HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-03-30'OWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
i Week of March 19 30, 2012
Tiburon
1. Letter ~ Jim Fraser - New Bel/Tib Jt. Rec. Facility - Request for Additional
Funds `
2. Letter - Reed School Students to Town Council - Ideas for Tiburon/ Belvedere
3. Letter - Jim Fraser - Acknowledgement and Thanks to Students for Ideas for
Tiburon and Belvedere
4. Memo - Scott Anderson - Regional Planning issues and Projections:
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) & Regional Housing Needs
Allocations (RHNA)
5. Letter - Scott Anderson - Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report
for Calendar Year 2011
6. Memo - Diane Crane Iacopi - Calif. Cancer Research Act (Prop. 29)
7. Letter - American Red Cross - Recognizing Everyday Heroes - Chloe
Bohannon & Maggie McDonogh
8. Public Notice - Railroad Marsh / TPC Pedestrian Path Improvements
Agendas & Minutes
9. Minutes - POST - January 17, 2012
10. Minutes - Design Review Board - February 16, 2012
11. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - March 15, 2012
12. Minutes - Planning Commission - March 14, 2012
13. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - March 28, 2012
14. Agenda - Planning Commission - March 28, 2012
Regional
a) Invitation to Order Plaque - Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation
b) Service Matters - ABAG newsletter - March/April 2012 *
c) ABAG - Announcement - Spring General Assembly & Business Meeting
d) Sierra Club Yodeler - April/May 2012
e) Comcast California - February 2012 *
f) Invitation - Marin Conservation League's Annual Dinner 2012 - 4/20/12
Agendas & Minutes
g) None
* Council Only
DIGEST
Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 - www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
March 22, 2012
Jerry Butler, Mayor j~
Sandra Donnell, Vice Mayor
Belvedere City Council
450 San Rafael Avenue
Belvedere, CA 94920
Dear Mayor Butler, Vice Mayor Donnell and City Councilmembers:
As you are aware, for two years now the Town of Tiburon has been
striving to create a new home for Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation
(BTJR) at 600 Ned's Way. The project would contain approximately 4,800
square feet for BTJR offices, three flexible classrooms and a kitchen, as
well as a 22 car parking lot, all on two acres of land owned by the Town.
The advantage of proceeding at this site is its proximity to Reed School,
enabling the classrooms to fulfill BTJR's need to replace the space it now
uses at the school. Additionally, the capacity of the facility would allow it
to become a locus of programs for all age groups.
In October of 2010, the Town and City reached agreement for the City to
make an annual contribution of $30,000 (increased annually) to help offset
the Town's capital expense and contribution of land for this shared
purpose. At that time, the cost of the project was estimated at $950,Q00,
not including contingencies, etc. The Town bid the project, but only one
bid was received and subsequently rejected for being substantially over
estimates. The Town modified the specifications and re-bid the project,
this time receiving six bids of which the lowest was $1,680,000, a better
outcome but still exceeding re-worked estimates. The total project cost,
including $153,000 already spent on engineering, environmental work,
soils tests and so forth, is now $2,390,000 which reflects contingencies,
construction management, utilities and all anticipated costs. The high
project cost is largely a consequence of site challenges: its slope, soils and
lack of utilities. In fact, site preparation costs exceed the cost of the simple
structure. However, it is still less expensive than purchasing a piece of
comparable land for the project.
Jim Fraser
Mayor
Emmett O'Donnell
Vice Mayor
Richard Collins
Councilmember
Frank Doyle
Councilmember
Alice Fredericks
Councilmember
Margaret A..' Curran
Town Manager
5 ..i 3 } 4 t.~~f5 4 -1- -1, l ,t f i 3
.f... ~./i i :.../4..1 4. ~.i i. .~„i .i 4... .
The high cost, and the fact that the Council must supplement the
previously budgeted sure of $1,550,000 by $714,000 to build the project,
has caused the Town Council to step back and reassess its options.
Despite the unanimous support of the Town Council for BTJR and its
mission, some CQLu-U~ilmembers feel this may simply be too dear a price
for the Town to shoulder so substantially on its own for this purpose.
Consequently, despite the considerable effort and funds the Town has
already invested in the project, it may not proceed. This unhappy outcome
leaves the fate of the BTJR programs currently housed at Reed School in
jeopardy, and fails to create the new programming opportunities the
building would have provided for the entire peninsula. On March 7, 2012,
the Town Council directed staff and the Ned's Way Committee (Fraser
and O'Donnell) to explore alternatives to walking away from the project,
including revisiting the funding partnership with Belvedere.
Our question to Belvedere, then, is a simple one: would Belvedere make
an additional contribution to the project to enable it to be built? The Town
greatly appreciates the current pledge of $30,000 annually, but it
respectfully asks that the City consider a one-time capital contribution of
$300,000 in addition to the annual sum. Of course, the City would need
assurance that if the Town ever ceased using the structure for the intended
purpose that this sum would be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis over an
agreed upon amortization schedule. In a simplified example, a possible
approach would be a 15 period, whereby one-fifteenth of this sum or
$20,000 would be refunded for every year remaining upon closure (that is,
closing after ten years would leave five years in the period, resulting in a
refund to Belvedere of $100,000.) In addition to protecting Belved6re's
investment, this approach would serve as a disincentive to the Town to
alter the use.
We recognize $300,000 is not a small request, but it represents only 13% of
the total $2,390,000 cost, not including the Town's contribution of land.
When coupled v\Tith the existing commitment of $30,000 annually, this
added sum would shift the arrangement closer to the proportions of the
deal the two governments struck in 2010, although the Town would still
be funding a larger share of the project than was the case in 2010.
Looked at another way, in rough numbers, the price has approximately
doubled from about $1.2M (when the $950,000 is scaled up for
j, > <<,
contingencies and other costs outside the estimate) to $2.4M. The Town
feels that the original deal was a reasonable arrangement for the first
$1.2M. It is now asking for $300,000 contribution toward the additional
$1.2M, or 25% of this incremental increase. As mentioned before, these
numbers do not reflect the value of the land or the hundreds of hours
Town staff, Council committee members and pro bono volunteer Miles
Berger have expended on the project.
The Town greatly appreciates any consideration Belvedere may be willing
to give this request. Absent some fresh approach to the project, it appears
likely that the good intentions and actions to bring this about will be for
naught, the project will be abandoned, and the entire peninsula will miss
the opportunity for meaningfully expanded BTJR programming for all our
citizens, from the Reed School children to our teens and seniors and
everyone in between for many years to come. Let's see if some new
thinking can shift this outcome to a more positive one.
Si4ceyely,
Ji 'Fraser
Ti uron Mayor
cc: Belvedere City Manager
Tiburon Town Council and Manager
Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation (BTJR) Committee
BTJR Executive Director
RECEIVED
Reed Elementary School
1199 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94133
March 9, 2012
To the Tiburon Town Council,
MAR 19 2012
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
is
OI~F~T
I am a first grade teacher at Reed Elementary School. Our class has just finished a
unit on persuasive letter writing. One of the assignments was to write a letter to the
Tiburon Town Council. Each student considered and wrote about something that he
or she would like to have in his or her hometown. All the children in this particular
class live in either Tiburon or Belvedere. I have enclosed these letters for your
perusal.
Before reading, please remember that these children are six or seven years old.
Thus, the range of handwriting skills, spelling, choice of words, and writing
conventions is very wide. Please excuse any errors as I wished to keep the letters as
authentic as possible.
The children would love a reply from the Town of Tiburon. One reply to the entire
class would be more than appreciated. I realize that you won't be able to agree to
zoos and water parks in the town, but letting the children know that their voices are
heard will help guide them into becoming active and engaged citizens in our
wonderful community.
Thank you.
Janet Raiche
1st Grade Teacher
Reed Elementary
Tiburon Resident since 1996
5
ct,
Yin
. ••A~I d
,,i.! vt f l~ s
/ f~
# ~ ice'`
Lt
a
111 l
i
p
-e.
E
i
ek
J v
_ ~z ,
Vr')
cot
tS
1 ,
C
3
r"
4 i b
r
J
Ate' '
r
s ~ ~ 4
~`i , SAM
ICY N
f
r
1
II
r ~
_ f .f
~J o o
2-1 H
V.., -A) A-
to ( e CIO, i C1
rr
P.-=
i
s
3
q
j 3
1
s i ~~V { :
~ s.~
1
F ~
ir)
P
t
9
Y
t
t
a'
KI
cr ycc
f~~ r
1
1
1J~ f
_ I -
Y
P
T
{
r.
b
"f
K
Name: Date;
t
,ter
2-o/
tf:
~lj
k~
Oil f i
is
Z~
n,,Ff ,nom c,~)~
a. Y)-
f!~' 1
l
Y
1 J fyj
'17A
' `3p F
f
I
J
if
J
Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • wwwci.tiburon.ca.us
Dk~JCOT
March 19, 2012
Ms. Janet Raiche
Reed Elementary School
1199 Tiburon Bowe o rd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. Raiche:
What a delight to hear from your students about possibilities for Tiburon and
Belvedere! I found them to be very clearly stated, nicely printed out, and
heartfelt. I was impressed with the level of spelling for such young people,
too. There were many big words which were used and spelled correctly.
Clearly these students are getting an excellent education at Reed Elementary
School.
Many of the things the students would like to see would be difficult to create,
such as a zoo or an aquarium, but it is great to know these things would be of
interest. While the Town cannot build a zoo, I wonder if the children have
thought about what animals might do well in our climate, and what kinds of
animals they would most like to see. Do they have a petting zoo in mind,
where they can touch the animals, or would they rather see wild creatures like
lions and bears? Even if we cannot build a zoo, it is fun to imagine what it
might be like.
I will give the Library copies of the letters that relate to their services - such
as candy availability and video games. It would be good for them to know
what interests their young patrons.
Please tell your class that the Town Council greatly appreciates hearing from
them. Even if we cannot create a zoo, or some of the other things suggested,
it is very important that the children know they should never hesitate to write
to people in' overnment to tell them what is on their mind. Government,,, f.
should e o the people, by the people, and for the people, including even its
young t c 'zens. Please thank them for voicing their thoughts in such a
polite; ghtful and earnest manner.
Very e gds,
Jim
Margaret A. Curran
Town Manager
cc:! Tiburon Town Council
Town Manager
DIGEST
Town of Tiburon
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & Members of the Town Council
FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development4-
SUBJECT: Regional Planning Issues and Projections: Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) and Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA)
DATE: March 26, 2012
Two sets of regional-planning related numbers have recently been released that have been
making headlines in Bay Area newspapers. These are: 1) the Draft Preferred Scenario
(entitled the "Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario") associated with the SCS-related One Bay
Area Plan; and 2) the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Draft Regional Housing
Needs Allocation methodology and pre-draft numbers for the upcoming housing element cycle.
An informational session on these items is slated to be on an upcoming Town Council agenda,
most likely April 18th Staff believes that some background information on these items would
by useful if distributed prior to that meeting.
Jobs-Housina Connection Scenario
Jobs
The Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario (JHCS) is the latest long-term growth strategy from
ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and implement other state and regional planning goals of Senate Bill 375 and
Assembly Bill 32. It was preceded by several other draft scenarios that were considered.
The current JHCS will become the "preferred" growth strategy if approved by ABAG in May
2012 as expected. According to ABAG, local governments and other stakeholders will have
additional opportunities to comment before the final SCS is adopted in April 2013.
According to the main premise of the JHCS, the economic success and other sustainability
goals for the Bay Area will be supported by focusing forecasted jobs and housing in proximity
to public transit opportunities. The scenario relies heavily on employment and housing
forecasts, with the primary driver of economic growth being the projected addition of 1.1 million
jobs generating the need for 660,000 additional housing units in the Bay Area by 2040. The
scenario also asserts that two converging long-term trends are shaping the future of the
region----steady but slower employment growth and a shift from dispersed growth to more
compact, infill development.
For Marin County, the JHCS indicates employment growth on the order of 17% by adding
approximately 19,000 new jobs county-wide by 2040. The portion of Marin's job growth within
Tiburon is 540 new jobs, or an increase of 23% (see Exhibit 1). This figure can be compared
with projections released by ABAG in recent years as part of its Projections 2009 document
Town of Tiburon
MEMORANDUM
(see Exhibit 2). At that time ABAG projected 1,400 new jobs being created in Tiburon between
2010 and 2035. Town correspondence to ABAG objecting to these and earlier Projections
2007 jobs numbers are-attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. Town staff finds the job projection
numbers contained in the Draft JHCS to be far more credible than previously-generated ABAG
job growth projections. A total of 540 new jobs by 2040 make far more sense than 1400 new
jobs by 2035. A growing number of Bay Area cities and counties have written ABAG to
request an independent peer review of jobs projections, and ABAG staff has apparently
agreed to have a peer review of its economic assumptions.
Housing
The Draft JHCS also projects growth in the number of "housing units" and "households".
These terms have different meanings. It has been explained to Town staff that the primary
difference between "housing units" and "households" is that "households" is a larger figure in
that it includes filling of "vacant" existing housing units as well as the construction of new
housing, whereas "housing units" projects only new dwelling units to be constructed. Southern
Marin has a relatively high "vacancy" rate for homes as many homes are not occupied year-
round, according to the Census, or act as "second" homes.
For Tiburon, the Draft JHCS projects 330 additional housing units and 460 additional
households by 2040 (see Exhibit 5). The former number equates to an average of 11 new
units constructed per year over the 2010-2040 timeframe. Staff notes that these projections
are substantially higher than the 190 new households estimated for Tiburon by ABAG in its
Projections 2009 document (see Exhibit 6) for the period 2010-2035. The following table
provides Town-generated figures for the number of new housing units built over the past 16
years in the Town of Tiburon.
Year # New Units Built finaled
1996
28
1997
34
1998
13
1999
18
2000
9
2001
13
2002
36
2003
3
2004
9
2005
3
2006
4
2007
2
2008
2
2009
4
2010
0
2011
0
178 Annual Average = 11 units
March 26, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Town of Tiburon
MEMORANDUM
Staff believes it is highly unlikely that the number of new housing units constructed in Tiburon
will ever again reach lev"e~een in the 1990's and early 2000's, or match the average number
constructed during the past 16 years, and are thus unrealistic. The unofficial comment period
on the JHCS methodology ends on April 27, 2012.
RHNA Pre-draft Allocations and Draft Methodolo
Marin County's share of the Bay Area's pre-draft RHNA numbers for the 2014-2022 cycle is
1.8%, a small fraction of the total. In the prior 2007-2014 RHNA cycle, Marin County's portion
was 2.3%. See Exhibit 7 for comparison information on the two cycles, both among counties
as a whole and for Marin County jurisdictions in particular.
Tiburon's pre-draft RHNA numbers jump from 117 in the current cycle to 159 in the upcoming
cycle. This is the number of housing units that the Town must "plan for' in its general plan and
zoning. There have been broad shifts in the numbers for several Marin municipalities between
cycles, with Novato, San Rafael, Larkspur and Corte Madera seeing substantial decreases,
while San Anselmo, Sausalito, Tiburon, and Fairfax have seen marked increases. Staff has
not heard a cogent explanation for these large differences other than that the methodology is
markedly different this time.
The RHNA methodology used for the current cycle is apparently much more complex than that
used in prior cycles and is further altered by the new SCS process. The Transportation
Agency of Marin (TAM) has kindly provided a summary of the current RHNA methodology in
15 steps (see Exhibit 8). The process, as in the past, begins with a grand total Bay Area
number of units being dictated to ABAG by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), which ABAG must then "allocate" to the various cities and,counties in the
Bay Area using its own methodology. The State-dictated Bay Area Housing number for this
next RHNA cycle is 187,990 units.
Comment on the draft RHNA methodology will be in early summer of 2012, with official draft
RHNA numbers being released in late summer and a comment period on those numbers in
the fall.
Exhibits:
1. Table of JHCS jobs projections for 2010-2040.
2. Table of ABAG Projections 2009 job projections for 2010-2035.
3. Letter from Town staff to ABAG dated October 17, 2006.
4. E-mail from Town staff to ABAG dated June 30, 2010.
5. Table of JHCS housing unit and household projections for 2010-2040.
6. Table of ABAG Projections 2009 household projections for 2010-2035.
7. Comparison of RHNA numbers for 2007-2014 cycle and 2014-2022 cycle.
8. Draft RHNA methodology description prepared by TAM.
March 26, 2012
Page 3of3
i
Emplc
Belvedere
430
Soo
70
16%
0%
0%
Corte Madera
7,940
8,380
440
6%
0%
0%
Fairfax
1,490
1,870
370
25%
0%
0%
Larkspur
7,190
7,940
750
10%
#
0%
0%
Mill Valley
5,980
7,140
1,160
19%
0`;'0
0%
Novato
20,890
24,280
3,390
169
0%
0%,
Ross
510
620
110
22%
~
01YO
0%
San Anselmo
3,740
4,610
870
21%
0%
0%-
San Rafael
37,620
43,810
6,190
16%
37%
39%
Sausalito
6,220
7,730
1,510
24%
0%
0% '
riburon
2,340
2,880
540
23%
0%
0%
Unincorporated
16,380
20,270
3,890
24 0
14%
15°
Source: ABAG/MTC Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario
Employment Projections 2010-2040
a~ -rte ~ R ~ -
C
-I
(!1
I C/ 1
N
m
z
p
C
=3
a)
0
0
(D
n
-1
C
(A
7
:3
N
~
-
-1
(D
M
A
Q)
-
O
O
-
n,
D
°
O
<
Di
(n
O
n
x
2
Z
.
0
_
=
p
70
o
0 O
CU
ID
rD
a,
--1
°
C
n
3
°
O
Q
>
C
I
N
W
N
p
N
A
W
N
c y\
Ul
U,
Ul
~
F-+
F-+
W
00
00
F+
O
O
M
N
A
-l
11
1.-i
N
O
O
O
O
A
W
(7%
Ul
U,
I-1
w
m
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Fi
W
N
A
N
M
N
W
~I
Ul
A
M
M
-4
1--
M
i-1
A
a\
F-+
N
F-+
'O
Co
O
N;
A
'CO
-j
F-+
No
O
4
OD
A
B
M
11
Ln
N
~
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
F-+
W
N
N
m
N
W
~J
Ul
.A
Ln
Co
11
F1
cr%
C~
%D
N
N
O
NIO
m
I'D
N
U,
OJ
F-+
0
O
O
O
O
%O
O
O
O
C\
O
co
O
m
O
N
O
~
O
W
O
O
O
ON
O
W
O
J
O
W
N
A
N
m
W
W
~
d\
U,
m
OO
F+
.A
-0:.
A
N
O
co
W
A
O\
co
N
I--
N
N
.A
W
O
A
N
co
Ul
\O
U,
Ul
N
A
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
. O
O
cn
F-+
A
N
.p
N
W
W
W
~I
14
Ul
00
11
F1
--4
F-
4
\,O
~
c.n
Ul
O
Co
M
M
11
\O
~
F-y
N
co
N
~
~
N
m
~
N
W
A
N
OD
4
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
A
N
~i
N
O
A
p
11
w
Ln
co
F1
W
N
O
-co
I-1
\O
O
I-
'D
'o
w
F-'
F+
~,O
N
O
p
O
O
N
N
A
J
C\
Ln
N
I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U1
i
I
I
u
r
Ul
N
A
W
N
A
OD
~O
U,
O
\0
m
N
m
co
m
N
O
co
F-
.O
U,
W
_
O
_
O
_
.O
_
N
W
rn
\O
O
O
J~
F1
O
~.O
11
Ul
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
cn
N
Ul
W
00
A
A
00
F-+ I
cn
N
~O
m
N
.O
F-+
N
~I
CJl
N
W
I--
\o
~
rn
N
O
0
00
0
00
O
\D
0
4~1
0
41.
O
00
0
w
O
C)
O
ul
O
o l
Ln
0
CF\
0 I
ON
O
Lrl
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 October 17, 2006
Paul Fassinger
Research Director
Association of Bay Area Governments
P. O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604
RE: PROJECTIONS 2007 EMPLOYMENT FIGURES FOR THE TOWN OF
TIBURON, MARIN COUNTY
Dear Mr. Fassinger,
I have reviewed the Projections 2007 estimates for the Town of Tiburon jurisdictional
boundaries and have only one comment.
I am at a loss to understand the very significant growth in Total Jobs between 2000 anc
2005 for the Town of Tiburon. For this 5-year period (which I realize is now history),
there is a whopping employment increase of 1,300 for our community of 8,800 souls
and very limited commercial activity.
As a planner with the Town of Tiburon for over 18 years, I can guarantee you that sucl
growth cannot be as a result of new commercial development, as we have had virtually
none. Nor have local commercial businesses grown much in terms of employees.
While home-based businesses are popular in Tiburon, this factor alone cannot account
for such a large overall increase in total jobs.
I would be very interested in knowing if this huge discrepancy is a result of
undercounted employment figures for Year 2000, overestimates for Year 2005, a
different source for employment totals being used for the two figures, or some other
cause or combination of causes. If the 2005 total job number is an overestimate, then I
would suggest that the total j ob proj ections for Years 2010 through Years 203 5 bole re-
evaluated. '
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
sanderson(o- ),ci . tiburon. c a. us .
I can be reached at 415-435-7392 or at
Ver truly yours,
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Page 1 of 1
Scott Anderson
From: Scott Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:26 PM
To: 'jasonm@abag.ca.gov'
Subject: Town of Tiburon comments on Projections 2009 updates
Jason,
I have reviewed the information that you sent to Marin County Planning Chiefs in your e-mail on June 15, 2010.
For the Town of Tiburon, I have no problem with the projected growth in households; these track closely with our
own assumptions and development projections.
However, I find the projected growth in jobs (roughly 1,400) to be not credible. There is very little potential for
new commercial development in the Town's Planning Area; the Town has not seen a sizeable new commercial
development in 25 years and none are on the horizon. We view the potential for expansion of existing businesses
and commercial buildings as quite limited. I cannot begin to envision where this number of new jobs projected for
Tiburon could come from. We have not seen an up-tick in the number of home occupation permits.
If you could shed some light on why so many new jobs are being projected, it would be appreciated. My
recommendation is to drastically reduce this projected number without some basis for its support.
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Town of Tiburon
~W
6/30/2010
.
$
41
41,
Housing U
nits
Househo
Zz y
6
lds
cQ
2040
Belvedere
1,050
1,070.
20
2%
930
1,020
90
10%
0'Yo
0%
Corte Madera
4,030
4,230
210
5%
3,790
4,060
270
7%
OIYO
0%
Fairfax
3590
3,890
310
9%
3,380
3,740
360
11%
0,5
0%
Larkspur
6,380
6,520
140
2%
5,910
6,260
350
6%
0%
0%
Mill Valley
6,530
7,110
570
9%
6,080
6,820
740
12%
a%
01%,
Novato
21,160
22,050
890
4%
20,280 '
21,170
890
4%
OIYO
0%
Ross
880
960
80
9%
800
930
130
16%
0%
0%
San Anseirno
5,540
5,990
460
8%
5,240
5,750
510
10%,
0%
San Rafael
24,010
26,830
2,820
12%
22,760
25,760
2,990
13%
19%
26%
Sausalito
4,540
4,910
380
8%'
4,110
4,720
15%
0%
Tiburon
4,030
4,360
330
8%
3,730
4,190
460
12%
0%
0%
Unincorporated
29,500
31,440
1,940
7%
261,190
29,990
31800
15%
16%
16%
Source: ABAG/MTC Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario
Housing Unit and Household Projections 2010-2040
0
i
O
CD
r
r^'
y j
Q •
n
O
N
O
O
D
N
W
O
D
O
Z
O
m
03
D
D
m d
D
O TMti
m
<
Z
m
z w~
-i
3
C
-I
cn
cn
cn
m
z
r
n
oo
v
>L
O
O
-
O
(o
C)
c
=3
=3
Lf)
"
'
<
"
<
N
a
a
n
O
O
-
~7
n~
D
p
n)
'O
x
D
(D
n
n
-
1
r
N
-
C
(p
'r
O
C
O
CD
(D
'C
rD
p
:3
3
rp
n,
,C
D
W
~
°c
a
c,
O
N
N
O
Ln
W
A
N
Ln
w
O.
ON
w
w
0%
A
-J
N
W
N
--4
Ln
I+
F-+
W
N
O
Ln
W
I--
Ir
-4
ON
m
N
A
A
O
--4
Ln
O
A
N
A
11
►
A
~1
N
O
N
O
N
N
I
w
Ln
W
A
N
Ln
~D
w
w
N
~I
w
10
N
-j
co
N
W
N
O
co
Cn
M
W
~D
w
F•
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
N
O
N
N
N
A
rn
w
A
N
cn
o
ON
m
w
w
U,
A
-.i
W
~
W
~
Ln
N
W
~D
D
N
Ul
C\
\D
F +
co
I--
CO
O
-4
M
O
F-+
C7%
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
F-►
O
N
N
N
Ln
0•
w
A
w
Ln
O
0,
m
w
-Al
oD
4
M
W
N
w
•J
~
W
N
W
O
"
0
4
O
O
W
w
w
\.O
m
N
O
W
m
11
+
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_
LTn
F•~
O
N
N
N
11
11
W
A
W
Ln
I--~
O.
a,
w
A
A
Co
0o
W
co
W
•J
W
N
W
N
F i
%D
N
N
%O
N
Ln
a,
A
\O
w
\O
N
~
iw"#
I~
00
N
O
O
O
co
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
F-►
O
N
N
N
OJ
W
A
A
Ln
I✓
rn
rn
W
A
~O
A
m
w
A
W
~I
Ln
A
N
W
F-+
,
N
O
~D
N
A
m
%.D
Ln
I'D
W
ON
A
Cn
m
co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cn
1-+
N
N
N
O
14
W
A
Ln
Ln
1-"
m
m
w
lb.
o.
O•
co
W
N
W
~
%D
Ln
N
W
N
\.O
N
O
'-I
A
'J
w
O
a%
\~O
Ln
A
o`
Ln
\~D
0O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
F+
F-►
N
N
N
N
11
W
A
Ln
Ln
N
0,
m
w
A
F+
co
\D
A
ao
W
W
O.
N
W
A
\D
0
4
-o
O
O
O
~
~
W
w
co
m
A
co
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
0
C
e-h
CD
O
RHNA Allocation Draft (March 8, 2012)
2007-2014 RHNA
2014-2022 RHNA
Region
214,500
187,990
Alameda
44,937
43,218
Contra Costa
` 27,072
21,973
Marin
4,882
3,392
Napa
3,705
2,607
San Francisco
31,193
24,944
San Mateo
15,738
17,101
Santa Clara
60,338
52,348
Solano
12,985
10,080
Sonoma
13,650
12,328
Belvedere
17
23
Corte Madera
244
101
Fairfax
108
129
Larkspur
382
131
Mill Valley
292
274
Novato
1,241
411
Ross
27
36
San Anselmo
113
201
San Rafael
1,403
898
Sausalito
165
224
Tiburon
117
159
Marin County Unincorporated 773
805
Marin County TOTAL
40882
3,392
r,
6
EXHIBIT NO.
RHNA Methodology in 15 Steps
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 1
Regional Housing Need. HCD, with ABAG's input,
determines ABAG's regional housing need.
FROM ABAG's 3/8/12 mewo the Housing Methodology Committee:
oi ILL e fftl_ RFD-~ cmcie, CD detem:la ed ABAG~ s re o.Z. lion ~rLg need :o be L X990 i its fo
fi._r S.8 rear projection pe- od ".o:- T atinz f 2014 n rv 4'la --topes; .2-D-22. TEs dete na.tion i b is-,ed
y'
.
o f~vp% tion projector z pcodziced I.;r the Caliio=iix; Department of F xice ; OF; acid -,vas
de i z-+ed -nth com-ideratian of e eT.#-o d n=w vticertaint-, f e;)-j:,±nv nz:Lo: aL sty e. local ecanzon:~,es
and ho.zrlts. Foy this cle: ►-Y HCD made x .-st yi$fi toccioi=t nor abioriallr IL1
==7cies z _ ct (-ir.4u r-iiaak 54:'*R.rii.diticni s di to pima/.1onced iecS.ssio Y 'T k
L.''#i..af.' ~
_
n, eii~-plor7raet-.t aild ';u1pre ede.-Ylted fo.-eclo eves.
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 2
2014-2022 Distribution to Jurisdictions.
Using the regional housing need number as a control, the
1/2014 -10/2022 housing need for local jurisdictions and
unincorporated areas is extrapolated from the 2010, 2015
and 2020 SCS household growth assumptions.
Step 3
Sphere of Influence Adiustment.
Input for column D
The preferred draft scenario household growth assumed in
the spheres of influence throughout the county is totaled.
62.5% of the allocation of housing need generated by the
unincorporated SOI is assigned to the appropriate
jurisdiction, based on their % of SCS household growth in
the County.
37.5% of the allocation of housing need generated by the
4
unincorporated SOI is assigned back to the SOI, based on
their % of SCS household growth in the County.
Step 4
Sustainability Split for PDAs.
Results are shown in column E.
The SCS input is adjusted so that 70% of household growth
is allocated to PDAs based on the jurisdiction's share of PDA
growth in the SCS.
FROM ABAG's 3/8/12 "Proposed RHNA Allocation Methodology":
This p+ement zF tsse ieci`arrs tctal hoL.; sing reed 3ssicre6 .c PDA is based an file propo"I-jor, c f tal crc ,th ,assicrec' m
PDAs the SCS Prefei•ed Scera^o, w th a na:.•murnm o=?c, Percer:t.
T ie p-oporticn of PDA rth in t0-e P-eferr ed Seem^"c is applied to the -egion'= tota 1 ous nc neec ti r r- Y-iC-DI rceter mI;re the annount of the tot-a? need to be d _trih.rtee -,sing the Susan bilivv Componen , Each PDA rece~ve-c a Dolton
of tHs teal neee, bared or, it share of tc al PDT. grorrt~ "r, the Prefer d Scenai '10i
3/23/2012
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 5
Sustainability Split for non-PDAs.
Results are shown in column G.
The SCS input is adjusted so that 30% of household growth
is allocated to non-PDAs based on the jurisdictions' share of
non-PDA growth in the SCS.
110% Upper Threshold for PDAs.
Column J highlights 5 PDAs that
Step 6
Column I: jurisdicCfo`n's household formation growth, which
exceed the 110% upper
can be summarized as the expected rate of growth for a
threshold.
community based on births/deaths with migration/jobs.
(see ABAG's description below)
Identify which PDAs have over 110% of expected household
formation growth.
FROM ABAG's "Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology Technical Documentation" (Revised
Household formation grovrth is an estimate of the future number of households without taking into
account financial, zoning or land availability constraints. Household formation growth is calculated
based on the expected population growth and the rates at which different age and ethnic groups form
households. Population growth is forecast based on natural increase, migration, and jobs.
Job Growth
Household
Net Migration Formation Rates
Natural - population Growth Household
Increase Formation Growth
11/20/11):
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 7
Redistribute Excess PDA growth to Non-PDAs.
Column L: jurisdiction's share of
Excess growth in 5 PDAs is distributed to non-PDAs based
household formation growth
on a jurisdiction's share of household formation.
Column P: umber of PDA units
to redistribute (total shown at
end of column P)
Column Q: Number of additional
units allocated to jurisdictions'
non-PDAs.
Column R (Adjusted non-PDA
growth) = G + Q
FROM ABAG's 3/8/12 "Overview of Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) Methodology:
:r Ho.wri; q Thrrl hcid,F , o a _ s1 PD As =~.eets or ex%e'e'd- 1 .1 C_lLy .z o- ':he
~ ~ ~ art ur.
_ , - old fo=t on o tT-t bas- on .e S:. ntaAiab Lty Con1pon€'_1t, it -oE l no
-xilft
:ae
a` fi ned ►dditioll.-d o o-are:c 011 ._-le F~ Shoe oillpot ents. The 'Dr-es hodi;_'
l- e v_hold ens,,ue s & a t cites 7s hi.ch emlu`l : de:sniable anner: tt-e s to svip rt oTM-t
PDA''« mild- a e:ars tfansi-_ and '111 1 11 t1= o S _i Lt1 S :die 0 r. erbnfde11e 0, b Ili.
ei:- 2L, r. ~.ntzar ~ . l'f't•:;1 r1 s1 ~ -T s . .G
a.l.7c.Ated icy v'd1 ~ ~ :id th v a 1 ~ z: f .4
2 3/23/2012
FROM ABAG's 3/8/12 "Proposed RHNA Allocation Methodology"
flowchart
Apply 110113. Upper Threshold
~s - e -i
D.1 alc_wth in . FD~+• (z) in ...rIe 'des },t It IIIeet~'ex-ze~i~ ~€~.~~ar
t~~1'wa1:9 ~IG~
Prat' 'r ec. Sren:ar io Meet=;cir et a e ~~r. d ~~-r~1or~ of t3 -:e
PDA gi~zt%- h = 1rarisdiict on Total i HIKA
cr~ e-
ha ~~~cl~~~y=rh~ a
(n-D aad'ticnal' unites from Fa :r Share!' actors,
P'pl Fair Sear
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 8
Apply Fair Share Factor for RHNA Performance.
Column T: RHNA performance
See ABAG description below.
score
Column U: number of units
added or deleted based on
permit history for very-low and
low-income units
FROM ABAG's "Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology Technical Documentation" (Revised 11/20/11):
his factor evaluates a jur~sdictron's performance in °ssuin.g permits to nneet its RHNA allocat'ons =c° very
Iovi- and low-incorne uni~., for tie _ 99S-2006 Rtt',NA. period.. The scores were ca cul:ated us°ng
inf+~~mation in A.eAG's. report A lbce to t"t'2 i ome: ~+aus ng fn tie Son Fra!~,~cfsc~a Bay Area August 2007).
The factor is based on the total number of very lot,%t- and low-incorne units permitted. Each jurisdiction's
permit data for the two income categories is shown on the "RHNA Performance" tab (:ollinins F - H).
Column J - K show the combined totals for the two income categories. Each jurisdiction in the region is
ranked' from 1 to 109 based on the total number of permits issued for very low- and to ~ -income units
from 1999-2000 (Colu-n-n Q. The jurisdiction's rant, for the factor is then riormalized tAa scale of -100%,
to 100% (C-011'al-I -r M). The Score Adjustment moves a jurisdiction's allocation up or down by modifying
its Non-PDA Grovrth Total. Those jurisdictions that have permitted less of their past RHNA allocations
vjill receive a higher RHNA allocation for this period.
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 9
Apply Fair Share Factor for Employment.
Column V: Employment score
See ABAG description below.
W: number of units added or
deleted based on permit history
3 3/23/2012
FROM ABAG's "Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology Technical Documentation" (Revised 11/10/11):
[NOTE, column numbers refer to the spreadsheet for the employment factor]
le erg o~yment .actor ,s bas on Nat;oa fal Esta : ,shment Time Series (NP' data f:cnr 2 i1r~_ ~ he N77S
data is gat- ered by --id dual business an6 ir:c; ;o,- n;n-,,ber of `cbs, industry ttrpe, and location. S ai'
anaIvzec the data to de ermifle the T --nber of joins, in eac J ri.s&--t ;car that a- v.~i thin a PD A. and
nurr,bertn.at are located ounid o*ie c'tih- e a-eas. iur~sCaictions we're rated 'based on t~ne Iota. 71im aer
o= yobs o itside cif a PDA. oily the obi Nuts 'e c~=1=~ DAs
:we re cogs Bred Because i s factor it heir used
~G~ r
to allor ~ate t° a pcrti f'-dial need - ~d t iat Sias not already z peer= dfirecteCli to t ese szzsta nabl, =ocation_,..
T, he data for each jur~sdicfion is sno Rn on tr!.e ""Jobs" tat). C lur E - D show the emplcyrnerst data fo r
each jur sd iii n, sepa-ated .:-t°to~cbs coated ~a i.l,ir :PDAs and jobs ;ovate; outs:d`e PGtAS.. Each jurisdiction
int .e region: is ranked frcrn 1 to 109 :.:aced on the total numbe.- cf no n- A jcds = . Me
jurisdiction's rangy: for the factor is t°len normalised to a. scale of 200 ; to 10C% j.,Z olurr r 3 The Score
A=djus.:rnent moves a j irisdict,on's a ;:ovation ups or dovrn by modifying ts. Non-PD A Gr=c~ve~tb: Total_ Those
z
jurisdictions that have a higher number of jobs: outsioe of ;DAs will receive a higher p~NA a:lls otaticn..
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 10
Apply Fair Share Factor For Transit.
FROM ABAG's "Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology Technical Documentation" (Revised
11/10/11): [NOTE, column numbers refer to the spreadsheet for the employment factor]:
The trans "t factor is based or, measures of service 'i'e iuency° and cveral ccverage for a, entire
juriscction. Service frequency is measured by ave-rage daily head ays (tune m-n uites between transit
arri a-s over a 24--hour weekday peried) n 2.CO9 b j:jrisdiction. The calculation is d-cct°Ee at the
intersection-level based on how frequentl'y a transit vehicle arr`ves a thct Ioce icn t:ne-efore, the
average ead&av only takes `nt.;o account intersections within a jurisdiction that have transit stops.
ransit coverage s measured .d,, the percent of intersections v.,rthin a jurisdiction that have transit, tops_
his in'~c-ma'.ion helps avoid overstat., the cvera availabi 'tt c= trans t jurisd'cyion ~~5~~ide :based c^ the
fa=t t'at scome .irisdictions :a'.+~e a small number of stops that happen to have fre'qaent tra^sit_
Tie data for each jurisdiction is. shown on the :Transit" tab.. Frequency calcifation
E= - U. Column, E shovirs 'hetotal nuns er of transit arrivals within ajur.sd:ct on in a 2°4-hour period. Co.ijrnn
C shows the a !-a:ge rtozs per rioj!wh- e Column D con.4erts this a~.~era ge rn_:o a n a~~erage headi~a,~f~7r
t-n e 24-h c u r period. Tie jurisd"cticn"s score is ncrTnalized t-i a scale of 11 OF to 10C%D E;.
Coverage ca:culat-ons are shc-,,r.,n in Cc . --ins ~ - 'olumn C sho s ttotal purr=be:r of ir;t~ ~-t ry
Coverage w ithi n the jurisdirfflor that r,av e transit stops. CcI U, -,n H shows the total number of intersections within
t'le ,urisdic-tir_-n, and Cloiurnn I snov., the pe-cent cf -r;terse,c.ions -e.,itt transit.. the juriso don's sc'orL is
normalized to G scale =of -103% .c7 IOC5' "^c,, he Scc:re :ydjus_men s 'cr `reou£ency and cr ,vA--age :ire averazued to create a cDmpcsite transit ,core
i~_•? 'i`l _ I. Each element is v+,eic-rh ed ec .sally. This Score :Adjustrne ,t nic)ves a jur-sdicticn"s allocat or up
or do r by r-ricidifying its Ncan-PDA Growth Total. These; ~irisd'ctions that have nutter transit service and
fl .-erage i , revere a hig^er RHNA all=cicat"
4 3/23/2012
STEP
EXPLANATION
COLUMN INFORMATION
Step 11
Total the Fair Share Factors. The total of the fair share factors,
Column Z= U+W+Y
to be applied to the non-PDA growth total in column R.
Step 12
Scale the Fair Share Factors. Column Z is scaled to the 30%
Column AA=Z+R
SCS non-PDA amount shown in, G137 (56;397 units). AB135
Coumn AB = revised non-PDA
shows an excess 5,764 units from the fair share factors.
growth
Column AA is scaled down to the control total of 56,397 units
of regional non-PDA growth.
Step 13
Apply 40% Minimum Floor.
AD = E + AB (PDA + non-PDA
Identify which jurisdictions have less than 40% of projected
growth)
household formation growth.
AE = Identify which
jurisdictions have a draft RHNA
less than 40% of projected
household formation (26
jurisdictions, shown in orange)
AG= Allocation for jurisdictions
to achieve 40% minimum
floor.
Step 14
Apply RHNA Cap.
Al through AN: info for final
A jurisdiction's allocation is capped at twice its 2007-2014
calculations
RHNA allocation if its growth was increased to the 40%
AR = Al
minimum in the SCS preferred scenario AND its total RHNA is
AS - jurisdictions with RHNA
more than twice its 2007-2014 allocation. There are 8
capped at two times the last
identified in column AS
RHNA
AT = the difference to be
redistributed
AU = AK
AV = Redistribution
percentage
AW = Redistributed units
aAX Finf Draft RHNA
Step 15
Apply Income Distributions.
''!e" : rat step in deterrnin:rs t'eijrisdiction's Adjusted Inc.onie Dis.ri' tiOn >J to ca Cu:ate the oifference
between the jurisdiffor='s: existing z-opc-tjon of house"T. ds in ar: income category and the region`s
proportion of households: in that "°nccme category°_ ?DLLs difference is then mu tipl'ed by 175%. Finally,.
the resin: is adued to he Jur°"s.icticWs initial proportion o= h~cjsen4 oll; s in Fa incc~r~e r~ategor .
I he resin. is h share of tie jurisdktion's tots' RHNA al rz. caticn that will be in ha-. part"cular income
Cat--gory. :pry. T se steps are conzpl ted for eac of t-le jr income categories.
5 3/23/2012
Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 - www.u.tiburon.ca.us
Community Development Department
Governor's Office of Planning & Research
State Clearinghouse & Planning Unit
P. O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Department of Housing & Community Development
Housing Policy Division
1800 Third Street
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
March 22, 2012
y '
•
Jim Fraser
Mayor
Emmett O'Donnell
Vice Mayor
Richard Collins
Councilmember
Frank Doyle
Councilmember
Alice Fredericks
Councilmember
RE: ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011 Margaret A. Curran
Town Manager
Please find attached a copy of the Town of Tiburon's annual general plan
implementation status report, intended to satisfy the statutory requirements of
Government Code Section 65400(b)(1).
This annual report was reviewed by the planning agency (Tiburon Planning
Commission) on March 14, 2012, was accepted by the legislative body (Tiburon Town
Council) on March 21, 2012.
Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this annual report, please
contact me at (415) 435-7392.
it
Very truly yours,
LLI
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Enclosure: Town of Tiburon Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report for
CY 2011
Cc: Digest
S:\Planning\Staff Folders\sanderson\Letters\opr-hcd letter CY201 Ldoc
1
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
D i' G 4 UE 3 T 6*
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 29, 2012
To: Mayor and Town Councilmembers
From: Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
Subject: California Cancer Research Act (Proposition 29)
The Council received a brief presentation about this ballot measure during Oral
Communications at the March 21, 2012 meeting. The presenter provided the attached
information and draft resolution for Council's consideration. Proposition 29 is on the ballot for
the June 2012 election.
Diane Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
Attachment
y
1.100b. v & 2k
AMERICAN
STAM
LUNG
LIVE STRONG
VTO7 A riadcan Artwan
ASSOCIATION .
Hurt Stroke TT P+CA;_IrCRh.A Aswcmibon Assorntmm
CUN Cc3 ncil .hki t .l 11-113 Ca ?celj-
WHEREAS, the Californifi-Cancer Research Act is a state ballot measure which if passed by voters in
June 2012 would save lives by preventing 104,000 premature smoking-caused deaths; and
WHEREAS, more than 332,000 California high school students are current smokers, more than 34,000
California youth start smoking every year and 3,383,000 California adults are current smokers; and
WHEREAS, the California Cancer Research Act would increase the state's tobacco tax by $1 per pack
and according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the $1 tax increase alone would prevent 228,000
children from becoming smokers in adulthood and more than 118,000 adult smokers in California would
quit smoking; and
WHEREAS, the tobacco industry will spend millions to stop the California Cancer Research Act because
they know it will stop hundreds of thousands from smoking; and
WHEREAS, the California Cancer Research Act would provide nearly $600 million annually to fund
research and make advances in the prevention, detection, treatment, causes and cures for cancer, lung
disease, heart disease and stroke, and other tobacco-related illnesses; and
WHEREAS, the California Cancer Research Act would provide more than $156 million annually to the
state's existing tobacco control programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco, including school
based programs to reduce youth smoking; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Analyst Office analysis of the California Cancer Research Act determined that
local governments would likely experience an annual increase in sales tax revenues of approximately $10
million; and
WHEREAS, by providing the funding we need to keep California's anti-smoking programs strong, we can
keep our kids from smoking and give smokers the help they need to quit; and
WHEREAS, the California Cancer Research Act would provide $23 million annually for law enforcement
efforts to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and other anti-tobacco law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the California Cancer Research Act will result in $5.1 billion in long-term health savings from
reduced smoking; and
WHEREAS, cigarette smoking and other uses of tobacco remain the leading causes of cancer, heart
disease and stroke, and lung disease in California; and
WHEREAS, 36,687 adults die annually from smoking in California; Now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the [CITY COUNCIL] does hereby support the California Cancer Research Act of 2012,
which will reduce smoking, especially among children and fund critical research to prevent and treat
cancer, heart disease and stroke, lung disease and other tobacco-related illnesses. A suitable copy of this
resolution will be transmitted to the California Cancer Research Act Coalition: Californians for a Cure ; c/o
Dewey Square Group, 921 11th Street, 10th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, or faxed to (916) 447-4413,
or scanned and emailed to ccra.inforiiiatio jai-naii.coni.
z
s-z
T
AMERICAN
LUNG
-
LIVESTRONG
ASSOCIATION
iv c-AurokNa^
Heart stroke
Assoc bon As- at
What Will Proposition 29 Do?
Proposition 29 will save lives by providing nearly $600 million a year for cancer, heart disease, stroke,
emphysema and other smoking-related research. Prop 29 will also drive down smoking rates by
investing $179 million per year into proven tobacco control efforts (prevention, cessation and
enforcement). The initiative would raise the state's tobacco tax by $1.00 per pack.
Funding Will Save Lives and Prevent Teen Smoking
• 60% will fund cancer and other smoking-related research ($468 million)
• 20% will fund tobacco use prevention and smoking cessation ($156 million)
• 15% will pay for facilities and equipment to support research ($117 million)
• 3% will help enforce anti-tobacco laws and stop tobacco smuggling ($23 million)
• 2% is the maximum amount used for administering the program
Research - Fighting Cancer, Lung and Heart Disease
Despite advances in treatment and prevention, nearly one out of every two Californians born today will
develop cancer at some point in their lives, and nearly one in five will die from it. Prop 29 will provide
nearly $600 million a year to support new research to fight cancer, lung and heart disease and help find
cures.
Accountability - Puts Decisions in the Hands of Researchers
A nine-member oversight committee of cancer center directors.. University of California chancellors, and
representatives of disease advocacy organizations will award all funds.
Who Supports Proposition 29?
American Cancer Society Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
American Heart Association Livestrong Foundation/Lance Armstrong
American Lung Association Stand Up To Cancer
Who Opposes Proposition 29? Big Tobacco!
It's obvious. Prop 29 will result in fewer new teen smokers and more people quitting which the tobacco
industry sees as a threat to company profits. Over the last decade, Big Tobacco spent 10 times as much
marketing tobacco in California as the state did on tobacco prevention. Prop 29 will triple the state's
funding for tobacco use prevention and smoking cessation - preventing tens of thousands of children
from becoming smokers, and helping tens of thousands of smokers quit.
Find us on the web at www.californiansforacure.o[g
or follow us at facebook.com/californiansforacure or twitter @CA4aCURE
Paid for by Californians for a Cure, Sponsored by the American Cancer Society California Division, Inc., American Lung
Association in California, American Heart Association, Western States Affiliate and Cancer Research Doctors. Major funding
by American Cancer Society California Division, Inc., HOPE 2010 Cure Cancer (Perata Ballot Measure Committee) and
American Lung Association in California. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network California Ballot Issue Committee.
CA1.1I'() ItNIA C:1'\'It Rl.S Attcii A(:T
AMERICAN '
LUNG STRONG
ASSOCIATION T T A-
H►wr1 Sflu"
How CCRA Benefits California Business
The California Cancer Research Act will Help California's Economy
• Injects California's economy with $117 million per year in construction and
improvements to research facilities which will create 2,000 jobs,
• Provide $468 million per year in cancer and tobacco related disease research2
• Each research dollar invested in California is estimated to generate $2.40 in new state
business activity3
• A recent study found that the $3 billion investment Texas made in cancer research over
10 years has led to $852 million a year in economic activity and 11,537 new and
projected jobs3
• Provide $179 million per year for tobacco control and prevention2
• Passage of CCRA would save California $5.1 billion in long term health costs4
Smoking Hurts Businesses
• The US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention estimates that productivity losses
caused by smoking cost more than $97 billion each years
• Yearly smoking caused health expenditures currently total close to $100 billion. About
half of this is paid for by state, federal, and local governments; much of the remainder is
paid for by the private sectors
• Smoking costs California $9.14 billion every year in health care costs, and a total of
$18.1 billion in combined health care and productivity loss costs6
• The current cigarette tax is only 87 cents per pack, but the smoking-caused costs in
California are $15.10 per pack, including state health costs and lost productivity'
• The average Californian family's tax burden for smoking is $621 dollars a years
Oversight I
• Oversight is governed by a nine member committee including 3 University of California
Chancellors, 3 Cancer Center Directors, 1 practicing physician affiliated with a California
Academic Medical Center and 2 representatives of national disease prevention advocacy
groups who focus on a tobacco related disease2
• Protect taxpayers with criminal penalties for misuse of funds2
• Ensures that no more than 2% or revenue is dedicated to administration2
The impact of the CCRA
• Lead to a 13.7 percent decrease in youth smokings
Prevent more than 200,000 kids from becoming addicted adult smokers
Help more than 118,000 current adult smokers in the state quits
• Save more than 104,000 California residents from premature smoking-caused deaths
For more information, please visit: www.californiansforacure.org
'California Alliance for Jobs
21-egislative Analyst's Office, 2009 Initiative Analysis: California Cancer Research Ad, http //www_lao.(,j_govA) allot/7009/00001 1 tax
3Families USA, Report: NIH and Global Health Research Area Major Boon to California's Economy,
htt_//familiesusa2.org/assets/rdfs/ Igobal-healthiiirrvour-own-backyard.Ld
'CPRIT Annual Report, http:%/www' it.state_tx.us/maQes/uploads/?01.0 cpiit annual _r_eport texas takes on cancer web v1_. df.
'See Campaign for Tobacco ree Ki s fadsheet, State Tobacco-Related Costs and Revenues,
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/f actsheets/pdf/0178.pdf.
°1-Ittp://www.californiansforacure.orq/fs/glohaLfile/blog/ykrsjlL!9s41wu4 files/file/id/z!wh5vhr469vfu?1=1& c=zz12c5f4m4x8gj& credir=1
316022107& c=zzt2c5f4m4x8ai, see Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids factsheet, Explanations and Sources for TFK's Projections of New
Revenues & Benefits from State Cigarette Tax Increases, htttp //ywvw,tobaccofreek. d_._or_cg/resr..arch/f<,c _heets/pdr`/0281.I t.
'See Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids fadsheet, Tobacco's Toll In the USA,
http://vvww.tobceofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf
'See Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids factsheet, State Cigarette Tax Rates & Rank, Date of Last Increase, Annual Pack Sales & Revenues,
and Related Data, iittp://www.toi)ac(ofreek ds.orq/research/factsheets/pdf/0099.pdf.
"See Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids fadsheet, Smoking Caused Federal & State Expenditures and Related Tax Burdens on Each State's
Citizens [it tp://www.tobaccof reek ids, org/research/f actsheets/pdf/Q096.pd f.
up" I G E S T 7
anwrlcan
A-0 Red Cron
ry. * Bay Arm Ch"r
r
March 26, 2012
Mayor Jim Fraser
Town of Tiburon - Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mayor Fraser,
I D E C E ~ V E
i°IAR `L / 2012
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
MARIN OFFICE
712 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA
heroesredcrossbayarea.org
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Harold W. Brooks
Thank you for your continuing support of the Red Cross' annual Heroes Breakfast.
We appreciate your willingness to issue a Proclamation or Certificate for our Tiburon MARIN COUNTY LEADERSH
Heroes, Chloe Bohannon and the Angel-Island-Tiburon Ferry, and have COUNCIL CHAIR
included short descriptions for the Heroes below, along with the other Heroes for Joan Capurro, Bank of Marin
your general interest. Please send your Proclamation or Certificate to:
American Red Cross, Marin Office
Att: Heroes Breakfast
712 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901-3203
We hope that you will be able to attend the event in person and be present to be
recognized (and to participate in photos and presentation, as time allows).
The event will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Rafael on
Thursday, April 19th from 7:30-10:00 am. Tickets may be purchased from our
website, www.heroesredcrossbayarea.org for $35 for you or a representative from
your office.
Below is the list of heroes we will be honoring, including the Heroes from Tiburon:
Act of Kindness and Philanthropy Hero-Chloe Bohannon, Tiburon
Act of Courage/Lifesaving Hero, Organization-Angel-Island-Tiburon
Ferry, Maggie McDonogh, Owner, Tiburon
Act of Courage Hero, Individual-Sawyer Shine, Mill Valley; Jim Kelly,
Corte Madera
Animal Rescue Hero-Lisa Cohen, Larkspur
Life Saving Hero-Jennifer Ani, San Rafael
Public Safety Heroes-Justin Barrow, Sonoma; Paul Bradley, Santa
Rosa; Debbie Little, Santa Rosa
Community Service Hero, Organization-St. Vincent de Paul Society of
Marin, San Rafael
EVENT COMMITTEE
Carol Freedman, Event Chair
Bob Ganiard
Cynthia Stringer
David Donery
Linda Davis
Rosanne Angel
Steve Tulsky
Community Service Hero, Individual -Bob Tanem, Novato
Community Service Hero, Lifetime Achievement-Ken Massucco
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 415-721-2380 or by email at
call2carol@pacbell.net.
We very much look forward to seeing you on April 19th, and sincerely thank you
for your participation.
Warmest Regards,
)a,74
Chair, Heroes Breakfast of Marin Committee
American Red Cross Bay Area, Marin County
American Red Cross Marin Heroes Breakfast - April 19, 2012
Short summaries:
Act of Kindness and Philanthropy Hero: Chloe Bohannon who founded Guatemalan
Expressions - From Houses to Homes, a fundraising organization that sells photographs and
utilizes the proceeds to build housing in Guatemala.
Act of Courage/Life Saving Hero, Organization: Angel Island-Tiburon Ferry
'
Staff from the Angel Island-Tiburon Ferry and Angel Island State Park saved the lives of two
kayakers who had been swept underneath a large vessel. The crew from the fArry worked in
seamless concert with the staff from the Park in rescuing the two kayakers, a female who was
stunned and unresponsive and a male who did not have a heartbeat. Both staff from the Ferry
and Park worked together to perform the necessary lifesaving procedures including CPR and
treatment for shock. They were in constant contact with the Coast Guard and had the male
successfully airlifted to a nearby hospital. Thankfully, both victims survived the ordeal.
Act of Courage Heroes, Individual: Sawyer Shine and Jim Kelley
The two Mill Valley Boy Scouts helped a neighbor remove her belongings from her home during
a neighborhood fire. The two also assisted the Mill Valley Fire Department by administering
oxygen to a cat that had been rescued during the fire until a veterinarian arrived on the scene to
care for the cat.
Animal Rescue Hero: Lisa Cohen seems to show up when animals are in need. So far she
has managed to rescue a saddled stray horse in Novato running down Vineyard road without a
rider, ducklings stranded behind a fenced gutter, a parakeet that escaped his home, a kitten that
was put outside at 6 weeks, a pigeon dropped by a wild falcon, and a wild turkey on Novato
Blvd.
Life Saving Hero, Individual: Jennifer Ani Jennifer Ani saved Mike Ryan's life by doing CPR
and mouth to mouth resuscitation at a kids' birthday party and then inspired other first grader
families to learn CPR as a result.
Public Safety Heroes: Justin Barrow, Paul Bradley and Debbie Little were the three first
responders from across C4D-Unties to coordinate a difficult rescue and extrication mission of an
injured 14 year old bicyclist in a remote area of China Camp State Park in San Rafael. Sheriffs
Pilot Paul Bradley helped locate the victim and expertly positioned the helicopter for lowering a
second officer to help retrieve the victim and then fly the victim, Sheriff's Deputy and Paramedic
to a hospital in Walnut Creek.
Community Service Hero, Individual: Bob Tanem who spearheaded an effort to turn a 5,000-
square-foot former parking lot next to the New Beginnings Center into an abundant plot of
produce and fruit. The New Beginnings Organic Garden not only trains residents on landscaping
and gardening skills but also produces enough produce to meet the needs of the Center and
provide fresh produce to the Marin County Food Bank.
Community Service Hero, Organization: St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin County
The St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin County has been collaborating and engaging
thousands of Marin volunteers to provide food, clothing, shelter and other needs for our most
vulnerable neighbors in Marin County. Last year, the Society worked with more than 50
community partners in order to achieve this mission, including Dominican University, Legal Aid
of Marin, San Francisco Food Bank, Veteran's Affairs, and many others. They also garnered
more than 40,000 hours of volunteer support, which highlights the community support the
organization receives countywide. The organization has operated the Free Dining Room in San
Rafael since 1981, serving over two million meals and counting to their hungry neighbors.
Community Service Hero, Lifetime Achievement: Marin Co. Fire Chief Ken Massucco
Fire Chief Ken Massucco has fulfilled a real calling in the Marin County Fire Service as a
Firefighter working within "all ranks" for over 37 years. Chief Massucco epitomizes the term
"Public Servant" and is a selfless individual who has served with both distinction and
professionalism throughout his tenure. While Chief Massucco has been a leader in the fire
service, he has also served the greater Marin County Community, placing the highest value on
our residents, businesses and visitors. The Chief has been a "Firefighters - Chief' ensuring the
safety, training and support of our firefighters to best enable them to help and serve our
community. A consummate gentleman and true volunteer, he has done it for the love of serving
and protecting us from the risk and dangers of fire and other emergency occurrences. The
Chiefs efforts in emergency response, preparedness and prevention will serve Marin County
well into the future. We are thankful and appreciative of his service and sacrifice.
Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 - www.d.tiburon.ca.us
TOWN OF TIBURON - PUBLIC NOTICE
March 23, 2012
COURTESY NOTICE TO SURROUNDING
PROPERTY OWNERS
Railroad Marsh / TPC Pedestrian Path Improvements
Dear Residents,
This courtesy notice is issued by the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department
to inform you of the up coming Tiburon Peninsula Club (TPC) path project. The
Town also met with the Marsh Condominium HOA Board President, Michael
Scippa and Board Member Ken James on March 23, 2012 to make them fully
aware of the project and answer any questions they had.
The Town has hired the Conservation Corps North Bay (CCNB) to perform
invasive vegetation removal work and make minor improvements to the seasonal
foot path from the TPC to the Teather Park parking lot.
The proposed work will include removal of invasive vegetation along the path,
clear side-paths for mosquito control personnel access to the marsh; construct
rudimentary steps along one section of the path and a foot-bridge to allow access
over a small concrete drainage swale near the Judge Field Tennis Courts at the
TPC.
This work will be scheduled for the months of April and May but should not take
the full two months. Work hours will be from 8 am to 3 pm Monday through
Thursday. No work will be performed on Fridays nor the weekends. No heavy
construction equipment will be used during the project. All work will be
performed by hand with the assistance of some power equipment.
Staging of the work will be from the TPC side and will not impact the Marsh
Condos or the Teather Park parking lot.
Should you have any questions please contact the Public Works Department at
435-7354.
S,
Jim Fraser
Mayor
Emmett O'Donnell
Vice Mayor
Richard Collins
Councilme ber
Frank Doyle
Councilrnember
Alice Fredericks
Councilmerrber
Margaret A. Curran
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
Public Works Department
MINUTES NO. 15
PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION
January 17, 2012
Regular Meeting
Tiburon- Town Hall---Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Winkler at 6:06 P.M., Tuesday, January 17, 2012 in
the Town Hall Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, 1St Floor, Tiburon, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Winkler, McMullen, Feldman, McDermott and Allen
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Director of Public Works Nicholas Nguyen and Planning Manager Dan Watrous
ORAL COAVgUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES
November 15, 2011 Action Minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0.
COMNUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
• Planning Manager Watrous provided an update to the Commission on the status of Bay Trail
Gap Closure Study. He indicated that options are being developed, and will be brought back
in the March meeting once they are fleshed out in draft form.
SUBCONEVHTTEE REPORT
• None.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Multi-Use Path Adjacent to 2 Palmer Court; File #T 11-41; Tree Permit Request to Remove
Three (3) Pine Trees from Town Property.
• Planning Manager Watrous gave a summary of the staff report, and concluded that the
removal of the subject trees is warranted.
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission January 17, 2012 Page I
• Commissioner McDermott did not feel the trees were in decline and initially did not agree
that removal was warranted.
• Commissioner Allen and Feldman both had no strong opinions on the matter, but asked if
procedurally the application was consistent with Town Tree Policy why the Commission
would not approve of the permit. Manager Watrous clarified that the application was
consistent with the_policy.
• Commissioner TcMullen approves the removal of the trees since they are not native and
do not provide much value to the area. He acknowledged that they are many merits to
having trees saved and that his position is specific to this case. He would like the stumps
ground down flush with the surrounding elevation.
0 Chairman Winkler agreed with McMullen, and further suggested that the area around the
removed trees be well-graded and landscaped per Public Works conditions. Director
Nguyen suggested that the wood chips from the removal should be spread about and dress
the site.
• Commissioner McMullen moved to approve the permit, subject to stump grinding and
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, which was seconded by
Allen.
• 5-0 approved the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:40 P.M.
PETER WINKLER, CHAIR
Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission
ATTEST:
NICHOLAS NGUYEN, SECRETARY
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission .7anuariv 17, 2012 Page 2
io.
MINUTES #3
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2012
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky.
A. ROLL CALL j'
Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Johnson and Tollini
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous announced the item for 2308 Mar East Street had been officially withdrawn
but may be re-filed at a later date. He also announced two appeals were received on the CVS sign permit
application and they had been scheduled for the March 7, 2012 Town Council meeting. He requested a
member of the Design Review Board to attend that meeting, and Vice-Chair Emberson volunteered.
D. OLD BUSINESS
1. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for
reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants
propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the
existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet,
respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2
zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum
35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of
2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size.
Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. WITHDRAWN
2. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Pari and Lopa Choksi, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor
Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story
dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of
4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,548 square feet for a lot of this
size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04.
On December 15, 2011 the Design Review Board reviewed an application to construct a new single-
family dwelling with a floor area exception, on property located at 91 Sugar Loaf Drive. During the
meeting, two of the adjacent neighbors spoke in opposition to the project due to potential impact of views
from primary living areas.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
During deliberations, it was the consensus of the board that the design of the house was architecturally
beautiful, but in conflict with the slope of the lot, and impactful on the neighbors views. Even though the
horizon line of the view from the neighbor at 89 Sugar Loaf Drive was not impacted by the design, it was
still the fact that the water view would be more or less eliminated by the proposal. It was suggested by the
Board that the design of the house should be modified to minimize view impacts. It was also suggested
that a request for a lot coverage variance, in order to spread the footprint of the house out at the lower
level of the home, in order to-not impact views for the neighbors, might be supported by the Board. The
Board continued the prof eCfwfth direction given to the applicant to work on modifying the design of the
house to lessen the view impacts on the neighbors.
Jarrod Polsky, architect, said that they had carefully listened to all of the DRB's comments from the
December meeting and prepared a revised design. He said that they created multiple design scenarios and
came to the conclusion that they would lower the vertical element by one foot and remove the view
encroachment. He said that he met with neighbors and installed story poles, and he showed a photo
montage of the new design's impact on the views. He said that the neighbor at 89 Sugar Loaf Drive was
still concerned that too much water view would be lost. They therefore re-designed again, pushed the
master suite back, re-did the photo montages, and re-constructed the story poles. He said that the neighbor
requested lowering the roof of the master bath and closet, and they did so, and the neighbor was then
satisfied and removed her objections to the project.
Mr. Polsky said that they subsequently heard from another neighbor, the Hoybachs, at 96 Sugar Loaf
Drive about view encroachment. Mr. Polsky characterized the view encroachment as fairly minor and said
that they offered to trim back some trees on the left side of the house to open up the view. He said they
also visited the Wongs at 95 Sugar Loaf Drive and felt that the view encroachment caused by the glass
rail would be minimal. He understood that staff was asking them to refine the design more, but he felt that
they have worked on the project a lot and would like to move on with it. He said that lowering the roof
over the master bedroom is difficult to do. He said that they could lower it a maximum of about 4 inches
but he did not think it would make that much difference to the neighbor's view. He stated that the
architecture of the house requires the vertical element to be higher than the attached horizontal elements.
He said that they had removed 293 square feet and another 196 feet from the overhangs so they no longer
need the floor area exception.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked what the ceiling height was in the garage, and Mr. Polsky answered 8 feet.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked for an explanation of why the roof could not be lowered aver the garage. Mr.
Polsky showed images of the garage and said they could make the bathroom and closet ceilings lower, but
they need to drain the large master bedroom roof and could only get a maximum of 4 inches lower in that
area.
The public hearing was opened.
Pari Choksi, owner, said that they presented an outstanding design in December and had been working
very hard with the neighbors over the past two months. He said that they made substantial changes and
had cut back the addition by about 25%. He asked the DRB to approve the design the way it was
submitted tonight and reiterated that they tried to work with neighbors to resolve all of the issues.
Colin Wong said that he still had the same objection as last time that the view encroachment would have a
major effect because it would block their Bay Bridge view. He thanked the Board and expressed
frustration that the owner had not come to speak with him. He felt that the deck would be enjoyed by the
owner a few days a year whereas he would lose his view of the Bay Bridge 365 days of the year. He said
that when they first moved in they had a full view of the Bay Bridge and when the house was built it
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
obstructed part of this view. He felt that this was a substantial compromise and he was upset that they
were now requesting to expand the deck and obstruct the rest of his Bay Bridge view. He said that the
solution was simple--if the deck were adjusted it would satisfy his concern.
Andrew Hoybach said that the Choksis' had been vary respectful. He said that he has an upside-down
house to accommodate views of the bay and that the view corridor is very narrow and includes the Golden
Gate Bridge and water. His concern was that the proposed height of the addition would take a fairly
substantial portion of his meter view and if the addition were lowered, he would still be able to maintain
the depth of his view.
Silvana Wong said that they have tried to be good neighbors and had been on speaking terms with the
Choksis for 38 years until now. She said that everyone would like to maximize their views and it was
important not to infringe on neighbors' views. She hoped that they could work with the Choksis and
either retract the project to its original position or make an adjustment to the terrace so it would not take
out their view of the Bay Bridge and Embarcadero buildings.
Mr. Polsky noted that they met with the Wongs and understood their concerns.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Tollini complemented the staff report for providing photographs and exhibits. He said that
he visited the site, but it was helpful to have the photos, as well. He commented that there are a lot of
principles in the Hillside Guidelines that are difficult to determine when seen in practice. He stated that
the form of protection the Town provides in those guidelines makes this project a close call. He said that
he could go either way and more could be done, but he was not sure that a few inches here or there would
make a difference on the view impacts. He visited other neighbors and thought that the view impacts on
95 and 96 Sugarloaf Drive would be fairly minor intrusions and clearly consistent with the Hillside
Guidelines.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked if there was any way to lower the roof height and still maintain the drainage.
Chair Kricensky answered that the only way would be to lower the ceiling in the bedroom. Vice-Chair
Emberson said that it seemed less difficult than presented and also thought that the deck on the back was
fairly large and could be reduced to make neighbors happy. She loved the design of the house but
questioned whether the huge dining room and kitchen were needed, and whether the ceiling height could
be lowered.
Boardmember Chong said that in an ideal scenario a very different house would be built on this lot. He
respected the fact that they do not want to re-build a house that steps up the hill. He commended the
applicant for freeing up the views from 89 Sugar Loaf Drive, did not think that 4 inches would make
much of a difference in the view impact and agreed with the architect that the height element must be
retained to keep the design looking nice. He said that when viewed from 91 Sugar Loaf Drive, the project
would eliminate 4 buildings and he was not sure that cropping the deck would solve the issue. The only
question he had was whether something could be done to the corner of the deck to prevent the blockage of
a few buildings from the neighbor's view.
Boardmember Tollini said that the width of the terrace was just below 10 feet and that the house would
not have a lot of terraces. Boardmember Johnson pointed out that the west terrace would be larger.
Boardmember Tollini asked what was under the portion of the deck and Boardmember Johnson replied
that there would be nothing underneath this cantilevered section.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
Boardmember Johnson asked for details of the corner railing, and Mr. Polsky said that it would be a glass
railing and the neighbors may be able to see through it. Boardmember Johnson stated that from his
experience doing hillside projects in town, the view perspective can change when one is back in the
kitchen and move up towards the window. From a perspective further back in a primary room, he felt that
there is some diminishing of the view but when one'walks forward toward the window more of the view
is apparent. He fully understood the architecture of the project and agreed that the ceiling could be
lowered but it would alter the-design and would not have much of an impact on the views. He did not
think that the glass railing wouid have a significant effect on the view. He asked if the applicants would
consider lowering the railing by one foot. Mr. Polsky said they would be happy to lower the railing by 6
inches.
Chair Kricensky said that he visited the site previously and was familiar with the impacts of the project.
He struggled with this project and its impacts on views and questioned whether a view is owned by
whoever comes first. He said that as buildings get larger and properties are developed, the view is going
to be impacted. He agreed that the architecture was good but he was not clear on how much the roof
interfered with the neighbor's views.
Boardmember Tollini said that it was difficult for him to tell how far back one could lower the roof and
how it tied in to the other roofs of different heights. Chair Kricensky said that the roof height was an
architectural element and could be lowered possibly without affecting the ceiling height. Boardmember
Tollini said that this was doable but it was difficult to picture what it would look like. Vice-Chair
Emberson believed that that would have a big impact on the neighbor's house next door, and suggested
lowering the master bedroom roof.
Boardmember Tollini said that he could support a condition of approval that the wine cellar/powder room
ceiling be 9 feet. Boardmember Johnson said that he was concerned that would be interfering too much
with the architecture. He reiterated and agreed with Chair Kricensky's comments regarding the effects of
additional houses being built in a neighborhood over time, and said that it was important to look at the
whole picture. He said that there would be slight impacts and changes on views, but for the most part he
thought that the project was consistent with the Hillside Guidelines.
Boardmember Tollini said there is a tendency for applicants to make a lot of changes and expect the
Board approve a project. He said that if this was a first application it would still be a borderline project in
his opinion. He felt that there would be minor encroachments on views over time and no absolute
protection that views are not going to change. He said that it is the Board's job to make sure it is not too
much. He said that all three neighbors are impacted in terms of view blockage.
Boardmember Chong asked for the distance from the corner of the existing deck to the story pole. Mr.
Polsky said that the pole was about 4 feet further than the existing deck. Boardmember Chong said that if
the corner of the deck could be cropped, it would free up the neighbor's view. He thought that that would
be a minimal impact on the deck. He said that there was a big difference between the original story poles
and the revised version and he was not as concerned about the other view impacts.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that the project is now of the size that it may be discussed, but she was still not
comfortable with three neighbors not being happy and questioned whether some adjustments could be
made to make those neighbors happy.
Boardmember Chong did not think that the difference between an 8 and 9 foot ceiling would have an
impact on views. Boardmember Tollini said that 9 foot ceilings are modest and the only areas that are
reasonable to ask to lower are the sections of the house that would impact the architecture.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
Boardmember Tollini said it would be great if the applicant was willing to make a concession on the
corner of the terrace to accommodate the neighbor at 95 Sugar Loaf Drive. However, he was hesitant to
mandate that change because the Hillside Guidelines do not say that is something they need to do. Mr.
Choksi said that he was willing to drop the railing down.
Boardmember Chong asked if they would be willing to move the corner of the deck to its existing
position. Mr. Choksi said that-he would not be willing to do that because it would make the deck very
narrow.
Chair Kricensky said that he liked the design of the house but questioned whether this design was right
for a site that impacts views. He understood 9 foot ceilings, but 11-foot ceilings in a wine cellar to make
an architectural statement may not be necessary. Boardmember Emberson agreed but said that lowering
the roof would not gain much in terms of view impact. Boardmember Tollini said that if the roof were
lowered one would still see the master bedroom roof behind it. He agreed that form should follow
function but he did not see any dysfunction being caused by it. Boardmember Johnson agreed and said
that he did not think any significant issues would be created by it.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 91 Sugar Loaf Drive is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and the approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, and the additional condition of approval that the glass railing heights on the deck be lowered to
54 inches. Vote: 4-1 (Chong opposed).
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
4 OLD LANDING ROAD: File No. 711134; Laureen Seeger and David Cohen, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling.
The applicants propose to expand the existing family room, living room, and master bedroom,
and make minor landscape improvements, including a new cedar trellis over the existing patio
area and a new outdoor kitchen adjacent to the dwelling. The 225 square foot addition would
increase the total floor area of the house to 3,998 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-162-55.
In 2000, the Planning Commission approved a two-lot subdivision that resulted in the lots now
developed as 2 and 4 Old Landing Road. At the time, the Planning Commission considered the
sizes of other homes in the vicinity and, as a result, adopted Resolution No. 2000-04 which
included a condition of approval on this subdivision limiting the floor area of any future home to
3,500 square feet (including garage), except that the Design Review Board could approve floor
area in excess of this number (but in no case exceeding 4,000 square feet, including garage) under
certain circumstances.
In 2003, the Design Review Board approved a house design with 3,500 square feet of floor area. In 2008,
the Design Review Board approved a 273 square foot office/library, which increased the overall floor area
of the home to 3,773 square feet. The current property owner now requests to construct a 225 square foot
addition would increase the total floor area of the house to 3,998 square feet.
Chair Kricensky was recused due to living within 500 feet of the property and excused himself from the
chambers.
Laureen Seeger, owner, thanked the Board for hearing their project. She said that no views were involved.
She said that when they moved into the home in 2006 space in the bedrooms was important for their 5
children. In 2008 they came before the Board with an application to enclose a porch and turn it into a
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
library so her husband could write. She said that they have spent the last few years trying to figure out
how to gain more space for their large family. She said that the Planning Commission gave the DRB the
authority to go up to about 4,000 square feet for the house when the subdivision was created. She said that
this addition would bring them close to the 4,000 square foot maximum and would be the last addition
they pursue on the house. She said that they had to figure out how to do the expansion in a way that
would not affect the appearance of the house from the street or affect the privacy of neighbors. She said
that neighbors previously signed off on a plan that included a second story, but they have submitted a plan
now that only expands on'ie first floor because they thought that that would affect their neighbors less.
She showed photographs displaying the story poles and noted that the story poles could not be seen from
the neighbors' houses or from Paradise Drive. She said that want to add a skylight because the house is
very dark in the center area.
Ms. Seeger said that two letters were submitted in favor of the project and one unfavorable letter was
submitted by the daughter of the owner from across the street. She pointed out that three houses have
been built on the street exceeding 4,000 square feet since 2003 and other houses on Hillcrest Road are
over 5,000 feet. She therefore felt that this would not be out of character for the neighborhood.
The public hearing was opened.
Diane McEwen said that she lives downhill and next door to the applicant. She said that her objection was
philosophical and that she and two of her neighbors would like to see the project denied. She was
concerned about the precedent that would be set. She said that the homes were approved to be built to
3,500 and not 4,000 square feet and that the DRB previously honored the 3,500 square foot maximum.
She said that the allowance for 4,000 square feet was supposed to provide leeway for extenuating
circumstances. She did not believe that this should be allowed just to get additional space on a house that
has already been expanded. She said that in the past, they worked very hard to keep the homes smaller.
She said that this was an important issue for her and others because the rule that was put into place and
long-fought and she expected the Board to honor that decision, even if it is many years later. She quoted
from John Kunzweiler in 2004 regarding plans that would have exceeded the 3,500 square foot limit that
said that the applicant did not make a compelling case to meet any of the exceptional criteria and that the
precedent set by this project would serve as a standard for future projects. She said that it was very
important to her as a citizen that there will not be a wearing-away of rules that were previously
established.
Boardmember Tollini pointed out there are 9 lines of text from the Planning Commission's condition of
approval describing the cap on floor area. He asked Ms. McEwen if there was any expansion above 3,500
square feet that would be acceptable to her. Ms. McKewen said no and that the 3,500 square foot limit
was set at the time of construction of the house. Boardmember Tollini said that most homes and
guidelines that are established contemplate the fact that people will renovate their houses. Ms. McEwen
said that the Town recognized that Old Landing Road as an unusual, narrow road. She said that large
houses should not be built on Old Landing Road and that people have wanted to live there because it is a
rustic and unusual place. She said that 3,500 square feet should be the limit to preserve that.
Boardmember Tollini said that he appreciated that Ms. McEwen was at the Planning Commission
meeting and wondered why none of this was reflected in the report. Ms. McEwen said that they were
discussing the design of the neighborhood and not additions to the houses over time.
Ms. Seeger said that the language in the condition of approval clearly provides the DRB authority to
expand up to 4,000 square feet under certain conditions. She asked if there was any expansion that could
be done that would be less invasive to the neighbors.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
David Cohen, owner, said that the Board in 2008 did not interpret things the way Ms. McEwen did. He
also pointed out that the footprint of their house is actually the smallest in the area.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Chong said that the Design Review Board's tasks generally fall into three categories: the
design aspects, the impact on neighbors, and the regulations and zoning ordinances. From a design
standpoint, he did not like7fij elimination of the wraparound porches but thought that it did not
fundamentally affect the architecture. He said that the project clearly would not impact neighbors. He said
that he does not like disagreeing with staff but places considerable weight on the decisions made by
previous DRBs. He found it interesting that the previous DRB was very specific about the amount of
floor area as they usually try not to give specific square footage requirements to applicants. He said that
the additions being discussed would not impact site planning, appearance, and bulk. He believed that the
prior DRB would have approved it and said that this design fits the lot and would not significantly impact
the neighborhood.
Boardmember Tollini said that this application would preserve the neighborhood charm. He said that the
older, more modest proportions of the homes of Old Landing Road is what give them character and
charm. He said that the look and feel is dependent upon more modest proportions. He also stated that
there is a principle that there is a limit and one must live within those constraints. He looked at the
Planning Commission's condition of approval and said that it was abundantly clear to him that the project
would be compatible with the site and the neighborhood. He said that most of the lines of text in the
condition are about the exception and not about extenuating circumstances. He said that it was hard to
picture what the extenuating circumstances would be, as the only aspect of the project that would impact
the neighborhood at all was the enclosure of the porch. He thought that this was immaterial and he could
not say that the applicant had not demonstrated compatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that if this
had been requested with the application in 2008 he would have passed it then and thought that the intent
was that 4,000 square feet is acceptable as long as it did not significantly impact the neighborhood.
Boardmember Johnson said that he originally struggled with this project but after looking at previous
reports and reading the text in the staff report, he believed that a house up to 4,000 square feet can be
approved. When he visited the area the houses near the applicant's property filled more of the upper area
of Old Landing than the area down below. He said that the proposed additions would not have any impact
on the neighbors. He agreed with Boardmember Chong's comments about the wraparound porch and said
that the project seemed to be following the guidelines that have been put forward. w
Boardmember Tollini thought that the house did a terrific job of looking a lot smaller than it really is and
is extremely well-designed. He said that the house would look very much in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Emberson read from the report that 3,500 square feet is the maximum floor area unless it is an
"exceptional" design. Boardmember Tollini said that this design is exceptional because it would look so
much smaller from the street than it really is.
Planning Manager Watrous commented that "exceptional" design is an interpretation of the language in
the Planning Commission condition of approval. Vice-Chair Emberson pointed out that the house cannot
be seen from the street, they are allowed to go up to 4,000 square feet, no variance is being requested, and
no neighbors would be impacted.
Boardmember Tollini said that the 4,000 square foot design in 2003 was turned down and then passed at
3,500 square feet, and in reading the minutes, it showed that they were also discussing the impact on
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 7
2/16/12
neighbors and the size and mass of the house. He said that when the Board approved it later, there was
something about the second home design that made it unanimously more appealing, and he did not think
that was just because the square footage changed. He thought that the 2003 Board reached the right
conclusion at the time and that the original submission in 2003 was fundamentally less appealing than the
project currently before them.
ACTION: It was M/S (ChonglTollini) that the request for 4 Old Landing Road is exempt from the
California Environmentalua7ity Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-0-1 (Kricensky recused).
Chair Kricensky returned to the meeting.
4. 48 MERCURY AVENUE: File No. 21119; Derek Burke and Stephanie Alberti, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance
for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of the existing
dwelling and add to the front and rear of the house and alter the existing roofline. The floor area
of the proposed house would be increased by 1,036 square feet to a total of 2,065 square feet. The
project would cover a total of 2,469 square feet (31.5%) of the site, which would be greater than
the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-262-11.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 48 Mercury Avenue. As the project will result in the
demolition of more than 50% of the floor area of the existing building, the application is being processed
as construction of a new single-family dwelling.
The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,036 square feet to a total of 2,065 square
feet, which is less than the 2,783 square foot floor area ratio for this site. The house would cover a total of
2,469 square feet (31.5%) of the site, which would be greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage
permitted in the R-1 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage.
David Holscher, architect, said this is the typical story of a growing family in a small 1,000 square foot
home needing more space. He said that they wanted a modern open floor plan and wanted to enclose the
yard with a fence for their small children.
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that when she originally saw the project; she was not sure how it would
possibly fit in with the Belveron neighborhood. However, when she drove up the street, she was surprised
by the eclectic nature of houses and this no longer bothered her. She asked about the location of the fence.
Mr. Holscher said that it would be behind an existing hedge, and she said that she had no concern.
Boardmember Chong said that he visited the site and liked the design. He said that if every house in the
neighborhood had a fence it might ruin the feel of the neighborhood, but with the existing hedge there is
already a divider.
Boardmember Johnson thought that the architecture fit with the neighborhood. He asked about the
exposed portion of the fence and wondered if it could be reduced to 4 feet in that area. Mr. Holscher
agreed that the part of the fence not behind the hedge could come down to 4 feet, and Boardmember
Johnson felt that this was a good solution.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3
2/16/12
Boardmember Tollini agreed with staff's findings on the variance. He said that very tall and solid fences
like this are antithetical to the feel of the neighborhood. While he appreciated that the applicants have
children, the majority of the yard is in the back and even with the hedge, he had a hard time approving a 6
foot fence in Belveron.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked how he would feel about a 4 foot fence, and Boardmember Tollini said that
he would feel better about it but would not like to see this as a trend in Belveron.
Chair Kricensky said that he liked the house and agreed with staff s findings. He said that he did not like
the fence and believed that it would affect the charm of Belveron. He said that fencing in the front yard
would not serve a purpose when there is a nice backyard. He said that there are some fences that are lower
in the neighborhood, but if the fence gets too high the neighborhood feeling is lost.
Vice-Chair Emberson changed her original position on the fence and agreed that it would significantly
affect the charm of the neighborhood.
Boardmember Johnson asked if the general consensus was to have no fence or a 4 foot fence. Vice-Chair
Emberson said that she was convinced that no fence was necessary. Boardmember Johnson suggested a
42 inch high fence. Planning Manager Watrous said the gate can be taller, but the fence itself would be
reduced to 42 inches in the front yard.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 48 Mercury Avenue 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 front yard fence be reduced in height to 42
inches. Vote: 5-0.
F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #2 OF THE 2/2/12 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2012 meeting, as
written. Vote: 5-0.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 9
2/16/12
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 15, 2012
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES #4 `J j
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM
Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Chong, Johnson
and Tollini
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 92 MT. TIBURON COURT: File No. 21201; Afsaneh Royo, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance
for excess building height. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an
existing three-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would
result in a total floor area of 6,689 square feet, with a 603 square foot garage. The house
would have a maximum height of 39 feet in lieu of the maximum 30 foot height limit
permitted in the RO-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-261-02. Approved 5-0
MINUTES
2. Regular Meeting of February 16, 2012 Approved 5-0
ADJOURNMENT At 7: 40 PM
Action Minutes #2 2/2/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1
•
SM
AGI
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MINUTES NO. 1018
March 14, 2012
Regular Meeting
Town of Tiburon Council Chambers
L505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Corcoran called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Present: Chairman Corcoran, Vice Chair Tollini and Commissioner Welner
Absent: Commissioners Kunzweiler and Weller
Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson and Minutes Clerk Rusting
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
Director Anderson stated that next week the item for 14 Cecilia Court will go to the Town
Council on appeal, and Commissioner Kunzweiler has agreed to represent the Planning
Commission at that appeal hearing. He also said a minor Housing Element Text Amendment will
be discussed at the March 28, 2012 meeting, and the item for chicken and bee permits will likely
be scheduled for the April 25, 2012 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. 155 ROCK HILL DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AND
ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURAL USE TO KEEP FOWL #
(CHICKENS/PIGEONS) WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN
(RO-2) ZONED PARCEL; FILE #11202; Julie and David Flaherty, Owners and
Applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 039- 152-03 [LT]
This item was previously continued to March 28, 2012
NEW BUSINESS:
2. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE
ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2011 [SA]
Director Anderson said the State's deadline for the General Plan Implementation Status Report is
April 1, 2012, and it will be discussed at the Town Council's March 21, 2012 meeting. This is a
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1018 PAGE 1
mandatory, annual report that summarizes the progress in implementing programs that are part of
the Town's General Plan. He noted that this year the last several pages are different because the
State has required a new format for reporting progress on Housing Element programs. The report
is informational and a way to track progress and see which policies might need to be re-thought
or abandoned.
Chairman Corcoran sugge'9 ed going through the report page-by-page and asking for comments
and questions from the Planning Commission as each page was reviewed. He said the Town has
already adopted a new Housing Element and this report reflects the old Housing Element.
Director Anderson confirmed this report reflects Calendar Year 2011, when the prior element
was still in effect.
Chairman Corcoran asked about Program LU-f regarding annexing Paradise Drive, and Director
Anderson said it remains at a standstill and the County of Marin has indicated they are not
interested in pursuing any type of financial arrangement with the Town regarding cost-sharing of
Paradise Drive maintenance. The Town Council has committed to annex Paradise Drive as it
abuts the Rabin/SODA property, but has committed to no other annexations involving taking
portions of Paradise Drive as Town-maintained streets.
Vice Chair Tollini asked about Program OSC-f and whether it would be dropped from the report
since it was abandoned. Director Anderson said it probably would not be, as the report represents
a compendium of the fate of all the programs.
Chairman Corcoran corrected a typographical error in Program OSC-p: "The Green Building
Ordinance is being repealed..." should be changed to "The Green Building Ordinance was
repealed..."
Vice Chair Tollini corrected a typographical error in Program DT-f: "...schedule for installation"
should be "...scheduled for installation".
Chairman Corcoran asked about Program DT-c and questioned whether the sidewalks were
widened in front of CVS. Director Anderson said both the Tiburon Boulevard pnd Beach Road
sidewalks were widened.
Chairman Corcoran commented on Program DT-k and said it would be great if something were
done to improve the connection between Ark Row and Main Street because the parking lot is a
barrier. Director Anderson said that is one of the items being looked at by the Downtown
Committee.
Chairman Corcoran pointed out that many people have signed up for Program SE-g, the Get
Ready Program, which has been successful.
Vice Chair Tollini corrected a typographical error in Program SE-f: In the last sentence "March
2011" should be "March 2012". Director Anderson said the updated LHMP was just adopted last
week and 2012 is correct.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1018 PAGE 2
Chairman Corcoran commented on Program SE -j regarding the Town creating a Seismic
Improvement Program, and noted the priority is high but nothing has been implemented in two
years. Director Anderson said that is a Department of Public Works program and he would need
to check into an explanation as to progress. He- said we are fortunate there are not many
buildings in Tiburon that are unreinforced masonry construction, which is usually the largest
concern in an earthquake iju terms of serious injury. Chairman Corcoran asked if that includes
bridges and roadways, director Anderson said he thinks they are included to some degree,
but Tiburon only has very small culvert crossings and they are mostly the State's responsibility.
He would check on it so more information could be included for the next update. Chairman
Corcoran said it would be helpful to start identifying roadways and small bridges.
Commissioner Welner said all of the categories include the status in 2010 and 2011 and the
priority level. He expected current priority to be low, medium, or high, but said there are many
that are "ongoing". He asked if "ongoing" means medium priority. Director Anderson said they
usually assign "ongoing" to tasks that are ongoing and do not have a definitive completion phase.
Commissioner Welner said some items are listed with current priority as "ongoing" but status as
"progress." Director Anderson said in those instances, "progress" means they have made some
sort of institutional change to address the program, but it cannot truly be called "completed".
Vice Chair Tollini pointed out a typographical error, stating that some of the Program Summary
descriptions have periods at the end and some do not.
Chairman Corcoran suggested including the Rabin Trail connection in Program PR-b. Director
Anderson said that progress occurred in 2012 and will show up in next year's report. Chairman
Corcoran suggested including progress on the Teather Park to Tiburon Peninsula Club route as
well.
Chairman Corcoran pointed out it is unclear who is stating the last sentence in Program PR-c.
Director Anderson confirmed the Recreation Needs Assessment is stating the last sentence and
suggested changing the wording to: "The Assessment authors concluded this should include a..."
Chairman Corcoran asked about the Rehabilitation Loan Programs in the Hou§ing Element.
Director Anderson said those are managed by the Housing Authority of Marin County and the
Town does not have any direct involvement in the program.
Chairman Corcoran asked about Program H- I OB regarding purchasing units at the Point Tiburon
Marsh project. He asked when the last purchased occurred. Director Anderson said it was about a
year ago and the Town currently owns seven units. Chairman Corcoran asked if this was a right
in perpetuity. Director Anderson said the Town has the right of refusal to purchase whenever one
of the affordable units comes up for sale. When the Town purchases a unit they extend the term
for which the units are to be kept affordable, in order to limit the potential for expiration of the
affordability restrictions. Anderson said there had been concern that some units could cease to
become affordable after a 30-year term, but that the Town and Housing Authority do their best to
keep them affordable in perpetuity. Chairman Corcoran asked if it has been more than 30 years
since the project was completed, and Director Anderson answered it has been about 25 years.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1018 PAGE 3
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Welner) to forward the Annual General Plan Implementation
Status Report for Calendar Year 2011 to the Town Council with the recommendation to accept
the Report as amended. Motion carried 3-0.
MINUTES:
3. PLANNING MAMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 22, 2012
Commissioner Welner requested the following changes:
Page 4, sixth paragraph, line 5: "...and is a 6 foot high barrier fence,..." should be
corrected to "...and a 6 foot high barrier/fence,... "
Page 4, last paragraph, line 1: "enforceability" should be changed to "desirability".
Page 4, last paragraph, last sentence: Change entire sentence to: "Commissioner Welner
said that while he felt it is a good idea to limit the size of the coop to 10 x 10 feet,
chickens must be allowed to wander outside the coop in a larger fenced area."
Page 5, 4th paragraph: Change entire sentence to: "Commissioner Welner said there
should be a generic, catch-all standard for hives to be kept according to appropriate bee-
keeping practices."
Page 7, 4th paragraph: Change entire sentence to: "Commissioner Welner stated his desire
for staff to include a potential clause that requires the owner to follow appropriate
chicken-raising methods."
Page 7, 3rd bullet: "...will be imposed and an additional $100 fee..." should be corrected
to "...will impose an additional $100 fee..."
Vice Chair Tollini corrected page 5, 8th paragraph: "...but are stinging neighbors" should be
corrected to "but the bees are stinging neighbors". #
Vice Chair Tollini corrected a typographical error on page 8, line 1: "...but allow 30 days to
appeal..." should be corrected to "...but allowing 30 days to appeal".
Chairman Corcoran corrected page 5, line 1: "...go onto the Town Council" should be corrected
to "go to the Town Council".
ACTION: It was M/S (Welner/Tollini) to approve Minutes of the February 22, 2012 meeting as
amended. Motion carried 3-0.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1018 PAGE 4
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m.
JOHN CORCORAN, CHAIR
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2012 MINUTES NO. 1018 PAGE 5
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 28, 2012 - 7:30 PM t
Tiburon, CA 94920
ACTION MINUTES
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM
Present: Chairman Corcoran, Vice Chair Tollini, Commissioner Kunzweiler
Absent: Commissioner Weller, Commissioner Welner
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.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Commission and Committee Reports
Director's Report
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 155 ROCK HILL DRIVE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AND
ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURAL USE TO KEEP FOWL
(CHICKEN/PIGEONS) WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN
(RO-2) ZONED PARCEL; FILE #11202; Julie and David Flaherty, Owners and
Applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 039-152-03 [LT] Approved 3-0
2. GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT/CORRECTION TO HOUSING
ELEMENT PROGRAM H-Y; FILE #GPA 2012-01 [SA] Recommended
Approval 3-0
Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes 03-28-12 Page 1
MTNt JTF S
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 14, 2012
Approved 3-0
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:15 PM
a04/28/12
Planning Commission Agenda March 28, 2012 Page 2
LliucsT
TOWN OF TIBURON Agenda - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 28, 2012 - 7:30 PM
Tiburon, CA 94920
AGENDA
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman Corcoran, Vice Chair Tollini, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Weller,
Commissioner Welner
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
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.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Commission and Committee Reports
Director's Report
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 155 ROCK HILL DRIVE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AND
ESTABLISH AN AGRICULTURAL USE TO KEEP FOWL
(CHICKEN/PIGEONS) WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN
(RO-2) ZONED PARCEL; FILE #11202; Julie and David Flaherty, Owners and
Applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 039-152-03 [LT]
2. GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT/CORRECTION TO HOUSING
ELEMENT PROGRAM H-Y; FILE #GPA 2012-01 [SA]
Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda
MINUTES
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 14, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
Future Agenda Items
Chicken and Bee Regulations (April)
a04/28/12
Planning Commission Agenda March 28, 2012 Page 2