HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-08-26TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of August 22 - 26, 2011
Tiburon
1. Letter - Diane Crane Iacopi - Cancellation of November 8, 2011 Election
2. Letter - Dan Watrous - Comments on Draft EIR for the America's Cup
3. Letter - Dan Watrous - View Issues at 79 Round Hill Road
4. Memo - Town Clerk Crane Iacopi - Prostate Cancer Awareness Month -
September 2011- Draft Proclamation
5. Letter - Patricia Navone - Resignation from Heritage & Arts Commission
6. Invitation - Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation - Dinner -10/1/11
Agendas & Minutes
7. Minutes - Planning Commission - May 25, 2011
8. Minutes - Design Review Board - August 4, 2011
9. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - August 18, 2011
10. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - August 24, 2011
11. Meeting Cancellation - Design Review Board - September 1, 2011
Regional
a) Annual Report - Transportation Authority of Marin - 2010
b) Sierra Club Yodeler - Newsletter - September/October 2011
c) Course Brochures - UC Davis - Land Use & Natural Resources
Agendas & Minutes
d) None
* Council Only
Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
Office of the Town Clerk / 415.735.7377
August 24, 2011
Elaine Ginnold
Registrar of Voters
Civic Center, Room 121
P.O. Box E
San Rafael, CA 94913
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION OF NOVEMBER 8, 2011 ELECTION
. Dear Elaine:
Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 43-2011, adopted on
August 23, 2011, which appoints Dick Collins and Frank X. Doyle to the
Tiburon Town Council.
By adoption of this resolution, the Town Council hereby cancels the
November 8, 2011 municipal election.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very tru your
Diane Crane I i~4
Town Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Board of Supervisors
(w/enclosure)
Jeff Slavtz
Mayor
Jim- Fraser
Vice .Mayor
Richard Collins
Councilmember
Alice Fredericks
Councilrember
Emmett O'Donnell
Councilmember
Margaret A..>Curran
Town Manager
1.
RESOLUTION NO. 43-2011
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICES
OF THIS TOWN THAT WERE TO BE ELECTED ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10229 of the Elections Code of the State of California,
as of the close of the nomination period on August 17, 2011; there were not more candidates than
offices to be elected and that Section 10229 of the Elections Code allows one of the following
courses of action to be taken by the Town Council:
1. Appoint to the office the person who has been nominated.
2. Appoint to the office any eligible voter if no one has been nominated.
3. Hold the election if either no one or only one person has been nominated.
WHEREAS, a notice was posted at Town Hall on August 17, 2011, as well as published
in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town on August 19, 2011, pursuant to law.
NOW THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DELCARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 10229 of the Elections Code of the State of
California, the following action is being taken:
(a) The following persons are being appointed to the offices to which they
were nominated:
NAME OFFICE TERM
Dick Collins. Town Council Member 4 Years (commencing 12/7/11)
Frank X. Doyle Town Council Member 4 Years (commencing 12/7/11)
SECTION 2. The election scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, is now
cancelled.
SECTION 3. The persons appointed shall qualify and take office and serve exactly as if
elected at a municipal election for office.
SECTION 4. The Town Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution
and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
Resolution of Appointment - August 23, 2011 Page I of 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on August
23, 2011.
AYES : COUNCILMEMBERS :
NOES : COUNCILMEMBERS :
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz
None
Collins
s~
ATTEST:
S~
JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR
C E R/I' PY.
TOWN CLE
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Resolution of Appointment - August 23, 2011 Page 2 of 2
Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
Community Development Department
August 24, 2011
c2e
Jeff Slavitz
San Francisco Planning Department
Mayor
Attn: Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Office .
• • • • • •
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
Jim Fraser
San Francisco, CA 94103
V]ce Mavor
RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the America's Cup
Richard Collins
Councilmember
Dear Mr. Wycko:
Alice Fredericks
Councilmember
The Town of Tiburon wishes to provide comments regarding the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) that has been prepared for the 34"' America's Cup races. The Emmert--'Donnell
DEIR does not substantively address the issues raised by the Town in our letter of
Councilmember
March 11, 2011 in response to the Notice of Preparation for this project.
The Town of Tiburon requests that the Final EIR for this project respond to the Margaret A.'Curran
following comments:
Town Manager
1. Traffic Impacts
The DEIR clearly indicates that the project will generate significant traffic and
demand for parking in Tiburon, accounting for a substantial portion of the
5,724 vehicle trips and demand for 2,004 parking spaces estimated for Marin
County as a whole. Impact TR-59 states that "implementation of the AC34
2013 events would result in significant impacts on traffic operations at
secondary viewing areas outside of San Francisco." The mitigation measure for
this impact (Mitigation Measure M-TR-1) calls for the development and
implementation of a "People Plan," but gives no indication as to how such a
plan would address potential impacts in Tiburon. The EIR should more clearly
identify the types of features that might be included in the "People Plan."
Mitigation Measure M-TR-1 should be modified to specifically address the
circulation, parking and bicycle impacts caused by visitors to Tiburon. Efforts
to develop and implement the People Plan must include input from the Town
of Tiburon and other secondary viewing areas outside of San Francisco. The
resulting People Plan must incorporate measures that will materially assist
Tiburon and other cities in dealing with the impacts of the AC34 2013 events.
Where this mitigation measure will result in expense to the Town, the DEIR
should identify methods to offset such costs.
America's Cup DEIR Response Letter
August 24, 2011
Page 2 of 4
The DEIR should estimate the number of vehicle trips generated on Tiburon
Boulevard or the increase in bicycle ridership coming to Tiburon. The DEIR
should also address the lack of bicycle parking spaces and ferry service
availability to accommodate transportation of the cyclists and their bicycles
back to San Francisco.
2. Public Services
The Town of Tiburon disagrees with the unrealistically high significance
standards established to gauge impacts on public services contained in the
DEIR. The analysis within the DEIR concludes that the project will not have a
potentially significant impact related to public services unless it results in
construction of new or physically altered facilities. This inappropriate
threshold of significance greatly underestimates the burden placed on local
police, fire and public works departments to provide services to the visitors
generated by the AC34 2013 events. The Town anticipates substantial
additional public expense to accommodate AC34 physical impacts such as
those described above. This analysis must be expanded to more thoroughly
estimate all public service activities affected by the project and not be limited
to the need for new or altered public facilities.
The analysis should include impacts on the following public services:
a. Police. The EIR should include an analysis of the impacts to the
Town's police services, including whether additional police staffing is
necessary to support an increase in visitors coming to Tiburon
(including Angel Island, which lies within the Tiburon town limits)
resulting from the America's Cup races. Appropriate mitigation
measures should be incorporated into the EIR where necessary to
reduce any police services impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Where such mitigation measures will result in expense to the Town, the
DEIR should identify methods to offset such costs.
b. Fire. The Tiburon Fire Protection District and Southern Marin Fire
Protection District provide fire protection services to the Town. The
EIR should include an analysis of what additional fire protection or
EMT/paramedic services may be needed to support visitors coming to
Tiburon for the America's Cup races, and identify any mitigation
measures to reduce indentified impacts. Where such mitigation
measures will result in expense to the Town, the DEIR should identify
methods to offset such costs.
C. Public Works. The Town Department of Public Works is responsible
for the maintenance and management of the Town's infrastructure,
America's Cup DEIR Response Letter
August 24, 2011
Page 3 of 4
including without limitation, streets, sidewalks, parks and open spaces
The EIR should include an analysis of potential impacts to these
facilities, such as Shoreline Park, or staffing needs that could occur due
to an increase in visitors as a result of the America's Cup races, and
identify any mitigation measures to reduce indentified impacts. Where
such mitigation measures will result in expense to the Town, the DEIR
should identify methods to offset such costs.
d. Public Restroom Facilities. The Town of Tiburon has limited public
restroom facilities in its Downtown area where most America's Cup
visitors to Tiburon would be expected to congregate. The Town may
need to rent and locate temporary restroom facilities to accommodate
this need. The EIR should address this issue, and if it finds that existing
public restroom facilities will not be able to accommodate these
visitors, then the Town requests identification of appropriate mitigation
measures to address the additional demand for public restroom `
facilities, including funding sources.
e. Refuse. The EIR should include an analysis of how much refuse will be
generated by visitors and how the refuse removal will be managed. The
Town may need to contract for additional refuse collection services
with Mill Valley Refuse Service to handle the additional refuse
generated in public portions of Tiburon. Mitigation measures should be
identified to address any identified impacts regarding refuse collection
and/or disposal. Where such mitigation measures will result in expense
to the Town, the DEIR should identify methods to offset such costs.
f. Buses and Ferries. The EIR should include an analysis of the impacts of
additional visitors coming to Tiburon utilizing public transportation
services such as buses and ferries, and determine whether those public
services will have the capacity to serve the increase in riders. The EIR
should include an analysis of potential impacts from increased bus and
ferry scheduled arrival and departure times if those are indeed
anticipated.
g. Angel Island Improvements. Angel Island State Park is located within
the Tiburon town limits. Any construction of viewing stands or other
improvements to facilitate this viewing location must be addressed in
the EIR.
h. Watercraft Mooring and Safety. There are limited available locations
around the Tiburon harbor for mooring additional watercraft. The EIR
should address water safety concerns from the increased usage of the
waterways around Tiburon and Belvedere and the need for additional
law enforcement to patrol these waters.
America's Cup DEIR Response Letter
August 24, 2011
Page 4 of 4
i. Cost Offsets. The EIR should discuss whether the agreement between
the project proponents and the City of San Francisco includes
provisions to offset costs that would be borne by other municipalities,
including the Town of Tiburon.
3. Reliance on Future Plans to be Prepared
The use of Mitigation Measure M-TR-1 to develop and implement a "People
Plan" relies on a plan to be prepared in the future instead of a mitigation
measure that will be thoroughly developed as part of the EIR. The EIR also
does not set quantitative standards to be achieved that would reduce impacts
and contains mitigation measures that rely on the preparation of other future
plans, including waste and air traffic plans, waste management plans and a
public safety plan. This reliance on future plans is inconsistent with CEQA
guidelines for preparation of an EIR. When an EIR defers the development of
specific mitigation measures, CEQA requires an explanation of why deferral is
appropriate.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR. If you have any
questions, please contact me by telephone at (415) 435-7393 or via e-mail at
dwatrous(cr~ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Very truly yours,
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
S: WlanningOaff Folders WivatrouslLettersl4mericas Cup DEIR.letter.doc
DiGEST
Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • wwwci.tiburon.ca.us
Community Development Department
August 23, 2011
• s
Charles and Dale Sofhas
75 Round Hill Road
Jeff Slavitz
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor
RE: View Issues at 79 Round Hill Road
Fraser
Jim
Vice Mayor
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sofnas:
Richard Collins
Counci-IM ember
Town Manager Peggy Curran has asked me to respond to your letter of August 17, 2011,
addressed to the Tiburon Town Council, regarding the view issues between you and the
Alice' Fredericks
owners of the property at 79 Round Hill Road. The Town of Tiburon was able to require that
Councilmember
the owner of the neighboring home remove vegetation that was inconsistent with the approved
• .
landscaping plan during the period prior to final approval of the building permit for that house
Emmett O'Donnell
in 2008.
Councilmember
As you note, in 2009 Director of Community Development Scott Anderson intervened on a
complaint regarding shrubbery on your neighbor's property. At that time, Mr. Anderson
consulted with the propertyowner and was unable to determine whether the shrubs had been
Margaret A Curran
planted before or after the final building approval for the house. Since there was some reason
Town Manager
to believe that the shrubs might have been planted prior to final approval of the building
permit for that house, the Town was able to intervene in a question of compliance with the
approved plans for that property. At that time, the property owner voluntarily removed the
shrubs in question.
The shrubs you now mention were clearly planted after final building approval of the house in
2008. As I have stated previously, the Town has no authority to require further compliance
with the approved landscaping plan for any vegetation planted after the final building
approval. Thereafter, the property owner has the right to plant vegetation without review or
approval by the Town unless the vegetation meets the definition of "undesirable tree" within
the Tiburon Tree Ordinance.
Unless you are able to provide proof that the planted vegetation meets this definition, the
Town cannot intervene regarding vegetation planted after the final building approval and you
must follow the procedures within the Tiburon View Ordinance to resolve this matter. If you
provide such proof, the Town will require that the owner either remove the trees or obtain a
tree permit to keep the trees.
If you have any other questions about the Town's Tree or View Ordinances, please contact me
at (415) 435-7393.
Sincerely,
aniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
cc: Mayor and Town Council
Community Development Director Scott Anderson
S: WlanninglStaff Folders Wi vatrous lLe tiers l79 Round Hill Road4.doc
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
DIGEST s~
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 24, 2011
To: Mayor and Town Councilmembers
From: Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
Subject: Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, September 2011
Town Staff was recently contacted by Chris Morrison, who last year made a presentation
to the Council about Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. This year Mr. Morrison has asked the
Council (Mayor Slavitz) to sign a similar proclamation supporting increased awareness and
screening for this disease.
Mr. Morrison has provided background information and materials to the Town for its
review. Town staff has prepared the attached proclamation forth Mayor's signature.
Diane Crane I opi
Town Clerk
Attachment
TOWN OF TIBURON
PROCLAMATION
for
PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
SEPTEMBER 2011
WHEREAS, prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in
men after slain caner, and the second most common cause of cancer death in men
after lung cancer;
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Society estimates 1 in 6 men will
develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and that there will be over 240,000 new
cases of the disease in the USA in 2011, which may result in over 33,000 deaths;
WHEREAS, in California, prostate cancer is the most common cancer
among men in almost all race and ethnic groups;
WHEREAS, the survival rate approaches 100% when prostate cancer is
diagnosed and treated early, but drops to 30% when it spreads to other parts of the
body;
WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society recommends that men should
have an opportunity to have a discussion with their health care provider in order to
make an informed decision about early detection and testing for prostate cancer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Tiburon
joins other communities across the nation to help increase awareness about prostate
cancer and the importance of screening for this disease,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Tiburon proclaims
September 2011 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the Town of Tiburon.
JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dated: September 1, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Subject: Prostate Cancer Proclamation
Dear Prostate Cancer Advocates:
As you know, September is National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Obtaining Prostate Cancer
Proclamations from government bodies is an annual education and advocacy project. At one of our previous
meetings, you expressed an interest in obtaining a Proclamation from your local government body. Please see
the 1St attachment for a list volunteers for this project.
Governor staffers need lead time in order to schedule a Proclamation for their meeting agenda. Now may be the
best time to contact your government staffer to schedule a Proclamation presentation for late August or early
September
The 2"d attachment is our proposed Prostate Cancer Proclamation. This one-page attachment is in MS Word 97-
2003 format. Therefore, it is easy for government staff members to copy/paste and edit onto their own
Proclamation forms. The attached Proclamation is a suggested document. Please feel free to draft your own
Proclamation and submit it to your local government body.
The 3rd attachment is our 14-page report, which provides all of the background material and justification for each
statement in our proposed Proclamation. All of the prostate cancer information in this report is from the American
Cancer Society's documents Cancer Facts & Figures 2011.
Our past experience has found that the 2"d and 3rd attachments have been very well received by staff members.
j We would appreciate receiving any comments or suggestions you receive from staffers, or that you my offer,
regarding the attachments.
After you have made contact with your selected staff member, please let me know the government body you have
chosen to work with and the date the Proclamation will be issued. Please contact me by phone or email if you
have any questions. (916) 772-2222
Thank you for your support in this annual Proclamation project for Prostate Cancer Awareness.
Best regards,
Bill Doss
California Prostate Cancer Coalition
Monday, August 08, 2011 AOL: Arkrow
Proposed Proclamation
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month - September 2011
This is a Proclamation to designate September 2011 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
1 WHEREAS, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men, and the second most
cause of cancer death in men, exceeded only by lung cancer deaths; and
I
2 WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society estimates 1 in 6 men will develop prostate cancer
in their lifetime and it is estimated there will be 240,890 new cases of the disease in the USA in
2011, resulting in an estimated 33,720 deaths; and
3 WHEREAS, in California, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in almost
all race and ethnic groups and African-American men are over 33% more likely to develop this
disease than non-Hispanic white men and over 46% more likely than Hispanic men; and
4 WHEREAS, it is estimated 25,030 men in California will be diagnosed with prostate cancer
this year and it is estimated 4,330 California men will die from this disease; and
5 WHEREAS, the survival rate approaches 100% when prostate cancer is diagnosed and
treated early, but drops to 30% when it spreads to the other parts of the body; and
6 WHEREAS, early prostate cancer usually has no symptoms and familial predisposition may
be responsible for 5% to 10% of the disease cases; and
7 WHEREAS, recent studies suggest that a diet high in processed meat or dairy foods may be
a risk factor, and obesity appears to increase risk of aggressive prostate cancer; and
8 WHEREAS, obesity and smoking are associated with an increased risk of dying from
prostate cancer; and
9 WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society recommends that men should have an
opportunity to have a discussion with their health care provider in order to make an informed
decision about early detection and testing for prostate cancer; and
10 WHEREAS, the (name of issuing governing body) joins communities across our nation to
increase the awareness about the importance for men to make an informed decision with their health
care provider about early detection and testing for prostate cancer, and now, therefore be it
11 RESOLVED, that the (name of issuing government body) designate September 2011 as
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
file: Proposed Proclamation, 2011 - B
Proposed Proclamation
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month - September 2011
Table of Contents
Page Subject
1. Table of Contents
2. Discussion
3. Proposed Proclamation
4. Reference: ACS Cancer Facts & Figures 2011, page 5
5. Reference: ACS Cancer Facts & Figures 2011, page 6
6. Reference: ACS Cancer Facts & Figures 2010, page 14
7. Reference: ACS Cancer Facts & Figures 2011, page 17
8. Reference: ACS Cancer Facts & Figures 2010, page 19
9. Reference: ACS Cancer Facts & Figures 2010, page 20
10. Reference: California Cancer Facts & Figures 2011, page 16
11. White House Prostate Cancer Awareness Proclamation
12. U.S. Senate Prostate Cancer Awareness Resolution
13. California Governor's Prostate Cancer Awareness Proclamation
14. California Senate & Assembly Prostate Cancer Awareness Resolution
The American Cancer Society document Cancer Facts & Figures 2011 can be
found on the ACS website: www.cancer.org. In the Search box, type Cancer Facts
& Figures 2011. The entire 58-page document is available in a PDF format.
The California Cancer Facts & Figures 2011 document can be found on the AC S
website. In the Search box, type California Cancer Facts & Figures 2011. The
entire 37-page document is available in a PDF format.
Prepared by
Bill Doss
California Prostate Cancer Coalition
4909 Moonshadow Court
Rocklin, CA 95677
916-772-2222
wdoss(ksurewest.net
v
www.prostatecalif.org
File: 1 - Table of Contents
113
Proposed Proclamation
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month September 2011
Discussion
The purpose of this report is to assist issuing a Proclamation designating September 2011 as
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. In this report, the word "Resolution" may be substituted
for the word "Proclamation" as required by the issuing government body. The proposed
Proclamation on page 3 is in keeping with the national historical practice of recognizing the
month of September as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
Each year, the President of the United States, The United States Senate, and the Governors of
many States issue Proclamations declaring September as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
Many counties and cities across the country also recognize Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
in September by issuing their own Proclamations.
Today there are more than 2.3 million men alive in the USA with a history of prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in men today, second only to skin cancer.
After lung cancer, prostate cancer is also the number one cause of cancer death in men.
The American Cancer Society estimates that 1 in 6 men will develop prostate cancer in their
lifetime. Men have a 27% higher rate of developing prostate cancer than women have of
developing breast cancer. In the average American family, the husband is more at risk of
developing prostate cancer than the wife is of developing breast cancer. In the USA, men
also have a higher death rate from prostate cancer than women have from breast cancer.
Every 15 minutes, 24/7, an American man dies from prostate cancer. The early stages of
prostate cancer usually show no symptoms and there are no self-tests. Early detection is the
key to prostate cancer survival. The 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 100% if the
disease is treated early. The 5-year survival rate drops to 30% if the cancer has metastasized.
In California, prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer among men in almost all
race/ethic groups. More men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in California than any other
state. California also has the highest number of deaths from this disease. It is estimated that
this year in the state, 25,030 men will be diagnosed and 4,330 men will die from this disease.
The proposed Proclamation on the next page was prepared using the references listed in this
report. All of the references in this report are from 2011 American Cancer Society sources.
There is a page number in parenthesis after each WHEREAS. This page number refers to the
location in this report for the source of the WHEREAS. Information on each reference page
has been underlined to assist the reader identify the source for each WHEREAS.
Copies of last year's Prostate Cancer Awareness Proclamations from the White House,
US Senate, California Governor, and California Senate, are provided at the end of this report
for the reader to review the format and phrasing used in other Proclamations.
file: 2 - Discussion
2
Proposed Proclamation
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month September 2011
This is a Proclamation to designate September 2011 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
1 WHEREAS, prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men, and the second most
cause of cancer death in men, exceeded only by lung cancer deaths; and (page 8)
t
2 WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society estimates 1 in 6 men will develop prostate cancer
in their lifetime and it is estimated there will be 240,890 new cases of the disease in the USA in
2011, resulting in an estimated 33,720 deaths; and (pages 6, 8)
3 WHEREAS, in California, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in almost
all race and ethnic groups and African-American men are over 33% more likely to develop this
disease than non-Hispanic white men and over 46% more likely than Hispanic men; and (page 10)
4 WHEREAS, it is estimated 25,030 men in California will be diagnosed with prostate cancer
this year and it is estimated 4,330 California men will die from this disease; and (pages 4, 5)
5 WHEREAS, the survival rate approaches 100% when prostate cancer is diagnosed and
treated early, but drops to 30% when it spreads to the other parts of the body; and (page 7)
6 WHEREAS, early prostate cancer usually has no symptoms and familial predisposition may
be responsible for 5% to 10% of the disease cases; and (page 8)
7 WHEREAS, recent studies suggest that a diet high in processed meat or dairy foods may be
a risk factor, and obesity appears to increase risk of aggressive prostate cancer; and (page 8)
8 WHEREAS, obesity and smoking are associated with an increased risk of dying from
prostate cancer; and (page 9)
9 WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society recommends that men should have an
opportunity to have a discussion with their health care provider in order to make an informed
decision about early detection and testing for prostate cancer; and (page 9)
10 WHEREAS, the (name of issuing governing body) joins communities across our nation to
increase the awareness about the importance for men to make an informed decision with their health
care provider about early detection and testing for prostate cancer, and now, therefore be it
11 RESOLVED, that the (name of issuing government body) designate September 2011 as
Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
file: 3 - Proposed Proclamation
Estimated New Cancer Cases for Select Sites by State. US. 2011 *
Meieno
0 Men-
Fu u&
Uterine
colon &
iliprino
Lung &
of die
"My
Stele
All Sites
Breast
Cer Ax
&Kum
Corpus Levl mWm Brondtus
Wn
1.! eMddw
Alabama
25,530
3,700
210
2,310
550
590
4.240
1,260
960
3.680
930
Alaska
3,090
460
t
260
80
80
380
90
130
490
130
Arizona
31,550
4,240
220
2,620
800
780
3.820
1,330
1,220
4,660
1.530
Arkansas
16,070
2.100
130
1,550
370
420
2,660
500
650
2,400
650
California
163,480
25,510
1,520
13,880
4,730
4.760
17,660
8.250
7,070
25,030
6,810
C ado
22,390
3,390
160
1,780
600
710
2,250
1,130
970
3,920
960
Connecticut
21,440
3,280
110
1,680
700
520
2.680
1.060
880
3.300
1.050
Delaware
5.130
810
t
430
150
120
780
240
200
840
230
Dist, of Columbia
2,830
500
t
240
80
70
360
70
100
580
90
Florida
113,400
15.330
900
10.180
2,960
3,440
17,150
5,260
4,720
16,780
5,490
Georgia
44,580
7,030
410
3,940
1.120
1.130
6.410
2,120
1,670
7,360
1.460
Hawaii
6.710
1,040
50
670
230
170
780
340
230
850
230
Idaho
7,520
1,030
50
620
210
240
870
340
310
1.320
350
minis
65,610
9,510
570
6,240
2,050
1,870
9,210
2,340
2,640
9,340
2,910
Indiana
34,050
4,760
260
3.290
1.010
970
5.520
1.410
1.390
4.580
1.440
Iowa
17,500
2,120
100
1.670
560
580
2,480
890
770
2,590
810
Kansas
14,070
1.890
90
1,300
440
430
1.990
710
620
1.870
580
Kentucky
25,010
3,470
210
2,420
690
650
4.860
1,510
1,040
3,220
1,020
Louisiana
22,780
2,940
220
2.220
470
620
3.630
630
930
3.640
870
Maine
8,820
1.280
50
770
300
260
1,400
400
370
1,240
5W
Maryland
28.890
4.850
230
2.470
900
700
3.960
1,330
1.130
5.060
1,150
Massaidhusetts
37.470
5,640
200
3,000
1,210
970
4,970
1,740
1.550
5,470
1,870
Michigan
57.010
7,890
360
4,800
1.810
1.630
8.140
2.470
2,330
8,940
2,680
Minnesota
27,600
3.380
130
2.110
820
820
3,340
880
1,140
4,370
1,100
Mississippi
14.990
2.170
150
1.520
320
370
2.430
500
550
2.150
520
Missouri
32,740
4.100
230
3,150
960
880
5,470
1,310
1,300
4,230
1,370
Montana
5.690
760
t
480
150
170
750
190
240
1,020
280
Nebraska
9,430
1,240
50
930
310
290
1,270
430
430
1,290
410
Nevada
12.800
1,420
110
1.080
290
290
1.510
410
440
1.850
540
New Hampshire
8.210
1,190
t
650
260
210
1,110
410
330
1,200
410
New Jersey
49.080
7.360
430
4,290
1.630
1.360
6.210
2.430
2.140
7,840
2,390
New Mexico
9,630
1,310
80
820
240
320
980
400
370
1,420
360
New York
107.260
15.710
960
9,480
3.670
3,070
14.200
3.750
4.650
15.950
5.150
North Carolina
48,870
7,390
380
4,200
1,280
1,230
7.300
2,300
1,930
7,580
1,900
North Dakota
3,560
430
t
340
100
100
420
130
150
600
170
Ohio
65,060
8,970
480
5,850
2,080
1,690
10.060
2,620
2,660
9,190
2.890
Oklahoma
18.980
2.680
170
1.800
480
590
3.170
690
850
2,730
760
Oregon
21,180
3,360
130
1,730
630
560
2.860
1,230
940
3,250
1,020
Pennsylvania
78,030
10,570
540
7.360
2.620
2.090
10,900
3.240
3.340
11,500
3,920
Rhode Wand
6,090
930
t
510
200
160
880
270
250
880
320
South Carolina
25510
3.710
200
2.100
650
640
3.900
1,200
960
4.M
950
South Dakota
4,430
590
t
460
130
140
580
180
190
670
220
Tennessee
34,750
5,020
280
3.170
850
930
5,870
1,810
1,410
4.850
1,350
Texas
105,000
15,070
1,230
9,560
2,670
3,280
13,880
3,970
4,520
15,630
3,670
Utah
10.530
1.380
70
760
300
320
630
600
440
1.890
400
Vermont
3,950
590
t
320
130
100
530
210
160
610
190
Virginia
38.720
6.480
300
3.420
1.150
940
5.670
1.920
1.520
6,420
1,500
Washwngton
35.360
5,630
230
2,720
1,060
1,060
4,540
2,000
1,610
5,470
1.640
West Virginia
11,080
1,510
80
1.140
360
300
2.080
480
480
1,510
510
Wisconsin
30,530
4,430
190
2,690
1,060
960
4,020
1,160
1,390
4,900
1,450
Wyoming
2,680
360
t
230
70
70
310
110
120
490
130
United States
1,596,670
230,480
12,710
141,210
46,470
44,600
221,130
70.230
66,360
240,890
69,250
'Rounded to nearest 10. Excludes basal and squamous cd skin cancers and in situ ardnorana except urinary
bladder t Estimate a fewer than 50 cases.
Nu ft7hese esdinatesare offered
as a rough guide and shads be interpreted wAh ca
toon. State estnnatxs may not sum to
US total due to rounding and ewdusion
of state estimates fewer than 50 cases.
02011. American Cancer Society, kw-. Surve4wKe Research
Cancer facts & figures 2011 5
4
Estimated Cancer Deaths for Select Sites by State. US. 2011 *
B raw
Noo-
NWvot+s
FMOM a
calm i
Lung i
Hodgkin
stow
AN Sinn=
sysam
Brost
Rectum
Lauimrmis
Lhrer
9rondws Lywwham Ovary P
anama
Alabama
10,210
210
700
930
350
320
3,210
310
290
600
710
Alaska
910
t
70
80
t
t
250
t
t
60
t
Arizona
10,820
290
760
1,020
420
400
2,660
340
330
690
640
Arkansas
6.460
140
440
580
240
210
2,030
190
150
440
330
California
56,030
1,480
3,980
4,780
2,200
2.700
12,450
2,050
1,630
4.010
4330
Colorado,
6.980
210
500
650
300
240
1.690
290
240
480
430
Connecticut
6.800
150
480
500
260
220
1.750
220
190
550
460
Delaware
1,930
t
120
160
60
60
590
So
50
120
110
Dist of Columbia
920
t
so
90
t
t
210
t
t
70
So
Florida
40.980
790
2.690
3,370
1,70
1.410
11,460
1,310
1,020
2.610
2.160
Georgia
15.860
330
1.120
1,420
560
450
4.670
500
440
980
1.080
Hawaii
2,370
t
140
220
80
1204
580
90
60
180
140
Idaho
2.570
90
160
210
120
70
630
90
70
200
210
Illinois
23,140
470
1.830
2,190
900
710
6.420
680
640
1,610
1.310
Indiana
12.960
340
870
1.090
520
350
4,020
420
350
810
690
Iowa
6,390
160
380
600
300
170
1.770
290
190
390
410
Kansas
5,370
140
370
480
300
150
1,600
190
150
340
290
Kentucky
9.750
190
590
850
320
250
3.420
300
220
550
410
Louisiana
8.360
210
610
900
300
360
2,480
270
220
540
480
Maine
3.180
So
170
260
110
90
960
80
80
200
170
Maryland
10.240
210
800
920
390
380
2,720
300
270
710
770
Massachusetts
12.910.
270
760
980
470
460
3,490
360
370
940
640
Michigan
20,770
510
1.320
1,670
820
610
5,830
660
560
1.360
1.150
Minnesota
9.240
230
610
750
390
290
2,470
310
250
610
460
Mississippi
6.060
150
400
620
220
200
2.010
190
150
360
360
Missouri
12,700
280
870
1,060
510
390
3,970
450
300
830
540
Montana
2,000
60
110
170
90
so
570
80
60
120
140
Nebraska
3.510
90
200
350
140
90
900
140
90
200
280
Nevada
4,740
120
330
540
100
190
1,290
ISO
120
320
310
New Hampshire
2.690
70
190
200
100
So
770
60
60
200
160
New Jersey
16,370
330
1,260
1,510
610
470
4,160
630
470
1,140
1,100
New Mexico
3.460
80
240
340
120
160
800
120
90
230
270
New York
34.350
810
2,450
2.890
1,350
1,310
8,580
1,470
1,000
2.470
1.770
North Carolina
19.760
340
1.390
1.480
660
520
5.770
550
460
1.200
990
North Oakata
1,280
t
so
110
so
t
310
t
t
100
So
Ohio
24,900
540
1,730
2,170
910
700
7.210
830
600
1,550
1.260
01dahoma
7.780
170
530
690
290
230
2,390
280
180
400
350
Oregon
7,550
210
490
700
280
240
2,110
320
240
540
470
Pennsylvania
28.560
540
1,970
2.440
1.080
870
7.960
1.090
800
2,070
1.920
Rhode Wand
2,150
50
120
140
90
so
590
50
60
140
so
South Car irm
9,310
200
660
740
330
280
2,910
300
260
570
550
South Dakota
1.680
t
100
150
70
50
450
80
50
110
120
Tennessee
13,790
340
890
1,170
490
390
4,570
470
330
770
750
Texas
36,770
830
2.620
3,230
1,410
1.730
9.560
1,060
950
2.260
2.060
Utah
2,880
100
260
250
140
so
490
100
90
200
230
Vermont
1,290
t
100
110
60
t
360
t
t
80
60
Ynr*"
14.340
300
1.140
1.270
500
430
4.100
440
410
950
780
Washington
11,740
380
800
960
490
460
3,090
430
370
790
760
West Virginia
4,680
100
270
420
140
120
1,480
190
120
220
120
Wisconsin
11,440
260
690
860
480
340
2,940
390
330
730
600
Wyoming
1.020
t
60
110
t
t
260
so
t
70
60
United States
571,950
13.110
39.520
49.380
21,780
19,590
156,940
19,320
15.460
37,660
33.720
`Rounded to nearest 10. tEsdnmKe
is fewer than 5o deader.
NsMC State estimates may not add to US total due to rounding and emkoion of state
estinwes fewer than SO deaths.
Saw= US Mortality Data. 1969 to
2007, National Center for Heahh Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
02011, American Cancer Society, Inc., Surveillance Research
6 Cancer Facts & Figures 2011
E . 5
Probability
of Develo
ping Invasive Cancers over Selected Age Intervals by Sex. US, 2005-2007*
Birth to 39
40 ar 59
60 to 69
70 and older
Birth to Death
AM sites'
Male
1.44 (1 in 69)
8.50 (1 in 12)
15.71 (1 in 6)
3795 (1 in 3)
44.29 (1 in 2)
Female
2.12 (1 in 47)
9.01 (1 in 11)
10.22 0 in 10)
26.49 0 in 4)
37.76 (1 in 3)
Urinary
Male
0.02 (1 in 4,693)
038 (1 in 262)
093 (1 in 107)
3.67 (1 in 27)
3.80 (1 in 26)
bladder'
Female
0.01 (1 in 12,116)
0.12 (1 in 836)
0.26 (1 in 390)
0.98 (1 in 102)
1.16 (1 in 87)
Breast
Female
0.48 (1 in 207)
3.75 (1 in 27)
3.45 (1 in 29)
6.53 (1 in 15)
12.15 (1 in 8)
Clan &
Male
0.08 0 in 1,270)
091 (1 in 110)
1.46 (1 in 69)
4.38 (1 in 23)
5.30 (1 in 19)
rectum
Female
0.08 (1 in 1.272)
0.72 (1 in 138)
1.05 (1 in 95)
4.00 (1 in 25)
4.97 (1 in 20)
Leukemia
Male
0.17 (1 in 598)
0.22 (1 in 462)
0.33 (1 in 302)
1.20 (1 in 83)
1.52 (1 in 66)
Female
0.13 (1 in 759)
0.15 (1 in 688)
0.20 (1 in 494)
0.78 (1 in 128)
1.10 (1 in 91)
Lung &
Male
0.03 0 in 3,646)
093 0 in 108)
2.29 (1 in 44)
6.70 (1 in 15)
7.67 0 in 13)
bronchus
Female
0.03 (1 in 3,185)
0.77 0 in 130)
1.74 (1 in 57)
490 (1 in 20)
635 0 in 16)
Melanoma
Male
0.15 (1 in 656)
0.64 (1 in 157)
0.74 (1 in 136)
1.85 (1 in 54)
2.73 0 in 37)
of the skins
Female
0.28 (1 in 353)
0.55 (1 in 181)
'037 (1 in 267)
0.81 (1 in 123)
1.82 (1 in 55)
Non-Hodgkin
Male
0.13 (1 in 782)
0.44 (1 in 226)
0.60 0 in 168)
1.73 0 in 58)
2.30 (1 in 43)
kwohoma
Female
0.08 (1 in 1.179)
031 (1 in 318)
0.44 (1 in 229)
1.39 (1 in 72)
1.92 (1 in 52)
Male
0.01 (1 in 8,517)
2.52 (1 in 40)
6.62 (1 in 15)
12.60 0 in 8)
16.22 1 in 6
Uterine cervix
Female
0.15 (1 in 656)
0.27 (1 in 377)
0.13 (1 in 762)
0.18 (1 in 544)
0.68 (1 in 147)
Uterine corpus
Female
0.07 (1 in 1.423)
0.75 (1 in 134)
0.85 (1 in 117)
1.24 (1 in 81)
2.58 (1 in 39)
* For people free of cancer at beginning of aye interval. Fleroerrtayes and '1 in- rwmbers may not be equivalent due to
rounding. tAI sites exdudes basal and squamous
cd skin cancers and in situ cancers except winary bladder. s Includes invasive and in ift
cancer cases. S Stadsbc a for whiles only.
Senor DevCan_
Pmbabity of Devehovg or QpV of Cancer Software, lMsion 6.5.0. statistical Research and AppCcaboes Branch: National Cancer Institute. 2010.
srab.cancergoddevcan.
02011. American Cancer Sodety. inc.. Swverdence Nesearth
ITTLV4 infection is geographicallylocalized and is most c onunon
in xorntheirn )cram and the CarWhxmn; infected individualx in the
US tend to be descendants or immigrants from endemic regions.
Early cleetectiosi: Leukemia can be difficult to diagnose early
because symptoms often resemble those of other, less serious
cwiditions. When a physician does suspect leukemia, diagnosis
can be made using blood tests and a bone marrow biopsy.
Tree= P I: Chemotherapy is the most effective method of
treating leukemia. Various anticancer drugs arc used. tither in
manhinsticm or an single agents, Tmetiinib (Geevec), nihrtinih
(Tasignal and dasatirib (Sprycel) am very effective targeted
dru®s for the treatment of CML These drugs are also aonsetimes
used to treat a certain type of ALL Recent clinical trials have
shown that adults with AML who are treated with twice the
conventional dose of daunDtrubicin experience higher and more
rapid rates of remission. Antibiotics and transfusions of blood
comTionents are used as supportive treatments. Under appropriate
conditions, stem cell transplantation may be useful in treating
certain types of leukemia.
Survival: Survival rates vary substantially by leukemia type,
ranging (mm a 5-year relative survival of 24% for patients diag-
nosed with AML to 80% for those with CLL. Advances in
treatment haft resulted in a dramatic i>tiproveinerrt in survival
over the past three decades for most types of leukemia. From
1975-1977 to 1999-2006, the 5 -year relative survival rate for ALL
increased from 42% to 66% overall and from 58% to 89% among
14 Cancer Facts & Figures 2011
children. in large part due to the discovery of the targeted cancer
drug Gleevec, 5--bear xurvival mates for CML have increased fmm
33% for cases diagnosed during 1990-1992 to 55% Eor those diag-
nosed during 1999-2006.
Uver
Now Cases: An estimated 26,190 new cases of liver cancer
(including intrahepatic hile duct cancers) are expected to occur
in the US during 2011. More than 80% of these cases are hepato-
cdalar carcinoma 0=C originating from hepatocytes. the
pr+eduuiinant type of cell in the liver. The incidence ufliver cancer
has been incrcasingby 3.4%peryear in men and by3.OX per yew
in vAwnen since 1992. Tin contract to most corner on cancer sites,
incidence rates are highest among Asian Arnerkmu/Pacific
Islanders and Hispanics.
Dmtes: An estimated 19,590 liver cancer deaths (6,330 women,
13,260 men) are expected in 2011. Since 1998, death rates for
liver cancer have increased by 2.1% per year in men and by 1.3%
per year in women. Incidence and mortality rates are more than
twice as high in men as in women.
SiW and symptmm Common symptoms include abdominal
pain and/or swelling. weight loss, weakness. loss of appetite.
jaundice (a yellowish discoloration of the akin and eyes), and
fever. Enlargement of the liver is the must exummon physical sign,
occurring in 50%-90% of patients.
n
Five-year Relative Survival Rates* by Stage at Diagnosis. 1999-2006
IMMEN AN Stages Local Regional Distant AN Stages Local Regional Distant
Breast (female) 89 9o 84 23 Ovary 46 94 73 28
Colon A rectum 65 90 70 12 Pancreas 6 23 9 2
Esophagus 17 37 19 3 Prostate 99 MM& 100 MIA"
Kidney' 69 90 63 11 Stoma 26 63 27 3
Larynx 61 78 42 33 Testis 95 99 96 72
Liver' 14 26 9 3 Thyroid 97 100 97 se
lung & bronchus 16 S3 24 4 Urinary bladder 79 73 36 6
Melanoma of the skin 91 98 62 16 Uterine cervix 70 91 58 17
Oral cavity & pharynx 61 83 55 32 Uterine corpus 83 96 68 17
* Rates are adjusted for normal We expectancy and are based on cases diagnased in the SEER 17 areas from 1999-2006. followed through 2007.
t Includes renal pekFiL * induces intrahepatic bile duct
Croak an inwsm malignant cancer confined entimly to the organ of origim aa,0oee.t a malignant canner that t) has mended beyad the limits of the organ of origin
directly iota sunoundirrg organs or tissues; 2) awoMes mgkmal lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system; or 3) has both regional a twdk n and invoWment of regional
lymph node& n~ a mAWmt cancer that has spread to parts of the body remoto hom tie primary tumor eidw by d red extension or by discontinuous metastasis
to distant orgam tissues. or via the lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes.
Swcoc Altelause SF Kosary CL. Krapdro M, at al. sleds). Sal Cancer Antiom Rterim 1975-2007. National Cancer lnsiftute, Bethesda. MD.
www.seer cancer goWtsr11975_2007/. 2010.
02011. American Cancer Society. Inc, Surveillance Research
Dew An esdinsW 7.900 deaths horn oral cavity and pharynx
c~uecer are expected in 2M 1. Death rates have been decreasing
continuously in both men and women over the past three
decades.
Signs mod syngptwo : Symptoms may include a sore in the
throat or month that bleeds easily and does not head, a red or
white patch that pers"a lamp or thi kwung. ear pain, a next
mass. or coughing up blood. Difficulties in chewing swallowing.
or turning the tongue or jaws are often late symptoms.
Risk hm tmrs; Known risk factors include all kirms of smoked
and smokeless tobacco products and escewive cona~umption of
alcohol. Many studies have reported a synergism between smok-
ing and alcohol use. resulting in a more than 30 fold increased
risk for individuals who both smoke and drink heavily. HPV
infection is anwdated with cancers of the ten Al, have of tongue,
and mm other sites mrithin the (m
Early detedJ an: Cancer can affect any part of the oral cavity,
including the lip, tongue, mouth, and throat. Through visual
inspection, dentists and primary care physicians can often
detect premaiignant abnormalities and canc.-er at an early stage,
when they are most curable.
Tre bomb Radian ni therapy and si ryery, se pavtely or in
combination, are standard treatments. In advanced disease,
chemotherapy is added to surgery and/or radiation. Targeted
therapy with cetuximab (Erbitux) may be combined with radia-
tion in initial treatment or used alone to treat recurrent cancer.
Sarvt. s For all amp combined, about 84% of persons with
oral cavity and pharynx cancan survive I year after di4Wa3iS.
Tho 5-yeah and 10-year relative survival rates are 61% and 51%,
ivel7
Ovary
Newesses: An eshmated 21,9W newcases ofovanan cancer are
expected in the US in 2011- Ovarian cancer accounta 6Dr about
3% of all cancers among women. Incidence has been declining
by LO% per year since 1992
Dead= An esU mated 15,460 deaths are expected in 2011. Ovarian
cancer causes more deaths than any other canner of the female
reproductive system. Death rates for ovarian cancer have been
ding by 1.7% per year since 2002.
Signs a" symptoaeas: Early ovarian cancer usindly has no
obvi = syeophmis, although women with ea dy stage disease
ly - F " pelvic pain. Studies have Indicated. how-
ever, that some women may experience perxL t nt. nor siwiftc
symptoms, such as bk a>tiing, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty
eating or feeling full quickly, or urinary urgency or frequency.
wnnen who experience such symptoms daily for mur+e than it
few weeks should seek prompt medical evaluation. The most
common sign is enlargement ofthe abdomen, which is caused by
the accumulation of fluid. Abnormal vaginal bleeding is rarely a
symptom of ovarian cancer.
Rink fwttiors: The most important risk factor is a strong family
hisk ry of breast or ovarian cancer: Women who have had breast
cancer or who have tested positive for inherited mutations in
RRCA 1 or RRCA2 penes are at increased risk. Studies suggest
that preventive surgery to remove the ovaries and fallopian
tubes in these women can decrease the risk of ovarian cancers. A
genetic mKhtwn called Lynch syndrome (also known as heredi-
tarynoctpotyposiscoiaocaneer) isalsoam ociatedwith increased
risk. The use of estrogen alone as poatacaenopausal hormone
therapy has been shown to increase risk in several large studies.
Cancer Facts & Figures 2011 17
n
diagnosis as women 65 and older (2994 Overall, the 1-, 5-, and
10-year relative survival of ovarian cancer patients is 75%. 46%,
and 38% respectively. If diagnosed at the localized stage, the
5-year survival rate is 94%; however. only 15% of all cases are
detected at this stage, usually irac-idaatally dieing another medi-
cal procedure. The majority of cases (62%) are diagnosed at
distant stage. For women with regional and distant disease,
5-year survival rates are 73% and 2896, respectively.
NLw rases: An estimated 44.030 new cases of pancreatic cancer
are expected to occur.in the US in 2011. Since 199& incidence
rates of pancreatic cancer have been increasing by Q.8% Per year
in men and by 1.0% per year in women.
De.l w An estimated 37,660 deaths are expected to occur in
2011. The death rate for pancreatic cancer increased from 2003
to 2007 by 0.7% per year in men and by 01% per year in women.
Mgm a" symeptams: Cancer of the pancreas often develops
without early symptoms. Symptoms may include weight lass.
pain in the upper abdomen that may radiate to the back. and
0 11 glucose intolerance (high blood glucose lerneks
Tumors that develop near the common bile duct may cause a
blockage that leads to jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes
which can sometimes allow the tumor to be diagnosed at an
Cady stage.
Risk hwtmm Tobacco smoking and sm keless tobacco use
increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, incidence rates arc about
twice as high for cigitrette anw ers as for nonsmokers. Risk also
increases with a family history of pancreatic cancer and a
personal history of pancreatitis, diabetes, obesity, and possibly
alLvW consumption. Individuals with Lynch syndnane are
also at increased risk. Though evidence is still accumulating,
consumption of red meat may increase risk
Early detclJWa: At present, there is no method for the early
detection of pancreatic cancer. The disease is usually asymp-
tomatic at first; only 8% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage.
Research is under way to identify better methods of early
detection.
Treatment: Surgery. radiation therapy, and dwinotherapy are
treatment options that may extend survival and/or relieve
symptoms in many patients, but seldom produce a cure. Lens
than 20% of patients are candidates for surWybecanse pancre-
atic cancer is usually detected after it has spread beyond the
pancreas. For patients who do undergo surgery, adjuvant treact-
ment with the ahemodnerapy drug gemcitabine lengthens
survival. The targeted anticancer drug erlotimb (Tarceva) has
demonstrated a small improvement in advanced pancreatic
canner survivai when used along with gema-bine. Clinical trials
with several new agents, combined with radiation and surgcry~
may offer improved survival and should he considered as a
treatment option.
Survival: For all stages combined, the 1- and 5-year relative
survival rates are 26% and 696. respectively- Even for thane people
diagnosed with local disease, the 5-year survival is only 23%.
e
Near eases An estimated 24x890 new cam of mystaW cancer
will occur in the US during 201L Prostate caneff is the most
frequ> i diagnosed cancer in men. For reasons that remain
unclear, incidence rates are signif>~trntly higher in African
Americans than in whites. Incidence rates for prostate cancer
changed substantially between the mid 1980s and mid-1990x,
in large part reflecting changes in prostate cancer screening
with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Since 1998,
incidence rates have remained relatively stable.
Deaths: With an estimated 33,720 deaths in 2011, prostate
cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death in men.
Prostate cancer death rates have been decreasing since the mid-
1990s in both African Americans awl whitesn. AMMO death
rates have decreased more rapidly among African American
than white men, rates in African Americans remain more than
twice as high as those in why.
Sand syneptoaM Early prostate cancer usually has no
symptoms. With more advanced disease, men may experience
weak or interrupted urine flow; inability to urinate or difficulty
starting or stopping the urine flow; the need to urinate fre-
gwendy, esPecialiyatt night-blood in the urine; orpain orburning
with urination. Advanced prostate cancer commonly spreads
to the bones, which can cause pain in the hips, spine. ribs, or
other areas.
Risk faetorm The only well-established risk factors for prostate
cancer ere age, race/ethnicity. and family histury of the disease.
About 62% of all prostate cancer cases are diagnosed in men
65 years of age and older, and 97% occur in men 5o and older.
African American men and Jamaican men of African descent
have the highest prostate cancer incidence rates in the world.
The disease is common in North America and nwthwestem
Europe, but less common in Asia and South America. Genetic
studies wagged that strong familial predisposition may be
rcapacaible for 5%-10% of prostate cancers. Rent studies MW
gest that a diet high in processed meat or dairy foods may be a
risk factor. and obesity appears to increase risk of aressive
prostate cancer.
1%v i entivu: The a hemoprevcrntian of prostate cancer is an
active area of research. Two drugs of interest. fnnasteride and
dntasteride, reduce the amount of certain male hormones in the
body and are already used to treat the symptom of benign pros-
tate enlargerrrent. Both drugs have been found to lower the risk
ofe dancer by about 29% in large clinical trials with simi-
lar potential side effects, including reduced libido and risk of
erectile dysfunction. However, in December 2010, an advisory
committee to the FDA rtix:osrurnc;rnded against approval for both
Cancer Fads & Figures 2011 19
n
f nmteride and dutasteride for the prevention of prostate cancer
based on risk benefit analyses. In contrast to previous findings,
results from the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention
Trial showed that vitamin E and selenium do not appear to pro-
tect against prostate cancer. Some studies suggest that diets
high in lycopene (e.g. tomatoes, especially those cooked in oily
may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.
Early MSAIM At this time, there are insufficient data to
recommend for or against routine testing fiw early
cancer detection with the PSA test. The American Cancer so_
.recomm,Os that beginning at age 50, men who are at average
risk of prostate cancer and have a life expectancy of at least 10
years receive information about the potential benefits and known
limitations of testing for early prostate cancer detection and have
an opportunity to make an informed decision about testing. Men
at high risk of developing prostate cancer (African Americans or
men with a dose relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before
age 65) should have this discussion with their health care provider
beginning at age 45. Men at even higher risk (because they have
several dose relatives diagnosed with prostate cancer at an early
age) should have this discussion with their provider at age 40. All
men should be given sufficient information about the benefits
and limitations of testing to allow them to make a decision based
on their personal values and preferences.
Results of two large clinical trials, one conducted in Europe and
the other in the US, that were designed to determine the efficacy
of PSA testing were published in 2009. The European study
found a lower risk of death from prostate cancer among men
receiving PSA screening while the US study did not. Further
analyses of these studies are under way. See page 55 for the
American Cancer Society's screening guidelines for the early
detection of prostate cancer.
Trees Treatment options vary depending on age, stage.-and
grade ofthe cancer, as well as other medical coaddioris. and should
be discussed with the individual's physician. The grade assigned to
the tumor. typically called the Gleason some, indicates the likely
aggressiveness of the cancer and ranges from 2 (nonaggressive)
to 10 (very aggressive}. Surgery (open, laparoscopic, or robotic-
assisted~ external beam radiation, or radioactive seed implants
(brachytherapy) maybe used to treat early stage disease; hormonal
therapy may be added in some cases. All of these treabaents may
impact a marls quality of life through side effects or oornpiications
that include urinary and erectile difficulties.
Accumulating evidence suggests that careful observation
("active surveillance' or "watchful waiting' rather than imme-
diate treatment, can be an appropriate option for men with less
aggressive tumors and for older men. Hormonal therapy, chemo-
therapy, radiation. or a combination of these treatments is used
to treat more advanced disease. Hormone treatment may control
advanced prostate cancer for long periods by shrinking the size
or limiting the growth of the cancer. thus helping to relieve pain
20 Cancer Facts & Figures 2011
and other symptoms. A newer option for some men with advanced
prostate cancer that is no longer responding to hormones is a
cancer vaccine known as sipuleucel T (Provenge). For this
treatment, special immune cells are removed from a man's body,
exposed to prostate proteins in a lab, and then reinfused back
into the body, where they attack the prostate cancer cells. The
chemotherapy drug cabazitaxel (Jevtana) was approved in 2010
to treat metastatic prostate cancer that does not respond to
other treatments.
Survival: More than 90% of all prostate capers are discovered in
the local or regional stages, for which the 5-year relative survival
rate approaches 10096. Over the past 25 years, the 5 -year relative
survival rate for all stages combined has increased from 69% to
99.6%. According to the most recent data. 10 year survival is 95%
and 15-year survival is 929L obesity and smoking are associated
with an increased risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Skin
New cases The number of basal cell and squamous cell satin
cancers (i.e., nonmelanoma skin pancers, or NMSQ is difficult to
estimate because these cases are not required to be reported to
cancer registries. According to one report, in 2006 an estimated
3.5 million cases of NMSC occurred and approximately 2.2 mil-
lion people were treated for NMSC. Individuals with a history of
NMSC are much more likely to develop subsequent NMSC than
the general population. Most, but not all, of these forms of skin
cancer are highly curable. Melanoma is responsible for most skin
cancer deaths, though it accounts for less than 5% of all skin caner
cases, and is expected to be diagnosed in about 70.230 persons
in 2011. Melanoma is 10 times more common in whites than in
African Americans. Incidence rates are similar in men and
women undo 65 years, but are more than twice as high in men
as in women 65 and older. Melanoma incidence rates have been
increasing for at least 30 years. Since 1992. incidence rates among
whites have increased by 2.8% per year in both men and women.
Deaths: An estimated 11,980 deaths (8,790 from melanoma and
3,190 from other nonepithelial skin cancers) will occur in 2011.
The death rate for melanoma has been decreasing rapidly in
whites younger than 50. by 3.0% per year since 1991 in men and
by 2.2% per year since 1984 in women. In contrast, in those 50
and older, death rates have been increasing by 1.1% per year
since 1989 in men and have been stable since 1990 in women.
Signs and sympoow : Important warning signs of melanoma
include changes in size. shape, or color of a mole or other skin
lesion or the appearance of a new growth on the skin. Changes
that occur over a few days are usually not cancer, but changes
that progress over a month or more should be evaluated by a
doctor. Basal cell carcinomas may appear as growths that are
flat, or as small, raised, pink or red, translucent, shiny areas that
may bleed following minor injury. Squamous cell cancer may
appear as growing lumps, often with a rough surface, or as flat,
Siglnoidoscopy/Colonoscopy Use Among
Persons Ages 50 and Older by Race/Ethnicity
in California, 2008
Pwcmt screened within cast Fie Yarn
100
60
40
20
Non-Hispanic African H;spanic Asisn/Pac i is
white American Islander
Note: Data are woomd to dw 2000 cab mmm popubem n.
Soup Cdiimm Bdwwmal Rink Factor &urey.
prepared by the Ca bmk Department of PWAcHeML Caoaer 3MMA ode section
American Cancer Society Colon and Rectum
Cancer Activities
The American Cancer Society has an aggressive,
multipronged initiative to reduce incidence and mortality
from colon and rectum cancer: Educating men and women
ages 50 and over that they need to get tested; Encouraging
physicians and other health care providers to recommend
screening to their eligible patients; and Working with
health plans and health insurers who set policy and
control payment for screening procedures. The legislative
advocacy campaign targets activities to increase funding
to support research into the causes, cures, and care of
colon and rectum cancer and addresses legislation for
programs to provide coverage for screening.
The Society is also a strong supporter and participant
in the statewide California Colorectal Cancer Coalition
(C4), whose mission is to save lives and reduce suffering
from colorectal cancer. C4 has provided Colorectal Cancer
education to Californians through community forums.
In Spring 2010, C4 held its Annual Lobby Day at the State
Capitol to increase awareness among the State Legislators
the importance of,adequate screening resources for all
Californians.
Prostate Cancer
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in
almost all racial/ethnic ou in California. The number
of prostate cancers diagnosed each year rose dramatically
in the early 1990s when the prostate-specific antigen
(PSA) test began to be widely used to detect this cancer.
Incidence rates peaked in 1992-93 and were approximately
4% higher in 2008 than in 1988, depending on
race/ethnicity. These trends are consistent with the rapid
introduction of a new, sensitive screening method.
African American men are at especially high risk for
prostate cancer. They are over 33% more likely to develop
this disease than non-Hispanic white men, over 46% more
likely than Hispanic men, and nearly three times more
likely than Asian/Pacific Islanders. Unlike breast cancer,
prostate cancer tends to be diagnosed late in life. Nearly
70% of prostate cancers are diagnosed among men ages
65 and older.
Very little is known about the causes of prostate cancer.
Large international differences in prostate cancer risk
indicate that lifestyle factors such as diet may be involved,
and it is likely that diet interacts with hormonal status in
complex ways.
The survival rate for prostate cancer is quite high (see
page 7), especially when diagnosed early. Prostate cancer
mortality in California decreased by 36% after 1988,
Trends in Prostate Cancerby Race/Ethnicity in
California, 1988-2008'
Incidence
350
300
2W
200
150
100
so
Mortality
90
so
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
K,
19n 90 92 94 96 98 - 00 02 04 06 zoos
-0- Non -Hispanic -W African Hispanic -X- Asian/Pacifc
White American Islander
Note: Rates are to the 2000 Us. population.
source cal iornia goer B06 cabFao=D d Pudic He.ltb
PaepwW by the Cahform DepwUnmtofPubfic Health. Gnoer Surraiooe section.
'Veterans Health Administration hospitals did not report cancer cases to the California cancer Be6latr, (CCR) in 2095. Therefore, case counts and incidence
rates for adult males In 2005 are underestisated and should be interpreted with caution (see page 1 or bttp://www.cercul.wWVAtechaotes.btml) rNMENEENn
0
1988 90 92 94 % 98 W 02 04 ob 2008
The White House
August 31, 2010
Presidential Proclamation--National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
A PROCLAMATION
Although its mortality rate has steadily fallen in the last decade, prostate cancer is still the second leading
cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States. This year alone, nearly 218,000 men will be
diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 32,000 men will die from this disease. National Prostate
Cancer Awareness Month gives us the opportunity to renew our commitment to fight this disease by
finding better ways to prevent, detect, and treat it.
The exact causes of prostate cancer are not known, but awareness can help men make more informed
choices about their health. Researchers have identified several factors that may increase a man's risk of
developing prostate cancer, including age, race, and family history. According to the National Cancer
Institute, avoiding smoking, losing weight, maintaining a healthy diet, and exercising may all help prevent
certain cancers. We must ensure that more men are informed about all aspects of this disease, including
early detection and possible treatment. I encourage men to talk with their doctors about risk factors,
prevention, and preventative screenings. And I invite all Americans to visit Cancer.gov for more
information and resources about the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of prostate and other cancers.
Until we find a cure for this disease, my Administration will continue promoting awareness of this illness
and supporting prostate cancer research and treatment, including research to help determine why
prostate cancer affects some racial and ethnic groups more than others. The National Cancer Institute,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense all play vital roles in
reducing the burden of prostate cancer through critical investments in research. The health care reforms
included in the landmark Affordable Care Act also address specific needs of individuals fighting cancer,
including removing annual and lifetime caps on insurance coverage, prohibiting insurance companies
from dropping coverage after an individual gets sick, and guaranteeing insurance coverage for individuals
participating in clinical trials, the cornerstone of cancer research.
As we observe National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, we stand by the fathers, brothers,
husbands, and sons battling prostate cancer, as well as their families and the health care providers,
researchers, and advocates who are working to combat this disease and save lives. By joining together
to raise awareness of prostate cancer and supporting research, we can continue to make progress
against this devastating disease.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the
authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do herby proclaim
September 2010 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. I encourage all citizens, Government agencies,
private businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other groups to join in activities that will increase
awareness and prevention of prostate cancer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of August, in the year of our
Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
thirty-fifth.
BARACK OBAMA
Ref: http://www whitehouse.oovtthe-vress-office/2010/08131/lpre3idential-aro lamation-nationa{-prostate-cancer-awareness-month
Be: White House Pmdamation, 2010 11
111th CONGRESS - 2d Session
S. RES. 597
Designating September 2010 as `National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month'.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 14, 2010
RESOLUTION
Designating September 2010 as "National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month'.
Whereas countless families in the United States live with prostate cancer;
Whereas 1 in 6 males in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime;
Whereas prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second most
common cause of cancer-related deaths among males in the United States;
Whereas in 2010, 217,730 males in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and
32,050 males will die from the disease;
Whereas 30 percent of newly diagnosed prostate cancer cases occur in males under the age of 65;
Whereas approximately every 14 seconds, a male in the United States turns 50 years old and
increases his odds of developing cancer, including prostate cancer;
Whereas African-American males suffer from a prostate cancer incidence rate that is up to 65 percent
higher than White males and have double the prostate cancer mortality rate of White males;
Whereas obesity is a significant predictor of the severity of prostate cancer;
Whereas the probability that obesity will lead to death and high cholesterol levels is strongly
associated with advanced prostate cancer;
Whereas males in the United States with 1 family member diagnosed with prostate cancer have a 1
in 3 chance of being diagnosed with the disease; males with 2 family members diagnosed have an 83
percent chance; and males with 3 family members diagnosed have a 97 percent chance;
Whereas screening by a digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen blood test can
detect the disease at the early stages, increasing the chances of survival for more than 5 years to
nearly 100 percent;
Whereas only 33 percent of males survive more than 5 years if diagnosed during the late stages of
the disease;
Whereas there are no noticeable symptoms of prostate cancer while it is still in the early stages,
making screening critical;
Whereas ongoing research promises further improvements in prostate cancer prevention, early
detection, and treatment; and
Whereas educating people in the United States, including health care providers, about prostate
cancer and early detection strategies is crucial to saving the lives of males and preserving and
protecting families: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates September 2010 as'National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month';
(2) declares that steps should be taken--
(A) to raise awareness about the importance of screening methods for, and
treatment of, prostate cancer;
(B) to increase research funding that is commensurate with the burden of
prostate cancer so that--
(I) screening and treatment may be improved;
(ii) the causes may be discovered; and
(iii) a cure may be developed; and
(C) to continue to consider ways for improving access to, and the quality of,
health care services for detecting and treating prostate cancer; and
(3) calls on the people of the United States, interested groups, and affected persons--
(A) to promote awareness of prostate cancer;
(B) to take an active role in the fight to end the devastating effects of prostate
cancer on individuals, families, and the economy; and
(C) to observe National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month with appropriate
ceremonies and activities.
Ref: htttp://www.govtrack us/congres /billtegt xnd?bill=sr111-597
File: S.Res. 597, 2010
12
NEENOMMENEENEMENN
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
r
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PROCLAMATION
Prostate cancer is one of the leading health problems for Californian men. Tle American
Cancer Society estimates that over 217,000 man in the United States -will be diagnosed this
year, adding to the already staggering figure of 2 million Americans who suffer from this
disease. By raising awareness and coordinating efforts to fight prostate cancer, we can give
the men in our lives a better chance at a healthier future.
Early detection is one of the best tools in our fight against this affliction, with a five-year
survival rate of nearly 100 percent. Prostate cancer often does not have any noticeable
symptoms, leading to the unrecognized development of this disease. Men need to be
proactive and schedule regular checkups with their physician, especially if they have factors
such as a family history of cancer or if they are over the age of fifty. Dedicated doctors and
other healthcare professionals maintain a wide variety of options to make treatment
manageable, helping many men achieve long-term remission.
'T'hough prostate can= is studied ' extensively and has gotten more attention in recent years,
the precise cause of the disease is still a mystery. During this month, I join all Californians
in recognizing the doctors, scientists and cancer groups whose tireless research gives us hope
for a lasting cure and better preventative measures. By encouraging awareness among men,
we can bring greater attention to prostate cancer and contribute to the fantastic efforts of
these researchers.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of
California, do hereby proclaim September 2010, as "Prostate Cancer Awareness Month"
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the
State of California to be affixed this 23rd day of August 2010.
ARNOI.D SCHWARZENEGGER
Govemor of California
ATTEST:
&
IRABOWEN
Secretary of State
13
BILL NUMBER: SCR 86
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 12, 2010
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 15, 2010
INTRODUCED BY Senator Aanestad
Coauthors: Senators Ashburn, Cedillo, Cogdill, Cox, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Emmerson, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Huff, Pavley, Runner, Simitian, Strickland, Wiggins, Wright, and Wyland
Coauthors: Assembly Mfrs Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Carter, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Lieu, Ma, Miller, Niello, Nielsen, Portantino Smyth, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, and Tran.
MARCH 9, 2010
Relative to Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
SCR 86, as amended, Aanestad. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. This measure would designate
the month of September 2010 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the State of California.
WHEREAS, Prostate cancer impacts all Californians and has touched the Senate of the State of
California this year with the passing of Senator Dave Cox after a 13-year battle with the disease; and
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Society estimates that one in six men will develop prostate cancer in
their lifetime and that there will be approximately 217,730 new cases of the disease in the United States
in the current year, resulting in nearly 32,050 deaths; and
WHEREAS, In California, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in all race and ethnic
groups. African American men are 50 percent more likely to develop this disease than any other group of
men; and
WHEREAS, In California, approximately 20,120 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year
and each day more than eight California men will die of this disease; and
WHEREAS, While prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths in men, little is known about this
disease and there are usually no symptoms in the early stages; and
WHEREAS, The survival rate approaches 100 percent when prostate cancer is diagnosed and treated
early, but drops to 31 percent when the disease spreads to other parts of the body; and
WHEREAS, A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and a digital rectal examination (DRE)
diagnose most prostate cancers before symptoms develop; and
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Society recommends that health care providers offer the PSA and
DRE annually to men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy, beginning when the men are 50 years
of age; and
WHEREAS, Men who have a father, son, or brother who has been diagnosed with prostate cancer
before 65 years of age, and African American men should be offered a PSA and DRE annually beginning
when they are 45 years of age; and
WHEREAS, Men who have multiple family members who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer
before 65 years of age should be offered a PSA and DRE annually beginning when they are 40 years of
age; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature
designates the month of September 2010 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in the State of California
and that public officials and citizens of California are encouraged to observe the month with appropriate
activities and programs; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature joins communities across our nation to increase the awareness of the
importance of early detection and treatment of prostate cancer; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for
appropriate distribution.
Ref: hftp://info.sen.ca.gov/c-qi-bin/postguery?bill number=scr 86&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen
File: SCR 86, 2010
14
DIGEST
RECEIVED
AUG252011
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Ibis. Marleuc Rice, Chair
Town of 'Tiburon Heritage and Arts Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
"Tiburon, CA 94920
August 24, 2011
ear Marlene,
Dear'
After serving for nine years on this fun and fabulous Heritage and Arts commission, I
am writing to inform you of my decision to leave mfr position on the Commission
effective at the end of September, 2011.
I feel luckx- to have served on the Commission with such great people and that's the
hardest part about leaving! The decision to leave wasn't easy, but again, after nine
years, it's just time for me to make a change!
I expect to attend some of the art cxlubits and if I can be of any assistance in the
future, please don't hesitate to ask.
Thank you all, for such a great opportunity-!
Patncla N avone
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES NO. 1010
May 25, 2011
Regular Meeting
Town of Tiburon Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Frymier called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
~ l
Present: Chair Frymier, Commissioners Corcoran, Doyle, Kunzweiler and Tollim
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous,
Director of Public Works Nguyen and Minutes Clerk Levison
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
Planning Manager Watrous reported that the Commission has no formally scheduled items until
the Library Expansion Project merits hearing on July 27th. Commissioners Corcoran and Tollini
informed staff that they would be absent that date.
Chair Frymier noted that this would be her last meeting. She thanked staff for their support,
guidance and the opportunity to serve the community over the last five years. She also thanked
her fellow Commissioners and stressed how fortunate Tiburon is to have people of their caliber
serving the community.
Vice-Chair Corcoran returned her thanks. He admired her courage and willingness to always
speak her mind.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. 1501 TIBURON BOULEVARD: DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER
RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE REVISED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RDEIR) FOR THE BELVEDERE-
TIBURON PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT; FILE #GPA 2008-02;
R2008-01; 30804 & 40801; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town of
Tiburon, Owners; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency, Applicant; Assessor Parcel
Numbers 058-171-92, 93, 94 and a portion of 058-171-62
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25. 2011 PAGE 1
Community Development Director Anderson presented the staff report and said that a Revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the project was prepared and released for a 45-
day public review period that ended on May 9, 2011. The RDEIR focused specifically on
impacts to biological resources, transportation/parking, and alternatives, including the
introduction of a new alternative. The question before the Commission was whether any
"significant new information" was introduced in any of the comments received during the
comment period that would trigger recirculation of the document for additional analysis. Mr.
Anderson reviewed the typical circumstances that would require recirculation, which staff and
the consultant did not believe had been met. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission
find that no "significant new information" was received dining the comment period that would
clearly require recirculation of the RDEIR at the present time.
Chair Frymier opened the public hearing.
Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League, said that she disagreed with some of the RDEIR's
conclusions. Specifically, she felt that neither the extension of the marsh buffer nor a General
Plan amendment would lessen the significance of the impacts identified. Additionally, she said
that the RDEIR fails to acknowledge the ambiguity of policies related to wetland margins.
However, she noted that the RDEIR does point out the value of the buffer and provides enough
information for the Commission to make the critical decisions relating to the project's impacts on
the marsh. She felt that recirculation of the RDEIR would gain no new information and was not
warranted, and hoped the Commission made the right decision with respect to marsh impacts.
Chair Frymier closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Doyle concurred with the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Tollini said that she trusted that the Final EIR would sufficiently address the
comments made and predicted some spirited discussion during the merits phase of the project.
She expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Vice-Chair Corcoran thanked all participants for the comments received and said that he did not
believe the information was at the level that would require recirculation of the RDEIR.
Commissioner Kunzweiler concurred and expressed support for the staff recommendation.
Chair Frymier also expressed support for the staff recommendation. She felt confident that the
options set forth in the RDEIR and merits process would align the project more with the goals of
the General Plan and the community.
ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Tollini) to find that no "significant new information" was
received during the comment period that would require recirculation of the RDEIR. Motion
carried: 5-0.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25. 2011 PAGE 2
2. 669 HAWTHORNE DRIVE; AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT;
FILE #11104; Daryl Smith, Owner/Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-191-11
Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report, and said that in 2000, the Planning
Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a secondary dwelling unit (SDU) in
conjunction with the construction of a new single-family dwelling located at 669 Hawthorne
Drive. During the review of the use permit, the Commission raised concerns about potential
parking impacts and adopted a condition of approval that required a deed restriction to be
recorded on the property. The deed restriction was to have provided that the secondary unit
would be converted back to a portion of the primary residence when the elderly mother no longer
lived on the site or the property was sold.
The single-family dwelling and secondary dwelling unit were subsequently approved by the
Design Review Board and constructed. However, the deed restriction was never recorded for the
property. Since that time, the property has changed ownership several times and the secondary
dwelling unit has not been removed from the building. The current property owner has recently
been made aware of the requirement to remove the SDU and requested an amendment to the
CUP to delete the requirement.
Mr. Watrous stated that the unit has been in existence for almost 10 years, during which time
staff has received no comments or complaints about the unit. Staff believed this to be an
indication that the SDU is appropriate in this location. He also noted that State laws regarding
SDUs have changed since the unit was constructed. Staff believed that the unit would comply
with the Town's current SDU requirements and would be consistent with the Housing Element
policy encouraging promotion of SDUs, and recommended that the Commission adopt the draft
resolution amending the CUP.
Vice-Chair Corcoran proposed deletion of Condition of Approval No. 9, which he believed to be
unnecessary since the project was completed. He also proposed deletion or amendment of
Condition of Approval No. 8, which requires consent to annual review.
Mr. Watrous concurred regarding Condition of Approval No. 9. He clarified that the annual
review referred to in Condition of Approval No. 8 is more of a biannual reporting process to see
what units are still in place and being used. Mr. Anderson elaborated further and suggested that
while staff would not recommend removing the provisions of Condition of Approval No. 8, it
could be modified to fit the Town's current practices.
Vice-Chair Corcoran questioned events leading to issues surrounding the deed restriction. Mr.
Watrous stated that the planning staff person responsible for this particular project should have
caught this when the final permit was issued for the house itself, though it clearly fell through the
cracks. He noted that deed restrictions being imposed as part of a minor single-family residential
addition are rarely seen today, and are usually associated with new subdivisions.
Commissioner Tollini asked staff whether the property owner responded during the last biannual
review. Mr. Watrous believed so, but said that staff was not aware of the condition of approval
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25. 2011 PAGE 3
at that time. Once discovered, staff relayed the information to the current property owner and
laid out their options.
Daryl Smith, applicant, stated that he purchased his home in June 2009. He said that he was not
made aware of the restriction on the SDU at that time, nor was it indicated on the deed itself, and
the property was advertised as including a fully legal second unit. He said that he was notified of
the unit's illegal status during the biannual review process, after which he filed application to
retain the unit. He said that he had since learned that the original applicant never paid the water
fees related to the unit, which he has had to cover. He said that the second unit is an attractive
feature and a nice eventual option for his aging parents andthe had spoken with neighbors and
received no complaints regarding the unit.
Commissioner Tollini questioned and confirmed with the applicant that he was not aware of the
CUP at the time he purchased the home. Mr. Smith noted that the property had been sold twice
since construction and that it was apparently not a legal second unit for the previous owner
either.
Chair Frymier opened the public hearing.
Patricia Ferrin said that she lives adjacent to the applicant and would welcome Mr. Smith's
parents as residents of the unit. She said that her only concern related to parking, which she
raised at the time of the original application. She stated that there is little to no street parking in
the immediate area and asked how parking would be addressed if Mr. Smith were to move or
rent the unit out.
Mr. Watrous stated that the Town's parking requirements for SDUs are dictated by the number
of bedrooms. The subject SDU has only 1 bedroom and therefore requires only 1 parking space.
He stated that the applicant has provided 1 dedicated off-street parking space that complies with
all parking requirements for SDUs.
Mr. Smith added that he could effectively park 6 cars in his driveway alone and said that parking
there has not been an issue he has ever observed.
Chair Frymier closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tollini said that it was very much a shame that the original applicant did not
follow through on the conditions of the CUP and that this would be a very different situation if
they were the ones submitting this request. She said that she could support the staff
recommendation, particularly since the unit complies with all current regulations pertaining to
SDUs.
Commissioner Doyle concurred and said that he saw no reason to disassemble a perfectly good
SDU.
Commissioner Kunzweiler also concurred. He noted that despite the ball having been dropped,
the applicant has an SDU, which is what the Town now very much wants.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25, 2011 PAGE 4
Vice-Chair Corcoran agreed with Commissioner Tollini that the situation would be different if
the original applicant were present. Given that State law has changed, that the Town now
encourages SDUs, and that the applicant was not aware of the CUP prior to purchasing his home,
he said that he could support the request. He said that he would also like to eliminate Condition
of Approval No. 9 and to amend Condition of Approval No. 8 as discussed.
Chair Frymier concurred and expressed her sympathy for the applicant's situation.
ACTION: It was M/S (Kunzweiler/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution, as modified per
Commissioner Corcoran's comments. Motion carried: 5-0.,
3. REVIEW OF DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
Community Development Director Anderson provided a brief summation of the staff report.
State law requires that the Commission review the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
prior to adoption in order to ensure consistency with the Town's General Plan. The CIP is
divided into 3 portions: streets, drainage, and community development improvements. The
allocation for streets projects had been reduced this year, reflecting the essential completion of
the Town's failed streets program, with final failed streets work to be performed as part of the
Del Mar Utility Undergrounding project. Allocations to drainage and community projects have
been increased, though a good portion of the latter reflects carryover of larger projects from prior
years. New projects would be concentrated on the Downtown area, both as part of the Downtown
Vibrancy Project approved by the Town Council and in relation to activities for the America's
Cup 34 event. Staff has reviewed the draft CIP and concludes that its components are, on
balance, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Commissioner Doyle said that he approved of the proposed improvements. He particularly felt
that the proposed signage would be an important component of revitalizing the downtown.
Commissioner Tollini asked what the Marketing Communications Program would entail. Mr.
Anderson said that the Town Council had agreed to appoint a task force that will be charged with
fleshing that out.
Commissioner Doyle inquired about the Donahue Building restroom project. Mr. Anderson
stated that the CIP item has now been changed to a "feasibility study" for a public restroom in
the vicinity of the Donahue Building.
Commissioner Kunzweiler said that he was pleased to see the increased drainage budget. He
recalled that the Town's drainage system, particularly in the hillier areas, is old and failing. He
cautioned that drainage issues in terrain like Tiburon's could be multi-billion dollar liabilities. He
stated that the Town needs to get a clear grasp on the drainage issue and what the investment
needs are.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25. 2011 PAGE 5
Vice-Chair Corcoran concurred. He congratulated the Director of Public Works on the
tremendous work involved in the failed streets program and asked if there are plans to allocate
those resources towards drainage now.
Director of Public Works Nguyen responded that the 2006 Storm Drain Master Plan provided an
inventory and deferred maintenance estimate of $11 million for the Town's drainage
infrastructure on a network level. He said that while the intent would be to ramp up investments
in drainage infrastructure, the current economic climate means that the Town has been collecting
fewer funds to invest in future work related to drainage or roads and has been drawing down
those reserves. If property tax revenues do not recover, he said that there will eventually be no
funds to invest here aside from those received from state gas taxes and local measures. He also
noted that funds collected for street rehabilitation purposes are generally restricted, but that the
Town endeavors to upgrade drainage when reconstructing streets as the two are often inseparable
components of a project.
Chair Frymier asked what the $215,000 allocated for drainage would accomplish. Mr. Nguyen
said that the funds would address reactionary measures that could be married to current street
improvement projects.
Vice-Chair Corcoran said that he was glad to see funding for downtown revitalization. He
suggested that the money allocated for the Donahue Building restroom project should be
reduced, given that it is only a feasibility study. He requested more information on the Teather
Park-to-Tiburon Peninsula Club Trail item.
Mr. Nguyen explained that the project is a placeholder to potentially improve an existing
footpath on an easement situated between the portion of Teather Park near the Point Tiburon
Marsh condominium complex, around the southeast side of the marsh, and onto the Judge Field
portion of the Tiburon Peninsula property. The improvements would be funded by a partnership
between the Conservation Corps of the North Bay and the Town.
Chair Frymier voiced her complete support for the Downtown Vibrancy Project and the
requested funding amount. She asked whether improvements to the bicycle path along Trestle
Glen Boulevard would qualify under multi-use pathway improvements. She noted a particularly
worrisome section that has seen numerous "near-accidents" and inquired about the potential for
improved signage in that area. Mr. Nguyen responded that the bicycle/pedestrian path along the
west side of Trestle Glen Boulevard is part of a phased approach in concert with the eventual
right-of-way dedication on the opposite side of the street for a path in that location as well. He
suggested that informational signage, which could be funded out of the operational budget, could
certainly help in improving confusion at the existing path location on Trestle Glen Boulevard.
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kunzweiler) to find the draft CIP budget consistent with the
General Plan. Motion carried: 5-0.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25. 2011 PAGE 6
MINUTES:
Vice-Chair Corcoran requested the following amendment to the minutes:
• Page 4, 2'd paragraph - "He noted that the language of the RDEIR..."
ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to approve the minutes of April 27, 2011, as amended.
Motion carried: 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIR
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES NO. 1010 MAY 25.2011 PAGE 7
DIGESwr ~9-1
MINUTES #13
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2011
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong and Tollim
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous said the Town Council held a continued public hearing the previous night on
the appeal for 65 Reed Ranch Road. They partially granted the appeal by approving a revised version of
the plan the applicant had submitted with fewer windows and a slightly lower front garage roof. The
Council also deleted a few more windows as conditions of approval.
D. OLD BUSINESS
98 SUGARLOAF DRIVE: File No. 21113; Jolynn Hardiman, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a
Variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to construct 535 square feet of
additions to the rear of the house and replace the existing flat roof with a new pitched roof. A
portion of the new roofline would encroach to within 13 feet, 4 inches of the front property line,
which is less than the 30 foot minimum front yard setback required in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's
Parcel No. 058-281-02. [DW]
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing
single-family dwelling on property located at 98 Sugarloaf Drive. The lower level of the house would be
reconfigured from an existing family room, library and bedroom into a living room, dining room kitchen
and family room, with the lower level expanded to the rear. One existing garage space on the lower level
would be expanded to the west to accommodate the new family room. A new deck and spa would be
added to the lower level. The upper level of the house would also be reconfigured, with the existing
kitchen, dining room and living room converted into a master bedroom suite and den. A small addition to
the rear would expand the area of the master bathroom. The existing upper level deck would be removed
and replaced with a new balcony. A variance is requested for reduced front yard setback to accommodate
a change in the roofline from a flat roof and mansard to a new pitched roof.
This application was first reviewed at the July 21, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, the
owners of the home across the street at 97 Sugarloaf Drive objected to the modified roofline, stating that
the project would block views of the East Bay from their living room and kitchen. The Board shared these
concerns and determined that the applicant's stated need to replace the existing flat roof did not justify the
view blockage that would occur with the proposed roofline. The Board continued the application to allow
the applicants to revise the project design.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/4/11
The applicants have now submitted revised plans for the project. The previously proposed pitched
roofline has been replaced with a new flat roof and mansard design. The ridgeline of the revised roof
design would be 11 inches above the ridgeline of the existing roof. 'The previous roof design would have
been 2.5 to 4.25 feet taller than the top of the existing mansard.
Bryan Murdock, architect, said that they are proposing a 530 square foot addition at the rear lower floor at
the northeast side of the property. He said that the existing front house is within the front yard setback and
they are proposing a new roof, which requires a variance. He stated that they had proposed a totally
different roof design at the last meeting and have redesigned it to address the neighbors' concerns.
t
Mr. Murdock presented drawings of the existing mansard roof and drawings of a new roof that preserves
the existing flat roof framing. He said that they had reduced the roof height by 3 feet 4 inches. He stated
that the new design would allow them to keep a space for ductwork and also keep the Mediterranean style
of the home. He presented photos of the neighbors' house with the new roof's height drawn in, showing
that it would not affect their view to the same extent as the previously proposed roof. He said that the 8-
foot plate height was necessary because lowering it would require demolishing portions of the walls. He
said that the new design would be 9 feet 6 inches under the height limit, which would be less than the
height of many of the houses in the neighborhood, and he listed a number of houses with similar designs
on the street.
The public hearing was opened.
Yvonne Martens said that she and her husband oppose her neighbors' plan because it would wipe out
their view of the horizon of the East Bay from the entire main level of their home. She said that they have
a horizon view directly above their existing roof, and the new roof design would raise that roof height by
11 inches. She said that their objections were the same as before. She quoted the Hillside Design
Guideline principle that states that the horizon view is the most sensitive part of their view and said that
this view is seen from their living room and kitchen. She stated that the applicant had diminished the
importance of their view in the direction of the East Bay, yet that is the applicant's principal view. She
stated that many Tiburon owners have flat roofs in consideration of neighbors' views. She said that
elevating the roof would not result in additional occupied space and would have a large impact on the
view from her home. She said that air conditioning equipment could be installed inside the existing roof.
She also requested that no objects be placed on top of the roof. She said that the variance findings state
that improvements should not be injurious to other property. She said that she and her husband spent
many years searching for property for their retirement years and they would like to enjoy what they have
worked so hard for.
Adam Posard, architect for Ms. Martens, said that they appreciate the applicant's efforts, but at the same
time he felt it important to protect the property rights of the Martens. He presented photos of several
homes near the applicants' home with flat roofs, and some are Mediterranean in design style. He said that
the Hillside Guidelines specifically state that view obstruction from main living areas should be avoided
and those are the areas of the Martens' home that would be blocked. He said that the almost 1 foot
elevation increase would block the center of the horizon view from their home. He stated that it would not
be a practical difficulty to need space for ductwork because the existing roof includes space for that
ductwork. He said that conditions of approval from the fire department would require sprinklers installed,
which would involve partial demolition of existing ceilings anyway. He stated that it would be a more
practical solution to install the ductwork in that space.
Mr. Murdock said that they utilized some of the aspects mentioned by Mr. Posard. He said that they
looked at the solution of putting ductwork in the existing space, but they ran into difficulty getting
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/4/11
ductwork branched into the area. He said that they are not trying to save the existing ceiling finish and are
planning on doing a two-zone heating and cooling system and putting all of the heating equipment down
in the existing crawl space. He said that it would create more difficulty for them to run a feeder duct in the
ceiling of the existing house. He said that the other mansard roof in the area is much higher than theirs.
He said that they are trying to achieve a more sloping roof because it would be consistent with their
design. He said that the only view that would be slightly affected would be from the corner of the
neighbors' deck.
Vice-Chair Emberson questioned and confirmed with Mr. Murdock that they do not want to demolish the
ceiling framing, but do plan to demolish the sheetrock.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Tollini said that he was unable to access the Martens' home but spent time trying to
consider the view from their windows. He thought that the applicant had done enough for him to get
behind the project. He said that the project would affect a small portion of a non-primary view. He
described the request as modest. He complimented the architect for an attractive design and said that there
are probably only a handful of places in Tiburon where he would have difficulty getting behind a request
to build something 11 inches higher. He believed that the variance request for a front yard setback was a
different issue than the height of the roof. He did not think building into the setback was the issue that
was causing the consternation for the neighbors, and believed that the findings could be made for the
variance.
Boardmember Chong said that he had a chance to visit the Martens' residence and their kitchen view was
primarily of the garden with a secondary view of the East Bay that would be minimally impacted. He
stated that the primary view for their living room was to the south through to the Bay Bridge, with a
secondary view through trees toward the applicant's house. He commended the applicant and architect for
an attractive design with the low roof. He said he was still able to see a portion of the hills from the living
room deck. He thought that this version was probably the best compromise that one could come up with
in this situation.
Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with the other boardmembers and commended the applicant. She said that
the view toward the subject house was not the primary view and the applicant had bent over backwards to
accommodate the neighbors across the street.
Chair Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Tollini that the variance and the height of the roof were two
separate issues. He said that this was a hillside view issue and, as pointed out by other boardmembers, the
applicant had gone quite far in reducing the ceiling height to 8 feet. He felt that the applicant had
compromised to preserve the neighbor's view as much as possible. He said that the other houses that have
flat roofs are taller than the applicant's and block more of a primary view than the applicant's house. He
said that he was still struggling with the request, however, because he felt that the architect should not
have selected the style of the home before designing it because that design may not be right for the site.
He said that it is difficult to put the ductwork in the existing ceiling with the 8 foot roof. He felt that if the
house across the street would have been designed to really capture the East Bat view, then the project
would have more of an effect, but their views in that direction are more secondary in nature.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) that the request for 98 Sugarloaf Drive is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-0.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/4/11
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
2. 525 HILARY DRIVE: File No. 21114; Tom and Jennifer Yin, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with
Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to
construct additions to the rear of the home to expand the kitchen and family room. The project
would extend to within 17 feet, 1 inch of the rear property line, which is less than the 23 foot
minimum rear yard setback required in the R-1 zone for this lot. The project would also cover
35.2% of the lot, which is greater than the maximum lot coverage of 30.0% permitted in the R-1
zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-133-11.
1
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling located at 525
Hilary Drive, with variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. Currently the property
is improved with a single-story dwelling. The proposed addition would infill an existing deck area
between the family room and master bedroom, for an expanded kitchen, dining room, family room, and
breakfast nook. An increase in roof height of three feet (3') would be visible from the front of the
dwelling, due to the area of addition. However, the increase in height would appear to be minor and
would not substantially change the appearance of the dwelling.
The proposed addition would result in a gross floor area of 2,495 square feet, which is below the
maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (2,881 sq. ft.). The proposed addition would
increase the lot coverage by 327 square feet, for total lot coverage of 3,103 square feet (35.2%). It should
be noted that currently the property exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage by 1.5%. As the
maximum lot coverage in the R-1 zone is 30.0%, a variance has been requested for the increase in excess
lot coverage.
The proposed addition would also encroach into the rear yard setback, for a reduced rear yard setback of
17 feet, 1 inch. As the minimum rear yard setback in the R-1 zone is 20% of the depth of the lot (23 feet),
or 25 feet (whichever is less), the applicant has requested a variance for reduced rear yard setback.
Michael Heckmann, architect, said that the family was interested in a modest addition to improve the back
corner of the house, which is a very tight area. He thought that the biggest difficulty with the property was
that it is a substandard lot under the 10,000 square foot minimum. He said that the shape of the property
was also a challenge. He stated that the existing house is located in the setback so any improvement in the
rear would require a variance. He said that they can modify the bathroom window to make it more
translucent, to address the concern in the staff report.
Tom Yin, owner, said that he has lived in the house for 9 years. He said that he has a family of five with
two teenage girls; and also his mother who has an illness and has difficulty moving to the other side of the
house. He said that the two bathrooms are on the other side of the house and there is a step in between. He
said that they would like to have a bathroom on the other side of the house to help his mother get to the
bathroom. He said that the house also looks rather odd because of the irregular shape. He noted that they
have two furnaces currently, which are not economical, and they would like to consolidate them. He felt
that their design was the most practical and economical way to achieve their objectives.
The public hearing was opened.
Mark Gooding said that he lives to the west of the applicant's property. He said that other neighbors were
not present tonight because the project would not impact theirs. He said that all of the addition would be
on his side. He stated that his bedroom on the east side of his house is directly opposite the proposed
addition, and he has approximately 10 feet of glass on that side of the house. He said that six feet of that
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 4
8/4/11
glass is a double door and the project would have a significant impact on his bedroom. He was unable to
ascertain the size of the windows on the plan except for the bathroom. He said that the windows appear to
be large and since his wife is disabled she spends all of her time in the bedroom and the backyard. He
viewed the project as a major invasion of their privacy and he therefore could not accommodate their
neighbor. He suggested that the architect be more imaginative in his design and come back with
something more reasonable in its impact on his property.
Boardmember Chong asked about his specific privacy concerns. Mr. Gooding replied that the applicants
would be able to look directly into his bedroom.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked which windows concern him. Mr. Gooding replied that the three windows on
the left side of the drawing were the ones that would look into his bedroom. He said that he did not want
windows that large in that area with a direct view into his bedroom.
Mr. Heckmann said that they walked the property to get some perspective of the impact on Mr. Gooding's
home. He did not think that there would be much of a privacy loss in this area because there is a 6 foot
fence between the properties and some vegetation in the area. He said that the proposed windows were
similar in size to the existing windows and they would not have a vantage point into the neighbor's
bedroom. He said that the applicants could not see into his house, and he also said his client had no desire
to look into the neighbor's property.
Mr. Yin said that there is a lot of vegetation on both sides. He said that Mr. Gooding has bamboo growing
on his side, and they have some bamboo and a large tree on their side.
Mr. Gooding said that the large tree has very few limbs on it and the limbs are at a higher elevation. He
said he went over to the applicant's house to see the design and at the time Mr. Yin said he could see his
bedroom. Mr. Gooding said that he was concerned about making the windows larger and that now they
will be able to see his bedroom even more. He also said that the window would be shifted to directly
across from his bedroom. He said that the vegetation they discussed on their side is only about 1 foot
high.
Chair Kricensky asked if there is indeed a 6 foot fence running in the back of the property. Boardmember
Chong said that he was able to go to the back of the yard and there was a 6 foot fence.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Chong said the two issues he saw were the variances and the privacy impact. He visited the
applicant's home and from the existing window he could not see through the fence and vegetation. He
said that the new window would not be in a fundamentally different location or different size than what
currently exists. He said that fundamentally all that would be done would be to add a wall that would
move the corner 4 feet onto the rear of the property. He said that he could not imagine a 4 bedroom home
with only 2 bathrooms being sufficient, and he thought that a half bath was a reasonable request for this
application. He also stated that the kitchen has an extremely small amount of counter space and that the
family room was not very large for a 4 bedroom home. He noted the dense vegetation in the back and felt
that this was a fairly reasonable remodel compared to other alternatives.
Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Chong and said that she could not see into the
neighbor's house from the existing house. She did not think that this was a big privacy issue. She felt that
the elderly mother who needs a bathroom on that side of the house met the hardship requirement for the
variance. She thought that this was a modest addition and suggested that the glass in the proposed
bathroom should be translucent.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/4/11
Boardmember Tollini said that it is not really a privacy impact if one cannot see through the glass into the
other house. However, he said that the window's presence could create a feeling of invasion of privacy on
the neighbor. He said that there would be more glass on the wall facing the neighbor. He said that he was
unable to get into either property to see the sites and was relying on Boardmember Chong's assessment.
He said that windows often result in a feeling of perceived privacy loss whenever homes are in close
proximity. He said this is typically the type of project the Board would support in most neighborhoods.
He felt that this was a practical addition and agreed that a family living in four bedrooms with only 2
bathrooms was a hardship. He could see no other way to design the addition with the existing cramped
floor plan. He said that this was a fairly modest request involving enclosing a courtyard. He said that the
fence and a fair amount of vegetation in the area the impacts should minimize the privacy problem and
that there is a substantial distance from the neighbor's bedroom to the property line.
Chair Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Tollini regarding the variances and said that the only other
way to expand the property would be to add a second story, which would not be a possibility due to its
potential impact on neighbors. He said that it was very hard to tell how privacy will be affected. He said
that the 6 foot fence would help, but the top of the fence could be at about sill height if there is a two foot
difference in height between the lots. He said that someone in the kitchen would be standing back at least
a counter-space from the windows. He indicated that he also could not access the back area of the
property. He said that if there was a direct line of sight to the bedroom he would be likely to approve an
extra section of 2-foot lattice along the fence with vegetation growing on it.
Boardmember Chong said that the amount of vegetation in the area combined with the amount of glazing
did not seem like a big change. Boardmember Tollini said that what was requested was modest, and he
cited a similar experience in his past when a window seemed smaller than he would have liked and that
was a window that looked toward the neighbor's property.
Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that this was a perceived issue of
privacy rather than a real privacy concern.
Chair Kricensky noted that the windows would be 54 inches wide, but after casing is done the windows
would be smaller. He suggested stipulating the applicant put in sufficient landscaping. Boardmember
Chong pointed out that the backyard includes about three stories of landscaping already and he did not
think that anything could be planted there to improve the situation. Chair Kricensky said that the real hope
was that neighbors will work together on the screening.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 525 Hilary Drive is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval and the 'additional condition of approval that the bathroom window be translucent material.
Vote: 4-0.
3. 20 SEAFIRTH ROAD: File No. 21115; Rudy and Charlene Borneo, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with
Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to
construct family room, master bedroom suite and stairway additions to the front and side of the
house. The project would extend to within 18 feet of the front property line, which is less than the
30 foot minimum front yard setback required in the RO-2 zone. The project would also have a
maximum lot coverage of 18.9%, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage
permitted in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-092-15.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/4/11
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing, two-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 20 Seafirth Road. The main level of the house would
be reconfigured, demolishing an existing solarium at the rear of the building and constructing two
additions to the rear for an expanded family room and master bedroom suite. A pantry on the side of the
house would be demolished and a new interior stairway would be added to provide an enclosed
connection between the upper level and the garage below. Three new skylights would be installed. The
pitch of the roof would be modified to accommodate the proposed additions, but the ridgeline of the roof
would remain at the same height.
The proposed additions would increase the floor area of the house by 191 square feet to a total of 3,171
square feet, which is less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The proposed additions would
increase the calculated lot coverage on the site by 218.5 square feet to a total of 2,614.5 square feet
(18.9%), which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage allowed in the RO-2 zone. A variance is
therefore requested for excess lot coverage. The proposed stairway addition would extend to within 18
feet of the front property line. As a 30 foot front yard setback is required in the RO-2 zone, a variance is
therefore requested for reduced front yard setback.
Mark Swanson, contractor, said that the owners want to improve the functionality of the house and
expand the usable floor plan. He said that the master bedroom and kitchen are very compact and outdated.
He said that they cannot build their allowable floor area without adding a second story, and are therefore
asking for permission to exceed the lot coverage by expanding on the first floor. He said that the existing
house is set back 20 feet from the front property line and the addition would have an 18 foot setback
because of the curve in the road. He stated that the back of the house currently has a sunroom and they
would like to remove that and convert it into an expanded master bedroom and living room. He said that
he contacted and visited all of his neighbors and was conscientious of their concerns. He said that there
would be no view or privacy impacts. He said that the original house had stairs that were removed in the
same area they are adding stairs.
Boardmember Tollini asked if Mr. Swanson could give more detail regarding the practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship related to pushing out the back portion of the house. He said that the staircase was a
non issue for him, but he would like to hear more about the rear. Mr. Swanson said that they would like a
living room and family room. He stated that the front door currently creates a long corridor of wasted
space. He said that they would like a family room with a more casual atmosphere creating more usable
living space and a laundry room upstairs instead of having to go up and down stairs to do laundry, and the
changes would make it easier to get around the house.
There were no public comments.
Boardmember Tollini said that the main concern to him was making the finding for hardship or practical
difficulty for lot coverage where the majority of the coverage would result from the expansion at the rear
of the property. He said that the lot size is 13,800 square feet instead of the minimum requirement of
20,000 square feet which make it difficult to stay within the lot coverage. He said that no one would be
affected by the addition. He said that the existing footprint of the house is really shallow and the variances
were necessary to expand the footprint.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that she came to the same conclusion regarding the small lot size. She
characterized the project as a modest expansion for the neighborhood. She felt that the hardships were
that the lot is small and that the garage should be accessible from the house. She also thought that the
applicant worked hard to be sure the neighbors would not be impacted. She said that she was totally
behind the project and the findings as staff had written them.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13 7
8/4/11
Boardmember Chong said that he was not sure if the small lot size could be a hardship, but noted that
there was a letter laying out details about why this was a better solution than a second story. He said that
it would be easy for him to support the project, as proposed.
Chair Kricensky agreed that this would be a modest addition that would greatly improve the house. He
agreed with staff in their findings for both the reduced setback and excess lot coverage.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 20 Seafirth Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-0.
F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #12 OF THE 7/21/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Boardmember Tollini requested changing "Tollini requested there would cedar..."' to "Tollini requested
there would be cedar..." on page 5, third paragraph, second line.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2011 meeting as
amended. Vote: 3-0-1 (Kricensky abstained).
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/4/11
I %
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard August 18, 2011
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.(30% E S
1
ACTION MINUTES #14
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM
Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Chong and Tollini
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 27 MARAVISTA COURT: File No. 711073; Cheryl Jordan and Karl Ma, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing two-story
single-family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct 1,742 square feet of additions
to the entry and garage of the existing house and construct a new upper level addition that
would include a master bedroom suite, along with three more bedrooms and two more
bathrooms. Three skylights would be installed on the new upper level. Assessor's Parcel
No. 055-183-20. Approved 4-0
2. 434 GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD: File No. 21114; William and Gabrielle Federal,
Owners; John Soden, Appellant; Appeal of Staff-level approval of Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to convert a 185 square foot deck
into floor area, construct a new deck on the upper level of the rear of the building, add
two skylights and construct other exterior alterations to the existing house. Assessor's
Parcel No. 039-133-11. Withdrawn
MINUTES
4. Regular Meeting of August 4, 2011 Approved 4-0
ADJOURNMENT At 7:12 PM
Action Minutes #14 8/4/11 Design Review Board Meeting
Page 1
DiCE%7070~"T /0's
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard August 24, 2011 - 7:30 PM
Tiburon, CA 94920
ACTION MINUTES
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM
Present: Chairman Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Tollini, Commissioner
Weller
Absent: Commissioner Kunzweiler
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None
Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do
so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3)
minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the
administrative record.
LECTION OF VICE CHAIR
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Commission and Committee Reports
Director's Report
PUBLIC HEARING
1. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING A
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CREATE AN
ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION FROM THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUIREMENT FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCF's):
Town-Initiated Application, File No. MCA 2011-06 [DW] Recommended Approval
to Town Council (4-0)
2 35 HACIENDA DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AND
ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURAL USE TO KEEP CHICKENS WITHIN A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-OPEN (RO-1) ZONED PARCEL File No.
11105; Stuart and Gina Peterson, Owners; Thompson Brooks, Inc., Applicant;
Assessor's Parcel Number 039-012-04 [LT] Approved (4-0)
Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes August 24, 2011 Page 1
MINUTES
2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of May 25, 2011
Approved 3-0-1 (Weller Abstained)
ADJOURNMENT a082411
Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda August 24, 2011 Page 2
NOTICE OF MEETING II.
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY