Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2010-09-30TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST September 27 - 30, 2010 Tihiirnn 1. Letter to Mayor Collins from PG&E re: SmartMeter deployment 2. Letter to Mayor Collins from FEMA regarding Revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps 3. Memo from LAFCo re Adopted Spheres of Influence in So. Marin Agendas & Minutes 4. Notice of Meeting Cancellation- Planning Commission October 13, 2010 5. Minutes Parks & Open Space & Trails Commission May 18, 2010 6. Agenda -Design Review Board October 7, 2010 Regional a) League of California Cities 2010 Legislative Briefings November 16-17 b) League of California Cities 2010 Annual Conference Final Report c) Medical Marijuana Workshop at County of Marin, Tuesday October 5, 2010 Agendas & Minutes d) Hilarita TEA Minutes - July 12, 2010 * Council Only DIGEST acfc Gas and Electric. Com f September 22, 2010 Honorable Richard Collins 77 Bear Street San Francisco, vA 94105.1814 Mailing Address Pacific Gas and Electric Cornpuy P 0. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177-0001 Mayor, Town of Tiburon 415.975.7000 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94020 Dear Mayor Collins: Thank you for your August 27t" letter regarding PG&E's SmartMeterTm deployment. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns that you, your fellow council members, city staff, and town residents may have, including the three areas that you identified in your letter: Meter accuracy, PG&E's deployment schedule in Tiburon, and SmartMeterT"" Radio Frequency (RF) emissions (e.g., general emission characteristics, specific emission characteristics in both single- and multi-family household settings, and the effects, if any, on hearing aids and pacemakers). Let me address these issues in turn. As you know, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) retained The Structure Group to conduct an investigation into the accuracy of PG&E's end-to-end SrnartMeterT1" system (i.e., from meter to bill) and on September 2nd Structure released its 400+ page report concluding that PG&E's SmartMeterT"'-system is indeed accurate. According to the CPUC, "Structure determined that all of the tested Smart MetersTm and systems were working accurately and that customer billing matched the expected results. " In fact, Structure attributed the high bills that some claimed were due to SmartMetersTm to multiple other factors, including "increased energy usage caused by a heat wave" and "electromechanical [i.e., original legacy] meter degradation." Given Structure's findings and our own, we believe that it is appropriate to continue to deploy SmartMeters T"' throughout our service area. In areas where the SmartMeters"m have been fully installed, our customers already have more control than ever over their energy use, and the benefits that customers receive will only increase as the program continues. In fact, continuing with deployment will allow all of our customers to enjoy these benefits, including daily and hourly summaries of their energy use and energy alerts that advise customers when they are about to move into more expensive energy tiers. With respect to your questions about RF, the Federal Communications Commission, with input from the FDA, EPA and other federal government agencies, has set nationwide standards for RF-regulation. And as the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology recently stated with respect to this very subject, the FCC "has taken a very conservative approach to RF exposure compliance for low-power network devices such as Smart Meter transceivers."' The FCC's "very conservative" approved threshold 11 have enclosed a copy of the FCC's August 6 th letter for your reference. for RF in the frequency at which electric SmartMetersTM operate (902-928 MHz) is 601 µ,W/Cm2.2 PG&E's SmartMetersT1" compare very favorably, utilizing RF at a level that is orders of magnitude below the federal standard. Specifically, at a distance of 1 foot, PG&E's electric SmartMetersTM have a power density of just 8.8 µWlcmx - more than 68 times lower than the FCC's approved threshold. And at 25 feet, RF power density declines to a mere.014 F,WIcm2. ` The power of a SmartMeterTM is 1 watt, roughly equivalent to a cell phone. Electric SmartMetersTM communicate information at the 902-928 MHz frequency with customer electric usage being sent every four hours. The electric SrnartMeter$TI" can also relay information from other meters and communicate periodically throughout the day with the SmartMeterTm network. Gas SmartMetersTm send information at 450-470 MHz and transmit every six hours. All of these transmissions are very small in size, containing only an lP address and energy usage (similar to a text message). The signal from a SmartMeterTM lasts typically 2 to 20 milliseconds, and the total RF-transmission-time from an electric SmartMeter averages 45 seconds per day, which includes all relaying or transmitting to access points, or communicating with other meters in the SmartMeterTm network. The RF signals generated by SmartMeterTM technology are not only far below the FCC's approved levels, but also far below the RF-levels emitted by many common household appliances and electronics, including cell phones, microwaves, televisions and computers. "table 1 Examples of RF Fields Commonly Found in the Everyday Environment in Relation to 8martMeter"m System Operation RF Source immediately adjacent to a gas SmartMeterTm device (1 foot) Adjacent to pole mounted electric SmartMeterT'w access point at ground level Adjacent to an electric SmartMeterTm device (1 foot) Microwave oven near by [1 meter) [Mantiply, et al. (9997)] Wi-F'i wireless routers, laptop computers, eyber cafes, etc., maximum (-9 meter for laptops, 2-6 meters for access points) [Foster (2007)] Cell phones (at head) [Mantiply, et al. (1997)] Walkie-Talkies (at head) [Mantiply, et al. (9997)] Power Density in Microwatts per square centimeter (pW/cm2) 0.0816{6 0.03 8,8 10 10-20 30-10,000 600-42,000 You also asked about multiple meters in multi-family housing. The FCC addressed this issue quite thoroughly in its letter: Z The standard exposure to RF is expressed in terms of power density and in units of microwatts per square centimeter (4Wlcm2) , a measurement that is commonly used and widely accepted. This measurement is also used throughout our reports and in this letter. [A]s a practical design matter, when several of these meters are planed in a cluster, they have to communicate with a single controller. In order to ensure that the controller receives the information properly, only one transmitter can communicate with the controller at a time, eliminating the potential for exposure to multiple signals at the same time. In addition, the exponential decrease in signal strength over distance and additional signal losses due to non line-of-sight conditions for distant sources ensures that only the contributions of nearby transmitters are significant. [B]ased on the practical separation distance and the need for orderly communications among several devices, even multiple units or "banks„ of meters in the same location will be compliant with the public exposure limits. Your letter also addressed what you term the "cascading effect" of RF among SmartMeterSTIA. I assume this refers to the mesh network upon which SmartMetersTm operate. There appears to be a common misconception that a house at the end of a long street might actually operate far more than the average 45 seconds per day as it receives and perhaps relays data. In fact, SmartMeterSTm relay information based on the shortest distance between two points and such "cascading" effects are limited. For example, a SmartMeter" I on Street A might communicate with another meter on Street B or even Street C, depending on topography. As noted above, a comprehensive study of 40,000 operating SmartMetersTm indicated that the average time of operations (and emissions) is 45 seconds per day. Finally, you expressed concern about whether SmartMetersTm have any effect on hearing aids and/or pacemakers. The scientific community has studied this issue in devices with much stronger RF fields held in closer proximity to medical devices for longer time-periods, and the FCC has found that this is not a health concern. SmartMeterSTM typically operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules, and those rules specify power limitations of transmission devices to avoid in Additionally, the FDA generally reviews the capacity for interference during its approval of an individual medical device. Moreover, PG&E has found that once a person is about 10 feet from a SmartMeter TM, the RF-signal strength falls below the general level of background-level RF exposure found in most urban areas. Nevertheless, the FDA makes the following recommendation: [B]ased on current research, cell phones would not seem to pose a significant health problem for the vast majority of pacemaker wearers. Still, people with pacemakers may want to take some simple precautions to be sure that their cell phones don I cause a problem. • Hold the phone to the ear opposite the side of the body where the pacemaker is implanted to add some extra distance between the pacemaker and the phone • Avoid placing a tumed vn phone next to the pacemaker implant (e.g. don't carry the phone in a shirt or jacket pocket directly over the pacemaker) Even though, the maximum power output from a cell phone is about one waft, the same as an electric SmartMeterM, customers would ordinarily be much further away from the SmartMeterT11 during its operation than when using a cell phone. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions about. PG&E's SmartMeterTM program. As noted, we strongly believe that SmartMeters"m are accurate, safe, and will help you and PG&E accomplish our collective energy management, energy reduction, and climate change goals. Very truly yours, William F. Devereaux Senior Director, SmartMeter Tm Pacific Gas and Electric Company Encl. Federal Comn1urlications ComrnissIMI Washingtoti, D.C. 20554 August 6, 2010 Ms. Cindy Sage Sage Associates Environmental Consultants 1396 Danielson Road Montecito, CA 93108'-2857 Dear Ms. Sage: Thank you for your letter of March 15, 2010, in which you request that we review compliance with FCC radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits for the "Smart Meter" technology being implemented by utilities across the country. In particular, you expressed concern about multiple adjacent Smart Meter installations used to service multiple dwellings such as condominiums, and the effect of increased data traffic on exposure from collector or controller units. The FCC Equipment Authorization (EA) program in the Office of Engineering and Technology has taken a very conservative approach to RF exposure compliance for low- power network devices such as Wi-Fi base stations and Smart Meter transceivers. For such devices that are not expected to be used close to the body, it is generally unnecessary to perform routine specific absorption rate (SAR) evaluations as field strength or power density is a sufficient and appropriate measure of exposure. The maximum field strength at a distance can be derived from the effective radiated power (ERP). Also, FCC field strength limits, like the SAR limits, are time-averaged. Accordingly, for devices that will not be used within 20 centimeters of the body, we rely on the "source-based" time-averaged ERP and re wire that it be less than our specified values of 1.5 or 3 watts, depending on frequency, in order to ensure compliance with our exposure limits. This does not imply that FCC exposure limits will be exceeded at distances less than 20 cm, but only that detailed evaluation of the SAR is not required if the 20 cm separation distance can be maintained. It is useful in considering this issue to recognize that the power level specified on the Grants of Equipment Authorization issued by the EA program is the peak power as this is the power relevant to interference concerns. For exposure evaluations, however, the average power is relevant, which is determined by taking into account how often these devices will transmit. Since the purpose of these devices is to provide very infrequent information they transmit in occasional bursts. Thus, for exposure purposes the relevant power is maximum time-averaged power that takes into account the burst nature of transmission, and based on the typical maximum time-averaged transmitter power for many of these devices, they would generally be compliant with the local SAR limit even if held directly against the body. With respect to multiple adjacent Smart Meter installations, since the antennas for each device are mounted individually on each utility meter, the separation distance from people for most of the transmitting antennas is relatively large compared to 20 cm and the ' See Section 2.1091(c) of the FCC rules. meters' contributions to the total potential exposure at any location are small, as only the nearest few transmitters can add meaningfully to the total. Further, as a practical design matter, when several of these meters are placed in a cluster, they have to communicate with a single controller. In order to ensure that the controller receives the information properly, only one transmitter can communicate with the controller at a time,.eliminating the potential. for exposure to multiple signals at the same time. The general issue of cumulative exposure from an arbitrary group of transmitter installations or from all transmitters distributed in the environment can appear to be complex, but as discussed, the need for orderly communications requires that a few sources normally dominate. In addition, the exponential decrease in signal strength over distance and additional signal losses due to non line-of-sight conditions for distant sources ensures that only the contributions of nearby transmitters are significant. In summary, compliance for Smart Meters is determined according to the operating and installation requirements of each type of meter during equipment certification, and is based on the maximum transmission duty cycle for the device, including relay functions. Necessary installation requirements to maintain compliance for each meter are specified in the Grant. Irrespective of duty cycle, based on the practical separation distance and the need for orderly communications among several devices, even multiple units or "banks" of meters in the same location will be compliant with the public exposure limits. These conditions for compliance are required to be met before a Grant can be issued from the EA program and auditing and review of Grants is a routine function of the FCC laboratory. With respect to interference to medical devices, which you also raise in your letter, Smart Meters typically operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Those rules specify power limitations to avoid interference. The Smart Meter wireless technologies used today are not significantly different from Wi-Fi devices, cell phones and other typical consumer products. Certain medical devices may need specific precautions in many other environments; these are generally considered during FDA approval of the individual medical device. I hope that this information will be helpful. In addition, some technical information on the subject has been developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and we have enclosed that information for reference. Please know that the FCC is continually monitoring the issue of RF exposure and related health and safety concerns, both in the general terms of the continuing propriety of its regulations, and in individual cases where substantive concerns are raised. Sincerely, Julity P. Kn.l l7 Chief Office of Engineering and Technology DIANNE FEINSTEIN Cr,JFORNIA United $tatcs senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504 http: /A einstein. senate. gov September 22, 2010 The Honorable Richard Collins Mayor 1505 Tiburon Blvd Belvedere Tiburon, California 94920 Dear Mayor Collins: SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE -CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION I write to make you aware of recent developments at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which may help you and your constituents quickly transition into a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). As you are likely aware, FEMA is in the process of reviewing and revising flood maps across the country to ensure that Americans who live in flood plains are properly protected. Throughout this process I have heard from a number of communities who are frustrated about the poor communication and lack of information coining out of the Agency. In response to these concerns, FEMA will begin allowing communities to appeal Flood Insurance Rate Map determinations to independent Scientific Resolution Panels beginning in November 2011. These panels will be comprised of five independent experts who will review the facts of the case and make determinations within 120 days. While these Panels will not re-review previously adjudicated appeals, I wanted to make you aware of this option should you feel your community's concerns are not being addressed in future dealings with the Agency. 331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3841 s fe e ; a Enclosed please find a three page outline with details about how the Scientific Resolution Panel will be forined and specifications as to the role of the panel during the appeals process. Should you have questions or need any further information regarding this matter, please contact FEMA Region IX Headquarters at (510) 627-7184 or Devin Rhiners_on in my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Sincerely, DF:dr:jj Dianne Feinstein United States Senator Parameters for the Flood Mapping Scientific Resolution Panel s FEMA The Administrator of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is making available an independent scientific body (hereafter referred-to as the Scientific Resolution Panel) that can be - convened when deemed necessary by FEMA or a joint agreement of FEMA and a community appellant. The Scientific Review Panel will review and resolve conflicting data related to proposed Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) as provided for in the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended by (42 USC 4104(e); 44 CFR Part 67.8). National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participating communities are strongly urged to collaborate with FEMA throughout the study of their flood hazards, providing available data, models, and other scientific information that would enhance.the final Flood Insurance Rate Map and avoid appeals. When such appeals are necessary, community consultation is the preferred method of resolution. Such consultation allows for. collaborative evaluation and discussion of the conflicting data between FEMA and the appellant and usually facilitates a mutually acceptable resolution. On occasions when community consultation cannot produce a mutually acceptable resolution, the Panel will be made available. The Panel will be made up of experts on hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences, as they apply to the development of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)for FEMA flood studies. Basis of Appeal: A community must submit an appeal to FEMA during the regulatory 90 day appeal period. The regulations require appeal submissions to include technical or scientific data. The appeal documentation must include alternative BFEs which, through the use of "alternative methods or applications result in more correct estimates of base flood elevations, thus demonstrating that FEMA's estimates are incorrect" (44 CFR Part 67). Utilization of the. Panel: • After at least 60 days of community consultation on a submitted appeal have elapsed, the appellant community can elect to bring'their appeal to the Panel. A community, whether working on its own behalf or that of interested parties, must serve as the official appellant. • The appellant community must elect to bring their appeal to the Panel no later than 120. days after the submission of the appeal to FEMA. • In instances where a good faith consultation between FEMA and the appellant exceeds the 120- day aforementioned deadline and does not result in a final resolution, FEMA may choose to submit the appeal to the Panel for resolution. • FEMA will make initial determinations whether the submission includes sufficient information to qualify as a valid appeal pursuant to 44 CFR Part 67 or is simply a statement of protest. 1 July 23, 2010 version Panel Sponsor The Panel will be under the operational direction of a Panel Sponsor. The Panel Sponsor will be an organization selected by FEMA and will be: • Independent from FEMA and other influences such that findings of Panels will be deemed neutral and independent from FEMA or associated influence. • Capable of receiving reimbursement of costs from FEMA. • Not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel Sponsor will be responsible for: • Selecting and maintaining a cadre of scientific -experts in surface water hydrology, hydraulics,- coastal engineering, and other engineering and scientific fields that relate to the creation of Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Insurance Studies throughout the United States. • Identifying a list of potential panel members from the cadre of experts based on the technical challenges of the specific appeal. • Employing for panel operations an individual familiar with the principles of the NFIP statute and regulations. Panel Composition • -A panel of up to 5 members will be chosen from the Panel Sponsor's pre-qualified list. • The appellant chooses a simple majority, and FEMA chooses the remaining panelists. • The Panel may include representatives from Federal agencies not involved in the mapping study in question and other impartial experts. The Sponsor must ensure panelists have no personal or professional interest in the appeal and do not reside in the State from which the appear has been filed. • FEMA employees cannot serve on the Panel. Role of the Panel • Following deliberations, the Panel shall render a written decision that rejects or supports an appeal as filed. • The Panel will make a determination based on knowledge or information submitted by the appellant, indicating whether the BFEs proposed by FEMA are scientifically or technically incorrect. • A.report containing the Panel's rationale and decision will be made available to the public. • The Panel must expeditiously make its determination about the appeal and present its public report no later than 150 days after the appeal is brought to the Panel. 2 July 23, 2010 version Decisions of the Panel • The Panel's determination will become the recommendation to the Administrator for appeal resolution; the Panel's determination will not be subject to further staff review.within FEMA. • Subject to final review and approval by the Administrator, FEMA will incorporate Panel findings and determinations into revised preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Insurance Studies, as applicable per Regulation. • When changes in the FIRMs are required, FEMA will make a revised Preliminary FIRM available to the community for review prior to issuing the letter of Final Determination. • The appellant will be' encouraged to accept the determination of the Panel. If the appellant is not satisfied, the appellant may appeal to the appropriate United States District Court, pursuant to 44 CFR 67.12. Implementation • This process will be available to all community appellants beginning on November 1, 2010. • In instances where an appeal is currently in the consultation phase, but which has not had a Final Determination issued, that community appellant will have until January 15, 2011, to request their appeal. be brought to the Panel for disposition. FEMA will have the authority to offer the Panel resolution process to other existing appellants as it determines. 3 July 23, 2010 version RECEIVED DATE: September 29, 2010 SEP 3 0 2010 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON TO: Town of Tiburon FROM: Candice Bozzard, Clerk to the Commissio SUBJECT: Period Update - Adopted Spheres of Influence for Cities in Southern Marin County On August 12, 2010 the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission approved the resolution reaffirming the sphere of influence of the Town of Tiburon. The resolution and map are attached for your records. The staff of Marin LAFCO appreciates your time and effort during the preparation of the sphere of influence update and we want to thank you for your involvement to help guide this project to completion. Chairperson: Jeffry Blanchfield Members: Susan Adams, Einar Asbo, Barbara Heller, Charles McGlashan, Dennis J. Rodoni, Jeffrey Slavitz Alternates: Judy Arnold, Christopher Burdick, Carla Condon Executive Officer.- Peter V. Banning Marin Local Agency Formation Commission 555 Northgate Drive, Suite. 230 • San Rafael, California 94903 Telephone (415) 446-4409 • Facsimile (415) 446-4410 • Email staff@marinlafco.org Website http://l`afco.marin.org MARIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-09 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON WHEREAS, upon determination and adoption of a sphere of influence, the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission is required to periodically review and update adopted spheres of influence for each City and special district not less than once every five years within Marin County under Government Code Section 56425 (f); and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has conducted a review of the adopted sphere of influence of local government agencies in the Tiburon area, prepared a summary, Periodic Update - Adopted Spheres of Influence for Cities in Southern Marin County, including his recommendations thereon, the summary having been presented to and considered by this Commission; and WHEREAS, a public hearing by this Commission was held on the Periodic Update - Adopted Spheres of Influence for Cities in Southern Marin County and staff's recommendations contained in that report on the date and at the time noticed thereof, and at the hearing this Commission heard and received all oral and written protests, objections and evidence which were made, presented or filed, and all persons present were given an opportunity to hear and be heard with respect to the proposal and the Executive Officer's report. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the information contained in the Executive Officer's report, correspondence from affected agencies and information received during the public hearings, the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER as follows: Section 1. The sphere of influence of the Town of Tiburon is hereby reaffirmed without change as shown on Attachment 1. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 15061 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Commission finds that this review and reaffirmation of the sphere of influence of the Town of Tiburon is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 3. The Executive Officer is hereby directed to mail copies of this resolution to affected local government agencies in the southern Marin area. Resolution 10-09 -2- August 12, 2010 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission on this 12th day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Adams, Asbo, Blanchfield, Heller, McGlashan, Rodoni and Condon NOES: None - ABSENT: Commissioner Slavitz JEFFRY BLANCHFIELD, Chairperson ATTEST: PETER V. BANNING, Execu V Officer U `a ~ c U I CL U ~ w m c o V C/)_ C O C w a p S _ ~O C (V ~E Q E N 4) aTi o c ° 112 LLJ z H ° O + + _ fl. F" 04 C> ; > ~ n L% o o ¢ z .F . N O cu U U 0 0 Q m j (n -50 'n LLI Z m O O O O C L- p a § LLo o s L E 3 ~ ~ ~ o t- m co o a (n cm c O L `p Q v = z A o aOZ w yy ~w LL J ; L az wz N &()0U3~ N~ C I E i'' C Ca m.o ' ' '7, ~ 7 f IfT~.~► „ ~ y t,~ f * i r / i r ) 'WRY A, 7 91 .,f t ~ ~ ~i ,7~ ~F~`f ~,'.~~.},~j~/ ~ C.eE~~s~,,,Z~ i~~~y-~F}th ~~,4~~ •L 10 1 r x',J~.t~,0 k) ja:c-r7-4i~ NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2010 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY D IGFST#s MINUTES NO. 8 PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION May 18, 2010 Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall---Conference Room 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Commissioner McMullen at 6:05 P.M., Tuesday, May 18, 2010 in the Town Hall Conference Room, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, 1St Floor, Tiburon, California. Chainnan Winkler arrived at 6:10 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Winkler, Feldman, McMullen, McDermott and Allen Absent: n/a Ex-Officio: Director of Public Works Nguyen ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none MINUTES January 19, 2010 Action Minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0. Chairman Winkler was not present for vote. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING ■ Director Nguyen welcomed new commissioners (McDermott and Allen) and thanked them for their service and participation. A question was raised as to whether it was necessary to swear them in by the Town Clerk. ■ Commissioner McMullen was the only member nominated to be Vice Chair and hence was elected by default. ■ Director Nguyen updated the commission on potential plans for a new Joint Recreation facility. ■ Director Nguyen updated the commission on the Claire Way park area recent issues about usage. Ms. Cynthia Perry from the Claire Way neighborhood came to make comments, and indicated that she did not favor development of this park area. ■ Director Nguyen update the commission on potential plans to upgrade the restroom facilities at Blackie's Pasture and McKegney Green renovation. A comment was made to install running paths on either side of the MUP at this location to complete entire length. ■ Director Nguyen provided a brief update on the Open Space Management Plan. Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission May 18, 2010 Page I AppMved Minutes SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Chairinan lVin ler updated the group on the "cookie crumble" approach with bike route signage around the County and the "free tee" concept where cyclists would be allowed to freely ride through a certain leg of a T-intersection. BUSINESS ITEMS ■ Item 1 - McKegney Field Usage: Commissioners McMullen and Feldman will be the subcommittee that would work with staff on defining and developing the process, fees (or no fees), and usage policy. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M. ISI Peter Winkler PETER WINKLER, CHAIR Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission ATTEST: NICHOLAS NGUYEN, SECRETARY Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission Mat' 18, 2010 Page I Approved Minutes D 1164rr-#6 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Regular Meeting Design Review Board October 7, 2010 7:00 P.M. Chairman Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson & Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 1. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two-family exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site, along with a new two-car garage and a new parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front property line into the Spanish Trail right-of-way, which would not comply with the 15 foot minimum front yard setback in the R-2 zone. APN: 059-201-32 [DW] 2. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a larger master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest suite for the existing dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18 Continued to Noventber 4, 2010 Design Review Board October 7. 2010 Paae 1 NEW BUSINESS 96 SUGARLOAF DRIVE; File No. 21016; Capucine & Andrew Hoybach, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling, with a variance for reduced side yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 26 square foot addition to the master bedroom to create a larger bathroom area. As the minimum side yard setback in the R0-2 zone is fifteen feet (15'), -a variance is required in order to construct the addition within the side yard setback a distance of one foot (1 ' for a reduced side yard setback of fourteen feet (14). APN: 05 8-281-13 [LT] MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of September 16, 2010 ADJOURNMENT LEAGUE 111CITIES LEARNING AT THE SPEED OF CHANGE DIGEST (a.) RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2010 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON 2010 Legislative Briefings 3 Options - One great price - $50.00 "Woo Tuesday, November 16 League Office, Sacramento 9:00 a.m. - Noon 40"42k- 7 Wednesday, November 17 Care Ambulance, Orange 9:00 a.m. - Noon *Planned with the Orange County Division Live Webinar Tuesday, November 16 Listen/View from anywhere - no travel required 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. In an effort to provide greater value to cities in these difficult times, the league has redesigned its legislative briefings, while continuing to provide quality through a more streamlined format, including the option of an interactive webinar. Be sure to register early as space is limited. Only advanced registration is available for these workshops. O n l i n e R e g i s t r a t i o n D e a d l i n e Friday, October 29 or until location fills Onsite registration is not available for Sacramento / Orange Register online at www.cacities.org/events 1400 K S'T'REET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PH: (916) 658-8200 Fx: (916) 658-8240 L LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA I~C IES September 22, 2010 To: Mayors, City Managers and Clerks in Non-Managers Cities, and League Board of Directors Re: 2010 Annual Conference Resolutions Final Report ;)t64S7-(1o) \V\VW.CACITIFS.OR(, Attached is the Final Report on Resolutions from our 112th Annual Conference held on September 15-17, 2010, in San Diego. In addition, the last page of this report contains a status report on the implementation of the resolutions approved at last year's 2009 Annual Conference. This report is also available on the League's Website at www.cacities.orsi/resolutions. Please feel free to make additional copies for distribution. L LEAGUE CIT[ES FINAL REPORT RESOLUTIONS APPROVED REBUILDING 1"M ~ r r r r s 112th Annual Conference San Diego September IS-17, 2010 FINAL REPORT ON RESOLUTIONS September 2010 The 2010 League of California Cities Annual Conference was held September 15-17, 2010, in San Diego. On Wednesday, September 15, six League policy committees considered the resolutions that were assigned to them. More than one committee considered the resolutions numbered as 3 and 4. All six resolutions were included in the original Resolutions Packet dated July 29, 2010. The General Resolutions Committee met on Thursday, September 16, and considered the six resolutions before them. A chart on pages 2 and 3 of this packet includes a summary of the actions taken on the resolutions by the policy committees and the General Resolutions Committee. The resolutions contained in this packet are only those that were approved by the General Assembly on September 17. Those resolutions are numbered 1, 2, 5 and 6. Also included in this packet is a status report on the implementation of the resolutions approved at last year's 2009 Annual Conference (pages 11-12). Not included in this packet are the resolutions numbered 3 and 4, which were disapproved. We thank those city officials who served as members of policy committees, the General Resolutions Committee and those city officials who participated in the General Assembly. Additional copies of this report are available on the League's Website at: www.cacities.oriL),,/resolutions. KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Please note that two resolutions have been assigned to more than one committee. These resolutions are noted by this sign Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 - General Resolutions Committee 3 - General Assembly ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 Lea ue Bylaws Amendment A A A COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 2 Let's Move Campaign Aa A A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 •3 AB32/ SB 375 D D D HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 •3 AB32/ SB 375 Aa D D +4 Responsible Banking D.R D,R - REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 •3 AB32/ SB 375 Aa D D +4 Responsible Banking D.R DA 5 Unfunded State Mandates Aa A A TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 •3 AB32/ SB 375 Aa D D 6 6 F Enhancing Public Safe A A A NOTE: No resolutions were assigned to these policy committees: Employee Relations and Public Safety. There were no petitioned resolutions this year. 2 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES 1. Policy Committee 2. General Resolutions Committee 3. *General Assembly KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN A Approve D Disapprove N No Action R Refer to appropriate policy committee for study a Amend Aa Approve as amended W Withdrawn by Sponsor *Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the General Assembly. In addition, League policy provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but not approved by the General Resolutions Committee. Every resolution initially recommended for approval and adoption by League policy committees to which the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a separate consent calendar for consideration by the General Assembly. The consent calendar shall include a brief description of the basis for the recommendations by both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Committee, as well as the recommended action by each. 3 APPROVED 2010 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEAGUE BYLAWS AMENDMENTS (2/3 vote at General Assembly required to approve) Source: League Board of Director Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee WHEREAS, The League of California Cities is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation under California law, and, as such, is governed by corporate bylaws; and WHEREAS, the League's Board of Directors periodically reviews the League's bylaws for issues of clarity, practicality, compliance with current laws, and responsiveness to membership interests; and WHEREAS, the League's Board of Directors convened a Bylaws Review Committee to make recommendations regarding various necessary amendments to ensure that the most qualified and committed city officials are selected to serve on the League's Board, policy committees and other leadership positions, representing a broad diversity of backgrounds, experience, abilities, geography and other factors, and that any barriers to their selection are removed; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the Bylaws Review Committee's recommendations that identified amendments to the bylaws that: a) encourage all segments of League membership to pursue leadership positions within the League to advance the goal that the League Board of Directors reflects the diverse ethnic and social fabric of California; b) clarify the League Board's nomination procedures and expand Board membership by four positions; and c) provide guidance to avoid conflicts of interest for Board and policy committee members with the expectation that decisions should be in the best overall interests of cities statewide; and WHEREAS, the League's Board offers amendments and additions to the following sections of the bylaws for the membership's consideration: 1. Article VII, Section 1; new subsection 1(b): Board Diversity Policy, Board of Directors 2. Article VII, Section 2 (c), (f): Composition, Board of Directors 3. Article VII, Section 5 (d): Nomination Process, Board of Directors 4. Article XIV, Section 1, new section: Conflicts of Interest 5. Article XIV, Section 4, new section: Ethical Considerations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled during the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League make the specified changes to the League bylaws by amending the above-referenced sections as indicated on Attachment A. [NOTE: Please see ATTACHMENT A - Approved bylaws changes.] IHII III 4 ATTACHMENT A Approved Changes to League Bylaws Proposed by Resolution 1 (Changes indicated by bold Italics and underlining) Article VII: Board of Directors Section 1: Role and Powers; Board Diversity Policy (a) Subject to the provisions and limitations of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law, any other applicable laws, and the provisions of these bylaws, the League's activities and affairs are exercised by or under the direction of the League's control and direction of the League. The League Board may delegate the management of the League's affairs to any person or group, including a committee, provided the League Board retains ultimate responsibility for the actions of such person or group. N The goal of the League is to ensure that the Board of Directors reflects the diverse ethnic and social fabric of California. As such, each Division, Department, Caucus, and Policy Committee should encourage and support members of every race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation and heritage to seek leadership positions within the League, with the ultimate goal of achieving membership on the Board of Directors. Article VII: Board of Directors Section 2: Composition. The League's Board is composed of the following: (a) A President, First Vice-President and Second Vice-President/Treasurer, who each serve a term of one year; (b) The Immediate Past President who serves for a term of one year, immediately succeeding his or her term as President; (c) Twelve Te-a Directors-at-Large, (i) Who serve staggered two-year terms, and (ii) At least one of whom is a representative of a small city with a population of 10,000 or less. (d) One Director to be elected from each of the regional divisions and functional departments of the League, each of whom serves for a term of two years; (e) Members of the National League of Cities Board of Directors who hold an office in a Member City; and (f) gight Ten Directors that may be designated by the mayors of each of the e *ht ten largest cities in California to serve two-year terms. 5 (g) For purposes of this section, the population of each city is the most current population as determined by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, or its successor agency or unit. If no successor. agency or unit is named, the most current population used to determine these dues shall be used to determine future dues until such time as these bylaws are amended to designate a new source for determining city population. (h) Directors hold office until their successors are elected and qualified or, if they sit on the League Board by virtue of their membership on the National League of Cities Board of Directors, until their terms on the National League of Cities Board of Directors conclude. Article VII: Board of Directors Section 5: Nomination Process. (d) Candidates for Positions Ineligible. Candidates for officer and at-large positions on the League Board are not eligible to serve on the nominating committee. In the event a regional division representative on the nominating committee wishes to be a candidate for an officer or at-large position, the League President will appoint a substitute nominating committee member from the same rezional division, if available. If one is not available, the President shall appoint a substitute from a nearbtl rezional division. Article XIV: Prohibited Transactions Section]: Conflicts of Interest General Principle Members of the League board as well as members of League policy committees, and members of an>> standing or ad hoc committees and task forces consistinz of members of the League board or League policy committees, are expected to make decisions in the best overall interests of cities statewide, as opposed to narrow parochial, personal, or financial interests. This is analoLyous to city officials being expected to make decisions in the best overall interests of the community as opposed to narrow private or self interests. Section 2. Loans. Except as permitted by California Nonprofit Corporation Law, the League may not make any loan of money or property to, or guarantee the obligation of, any director or officer. This prohibition does not prohibit the League from advancing funds to a League director or officer for expenses reasonably anticipated to be incurred in performance of their duties as an officer or director, so long as such individual would be entitled to be reimbursed for such expenses under League Board policies absent that advance. Section 3: Self-Dealing and Common Directorship Transactions. (a) Self-Dealing Transactions. A self-dealing transaction is a transaction to which the League is a party and in which one or more of its directors has a material financial interest. (b) Common Directorships. "Common directorships" occur when the League enters into a transaction with an organization in which one of the League directors also serves on the organization's board. 6 (c) Pre-Transaction Approval. To approve a transaction involving either self-dealing or a common directorship, the League Board shall determine, before the transaction, that, (i) The League is entering into the transaction for its own benefit; (ii) The transaction is fair and reasonable to the League at the time; and (iii) After reasonable investigation, the League Board determines that -it could not have obtained a more advantageous arrangement with reasonable effort under the circumstances. Such determinations shall be made by the League Board in good faith, with knowledge of the material facts concerning the transaction and the director's interest in the transaction, without counting the vote of the interested director or directors. (d) Post-Transaction Approval. When it is not reasonably practicable to obtain Board approval before entering into such transactions, a Board committee may approve such transaction in a manner consistent with the requirements in the preceding paragraph, provided that, at its next meeting, the full Board determines in good faith that the League Board committee's approval of the transaction was consistent with such requirements and that it was not reasonably practical to obtain advance approval by the full Board, and ratifies the transaction by a majority of the directors then in office without the vote of any interested director.' Section 4: Ethical Considerations. These restrictions, of course, represent the floor not the ceiling for ethical conduct as a League board member or policy committee member. If a board member or policy committee member believes that there are circumstances under which the League's members might reasonably question the board member's or policy committee member's ability to act solelv in the best interests in the League and its member cities, the prudent course is to abstain. As an example, typically. League board members have abstained from participating in decisions on legislation that would affect organizations for which they work Another example is legislation that would uniquely benefit a board member's city. Policy committee members should also consider abstaining in similar circumstances. 2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE NATIONAL LET'S MOVE CAMPAIGN Source: League Board of Directors Referred to: Community Services Policy Committee WHEREAS, the League supports policies that focus on health and wellness, continuing education, and healthier lifestyles in all communities; and WHEREAS, many cities, counties, and schools have adopted policies, programs, and ordinances that promote healthy lifestyles by making their communities walkable, promoting youth and senior ' See Cal. Corp. Code § 7233 (specifying under what circumstances a self-dealing transaction is void or voidable). activities, eliminating the sale of junk food in city, county, or school facilities, providing incentives for stores that sell fresh produce to locate in depressed neighborhoods, and providing exercise opportunities for their residents; and WHEREAS, city officials believe there are important, long-term community benefits to be gained by encouraging healthy lifestyles, including a decrease in the rate of childhood obesity and its negative health-related impacts; and WHEREAS, cities and other community partners can work together to understand the relationship between obesity, land-use policies, redevelopment, and community planning; and WHEREAS, cities and other community partners can work together to ensure that there are safe places for their residents to be active such as in parks, ball fields, pools, gyms, and recreation centers; and WHEREAS, access to healthy foods has a direct impact on the overall health of our community and planning for fresh food, open space, sidewalks, and parks should be a priority; and WHEREAS, the League has partnered with the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Cities Campaign to provide training and technical assistance to help city officials adopt policies that improve their communities' physical activity and retail food environments; and WHEREAS, the League wants to partner with and support the Let's Move! Campaign headed by the First Lady of the United States, the President's Task Force on Childhood Obesity and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in an effort to solve the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League encourages the existing 480 California cities to adopt preventative measures to fight obesity as set forth by the First Lady of the United States of America in the Let's Move campaign; and, be it further RESOLVED, that California cities be encouraged to sign-up with the United States Department of Health and Human Services - Region IX office as a Let's Move! City; and, be it further RESOLVED, that California cities are encouraged to: (1) help parents make healthy family choices; (2) create healthy schools; (3) provide access to healthy and affordable foods; and (4) promote physical activity; and, be it further RESOLVED, that cities are encouraged to involve youth, especially middle and high school students, with city health-related programs. 5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO UNFUNDED STATE-MANDATES Source: City of Santa Clarita Referred to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee WHEREAS, unfunded mandates imposed upon local governments, including cities, counties and special districts, by the State of California place a tremendous financial burden upon local governments; and WHEREAS, some of the mandates placed upon local governments are the result of actions by Boards and Commissions not directly accountable to the electorate; and WHEREAS, the State of California and many local governments within the state are under financial duress due to the continuing national economic crisis, and WHEREAS, approximately twelve percent of Californians, are currently unemployed and struggling to pay for basic life necessities, well above the national average; and _ WHEREAS, mandates enacted by the State of California may result in the need for local agencies to increase fees or taxes to satisfy the requirements of the mandate; and WHEREAS, as citied in a 2005 report on state mandates published by the League of California Cities, the original intent of Property Tax Relief Act of 1972, which established the concept of state reimbursement of local agencies for state mandated activities, was to limit the ability of local agencies to levy taxes; and WHEREAS, in 1979 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4 adding Article XIII B to the California Constitution, requiring the state to provide a subvention of funds to local governments for costs associated with state mandated programs, under specified conditions, and through subsequent legislation creating the Commission on State Mandates; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition IA expanding the constitutional protections for local governments regarding state mandates; and WHEREAS, the State of California has struggled to balance its budget for the past several years and has chosen to borrow funds from local governments, thus reducing traditional revenues to local governments, forcing additional local program and service reductions and cutbacks; and WHEREAS, various federal and state laws and regulations may result in the imposition of state mandates on local governments; and WHEREAS, an example of state imposed mandates are the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) for such things as bacteria, chloride, metals,, and toxicity; and WHEREAS, for example, in order to meet the obligations imposed by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) throughout California, local agencies may need to implement or increase fees and taxes to pay for new programs or facilities, in order to avoid penalties for non-compliance; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that: 1. The League of California Cities work with its member cities and other local government partners to identify situations in which local governments must increase fees or taxes to meet state mandated requirements. 2. The League of California Cities reaffirms its historic stance that anytime the state imposes a new duty, responsibility, or obligation on local government it must provide an adequate source of funding to accompany the action, and not presume that the new duty, responsibility, or obligation can be covered by a new local fee, assessment, or tax. 3. That the League of California Cities work with the applicable state and federal regulatory agencies through the League's policy making process, and the National League of Cities, to the policy based on develop reasonably achievable, environmentally sound and cost-effective monitoring and sound science and addressing local water conditions and fiscal condition of the local government. 4. That the League of California Cities will review and consider supporting through its policy s tax or the fee negative committee process legislation to suspend, eliminate, or otherwise a new modify ncrease is of state mandates on local agencies, particularly in which necessary to implement the mandate. 6, RESOLUTION RELATED TO ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE Source: City of Elk Grove ication & Public Works Policy Committee Referred to: Transportation, Commun WHEREAS, cities throughout the state of California hold the health and safety of their residents , as a paramount concern; and WHEREAS, the use of text messages has grown exponentially in recent years; and an), time a driver attempts to send an electronic text message while driving, his or WHEREAS, her attention is diverted from the road; and a recent Virginia Tech study showed sending electronic text messages while driving WHEREAS, makes an accident 23 times more likely; and WHEREAS, a study conducted by The Transport Research Laboratory in theuUni eof ingdo or showed that sending text messages while driving is riskier than driving under the m drugs; and Senate Bill 28 and California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 ban writiag, sending, WHEREAS, r reading electronic text messages while operating a motor vehicle in the state of Ca and o b WHEREAS, the League supports this type of traffic safety enhancement as dem herated through their support of motorcycle helmets, child restraints, seat belt and speed limit laws; now, RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled promote during h safe Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17,20 10, that the League tl encourages of texting while driving. driving across California and the education of the general public about 10 z C 004 O w W V z w z O V z z 0 N A W O CIO E-O w z O z W a O U CA Qj 'U v~ cn ~ r O O bU > c~ cC c3 ~ s: y y y yr O G by S] ~ y 0 `OU y 0 0 0 U v~ C'n 4n U o x CIA cs ° ° aq O -a o M u i- O p p ~ w y E O = o Q O y .~mC. - o v c y =ocm G CZ j ca i, U cC C i cn O to C) b s c ti .o o N o aL ,o CA CZ > 2 . C • p O x, 'b p y C, U O Ln C: ~ ~ C = ~ O c~ W) ~ . O y c ~ C, > um 14 ' U . c r C • bA y z1 O O _ y m ' Ot.. c- .L • • • • u t.;- _ .c u U .O O y «i a cc ctS ° a. > y Fr a a" w 3 p co cca ca w 3 Z y O ~ rn >L, _ O cd Gd y O ^p U O O c " y O.. C, o -R t o° a uLn ~ ~ to cz ° Q - ~ al •-o ° G ,.r 0 Off," U a cam. N G cC j p. U p 0 O s. U ~ r p GO O s.. "O U O v' rn a~ > .p G ~ > z rn G ~ O i N ° C a ^G y ^ N y N y O O W ~ bA a~ CC a r~ bJJ ' , LZ. O Cn > U •'p p = C/J C/7 > T3 U ccS = G 'O `n C O .C O O y y y c~ o C y O CZ >y s, ' a y d 'U O yam. cy, A p LIJ y p M C n C p O y N i, O ~r O c3 Z G y :y V C c u b11 O aC bIJ y C y c~ vn > y z C 0 O U V U U G y . U ' y > S u m O y v~ O a~ a > U O> U y O Cl U a y C }r y y y O 'O O to U GA U O C) O z > m G. U O cC • . y s> `n cd O 't3 cC O. ~ .O a? O w `n . p y ~ O- O w U b y y O a~ O fl- C G 'O O O ~ O u. 'p ~ U .b O O ~ ~ ~ G Q. O L. a~ •-a s.., ~ y ~ -p v, L]. s.., p bL O U O U a~ p cGC y c ' O En p p U y cc a ' U O C~ O } y . r E -c 0 U p y y v :Z 'O c v, t y . O O y y s . y p O cu O y u r > ^ O O fl O 4" ° n o ? u U -o O A y a4 z - ° ° . a a au Of) , a y c y 0,0 ~ -cu ' ~ ~ ~ ' I O ~ O s.. y ~ ~ G y y p O S] y ~ ~ > U ~ : O ..O ~ N ~ bA cC y y U ^ O - U U + L~.: t-" vy C. TZ ' zz oA to r U m L G G G U r.r y U J ~ G ~ G 6-0 a o 0 c o j Z cc M y I~1 V 11 r rA L- cU cz -C U cz CL r O fC - C r 4 U r4 = U v .G L O O U O r^i O L`. U 0 2 Qt O,~ N O > I.. U ^ Qi 1 ~ G ' G U W c o -ts N R 00 00 t ca 1- ca Cj • U N > O N ►-i co co 011 rn v 0 CC OCZ N W cs a~ Q 3 0 O O C N = C U N ° a O O v G cc O U O Q ^ _ En U G 'O N C ~ r V~ r U o W C2 o c cc W U a~ O cs O L G cr L) ~ U O O r O s•. U U G r, C` :J al OD O cc -b ~ r G E O C O O W U ~ U OJ O rn = U G ~ 1 ~ G . C L o, r . C ~ U N 12 (c) Medical Marijuana 46, A Best Practices Approach for Local Regulations .4` Governing Access California voters passed Prop 215; Legislators codified it with SB 420 in 2003. What is the current state of the law and what are the responsibilities and role of local governments in providing for access to medical mari- juana? What has worked successfully and what are some of the challenges? Be part of the community voice that helps shape local policy towards regulation access to medical marijuana. See reverse side for panelists Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers Suite 330, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael Sponsored by Marin County Supervisor Susan L. Adams, Ph.D., RN and Supervisor Steve Kinsey For information, call 499-7342. This forum will be videocast. For directions go to: http: //www.mapquest. coin/maps? city=San+Rafael&state=CA&address=3 501 +Civic+Center+Dr&zipcode=94903- 4112&cat=Marin+County+Civic+Center&country=US&latitude=37.99877&longitude=- 122.52998&geocode=ADDRESS If you are a person with a disability and require this document in an alternate format (example: Braille, Large Print, Audiotape, CD-ROM), you may request an alternate format by calling Susannah Clark at 415-499-7342, TTY number 473-4381) or by e-mail at sclarkCco.marin.ca.us not less than four days prior to event. Welcome and introduction to discussion Sponsors, Marin County Supervisors: Susan L. Adams, Ph.D., RN., District 1 Steve Kinsey, District 4 Panel Political considerations: Craig Litwin, former Mayor of Sebastopol when ordinance passed allowing cooperative. Legal issues, working with local government to develop legal ac- cess: Larry Bragman, current Fairfax town councilmember and at- torney representing interests of Marin Alliance for Medical Mari- juana resulting in legal access; Lynnette Shaw, owner Marin Alli- ance for Medical Marijuana. Current state ofthe law: Pu lic safe4 and lay= enforcement: Ed Berberian, District Attorney and David Zaltsman, Deputy County Counsel. Role of County departments in licensing, monitoring and auditing cooperatives: Tom Lai, Principal Planner, Community Development Agency; Stacy Carlsen, Agriculture Commissioner, Weights and Measures; Larry Meredith, Ph.D., Director Health and Human Ser- vices. Questions, Comments, Discussion Who should attend? Elected officials, government planners, health and social services professionals, patient consumers and advocates, cooperative members and experts in the area of medical marijuana, members of the public interested in the issue of establish- ing safe access to medical marijuana in Marin County DIGEST The HILARITAMURON ECUMENICAL ASSOCIATION (aka Hilarita-TEA or H-TEA) 100 Ned's Way - Tiburon, California 94920 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Minutes of July 12, 2010 Officers: President - Keith Lester Vice President - Charles Quick Secretary - Barbara Garcia-Romero Treasurer - Dennis Leary DIRECTORS PRESENT: The Hilarita Residents Association (HRA): - Mary Ann Alvarado„ Michael Burns, James Hardy, Dorothy Larson, Phillip Ramirez Community Congregational Church (CCC) Liz Jones, Keith Lester St. Stephen's Episcopal Church (SSEC) Anne Brown, Michael Peters Westminster Presbyterian Church (WPC) Richard Leonards, Charles Quick Town of Tiburon Representative - Carolyn Grey Community Representative - Nuria Ibars DIRECTORS ABSENT: HRA- Loretta Bromberg, Cathomas Ford HRA President - ex-officio Dennis Leary*-WPC, Barbara Garcia-Romero* - SSEC • = excused OTHERS PRESENT: Linda Tilton, Director of Property Management, The John Stewart Co. (JSCo) Noelle Simmons & Dru Babcock, Co-Managers, The Hilarita (JSCo) residents- Jarvis Jones A QUORUM IS 7 1. MEETING CALL TO ORDER President Lester determined that a quorum was present and called for order at 7:30 PM in the Community Resource Center of The Hilarita Apartments. 2. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 14. 2010 MEETINGS The President called for approval of the June 14, 2010 minutes: M/S (A. Brown/C. Grey) that the Board approve the June 14, 2010 meeting minutes. M.Burns: amend page 5, item 14, "...but one resident is serving as Community Representative and the other is from St. Stephen's". /P The minutes are approved as amended. Unanimous. 3. CORRESPONDENCE & ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. President Lester advised the receipt of correspondence from the Community Development Depart- ment of the Town of Tiburon concerning amendments to its smoking and tobacco regulations that would affect properties containing four or more dwelling units and the common areas of those apartment buildings and complexes. A meeting is to be held on July 13th at 6 PM at the Town Hall to hear questions and concerns on this topic. In discussion, D.Larson said that this matter had been considered in the past and that there needs to be further discussion. L.Tilton advised that such an amendment would require establishing a specific area of units, moving residents about and virtually rehabbing units to remove all traces of tobacco odors. This would take much time, effort, and money. Then there is the `Grandfather' rule to consider. < 1 > 41 ~ 1%., 4. HRA -The HILARITA REPORT Meet every third Monday of the month at 7.'30 PM in the Esther Whitman Community Center Cathomas Ford, HRA President (absent) - no report. 5. SECRETARY'S REPORT Barbara Garcia-Romero (absent) - no report. 6. TREASURER'S REPORT Dennis Leary (absent) - no report. 7 The JOHN STEWART COMPANY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT A - Linda Tilton, Director of Property Management, reported that: 1. on June 22, per authorization from the H-TEA Executive Committee, all redacted documents were sent to J.Hardy as he demanded. Although there was no water mark on the redacted pages, each was marked `Confidential'. J.Hardy - HUD has these documents available without any restrictions. 2. a five year comparison (2006-2011) of operating expenses was included in the JSCo packet to all members. She explained items that were questioned. B - Noelle Simmons, Property Manager, advised that: 1. the office is responding to the recent MOR inspection topics. It has been very hard trying to get the office functional but with a staff that is knowledgeable, hard working and dedicated - it will be done. 2. the office is dealing with constant certification details to meet the HUD compliance standards. We are developing a templet for tenant files to provide an easier tracking of what is in the file, or what is needed. 3. the Wait List is in review, and we will be sending out letters next week to those currently on the list in order to update the applicant's information. 4. we are establishing an "Administrative Day" weekly so that the office staff can deal with all of the matters that are present, free of interruption. Although the office will be closed one day a week, the staff will take phone calls regarding maintenance needs, and scheduling office appointments. In discussion, J.Hardy - what files are being inspected and the explanation of income required? N.Simmons - the office is reorganizing all of the documents and paper work to insure that all information is easily found and available for future MOR reviews. D.Larson - can the office open an hour earlier or stay an hour later for those tenants who work and are unable to come in during regular business hours? N.Simmons - the tenants can call and schedule an appointment that would suit their time needs. C - Dru Babcock, Property Manager, reported for Tony Gourd of Maintenance, saying that: 1. on-site maintenance is going well. It has completed numerous work orders requested by the tenants. 2. bids have been received for asphalt work in the parking areas which were last sealed in 2007. Work on levels 2 and 3 begins Friday by Ghilotti who has worked satisfactorily for at least ten years with the Town. J.Hardy - we should emphasize local companies per HUD, and its requirements. President Lester - this is true for anyone working on site. M.Burns - dissatisfied with previous street workers. D.Larson - they are listed in the `Diamond Certified Directory'. < 2 > 3. from bids received, we are working with Bradshaw Roofing for replacements on buildings 5 and 1. 4. bids have been received and approved for work such as new fencing and fence repairs. 5. the community garden has a new walkway. 8. ON-SITE COMMITTEE REPORT Meet 2nd Wednesday of the month at 11:00 AM.- no August mewing. Committee: Anne Brown, -c. Loretta Bromberg, Michael Bums, Carolyn Grey, Nuria lbars, Richard Leonards Anne Brown-Chair, distributed the June 24, 2010 Committee meeting report. She advised that: 1. the Committee did review and discuss the Grievance Procedure as requested by the H-TEA Board, and find that the current process may be too vague. The Committee recommends that a written procedure for the handling of complaints be specifically detailed. The Committee will review these changes and when approved, they will be discussed with JSCo before presenting the document to the H-TEA Board. This Committee has met with the HRA President Cathomas Ford for her thoughts on this matter. 2. the next meeting is scheduled for July 14th in The Hilarita's CLC, and the Committee will ask Linda Tilton, JSCo, and the office staff to this meeting. In discussion: M.Peters - clarify point 8 in the report. L.Tilton - there are procedures in place. 9. BUILDINGS & GROUNDS COMMITTEE REPORT Meet quarterly or as needed. Committee: Charles Quick-c, Mary Ann Alvarado, Dorothy Larson, Michael Peters, Phillip Ramirez Charles Quick reported that the Committee met on June 28th to discuss a full agenda: 1. On-site maintenance with Tony Gourd: tenants need to know what action to take to submit requests for repairs. 2. Replacement trees for the front of the property have been bought, and they are at the nursery until planting time. 3. Cable TV for the entire property: the Committee considered a contract with Comcast to supply both cable TV and telephone services. There is a question as to how the monthly billing process would be handled. However, the Committee recommends that a survey of the tenants be done to determine whether or not this is a desired asset before proceeding any further on this matter. The Committee is aware of some concern over health issues and a `magnetic field' that may result with such installation. 4. Exterior lighting for safety and security: this is a long standing issue and even with additional lighting having been installed, there continues to be reports on damage to parked vehicles. The Committee may again review the feasibility of security cameras on-site. 5. Air conditioners and whether or not there is the capacity to support them: the Committee will look into having an electrical survey done to determine the capacity needed to support a conditioner in a unit. 10 COMMUNITY TRAINING & SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT - CLC Meet the first Friday of the month at 6 00 PM or as needed. Committee. Barbara Garcia-Rome►o-c, Anne Brown, Dennis Leary Barbara Garcia-Romero (absent) no report. 11 FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT • This report is proprietary and not to be discussed outside of _this meetina Meet as needed. Committee: Dennis Leary-c, Dorothy Larson, Michael Peters Dennis Leary (absent). Linda Tilton, JSCo, advised that: < 3 > 1. the Treasurer did send the Committee's recommendation for approval of the Budget to all members. She referred to the five-year Operating Budget Comparison report which was included in the packet to all members, and explained the line items. In discussion, C.Quick - does this have any new item, and is interest assumption on expenses? L.Tilton - Will look into this, and she said that this needs to be put into perspective. D.Larson - how to handle expenses if person has to vacate for repairs? J.Hardy - and to rehab? L.Tilton - there isn't a policy on this. Every year we do units that need to be rehabbed. M.Burns - had policy when there was the asbestos removal and sound proofing, then people were moved out. President Lester - Tony Gourd had covered all of this and more during our annual May walk-around. 2. this year will come out even, and that $100,000. excess would go into Residual Receipts on recommendation of our auditors. In discussion, C.Quick - can these funds be for architectural soft costs? L.Tilton - would have to talk with the Finance Committee on this, Replacement Reserves is set and in with Residual Receipts. There being no further discussion, President Lester called for the vote. M/S/P (M. Peters/C. Quick) that the Board of Directors accept the 2010-2011 Operating Budget as presented. Unanimous. 12. OLD BUSINESS There was none. 13. OPEN FORUM [Protocol: each speaker has three minutes; if there are subjects not covered in the allowed time, to wait until all others have spoken before resuming your comments. All questions and replies are to be directed to the President.] 1. Jarvis Jones, resident, advised that she is a former H-TEA Board member. She said that there is a need here for a better community room. Something should be done. The space is used for meetings and events. The furniture is old, the floor is bad. The Board should make sure that things are good for the tenants. Something should be done to make the area nicer. President Lester - what did she want? J.Jones - new floors and new furniture and less bulky. President Lester said that she made an excellent point and that it behooves this Board to consider this matter. In discussion, M.Alvarado - when she was HRA President, tables and chairs were bought for the Center; go to places for grants of goods. L. Tilton - the kitchen area was updated a couple of years ago. A. Brown and T. Gourd agreed to look into this. C.Quick - have a committee to take on this project. President Lester asked for volunteers for an ad-hoc committee to do some brain storming and advise this Board of its findings. Anne Brown, Nuria (bars, Tony Gourd, and Jarvis Jones volunteered to form this committee. 14. NEW BUSINESS President Lester advised that we will instigate a new routine - all H-TEA Committee reports are to be sent to the recording secretary at least 9 days prior to a regular business meeting. The reports and the minutes will be sent to all members with lead time to review and prepare comments for the upcoming Board of Directors meeting. 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION -This session is confidential and not to be discussed outside of this meeting Ex. Committee: Keith Lester-c, Charles Quick, Dennis Leary, Barbara Garcia-Romero, Nuria (bars There was no call for an Executive Session. < 4 > 16. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next Board of Directors meeting will be called to order at 7:30 PM on September 13, 2010 in the Community Training & Services Center of The Hilarita Apartments. COURTESY CALL.- Please remember that a quorum is required to proceed on any `action' item. If you will be unable to attend this meeting, please phone President Lester [456-6659] or the Recording Secretary [381-2556], or contact either via e-mail. Thank you. • Absences: Bylaws ARTICLE 6 Section 6.05, with Board discretion, permit no more than three (3) consecutive or four (4) non-consecutive meetings to be missed without justification. 17. CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT President Lester called for adjournment and there being no objections, the meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM. 2010 Board of Directors Meeting Calendar: (second Monday of each month except May and August) • Annual Meeting/Elections -January 11, • February 8, - March 8, • April 12, • regular business meeting & annual walk around -Saturday May 15 at 9:30 AM, • June 14, • July 12, • August - customarily no scheduled meeting, • September 13, • October 11, • November 8, and, • December 13. »»>Reminder: Committee reports are to be sent to the R.S. no later than October 1, 2010 to be included with the Board of Directors meeting minutes distribution prior to the October 11 th meeting. Thank you. H-TEA Recording Secretary - 07/2010 minutes distribution • H-TEA Board of Directors • JSCo approved minutes distribution: • Sponsor Churches: Community, St. Stephen's, Westminster • EAH • Marin Housing Authority • Belvedere City Council • Tiburon Town Council • Loren Sanborn, JSCo • H-TEA Secretary files • HRA files < 5 >