TOWN COUNCIL

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Fredericks called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2004, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California.

ROLL CALL

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

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

• Liz Bird, 2205 Paradise Drive

ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY

Mayor Fredericks said that there was no closed session.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Walter Griesbach, 3 Hacienda, said he had received a letter from the Tiburon Police Department regarding burglar alarm permit fees. He claimed that he had never heard of the alarm permit fees and compared them to "protection money" extorted from businesses by the mafia. He said that residents already paid for police services and that there was no need for an extra fee.

Mayor Fredericks thanked him for his comments.

1) Approval of Town Council Minutes – February 4, 2004

2) Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services – Authorize Request for Proposal for Town Auditor Services

3) Recommendation by Town Manager – Request from the Estate of Solomon M. Martin to Transfer Funds to Landmarks’ Society

MOTION: To approved Consent Calendar Items 1 through 3, above.

Moved: Gram, seconded by Berger

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

4) Design Review Board Vacancy

MOTION: To appoint Elizabeth (Liz) Bird to the Design Review Board.

Moved: Berger, seconded by Slavitz

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

PUBLIC HEARING

5) Report by Advance Planner – Goal, Policy and Program Refinement of Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan

Mayor Fredericks said that the Council had received a substantial amount of "late mail" concerning the matter and she recommended that Council take public input but continue the item in order to give the Council time to read the late mail and hear public testimony.

Council concurred with her recommendation.

Advance Planner Bryant gave the report. He addressed an issue raised in some of the "late mail" that the recommendations presented in the Open Space and Conservation Element Issues Paper was "an attempt by Staff to have the Council adopt legislatively [the failed] Measure I."

Mr. Bryant said that Measure I was not used as a tool to update the current General Plan; he noted, however, that some of the criteria used to define "prime open space" in Measure I was also taken from existing language in the Town’s current General Plan. To better illustrate this point, Bryant said that he had prepared a chart (also a "late mail" item) comparing the prime open space criteria in Measure I with the language found in the 1989 General Plan and the recommendations for the updated General Plan.

Bryant said that from the "late mail" received by the Town, there were three areas that Staff would be looking to the Town Council to provide direction. He listed the Staff recommendations that needed to be looked at closely by the Council:

That the Town establish a target, based on actual practice since 1989, to increase the amount of open space to be reserved as part of future subdivisions or undeveloped lots from 50% to 75%;

That "significant ridgelines" on the Tiburon Peninsula be more clearly defined in the General Plan and setbacks numerically defined;

That methods be devised to protect riparian drainage ways and streams by defining specific numeric setbacks.

Bryant also stated that as a result of input received at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission in January, several areas of the Issues Paper had emerged that merited closer study and direction from Council. He listed the following suggestions made at the Planning Commission meeting:

To make certain nomenclature used in the Open Space and Land Use elements of the General Plan consistent, with a new definition of certain undeveloped properties;

To leave unchanged the Town’s policy on development on slopes at 40%;

To remove the "views and vistas" policy section from the current General Plan and continue to evaluate the criteria on a case by case application basis;

To adopt a long-term management plan for existing open space areas;

To evaluate "green building" programs that seek to reduce resource consumption in the community.

On the last item, Mayor Fredericks noted that the County was currently conducting a workshop on the subject; Councilmember Berger said that AIA had information, as well; Councilmember Smith said that the State also had information and guidelines on the subject.

Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing.

The following people addressed the Council:

Chuck Taylor, Vistazo West, 34-year resident, said he favored the changes to the General Plan in order to retain the natural beauty of Tiburon, especially new OSC-33 &35 which would minimize grading in all development, promote fewer massive retaining walls, and help preserve the natural contour of the land;

Irving Rabin, 3825 Paradise Drive, said that the planners had taken the language of Measure I and inserted it into the new General Plan; said that the recommendations were "arbitrary, capricious and subjective," which would result in "significant down-zoning and the taking of property;" specifically asked the Council to reject OSC-4, OSC-7, OSC-8, OSC-12, OSC-14, OSC-A & F, OSC-15, and OSC-5 (the reasons for which he delineated in a letter submitted to Council); said that the adoption of the Staff’s Planning Commission’s recommendations would result in lawsuits filed by property owners;

Gina Bublia, 107 Jamaica Street, submitted a letter expressing her concerns about "open space planning," its unfairness to property owners, and that there had been no discussion with them on the issue; said that it reflected a "poor public image" for Tiburon;

Allan Lewis, address unknown, said he agreed with Rabin and others opposing the new measures; said that as a taxpayer he was concerned because "litigation was bad for the budget;"

Fiona O’Connor, Paradise Drive property owner, said that the Planning Commission "shuts us out" of their recommendations and that the Last Chance Committee was "working with Staff" which seemed like a conflict of interest; asked that the property owners be included in the process and provided with data so that they could have "a voice;"

Maureen Miekle, Harbor Oak Drive, said she was interested in and applauded many of the changes, for example OSC-12 (protection of riparian corridors); quoted the late Senator Behr who she said had been instrumental in preserving the Pt. Reyes National Recreation Area, that "conservation victories can be temporary while the losses are permanent;"

Dan Waldman, San Francisco, property manager, owner and investor, submitted a letter in opposition. Mayor Fredericks asked him what he thought was "arbitrary" about the proposed changes to the General Plan. He said that picking random distances for setbacks, and the use terminology such as "secondary ridgelines" and "riparian ways" which contained no real description or definition, would lead to subjectivity in reviewing land use applications.

Eugene Kilgore, 3910 Paradise Drive, stating that his family had owned property there since 1926, asked how the Councilmembers would like it if he placed a "lien" on their properties and "impounded" 75% of their assets; compared the recommendations to the above; opposed OSC-15; urged the Council to remember the admonition of the Founding Fathers to "preserve and protect the rights of every citizen;" suggested that the Town spend money on schools and children rather than lawsuits;

Allan Littman, 100 Rolling Hills Road, 40 year resident and former Councilmember and Planning Commissioner, said that Measure I was a "radical attempt" and a substitute for "poor planning" which had been defeated; said that the new proposal was unfair and used terminology like "open space" and "prime open space" as "code phrases for no building we don’t like;" said Staff was unable to define some of the terminology in the recommendations; said that he himself was "a developer" as was Jerry Riessen, Last Chance Committee Chair, who was a 40% owner of a project in Southern California that had been in litigation for 10 years; said that for the Council to follow this line of thinking would be "like the Dutchman leading people off a cliff…."

Norman Traeger, 16-acre Paradise Drive property owner, formerly of Columbus, Ohio, said that he was disturbed by the divisiveness of the issue and that the long-time property owners had proven they were fine stewards of the land; he said that he would join a class action lawsuit if the recommendations were adopted and that he would proceed to subdivide his land sooner rather than later;

Harry Snyder, 3880 Paradise Drive, said that Staff had ignored the voter’s message when they rejected Measure I; objected to the proposal that property owners give up to 75% of their land to open space; said that other requirements were all arbitrary ways to limit building; that greenbelt protection meant that the "inferior land" would be left for property owners to develop; that Staff and a "handful of insiders" were behind the recommendations which he urged Council to reject;

Peter Brekhus, attorney and former Ross Councilmember, said he had represented many property owners over the years, including the IRS in the Harroman property acquisition by the Town; said he found problems with the proposal to increase the amount of dedicated open space, the ridgelines policy, and the riparian policy; that "regulatory downsizing" had been reversed at least in part by the courts in all cases; that the Ark should do a story about how much money had been spent by the Town in defending lawsuits related to this issue, noting that the County of Monterey had been found liable for $1 million in damages for "downzoning;"

George Landau, 82 Sugarloaf, complimented Staff on their work and thanked them for "looking ahead to future generations;" asked the Council to approve the recommendations in order to "protect what we have;" said he was not an advocate of confiscation, coercion or mafia-style tactics; that the Town’s history on the Harroman property acquisition proved his case; said that the recommendations contained in the issues paper were similar to many of those found in the County’s proposed General Plan revisions; asked the Council not to be afraid of the "saber rattlers;"

Bob Pringle, former Planning Commissioner, said the recommendations "looked like and smelled like Measure I" and would only give potential litigants a better case; expressed concern that the same "fabric wrenching" of the community would occur as in the Agins [property takings] case;

Greg Fishman, representing Xanadu Property Holdings, owner of 27 acres in Tiburon Glen, said that the goals of protecting the environment and managing growth for the community were good, but that based on his recent experience in developing the above property, the process worked and that should not be changed in favor of "draconian measures;"

Julian Landau, 82 Sugarloaf, urged people to use their hearts and their minds together in attempting to live together and with the land; that landowners should receive just compensation for their property but that wildlife and the environment also deserved protection; said that people moved to Tiburon for the "specialness" of the land which should be preserved;

Brian Prince, 3636 Paradise Drive, said he supported Staff’s recommendations; agreed that there were ways to compensate property owners; urged protection of Tiburon’s natural assets and said it would be "irresponsible to act in fear" and that the Council had a "duty to do what’s right first and foremost;" said that he could put together a panel of 50 lawyers who would defend the Town for free;

Elizabeth Gleason, Tower Point Lane, asked how moving a house on a site 30 or 50 feet could possibly be construed as a "taking of property;" urged everyone to "look at this in a rational way" and to "not let emotion simply rule";

Ron Brown, 40 Reed Ranch Road, said that his house could never have been built under these guidelines because of slope and drainage issues; countered that the arguments were not emotional and irrational but rather an issue of "economics and takings;"

Jerry Riessen, 616 Ridge Road, Chair of the Last Chance Committee, 34-year resident, said that Staff’s mandate was to take the existing General Plan and make it more specific which would be a "good thing" for residents and developers; noted that the General Plan update process had invited public commentary and that the Last Chance Committee had commented; said that in a recent survey sent to residents, the four top priorities listed had included the words "open space, view or vistas;" that the accusations linking Measure I to the recommendations were "false" and "way off base;" that the Council was not "about takings;" that the successful acquisition of the Jay and Harroman properties had been accomplished through a parcel tax approved by the voters of Belvedere and Tiburon; that the absence of guidelines would allow any future Council to "put houses where they want and when they want;" that the General Plan makes it "fair for everyone" and that Measure I was defeated not by an overwhelming majority;

Duffy Offield, 233 Dwight Road, Burlingame, one of the owners of the Martha Property, said that the ridgeline [described in the Hillside Design Guidelines] continued to be extended over time and was now proposed to reach the Bay;

Steve Stein, Larkspur, former Tiburon Planning Commissioner, said that if Measure I had been drafted in a manner similar to the issues paper, it would have passed "overwhelmingly;" that Staff’s recommendations simply "reflected reality;" that changing the General Plan would make the process, in his experience, a lot more efficient for developers; pointed out that "no one is trying to change densities" in Tiburon which he said were "greater than those of the County;" asked that people desist from "sloganeering and hysteria" and proceed with improving the General Plan in a way that makes sense; countered previous testimony by stating that the EIR process in the Tiburon Glen application was "like nailing jello to the wall;"

Joanna Kemper, 1911 Straits View Drive, Co-Chair of the Last Chance Committee, agreed that property owners had rights but that the Town Council had a responsibility to the entire community; said that Staff was trying to put forth the concerns of the community "in a rational way" which should be supported and reviewed; said that the recommendations "looked like Measure I because Measure I looks like the General Plan."

Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing and continued the item to an unspecified date, to be re-noticed, stating that it would give the Council time to contemplate the late mail and oral comments received.

6) Report and Recommendation by Town Council Downtown Art Project Subcommittee – Proposed Project Parameters and Process

Councilmember Gram introduced the item and said that he and Vice Mayor Berger, who comprised the Council subcommittee, had drafted the project parameters and process. He reviewed the list of parameters, the first of which was that the project would be a fountain or incorporate a water element and would incorporate the "wedding cake" design currently in that location. He said that characteristics of the piece could include but were not necessarily limited to Tiburon’s namesake shark, the Town’s railroad history, local heroes or personalities, sailing, or other figurative elements; Councilmember Gram described an additional characteristic the subcommittee sought, which he said would be an "element of delight."

Gram also stated that he and the Vice Mayor had put together an ad hoc committee of advisors to help them with the process, which included Mr. & Mrs. Jim Dietz, Angelo & Kathryn Servino, Ed Zelinksy, Chamber of Commerce representatives, and Town Manager McIntyre. He said that the Council would have the final say on which artist and piece were chosen.

Councilmember Gram said that the piece should include a seating area but be "skateboard resistant." He said that the plaza trees would remain in place. Gram said the piece should be lighted and that major donors would be recognized in the project design. He said that his goal was that it would be "low maintenance," and estimated a project budget of $150,000 (but also noted that that figure might be subject to change), and that an additional $25,000 for ongoing maintenance would need to be raised, as well.

Councilmember set a target date for project completion of June 2005.

Vice Mayor Berger described the selection process proposed by the subcommittee. He said that the first step was to gain consensus from the Council on the parameters and process. He said that the second step would be to create a Request for Qualifications to be sent to 10 artists researched and selected by the subcommittee. He said that all of the artists should have experience in fountains and managing budgets for public projects. He said that the previous artist, Richard Deutsch, would be invited to participate in the new project. Finally, the Vice Mayor said that the subcommittee would either pass all of the portfolios and qualifications along to the Council, or eliminate some if they were deemed not appropriate by the subcommittee or not feasible by the Department of Public Works. Designs would then be commissioned from those selected.

Councilmember Gram opened the public hearing.

Mogens Bach, former Mayor and Councilmember, asked how an individual or group of individuals would enter the "race" through the RFP process and whether it was limited only to those artists with prior experience in fountains.

Councilmember Gram replied that individuals or groups with ideas for a fountain piece were welcome to submit their ideas to the subcommittee and its advisory group but that the same selection criteria described in the project parameters would apply. He added that if an existing piece of artwork was presented and was found to be acceptable, it might be considered. Then all of those deemed appropriate would be presented to the public and the winner chosen by the Council.

Gram said that the point of establishing the new parameters was to try to make the focus of the process more narrow than the previous selection process.

Councilmember Gram asked for Council’s comments. Council indicated their support for the plan.

MOTION: To adopt the proposed parameters and process, as written.

Moved: Slavitz, seconded by Smith

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

7) Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer – Adoption of Drainage Impact Fee for New Development Projects

Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Echols gave the report, stating that the proposed fee would be similar to the Town’s Street Impact Fee charged to all new building projects. In this instance, Echols said that a formula would be devised to measure the amount of impervious surface associated with construction projects, particularly new residential construction and remodel projects. He noted that commercial construction generally did not result in an increase in impervious surface.

Echols said that the Town’s aging drainage system was in dire need of rehabilitation; he cited examples of several culvert failures during the recent winter storms. He estimated the capital cost of improving the entire infrastructure at about $10, 3000, 00, and that to just maintain the current system alone would cost the Town approximately $250,000 per year.

Echols said that assuming an average of 75,000 square feet of impervious surface was created during the coming years, the proposed drainage impact fee would generate about $63,000 per year.

Finally, the Town Engineer said that because the proposed fee was an impact fee, it would not be subject to voter approval pursuant to Proposition 218. He said it would take effect 60 days after adoption by Council and would be administered in accordance with the procedures outlined in Government Code Section 66000.

Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.

Councilmember Smith asked for clarification of some of the language in the proposed resolution and suggested that the item be continued pending a response by the Town Attorney.

MOTION: To continue the item to March 3, 2004.

Moved: Smith, seconded by Gram

Vote: AYES: Unanimous

8) Appeal of Design Review Board Decision – Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of new Single Family Dwelling at 4 Cazadero Lane

Assessor’s Parcel No. 059-032-19

Applicants: Jeff & Kari Cusack

Appellants: William & Helen Lindqvist, 3 Cazadero Lane

Mayor Fredericks and Vice Mayor Berger recused themselves and left the meeting. Prior to stepping down, Mayor Fredericks handed the gavel to Chair pro tempore, Councilmember Gram.

Associate Planner Lynch gave the report. He said that the property, formerly known as 251 Moitoza Lane, was the "parent property" of the Moitoza subdivision. He said that the application for a new home at that location, now known as 4 Cazadero Lane, had two levels, four bedrooms and four baths, and was approximately 3800 square feet. He said that no variances or exceptions had been requested by the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Cusack.

Mr. Lynch said that Design Review Board had heard considerable public testimony and had voted 3-1 to approve the application, with added conditions. He said that two of the members who had voted in favor of the project did so because they liked the design of the building and thought there would no significant view impact; the dissenting member (Beales) also stated that he liked the design but felt that the impact to the view from neighboring property was too significant to approve the project. He stated that he was not confident that the applicants had adequately explored alternatives in the design of the roofline.

The Associate Planner said that Mr. and Mrs. Lindqvist, 3 Cazadero Lane, had appealed the Board’s decision based upon the view impacts, non-conformance with their CC&R’s with regard to views, and on the grounds that the design was inconsistent with established neighborhood character.

Mr. Lynch reviewed the ground rules for the appeal hearing.

Councilmember Smith asked the applicant’s architect about the roofline and ceiling heights; he was told that they were 10 feet and 9-½ feet at the highest points.

Chair Gram opened the public hearing.

Appellant Helen Lindqvist spoke first, stating that the DRB had done a good job on some aspects of their review but not on others, such as views. She said that the Town’s view ordinance applied only to trees and not buildings; however, she said the Town’s Hillside Guidelines protected views from "primary living areas."

Mrs. Lindqvist referenced a Town Council/Design Review Board workshop in which two councilmembers were quoted as describing a primary living area was "whatever [area] is used most." In her case, Mrs. Lindqvist stated that the master bedroom and adjoining deck was the area most used by her and her husband. She said that their home did not have multiple rooms with views and that, because they were retired, they often spent time in the master bedroom either exercising on their cycle, bird-watching or bay-watching, or taking tea on the deck.

Lindqvist said that the steeply sloped roof of the new house would significantly block that view.

She stated that Goal 1, Principle 1 of the Hillside Guidelines required a home to be "cut into the hillside" in order to maximize views; Goal 3, Principle 3 spoke to maximum preservation of views; and that another goal stated that a house should not be sited on the highest point of the property.

Mrs. Lindqvist said that there were many different styles of homes in their association but that they all shared a similar characteristic of gently sloping roofs, which did not block the views of the uphill neighbors. She stated that all four of the other homes were set back and down on their lots but that the new home was not.

Mrs. Lindqvist also complained that the story poles were not up in time for her and her husband to provide input into the DRB staff report; and that it contained "misinformation and misrepresentations."

Finally, Mrs. Lindqvist stated that "you can trim a tree but you can’t trim a roofline." Therefore, she asked Council to help mediate the issue.

Bill Lindqvist, 3 Cazadero Lane, said that the Zoning Ordinance directs the Design Review Board to consider tree removal only if it has environmental, not view, impacts. He said that the applicant’s offer to remove an acacia tree as a "trade-off" to open up another view corridor for the Lindquist’s was an argument "out of order" because the view impact of the final design was even greater (45%) than a previous one.

Mr. Lindqvist said that one DRB member commented on the roof pitch and chimney but that the others seemed to take them "lightly." According to Lindqvist, the dissenting member stated, "the one thing that bothered me is the chimney and the other is the roof—both could be lowered."

Mr. Lindqvist said that the Cusack’s home would be a "terrific addition to the neighborhood," but he asked that the Council consider their appeal in their usual "fair manner" for the reasons stated above.

Michael Heckmann, architect hired by the Lindqvists, said that he had reviewed the plans submitted by the Cusack’s architect. He said that the main living areas had a 10-foot pate line with a vault above so that the roofline was actually 13-15 feet. Heckmann said that if the slopes were altered and the ceilings dropped somewhat, the shape and form of the design could be preserved. He submitted an informal drawing showing a 24-inch reduction in the volume which he said would lower the entire building by six inches.

Appellant Jeff Cusack spoke next and responded to some of the Lindqvist’s complaints. He said that the house was well set back on the lot, stating that it exceeded the required front and rear yard setbacks; that the story poles were erected in a timely manner pursuant to Town policy; that the vaulted ceiling was behind a tree so that it was not visible to the Lindqvists; that the Lindqvists had submitted a letter to the previous owners of the property asking for view restoration back to 1998, which was actually less than what they had at present.

Mr. Cusack said that he had met with all the neighbors regarding their plans all the way through the process and had cooperated with them in many ways, including the satisfactory negotiation of a driveway easement for the new dwelling. He said that he had made many concessions in the design of his home, including incurring the expense of digging the master bedroom and garage well into the hillside. He said that he and his wife had endeavored to be thoughtful, patient, and considerate of their neighbors.

Mr. Cusack also pointed out that Principle 7 of the Hillside Guidelines stated that views from existing dwellings "may be compromised;" nevertheless, he said that his offer of tree removal would actually enhance the Lindquist’s existing view which he said had been described by the Board as "spectacular."

Dave Holscher, the applicant’s architect, quoted from the Hillside Guidelines concerning what constituted primary views and living areas. He pointed out that Guidelines stated that views from bedrooms, baths and studies, and decks associated with those rooms, were considered "secondary" rather than "primary."

In response to questions from Council, Mr. Holscher said that the height of the house from grade to the highest peak was 16 feet, six inches. He said that the angle of the peak was "3-12" and "7-12" in the main living space. However, he said that people in his office described the project as the "compression house," since it was at some points 9-feet, nine inches under the existing grade.

Mr. Hoelscher quoted a letter from Alice Fredericks reiterating the Town’s policy that secondary views and "slot views" did not have the same consideration as primary views. He stated that the chimney had been lowered and moved and that it was now at the minimal allowable height, by law. He asked that the Council uphold the Design Review Board’s decision in the matter.

Councilmember Smith asked more questions about the height of the ceiling in the peaked areas; Councilmember Slavitz asked for comments on Mr. Heckmann’s drawing.

In response to these questions, Mr. Holscher replied that the submitted design was "as low as we can go to keep the proportionality of the house." However, he conceded that the modifications proposed by Heckmann could be made but that they would result in "a lesser building."

Design Review Boardmember Emmett O’Donnell spoke on the matter. He said that the Board had reviewed the pitch of the roof. He said that because no variances had been requested, and because the design was liked by the neighbors and the applicant had met the parameters of the Hillside Design Guidelines, they had proceeded with their approval.

He said that the majority of the Boardmembers felt that a flat roof would not be appropriate in this neighborhood, or for the uphill neighbors who looked down onto the street. He said that the Cuscaks had received support from their two neighbors, the Fredericks and the Dicks, who were even more impacted by the project.

Mr. O’Donnell also said that he thought the Cusacks had done an excellent job in removing vegetation in order to open up the views for the Lindqvists and their neighbors.

With regard to the view from the Lindqvist master bedroom, which O’Donnell described as "spectacular," he said the Board thought that the new roofline would cause only minimal infringement to that view.

Councilmember Gram asked about the roof material and was told it was a dark asphalt shingle.

During the appellants’ rebuttal, Michael Heckmann said that the change to the chimney was applauded by his clients but that the view impacts remained; he said that there was still room for changes to the design.

Bill Lindqvist said that one tape was completely missing form the story poles and that nothing had indicated where the chimney would be. He said that the "original" view they wanted restored dated back to 1995, not 1998. He said during the driveway negotiations, he and his wife had urged their neighbors to support the Cusacks but that the roofline design had been unchanged since last July.

Chair Gram opened the public hearing.

Joanna Kemper, Straits View, spoke in support of the Lindqvists. She said that new landscaping should be kept low to avoid future view impacts.

Ms. Kemper said that since the only view enjoyed by the Lindqvists was from their bedroom, it should constitute a "primary" view. She said they would stand to lose a third of their water view if the current design was upheld.

Corinne Seton, Vistazo West, commended the Cusacks for their communications with the neighbors and she described the project as a "thoughtful" design. She said that she favored the current roof design and that they did not want to see another "ugly sea of gravel" on a flat roof of which there were already three in the neighborhood.

Ms. Seton also said that she could not recall having seen the Lindqvists on their deck more than a few times since they moved in.

Steve Stein, Larkspur resident and former Planning Commissioner, said that he too supported the Lindquist’s’ appeal; he said he was "surprised" that the DRB left the accommodation up to the architect; he pointed out that the Lindquist’s’ view was the only one impacted by the new home.

Maureen Miekle, Harbor Oak Drive, also spoke in support of the appeal. She reiterated that the bedroom was very important to the Lindqvists and that, for medical reasons, Mrs. Lindqvist could possibly have to spend more time there in future.

Chair Gram closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Slavitz said the project had a "great architect" and was a "beautiful house."

He also spoke of the "competing rights" between the applicants and appellants and stated that if there was an opportunity to lower the roof height one or two feet without adversely affecting the Cusack’s design, he would favor it.

Slavitz clarified his statement to say that if the ridge could be modified without lowering the house, he would favor that.

Councilmember Smith said that the DRB did a good job in their review; that they had applied the rules and "did the right thing." He said that the Board correctly identified this situation as a panoramic view rather than a slot view; he agreed that the house was correctly sited on the property; and that a panoramic view could tolerate some level of view blockage, under Town guidelines, especially from a room generally not considered a primary living area.

However, Smith said he believed that while a non-primary living area warranted less view blockage protection than a primary living area, it did not mean that it should not be protected to some degree.

Councilmember Smith said he also agreed with a comment made by Councilmember Slavitz that story poles tended to understate the impacts on a view, however, he said that Mr. Lindqvist’s diagram showing potential view blockage "overstated" the case.

Smith said that based on the above conclusions, he could support a "small reduction" to the roof or changing the pitch a little. He said that the applicant had already done much to accommodate the neighbors and that any more of a change would not be warranted.

Councilmember Smith asked if Mr. Hoelscher could "shave off" about 12 inches without "hurting" the Cusacks, stating that no evidence had been presented that would lead him to believe that the roof ridge could not be lowered 12 inches without a major impact on the design.

Councilmember Gram concurred with the above remarks. He agreed that if the view from the master bedroom was the Lindqvist’s’ only view, it should be protected to some degree. He also said that if there was five feet of space in the roof peaks, and lowering it by a foot would be adequate, then it should be pursued. Gram also told the Lindqvists that if they were serious about retaining their views, they should have pursued the tree blockage issue a long time ago.

Chair Gram recommended that the design be remanded for these changes to be reviewed and approved by Town Staff.

MOTION: To partially grant the appeal by directing the applicant to lower the height of the main ridge (roofline) impacting the Lindqvist’s’ view by 12 inches for Staff level approval; to direct Staff to return with a resolution memorializing the proceedings.

Moved: Smith, seconded by Slavitz

Vote: AYES: Gram, Slavitz, Smith

RECUSED: Berger, Fredericks

COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS

None.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Town Council Weekly Digest – February 6, 2004

Town Council Weekly Digest – February 13, 2004

Town Council Weekly Digest – February 20, 2004

There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m., to the regular meeting of March 3, 2004.

S/

ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR

 

ATTEST:

DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK