TOWN COUNCIL

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Slavitz called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Thompson

PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Director of Administrative Services McVeigh, Director of Community Development Anderson, Advance Planner Bryant, Associate Planner Lynch, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Echols, Chief of Police Odetto, Administrative & Financial Analyst Stott, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Tom O’Neill, organizer of the Tiburon Classic Car Show, said that the event on April 26 was a success and that he hoped it would be something the Council would endorse in the future.

PRESENTATION OF 8^TH ANNUAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION AWARD

Presenter – Heritage & Arts Commission Chair David Gotz

Recipient – Beverly Bastian

Chair Gotz presented the award and noted Mrs. Bastian’s accomplishments as founder of the Landmark’s Society over 40 years ago and the preservation of local landmarks such as Old St. Hilary’s church, the China Cabin, the Railroad Museum, and the creation of the newly established Art and Garden Center.

In her acceptance speech, Mrs. Bastian pondered the subject of longevity and preservation. She drew comparisons to a horse named "Blackie," and said that she had concluded that "if you stand in one place long enough and do the same thing, and have a sway back, you’ve made it!" Mrs. Bastian thanked her supporters for the painting of Old St. Hilary’s by Professor James Liu.

The Council also expressed their recognition and shared personal comments.

1) Approval of Town Council Minutes – April 16, 2003

2) Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services –Accept Town Investment Summary for March 2003

3) Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services – Accept Town Quarterly Budget Report Modified for Period Ending April 30, 2003

4) Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer – Replacement of Trees at Downtown Ferry Plaza

MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar Items 1 through 4, above.

Moved: Gram, seconded by Thompson

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

ABSTAIN: Berger, Slavitz (April 16, 2003 Minutes)

5) Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer – Lyford Cove Undergrounding of Utilities Assessment District

a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon

Requesting Consent of the Board of Supervisors of the County

of Marin for Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction to Undertake Special

Assessment Proceedings under Section 10103 of the Streets

and Highways Code

Director Echols said that the proposed district had started out with about 80 homes but had grown to the current size of 222 parcels. He said that 149 petitions in favor of the district had been received to date, along with deposit subscriptions in the amount of $121,000.

Echols said that the first step in formation of the district was for the Council to adopt a resolution requesting extra-territorial jurisdiction to include a number of parcels were outside of the Town limits. He noted that 19 of these 29 parcels had submitted petitions in favor of joining the district.

Mr. Echols said that the Board of Supervisors might consider the request as soon as May 20, but if further review was required by County Counsel, it might not be heard until the June 3^rd Board meeting. Assuming that the Board approved the Town’s request, the Director said that the next step would be for the Council to adopt a resolution of intention to form the district.

 Councilmember Berger relayed a question from a resident in the Hillhaven area about removal of a pole in her neighborhood.

MOTION: To approve the above resolution requesting consent of the Board of Supervisors for extra-territorial jurisdiction to undertake special assessment proceedings

Moved: Gram, seconded by Fredericks

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

6) Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer – Accept Trestle Glen Bicycle/Pedestrian Final Report

Director Echols said that the Town had received a $60,000 grant from ABAG in 2001 to study the feasibility of linking the Tiburon multi-use path to the Bay Trail via Trestle Glen. After several public hearings and review by the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Echols said that the engineers retained by the Town, Questa , had prepared a report for presentation to the Council.

Director Echols said that ABAG was considering funding a portion of the proposed improvements, possibly half (or $500,000); however, he said that they might also look to the Town for matching funds. Echols added that another cost associated with the project was the undergrounding of some utility poles along Trestle Glen Bouelvard.

Two representatives from Questa Engineering gave a powerpoint presentation concerning the proposed project. They noted that Paradise Drive had been designated as a future "connector" to the Bay Trail. They described the constraints of designing the project on Trestle Glen Boulevard--narrow shoulder, geology, road failure, a seasonal creek, relocation of a storm drain cover, and utility poles--and discussed possible resolutions of these problems.

The Questa design contemplated a bicycle lane in each direction and a pedestrian pathway on one side, plus the addition of roadway signage. The engineers described a method of widening the roadway on the north side which would shift the road alignment toward the south, which together with re-striping the traffic lanes, would create room for the bike lane and path. The design would also use retaining walls, if necessary, but the engineers said their goal was to keep them to a minimum, both for cost and esthetics.

The engineers said they had incorporated the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s suggestions to: a) put the pedestrian path on the north side of the boulevard to coincide with the existing crossing at the intersection with Tiburon Boulevard; b) to create a separation between the bikes and pedestrians in the form of some sort of barrier; and c) to locate the future pedestrian path on the south side of the boulevard.

According to the Questa study, the project cost was estimated at $1.2 million, and the removal of utility poles would add approximately $950,000 to that cost.

Councilmember Berger added his comments about "sculpting the hillsides" in order to avoid building retaining walls. The engineers replied that sloping would cause removal of vegetation in the area in the short run but said that it was technically feasible. In addition, they said it would trim $200,000 off the cost of the project.

Councilmember Thompson asked who would pay for the project.

Director Echols reiterated that ABAG had indicated its financial support and also stated that the undergrounding could be undertaken with the use of Rule 20A funds if the Council so directed. He also said that CMA funds were available in the form of "Safe Routes to Schools" and that there was possible Clean Air Act funding. He said that if the concept were endorsed by the Council, funding sources could be explored.

Councilmember Gram said that the removal of utility poles was separate from the rest of the project, and he added that Tiburon Boulevard, not Trestle Glen, was the Council priority on the Rule 20A list of projects. The Questa engineers acknowledged that some of the poles in questions could be relocated.

Mayor Slavitz said that while it was a "dream" now, the project could possibly be phased into the Town’s list of future projects.

Councilmember Thompson added his comments concerning the design of the project. He said that the four-foot bike lanes were too narrow and would be dangerous for anyone going downhill fast on a bike. He said it was important to acknowledge human nature in designing a project, and that bicyclists would most likely prefer to ride in the street rather than on a narrow, separated lane.

Councilmember Berger noted that BPAC had suggested separation between bikes and pedestrians due to the danger of pedestrians being hit by bicycles. Mayor Slavitz described this conflict as "baby carriages versus bicycles."

Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing.

Brenda Pasky, 101 Trestle Glen Terrace, said that it was hard to exit from their street with bikes "whizzing past." She suggested that the bike path be limited to the north side of Trestle Glen Boulevard.

Claire Horn, Turtle Rock Court, said she worried about the danger of any design that would force children to ride their bikes in the street.

Karen Halsey, Juno Road, had several questions about the design which were addressed by the Questa engineers.

Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing.

Vice Mayor Fredericks said that endorsement of the report would essentially be issuing a "hunting license" for funding sources.

Council concurred and unanimously endorsed the report in concept.

7) Presentation by Advance Planner – Proposed Changes to Golden Gate Transit District Bus Service

Advance Planner Kevin Bryant gave a report to the Council. He said that the Bridge District faced in excess of a $200 million deficit and had proposed cutting its operating costs by $150 million over the next five years. What this translated into, according to Bryant, was a one-third cut in services.

After a series of meetings and other public outreach, Mr. Bryant said that the District had settled upon a scenario in which it would meet its mandate to transfer riders over the Golden Gate Bridge and still provide local service. This scenario contemplated the reduction of service for the No. 10 (Tiburon) bus from every half hour to hourly service, with evening service ending at 9:00 p.m. There would be no changes to the Tiburon ferry commuter service under this scenario.

Mr. Bryant said that the reduction of service after 9:00 p.m. was problematic for restaurant and other workers not only in Tiburon, but in Mill Valley and Sausalito, as well. However, he said that the planners for the Bridge District estimated that it cost $40,000 for every hour of bus service past 9:00 p.m., and that they had asked the Town for ideas about how to move riders from downtown to Highway 101 [where bus service would be accessible after 9:00 p.m.].

Mr. Bryant said that while still a "concept plan," there could possibly be more drastic cuts to the No. 10 service. In order to avoid this, Mr. Bryant said that it was important that the Town make its comments known before the May 29 deadline for public comment. He also said that there were several meetings of the Bridge District or (CMA) Transportation Committee prior to that date.

Vice Mayor Fredericks concurred, noting that other cuts could occur, in addition to those stated in the above report. She said it was important for interested parties to write or make comments to not only the Bridge District but to the local [Marin County] transit district directors. She noted that Supervisor Annette Rose was the President of the Marin County Transit District.

Ms. Fredericks predicted that the Bridge District would ask the local transit district and town(s) to fund the gap in service until the contract with the local transit district could be renegotiated (at the end of June). She said that another scenario would be for local businesses to hire a taxi service to transport workers to the freeway late at night.

She also urged staff to try to compile usage statistics which would show the overlapping shifts and ridership over different days.

In response to a question from Mayor Slavitz, Fredericks said that the Bridge District said that there were never more than four riders after 9:00 p.m. on the bus leaving downtown Tiburon.

Councilmember Berger noted that the reduction in bus service would impact young riders, as well, and would force more cars onto the road.

Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing.

Patrick Johnson, resident of Pt. Tiburon Marsh, said that he went to work at the Strawberry Safeway every day on the bus and that the cuts "just weren’t right."

Doris Heald, 14 Venus Court, resident for 52 years, said that she did not drive and that many elderly people like herself depended on bus service to get around. She also said that elderly people generally did not go out to night meetings due to safety concerns, so that there would not be many of them in attendance at the public hearings.

Steve Sears, owner of Sam’s Anchor Café, complimented the report and efforts of the planners and Vice Mayor and said that the "squeaky wheel" theory really worked. He said that during the summer, he had 8-10 workers on his night shift who would be affected by the bus service reductions.

Angelo Servino, local restauranteur, said he had 10 workers at night, although only two or three rode the bus, but that transportation issues made it difficult to hire and retain employees. He also said that European visitors liked to ride busses, and that a reduction in service would affect the community as a whole.

Rick Brewer, rider since 1945, recalled when Greyhound ran the busses in Marin. He said that there might need to be trade-offs to achieve everyone’s goals.

Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing.

The Mayor asked the Advance Planner to draft a letter to the appropriate agencies incorporating the comments made during the hearing.

Councilmember Thompson said that "we can do better" than the current No. 10 bus route and service. He said that quick jitneys to the freeway might be part of crafting a "better solution."

Vice Mayor Fredericks said that the long-term solution was part of the Congestion Management Agency’s vision plan, but that the we can do now is to keep the late night and mid-day service to Town intact.

Fredericks said that the transit district contract was ending in June and that the focus now should be on "making the transition as smooth as possible."

Councilmember Berger talked of the "vicious cycle" of reduced service and concomitant reductions in ridership. He said that ridership should be encouraged and expanded.

Councilmember Gram said it was important to keep "plugging away" at the problem. Mayor Slavtiz concurred and said that an opportunity existed to renegotiate the contract at the end of June.

8) Recommendation by Director of Community Development – Revised Downtown Design Guidelines Furniture Supplement

Council took Item No. 9 out of order. The above item was heard at the end of the public hearing.

9) Presentation by Associate Planner – Appeal of Design Review Decision to deny an application for a Sign Permit at 1640 Tiburon Boulevard – Cindy’s Hair Salon

Applicant/Appellant – Cynthia Lee Siciliano, Proprietor

Assessor’s Parcel No. 059-101-04

Planner Brian Lynch gave a brief background report concerning the sign application. He said that a citizen had come to the Town Hall Planning counter to complain about the sign and that he had been unable to find an application or permit for the sign in the Town’s files. After advising the applicant to apply for a permit on an "as-built" basis by Town Staff, the Design Review Board denied the application on the grounds that it was not in conformance with the Town’s sign ordinance or Downtown Design Handbook. Specifically, an illuminated box sign like the one installed by the applicant, is described as "inappropriate and prohibited" in the downtown area, according to the Handbook.

Mr. Lynch said that the applicant, Cynthia Siciliano, had filed a timely appeal of the decision on two grounds: 1) that the Board overextended its police power in denying the sign permit application on the basis of aesthetic considerations rather than on the basis of public health, safety and welfare; and 2) that the Town had enforced the Sign Ordinance in a discriminatory fashion where some signs were allowed to exist without permits and others were not.

In response to a question from Councilmember Gram, Mr. Lynch said that other signs in the complex had permits, but he stated that there was not a master sign plan that he was aware of for the complex.

Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether the size of the sign was in compliance with the Town’s Sign Ordinance. Mr. Lynch replied that technically the sign did not meet the basic size restriction but that there were exceptions allowed under the ordinance if certain findings were made. Lynch said that the Board had "touched" on the issue but had focused instead on the issues of internal illumination and materials.

Mayor Slavitz asked whether the internal illumination was the only problem for the Board. Mr. Lynch stated that there was no consensus on the other aspects of the application.

Councilmember Berger asked whether the metal box was an issue, or were both the materials and the illumination issues for the Board.

Planner Lynch said that the "type" of sign was discouraged but that the Town’s Sign Ordinance did not specifically prohibit metal and plastic as materials which, if used with discretion, would probably be acceptable.

Director of Community Development Anderson added that the purpose of the design of a "box" or "can" sign was to provide space for internal illumination.

Councilmember Berger asked the question if the sign could be "flattened" whether it would then become an acceptable design. Mr. Lynch answered that he believed it would be acceptable.

Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing.

Cindy Siciliano, appellant, disputed certain aspects of the planner’s report. She said that no other tenants in her complex had sign permits. She also said that the guidelines contained in the Handbook were suggestive rather than legally enforceable.

Ms. Siciliano asked the Council to let the members of the business community design their own signs; she said that hundreds of people liked her sign and that the denial of her application had caused her sleepless nights and emotional distress. She also felt that her constitutional rights were being violated.

Councilmember Thompson asked Ms. Siciliano whether she had discussed her sign with her landlord, Main Street Properties. She said that she had not.

Councilmember Berger asked Ms. Siciliano whether she had checked her lease for provisions pertaining to signs. Said replied that she had not; she and further stated that tenants in her complex had "always just done it" (installed signs) on their own, without assistance from the landlord.

Councilmember Gram asked whether the manufacturer of the sign had offered to get the necessary permits [from the Town], and whether she had looked at her lease since that time to see if it addressed the issue of abiding by Town regulations when installing a sign.

Ms. Siciliano replied "no" to both questions.

Mayor Slavitz asked Ms. Siciliano whether she knew that she needed a sign permit when she purchased and installed the sign. She replied that she did not.

Ms. Siciliano stated that she had purchased the sign for illumination during the months of November and December when it was dark and she wanted clients to be able to find her place of business.

Councilmember Berger asked whether it was her preference to illuminate the sign, or whether she would agree to not illuminate it in the future.

Ms. Siciliano said it was her preference to use the illumination, although she later stated that she had not illuminated it since the beginning of the year. She did not agree to Councilmember’s Berger suggestion not to illuminate the sign.

Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether the sign could be disassembled.

Steve Sears, downtown business owner who served on the committee that drafted the Downtown Design Handbook, said that some members of the Town Council at the time had been reticent to adopt the guidelines contained in the handbook because they feared that the Design Review Board would try to enforce them like an ordinance rather than as suggested designs. He said that he was now concerned that the naysayers were right.

Mr. Sears said that someone on the Board had stated that "we don’t like" plastic or metal back-lit signs, but countered with the fact that Cindy’s sign was rarely lit and that the building design of her entire complex would not be allowed under current Town [design] regulations because it lacked gutters and downspouts and had parking in front of the complex.

Mr. Sears further stated that the Tiburon Lodge did not have a sign permit and suggested that the Board might have been overstepping its bounds in its denial of Cindy’s sign.

Councilmember Gram asked the planning staff whether the other signs in questions had permits. Mr. Lynch replied that the administrative records showed that all signs installed since the current Sign Ordinance was adopted in 1997 have received permits. He also stated that the Lodge had a permit for a sign at that location, but not in its current configuration (the plastic sleeve had been replaced without a permit). He said that the Town was now in Code Enforcement procedures against the Lodge in order to achieve compliance.

Director of Community Development Anderson said that in the past Bell Market had received so many complaints about an illuminated box sign that it voluntarily had removed it. He said that the Town had approved no "box" signs since that time.

Mayor Gram asked for clarification of what types of signs were "prohibited" by Town regulations.

Mr. Lynch listed "portable sandwich signs, roof signs, flashing signs, off-site signs, and vehicular signs" as examples.

Councilmember Thompson asked Staff to comment on Ms. Siciliano’s interpretation of the Town’s police powers.

Director of Community Development Anderson said that there was well established legal precedent giving cities the right to reasonably regulate on the basis of aesthetics.

Design Review Boardmember Bill Comstock added his comments. He said that the Board found that the sign in question was in violation of the Sign Ordinance because it was oversized but that the Board felt that the issues raised by the Downtown Design Handbook were more important to address. He said that the Town should remand the application to the Board for review of the size issue if it otherwise approved the sign.

Mr. Comstock also said that the sign materials were incompatible with the building where it was installed, and that the issue of materials was not resolved. He said that the Board did not discuss removing the illumination from the sign as a condition of approval.

Boardmember Comstock said that both the Downtown Design Handbook and Town Sign Ordinance reflected the desire of the Town to improve and maintain its downtown and that variances would not seem consistent with that goal.

During her rebuttal, Ms. Siciliano said that the sign size was allowed under the Town’s Sign Ordinance as a trade-off for a business installing only one sign when it had frontage on two separate streets.

Planner Lynch confirmed that such an exception existed as long as the following findings were made: 1) the existence of exceptional circumstances; and 2) it was not inconsistent with the purpose of the chapter [16A].

In response to further questions from Council, Mr. Lynch said that in this instance, the applicant would have had to apply for a size exception and the findings would have to be made by the Board. He said that the findings had not been made.

Director of Community Development Anderson clarified that if the two street frontages were the same, the allowable size for the sign in question would be 10 square feet rather than 15 square feet of the existing sign.

Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Gram said that it would be helpful if Main Street Properties had a master sign program for its tenants like the Boardwalk Shopping Center’s landlord had. He said that there should be a clause in the lease stating that signs would need approval by the landlord and must comply with Town regulations.

Gram stated that he had never worked with a sign manufacturer who had not offered to get the necessary permits.

Finally, Gram said that the Town regulated the design of homes and it most certainly should regulate the design of signs or else the system would not work. He agreed with the Downtown Design Guidelines’ prohibition of "can" signs in downtown, but said that if there was a way to modify the existing sign and address the size issues, perhaps this sign could be approved. However, he said he was prepared to vote to deny the appeal as submitted.

Councilmember Berger concurred, stating that everyone who comes before the Design Review Board has to sublimate their desires to those of the entire community. He said that as an architect he was well aware of the "standard procedure" of obtaining landlord and city approval of signs. However, he said that he "felt bad" that the applicant had already installed and paid for the sign without being aware of the conflicts, and said that if the graphic and tone of the sign were acceptable, and there was a way to make the sign non-illuminated and perhaps redesign it somehow, there might be a way to approve it, including the waiver of any future application fees.

Vice Mayor Fredericks said that she also was sorry that the applicant found herself in this position but agreed that even if modified, the sign would need careful review by the Design Review Board. She said that it was not possible to make exceptions for business owners under the Town’s regulations.

Councilmember Thompson regretted the lack of knowledge and wasted money of the applicant. He said that the Town should give landlords a short, concise pamphlet concerning signage which they could also give to their tenants. He said that he was inclined to approve the application on the condition that the electrical component be disconnected.

Mayor Slavitz said that this was an unfortunate situation. However, he said that when he served on the DRB, they had reviewed many sign applications so that it was not an unusual situation. He said that perhaps it could be remanded to the DRB for further review and modifications.

At that point, Ms. Siciliano volunteered to not illuminate the sign, if Council approved it as is.

The Council considered remanding the application to the DRB, without fee, if the sign were both made smaller and not illuminated. Councilmember Thompson opposed this action. Some members of the Council thought that further design modifications might also be required by the DRB.

Ms. Siciliano voiced her strong aversion to returning to the Board and stated that she would go to court regarding the matter.

 MOTION: To deny the appeal.

Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Berger

Vote: AYES: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz

NOES: Thompson

10) Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services – Cypress Hollow Landscape & Lighting District Assessment for FY 2003-2004

a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon

Continuing Maintenance and Operation of the Landscape

and Lighting District in the Cypress Hollow Subdivision in

Fiscal Year 2003-2004

Director of Administrative Services McVeigh recommended waiver of the Staff report. She said that no protests had been received to date for the continuation of the assessment.

MOTION: To adopt above resolution for FY 2003-04

Moved: Gram, seconded by Berger

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

Item No. 8 (out of order): Recommendation by Director of Community Development – Revised Downtown Design Guidelines Furniture Supplement

Director of Community Development Anderson said that the revisions previously recommended by the Council had been incorporated into the furniture supplement of the Downtown Design Guidelines.

Vice Mayor Fredericks said that the Lyford’s Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowner’s Association met the previous evening and had submitted a letter to the Town voicing its opposition to the glare created from the Victorian style streetlights along Tiburon Boulevard downtown.

Ms. Fredericks said that it was her understanding that the streetlights would be replaced with different fixtures as they expired and as the budget allowed.

Councilmember Berger showed a drawing that would address the glare issue by adding a Victorian style shade to the lamps. Councilmember Thompson said that Council had been told when the new streetlights were installed that there were components that could be purchased to address the glare issue.

Director Anderson said that it was his understanding that Staff had already been directed by Council and was working to address the glare issue through the use of tinted glass or other means.

Vice Mayor Fredericks said that she had only one other suggestion for the furniture supplement, and that was to ensure that outdoor furniture be of sufficiently solid material or have heavy enough pedestals so that it did not blow over in the wind.

MOTION: To accept the final recommendations for a revised Downtown Design Guidelines Furniture Supplement

Moved: Thompson, seconded by Gram

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

 

COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS

11) Presentation by Vice Mayor – Formation of Town Council Subcommittee to Nominate Tiburon Resident to the Congestion Management Agency Southern Marin Citizen’s Advisory Committee

The Vice Mayor said that the Congestion Management Agency had formed sub-regional committees to provide input into the proposed Expenditure Plan for a future ˝ cent sales tax increase on a future ballot. She recommended formation of a subcommittee comprised of Mayor Slavitz and herself, to receive and review applications from local residents who wanted to serve on the Community Advisory Committee. The actual appointment would be made by the CMA.

In response to a comment from Councilmember Thompson, Fredericks said that one of the representatives would be a Town Councilmember and that she was already serving in this capacity as the Council’s representative to the CMA. However, she said that the CMA also wanted a broader participation in the process from the community at large.

Ms. Fredericks said that she had received questions as to whether the sales tax measure, if successful, would be used to "back-fill" the current Bridge District budget shortfall. She said that the revenue generated by the proposed increase to the sales tax would not exceed $12 million (far short of the estimated Bride District budget deficit) and, in any event, it was not slated to be used for back fill purposes. Rather, the committees would concentrate on defining areas of spending for local roads and projects, congestion management, and transportation.

Ms. Fredericks noted that the passage of a sales tax measure would make Marin a "self help" County which would qualify it for Federal aid. She said that Marin and one other county were the only non-self-help counties in the State.

Council unanimously endorsed the recommendation and agreed to agendize the matter for further action on May 21, 2003.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Town Council Weekly Digest – April 18, 2003

Town Council Weekly Digest – April 25, 2003

Town Council Weekly Digest – May 2, 2003

Director of Community Development Anderson said that the Town had issued a building permit today for the new building on the previous site of Tiburon Tommie’s.

Councilmember Berger noted the discovery of a new jellyfish named Tiburonia granrojo.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. in honor of Tiburon resident and long-time senior and affordable housing advocate Helen Benedict’s 100^th birthday, sine die.

s/ JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR

 

ATTEST:

DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK