the expert opinion of architects and engineers to
help them understand if the privacy screens would provide privacy for them. They found that
someone going out on those decks will be able to see them. The privacy screens do not block
direct view into her bedroom, do not eliminate views into their master bedroom and bed, and the
permit-granting process has been built on Photoshop images because no one can go out to the
decks to confirm that the privacy screens work. Their architects show that the privacy screens
deployed do not offer the visual privacy for their bedroom as was discussed. The screens
furthermore do nothing to avoid the injurious effects of the two new decks from an acoustic
privacy and lighting point of view. Ultimately, the 2308 Mar East additions in the rear provide
direct line of sight and injurious effect from an acoustic and lighting point of view.
Ms. Yesil said they were told in the hearing that they live in a very open environment and it will
not be made worse through these decks, but she questioned whether this is true. If the project is
built they have two levels of 5' 10" protruding further into their master bedroom. She asked to see
what percentage this would be from a penetration point of view, asked that a satellite image of
the two homes be taken and that the applicant's architectural plans be overlaid on top of them.
They were told that from the closest point of view of the decks they will now have a 60% visual
penetration into their master bedroom. This gets worse moving further back on the decks. The
closer one is the smaller the angle; the farther one is the wider the angle. She put the two slides
side by side for the Council to help make their own decision and asked if the project would be
injurious to them or really enhance their privacy. They think not with all due respect to the DRB
members, and they do believe they will be injured from the building of these two decks. She said
even in approaching the granting of the variance on a balancing of equities theory which is not
the zoning ordinance, this design still does not stand up to the test. When one balances the
relative equities of what the applicant is gaining and what is being taken away from them, the
applicant complains he is getting merely a modest balcony and hardly even a deck. Yet to get him
this, his structure comes 25%o closer to their master bedroom within 20 feet, encroaches upon
their bedroom privacy, and prevents their ability to sleep in that room since they cannot shield
from the conversations and light. They cannot plant trees since it is water and rock between them
and the applicant's words "the modest gain he will receive" does not balance the very major
detrimental impact to the quality of their daily lives, their ability to sleep, their loss of privacy
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 9
and the loss of property value they will experience.
Ms. Yesil then discussed the second bedroom in the rear (highlighted in yellow), presented the
layout and said with the new plans the southwest area of the home gets 4' closer to them. Today
they have two outdoor areas in the southwest elevation-the entry walkway and the lower deck.
If the project is built, they will have four additional outdoor areas right by their second bedrooms.
So, what is a quiet area today will have significantly more traffic, more light, and it will affect the
quality of life in their second bedroom. She presented a picture of what exists today as the
second bedroom, windows, an existing fence between the two properties, and she said they do
not have the ability to plant a tree, lattice for the fence for the wind to go through, and the privacy
tree which screens between the two homes. The applicant's plans will expand through the area;
the tree will be taken away because it will most likely not survive, and if the plans are built as is
they will have the home 15 feet away from their window, two stories of windows and a new
sliding door. The proposed design creates areas of light and activity adjacent to the 2306 Mar
East second bedroom.
Ms. Yesil said they requested clerestory windows at the entry and stairway. This was discussed at
the May 4th DRB meeting but it was never incorporated into the plans. The clerestory windows
are very important to them because this is the entry into the home as well as the stairway, and
most of the time it will be lit which will shine right into their bedroom. They also requested the
tree be maintained or replaced which the applicant agreed to but it was never stipulated into the
permit. They also asked that the sliding doors be made into solid doors to reduce glazing.
Regarding the decks, they believe that the lower deck should not be granted because it is a good
example of self-induced hardship. There are already two decks at this level totaling 400 square
feet and furthermore, the lower deck is injurious to their privacy to their master bedroom as it is
exactly at the same level. They also asked for the DRB to reconsider the upper deck. The upper
deck has been granted based on the theoretical function of the privacy screen which does not
provide the visual privacy claimed by the applicant nor does it eliminate the injurious acoustical
and lighting into their master bedroom. The upper deck is injurious to the privacy of their master
bedroom and they also believe it should be eliminated.
In closing, they are before the Council because they have asked that 2308 Mar East not be
granted. Staff in three different reports said that there appears to be insufficient evidence to
support the findings for the variances requested, specifically for physical hardship and injurious
to neighboring properties. In contrast, in granting the variances for 2308 Mar East, the DRB
determined that the zoning designation did not fit the site or the Mar East waterfront vicinity in
general. She believes this is dangerous precedent for the Town of Tiburon because it creates a
lawless environment for the Town. She asked that the Council adopt the staff s recommendation
by denying the excess lot coverage variance in light of lack of physical hardship to the applicant
and the injurious and detrimental effects of this variance on them and on their property.
Councilmember Fredericks asked Ms. Yesil to clarify the shortcomings are of the screen on their
patio, as when she visited the site it was not in good shape. Ms. Yesil said the screen was there
when they purchased their home. It is a very thin fence and is very high from their side because
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 10
they are 25 feet lower than 2308 Mar East. She said she cannot grow bushes there but if they
could they would prefer more light screening. But because there is not dirt underneath for them
to grow bushes in, they are basically limited to whatever the current fence can provide. It is not a
perfect fence and light does come through. Light goes in every direction and diffuses out, so they
believe even though there is a fence in front of the sliding glass doors, at night when turning on a
flashlight in the area, it does light up towards the sky and they can see the light. They originally
were not opposed to the house coming out 4 feet towards theirs and they just ask that changes be
made so their life is not as difficult, as they believe it will be if the request is approved.
David Kulik, Appellant, said his wife Kathryn and he are the owners of 2310 Mar East and
thanked the Council for the time put in preparing to hear this meeting. He has three goals for his
presentation-the first is that he wants to demonstrate the injurious impact that these variances
have on their property through a PowerPoint presentation. Secondly, there are many legal issues
in play and he will ask that his attorney, Mr. Len Rifkind to articulate on those, and finally, they
want to show where they think the DRB missed the mark in finding for these variances.
Mr. Kulik presented the orientation of the two properties; 2310 and 2308 Mar East. He said what
is shown is the result of a fierce battle waged 40 years ago. The final result was set in detail to
maximize the privacy in an area that was inherently not private while also minimizing the impact
to light and views for all players involved. There is a lot of evidence when going through their
home, given the strategically placed windows that look directly down property lines, privacy
enhancements, unique cuts that maximize the view from 2308 over to Berkeley. All of this was
done with careful consideration of the relative orientation of the two properties and done on
purpose. He brought up the concept of absolute versus relative, stating they fully concede that
what is being proposed is not that much from an absolute perspective. It is 5'10", and if the
properties were separated by 100', less than a 6% relative impact to the separation, it would not
be an issue and would be negligible. However, these two properties are separated by 8' and 5'10"
represents a 72% impact to the relative separation of the two properties. What it does is create
levered and adverse impacts for every change in 2308 Mar East to this carefully constructed
scheme of 2310 Mar East. He said he would show the result of variances to the zoning ordinance
that were granted by the DRB and he asked the Council to keep one thought in mind as he goes
through the slides-he asked that the Council ask itself the question, is 2310 Mar East made
better or worse for what is being proposed? The answer to that question is the very basis for their
appeal.
Mr. Kulik stated at the closest point of approach now from one of the two open-air decks to their
property, they have 20 feet of separation, which they accept. The new project, from their
perspective, calls for two decks and a kitchen extension, and that separation now from 20' gets
reduced to the order of 8' which is a 60% reduction in the separation between an open-air deck
and their living room, which has several adverse effects for them. First, in looking at the
acoustic issues, from 8' in their living room listening to the deck, they can hear every word that is
said. Worse, in the opposite, someone standing on that deck can hear every conversation that
occurs in their living room. It changes the way they live in their house. On the upstairs, they
would have a kitchen pop-out which has cooking and cleaning sounds at unpredictable hours,
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 11
which is 8' from their master bedroom, which changes a lot of things in their master bedroom.
Also, having lived at 2310 Mar East for 4 years now, they know the prevailing wind is right
down the line of 2308 Mar East. They use this window for ventilation at night and they open it.
They can hear the water and can get a lot of fresh air. Regardless of how good the ventilation
system is in the kitchen, they know from experience that every odor emanating from the kitchen
will end up in that window.
Mr. Kulik pointed to an illustration which represents the visual privacy intrusion range from the
new decks into their main living areas. Their master bedroom is upstairs, the main living room is
downstairs, and the yellow represents what they have to do with window treatments to maintain
their visual privacy in those spaces. He presented a slide that represents a 55 degree intrusion
angle into their main living spaces. Admittedly, this is not great, but what the project does is
when they move out 5'10", it increases that angle to 80 degrees. This is a 45% increase in the
visual penetration into their master bedroom and main living room. From pictures inside their
home, they can see the deck 20 feet away from their living room. What will happen with the new
project is someone will be 8 feet away from their living room, can literally read the paper over
his shoulder as he sits on the couch, and this presents a look down porch directly into their main
living space. This forces them to use window treatments to guard their privacy. They have a
fantastic view of the Golden Gate Bridge and it puts theirs in a difficult scenario because their
choice is to look at the bridge and accept the new privacy intrusion or maintain their privacy and
block off the view from their entire living space of the dining, living room and kitchen. He
displayed a picture taken from the perspective from his pillow in his bedroom upstairs. He said
one can see a silhouette of a person and actually see the tenant renting 2308 now in the picture.
Again, they know the scenario is not perfect and inherently not private, but this gets much worse
when the upper deck creates a perch of an 80 degree or worse intrusion angle into their bedroom
looking directly at him as he sleeps on his pillow. This puts him in the choice again of whether
he should cover up 2/3 of the window and block the view from his master bedroom and maintain
his privacy or does he sacrifice all that and let somebody look at him while he sleeps.
Mr. Kulik then presented before and after views from his dining room table, showing the lower
decks that extend out which is the same concept. Someone has the ability to look at him and his
only option is to cover the window with a treatment and all the people at his table cannot see the
Golden Gate Bridge and to say nothing of the fact that the person is 8 feet away from their table.
This is a significant problem and a devastating change to their quality of life because they have
no private conversation at their dining room table.
He then presented a picture from the perspective of where the upper deck will be and it is taken
from the line of the story poles in place now. The red silhouette shows a person standing on the
deck, the pillow from where the previous picture was taken, and inverting the silhouettes, he
showed the view from the upper deck into their bedroom. The only choice he has is either let
somebody watch him in bed or use a treatment and block off views of the bridge. It is the same
concept on the lower deck, which he then similarly explained. Admittedly, he said this is not a
primary view window but it is tremendously enhancing to the character of the house and it speaks
to the meticulous design placed there. It adds a lot of light to the stairs, is a safety enhancing
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 12
feature, and adds character to the room. Looking out the window one can see the Sutro Tower,
Angel Island and the water, and he asked the Council to ask the question--Is 2310 Mar East made
better or worse by this?
Len Rifkind, attorney for the appellant, said he knows the Council understands the concept of
findings, but in his view this is the analysis they will have to partake--to decide whether or not
the Council can make findings under the Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16.52.030 (e). There
are four findings required by State law to be made in order to determine whether or not the
Council can grant what has been requested, naively a side yard setback variance, a lot coverage
variance, and a floor area exception. He read verbatim number 3 of the Municipal Code and
specifically called out that "self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that
might constitute special circumstances and a self-created hardship results from actions taken by
present or by prior owners of the property that consciously creates very difficult hardships
claimed as the basis for an application for a variance." He noted that staff, in three staff reports in
December, May and June all concluded each time that they could not snake this finding, which is
significant. The reason they could not is that at least with the lot coverage exception, this
property is so overbuilt, it exceeds six standards in the R-2 zoning that there is no need to go
even further beyond the overbuilding that has already occurred, so staff could not snake the
finding for that very reason. Staff has said in fact that any application that requests both a lot
coverage variance and a floor area exception is by definition an example of fundamental
overbuilding, and this is what this application is requesting.
Regarding the side yard setback on the east side, Mr. Rifkind said it is down to 6", but this was
created 40 years ago and the language right in the ordinance states that a "self-created hardship,
whether by present or prior owners..." Therefore, when 40 years ago a lot line adjustment was
determined between the two properties, it unfortunately affected 2308 with the situation it is
finding today. The reason the lot line adjustment was created was so the owner who owned both
2308 and the lot would be able to build what is now 2310 Mar East.
Mr. Rifkind also pointed out the second finding that the Council must make is the idea that it
cannot be injurious to the neighbors' property. He thinks the picture says this and tells the story.
It seems abundantly clear that the Kulik family's privacy, views, and sunlight are all significantly
impacted by the proposed project as it is designed.
Regarding the findings, he stated the California Supreme Court in 1974 had a case called
"Topanga" and one of the lines he loves about the decision says, "a finding bridges the analytic
gap between the raw evidence and the agency's ultimate decision." The raw evidence here is the
two decks seen in the kitchen pop out. The ultimate decision is whether this Council decides
whether or not to grant these variances. What the finding is going to be is the gap between the
two and the reason why you either decide to grant or not grant there. It seems there is enough
evidence presented that the Council cannot make those findings. It is clear that for the injurious
aspect, the Council has heard from Mr. Kulik that there is a levered and adverse impact, which
the pictures show. In terms of the hardship, when the house already exceeds every aspect of the
zoning standards, the resolution would be there is nothing stopping the applicant from building
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 13
within the existing footprint. They could have the same decks and kitchen albeit the house is
slightly smaller at 2,600 feet. They want 2,900 feet, so they could still build all the same design
within those 2,600 feet there, and this is what they are suggesting the Council go.
Another point raised and staff talked about it is the idea of non-confonning use and non-
conforming structure, and the zoning ordinance, Section 16.62.030 addresses both. Regarding the
structure part, they are not changing the use but the whole point of having a non-conforming
ordinance is the goal of any zoning ordinance is so that all the structures and uses actually
conform and comply. The goal is not to have a structure that will go beyond what is pennitted by
the standards, and that is what unfortunately this application does and contrary to what provision
Section 16.62.030(b) says, which he read into the record. Usually an applicant will ask for a
variance in order to get around it, and they have indicated and shown clearly is that the Council
cannot snake those findings.
Lastly, from a policy standpoint and from the concept of precedence, Mr. Rifkind stated he thinks
every Council thinks about that, if the Council decides to grant this application because the
applicant thinks it is modest and only 5'10" and the DRB said it was not a big deal; that they are
only increasing the square footage by 10%, the facts are that they are moving from 20 feet to 8
feet. The applicant says that all homes in the Mar East neighborhood are non-confonning. This is
a sweeping statement but there is no evidence that is actually true. He does not know if anybody
really knows this. The applicant has said that all homes in the Mar East neighborhood have
variances, but 2310 does not, 2332 does not and 2248 does have one but it has specific findings
stating it was not injurious to any adjoining properties. If this is granted, the Council will have
the potential for every home in Mar East to be able to come forward and point to 2308 as an
example and neighbors will oppose this. If the Council stands up for the zoning ordinance and
does not grant this, the Mayor suggested doing a zoning change which he said is not before the
Council tonight, and he would appreciate based upon everything heard if the Council would
uphold the appeal, deny the application.
Mr. Kulik concluded the presentation, stating he spent a lot of time doing some research of a
precedent setting case on Mar East that would show all elements in play here--an application,
variance, neighborhood opposition, Town opposition and ultimately an appeal. He found the
most applicable case and this is his house; 2310 Mar East. Forty years ago a man owned a vacant
lot and wanted to construct a residential structure. He submitted plans to the Town that called for
a variance. On seeing these plans, neighbors were opposed and the Town encouraged the
applicant to redraw his plans. He did so, resubmitted the plans for a structure that had zero
variance to the zoning ordinance, and this structure is his house. He thinks it is precedent setting
that in asking for a variance not just in Tiburon or not just on Mar East Street, but in this specific
locale, there is a precedent that if you ask for a variance you cannot injure somebody else.
Obviously, putting up a structure on a vacant lot would be injurious and the neighborhood and
the town made it happen, so that wouldn't go forward. Now what the Council sees is a structure
that is completely compliant and required no variances to be built. With no disrespect to the
DRB, when things are granted through variance and justification is used, attention must be called
to it if it is disagreed to.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #Yx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 14
Mr. Kulik stated that a Boardmember said the screen would completely eliminate the view of the
bedroom next door. He was referencing 2306. He knew it was a problem from looking at a deck
through a bedroom and said the screen that has gotten so much air time through debates would
solve that problem. What that Boardmember did not address was this situation; he worried about
the screen at 2306 but never mentioned the situation in his finding for both variances. Another
Boardmember said the project would not be injurious to other properties but instead would
enhance their privacy. With all due respect, Mr. Kulik said they are not familiar with the chain of
logic that would allow somebody to conclude that this does not injure their property. Finally, a
third Boardmember states that the hardship and practical difficulty was that the zoning does not
fit the site. This is an opinion and it is fine, but to find for a variance that injures their property is
not appropriate. In other communities like Newport Beach are allowed to build 50%-60% lot
coverage, but this is Tiburon and we should not be modeling our zoning after them. To grant a lot
coverage variance without mentioning the injurious effects or lack thereof to his property is
something he cannot agree with.
Mr. Kulik said his goals are that he wanted to demonstrate the injury this has to his property, his
attorney talked about the legal points, and he wanted to say why they disagree with what the
DRB said in finding for the variances. Staff, over the course of the past seven months, has been
completely professional and he appreciates this.
Mayor Fraser asked for any clarifying questions from Councilmembers, and there were none. He
asked the applicant to come forward for his presentation.
Dr. Peter Wilton, Applicant, said he appreciates the Council's time to come out and look at the
property. He began by agreeing that the findings were made unanimously. There was mention
there were only 3 members of the DRB present which is correct, although there are plenty of
comments from the fourth member who was present at the two previous hearings. In the minutes,
he was equally supportive. He said that the question was whether the DRB act appropriately and
he believes this requires them to look at these issues; 1) the nature of the review process and was
it fair and meaningful; 2) what is the nature of prevailing development along Mar East; 3) what is
the scope of the proposed work; and 4) what have they done in response to concerns of the
neighbors.
In looking at these individually, the review process involved three meetings with the DRB. It
involved very extensive direct engagement with the neighbors and they even retained an
independent party to try and resolve the issue and take further input to try and address the needs
of neighbors. The outcome of that was different depending upon who you are talking to. Mr.
and Mrs. Kulik purchased the home at 2310 Mar East in December and before they purchased,
they were well aware of their plans and they actually story poles that were the original story poles
that were three times larger than what they ended up with, but they made the decision to purchase
anyway.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 15
Dr. Wilton said that they engaged the Kulik's even before they purchased, tried to get their input,
the result of which has continued and has been neither collaborative nor compromising. Mr.
Kulik has basically said the only thing that is acceptable to him is to stay within the envelope and
that he was wasting their time and money putting story poles up and doing anything else. Dr.
Wilton characterized discussions with 2306 Mar East as collaborative but not compromising.
There has been a lot of compromise made but so far it has all been unilateral. He said they even
tried to reach out to the Wickett's one week ago suggesting further discussions. The result was an
approach of "give us everything we want and we will drop our appeal." So, unfortunately, that
process has not been that productive, but it has been active.
Regarding prevailing development, Dr. Wilton believed the properties are all unique on Mar East
which is why precedence does not apply because everything is so different in each case. This
particular property is highly compromised for many reasons. The first two involve the setback
from other properties along Mar East and the setback from two immediate neighbors. He
displayed an exhibit showing the setback line to the edge of the prevailing development along
Mar East and said that no other property is set as far back than this particular property. The next
reason they feel it is compromised is because of the lack of an upper and lower deck which is
open and unobstructed. Every other house along Mar East has a multi-level exterior deck with
unobstructed views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the rest of the Bay. The one exception is the
Wickett's house, which has a single level deck. He showed photos of decks at 2310, 2312 and
2306 Mar East. Their original request for decks was approximately 700 square feet and in light
of what happened with the Wickett's house two years ago, they do not believe they are asking for
the world, but rather something quite similar. Today, they are requesting a deck of only 280
square feet.
Dr. Wilton said that other properties along Mar East are all basically tiered, meaning the lower
deck extends out further than the upper deck. Their proposal is not to do this but have the decks
in line which denies theirs a lot of light and sun on the lower deck. He said they have a partial
view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the lower deck, but there will be a privacy screen and that
view will no longer be possible. They do not have a dock and would like access to the water.
They originally included a dock in the plan, but removed it because of objections from neighbors
and the desire for more privacy. The Wickett's have a dock so the fact that they are not able to do
this is further hardship.
Dr. Wilton said that the lack of maintenance is a serious issue for them. He presented a picture of
the property at low tide on the water's edge. When they bought their house in March of 2011 they
found leaks everywhere. He pointed to areas which are rotted and the only way they could access
it is having somebody in a sling go over the roof. The other main purpose of these decks is to
give access to maintaining the waterfront side of the property. They found holes all along the area
because the property had never been maintained because of the fact that nobody can get to it. So
the house is deteriorating and needs to be upgraded.
Dr. Wilton said that the Council heard reference to a lot line adjustment, and he showed plans
showing the locations of 2310 and 2306 Mar East. He said that in 1971 the owner decided to
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 16
build the house at 23 10 Mar East and its original location was right on the boundary line with a
zero variance. Mr. Kulik asserted that his house was built with no variances, which is correct, but
only because the owner moved the lot line. This immediately created a substandard side yard for
his property and in addition, it took a large portion of available dry land from their original plot.
They feel this is a very significant issue that has brought him here today, and this is why they
have a side yard setback variance request. He said that the Town transferred the variance granted
to 2310 to them by precedent, so, they are asking for a continuation of that side yard setback.
Councilmember Fredericks questioned what Dr. Wilton meant by "they transferred the variance."
Dr. Wilton said there was a lot of protest about building-2 310 Mar East and discussions back and
forth between neighbors. Because of the opposition from neighbors, the owner of this property
wanted to get away from the variance so he moved the lot line. He said there is a high tide line so
that portion of dry land area is gone and taken from him, which again, is why they are before the
Council. While it is history, it is context and part of the reason why this property is
compromised.
Dr. Wilton stated the DRB looked at all of this and concluded there is hardship for this property.
in terms of the physical maintenance and because they were being denied the privileges of every
other owner along Mar East has, particularly in terms of the open, multi-tiered deck.
Regarding the scope of the project, Dr. Wilton said that they have been questioned on their
personal motivations for what they are doing. This is their retirement home and would like to
grow old there. To do this they need to put what is necessary to live on one level without stairs.
They would like single floor access to the kitchen, bath, bedroom, living room and dining room
on the top level. It has been proposed to them to take away the roof of the existing structure and
stay within the envelope and put the decks there, but to do this and accommodate aging in place
would basically be extremely expensive or impractical. They are starting a family and want room
for kids. He continues to research and write from home and both have wheelchair-bound
dependents that are going to visit. Therefore they do think the plan to have 4 bedrooms is
excessive. They are increasing the lot coverage by about 300 square feet, most of which is within
the existing envelope. The only actual increase in the envelope is the kitchen pop out at 50 square
feet. Everything else is reclaiming the existing footprint of the property.
Dr. Wilton said they calculated FAR's on the adjoining properties and looked at the dry land
area. His architect, Mr. Sadrieh ran the numbers for lot coverage and floor area and the house is
not that far out of line.
Councilmember Frederick asked how Mr. Sadrieh determined what the mean high tide line was.
Mohammad Sadrieh, architect, stated they are not exact, but are extrapolated from where the
mean high tide line is on the. property below them.
Dr. Wilton agreed it is an estimate but better than nothing. This is why the rest of the lot
coverage does not make sense in this area. If he wants to get a low lot coverage number, he can
just build on water which is exactly what has happened with 2306 Mar East, and which is why he
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 17
thinks the variances need to be granted. He felt that the calculations are not meaningful in this
kind of situation and this is the conclusion the DRB reached. He could get around the lot
coverage by putting everything on the water which they have not done, but 2306 Mar East has
done.
Dr. Wilton presented the square footage they are proposing at 2,900 square feet and he showed
other properties along Mar East showing it is not excessive, and he said this is one of the reasons
also the DRB reached the conclusion that it was modest. There are complaints about theirs filling
in the lower deck, but the lower deck is covered so it does not get sunlight except for a very brief
period of the day on a very small portion of the deck, so they would like to have an uncovered
deck. It is actually a porch, but the main issue is getting access to maintenance, and this is why
they are asking for the lower deck-to be able to maintain the property just like everybody else
along Mar East.
Regarding the concerns about privacy and views, deck size and view intrusion, the DRB looked
at all things mentioned tonight and they made the comment at the end of the process that it is a
very thoughtful design, that they responded appropriately to the issues raised, and they concluded
it did not intrude into the primary view spaces. He displayed adjustments made to the original
plans on the decks made in May and in June. The original deck was supposed to be 700 square
feet and the decks have been reduced to 280 square feet. They are surrounded by a deck of 1,660
square feet, 700 of which was added 2-3 years ago. The DRB called this a balcony where people
are not going to be able to congregate and not a deck. The Council heard a lot of complaints
about noise from both neighbors, but in thinking about the ability to congregate outside and
create noise, it is easier to do that on the two adjoining properties. Privacy is a two-way street and
they are being asked to accept noise into their house but they are not being given the same
privilege by their neighbors.
Notwithstanding that, they have done a lot of things to give privacy which no other house on Mar
East has done. They have extensively used privacy screens to try and address the privacy issue.
The DRB concluded that as a result, the house would actually increase privacy and that
expectations of total privacy along Mar East are just not reasonable nor are the possible. He
displayed where photos were taken from and explained theirs, stating in the previous presentation
this was not shown. They were taken from angles that were very advantageous to the views of
their neighbors.
Councilmember Fredericks asked how far the viewpoints are from the windows, and Dr. Wilton
said it depends on where one stands and said the decks give them even less privacy. He
explained one photo was taken from the middle of the dock of 2306 Mar East or 2/3 away from
the end of the Wickett's dock. Another was taken from the first boat hook from Mr. Kulik's
house or about 40 feet, and he continued displaying various views and explaining what they have
done to address the DRB's comments. He noted it is not possible that light can protrude through
the timber fence.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 18
Dr. Wilton said they had proposed a solution to the Wickett's that will completely solve their
privacy problem, have offered to pay for a design of their own choosing that would sit at an angle
off of their house and given them total privacy. He presented a view from their bedroom, taken
from their own submission on record when they wanted to replace the window. The reason their
photos look different is because when they took photos of his home, the Wickett's stood right up
against their wall and looked back. However, it would be possible to have a modest screen which
would provide them with total privacy while still retaining their views of the east bay and sunrise
which they want, but they have not chosen to do that. In looking at all of this, the DRB basically
said the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the welfare or injurious to the other
property in the vicinity. It is not a perfect solution, but it is modest and reasonable.
Dr. Wilton said he thinks the design is good for the community. He presented a picture of what
the home looks like today and 3D renderings of what they are proposing, stating there is not
significant expansion on the envelope at 55 square feet at the kitchen pop-out, and they believe it
will do a great deal to improve the general value of properties and communities along Mar East.
Councilmelnber Doyle said he noticed the use of deck spaces and asked why the option for a
dock going out to the water was not considered. Dr. Wilton said because Mr. Wickett and Mrs.
Yesil indicated this would go straight past their bedroom window and be even more intrusive of
their privacy. They would love to be able to do this, but this is one of the reasons why they think
this property is compromised.
Councilmelnber Doyle asked about the tiering with steps going down and Dr. Wilton said this
would be great, but in responding to the neighbors and the DRB's suggestions, they pulled the
balconies back into the line of the kitchen pop-out. Everybody else along Mar East is sitting
outside at a table having a BBQ with friends, and they want to do this, but they have been
responsive to the DRB.
Mayor Fraser noted Dr. Wilton purchased the house in March of 2011 and he mentioned the
many hardships that his house has. He asked if he was aware of this when he purchased the
house. Dr. Wilton said what he was not aware of was the deteriorated condition of the house.
Mayor Fraser said he was talking more about the physical characteristics noted in the
neighborhood, such as decks and the docks that everybody else has. Dr. Wilton said he bought
the house as a fixer-upper and bought it with reasonable expectations that he could get approval
to do that from the Town for something reasonable and sensible, and it has proven to be one of
the most arduous things he has done in his life. He did not feel it should be this difficult to try
and improve a property in a responsible way.
Mayor Fraser opened the public comment period.
Karen Hardesty, real estate broker, said she moved from Newport Beach and has lived in Old
Tiburon since 1982. She objected to the reference to Newport Beach because she felt that
development took over and ruined the beautiful seaside town. One reason she chose Tiburon was
because she was confident this would not happen. Her other concern with the DRB's findings
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 19
was a disregard for the ordinances as they stand on the books. She suggested they be amended,
said she has sold 4 waterfront properties in Mar East, representing the sellers of 3 and the buyer
of one. She was sorry Dr. Wilton was not alerted of the arduous task of getting something
through in Tiburon, but the reason is to protect the character of their community. Every buyer she
has worked with is notified they must love it the way it is but there are no guarantees. She said
there are many houses on Mar East that have less light, less outdoor space and one of the
Boardmembers told her that people who live on Mar East "can't expect privacy." She objects to
this. The values of privacy and views on that street are very important, and having represented
the 4 properties, she has run across many potential buyers that not only state the views are
important, but that privacy is an issue. She said that Marjorie Nevers, who resided in the house
at 2308 Mar East for many years, never felt that her privacy was intruded upon by the neighbors
on either side. The line of sight was not an issue and her views, light and the outside decks below
were wonderful. Regarding the comments about the aging of the property, she noted that the
main level does have a bedroom, bath, kitchen, a dining area and living room, and Ms. Nevers
lived there happily until she died at the age of 98.
David Schwartz said he has lived in Tiburon for decades, sells real estate in Tiburon and he finds
it preposterous that somebody would purchase the property without having the proper
investigation into looking at what needs to be done. He represented the Kulik's in the purchase of
their property. The story poles were up and he suggested the Kulik's go to the Town to get a feel
of what can be done. Mr. Schwartz said that staff was reassuring in that they could not support
any kind of push out on the building. The property has gorgeous views, is well-located, and the
bigger issue is not if you propose modest things it should be approved, but how much will it
harm the neighbors. Views, privacy and light are what the DRB is supposed to uphold the most
when they are looking at a project, and in this case, they turned a blind eye.
Mik Flynn said they live on the water side and although she had previously said that their home
is not affected by what the Wilton's are doing, their home is, in fact, impacted by anyone along
Mar East making major changes as they are proposing. When they purchased their home, one
thing abundantly clear is that they needed to stay within the footprint of the house. She has been
inside the Kulik's house and can say as an owner, the project would make an enormous
difference. When putting a deck all alongside a house, it completely impacts everything it is that
someone paid for and worked so hard to do. Generally, people along Mar East cannot get outside
and clean their windows, but people have to figure it out and take care of it.
Rick Barber' said when he looks at this proposal he thinks it is a classic Trojan horse situation.
He asked how many tithes staff has seen proposals that are scaled back 50% to 70% as they go
through the process. More importantly, the creation of the artificial hardship for new decks is
preposterous. What bothers him, given they all live with privacy issues, they have had a number
of similar projects slip through the cracks, like the house two doors down from him. Clearly,
when both of the people claiming hardship come forward and show the Council diagrams
looking from the balcony of the new decks or the balcony of the new house into their bedrooms,
it is interesting to see how the applicant's pictures show you inside the bedroom looking into
another bedroom. He hoped that common sense will prevail and the DRB is overruled.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 20
David Salizar said he was asked to attend the meeting by Christina Hansen who is an architect
and resident of Tiburon and used to be a tenant at 2310A Mar East. He is an architect and feels
this is a complicated situation and he sympathizes with all parties involved. He read a letter from
Ms. Hansen into the record. He said given situations like this, he thinks that having everyone
appreciate the views and coining to some sort of degree to consensus is an appropriate solution.
Muriel Martenz said she is the current tenant of 2308 Mar East and is an interior designer who
has worked on several large remodel of home throughout Marin, Pacific Heights and in Seacliff
in San Francisco where they face the same challenges that this situation does. She believes the
improvements are extremely modest and have been made in the spirit of reaching out to the
neighbors to embrace whatever ability to keep their privacy maintained as possible. The outdoor
space they are adding is very limited and is definitely a balcony and not a deck. The neighbors on
both sides have huge decks and docks and this addition is very minor. In terms of needing the
outside decks from living there, maintenance cannot be addressed without having some deck
space that is uncovered on the lower level in order to improve and maintain the property above.
It cannot be done from the rocks down below as it is way too dangerous. Having lived on the
property, she is definitely in a fishbowl with no privacy and she looks forward into 2310 Mar
East. There is only one window at 2306 Mar East which is set far ahead so she does not see into
the bedroom at all, but just one tiny conger of it. The house at 2310 Mar East has the ability to
look directly into the entire main living area of 2308 Mar East and she believes that the addition
they are proposing adds immense privacy for 2310 Mar East. It makes a solid wall out of an
entire wall of panoramic windows that right now look at 2310 Mar East. She is surprised that the
neighbors are fighting this so much because it adds such a degree of privacy between the two
homes. She knows Mr. Kulik was talking a lot about window treatments and having to cover up
the views, but she has lived in the house for 3 months and the entire time, the one bedroom
window at 2306 Mar East and 3/ of the windows at 2310 Mar East have had their shades drawn
the entire time they have lived there. Right now there is a huge solid wall between the two houses
and 2306 Mar East has large skylights at the top of the house which are lit every night and there
is already a huge about of light coming from them, so she is very confused about the concerns on
lighting between the two properties. She voiced her support for the plans, thinks they are quite
modest and appropriate.
Mayor Fraser called on DRB Member Kricensky to answer questions of the Council.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked Mr. Kricensky for his opinion of the meeting and how the DRB
arrived at their decision. Boardmember Kricensky said they looked at the development occurring
along Mar East and the extent to which other homes extend out to the bay and what they enjoy.
He said that when any house builds before another one they try to obtain the maximum views
they can get. He referred to neighbors claiming views as a "'borrowed view." The DRB feels there
is a compromise that can happen. He understood the issue of nonconformance caused by zoning,
which happens all over Tiburon. The Town has done a relatively good job of keeping their
generalized zoning categories over certain areas for consistency, but when there is something like
this with so little land area, very narrow lots and a these houses were not built with that zoning.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 21
They have often granted variances to allow applicants to build a reasonable home. The staff
report stated that if they went by the dry land area and did the setbacks, they could build a 700
square foot home, which is unreasonable. They felt that looking at the development and homes
along the waterside and what they got to enjoy, they felt this house could afford to have some
decks and not necessarily interfere at all with the neighbor's primary views. They came to the
conclusion that the side views were not primary views, but still look into each other's houses.
Mayor Fraser called for the appellant rebuttal.
Magdalena Yesil said that Christina Hansen was outraged with the project, and then she was
retained by Dr. Wilton as a consultant, so it is very unfair to represent her as an independent
party. She thanked the tenant as well as Dr. Wilton for saying that the home at 2308 Mar East
cannot see into our bedroom now, but if the plans go through, they will and this is the injury they
are talking about. There is a significant difference with what exists today and what will happen
tomorrow if these proposed plans go through. When they got the approval to build the deck, it
was with the cooperation of their two neighbors on either side. They had one neighbor get up and
speak on their behalf, they did not intrude on anyone's privacy. Both 2306 and 2308 Mar East
were built about the same time and to say one was disadvantaged over the other is wrong.
Jim Wickett said until tonight, they never talked about a dock. Dr. Wilton never told him there
was a dock and in fact the first time he heard about it was when the DRB mentioned a dock. Dr.
Wilton would have to build a pier 300 feet out into the bay. This would be a great weekend
house, but not for many children and invalids.
David Kulik said they bought their house in December 2011. Until June 2012, the Chairman of
the DRB was never in his house to see this from his perspective. He said 2310 Mar East was
built in compliance with the zoning. Not every house in the area has been granted a variance and
he never mentioned the injury effect to his house by variance, and this was never considered by
the DRB. As it pertains to the buying situation, they were accused of being knowing buyers and
aware of the plans which is absolutely correct. Having lived in 2310 Mar East, they knew
exactly what the situation was and they knew about the history of the properties and how
essentially the development potential of 2308 Mar East was compromised build 2310 Mar East.
He and Dr. Wilton had nothing to do with that. When they bought their properties, everybody
knew the rules or should have known the rules in what the limitations were on those properties.
They did not bring any of this on themselves. They were informed buyers, knew what the
situation was, and they are being compromised. The present issue is that it sets up a tremendously
dangerous precedent and a business model that says to buy the cheapest house on the street,
extract value from your neighbors, improve the property and have a greater rate of return at
everyone else's expense.
Len Rifkind, attorney, asked the Council to focus on the findings as to whether there is an injury.
There are advantageous ways photos can be taken and he agreed their photographs are taken from
the vantage point of showing when nearest the closest corner and over the railing. Dr. Wilton's
photographs step back from the corner so it looks like there is more privacy. He thinks that if you
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 22
extend out and look to the east from the deck railing that someone might do on a 5' 10" deck or
balcony, you will see more of the house. He said that Christine Hansen was a tenant at 2310 Mar
East and conflicted herself out by her previous letter to the Town stating that any extension to the
present building volume at the southeast facade would essentially eliminate privacy to the
sleeping and living areas.
Paul Smith, attorney for Dr. Wilton, said the three presentations the Council saw are
sophisticated, high tech and articulate and make the Council's job both harder and easier; easier
because they have a lot of inforination in photos and visuals and harder because there is some
contradictory information. For those who were able to visit Dr. Wilton's house, he asked the
Council to use common sense and their eyes. The core of the appeals is privacy. Views might
have been an issue early on but through the DRB process, a series of meetings where they
methodically reviewed the project and tailored it back every step of the way, the Council is down
to one question-Is the privacy impact injurious to the neighbors or is it not? Whenever
appellants disagree with the DRB's determination of the findings, you hear a lot about what staff
said and the DRB does not always agree with the staff. The Board goes through and
methodically reviews the process, facts, visit the site and try to make their own determination of
how the facts and circumstances apply on any given property. The Council has heard a lot about
precedents, but they have always said these projects do not set precedents. Each decision is based
on facts and circumstances of the applications before the Council. In looking at precedents, the
Council can go up and down Mar East and see many exceptions and many variances, so there is
nothing unusual about the application. It is simply a question of whether or not the DRB made
the findings. He referred to specific language in the DRB minutes where they stated and
articulated how they made the findings. The record is replete with their determinations of the
findings and this is what is before the Council now. He asked to recognize there is substantial
evidence in the record that the DRB properly made the findings and there is a strong legal
position for this finding.
Mayor Fraser closed the public comment period and asked for Council comment and
deliberation.
Councilmember Fredericks said in previous appeals when the Council has talked about
"borrowed views" the concept has usually been applied to new construction when a previously
built home has used a view from their main living areas across a lot, often a lot where there is
only a place to be built that would constrain the view of the existing house. She has never heard
it applied to a remodel, and she asked if this is an existing policy. Mr. Watrous stated that the
Hillside Guideline that describes borrowed views as she described has to do with a view across
an undeveloped piece of property. He thinks there is a broader, somewhat looser interpretation
and usage of the term that has been used to describe views across a portion of a lot where a house
could reasonably considered to expand, in the same way Boardmember Kricensky described it.
Councilmember Collins agreed with Paul Smith that the presentations were terrific. He thinks the
DRB tried to accommodate a mutually acceptable plan and tried to get people together to do
something that would work for everybody, which is part of their role. The Board tried to guide
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 23
the project, but in his opinion the DRB stretched to make the findings. He cannot reach the same
conclusion the DRB did. He agreed with what staff repeatedly told the DRB about not being able
to make findings 3 and 4. He said that the Municipal Code seems clear to him that for a non-
conforming structure may be altered or remodeled or enlarged, but the discrepancy between
existing conditions and the zoning standards shall not be increased. He thinks residents have to
be able to rely on what the code says and on the fact that you cannot just come in and ask for a
variance and change the facts for those people. He thinks the project would affect the views and
privacy for Mr. Kulik. He thinks the house could be redesigned within the footprint of the
existing house. They can have decks, but they just have to decide what they are willing to give up
for those decks, such as one bedroom or shifting the kitchen somewhere else. Therefore, he said
he cannot support the appeal. He also has a concern that if the Council does not uphold the
appeal, they could be facing litigation in terms of abuse of discretion when he cannot make the
last two findings.
Councihnember Fredericks said zoning is meant to control incompatible uses within a zone.
Some of the really fine analysis that has to be done when zoning does not fit an area has to do
with why you have zoning to begin with. In this case, if one just looks at the juxtaposition of the
three houses and their privacy, views, noise and light conflicts, you have to make very fine
decisions. The Mar East neighborhood is an example of the kinds of incompatibilities that are
generated by their legacy building before the Town was incorporated and the attempt to make
zoning work in a place where the lots are non-conforming, where there are greater potentials for
view blockage, smaller setbacks, privacy issues and access issues, and it is a real challenge. The
result of that is that when there are remodels, some of the lots do enjoy the privileges of the lots
that have already put second stories on, but others do not because their impact on their neighbors
is different. So, to make an argument that one is entitled to a certain remodel because under the
findings for a variance you should enjoy every view and every advantage of every lot around you
in a neighborhood where the lots and their positions and the siting of the structures are so
different is a very hard argument to make, although she really wishes it was something everyone
could always be granted. She said she, too, cannot make the findings to grant the variances.
She thinks some of the hardships, particularly those generated by the setbacks, were generated by
previous owners, as Mr. Rifkind pointed out. In making a finding about the detriment and injury
to other properties, she found the most compelling thing was being in the living room of 2310
Mar East and walking from the back of that room to the front of that room while looking up at
the applicant's home. As you move forward, you can see more and more of that room. So the
amount of view penetration is really specific to where you are in the room and not to isolated
areas. Based upon this, she tends to feel there are great privacy and view impacts, even though
the protrusion from the wall of the existing applicant's home is relatively shall. There are other
questions of whether the walls of the kitchen really balance the new views, the increased privacy
that is offered by them balance the views into both the appellant's homes that is offered by the
new upper and lower decks. She thinks the idea of borrowed views is not so important because
the actual view detriment looking outboard to the vistas tends to be the most impacted and not
the primary views necessarily protected by the Hillside Guidelines and ordinances. But the
privacy issue is very compelling and the neighbors always have to make a choice between
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 24
privacy, light and air and what is more important to them. She thinks this is very injurious.
Also, the closeness of the lots and the positions of the dwellings on the lot make a big difference
too. Therefore, she cannot make a finding that the proposed remodel is not injurious to the
properties around it and she cannot make a finding that any of the hardships claimed were not
self-created by the applicant.
Councilmember Doyle said he thinks design-wise, there are some elements of the project that can
be shifted around. The Council is not here to tell the applicant how to do it, but there are some
changes that can make things work. He does not have that big of an issue with that entryway
being changed. The kitchen could be pulled over further and make it wider and only go out half
that distance. That would solve one of the problems on the second floor of looking into a
bedroom and would place that upper balcony farther away from the bedroom of the house to the
left.
There was talk about tiering that happens in all of the other houses around there, and if a design
had been proposed where the upper area was only pulled out just a little bit to extend the kitchen
and make it wider and the deck was pulled away from the house to the right it solves one of the
problems. The view would not be blocked and people on the upper deck would still be a good
distance away. He does not see how the lower deck changes what is happening if there are
screens to block views of the house to the other side. He thought they could have a deck that is
closer to the water that would take away some of the physical hardships of not having a deck and
not being able to enjoy the sun. He thinks there could be design changes made to this that would
be positive for both neighbors and the applicant and still have a beautiful home. He agreed with
what Councilmembers Fredericks and Collins said about buying the house and knowing what one
can and cannot do. The DRB is not here to help somebody make money, but do what is right for
the community. If a house can be designed within the guidelines and you snake honey on it, that
is fine, but he does not think it is their job to worry about whether you will not snake as much
money if you pull the kitchen back two feet. So, he would like to see the project return with
some variations and continue the matter. He thinks there is an opportunity to have a deck
somewhere closer to the water that goes out, and there is an opportunity not to infringe on the
neighbor's privacy. When someone is looking into someone's master bedroom and you are 8 feet
away, there has to be a way around that. He does not think they can protect side views for every
property. He was surprised at how magnificent the views are from all three houses. The architect
designed it well, but in the spirit of compromise with some minor changes, there could be some
good results. He would like to see the matter come back with some minor changes.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he was able to visit all three properties that afternoon and meet
almost everyone in the chambers. He said it is unfortunate that this has become such a
contentious issue and he does support the statement made by Paul Smith that privacy seems to be
the number one issue here. If you go through the DRB minutes, Boardmembers Kricensky,
Johnson and Tollini talked specifically about that issue. The question is whether the privacy that
is lost or gained and how you argue it is an injurious act. On that particular street, you are always
going to be dealing with privacy issues. Some people have docks, some do not, you can always
turn, pull a shade, and when talking about something that is injurious, you are usually talking
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 25
about whether someone's primary views are blocked. In this case, there are none that are
blocked.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell supports Councilmember Doyle's suggestion to continue the project and
would like to see if a compromise could be fashioned by the parties. He thinks that the need for a
deck at the top level is not as great and since the house is being completely remodeled or
restored, if the deck started at the current point of where the house ends now, the property owner
is not losing that much space and would gain that tiering effect of a lower deck and upper deck as
seen throughout Mar East and would solve the maintenance issue, although he does not see that
to be a huge impediment. It would also solve the privacy issue for 2310 Mar East because it
would have the same impact they are dealing with today. It would also solve the privacy issue for
2306 Mar East and would remove the screen that hangs off the side of the building. He would
allow the property owner to expand on the lower deck and even as the rendering shows, to
connect the lower deck to the existing side deck which allows for a larger outdoor enjoyment
space. It would be difficult for the other property owners to argue against that because they have
huge docks that extend out. He would like to also see some sort of compromise fashioned. He
also had an opportunity to spend some time in Ms. Nevers' house. It is a substandard house and it
needs renovation. It will improve everyone's property values by having a nice home there and he
would like to see things work out, the project continued, and designed in a fashion that
Councilmember Doyle and he described as a compromise.
Mayor Fraser complimented the applicants and appellants for their passion and persuasion.
However, in thinking about this and going back to the fundamentals, he is unable to make the
findings that will support an additional variance on top of a non-conforming use that already
exists. It is very clear what the code says and he believes the Council should abide by the code. If
they are not happy with it and think their zoning or code is incorrect, they should find a way to
bring that forward and change it in the proper process. Mar East is an eclectic enviroiunent and
the Council looks at neighborhood issues, and may adjust the code to be reflective of how the
times have changed. Maybe that will be true someday along Mar East, but they are now living
with the R-2 zoning and the Municipal Code the way it is. He also is not able to make a finding
that the project is not injurious to both 2306 and 2310 Mar East with the extension of the decks
as proposed now. Therefore, he cannot support the DRB's decision. He does think that
Councilmember Doyle and Vice Mayor O'Donnell have made a good suggestion in terms of
coming together for a compromise solution. But he thinks they must work within the existing
footprint because outside of it means they have to go against their codes, and he does not think
they can make a finding for a property that already has a lot coverage of 67% and approve a
further variance, and justify that with any reasonable finding. He also thinks that if they do that, it
should be remanded back to the DRB as opposed to having the Council become the design team
for the house. He thanked the appellants, applicants, and participants, and he thinks a
compromise should be struck so that the applicant can improve his property within the existing
footprint.
Councilmember Fredericks said it seemed to her that Councilmember Doyle's suggestion was
outside the existing footprint and she would not preclude some modest non-privacy intrusion.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 26
Councihnember Doyle said in looking at all of the houses along there, this house is stuck back
and a bit different, but if you bump something out half the distance of 5'10" and make it wider
within the interior structure of the house, there is still the same footprint of the kitchen and they
are not infringing upon someone's privacy. The owner would get something and the neighbor
would get something. He thinks some small alterations will result in something everybody can
live with.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he very much believes privacy is a two-way street. He thinks the
privacy issue can be mitigated but does not find them injurious. With respect to overcoming the
findings when it comes to bumping the house out, they must be fair and remember that the codes
and zones were dropped on the neighborhood after the neighborhood was built. This is probably
the most difficult street to analyze because of the fact that the property is extended to the water
and they must have a little bit of allowance and fairness in making a finding that would bring
some hannony between the groups. He would like to see the project continued and remanded to
the DRB with the recommendations that the Council developed tonight if the applicant agrees.
Town Attorney Danforth clarified that the Council could remand the application back to the DRB
if the applicant is willing to snake the changes stipulated by Council that would lessen the
impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Watrous stated the other option is that if the Council feels it
cannot make the findings for the variance they could grant the appeals and deny the project
without prejudice with the direction that it can return to the DRB with a new application that
addresses the issues in the fashion described by the Council.
Town Attorney Danforth said the reason for doing this is because in the nonnal case, if an
application is denied, they cannot return with a similar application for a year, hence the without
prejudice stipulation. Then the question would be if the Council asks them to file a new
application, would the Council wish to waive the fees. Mr. Watrous said the Council has done
this on occasion.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said Councilmember Doyle's suggestion is for 2.5 feet, but his idea is
more restrictive; to leave the edge of the current property at the top level where it is. They could
pull the wall back if they wanted to put a deck there. On the lower level, they could come out to
the 5'10" which would create a tiering effect and it would solve the major privacy issues on the
upper level into the bedrooms of both levels. Mr. Watrous clarified the suggestion to stay within
the footprint for the upper level and possibly expand the lower level.
Councilmember Fredericks referred to the privacy issue for 2310 Mar East. Vice Mayor
O'Donnell said his understanding is there is a much greater privacy issue with the upper deck and
bedroom. He felt all the presentations were skewed based upon who was giving them.
Councilmember Fredericks said she was at the site and saw the lower deck's possible impact
even when it is pulled back to the fagade looking back into the bedroom for 2306 Mar East. She
thinks if they want people to agree, they cannot reintroduce the same problem.
Councilmember Collins said there is already a deck below and they could make a deck above and
pull back the wall within the interior of the house. His problem is they would still have the need
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 27
for variances going outside the existing building footprint.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said building this will violate three ordinances, and asking them to create
a lower deck to create a tiering effect he sees as a fair compromise. Councilmember Fredericks
said rather than designing it for Mr. Sadrieh and his client, they should take into consideration
the discussion they had, the suggestion that Councilmember Doyle made and see if they can
come up with something when and if they decide to re-apply.
Mayor Fraser said he thinks the issue is variance. Within the existing footprint, he thought that
the Council had some agreement. When going outside of the existing footprint is where they
have a difference of opinion.
Mr. Watrous said in his opinion, if the Council is talking about a project that does not extend
beyond the existing footprint of the building, not only would it necessarily need a variance, it is a
substantially different project, which lends itself toward a separate application rather than
remanding this application for re-design. Something like that could conceivably be a staff level
design review, and would be a different project. If the lower deck is expanded out, it would
trigger a variance, depending on how it is designed and extended out.
Councilmember Doyle said it is also the design factor and what it would look like. If they just
bump it out a bit, it solves some of the problems on the upper floor and also looks better. When
he was looking at the plans, he was thinking of a small bump out that does not affect what the
neighbors are seeing and that does not affect privacy that will give the applicant all the same
amenities they are looking for without some of the effects on the neighbors. He was looking at a
very small front change of about 2.5 feet which should not cause problems while also providing
for the architectural detailing. He suggested granting the appeal and having them go back to the
DRB. If they designed something that was not injurious to the neighbors, he could support that.
Town Attorney Danforth said she is hearing two Councilmembers recommending modest
changes and three Councilmembers saying very definitely that they cannot make the findings
with respect to this project. However, she has not heard anyone rule out the possibility that with a
change along the lines that Councilmember Doyle has outlined, they might be able to make the
finding with respect to injury, or the lack thereof. So, if the Council feels that some variance
might be tolerable if it was considerably reduced in scope so as to lessen the impact on the
neighbors, this could be specified in the resolution. If not, she thinks the best thing is for the
resolution to be silent on that point and assume that the applicant has listened and knows the risk
if they return with a project that needs a variance.
Mayor Fraser supported being silent in the resolution, because he thinks the Council is designing
on the fly and the issue is rather dramatic. To respect everybody's input, it would be
inappropriate for the Council to make such a decision for any number of feet being acceptable
when three Councilmembers agree that they do not believe that a variance makes sense.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 28
Councilmember Fredericks said she cannot make the appropriate findings for a variance on what
is before them now. She feels they should grant the appeals and deny the application without
prejudice and the applicant can return.
Mr. Watrous suggested the motion be to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal to
deny the project without prejudice.
Councilmember Fredericks recommended that fees be waived if the applicant returns with a
substantially different application. Mr. Watrous summarized the direction is to assume that the
applicant has been paying attention to the deliberations of the Council in terms of direction of
what issues need to be addressed in a future application, to which the Council agreed.
MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal to deny the project
without prejudice and to impose no fees.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
None.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - August 3, 2012
• Town Council Weekly Digest - August 10, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 15, 2012 Page 29
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Administrative Services Department
Subject: Investment Summary - July 2012
Reviewed By:
Town Council Meeting
September 5, 2012
Agenda Item: CC-
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with
a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended July 31, 2012.
ANALYSIS
Agency
July 2012
Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity
Town of Tiburon
Local Agency
$199768,566.13
0.363%
Liquid
Fund (LAIF)
Housing note to
$ 800,000.00
0.378%
Based on
Town Manager
Contract
Money Market
$ 1009000.00
0..20%
Liquid
(Bank of Marin)
Note to Former
$ 229081.07
5.55%
June 1, 2017
Town Employee
Total
$20,690,647.20
The total funds invested at the end of the prior month were $21,127,984.74, or $437,337.54 more
than the reporting month.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impact occurs by adopting the report. The Town continues to meet the priority
principles of investing - safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
Move to accept the Investment Summary for July 2012
Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services
TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting
September 5, 2012
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon CA 94920 Agenda Item:
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: 2308 Mar East Street: Adoption of Resolutions Granting Appeals and Denying
Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of Additions to
an Existing Single-Family Dwelling; Peter Wilton, Applicant; Magdalena Yesil,
Jim Wickett and David Kulik, Appellants; File No. 21207; Assessor's Parcel No.
0 p~195-01
Reviewed By: /
SUMMARY
On August 15, 2012, the Town Council held a public hearing regarding two appeals of the Design
Review Board's decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct
additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setback and
excess lot coverage, as well as a floor area exception, on property located at 2308 Mar East
Street.
The Town Council voted (5-0) to direct staff to prepare resolutions granting each appeal and
denying the application without prejudice to re-submittal, waiving any design review-related fees
for a re-submitted application that was responsive to the direction provided by the Town Council
at the appeal hearing. The draft resolutions have been prepared and are attached as Exhibit 1 and
Exhibit 2.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the draft resolutions.
Exhibits: 1. Draft Resolution granting appeal by Yesil and Wickett
2. Draft Resolution granting appeal by Kulik
Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner L`r
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1
RESOLUTION NO. -2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
GRANTING AN APPEAL BY MAGDALENA YESIL AND JIM WICKETT
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK
AND EXCESS LOT COVERAGE, AS WELL AS A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2308 MAR EAST STREET (FILE #21207)
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-195-01)
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to
consider the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #21116) filed by
Peter Wilton ("Applicant") for the construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling, with variances requested for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, as
well as a request for a floor area exception, for property located at 2308 Mar East Street; and
WHEREAS, at that hearing, the owners of the adjacent home located at 2306 Mar East
Street, Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett ("Appellants"), raised objections to the proposed
project, noting negative privacy, noise and lighting impacts if the proposed rear and side decks
were constructed, in addition to a proposed increase in the amount of windows on the southwest
elevation of the home; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board concluded that it
shared many of the same concerns, as the impacts on the Appellants' property appeared to be
substantial. The Board also struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances requested
for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage. The application was therefore continued,
with the Applicant directed to work with the Appellants on an adequate compromise in order to
reduce the negative impacts to the Appellants' property; and
WHEREAS, after requesting several continuances for the application, the Applicant
subsequently withdrew the application due to permit streamlining act time limitations and re-
submitted the application as a new filing (File #21207) on March 5, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered the new application (File 421207) at
its meeting of May 3, 2012, at which time the design of the home had not significantly changed
from the original application. However, the Board determined that the Applicant had made
progress towards addressing the concerns raised by the Appellants, including a reduction in the
depth of the proposed rear decks, elimination of the side deck expansion (which eliminated the
need for the right side yard setback variance), modification to the entry door, a reduction in the
amount of windows on the southwest elevation, and modifications to the exterior deck lighting.
The Board heard additional public testimony regarding the application from the Appellants, who
noted that the project, as re-designed, would still result in privacy, noise and lighting impacts to
their property. The Appellants also asserted that the Applicant should not be permitted to expand
outside of the existing building envelope; and
Town Council Resolution No. _-2012 September 5, 2012 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT NO.
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board agreed that
additional modifications were necessary to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts on
the Appellants. The Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for both parties to be
happy with the project, but explained that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the
building envelope as the project was-modest in scope. The Board continued the project with
direction given to the Applicant to further modify the project; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered revised plans on June 7, 2012 at which
time additional modifications had been made to the project to lessen the impacts on the
Appellants. Modifications included a further reduction in the depth of the upper level rear deck,
a reduction in the size of windows on the southwest elevation, and installation of privacy screens
on the west side of both the upper and lower level decks at the rear of the home. The Appellants
continued to object to the project, noting remaining concerns regarding privacy, noise and
lighting impacts; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the consensus of the Design Review Board
was that the Applicant had made significant progress toward addressing the concerns of the
neighbor, and concluded that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the existing
building envelope as the project was modest in scope. In addition, the Board determined that the
contemporary R-2 zoning designation placed on these nineteenth century lots along the Mar East
Street waterfront provided an ill fit in general, and stated that it would be a hardship to the
Applicant to be unable to expand the home modestly when other owners in the vicinity had been
permitted to expand, sometimes to a larger degree. The Board voted (3-0), to conditionally
approve the application; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision,
objecting to the variance findings made for the requested excess lot coverage and objecting to the
granting of the floor area exception, and asserting that the project would be materially
detrimental and injurious due to negative privacy and lighting impacts on their property. In
addition, the Appellants asserted that the granting of the variance was in violation of the Tiburon
Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing a non-conformity; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2012, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the proposed project
and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the
Town Council found that it could not make the required findings for a variance based on the
evidence in the project record. The Town Council determined that to the extent a strict
application of the zoning ordinance could create a hardship on the Applicant, that hardship was
self-created, in that it was caused by the manner in which the previous owner had developed the
property. In addition, the project would be injurious to other property in the vicinity, and the
proximity of the proposed rear decks to the Appellants' master bedroom would cause noise and
privacy impacts. The Town Council also concluded that an expansion project could be designed
without expanding outside of the existing building envelope that would reduce project impacts
on the Appellants; and
Town Council Resolution No. _-2012 September 5, 2012 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the Town Council further concluded that the Mar East Street waterfront is
an eclectic area, and that privacy will likely always be an issue in this neighborhood. However,
differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will
be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity if
such improvements would result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding
properties. Such differences were not necessarily a hardship. The Town Council stated that
there would appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and that the
Appellants and Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project
design that works towards that compromise; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5-0, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution granting
the appeal and denying the application without prejudice, waiving any design review-related fees
for a design re-submittal responsive to Town Council direction provided at the August 15, 2012
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon hereby grants the appeal of Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett and denies the application
for additions to a single family residence at 2308 Mar East Street (File #21207).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on September 5,
2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Resolution No. _-2012 September 5, 2012 Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. -2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
GRANTING AN APPEAL BY DAVID KULIK OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S
APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH
VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS LOT
COVERAGE, AS WELL AS A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2308 MAR EAST STREET (FILE #21207)
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-195-01)
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to
consider the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #21116) filed by
Peter Wilton ("Applicant") for the construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling, with variances requested for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, as
well as a request for a floor area exception, for property located at 2308 Mar East Street; and
WHEREAS, at that hearing, the owner of the adjacent home located at 2310 Mar East
Street, David Kulik ("Appellant"), raised objections to the proposed project, noting negative
privacy, noise, view and lighting impacts if the proposed rear decks and kitchen/expansion were
constructed; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board concluded that it
shared many of the same concerns, as the impacts on the Appellant's property appeared to be
substantial. The Board also struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances requested
for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage. The application was therefore continued,
with the Applicant directed to work with the Appellant on an adequate compromise in order to
reduce the negative impacts to the Appellant's property; and
WHEREAS, after requesting several continuances for the application, the Applicant
subsequently withdrew the application due to permit streamlining act time limitations and re-
submitted the application as a new filing (File #21207) on March 5, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered the new application (File #21207) at
its meeting of May 3, 2012, at which time the design of the home did not significantly change
from the original application. However, the Board determined that the Applicant had made
progress towards addressing the concerns raised by the Appellant, including a reduction in the
depth of the proposed rear decks, modifications to the exterior deck lighting, and elimination of
the vertical support structures and the small deck in front of the kitchen addition/expansion. The
Board heard additional public testimony from the Appellant, who noted that the project, as re-
designed, would still result in privacy, noise, view, odor and lighting impacts to his property.
The Appellant also asserted that the Applicant should not be permitted to expand outside of the
existing building envelope; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board agreed that more
could be done to the project to further reduce impacts on the Appellant's property; however, the
Town Council Resolution No. _-2012 September 5, 2012 Page 1 of 3
-T~TTD- TT NO. a-
Board determined that the project, as designed, would actually improve privacy for the Appellant
due to way the kitchen addition/expansion was sited and the placement of the windows at the
area of addition. The Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for both parties to
be happy with the project, but explained that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of
the building envelope since the project was modest in scope. The Board continued the
application with direction given to the Applicant to further modify the project; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board considered revised plans on June 7, 2012 at which
time additional modifications had been made to the project to lessen the impacts on the
Appellant's property. Modifications included a further reduction in the depth of the upper level
rear deck to align with the proposed kitchen addition/expansion and lower level deck. The
Appellant continued to object to the project, noting remaining concerns regarding privacy, noise,
odor and lighting impacts; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the consensus of the Design Review Board
was that the Applicant had made significant progress toward addressing the concerns of the
Appellant, and concluded that the Applicant should be able to expand outside of the existing
building envelope as the project was modest in scope. In addition, the Board determined that the
contemporary R-2 zoning designation placed on these nineteenth century lots along the Mar East
Street waterfront provided an ill fit in general, and stated that it would be a hardship to the
Applicant to be unable to expand the home modestly when other owners in the vicinity had been
permitted to expand, sometimes to a larger degree. The Board voted (3-0), to conditionally
approve the application; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2012, Appellant filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision,
objecting to the variance findings made for the requested reduced side yard setback and excess
lot coverage, and asserting that the project would result in several adverse and injurious effects to
his property. In addition, the Appellant asserted that the granting of the variance was in violation
of the Tiburon Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing a non-conformity,
and also objected to the approval of a modified door, which is located on Appellant's property;
and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2012, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the proposed project
and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the
Town Council found that it could not make the required findings for a variance based on the
evidence in the project record. The Town Council determined that to the extent a strict
application of the zoning ordinance could create a hardship on the Applicant, that hardship was
self-created, in that it was cawed by the manner in which the previous owner had developed the
property. In addition, project would be injurious to other property in the vicinity; the proposed
kitchen addition/expansion and rear decks would be too close to Appellant's various living areas
and would adversely affect the Appellant's privacy and view, and the expanded outdoor areas
would generate additional noise. The Town Council also concluded that an expansion project
Town Council Resolution No. _-2012 September 5, 2012 Page 2 of 3
could be designed without expanding outside of the existing building envelope that would reduce
project impacts on the Appellant's property; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council further concluded that the Mar East Street waterfront is
an eclectic area, and that privacy will likely always be an issue in this neighborhood. However,
differences in house designs and locations mean that not every home in this neighborhood will
be able to have the same view and design opportunities enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity, if
such improvements result in substantial view or privacy impacts on surrounding properties.
Such differences were not necessarily a hardship. The Town Council stated that there would
appear to be a way for both parties to compromise on a design, and that the Appellant and
Applicant should continue to work together on a substantially different project design that works
towards that compromise; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5-0, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution granting
the appeal and denying the application without prejudice, waiving any design review-related fees
for a design re-submittal responsive to Town Council direction provided at the August 15, 2012
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon hereby grants the appeal of David Kulik and denies the application (File #21207) for
additions to a single family residence at 2308 Mar East Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on September 5,
2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Resolution No. _-2012 September 5, 2012 Page 3 of 3
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Office of the Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting
September 5, 2012
Agenda Item:
4T~
Appointment to fill a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission
A recent vacancy occurred on the Heritage & Arts Commission due to the resignation of
Commissioner Jaleh Etemad. Ms. Etemad had to step down from the Commission in order to
apply for the position of Tiburon Artist Laureate. The Town Clerk published a Special Vacancy
Notice and received two applications for the commission vacancy.
It should be noted that the Heritage & Arts Commission, unlike other Town commissions, is
comprised of residents of both Tiburon and Belvedere. There is also a position available for a
candidate from one of the unincorporated areas of the Peninsula, as well. Applicant Lee
Erickson, a long-time resident of Belvedere and Tiburon, currently resides in Strawberry; Mrs.
Hall is a Tiburon resident.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Interview the candidates for the vacancy and consider making an appointment tonight
to fill the vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission; or
2. Direct staff to continue the matter to a future agenda.
Exhibits: Special Vacancy Notice
Applications of Francella Hall and Lee Erickson
Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk
TOWN OF TIBURON
SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE
On Town Commissions, Boards & Committees
June 2012
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION -
(Statutory Authority: Section 13B-2 of Tiburon Municipal Code)
Purpose: The Heritage & Arts Commission works to preserve and protect those
buildings, sites, works of art and other objects which have special
historical, cultural or aesthetic character or interest to the Tiburon
Peninsula. Appointees serve staggered, four-year terms.
The Commission establishes educational programs and awards focusing on
the unique history of the area. The Commission works on special
community projects and events and is interested in planning events that
would provide a forum for local artists to showcase their work.
Qualifications: Town Council Resolution No. 3329, adopted on 5/5/99, states that "at least
four (4) members shall be residents of the Town of Tiburon, two (2) may
be residents of the City of Belvedere, and one (1) may be a resident of the
unincorporated area of the Tiburon Peninsula."
Applicants shall have the interest, desire, and time available to help
promote projects related to the history and art of the Tiburon Peninsula. A
formal art/history background is preferred but not required.
A vacancy has occurred as follows:
Appointee Date Appointed Date Resigned Term Expires
1) Jaleh Etemad March 2012 May 2012 February 2014*
*eligible for reappointment to a 4-year tenn
Interested residents can pick up an application at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
or download an application at wi4.,i4-. ci. tiburon. ca. us (link to "Useful Forms'').
Deadline for Receint ofAoolications: Julv 31. 2012
(Open until filled)
Notice Posted at Town Hall & Bel-Tib Library
Notice to be published in The Ark on June 27 & July 11
Courtesy- copy to the Marin Independent Journal
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMISSION BOARD & COMMITTEE RECEly
J~ 1 20
APPLICATION TOWN, 2
TORN NAGER
S OFFICE
PURON
The Town Council considers appointments to various Town commissions,
boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen:
vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon',
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest `in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form-,.1 . and'
returning it to Town Hall. The application form can also be found on the Town'.,
w ebsite, www. ci. tib uron. ca. us.
Y -
Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and °an
informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application",
remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (Z) year. _ , .
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Yt
r ,
Diane Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
F
AREAS OF INTEREST
Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#I Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING
DESIGN REVIEW
HERITAGE & ARTS
LIBRARY
PERSONAL DATA
-PE L
(PLEASEPRINTORTY -ARESUN4F-'M-AY BE ATTACHED AS WE L)~
NAME: -F z Z-
MAILING ADDRESS:
iz
I
T,
APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIOM'.1
P
-AN E, X - E~R 1ENCF
Az
; Town Hall Use
Date Application Received: Interview Date:
Appointed to: (Date)
Date Term Expires: Length of Term:
/-7k5-
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE
JUL 17 2012
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
A P P L I C A T I O ?T TOWN O iiauRON
The Town Council considers appointments to various Town commissions,
boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest 'ln
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form ;and
returning it to Town Hall. The application form can also be found on the Town'.s
website, www. ci. tiburon. ca. us.
Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and :aia
informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will
remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. 4
Diane Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
AREAS OF INTEREST
Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order -
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING
DESIGN REVIEW
~-HERITAGE & ARTS
LIBRARY
PERSONAL DATA
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE - A RESUME MAY BE ATTACHED AS WELL)
NAME: LE E 14 • E ,Q~~
MAILING ADDRESS: W ti= X30 IV,L~,V 4 U e; ,C-A
,14gl4f
TELEPHONE: Home: Nr---))3W5-1c)4,Work:
Fax No.
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) DATE SUBMITTED:- '7 / T 2.
R:EA,StS'QR SELECT NG
OQTR 14REA.S OF INTEREST
APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS
AN13 .EXPERIENCE
------------Town Hall Use
Date Application Received: -~L Interview Date: J"_5-" / 2--
Appointed to: (Date)
Date Term Expires: Length of 'T'erm:
2
RECEIVED
JUL 17 2012
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST
I have chosen the Tiburon Heritage and Arts Commission because of a life time interest in
the arts (See Qualifications and Experience) and the value of heritage.
As a tenth generation American born in Washington D.C. and raised inArlington,Virginia, I
was steeped in our heritage from an early age, visiting many of our national monuments,
historical homes, battle grounds and museums, all repositories of our countries past.
Through these experiences and the encouragement of my parents I learned the value of
preserving our heritage in its many forms.
I was a resident of Belvedere for twenty three years and Tiburon for nine years. After living
in Grass Valley for three years, I returned to the area and now reside in Strawberry.
APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
* BA in Sociiology, minor in History. George Washington University
* Served on the first Tiburon Fine Arts Commission
* Served as interim board member of the Marin Arts Council
* Completed the Golden Gate University graduate program in Arts Administration
* Served as Executive Director of Young Audiences of the Bay Area
• Conducted public and private tours as a docent at the San Francisco Museum of Art for
ten years.
Managed the SFMOMA Volunteer Program (paid staff) for six and a half years
Currently:
* Member of the BelvederelTiburon Library Program Committee
* Volunteer at Corner Books weekly
* Volunteer in the SFMOMA Docent office
* Continue my education in the arts and culture through classes at the Osher Life Long
Learning Institute.
To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
September 5, 2012
Agenda Item: AT--,L
Subject: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Standards for the
Kee g of Chickens and Standards for the Keeping of Honeybees
Reviewed By:~ '
BACKGROUND
At the August 15, 2012 Town Council meeting, the Council adopted text amendments to Chapter
16 (Zoning) and Chapter 20 (Animals) of the Tiburon Municipal Code that replaced the current
conditional use permit requirement for chicken-keeping and honeybee-keeping with a ministerial
application process. The ordinance specifies that the Town Council shall adopt by resolution a
set of "standards" to be applied in the review of applications for approval or denial.
During first reading of the ordinance on August 1, 2012, the Council appeared to have few
concerns over the chick-keeping standards, but discussed at some length (see Exhibit 1) the
possibility of addressing certain issues or concerns through modifications or additions to the
Standards for bee-keeping that had been recommended forward by the Planning Commission.
These issues were:
1. Considering limiting bee-keeping to larger-sized residential lots only.
2. Adding a contiguous property owner signature requirement.
3. Requiring some form of "certification" or "training" for permit-holders.
With respect to Issue 1, the draft standards recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission do not establish a minimum lot size, but draft Standard #4 does set limits of two (2)
colonies if the lot is less than or equal to 10,000 square feet, or four (4) colonies if the lot is larger
than 10,000 square feet. The Council could choose to set a minimum lot size (e.g. 15,000 square
feet) in order to qualify for the keeping of bees, on the assumption that keeping bees on a larger
lot is less likely to result in impacts on neighboring lots. The validity of this assumption is
unknown and staff does not believe there is any reliable scientific study setting forth conclusions
on this issue; any evidence would probably be anecdotal at best. Standards 9, 10, 11 and 12
address proximity issues without imposing an exclusive minimum lot size requirement for the
keeping of honeybees. The Town Council should assess the apparently unquantifiable potential
benefits of limiting bee-keeping to larger parcels against the potential detriments of establishing
an exclusive and somewhat arbitrary minimum lot size standard.
With respect to Issue 2, it was unclear to Staff whether a majority of the Town Council favored
adding a neighbor signature requirement to the list of bee-keeping standards. For discussion
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3
SCpUeniber .5'. 201,121
purposes, Staff has drafted Standard #3 to the list that would require an applicant to submit owner
signatures of non-objection for all physically contiguous residential parcels as part of the
application. The purpose is to provide a means of immediate neighbor notification in an
otherwise ministerial process. However, this standard, if imposed as a "pass or fail" criterion,
would grant virtual veto power to any contiguous residential owner, regardless of the reason for a
refusal to sign. This could potentially have a dampening effect on the filing of bee-keeping
applications, either as a result of an applicant's inability to collect all the required signatures or an
unwillingness to do so, resulting in either abandonment of the attempt to keep bees, or worse,
keeping the bees without any permit or neighbor knowledge. In an attempt to find middle ground,
Staff has crafted Standard #3 in such manner that an applicant's inability to secure the required
signatures would not necessarily end the process, but would trigger a conditional use permit
requirement for the keeping of bees, provided it was the only standard that could not be met as
part of the application. The Town Council should consider whether this draft Standard #3 creates
an overly onerous situation for an applicant, or appropriately balances neighbor notification with
the additional burden of securing the requisite signatures or triggering a conditional use permit
requirement.
With respect to Issue 3, Staff has found several bee-keeping certification programs throughout the
country. One such program, offered by Penn State University, is offered on-line (see Exhibit 2)
and costs $189 to register. Most courses appear to be offered on-site at universities (see Exhibit
3) and would be impractical for local residents to take. Staff was unable to find any bee-keeping
related courses being offered by the College of Marin, but is continuing to seek information on
potential classes at the Indian Valley College Organic Farm in Novato, where such courses have
been offered at times in the past.
Proposed Standard #6 requires use of "best management practices" for bee-keeping permit-
holders, but does not require any formal training or certification (even on-line training). The
Town Council should consider whether this standard will suffice for any local bee-keeping
purposes. Staff notes that the Standards for Bee-Keeping are adopted by Resolution and can be
modified quickly if necessary. It may be that only experience over time will allow the Town to
arrive at an optimal set of standards for bee-keeping uses, which are likely to be few in number
within the Town for the foreseeable future.
ANALYSIS
Attached to the draft resolution (Exhibit 4) are proposed Standards for chicken-keeping and
standards for honeybee-keeping. As part of the new ministerial permit process for such permits,
applicants would be required to meet these standards to receive permit approval by Town staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Hear and consider any public comment
2. Make any desired revisions to the draft Standards
3. Move to adopt the Resolution
EXHIBITS
1. Excerpts of Draft Minutes from the August 1, 2012 meeting.
2. Information on on-line bee-keeping course from Penn State University
3. University of Georgia Certified Beekeeper Program Information
4. Draft Resolution
Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner /
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development`'
B) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20 (Animals) with
respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-Keeping Regulations and Miscellaneous other
Amendments
Associate Planner Tyler gave the report. She said that in recent years, there has been a nationwide
trend toward increased chicken-keeping and bee-keeping in urban and suburban areas. In
Tiburon, she said this trend manifested itself in the form of recent conditional use permit
applications for chicken-keeping at residential locations. Tyler said that currently, the Town of
Tiburon requires a conditional use permit for keeping chickens and bees.
Ms. Tyler said that following review of information collected by staff and three public meetings
on the issue, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of text amendments to the
Town's zoning and animal regulations that would replace the current conditional use permits
requirement for chicken-keeping and bee-keeping with a ministerial application process governed
by Town-adopted standards; a process similar she said was similar to that used for approval of
secondary dwelling units in Tiburon.
Tyler said that an approval of the recommended amendments would create a new section (16-
40.070) of the zoning ordinance, entitled "Chicken and Honeybee Keeping". The new section
would establish a ministerial permit process for chicken-keeping and for bee-keeping uses, and
would also authorize the adoption by Town Council resolution of performance standards for each
type of use. She said the Planning Commission had voted 3-1 to recommend that the Town
Council adopt an ordinance establishing a ministerial permit process and performance standards
for both chicken and bee-keeping.
Tyler said that under the new ordinance, applicants would be required to submit a $250 flat fee
for a chicken or honeybee keeping permit, an amount anticipated to recover the Town's cost of
processing these ministerial applications in most instances. Ongoing enforcement and review of
permit conformance is likely to result in relatively minor but unknown soft costs, primarily in the
form of staff time.
Associate Planner Tyler recommended that the Town Council hold a public hearing on the
proposed text amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Chapter 20 (Animals) of the Municipal
Code. She said in its deliberations the Council could consider the draft two ordinances provided
by staff. one to establish a ministerial process for both chicken and honey bee-keeping, or for
chicken-keeping only, and provide direction to staff.
Mayor Fraser opened the item for questions from the Council. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that
he was concerned about honey bees and related a story of a friend whose yard was invaded by a
hive from a neighboring yard. He also voiced concerned regarding the dangers to people who
were allergic to bee stings. O'Donnell said that he thought bee-keeping should continue to
require a conditional use permit (CUP) which would necessitate a public notice being mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of an applicant's property.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 18
77 I TN
0.
T
Tyler said that the Vice Mayor was correct in his assumption that a ministerial approval would
not require a public notice. She also noted that the matter would automatically be heard by the
Planning Commission if a CUP application was required, as currently exists.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked what would happen if a neighbor objected to the approval of a
conditional use permit for this use. Councilmember Fredericks asked what the guidelines would
be for the Commission to make its decision.
Planning Manager Watrous said that the Commission would use the guidelines currently in the
Town's zoning ordinance concerning CUP approvals; he said there were no specific guidelines
for bees, or chickens for that matter. Director of Community Development Anderson said there
would be a number of reasons the Planning Commission might find the granting of a CUP
appropriate. He said the proposed standards could act as "guideline" in review of a conditional
use permit, but would not be "black and white" like the standards used for approval of secondary
dwelling units.
Councilmember Fredericks acknowledged that there were concerns about Africanized bees and
that although swarms had not been thought to have moved into this area, they had moved into
some coastal areas. She said these bees would sting in swarms and were thought to be a risk to
children and seniors. What worried her about the approval process was that a "complainer" might
have to provide substantial evidence to warrant a denial of a CUP. She said there was a concern
about protecting people who were allergic to bees and the risk of Africanized bees. She asked
how this would be demonstrated in the process.
Planning Manager Watrous said that while the Planning Commission had recommended an
administrative [ministerial] approval process, it had also discussed a hybrid process of review.
He said this had the downside of putting staff in the middle of the deliberations. He went on to
say that the Planning Commission said that because bee-keeping was becoming more common in
communities, it would follow the lead of other communities who were adopting this process. He
said the minority opinion was that more protection and public input was needed in the process.
Councilmember Fredericks asked about having the neighbors sign off on a permit.
Mayor Fraser asked whether the Town regulated the number of cats, dogs, or small animals.
Director Anderson said there was a definition of kennel in the Town Code, but that this would be
an oblique way to regulate bee-keeping.
Mayor Fraser said that staff had done good work developing the information, but that it seemed
to him that the Council needed some additional information before it could decide the issue.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if bees might be restricted to certain zoning areas and whether the
Planning Commission had discussed this. Planner Tyler said that the Commission had left the
idea open.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 19
Tyler said that Town staff has continued to receive more and more requests for the keeping of
chickens, but not so much for bees. She said that staff was not hearing a lot of negative feedback
on the issue (of bee or chicken-keeping).
Councilmember Collins asked about setting a limit on the number of hives. Planner Tyler said
that staff really had no idea how many hives were kept in Tiburon.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that it would be useful to have regulations in place. Town Manager
Curran noted that the CUP permit process was required now.
Councilmember Doyle asked about perhaps requiring certification of some sort for bee-keeping.
Tyler said that there was a best management practices clause in the proposed standards,but
nothing more.
Mayor Fraser opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Fraser closed the
public hearing.
Councilmember Fredericks said she liked the idea of requiring certification for bee-keeping. She
agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation for a ministerial approval process. She
also recommended the idea of getting signatures from contiguous neighbors.
Mayor Fraser asked what would happen if a neighbor did not sign off on the permit application.
Watrous said that it could be denied on that basis.
Mayor Fraser asked for more information to be developed about bee-keeping certification, and
standards used for approval. He noted that the Town had a CUP process in place. He asked staff
to find out what other cities were doing. Planner Tyler said that most cities had no process in
place; that Corte Madera had a minor review process.
Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he favored Councilmember Frederick's suggestions.
Planning Manager Watrous summarized the direction of Council: to consider limiting bee-
keeping to certain residential zones in the standards; for applicants to provide documentation of
training or knowledge of proper bee-keeping procedures, etc. Planner Tyler said that there were
a number of organizations in the Bay Area and that the Marin Bee Keepers Association was a
good resource.
Director of Community Development Anderson said that these ideas could be incorporated in the
standards that would be developed for the resolution, and that consideration of ordinance could
proceed.
Councilmember Fredericks said that she had received an email from a constituent that
encouraged the keeping of chickens and said that single chickens would get lonely. Planner Tyler
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 20
said that it had been verified that chickens do better when there is more than one.
MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Fraser read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending
Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20
(Animals) with respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-keeping regulations and miscellaneous other
amendments."
MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance, waive second reading, and adopt on
Consent Calendar at the next regular meeting.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Collins, Doyle, Fredericks, Fraser, O'Donnell
NOES: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Major Crimes Task Force JEPA - Approve amendments to Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA) to reflect current practices and language changes required by new
liability insurance carrier (Chief of Police Cronin)
2. Grand Jury Report on Shared Services - Approve response to the Grand Jury's Report
regarding Shared Public Services (Town Attorney Danforth)
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2, as written.
Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
None.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - July 27, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
DRAFT
Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 August 1, 2012 Page 21
Beekeeping 101 / Penn State Extension
0 0 0
Whether you are an
experienced beekeeper, a new
beekeeper, or thinking about
starting a backyard beehive,
Penn State Beeke(ThIg 101 is
a c:3ne-of-a-kind Cor)-li)letely
online learning experience.
EApert instructors will vvalk
you through all of the basic
k7lc>wled. e to start. hives it)
your backyard.
Beekeeping im is suitable for
both beginner beekeepers and those with experience who want continuing
education,
.Ind iuid ual .Reg istrah'on
$189
Course includes:
Bee Biolo*
Bee t,eliavior
Hive Mariagelnelit
Swarming
Equipment
Bee Products
and Intlch more
View Sample Pages
With the online formal:, you'll be able to:
Learn frorn nationally recognized experts.
Tale the c'our: e; anytime, anywhere, at your own pace.
:access the course and. materials for an entire year.
Trade ctuestimis, successes and stories with other prograin participants,
http://beekeeping101.psu.edu/?gclid=CNCjn_aT_rECFWjhQgodoSgA_A
Page 2 of 4
ET(a-LL -c- , IT N0.
8/23/2012
Beekeeping 101 / Penn State Extension
n <
Torn l3utzler• is a Horticulture Extension Educator in centa•al
1'ennsylvania..liutrler- has been teaching beeleeepin classes to youth
and adults for ovu €5 years and developed Penn State Extension's
first online beekeepirm, course.
_
Beekeeping lol is now open for Registration!
View gable of contents and several
samples pages.
REGISTER
Penn State Extension
;i 20121 College of Agricultural Sciences ? Privacy and t..egal Statements ! Accessibility Contact Us
Producd by Penn State Public Broadcasting
Maryann Tomasko Frazier
Page 3 of 4
Penn State Entomology Expert, Senior E xtensioD Associate
i~ ~ ~ ~ III
Maayann Fr,aziez• is r-esponsil:}le• for- honey bee extension tlar{.ru.,gho€at
the state and coopera.tiveh` auoss the Mid-Atlantic region. Frasier-
collaborates with re;;earc hers around the globe, to understand the
impacts ot, peatici€:%es and. Varrow rnites oaa honey bees and other
pollinators. She also teaches courses in beekeeping, general
entomolo; and teacher education.
.
http://beekeeping101.psu.edu/?gclid=CNCjn_aT_rECFWjhQgodoSgA_A 8/23/2012
Your Instructors
Tom Butzler
Penn State Extension t-.tortiet.tltLire Expert
GA Master Beekeeper Program: Certification Levels I Honey Bee Program I CAES Ento... Page 1 of 4
Entomology: UGA Honey Bee Program
Georgia Master Beekeeper Program: Certification Levels
• Certified Beekeeper
Master Beekeeper Quicklinks:
• Journeyman Beekeeper
• Master Beekeeper
• Program Overview
• Master Craftsman Beekeeper
• Certification Levels
• Certified Lecture Notes (PDF)
• Public Service Requirements
Certified Beekeeper
• Master Beekeepers
Individual should be familiar with the basic skills and knowledge necessary for
the beginning hobby beekeeper.
Requirements:
• Must have had beekeeping experience prior to the Institute.
• Must pass a written and practical test.
• The practical test includes being able to:
o describe the parts of a beehive;
o light and properly use a smoker;
o recognize the various stages of brood, different castes of bees, and find or at least describe the queen;
o differentiate between brood, pollen, capped honey;
o recognize propolis and describe its functions; and
o describe the layout of a brood nest, i.e., placement of honey, pollen and brood.
• The written test includes materials covered during Institute lectures and labs, as well as outside readings.
Official text for the program is the 2007 edition of First Lessons in Beekeeping, Dadant & Sons.
top
Journeyman Beekeeper
Individual should be functioning as a competent hobby beekeeper with the skills and knowledge for moving into
sideline beekeeping if desired.
Requirements:
• Must have two years of beekeeping experience.
• Must have held Certified rank at least one year.
• Must pass a written and practical test.
• The practical test includes:
o identifying bee diseases (zero fail standard);
o distinguishing between bees, wasps, hornets, and other non-bee insects
(zero fail standard);
o reading pesticide labels and determining which is the safest to use around bees;
o identifying several beekeeping items;
o examining a honey label for errors; and
3-
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/master-beekeeper/levels.html 8/23/2012
GA Master Beekeeper Program: Certification Levels I Honey Bee Program I CAES Ento... Page 1 of 4
Entomology: UGA Honey Bee Program
Georgia Master Beekeeper Program: Certification Levels
• Certified Beekeeper
Master Beekeeper Quicklinks:
• Journeyman Beekeeper
• Master Beekeeper
• Program Overview
• Master Craftsman Beekeeper
• Certification Levels
• Certified Lecture Notes (PDF)
• Public Service Requirements
Certified Beekeeper
. Master Beekeepers
Individual should be familiar with the basic skills and knowledge necessary for
the beginning hobby beekeeper.
Requirements:
• Must have had beekeeping experience prior to the Institute.
• Must pass a written and practical test.
• The practical test includes being able to:
o describe the parts of a beehive;
o light and properly use a smoker;
o recognize the various stages of brood, different castes of bees, and find or at least describe the queen;
o differentiate between brood, pollen, capped honey;
o recognize propolis and describe its functions; and
o describe the layout of a brood nest, i.e., placement of honey, pollen and brood.
• The written test includes materials covered during Institute lectures and labs, as well as outside readings.
Official text for the program is the 2007 edition of First Lessons in Beekeeping, Dadant & Sons.
top
Journeyman Beekeeper
Individual should be functioning as a competent hobby beekeeper with the skills and knowledge for moving into
sideline beekeeping if desired.
Requirements:
• Must have two years of beekeeping experience.
• Must have held Certified rank at least one year.
• Must pass a written and practical test.
. The practical test includes:
o identifying bee diseases (zero fail standard);
o distinguishing between bees, wasps, hornets, and other non-bee insects
(zero fail standard);
o reading pesticide labels and determining which is the safest to use around bees;
o identifying several beekeeping items;
o examining a honey label for errors; and
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/master-beekeeper/levels.html 8/23/2012
RESOLUTION NO. -2012
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR THE
KEEPING OF CHICKENS AND STANDARDS FOR THE KEEPING OF HONEYBEES
WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon adopted Ordinance No. 542 N.S. on
August 15, 2012, which established the process for obtaining a Chicken-Keeping Permit or a Honeybee-
Keeping Permit; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 542 N.S., Section 16-40.070 of the
Municipal Code requires that for the Director of Community Development or his designee to grant a
chicken-keeping permit or a honeybee-keeping permit, he/she must find that the chicken-keeping use or
the honeybee-keeping use would comply with any adopted Standards for the Keeping of Chickens or for
the Keeping of Honeybees; and
WHEREAS, Section 16-40.070(d) of the Municipal Code states that Standards for chicken-
keeping and for honeybee-keeping shall be established by Resolution of the Town Council and may be
amended from time to time by Resolution of the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council did hold a duly noticed and advertised public meeting on
September 5, 2012, at which any testimony received from the public was considered.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16,
Section 16-40-070(d), the Town Council hereby adopts "Standards for the Keeping of Chickens" as set
forth in the attached Exhibit "A", and hereby adopts "Standards for the Keeping of Honeybees", as set
forth in attached Exhibit "B".
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on
, 20121 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JIM FRASER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Attachments: Exhibit "A": Standards for Keeping of Chickens
Exhibit "B": Standards for Keeping of Honeybees
L I I B I T 0.. 4 - - ~
EXHIBIT "A"
Standards for Keeping of Chickens
1. The chicken-keeping use must be an accessory use to a single family dwelling located in
the R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2 or RPD zone.
2. Property owner permission for the chicken-keeping use must be secured through an
application form signed by the property owner (or authorized agent) or through a separate
letter of authorization.
3. Maximum number of chickens allowed to be kept per single family dwelling:
a. On lots less than or equal to ten thousand (10,000) square feet in lot area: Up to
four (4) hens;
b. On lots greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in lot area: Up to eight (8)
hens.
4. All chickens must be hens and must be kept for non-commercial purposes only.
5. Chicken-keeping permits are intended exclusively for the keeping of chicken hens and
are not applicable or transferable to other fowl, including but not limited to roosters,
ostriches, turkeys, ducks, geese, quail, pigeons, guinea fowl or peafowl. Chicken-
keeping permits are not applicable to canaries, parrots, or other traditional indoor avian
pets.
6. Permit holders shall operate and maintain the chicken-keeping use in accordance with
recognized best management practices that provide safe and healthy living conditions for
the chickens while avoiding nuisance impacts on surrounding properties and persons.
7. All chickens shall be confined in a secure enclosure at all times. Enclosures must be kept
in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as
to prevent offensive odors. Chicken feed shall be contained such that it does not attract
rodents.
8. A chicken coop/cage shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area and six (6)
feet in height and shall be located within a rear yard setback and shall comply with the lot
coverage limits for the zone or planned residential development in which it is located.
9. In no event shall any chicken enclosure be located less than five (5) feet from any
property line or less than twenty-five (25) feet from any dwelling unit to which the
chicken enclosure is not an accessory use.
10. No chicken shall be slaughtered on the property.
EXHIBIT "B"
Standards for Keeping of Honeybees
1. The bee-keeping use shall be limited to Apis mellifera (honeybees) and must be an
accessory use to a single family dwelling in an R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2 or RPD zone.
2. Property owner permission for the bee-keeping use must be secured through an
application form signed by the property owner or authorized agent, or through a separate
letter of authorization submitted by the property owner or authorized agent.
3. Applicant shall obtain signatures of non-objection from the property owners of developed
residential properties physically contiguous to (i.e. touching) the lot where honeybees are
to be kept. If all required signatures cannot be obtained, then a conditional use permit
shall be required pursuant to Section 16-52.040 prior to approval of the bee-keeping use.
4. Maximum number of bee colonies (hives) per single family dwelling:
a. On lots less than or equal to ten thousand (10,000) square feet: Two (2) colonies.
b. On lots greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet: Four (4) colonies.
5. All bee colonies must be used for non-commercial purposes only.
6. Permit holders shall operate and maintain the bee-keeping use in accordance with
recognized best management practices that provide safe and healthy living conditions for
the bees while actively avoiding nuisance impacts on surrounding properties and persons
and protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
7. A convenient and adequate source of water shall be available to a bee colony at all times.
8. All bee colonies shall be maintained in hives capable of inspection to determine
compliance with these standards, and shall consist of moveable frames and combs. Hives
must be maintained in sound and usable condition at all times.
9. Any bee hive box (colony) shall be located within a rear yard setback in traditional zones
(R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2) or within a rear setback or rear portion of a building envelope for
a planned residential development (RPD). Bee hive boxes shall not count toward lot
coverage.
10. In no event shall any bee hive box shall be located less than five (5) feet from any
property line or less than twenty-five (25) feet from any dwelling unit to which the hive is
not an accessory use.
11. A flyway barrier at least six (6) feet in height, consisting of a solid wall, fence or dense
vegetation, shall be installed and maintained between the bee hive colony(s) and all
abutting developed or developable parcels where the bee hive colony is located within ten
(10) feet of an abutting parcel property line.
12. All hive entrances shall face away from the nearest property line(s).