Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2007-12-21 TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of December 17 - 21, 2007 Tiburon 1. M~mo - Laurie Tyler - $75,000 Grant Awarded to Combat Global Warming 2. Letter - Elizabeth Pepperell - Street Lighting on Mar East 3. Letter - Library Director & Assistant - Thanks for Christmas Party Agendas & Minutes 4. Agenda - Richardson Bay Regional Agency - 12/20/07 5. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - 12/20/07 6. Minutes - Design Review Board -12/06/07 7. Public Meeting Notice -City of Belvedere - 1/7/08 Regional a) Letter - ABAG - Managing Waste Electronics/Toxic or Hazardous Products b) Notice of Filing - PG&E - Smartmeter Program Upgrade c) Bay Trail Rider - Fall 2007 * d) Conference Announcement - 2008 Annual Congressional City Conference * e) Comcast Bay Overview - November 2007 * Agendas & Minutes f) Meeting Cancellation - Marin Healthcare District -12/19/07 * Council Only TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard T iburon, CA 94920 DIGEST 1- p h ..., MEMORANDlJM Date: December 20, 2007 To: '. , Peggy Curran, Town Manager From: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner Subject: $75,000 Grant Awarded to Combat Global Warming On December 19,2007, Marin County was awarded $375,000 in grant money from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to help combat global warming at the local level by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In November of this year, the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) was formed. It is comprised of all Marin municipalities, which have a common goal of creating sustainable communities that promote healthy environments, robust local economies, and social equality. By participating in MCEP, Tiburon is committed to supporting and implementing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction programs towards the goal of achieving the countywide goal of reducing GHG emissions by 46% below current levels. The MCEP partnered with ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) and has support from Joint Venture Marin, the Marin Energy Management Team, and the Marin Community Development Agency Sustainability Team to provide us with qualified expertise in the development of emissions inventories, GHG reduction targets and climate action plans. The MCEP collaboratively applied for and was awarded one of the $75,000 grants out of the $375,000 lump sum. Due to the absence of sufficient funding and staffing that many larger municipalities have to implement sustainability programs, the MCEP seeks to utilize the $75,000, and to acquire additional funding from each municipality, to hire a Climate Action Director. This newly created position would be devoted specifically to address the primary goal of building emissions- reduction initiatives into the core of each city's local policies and programs. Tiburon specifically, would be assisted with building climate protection goals and programs directly into our long-term planning process to address GHG emission reductions, and thus contribute towards achieving the countywide reduction goal. Staff is pleased to be a part of this endeavor and we look forward to working with all local municipalities in Marin, including the County, in fighting global warming. DIGEST ,. Elizabeth A. Hartman-Pepperell 2260 A Mar East Tiburon, CA 94920 415 435-5438 lizhcp@aol.com December 12, 2007 RECEIVED DEe 1 8 2007 City Council Members Town of Tiburon City Hall Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Subject: Street lighting on Mar East Gentlemen: For the first time since moving to Tiburon I was afraid and feared for my safety. It was only 7:30 PM and I was invited for a social hour at a neighbor's home - TWO houses away. As I was walking, I stumbled a bit on the metal plate that I COULD NOT see on the street and when I straightened myself out I COULD NOT SEE to either move forward or return back to my home. I chose to continue on... feeling the sides of the cars and hoping my eyes would adjust to the light - or the lack thereof - after three car lengths I could see their porch light and headed for that. This is ridiculous! I called Al Petrie the next morning to ask when there would be more street lights installed and he informed me Mar East was scheduled for only three street lights - two already installed and the third, and last would be at the intersection of Mar East and Solano. He also informed me this had been decided by a group of people representing our neighbor hood. Who are these people and what were they thinking, did they realize how dark it would be for this stretch of three/ four blocks at night? This is a street for walking as well as for driving - and when driving, for heaven's sake you have headlights. Will we now have to carry flashlights or personal headlights to be able to move about in our own neighborhood? How about the people who use the Ferry and are returning home from work at night, How about all the folks who walk their dogs? What we do need is to get more lighting - this is a serious safety issue. I certainly understand the people on the upside of the street not wanting to see street lights all night but the new lights are covered on the top and are of a quite mellow light. Would the solution be for all of us along the water/lower side of the street to agree to keep our porch lights on for our safety? What can be done to solve this issue? Very truly yours, ,1 ./'1, ( . f7j/ /J ,-) /7'; A ;J -' P c.. ,4 ct,-l-nLt?~r - "--$/7--- ~_/ Elizabeth Hartman-Pepperell WBH:eh CC: A. Petrie Belvedere- Tiburon Library 1501 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 (415) 789-2665 ,. ["'~;\ :_; :;.-m".~_.... ~ ::. a.J fU D....:. v j December 20, 2007 Peggy Curran Tiburon Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Peggy: Thank you so much for the Christmas party last night at Servino's. It's hard to beat the view from their balcony, the ambience of the room, and the variety and quality of the food. We had a great time and are lucky to be part of such a special community. The invitation to join the Town Council, staff and friends is much appreciated. ".....-, eborah D. Mazzolini Library Director DIGEST 'f. RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY Thursday, December 20,2007 5:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. Sausalito City Council ChaInbers 420 Litho Street Sausalito, CA PUBLIC COMMENT IS INVITED CONCERNING EACH AGENDIZED ITEM PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. AGENDA RECEIVED DEe 1 8 2007 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL. 1. Minutes of October 18, 2007 Meeting TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON 2. Recognition of retiring RBRA Board n1en1bers Chris Raker and Paul Smith 3. Review report of Harbor Adlninistrator 4. Approval of prior expenditures for October and Novelnber, 2007 5. Follow-up report on Nuisance Abaten1ent Hearing for Jan1es Hauso regarding 2 vessels anchored on Richardson's Bay (CF 6580 GT and CF 9215 KR). 6. Report on the annual Water testing results 7. TMDL update 8. Mooring Plan status 9. Public con1n1ents invited concerning itenls NOT on this Agenda (3-minute limit) 10. Staff con1n1ents 11. Board nlen1ber n1atters Adjourn. NEXT MEETING: Tentatively planned for February 21, 2008. Please review your calendars and advise Staff on your availability. A COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE SA USA LITO CITY LIBRARY. TO RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC il'IEETING NOTICE, PLEASE EMAIL REQUEST TO DON ALLEE AT dallee@},co.marin.ca.lIs Marin County Community Development Agency, 3501 Civic Center Dr. Room 308, San Rafael, CA 94903 Office 415/289-4143 bprice@co.marin.ca.us ~ . 'I fi. RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY MEMORANDUM Decelnber 14, 2007 TO: RBRA Board FROM: Ben Belio, RBRA Clerk SUBJECT: December meeting There are a number of topics for this meeting. Staff will verbally report on tJ?,e latest with respect to the TMDL (County staff met in November to discuss), the Mooring program (staff will have the latest on Clem Shute's dealings with BCDC), and various budget- related items (the news at this juncture in FY '07-'08 is pretty good). The Harbor Administrator is taking a welcome sojourn in the Sandwich Isles (history question - why were they originally named that? [no fair googling]). Meanwhile Staff hopes that your December is festive and restful. RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2007 HELD AT SAUSALITO CITY HALL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles McGlashan, (Marin County); Paul Albritton (Sausalito); Chris Raker, (Mill Valley) ABSENT: Board Chair Jerry Butler (Belvedere); Paul Smith, (Tiburon). STAFF: Bill Price (Harbor Administrator); Ben Berto (RBRA Clerk) CONSULTING STAFF: Jennifer Vuillermet - Marin County Counsel Session Called to Order at 5:42 PM. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes of August 16, 2007 meeting Minutes were approved unanilTIously. Accept Report of Harbor Administrator Staff advised the Board that a nun1ber of larger vessels were anchoring in the bay, and that County Counsel was researching restrictions by length of vessel. The Rapid Response Program was discussed; in budgetary terms, the progran1 is approximately half expended. The fire exercise for the tugboat "Liberty" is in planning stages and probably won't occur before the New Year. The report was accepted unanilTIously. Approval of prior expenditures through August and September 2007 Member Raker asked that the expenditure repOli separate out revenues so that it would be easier to read, and Staff agreed to change the format for the future. The expenditure report was approved unanimously. Nuisance Abatement Hearing for James Hauso regarding 2 vessels anchored on Richardson's Bay (CF 6580 GT and CF 9215 KR) and cost accounting for 3 vessels disposed of by the RBRA over the last year. Mr. Hauso was not in attendance. The Harbor AdlTIinistrator (HA) read the notices placed aboard the vessels in question, and proceeded to give a detailed account of the events leading up to the Nuisance Abaten1ent action. Over the last year, Mr. Hauso had three derelict vessels that were disposed off by the RBRA at a cost of over $10,000.00. Two Rapid Response rescues had been required on the vessels, including one on a raft of his vessels, since they were poorly secured, and two of the vessels had sunk prior to salvage by the RBRA, resulting in oil spills and extra expenses. After the last 42' vessel sank, Mr. Hauso arrived back in the bay on a 50' ferrocen1ent tugboat, which he claimed he was going to give to the HA after he had taken out the n10to1'. Member Raker asked about contact with Mr. Hauso, and the HA detailed the po stings and the conversations that had occurred with Mr. Hauso. The HA stated the Mr. Hauso had denied owning the second boat that sank, saying it was his son's, who has the same nmue. The HA also explained that Mr. Hauso reported he had a doctor's appointment this evening and as his stated reason for not attending the Abatement Hearing. Member Albritton asked about the findings for the Abatement and Counsel Vuillermet said it creates a hazard. The HA explained that the 50' ferro vessel had a large diesel motor and tank, and its derelict condition made it a potential environmental hazard. It was also on another person's mooring without permission, and that the condition of that mooring was suspect. The other vessel, a Bayliner powerboat, was loaded down with debris, including two loose (unsecured) 8 cylinder motors on the aft deck. Any rolling during a storm would have shifted ballast dangerously, increasing the potential for a catastrophic sinking. Men1ber McGlashan asked if the owner or anyone else present who wished to testify, but no one offered further comment. The HA read the Resolution of Findings (part of the meeting record). Chair McGlashan asked that the Appeal Rights be delivered to Mr. Hauso either personally or by mail. Counsel V uillenuet stated that costs of the Abatement Action would be calculated and presented to the Board at a later date for consideration of further action. Men1ber Raker moved to approve the Resolution, and send it with the appeal rights to Mr. Hauso. Member Albritton approved the motion and it was accepted unanimously. Discussion of the proposed RWQCB plan to establish TMDL parameters for the waters of Richardson's Bay Mr. Berto began the discussion by presenting his Staff Report on TMDL's. He stressed that this progran1 was being imposed on the RBRA on other local agencies, appeared to create sanitarian (e.g., sewer testing) duties for the RBRA, and would raise budget issues in the future. Member McGlashan said that it would make sense for MCSTOPPP and Marin County EHS to host a workshop and have the county and the affected cities take it up in February '08. He suggested a preliluinary meeting in December, attended by county staff to discuss what it might n1ean to the various agencies that would be affected. Mr. Berto asked for Meluber McGlashan's encourageluent in moving the lueeting forward through the County and his connections in the various cities. Member McGlashan said that he had requested a copy of the Powerpoint presentation that was given by R WQCB, but that he has not had a response. He was interested in determining the requirements" procedures and penalties. Member Albritton noted that more information would be necessary from R WQCB to assess actual impacts including implementation costs. He did feel that the TMDL concept of higher standards was "very Marin" and would be laudable if it didn't become a nightn1are. Melnber Raker stated that he felt the progralTI was a bureaucratic dalliance, the spending of n10ney on which would make the general public shake their head and lose faith in government. Raise the standard to recreation - it is realistic to expect in the Bay. He supported Melnber McGlashan' recOlnn1endations to quantifY and qualify all impacts. He recommended consolidating efforts to lin1it expenditure of staff time. Member McGlashan believed it most efficient to move it through the County level, and set up the workshop. Then after the workshop, the County, MCSTOPPP, the cities and RBRA would be in a position to send a coordinated response to the R WQCB that might set another, more realistic goal. Member Raker agreed that local letters should have the same solution. During Public Comn1ent, Louis Shireman fron1 FHA said that he agreed with Staff s position and asked that the residential impacts be examined. He stated the TMDL report was draconian and painted a dark picture of impacts on the general houseboat con1munity and its residents. Mooring Plan Discussion Mr. Berto reported that Clen1 Shute, our legal consultant, teaches a course at DC Berkeley's Boalt Hall in the Spring, and he had offered to assign hjs interns to work on the Mooring Plan investigating the legal implications. Member McGlashan said in his conversations with the BCDC, they were interested in a compelling argument to sho\v there would be enough enforcement to prevent backfill. Possibly the law could be changed to create an exclusionary clause, but if we're going to do a legislative fix, it will have to be done quickly. Member Albritton suggested the possibility of using Senator Migden's legislative analyst for assistance. County Counsel Vuillermet agree to work with StafI and Mr. Shute on an exclusionary clause concept. Member Albritton advised that the public would need to be infonned and have the benefits laid out. Items from the Public None Board Member Matters Melnber Raker announced that this was his final RBRA meeting, and that he would miss the Agency terribly. He said that it was his favorite assignlnent as a Inen1ber of the Mill Valley City Council, and that we have had tremendous achievelnents over the past years. I terns from Staff The n1eeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for December 20, 2007, at the Sausalito City Hall Council Chambers at 5:30 PM. Sublnitted by Bill Price and Ben Berto RI_CHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY HARBOR ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Decem her 6, 2007 WORKING RELATIONSHIPS . Dept. of Boating and Waterways . Approval of Resolution approving $60,000 grant from DBW for ongoing pumpout and nlaintenance activities over the next 3 years. (Resolution to be presented at meeting) . Working to get DBW to drop the required 100/0 match that is charged back to every agency that gets an A WAF grant, and to allocate en1ergency funds for instant approval in cases of derelicts sinking. . US Coast Guard - Met with the new point of contact at Station Golden Gate, Jessica Shaffer. Had a positive discussion of the issues surrounding the anchorage and she offered her cooperation and support. . Marin Sheriff - coordinating response with boat patrol deputy to tighten up .on derelict vessels. Also worked closely to track and charge back the owner of an abandoned fishing vessel that we demolished. . Sausalito Police Department - Patrols by SPD had increased lately, and new interest in becoming "boat-certified" has resulted in a steady class / patrol day for their officers that will begin after the holidays, on a weekly basis. DEBRIS REMOVAL . Disposed of 8 vessels as well as 2 skiff. 2 boats are currently impounded. . Working on the Governor's Abandoned Vessel Abatement Committee (A V AC) to create a "turn-in" program, to provide boaters with a reasonable cost alternative for disposing of their unwanted boats. RAPID RESPONSE . Three boats were rescued before hitting the shoreline. All owners are being charged for the rescue expenses. To date the Rapid response program has cost $6282. The RBRA has billed back $3522, either directly to boat owners or through reimbursement through A WAF. WATER QUALITY . Water testing wrapped up in October 2007 and results were slightly better in general. Report to follow. OTHER . The Cosco Busan spill has caused a number of significant problems in Richardson's Bay. A COlnmon thread throughout the incident was the lack of central response, and the reluctance upon the part of the Coast Guard to enlist local volunteer support. Staff is following up with Marin County OES to see if changes can be affected in advance of the next spill. . CA Association of Harbormasters and Port Captains - Working on marina certifications in the area to assure that the locallnarinas are "Clean and Green", thus reducing the scrutiny over enviromnental concerns that they face as the potential final downstreatn non-point source. NOVEMBER 2008 BALANCE SHEET CATEGORY ACCOUNT NAME Prof Svcs - Other DAVE'S DIVI NG SERVICE Rent - Equip Rental HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORPORATION HazMat Clean Up BAY CITIES REFUSE SERVICE INC HazMat Clean Up BAY CITIES REFUSE SERVICE INC Prof Svcs - Other BUTLER, MATT - Demo large vessel Publicat & Legal Not MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL Rent - Equip Rental HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORPORATION Rent - Slip SAUSALlTO SHIPYARD & MARINA LLC Prof Svcs - Other DAVE'S DIVING SERVICE - salvage sunk boat Bldgs & Grounds Rent Buoy Rental Com Srvc - Broadband AT&T internet Com Srvc - Broadband Earthlink line Postage US post office Postage Fed Ex Oth Maintenance PATROL BOAT FUEL Oth Maintenance MOLLIE STONE'S - ICE AND WATER FOR CREW Oth Maintenance MOLLIE STONE'S - ICE AND WATER FOR CREW Rent - Off Space ICB Office rent Maint & Rep Su - Oth Andersons Boatyard - haulout Waste Aweigh Prof Svcs - Legal County Counsel legal fees Bldgs & Grounds Rent Buoy Rental Bldgs & Grounds Rent Buoy Rental Sales and Services Milano - boat disp, fees ProfServ-CntySalRe Salary & benefits EXPEND. REVENUE 290.00 507.26 477.00 470.00 1,000.00 82.80 508,66 380.00 750.00 -300.00 86.26 5.90 9.50 14.57 .86.15 12.38 8.33 420.00 2,307.10 633.73 -300.00 -300.00 -656.71 9,263,10 17,312,74 -1,556.71 CATEGORY Rent - Slip Rent - Slip Rent - Dry Storage Prof Svcs - Other HazMat Clean Up Com Srvc - Cell Phon Rent - Equip Rental Prof Svcs - Other Prof Svcs - Other Oth Maintenance Oth Maintenance Com Srvc - Broadband Com Srvc - Broadband Trav-Meals Office Supplies Postage Oth Maintenance Ins - Gen Liability Ins - Gen Liability Rent - Slip Rent - Slip Rent - Dry Storage Subscriptions Com Srvc - Pagers Rent - Off Space Sales and Services State - Grant Com Srvc - Cell Phon Rent - Equip Rental Prof Svcs - Other Prof Svcs - Other Prof Svcs - Other Sales and Services Prof Svcs - Legal ProfServ-CntySalRe ProfServ-CntySalRe OCTOBER 2008 BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNT NAME SCHOONMAKER POINT MARINA SCHOONMAKER POINT MARINA LIBERTY SHIP WAY PARKER DIVING SERVICE BAY CITIES REFUSE SERVICE INC AT&T MOBILITY HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORPORATION WEDLOCK, STEPHEN J - survey DAVE'S DIVING SERVICE Credit return US BANK GOVERNMENT SERVICES -EFT AT & T service Earthlink service Water Quality group lunch US BANK GOVERNMENT SERVICES -EFT US post office US BANK GOVERNMENT SERVICES -EFT ALLlANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC ALLlANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC SCHOONMAKER POINT MARINA SCHOONMAKER POINT MARINA LIBERTY SHIP WAY MARIN SCOPE INC COOK PAGING ICB Office Rent Hirshfeld - 30' trailer sale AWAF Grant reimbursal AT&T MOBILITY HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORPORATION DAVE'S DIVING SERVICE DAVE'S DIVING SERVICE DAVE'S DIVING SERVICE Clipper boat disp. Fees Shute Legal Credit return Salary and benefits EXPEND. REVENUE 11.65 147.82 240.00 450.00 1,146.00 67.05 480.50 185.00 175.00 -23.69 113.00 86.79 5.90 48.09 43.28 4.08 7.41 13,195.63 1,086.21 275.00 147.50 240.00 25.00 10.00 420.00 -500.00 -14,107.93 65.08 507,26 319,00 250,00 250,00 -140.53 25,00 -22.43 9,256.09 29,283.34 -14,794.58 RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY MEMORANDUM TO: RBRA Board FROM: Bill Price, Ben Berto SUBJECT: 2007 Water Test Results DATE: December 6,2007 Background: The Richardson's Bay Regional Agency has concluded our annual testing for coliform and enterococcus in Richardson's Bay. The cost for the RBRA tests, processed through the Marin County lab, is estimated at $3,350.00. Status: A lab report is attached that outlines the results for this year and last year (for comparison purposes) The results are expressed as logarithmic means (averages). Two sets of results are shown for this year, because a heavy rainstorm occurred during the fourth test day on Oct 17th literally exponentially elevated the measured pathogen levels. Rather than just show the skewed means for all the tests, the log means are shown for both the four tests taken during non-rain episodes, and for all five tests including the rain event. The spike in tested pathogen levels during the rain event indicates that runoff into Richardson's Bay from upland sources, including stormdrains, are likely a major contributor to the water quality problems in the bay. Compared to 2006 (and excepting the rain event), this year's tests showed improvement in most areas, and overall good results. The exception continues to be the two Gates Co-op sites. The Regional Water Quality Control Board did not participate in the tests this year. When I spoke with Farhad Ghodrati, he explained that they would not be able to test for fecal coliform until a lab contract had been approved. They have not inquired about our test results to date. Recommendation: Staff has been working cooperatively with the Gates Coop. As an interim measure, the Coop has replaced all of their substandard docks with stable dock sections. This upgrade will withstand flex loads better and thus reduce the possibility of PVC sewage system pipes breaking. Staff recommends ongoing inspections of the docks and pipes to ensure that proper system functioning, until such time as the approved upgrade project is completed. Attachments: 2007 and 2006 water quality test results Percent of Budget and Percent of Year as of December 7,2007 Fiscal Year Remaining 56% Occurred 44% Total Budget Expenditures vs. Budgeted Expenditures Remaining 62% Expenditures Adopted Budget $111,691 $291,179 Expended 38% Revenue Realized Revenue vs. Budgeted Revenue Remaining 37% Realized Revenue Budgeted Revenue $180,442 $285,627 ~. ACTION MINUTES #22 ~ j; "'G. V'l . Il:!- l;; lS r TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2007 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD A. ROLL CALL: Present: Boardmembers Corcoran, Glassner and Teiser Absent: Chair Doyle and Boardmember Frymier Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Harper B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 3 Southridge Drive Peitz New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 1/17/08 E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 3. 4. 5. 132 Hacienda Drive 63 Paseo Mirasol 70 Pine Terrace 65 Rolling Hills Road Milano Nolan Grove Tarantino AdditionsN ariance APPROVED Pool HouseN ariance/Floor Area Exception APPROVED New DwellingNariances APPROVED New DwellingNariances CONTINUED TO 1/17/08 F. MINUTES OF THE 12/6/07 D.R.B. MEETING - APPROVED AS AMENDED G. ADJOURNMENT - 9:35 P.M. MINUTES #21 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2007 ,. l1:"~ ,"",luES, The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Doyle. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Doyle, Vice-Chair Frymier, Boardmembers Corcoran, Glassner (arrived 7:05 p.m.) and Teiser Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner Phillips and Minutes Clerk Harper B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous stated that the applications for 3 Southridge Drive and 132 Hacienda Drive have been continued to the December 20,2007 meeting. He noted that the 78 Red Hill Circle appeal is scheduled for the January 16,2008 Town Council Meeting and the 275 Diviso Street appeal is scheduled for the February 6,2008 Council Meeting. He added that an appeal was received for the Kol Shofar approval, which has yet to be scheduled. He announced that the January 3, 2008 DRB meeting would be canceled. D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 1601 TIBURON BOULEVARD ZELINSKY /BANK OF AMERICA, SIGN PERMIT A request has been submitted for the construction of a double-faced, 20 square foot intemally- illuminated monument sign in front of the Bank of America building, located at 1601 Tiburon Boulevard. Currently, the business has wall signs, but no free-standing signage. The proposed location of the sign would be on the south side of the building, along the Tiburon Boulevard frontage. The sign face would be constructed of acrylic while the sign cladding would be metal (aluminum). The name "Bank of America" and the company's "flagscape logo" would be the only illuminated components of the monument sign. Matt Sieck, Sign Productions, stated that the wall sign on the south side of the building is illuminated but the one to the north is not, and they are trying to make the bank more visible to the street and public, particularly at nighttime. He said that they are proposing a small monument sign of approximately 20 square feet. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 Boardmember Teiser questioned if the sign would be back lit. Mr. Sieck said it would be internally illuminated and the actual letters and logo would only be lit. He stated that the rest of the sign would be black and the light is intended to "halo" around the lettering. Vice-Chair Frymier questioned and confIrmed with Mr. Sieck that the bank wants to either install the monument sign or illuminate the other wall sign on the Beach Road side of the building. Planning Manager Watrous said this could be approved by the Board, but questioned how lighting would be addressed. Mr. Sieck said the sign would be illuminated in the same manner as the sign on the opposite side of the building. There was no public comment Mr. Sieck reiterated that the sign on Beach Road facing the market is the one they want to illuminate. He said they would use the same size and lettering which would mirror the other sign. Planning Manager Watrous said there were no conditions of approval for the proposed sign and if this was something the Board could support, the applicant could submit an actual design for it and he recommended continuing the item to the next meeting. Boardmember Teiser said he liked either an illuminated wall sign or an indirectly-illuminated monument sign. He said that if the bank wants a monument sign, it should be indirectly- illuminated and mimic the style of signs in front of Delano's Market, Town Hall and the Library for consistency. Vice-Chair Frymier noted that a lot of vegetation surrounds the bank building. She was concerned about a sign that would be illuminated 24 hours a day and be very bright. She suggested that the other Boardmembers drive by the bank at night to evaluate the brightness of the existing sign prior to making a decision. Chair Doyle said one option is to check to see if the existing sign could be illuminated, and another would be to install a sandblasted wood monument sign. Boardmember Corcoran noted that other cities require that companies install more beautiful signs than the standard corporate sign package. ACTION: It was MIS (Teiser/Corcoran) to continue the application to the January 17, 2008 meeting. Vote: 5-0. E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 3 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE PEITZ, NEW DWELLING -CONTINUED TO 12/20/07 TIDURON D.R.D. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 2 F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 13 ROSEVILLE COURT VAN DUSEN, CABANAlPOOLN ARIANCE 13 ROSEVILLE COURT STEPHEN & KATHERINE VAN DUSEN EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 57,344 S.F. NA NA 5,745 6,465 7,734 MAX 6.4% 7.7% 15.0% MAX 15' 15' 15' MAX 15' & 75' 15' & 75' 15' 40' 40' 30' 25' 25' 25' REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION A request has been made to construct a pool cabana and the relocation of the pool and spa at an existing single-family dwelling located at 13 Roseville Court. The addition would include a vine trellis and fIfe pit between the new location of the spa and the proposed cabana. The existing fence along the eastern property line would be relocated as well. A variance is requested for reduced rear yard setback. James Bradanini, architect, said the owners purchased the home over a year ago and their intent is to relocate and provide for a safe pool that is efficient and incorporates a new cover. He believed that the pool would be sited in a better position for views as well as for the use of their patio and terraces. He said that an outdoor 18 x 40 foot cabana is also proposed, which would accommodate a fireplace, barbecue, and other outdoor elements for the pool. A new spa would replace the existing one and new decking is proposed to be installed, as well. He said that they also propose to place the fences on the property line, as the existing fence encroaches onto the neighbor's property. He said that they met with the neighbor and acknowledged their concerns, and he said they want to provide screening between the two properties and supplement what vegetation currently exists. He stated that there is a stand of Cypress trees on the neighbor's property, which will stay in place and their intent is to add additional screening below the trees and a new 6 foot solid wood fence on the property line. He said that there would be space between the fence and improvements to provide dense planting of shrubs along the boundary line and he was not sure whether or not the neighbor's shrubs would remain. He said that they met with Ron Barney of the Fire District and the roofwould be a Class II composition shingle matching the existing house, with stone cladding on the cabana which would provide additional fIfe safety. Boardmember Teiser said when he visited the property the owner indicated that the reason for the new pool was due to instability of the existing pool. Mr. Bradanini replied that the existing pool is rather old and that the prior owner had done some cosmetic resurfacing, but the owners desires a pool that would be structurally sound and add stability to the hillside. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 3 Boardmember Glassner said there have been letters with regard to structural stability and asked the applicant to specifically address what they are contending from a geotechnical standpoint. Mr. Bradanini said that they will be working with a structural engineer and described the retaining walls, drainage improvements and soil conditions for the new pool. Boardmember Corcoran confirmed that the pool decks did not count toward the setback and the edge of the deck at its closest point would be 3-4 feet from the side property line. In response to a question from Boardmember Corcoran, Mr. Bradanini confrrmed that there is an existing frreplace on the property which would be replaced by a new, gas fireplace as part of the cabana. He said currently the existing pool is roughly 7 feet from the property line and the deck and fencing extend onto the neighbor's property and they intend to move it back and conform to the required setbacks. He noted a concern regarding exterior lighting and he said all lighting would be low voltage downlights. The Chair opened the public hearing. Barry Thornton, said he lives at the property next door to the proposal. He stated that their master bedroom is located on the first floor, along with the kitchen and den. He said that they feel it is a beautiful project, but would be better located somewhere else. He felt the applicants were trying to cram a lot between the two houses. He noted the required fmdings to grant the variance and strongly disagreed that the overall topography eliminates much of the lot for expansion, stating there is plenty of room at the lower end of the property for a pool and cabana. He felt that the cabana would have a "bandshell" effect during parties, creating too much noise. He said that the Cypress trees are aging, are not thick and once trimmed would most likely die. He stated that if the pool extends out, they would see a lot of it, water would reflect light up into their house, and there will be more activity and noise. He said the pool was completely redone by the prior owner and he felt the project should be scaled back. Victoria Fong said she and her husband live above the site and are very concerned about lighting. She stated that the applicants did not prepare a lighting plan, and since the greenery has been cut back they can see much of the house and lights. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Frymier, Ms. Fong said the rest of the house is not shown on the plans and that she looks down on a series of lights in front of the garage and along the driveway. Karen Land, wife of Barry Thornton, said that the existing pool is angled away from their view and house. She said that the new plan would move the hot tub to the very center of the improvements. She stated that the pool would be situated close to their house and it will be visible, along with reflections and people around the pool. She said that the new pool would be larger than the current pool and not oriented properly to the house. She said that the cabana would be about 2/3 the width of the entire house and if the variance is granted, it would be much closer to their home. Boardmember Corcoran asked if Ms. Land preferred that the variance not be granted, which would push the cabana 10 feet further downhill. Ms. Land said that the spa area, fire ring and decks could be reduced in size. She asked where the shallow and deep ends of the pool would be located. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 4 Boardmember Corcoran wondered if there might be more of a privacy impact if the pool was located at the lower level of the property. Ms. Land said they would prefer to move the pool further forward, lower and over, but she noted that other neighbors might be affected. She felt that the project would be inconsistent with what she feels is the spirit of their neighborhood over the last 15 years. She stated that an acoustical study should be performed or materials could be used for sound absorbency. Mr. Bradanini noted that there is an existing pool in the same general location as the proposed pool and they feel that the new pool would be an improvement. He said that the pool would have a cover and be less reflective when not used. He said the spa would be in the same location of the existing pool. He said that the intent of having the pool and the terrace adjacent to all decks is similar to what the owners currently enjoy and to push the pool down the hill would increase the distance from the house and make it less desirable. Boardmember Glassner asked if the pool could be moved somewhere away from the property line to mitigate some of the sound and view issues. Mr. Bradanini said short of tearing down the existing decks, he did not feel this was a practical solution. He said that the decks and railings are brand new and they do not wish to push the pool further toward the house. He said the decking around the pool is on three sides, which would leave some space for chairs and circulation to access the pool at the shallow end along the spa edge. Vice-Chair Frymier questioned and confrrmed with Mr. Bradanini that they could change the shallow end to the opposite end. Boardmember Corcoran questioned the added safety of the proposal, and Mr. Bradanini said it would be made safer because of the presence ofa pool cover. He said that the pool was recently redone but not to the new owners' standards and they feel it would not be practical to remodel the existing pool again. He stated that the work done on the pool 3-4 years ago was cosmetic and substandard and the trees create a lot of litter into the existing pool. Vice-Chair Frymier questioned whether the project was proposed more for cosmetic or safety/structural reasons. Mr. Bradanini said that it would cost a significant amount of money to refurbish a pool, while a brand new one could be built that would be nicer, and he agreed that the issues were both structural and cosmetic. Boardmember Glassner asked if the owners would consider relocating the position of the pool away from the property. Mr. Bradanini said he did not believe there was another position for it; however, they could move it to the south. Vice-Chair Frymier asked if the cabana could be moved away from the neighbor and questioned the amount of decking space. Mr. Bradanini said that they did not want to tear 8 feet of existing decking and there would be 15 feet between the cabana and house. He said that the pool would be 20 x 40 feet, which he felt was the size of a standard residential pool. He said that said they could move the cabana back, but he was not sure what this would accomplish, as they have aligned it to the back edge of the house. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 5 Boardmember Corcoran asked if the cabana materials would be sound absorbent. Mr. Bradanini said currently all activities of the existing pool are outdoors and he was not sure that the cabana would generate additional noise. He said that if noise were generated, it would travel outward and away from the neighbors. Boardmember Teiser suggested that the applicant consider installing a taller fence of a sound absorbent material which would block sound to the neighbors' master bedroom. Mr. Bradanini said they could entertain that notion, but pointed out that the neighbors' master bedroom is an interior space with new double pane windows, and noted that people like to open their windows. The Chair closed the public hearing. Boardmember Teiser felt the project was overdone and too massive. He said that the cabana was too large and looks like a second unit. He felt the pool was too large and would prefer to see the pool located in the area below the existing pool. He said that they then could build the cabana into the hillside which would reduce noise for the neighbors, and the current pool area could be used as a play area for children. He said that from a safety standpoint, having a limited play area with a big pool is not necessarily safe. He supported the idea of a taller acoustical wall along the side property line, for which the Board would be inclined to grant a variance. Boardmember Glassner felt children would most likely not play around the pool and would more likely use a lawn area. He requested more structural information and a more complete lighting plan. He felt there were other areas on the lot that could be used for the pool and could not support the project as presented. Boardmember Corcoran said if it were not for the cabana in the required setback, he would have a hard time opposing the project. He suggested rotating the pool and cabana 90 degrees so that the cabana would back up to the neighbor's house, which would provide an acoustical barrier and create a courtyard around the pool. He also suggested minimizing the size of the cabana and pulling the decking back from the side property line. He agreed with Vice-Chair Frymier's concerns about safety, but felt the project was more of an aesthetic issue. Vice-Chair Frymier felt it was a beautiful project, but over scale. She was concerned that the pool was just remodeled three years ago. She supported embellishing what is already there with the current pool and a smaller cabana. She agreed the owners were entitled to the floor area and lot coverage, but she did not see the purpose for the project. Boardmember Teiser said even though projects are under the FAR and lot coverage limits, it does not mean owners are entitled to approval, especially if the design impacts others. Chair Doyle thought that this was a nice plan, but one that felt large. He noted that there is an existing pool, but the new pool and improvements would increase usage. His main concern is noise more than anything else, noting that the proposal indicates about 15 chaise lounges spread around the pool. He said that he did not have as much of an issue with the proposed pool location, because if it were placed further downhill, someone else would see it from another position. He felt that the cabana would actually help with noise, but suggested continuing the TIDURON D.R.D. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 6 right side of the building along the fence line and putting a pergola along the fence line to address noise and visual issues. He said that decreasing the size of the project would not decrease noise that much, and that he might support a variance for an overheight sound wall. Planning Manager Watrous noted that a fence higher than 6 feet would require a variance and likely the relocated cabana would also be in the side yard setback and require a variance for reduced side yard setback. ACTION: It was MIS (Glassnerffeiser) to continue the item to the January 17,2008 meeting. Vote: 5-0. 4. 132 HACIENDA DRIVE MILANO, ADDITIONSN ARIANCE - CONTINUED TO 12/20/07 5. 17 VENADO DRIVE COOMBER, ADDITIONN ARIANCE 17 VENADO DRIVE WILLIAM & LUCRECIA COOMBER EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 15,765 S.F. NA NA 2,980 3,246 3,577 MAX 15.5% 17.7% 15.0% MAX 23' 23' 30' MAX 15' & 15' 15' & 15' 15' 27' 27' 30' 34' 34' 25' EXCESS LOT COVERAGE LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCESIEXCEPfION A request has been made to construct additions to an existing single family home located at 17 Venado Drive. The additions would include a new laundry room and the enclosure of an existing breeze way into living space. An exterior stairway would be added from the existing roof deck to the ground level. A series of attached shade structures would be added along the side of the home. A variance is required for excess lot coverage. William Coomber stated that he was available to answer any questions from the Board. There was no public comment. Boardmember Teiser said he supported the project. Boardmember Corcoran noted that there was no neighborhood opposition. ACTION: It was MIS (Frymier/Glassner) that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the project with the attached conditions of approvaL Vote: 5-0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 7 6. 3 PARENTE ROAD CHUIP ARK, NEW DWELLINGN ARIANCES 3 PARENTE ROAD LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCES/EXCEPfION JENNIFER CHU & JOHN PARK EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 43,335 S.F. NA NA 2,634 6,194 6,434 MAX 6.90% 11.0% 15.00/0 MAX 25' 30' 30' MAX 20' & 91 '4" 29' 7" & 74' 20' 13 '5" 13 '5" 30' 11' 4" 43' 5" 25' REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS WALL HEIGHT A request has been made for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 3 Parente Road. The existing house on the site would be demolished. The proposed house would include two full stories and a basement level. The main level of the house would include a three-car garage, living and dining rooms, kitchen, nook, family room, laundry room, an office and a guest suite. The upper level of the house would include a master bedroom suite, three bedrooms and bathrooms and a tech area. The basement level would include an office, a media/exercise room and mechanicaVstorage areas. A swimming pool and pool house would also be constructed. Variances are requested for reduced front yard setback and excess wall height. John Park, owner, said he and his wife currently live in Belvedere with two small children and their intention was to find a more permanent residence. They identified this property a year ago and were attracted to it because of its size, the fact that the lot did not obstruct views, and the ability to have significant privacy. He said that they have been in contact with all their neighbors to discuss the project and to articulate their efforts to preserve privacy through screening. He described the site as having a shallow slope, with a flat pad at the top of the property where the house is proposed to be situated. He obtained approval signatures from 5 of the 8 property owners, and none of the other neighbors appear to object to the project. Boardmember T eiser noted Parente Road and Antonette Drive do not connect and he questioned if a fire safety plan would require the owners to connect the roads in the future. Planning Manager Watrous said there is a separate precise development plan underway for the Parente property which is accessed from Antonette Drive. He noted that an unpaved roadway that has recently been punched through connecting the two streets would not be usable for most vehicles, as the left turn from Parente Road onto Paradise Drive is extremely hazardous, but that this may be used as an emergency fIre access point in the future. Adam Gardner, architect, described the site characteristics and the roadway easement across the lot. He said the easement comes into play with the setback, causing what is essentially a 50 foot front yard setback. In response to a question from Boardmember Glassner, Mr. Gardner said they could push back the home out of the setback, but felt that this siting works better for the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 8 neighbors. He noted that the existing house does not conform to the setbacks and this would allow them to stay on the existing flat pad. He said that they are orienting the house to take advantage of views and for privacy from houses below. In response to a question from Boardmember Teiser, Mr. Gardner said the wall height variance request is mainly one of aesthetics, as the wall would create privacy and separation from the auto court. He felt that they addressed the Hillside Guidelines with a number of elements rather than just stepping the building, including co lor and materials changes and a cantilevered metal awning which will cast a shadow line. Mr. Park also noted the proposal would sink the house three feet down from the existing grade to address. Mr. Gardner added that this reduces the overall height of the house as well and they are well under the 30 foot height limit. Brett McPherson, landscape architect, described the various landscape design features of the project. He noted that spoils from grading would be used to work the improvements back into the existing grade. He showed illustrations showing the existing and proposed trees on the site. The Chair opened the public hearing. Michael O'Donnell said he lives west of the site and asked questions about the project location, building height and placement of the proposed overheight wall. Boardmember Corcoran and Vice-Chair Frymier asked about the purpose of the auto court wall. Mr. Gardner said that you would drive through and under the wall into the auto court, and that the wall is intended to provide privacy to this portion of the lot. Boardmember T eiser asked if the wall and gate would allow access by large delivery or moving trucks. Mr. Gardner said garage doors were typically 8-9 feet tall, and they are proposing the opening in the wall to be 10-10.5 feet tall. Boardmember Glassner noted that many hillside properties use smaller delivery trucks. Boardmember Corcoran asked what would need to be done to make the wall comply with the Town's guidelines. Planning Manager Watrous said the zoning ordinance only allows excess height for a wall directly above an entry way, similar to a trellis over a gate. Chair Doyle asked if the storage and basement areas were considered to be habitable space. Planning Manager Watrous said those areas in the basement would not count toward the calculated floor area of the house. Boardmember Corcoran asked what would need to be done to step the project into the hillside. Mr. Gardner said it would change the design, but would not be noticeable from off the site, and the owners would be most impacted. He said that they wanted to avoid changes that would move the house closer to the neighbors without accomplishing anything meaningful. He said that the house would be 50-90 feet from other properties which are lower in elevation, and that they have broken up the mass and bulk of the house with the low pitch roofand other architectural TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 9 elements. Mr. Gardner said that they are aware of the Hillside Guidelines and are taking advantage of the unique site to create a style and look which results in an attractive house. The Chair closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Frymier stated that the Board sometimes reviews extremely large projects where people question their extravagance, but she felt this home was gorgeous and the setting was stunning. She said that she would not step the house, as this did not feel like a huge house. She said that the applicants had paid attention to every detail, and she complimented the high quality materials which make the project fit with the hillside and feel peaceful. She said that the number of windows was not excessive and that the play area is in a good location. She said that she was a little nervous about the 13.5 foot wall, but thought it was beautiful and that the owners have done an excellent job by guiding the architect. Boardmember Glassner felt the house was spectacular and complimented the architect and landscape architect for being thoughtful in the process. He liked the fact that the house was lowered three feet into the ground and agrees that this is a unique property. He acknowledged that this is a big home but welcomed the owners to Tiburon. Boardmember Corcoran felt the design was beautiful, but did not feel it was perfect. He said that the owner did an exceptional job of reaching out to the neighbors. He wished the house was not so massive, but he generally supported property owners being able to do what they wish within the guidelines. He said that the big issue for him is that staff was unable to make the fmdings for the variance for the auto court wall. Although the property across the street is not developed, he was not sure the zoning ordinance only applies in areas where there are a lot of homes on the street. He said that he would support a formal entryway gate, but something more modest, rather than something twice the size of a regular auto entry gate. He said that he walked around on the property in the front area and the story poles felt very high, especially when seen from the neighboring lots. He disagreed with the contention that stepping the house back would only have an impact on the property owner and felt a lot of thought and effort went into the Hillside Guidelines which apply to the entire community. He said that the house should be subject to the same standards of stepping into the hillside as other homes in town to reduce the steepness of the house. He understood that the owners are great neighbors and reached out to everyone, but the structures are there for generations and he could not support the variance for the wall because he could not make the findings. Boardmember T eiser said he could make the fmdings, noting that the Board looks at projects on a case-by-case basis. He noted that the 13 foot, 6 inch fence was not a solid wall, and contained a gate with an open design. He characterized the overheight wall as an architectural feature that enhances the architectural design of the house. As such features are often approved for other homes, he felt that granting the variance for the wall would therefore not be a special privilege to the owners. He felt that the house would not violate with the Hillside Guidelines and the entry gate wall was appropriate for the design of the house. Chair Doyle also felt that this was a great house. He was a little concerned about the storage areas, but acknowledged that this space would be buried. He felt that the auto court wall dies TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 10 into the hillside and balances out the design of the house. He said that the house would look barren with a lower wall, creating an unnecessary hardship for the owner. He also noted the sloping terrain leading down from the roadway that creates a special physical circumstance for the site. ACTION: It was MIS (Glassner/Frymier) that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the project with the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-1 (Corcoran voted no). G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #20 OF THE 11/15/07 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Corcoran requested the following amendments: Page 9, 2nd paragraph, "... five trees be located near the new classroom" Page 1 0, 3 rd full paragraph, "... he walked the surrounding streets fi:em and the story poles could be seen..." ACTION: It was MIS (Teiser/Frymier) to approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2007 Design Review Board meeting, as amended. Vote: 5-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 1 0 p.m. TIBURON D.RB. MINUTES #21 12/06/07 11 CITY OF BELVEDERE DIG~~~ RECEIVED 1- . "-v j DEe 202007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON NOTE: This is not an agenda. The aaenda will be available at least 72 hours before the meetina. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 7, 2008, at 7:30 PM, the City Council of the City of Belvedere will hold a public hearing at 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, California, to act on the following matter: Application for conditional use permit to allow reduced parking for a commercial catering kitchen located at 1530 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 103. Property Owner: Fred Rose and Judith Rose Trust. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at the above time and place, all letters received will be noted, and all interested parties will be heard. Please note that if you challenge in court any of the matters described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the above-referenced public hearing [Government Code Section 65009(b )(2)]. ;t-,,4~ . ):t!slie carpe~A- Deputy City Clerk Because of possible changes or extenuating conditions, items may not be on the actual agenda. For additional information, please contact City Hall. 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 (415) 435-3838 Date Posted: 12/19/2007 Date Published: 12/26/2007 DIGEST fL. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area RECEVED ~ 2007 ] TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON December 14, 2007 Margaret A. Curran Town Manager County of Marin Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920-2530 Re: Extended Producer Responsibility - ANew Approach for Managing Waste Electronics, Batteries, Fluorescent Lights and Other Toxic or Hazardous Products Dear Town Manager, Curran: Weare writing to bring to your attention the increasing costs local jurisdictions are now shouldering for the disposal of toxic and hazardous products, and to suggest actions that your jurisdiction can take to relieve the pressure on tax payers to support these costs. Since 2006, when the "Universal Waste" ban went into effect, certain electronics, fluorescent lamps, and batteries may no longer be sent to local landfills. Many counties around the state have documented huge increases in the costs of legally disposing of these materials. Municipalities are concerned about waste pharmaceuticals entering the solid waste stream. Publicly owned water treatment works are similarly concerned with the water quality implications of pharmaceuticals entering treatment plants. The attached fact sheet was prepared by the California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC), an organization whose members include 24 cities, counties and other government associations (such as Bay Area Clean Water Agencies and the Regional Council of Rural Counties), and counting. CPSC' s goal is to make local governments aware of the staggering scale of the post-consumer product disposal challenge. There is a new approach that is rapidly gaining momentum in California thanks to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the CPSC and others. Termed Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR, it is a fundamental paradigm shift that if implemented will move responsibility for reusing, recycling, or disposing of post-consumer products away from general taxpayers and back to manufacturers. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) recently adopted Strategic Directive 5, which states that it is a core value of the CIWMB that producers assume the responsibility for the safe stewardship of their materials in order to promote Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street (510) 464-7900 Fax (510) 464-7985 Oakland, California 94607-4756 info@abag.ca.gov @ Mailing Address: Location P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 ., . ..). environmental sustainability. Under this directive, the CIWMBwill1) Utilize existing Board authority to foster "cradle-to-cradle" producer responsibility; 2) Seek statutory authority to foster "cradle-to-cradle" producer responsibility: 3) Analyze the feasibility of various approaches to increasing producer responsibility, including during the product design and packaging phases, and make recommendations to the CIWMB Board by December 2007, and annually thereafter; 4) Build capacity and knowledge in CIWMB on Extended Producer Responsibility issues and solutions; and 5) Develop and maintain relationships with stakeholders that result in producer-financed and producer-managed systems for product discards. Thanks to the California Integrated Waste Management Board's actions, the advocacy of the California Product Stewardship Council and other organizations, and leadership from key legislators we can look forward to Extended Producer Responsibility legislation in the next year. What can your city/town/county do? Here are two key actions we encourage Bay Area jurisdictions to take: Adopt Extended Producer Responsibility resolutions and policies. Many cities within the Bay Area have already adopted such policies. For examples, see http://www.caproductstewardship.org/local/eprresolutions.htm. Support Extended Producer Responsibility legislation. Legislators are expected to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility bills in 2008. We encourage you to follow and support EPR legislation. F or you convenience, we will post information and links on the Hazardous Waste Committee website at http://www.abag.ca. gov/hazwaste/legislationtofollow .html. F or more information on Extended Producer Responsibility or other hazardous waste concerns, please contact the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation Committee staff, Ceil Scandone ceils@abag.ca.gov 510-464-7961 or Jennifer Krebs ikrebs@waterboards.ca.gov 510-622-2315. Or visit the committee website at http://www.abag.ca.gov/hazwaste/. Sincerely, 4#J~~~ V Ice Mayor David Cortese City of San Jose President Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor Mark Luce Napa County Chair, Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation Committee Attachment 2 California Product Stewardship Council The 'Universal Waste' Disposal Ban A Financial Crisis for Califomia's Local Couemments In February 2006 a statewide ban went into effect in California that makes it illegal for households and small businesses to put certain hazardous products in the trash. The products banned from the trash - called Universal Waste, or U-waste - include batteries, fluorescent lights and many electronic products. Local governments were charged with enforcing the ban and were expected to provide collection services. Universal Waste Products are Toxic Most consumer electronics pose a threat to public health and the environment because they contain lead, cadmium and a host of other toxic heavy metals. Fluorescent lamps and thermostats contain mercury, a potent neurotoxin. Even household alkaline batteries, which contain corrosive chemicals, are hazardous when millions accumulate and leak in landfills. How Much U-Waste is in California? A 2001 study commissioned by the California Integrated Waste Management Board calculated that almost 600 million small batteries and more than 17 million fl uorescent lam ps wou Id be sold - and a similar number thrown out - in California in 2006. More than a quarter million tons of hazardous electronics not covered by 8B20 are discarded every year. Batteries 17,444,444 lamps 593,864,218 batteries 365,282 thermostats SOURCE: CIWMB, 2002, Household Universal Waste Generation in California Fluorescent Lamps Thermostats Total Non-SB20 Electronics 93,273 tons 41,394 tons 254,584 tons Source: CIWMB 2004, Statewide U/aste Characteri::ation Studv www.caproductstewardship.org The Cost to Local Government is Staggering . San Luis Obispo County calculated that the current annual budget of $300,000 for collecting household hazardous products would have to increase to $4 million to collect and manage the items now subject to the disposal ban. . The City of San Francisco anticipates that its additional costs to enforce the U-waste ban will exceed $5 million per year. . The 2001 CIWMB study calculated that 32 jurisdictions participating in the survey would need to spend an additional $41 million to manage just three U-waste product categories (fluorescent lamps, batteries and thermostats). Extended to the entire state, the cost to manage these three product categories would be -'72 million. . The survey did not include the largest category - electronics not covered by SB20 - and a range of other products for which programs are currently inadequate or lacking. The cost of managing all banned U-waste in- California could be far greater than $72 million. Local Governments Do Not Have the Resources or Capacit~ to Effectivel~ Manage Toxic U-Waste Products Nor should they. Local governments have no control over product design, or over what products are sold in the state that will become waste. Managing toxic products at end of life is a subsidy to product manufacturers that enables the continued production of toxic products designed for the dump. California Product Stewardship Council P.O. Box 216381, Sacramento, CA 95821 916-485-7753 www.caproductstewardship.org NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) FOR APPROVAL TO RECOVER IN RATES THE COST OF THE SMARTMETER PROGRAM UPGRADE What is the SmartMeter Program Upgrade? The SmartMeter Program Upgrade is a proposed upgrade to Pacific Gas & Electric Company's (PG&E) Advanced Metering Infrastructure (otherwise known as "SmartMeter") program. PG&E believes that the upgrade will provide benefits to our customers and further the State's energy conservation policies. In Decision 06-07-027, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved PG&E's current SmartMeter Program, which is installing advanced meter technology to allow PG&E to remotely read customer meters and to record hourly electricity use and daily gas use. PG&E believes a few upgrades to its current SmartMeter Program are appropriate and timely. These recommended upgrades are consistent with the CPUC's desire to use advanced technology to enhance customer involvement in energy demand management and improve energy conservation throughout the state of California. What is this Application filing about? On December 12, 2007, PG&E filed an application with the CPUC, requesting authority to recover approximately $623 million in electric rates to upgrade PG&E's SmartMeter Program. The upgrades consist of: · an integrated load limiting connecVdisconnect switch; . a Home Area Network (HAN) gateway device to enable two-way communication of electricity data and prices with customer appliances and other devices; and . installing solid state meters that would support the previously-mentioned functionality PG&E's request is for future rate recovery through electric distribution rates, beginning January 1, 2009, and continuing for 15 years. In this application PG&E is requesting cost recovery for the full cost of the SmartMeter Upgrade Project from customers. Does this mean rates will increase? Yes. Electric distribution rates will increase as early as January 1, 2009, for the SmartMeter Upgrade Project. The increase to electric distribution rates will increase charges for both bundled electric customers (customers who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and for customers that purchase electricity from other suppliers (e.g., direct access customers), If the CPUC approves PG&E's request, bills for bundled electric customers who use less than 130% of their baseline allowance would not increase. The bill for a typical bundled customer using 550 kWh per month would increase $0.26 from $71.92 to $72.18, The bill for a typical bundled customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, or 850 kWh per month, would increase $1.87 from $149.03 to $150.90 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG&E will provide an illustrative allocation table of the increases among customer classes in its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers beginning in January, 2008. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross- examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC'S final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1-800-743-5000 · Para mas detalles lIame 1-800-660-6789 ~1~g~B[~ 1-800-893-9555 · For TDDfTTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652-4712 You may contact the CPUC'S Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703-5282 or TTY 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail topublic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name and filing date of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. TO: STATE, COUNTY AND , . CITY OFFICIALS jt" December 18, 2007 DIGEST ~ ~~~~w~ DEe 2 0 2007 ~ T_OWN CLERK TDWN OF TIBURON ~, q (i. #~' · l\ . fe" NOTIFICATION OF JOINT APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY {PG&E}, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (THE UTILlTIJ;S). COLLECTIVELY THIS FILING IS FOR APPROVAL OF COST ALLOCATION PROPOSAL FOR STATE-MANDATED GAS SOCIAL PROGRAMS. On December 11, 2007, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (UPG&E") together with Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company ("the Utilities") filed a joint application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting that the CPUC approve a proposal to change the method used to allocate costs for state-mandated gas social programs. What are state-mandated gas social programs? State-mandated gas social programs are public benefit programs where a substantial portion of the benefits of the program accrues to society rather than to a particular class of gas customers. The underlying premise is that California as a whole benefrts from these programs ensuring that all of the state's residents have access to affordable energy through energy efficiency and environmentally friendly energy sources. The programs in this category include: . California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE); . Low Income Energy Efficiency (LlEE); . Energy Efficiency (EE); . Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D); . Board of Equalization (BOE); . Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP); and . California Solar Water Heating Efficiency Act of 2007. Why are the Utilities filing this application? The Utilities are filing this application to propose a method to more fairly allocate the costs of these programs to gas customer classes. Policymakers in California, including the Legislature, continue to use utility rates as a channel for funding a growing variety of social programs. Since the energy crisis of 2001, these programs have been one of the fastest growing components of utility rates. The new allocation method proposed by the Utilities in this application has the following benefits: . It improves the business environment in California; . It allocates program costs fairly and . It is straightforward to implement What Impact does this have on rates? If the CPUC approves the proposal, the change in costs of existing and future state-mandated gas social programs will be allocated to PG&E's gas customers differently. If the CPUC approves the proposal, a typical bundled residential PG&E gas customer (a customer who receives gas distribution and procurement services from PG&E) using 45 therms per month would see an increase in their average monthly bill of 0.4 percent or $0.22, from $62.77 to $62.99 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG&E will provide an illustrative table of the changes in program cost allocation among customer classes, in its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to its customers beginning in January, 2008. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1-BOO-PGE-5000 · Para mas detalles lIame 1-800-660-6789 ~~fIij~lif?i:~ 1-800-893-9555. For TDOITTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652-4712 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TlY 1-415-703-5282. TIY 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail topublic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name and the filing date of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS December 18, 2007 DIGESrC- MARIN HEAL THCARE DISTRICT 201 Tarnal Vista Blvd., #200, Corte Madera, CA 94925 Telephone: 415-461-5700 Fax: 415-461-0308 DIRECTORS: SHARON 1. JACKSON, MBA, CHAIR ARCHIMEDES RAMIREZ, M.D., VICE-CHAIR JAMES CLEVER, M.D., SECRETARY LARRY BEDARD, M.D. JENNIFER RlENKS, PH.D. RECEIVED DEe 2 0 2007 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE Special Closed Meeting of the Marin Healthcare Board of Directors MEPfiNfi CANaLleD WEDNE~DAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007 4:30 pm - 6:00 pm A copy of the agenda for the Regular Meeting will be posted and distributed at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting. American Sign Language Interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 461-5700 (voice) or (415) 461-0308 (facsimile) at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting MARIN HEAL THCARE DISTRICT 201 Tarnal Vista Blvd., #200, Corte Madera, CA 94925 Website: www.marinhealthcare.of1r Telephone: 415-461-5700 Fax: 415-461-0308 Email: www.mhcd(ii)pacbell.net SPECIAL CLOSED MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:30 - 6:30 p.m. AGENDA Board of Directors:: Location: Chair: Sharon Jackson, MBA Directors: Archimedes Ramirez M.D., Larry Bedard, M.D., James Clever, M.D., Jennifer Rienks, Ph.D. Marin Healthcare District Office 201 Tamal Vista, Blvd., #200 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Staff: Kay Lang Geoff Lang Colin Coffey, District Counsel ************************************************************************************* NOTE: This is a Closed Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Marini Healthcare District. By law, no items of business other than those on the agenda may be considered by the Board of Directors at the Special Meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Board regarding only those items listed on this agenda. 1. Call to Order Jackson 2. Announcement of Purpose of Special Meeting Jackson 3. Roll Call Jackson 4. Public Comment Regarding Agenda Item Jackson 5. Closed Session Jackson 6. Open Session: Announcement of Results of Closed Session Jackson 7. Adjournment ****************************************************************************************** A copy of the agenda for the Regular Meeting will be posted and distributed at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting. American Sign Language Interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 461-5700 (voice) or (415) 461-0308 (facsimile) at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting.