HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2012-06-01TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of May 28 -June 1, 2012
Tiburon
1. Letter - Jim Fraser - Recent Ark Headline Story
2. Letter - Richardson's Bay Regional Agency - FY 2012/2013 RBRA Member
Jurisdiction Dues
3. Letter - City of Belvedere - Appointment of Jennifer Muller to
Belvedere/Tiburon Jt. Recreation Committee
4. Letter - City of Belvedere - Appointment of Bill Kuhns to Belvedere/Tiburon
Library Agency Board
5. Letter - Jaleh Etemad - Resignation from Heritage & Arts Commission
6. Email - Harvey Rogers - Progress at Blackie's Garden for May 2012
Agendas & Minutes
7. Minutes - POST - March 20, 2012
8. Agenda - Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency - June 4, 2012
9. Agenda - Design Review Board - June 7, 2012
Regional
o-
a) Letter - ABAG - Adoption of Draft Regional Housing Need Allocation
Methodology and Prelim. Subregional Shares for the Fifth Cycle: 2014-2022
b) Letter - Marin Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control - Notice of Preparation of Draft
Programmatic EIR
c) Comcast California - March/April 2012 *
d) Announcement - Bay Area Greenbelt Alliance At Risk 2012 Report
e) Sierra Club Yodeler - June/July 2012 *
f) The Redwoods - Request for Donations
g) Invitation - Grand Opening of Renaissance Marin Entrepreneurship Center - June 13,
2012 - 1115 Third Street, San Rafael *
h) In the Stacks - Belvedere/Tiburon Library Newsletter - Summer 2012
Agendas & Minutes
i) None
* Council Only
J#
Tovm of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 - www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
May 29, 2012
The Ark Newspaper
P.O. Box 1054
Tiburon, CA 94920
7 afth.
`
Dear Editor:
Headlines Are Just That, Headlines
Jim Fraser
Mayor
Emmett O'Donnell
Vice Mayor
Headlines grab attention, but they seldom tell the entire story; case in point, the recent Ark
headline, "Did The Golden Gate Bridge Kill Downtown Tiburon?". Tiburon's destiny has been Richard Collins
_ Cnuncilmember
altered by the Bridge, but I'd say for the better. Just look at this past weekend, when well over
two thousand folks enjoyed downtown Tiburon celebrating the Golden Gate Bridge Frank Doyle
Anniversary and 75 years of history. After all, Tiburon does have the very best view of the Councilmember
Bay, the City and the Bridge, right from Shoreline Park. .
Downtown Tiburon today is an evolving story of commerce. In addition to iconic Sam's, we
boast diverse eateries including Italian, American, Asian and Mexican cuisine. There are
great shops and services, too. New additions include Woodlands Market, CVS, a refashioned
Tiburon Tavern at The Lodge, Elements (Boardwalk coffee). And for the Cove Shopping
Center: Peet's Coffee, Fresh and Easy and Bank of Marin.
For community activities, just look to 29 years of the sold-out Tiburon Wine Festival, The
Annual Art Festival, The Classic Car Show, The Tiburon Mile, The Tiburon Triathlon, and oh
yes, Friday Night's on Main. There's a lot going on in downtown Tiburon!
Can we get better? You betcha! That's why Councilman Dick Collins, Town Manager Peggy
Curran and I have been working for the past two years on an initiative to increase vibrancy
and commerce downtown. We've interviewed businesses, conducted community workshops,
commissioned a circulation and parking analysis, and convened a Marketing and
Communications Task Force, comprised of six residents with extensive marketing
credentials, along with Dick, Peggy and myself, to explore marketing options, all with the goal
of fine-tuning Tiburon's brand, our web site and other communication tools. The Task Force
has been hard at work for months and will soon present its findings and recommendations to
the Town Council. The circulation and parking analysis will follow shortly.
Alice Fredericks
Councilmernber
Margaret A. Curran
Iown Manager
Yes, all of Marin has been affected by Bridge. My view is that it has helped make Tiburon the
amazing place it is today. The iconic Golden Gate Bridge has and always will be a positive
catalyst for Tiburon's place in history.
Let's pull ether and focus on our great community, its assets and potential, and make it
better to o row than it is today. Besides, Tiburon was just recognized in a widely reported
survey,, s one of "America's Happiest Seaside Towns", ranking fifth in the nation. Perhaps
we sf~o say, Congratulations, Tiburon, you have done well!
Jim r Luron yr
To
w Tic: 1 Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Manager
RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY
May 21, 2012
DIGEST
a,
RECEIVED,
Peggy Curran, Town Manager MAY 2 4 2012
Town of Tiburon TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
1505 Tiburon Boulevard TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon, CA 94920
Subject: Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Richardson's Bay Regional Agency member jurisdiction dues
Dear Peggy:
The Board of the Richardson's Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) voted at their April 19, 2012
meeting to adopt the Agency budget for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. Contributions from member
jurisdictions were approved to increase 4.9%, primarily to accommodate higher staff expenses.
The specific contribution requested from Town of Tiburon is $23,947. An official invoice and the
adopted RBRA budget are attached to this letter.
The cautionary theme raised in last year's dues letter continues. The State's ongoing dire fiscal
circumstances have prompted a potential reorganization of the State Department of Boating and
Waterways (DB W). RBRA annually receives from DB W grant funding approximating one-third
of its total budget (projected to be $122,000 in FY '13). State reorganization could eliminate,
reduce, or (at least) delay State funding, which in turn could potentially severely impact RBRA's
budget and operations. If grants are not forthcoming from the State, local member contributions
will have to substantially increase to make up the difference and continue RBRA's operations.
RBRA's many important functions include: yearly removal and demolition of 50-75 derelict
vessels and other navigational hazards that would otherwise sink or wash up on shore, ongoing
monitoring and management of vessels in Richardson's Bay, hazardous material abatement,
sanitary waste pumpouts for vessels, ongoing water quality program activities including testing and
dockside sewer leak response, emergency response, ongoing shore cleanup, implementing State-
mandated pollution programs, and planning for future uses in Richardson's Bay.
In addition to State funding challenges, the RBRA Board at their April meeting, directed staff to
explore options for increasing abatement of derelict vessels anchored in Richardson's Bay.
Please don't hesitate to phone me at 415-473-3658 if you have any comments or questions.
Sin erely,
Ben Berto
RBRA Clerk
Attachments: RBRA budget and dues spreadsheet, Invoice
cc: Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell
c/o Marin Co. Community Development Agency, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308, San Rafael, CA 94903
Office 415/289-4143 Cell 4151971-3919 Pager 415/451-9595
RICHARDSON' S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE
2012 - 2013 INVOICE
TO: THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Attn: Peggy Curran, Town Manager
DATE: May 21, 2012
Dues for Member Agencies of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency have been approved
by the RBRA Board, with a 4.9 percent (4.9%) increase in this Fiscal Year over last
year's contribution. This increase follows no increases for the prior two fiscal years.
Please pay the amount of $23,947 payable to RBRA. Mail to:
Marin Community Development Agency
c/o Ben Berto
3501 Civic Center Dr., Ste. 308
San Rafael, CA 94903
Your check for the above amount is due by August 1, 2011. As usual, anything you can
do to expedite payment is appreciated. Thank you.
Ben erto
RBRA Clerk
RBRA BUDGET SPLIT FY 2012-13 ADOPTED (4.9% increase)
(overall percent increase and individual contribution amounts rounded)
MARIN COUNTY SAUSALITO
ADOPTED 11112 $ 228,389 97,065 79,936
ADOPTED 12113 $ 239,473 $ 101,776 $ 83,816
Difference this fiscal year $ 11,084 $ 4,711 $ 3,879
TIBURON BELVEDERE MILL VALLEY
22,839 17,129 11,419
$ 23,947 $ 17,960 $ 11,974
$ 1,108 $ 831 $ 554
N
r
r"
w
0
m
r
O
Q
M
r
0
N
N
r
0
N
Q
J
Q
U
U)
LL
Z
'W
V
Q
J
Q
0
CD
W
Z
Lu
W
O
c
N~
I.L ~
Q Z
= W
V a
W
O
C
a)
(u
C
E
a)
C
a)
O
.2
C
O
CU
N
E
=
N
r
E
~
O
N
~
U
V
>
C
O
a)
C
U
fA
fu
N
L
a)
U
cu
-0
0
O
CD
U
O
C
a)
ca
E
_
O
0
CU
_
ca
a)
~
0
o
U
aci
O
N
N
cu
cu
-co
m
E
cu
X
N
La
cu
c
O
'
N
E
o
cu
O
LL
Q>
O
p
O
N
to
4?
"
O
cu
fu
p
`
Q
L
O
O
`
z
a)
+
IZ
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl)
O
W)
O
m
O
c)
O
co
O
0
O
0
O
Lo
O
0
69
M
7
C6
05,
Ci
64
-
-
,
0
69
69
N
69
Efl
69
69
C
Q
M
r
N
r
669
O
co
LO
0
O
o
O
LO
LO
o
O
M
LO
m
O
O
O
C)
69
C
C
U)
J
Lo
C'
.a.
w
a
M
r-
69
rn
69
v
69
M
NC
m
-
69
69
N
69
60
69
W)
M
U
Q
N
O
v
O
o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
e»
0
w
LO
o
rn
1-
o
C
co
0
r
0
1
W)
0)
M
CD
It
~
M
~
69
69
N69
E9
69
E9
M
~
Q
N
r
r
U)
co
U)
d
U
U)
w
w
m
d
w
fn
w
z
J
a_
X
Z
U)
<
O
w
U)
z
O
Z O
CL
W
F-
Q
O
W
g
O
a
w
(n
Z
Z
°d
W
06
Q
W
atf
W
af
U
w
Q
Z)
Q
w
>
U
J
w
F-
J
U
c
)
O
2
O
z
o
Q
m
LL
Z
Q
IZ
?
U
~
CL
m
0
2
>
O
O
0
O
C)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
LO
v
W
O
O
r
LO
O
r
r
O
r
N
r
M
r
V
r
L
r
r
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
00
°
l
l
U
)
LO
LO
U
)
LO
Ln
Ln
LO
LO
LO
m
N
O
O
01)
a)
ch
co
U
a
C
0-
O
O
E
~
-UO
N
C
C
U
(D
c
U
N
O
3
o
°
c
cu
y
.r
cu
rn
~
c
o
E
cu
U
N
`n
m
CD
m
a)
6
E
_
O
O
U
C
N
>
>
E
C
O
L
L;
a)
U
o
(4
CD
cu
E
'
is
cu
a)
..r
U
4:
J
-
cu
N
LL
O
Q
N
U-
h
•D
a)
cm
co
0
w
c
0
E
Q
Q
Q
~
cu
3
u
O
O
n
O
D
U
F-
W
Q
U
Q
O
O
O
O
-
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
C)
O
O
O
O
O
LO
I`
LO
O
O
O
O
N
M
V
LO
O
O
to
U
CO)
CO)
00
U')
M
C)
r
~
LO
M
M
69
69
69
69
M
O
It
69
EA
to
r
r
r
69
E9
W
69
M
r
N
r
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(n
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
co
I~
O
O
co
L
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
W
co
J
I--
E9
M
69
O
-
Lo
69
O
N
O
O
v
M
N
Lo
69
v
69
t-
Q:>
r
E9
69
6s
69
M
69
69
U
Q
N
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
Co
Cl
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
00
C
(D
0
0
0
0
O
O
I~
LQ
L
N
Ul
O
O
M
Efl
M
69
w
69
LO
b9
O
N
M
O
v
M
N
r-
co
to
LO
E9
N
09
N
r
e--
69
Ef3
r
M
69
E9
~
O
Y
<
w
a)
m
F-
w
U
U
Z
w
c
W
~
w
w
x
V
Y
cn
Z
U
R'
Z
A
O
J
Q
Z
O
O
W
IL
Z
m
g
W
CL
0
a-
O
z
Q
V)
Z
w
Q
U)
LL
Q
J
Q
Q
LU
Q
0
Q
C
w n
U
LLJ
LL
Q
Q
F_
W
0
Z
O
c~
a
m
w
O
Q
o
o
=
co
'
J
O_
J
Q
[n
CL
U
Q
CO
W
LL
O
a
co
O
O
~c
Y
U
C
N
~
b9
c
n
T
N
O
O
L
U
Q
a)
2
tL
U
c
~
W
O
N
O
a
c
.Q
N
D
u)
(D
t0
fn
C
N
E
>
Z
C
LL
Q
o
Q
Q
E
E
Cl
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
I-
M
LO
O
O
O
v
M
69
O
69
C
cli
O
m
M
419,
M
r
N
r
O
co
M
O
O
O
►n
v
m
O
w
N
J
60
O
N
N
(
LO
M
00
~
Q
69
V%
~
N
F-
e
69
69
U
Q
N
0
0
0
0
m
W
0
N
0
O
0
O
0
O
00
co
M
-
co
a
w
M
69
O
69
N
N
00
N
M
O
-
N
cl
O
~
~
M
69
Q
N
r
U)
LLI
LLI
J
>
U
Q
U
Z_
af
U)
o
w
W
m
U
J
>
>
d
J
w
Q
~
an
CL
Q
J
F-
F-
~
Z
w
O
O
w
W
C7
U'
c
W
m
z
z
z
U)
O
U)
LO
O
r
N
N
N
~
N
N
O
N
O
O
►n
O
M
O
v
v
LO
3.
May 16, 2012
Ms. Jennifer Muller
15 Crest Road
Belvedere, CA 94920
Dear Jennifer:
Y " r
MAY 2 Z 2012
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
At our meeting Monday night, the City Council voted unanimously to appoint you to
another two-year term on the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee.
Congratulations and thank you for volunteering your time in this role which is so
important to our community.
Sincerely,
Jrry Mayor
CITY of BELVEDERE
450 San Rafael Ave. * Belvedere, CA 94920-2336
Tel: 415/435-3838 • Fax: 415/435-0430
cc: ''Diane Crane-Iacopi
Mr. Bill Kuhns
Law Office of W. A. Kuhns
1550 Tiburon Blvd Ste A
Belvedere, CA 94920
Dear Bill:
At our meeting Monday night, the City Council voted unanimously to appoint you to
another three-year term on the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board.
Congratulations and thank you for volunteering your time in this role which is so
important to our community.
Sincerely,
CrMayor
cc: Deborah Mazzoiini
9verlee Johnson
lane Crane Iacopi
RECEIVED
Jaleh A. Etvlnad MAY 2 2 2012 -4~r
237 Round Hill Road, Tibw on, CA 9=1920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
j~~lehefeliiad «ginail.com at~c~t:ialche(err~ad.coni Tel. 415-4352205/Mob.415--233-2699
May 21, 2012
To: Tiburon Town Council and Town of Tiburon Heritage and Arts Commission
In order to be able to apply for the Town of Tiburon Artist Laureate position, I am offering
my resignation from my position as The Heritage & Arts Commissioner as of this date: May
21, 2012.
During the selection time of the Artist Laureate Position, if needed, you may call me for
assistance as a resource for scheduled shows in the Community Room and the lobby.
I would be happy to help out as much as you need me to.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Jaleh A. Etemad
DIGEST
Peggy Curran
From: Harvey Rogers [harvnan2@sprynet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:54 PM
To: George Rodericks; Peggy Curran; David & Jean Bordon; Jill Einstein; David Holscher
Subject: Progress at Blackie's Garden for May 2012
Progress at Blackie's Garden for May 2012
Page 1 of 1
At Blackie's we got rid of all the weedy Euphorbia except the Dean's Hybrid that does
not re-seed.
And one Prothranthus (Australian mint bush) died which we removed. (I think another
may go soon too). And there was an area about 6 feet X 6 feet of Salvia elegans
(Pineapple Sage)
that was all shriveled up due to lack of water - they are thirsty plants. We took those
out too.
We planted 25 bright red Verbena (ground cover) & 11 Lessertia montana plans that
will get to a
mound of 3 feet X 3 feet & have dark red blooms, 3 + five gallon Leucspermum, and 2
Leucadendron. and one
Bulbine. Six very large holes were dug (pick & shovel) to accommodate the 5 gallon
plants.
My son Steve dug the holes while I watered the whole garden by hose. Then in planting
we added Perlite
to the soil for drainage & mixed in 1/3 new planting mix with 2/3 of native soil.
Our plant markers arrived yesterday & they look terrific. They required assembly which
we did on May 30. On June 5 we are scheduled to install them in the garden.
our NEw big garden tool chest was finished Saturday May 25 except for the painting-
looks great. The painting should
take about a week. Then we will install it at the garden.
(It weighs about 150 pounds) & has a shelf for the hand tools as well. And a hasp &
padlock with the
combination (same as the last 4 digits of the master gardener office . HARVEY
6.
5/31/2012
VIA
MINUTES NO. 16
PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION
March 20, 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 6:02 P.M., Tuesday, March 20, 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: Planning Manager Dan Watrous
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES
January 17, 2012 Minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
• Planning Manager Watrous provided an update to the Commission on the status of the
pedestrian path being developed between Teather Park and the Tiburon Peninsula Club. He
described the proposed improvements, noting that the Town hopes to complete the project by
this May.
• Planning Manager Watrous discussed the topic of dog walkers and their impacts to the open
space. He suggested that a full discussion of this topic be scheduled for a future POST
meeting. He recommended that the discussion be scheduled for the July meeting, as the final
Bay Trail Gap Closure Study is scheduled for the May meeting. It was the consensus of the
Commission to schedule the discussion for July.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
■ None.
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission March 21, 2012 DRAFT Minutes Page 1
BUSINESS ITEMS
l . Bay Trail Gap Closure Study - Update and Public Workshop:
• Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff briefing and introduced the consultant team led
by Dave Parisi.
• Mr. Parisi presented the scope of work and project schedule. He presented the draft
design concepts for 8 different segments covered by the study.
• Mr. Watrous explained the process for the workshop, stating that the meeting would be
adjourned to allow for a more informal workshop where the consultants and staff could
answer questions and take comments from the public. He stated that public testimony
would be taken at the final POST meeting on the study, which is tentatively scheduled for
May 15.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to hold the workshop at approximately
6:50 P.M.
PETER WINKLER, CHAIR
Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission
ATTEST:
NICHOLAS NGUYEN, SECRETARY
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission March 21, 2012 DRAFTMinutes Page 2
REGULAR MEETING
BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY
Monday, June 4, 2012 Ain
Regular Meeting' 5:30 PM
Belvedere-Tiburon Library
1501 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
OPEN FORUM
This is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Board of Trustees on any matter that does not appear on this agenda. Upon
being recognized by the Chair, please state your name, address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Matters
that appear to warrant a more lengthy presentation or Board consideration will be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting.
STAFF, BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Chair's report - Beverlee Johnson (2 minutes)
2. BTLF report - Heather Cameron (5 minutes)
3. Library Director's report - Deborah Mazzolini (10 minutes)
4. Financial Statement for May 2012 (5 minutes) - Not available
5. Committee reports (5 minutes)
Program Committee calendar, Art Committee
CONSENT CALENDAR - 2 minutes
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probably be
approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Board, its staff or the public may
request removal of an item for discussion.
6. Approval of minutes of May 14, 2012
7. Approval of warrants dated May 2012 and in-house check register Not available
TRUSTEE CONSIDERATIONS
The purpose of Trustee Considerations is to list items for discussion and potential action.
8. Report on June 2 Open House
9. Solem Contract approval
10. Building Program Expansion Update
11. Draft budget FY2012/2013
12. Marin Clean Energy update
COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
13. Monthly calendar
14. Schedule of FY 2012 meeting dates
15. Letter from the City of Belvedere re-appointing Trustee Bill Kuhns to the BTLA Board of Trustees
NOTICE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The following accommodations will be provided, upon request, to persons with a disability: agendas and/or agenda packet
materials in alternate formats; special assistance needed to attend or participate in this meeting. Please make your
request at the office of the Administrative Assistant or by calling (415) 789-2660. Whenever possible, please make your
request three days in advance.
DIGIEST
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
AGENDA
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Regular Meeting
Design Review Board
June 7, 2012
7:00 P.M.
Chainnan Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Johnson and Tollini
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under
this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended
discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be
referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please
limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on
the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item.
STAFF BRIEFING (if any)
OLD BUSINESS
1. 440 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21204; Ridge Road LLC, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances
for excess lot coverage and excess fence height and a Floor Area Exception. The
applicants propose to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new two-story
dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,438 square feet, which
is greater than the 4,210 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would
have a lot coverage of 19.7% in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage permitted in the
RO-2 zone. A 7 foot, 8 inch fence is requested in lieu of the maximum fence height of 6
feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-21. [DW]
2. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21207; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced side yard setback 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 of the left side property line, 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. [LT]
Desi~(yn Review- Board June 7. 2012 Page 1
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 12 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 21210; Kristina Wollain and Jonathon Lacey, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants
propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing house and construct a new 2,302
square foot dwelling. The project would extend to within 16 feet, 7 inches of the rear
property line, which is less than the 19 foot rear yard setback for this lot. The project
would have a lot coverage of 36.9% in lieu of the maximum 30.0% lot coverage
pennitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-06. [LT]
4. 40 DELMAR DRIVE: File No. 712029; Ashley Anderson and Jem-iifer Wang, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-
family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and attached
to an existing single-story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be
increased by 1,412 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 4,399 square feet, with an
additional 600 square feet of garage space. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-211-29. [DW]
MWI TTFS
5. Regular Meeting of May 17, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
Design Review Board June 7. 2012 Page 2
SST x .r
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS MAY 31 2012
Celebrating 50 Years of Service to the Region I ;a
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE ABAG
TOWN OF TIBURON
May 29, 2012
CALL FOR COMMENT
San Francisco Bay Area.
City Managers and Planning/Cominunity Development Directors
Re: Adoption of DRAFT Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and
Preliminary Subregional Shares for the fifth cycle: 2014 - 2022
After a yearlong process of workshops with our regional partners, the Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) Methodology has reached its first milestone. On May 17, 2012 the ABAG
Executive Board approved the DRAFT Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
Methodology and Preliminary Subregional Shares for the fifth cycle: 2014 - 2022 for all
jurisdictions and subregions by income category in the San Francisco Bay Area. The approval
begins a 60-day period for jurisdictions to comment on the draft methodology and the
subregions to comment on the Preliminary Subregional Shares (Government Code Section
65584.04). The attached memorandum and technical documents reflect the draft RHNA
Methodology.
Opportunity for Public and Local Jurisdiction Input
To ensure that ABAG staff will have adequate time to incorporate feedback for the next
Executive Board Meeting on July 19, 2012, we are recommending that jurisdictions and
subregions submit their feedback by June 30, 2012 to RHNA_Feedback@abag.ca.gov or any
questions regarding the draft RHNA Methodology.
If you wish you provide in-person, oral or written testimony on the draft RHNA Methodology,
ABAG will hold a public hearing during the Regional Planning Committee meeting on:
Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at l :00pm
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter Auditorium
101 Eighth Street, Oakland
(across from the Lake Merritt BART station)
Opportunity for Additional Local Jurisdiction Input
On July 19, 2012 the ABAG Executive Board will meet to discuss the feedback received
regarding the draft RHNA Methodology and Preliminary Subregional Shares. The Executive
Board will also act on ABAG staff recommendations for a Final RHNA Methodology, release
the Draft Allocations that result from the Final RHNA Methodology and approve the Final
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510] 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-79B5 nfoaabag.ca.gov
Location: Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756
Subregional Shares. ABAG's release of the Draft, Allocations will begin a Revision and
Appeals Process (see below for an outline of the process and timeline). The subregions will be
conducting a parallel process for their jurisdictions. ABAG will provide more detailed
procedures and guidelines on release of the Draft Allocations.
By April 2013, ABAG will issue Final Allocations that will be subject to a final adoption by
the ABAG Executive Board. From June to July 2013 the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) will review the San Francisco Bay Area RHNA Plan.
Thank you for your involvement in this process. For next steps and other opportunities for
public involvement, please see the attached list of events at the end of the enclosed packet.
Respectfully,
Ken Kirkey
ABAG Director of Planning and Research
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay.Area
ABAG
MEMO
To: ABAG Executive Board
From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG Director of Planning and Research
Date: May 17, 2012
Subject: Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology (2014-2022)
1. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the ABAG Executive Board approve the DRAFT Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and the preliminary Subregional Shares for the fifth cycle: 2014-
2022. Since January 2011, ABAG and MTC have been working with members of the Housing
Methodology Committee (HMC) to develop the specific RHNA methodology for the Bay Area.
Discussions have focused on how best to promote consistency between RHNA and the proposed
Sustainable Communities Strategy. The RHNA methodology described in this memo has been
supported by the HMC.
II. Background and Present Legislation
The State of California, since 1980 has required each town, city, and unincorporated area to plan for
its share of the state's housing need for people of all income levels. This requirement is the Housing
Element Law (Chapter 1143, Statutes of 1980; AB 2853) that created the Regional Housing Need
Allocation. The statutory objective regarding RHNA requires that two major steps be completed
before a city receives its RHNA allocation. First, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) determine Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) or
total housing need for the state and each region. The total determination is then divided into shares
defined by income categories. Each category is defined by the Health and Safety Code (Section
50093, et seq.) Second, the designated regional agencies then distribute this need to local
governments. As the Council of Governments for the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG is this
designated regional agency. This allocation process is based on eight-year zoning capacity and does
not consider local government constraints.
In addition to AB 2853, the adoption of Senate Bill 375 (Chapter, Statutes of 2008) amends the
RHNA schedule. SB 375 aims to integrate land use and transportation planning to reduce
transportation-related GHG emissions. The bill requires that all Regional Transportation Plans
(RTPs) incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy that guides growth into locations that
promote alternatives to automobile travel. In the Bay Area, the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy is
the land use element of the SCS. Pursuant to SB375, the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy
accommodates the Bay Area's Regional Housing Need Allocation. Through this process, the
region's housing, transportation, and land use planning are aligned. To ensure that the SCS has fully
accommodated RHNA, ABAG allocates the pre-determined regional housing need from HCD to
local jurisdictions, consistent with the land use criteria specified in the jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy. This land use plan has identified a network of neighborhoods that can accommodate
housing over 30 years (see the jobs-Housing Connection Strategy report, May 2012).
DRAFT RHNA Methodology 5/17/12
Page 2 of 4
Beyond the requirements specified in AB 2853 and SB 375, the comprehensive Plan Bay Area effort
will support RHNA through targeted transportation investments funded under the One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG), where funding criteria takes into account past housing production, RHNA
allocations, and low-income housing.
III. Ovenriew of the 2014-2022 RHND/RHNA Methodology
HCD: Regional Housing Need Determination
For the 8.8 year period from January 2014 through October 2022, HCD determined that the Bay
Area would require 187,990 new housing units. This determination is based on population
projections produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF), which also took into account
the uncertainty regarding the national economy and regional housing markets. The Housing Element
Law requires HCD to help regions increase the mix of housing types among cities and counties
equitably by providing growth distributions based on income categories. The income allocation for
the region is as follows:
2014 - 2022 RHNA
Very Low
24.8%
U to 50 Percent of Median Income
Low
15.4%
Between 51 and 80 Percent of Median Income
Moderate
17'8%
Between 81 and 120 Percent of Median Income
Above Moderate
42.0%
Above 120 Percent of Median Income
For this cycle only, HCD made an adjustment to account for abnormally high vacancies and unique
market conditions due to prolonged recessionary conditions, high unemployment, and
unprecedented foreclosures.
ABAG: Regional Housing Need Allocation Methodology
1. Sustainability Component
Objective: To advance the goals of SB 375, the Sustainability Component is based on the jobs-
Housing Connection Strategy, which allocates new housing development into Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) and non-PDAs. By concentrating new development in PDAs, the
Strategy helps protect the region's natural resources, water supply, and open space by reducing
development pressure on rural areas. This allows the region to consume less energy, reducing
household costs and the enussion of greenhouse gases.
Process and Factors: Following the land use distribution specified in the jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy, 70% (131,593) of the 187,990 units determined by HCD will be allocated
to PDAs and the remaining 30% (56,397) will be directed to non-PDA locations.
2. Fair Share Component
Objective: To achieve the requirements of AB 2853 (the original housing element law) that
requires that all cities and counties in California work to provide a fair share or proportion of the
region's total and affordable housing need. In particular cities that had strong transit networks,
high employment rates, and performed poorly on the 1999-2006 RI INA cycle received higher
allocations.
Process and Factors: Fair Share scoring is addressed through the factors listed below.
i. Upper Housing Threshold: If growth projected by the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy in PDAs meets or exceeds 110% of the jurisdiction's household formation
growth, it is not assigned additional growth outside the PDA, which ensures that cities
with large PDAs are not overburdened.
ii. Minimum Housing Floor: Jurisdictions are assigned a minimum of 40 percent of their
household formation growth but not to exceed 1.5 times its 2007-2014 RHNA. This
factor encourages all jurisdictions to produce a fair proportion of total housing need.
iii. Past RHNA Performance: In non PDA areas, the total low- and very-low income
units that were permitted in the 1999-2006 RHNA cycle were used as a factor for this
cycle. For example, cities that exceeded their RHNA obligation in these two income
categories received a lower score.
iv. Employment: In non-PDA areas, the employment was factored using the 2010 job
estimates for a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with higher employment received a higher
score.
v. Transit: In non-PDA areas, transit was factored for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with
higher transit frequency and coverage received a higher score.
3. Income allocation
Objective: This ensures that jurisdictions that already supply a large amount of affordable
housing receive lower affordable housing allocations. This also promotes the state objective for
increasing the mix of housing types among cities and counties equitably. The income allocation
requirement is designed to ensure that each jurisdiction in the Bay Area plans for housing people
of every income.
Process and Factors: The income distribution of a jurisdiction's housing need allocation is
determined by the difference between the regional proportion of households in an income
category and the jurisdiction's proportion for that same category. Once determined, this
difference is then multiplied by 175 percent. The result becomes that jurisdiction's "adjustment
factor." The jurisdiction's adjustment factor is added to the jurisdiction's initial proportion of
households in each income category. The result is the total share of the jurisdiction's housing
unit allocation for each income category.
3
DRAFT RHNA Methodology 5/17/12
Page 4 of 4
4. Sphere of Influence adjustments
Objective: Every city in the Bay Area has a Sphere of Influence (SOI), which can be either
contiguous with or go beyond the city's boundary. The SOI is considered the probable future
boundary- of a city- and that city is responsible for planning within its SOI. The SOI boundary is
designated by the county's Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO
influences how government responsibilities are divided among jurisdictions and service districts
in these areas.
Process and Factors: The allocation of the housing need for a jurisdiction's SOI where there
is projected growth within the spheres varies by county. In Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Solano, and Sonoma counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated
SOT is assigned to the cities. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the allocation of housing
need generated by the unincorporated SOI is assigned to the county. In Marin County, 62.3
percent of the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI is assigned to
the city and 3735 percent is assigned to the county.
5. Subregions Shares of the Regional Housing Needs Determination
Napa, San Mateo and Solano counties with the inclusion of all cities within each county have
formed the three subregions for this RHNA cycle. These counties are each considering an
alternative housing allocation methodology. The share of the RHND total for each of these
subregions is defined b3- the ratio between the subregion and the total regional housing growth
for the 2014 to 2022 period in the jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, which is the same ratio as
in RHNA. Napa will receive 0.8%, San Mateo will receive 8.5%, and Solano will receive 3.8% of
the region's total RI IND.
III. Next Steps
ABAG Adoption of Final Methodology
July 19, 2012
Action to be taken by ABAG Executive Board
Draft Allocation Released
July 20, 2012
Action to be taken by ABAG Executive Board
Public Comment Period: Revisions to Draft Allocation
Sept. 18, 2012
ABAG Responds to Requests for Revisions
By Nov. 15, 2012
Deadline for Subregions to Submit Final Allocation and Resolution
February 1, 2013
ABAG Adoption of Final Allocation at Public Hearing
May 16, 2013
Action to be taken by ABAG Executive Board
Local Governments Adopt Housing Element Revision
Oct. 2014
Appendix A: DRAFT RHNA
Appendix B: SCS-RHNA Methodology Diagram
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
Updated on May 10, 2012 - For ABAG Executive Board Review
2007-
2014
RHNA
Total
Alameda County
Alameda
Albany
Berkeley
Dublin -
Emeryville
Fremont
Hayward
Livermore
Newark
Oakland
Piedmont
Pleasanton
San Leandro
Union City
Alameda County Unincorporated
Contra Costa County
Antioch
Brentwood
Clayton
Concord
Danville
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Oakley
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
Richmond
San Pablo
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Contra Costa County Unincorporated
1999-
2006
RHNA
Total
2,162
277
1,269
5,436
777
6,708
2,835
5,107
1,250
7,733
49
5,059
870
1,951
5,310
46,793
Note: This draft 2014-2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
473
268
290
669
86
58
60
132
581
445
578
1,276
783
454
442
498
291
224
236
671
1,632
897
945
1,466
960
538
632
1,876
861
493
518
796
371
197
186
395
2,523
2,237
2,958
7,658
24
14
15
7
685
387
393
446
542
281
349
1,023
334
193
202
371
440
229
278
699
10,584
6,916
8,082
17,983
338
199
209
679
231
121
121
283
50
25
31
34
770
433
554
1,672
194
111
124
126
94
60
66
160
217
114
99
249
125
71
78
92
122
71
78
196
68
39
46
57
311
171
171
509
84
47
53
41
77
46
39
125
367
244
305
1,040
115
68
84
178
417
302
400
1,272
52
53
75
267
465
251
252
314
594
348
378
906
349
205
229
511
5,039
2,978
3,390
8,711
1,701
335
2,881
2,177
1,421
4,940
4,006
2,669
1,149
15,376
60
1,912
2,194
1,099
1,646
43,567
1,425
755
140
3,428
554
378
680
366
466
210
1,163
225
287
1,955
445
2,391
447
1,283
2,226
1,295
20,118
2,046
276
2,431
3,330
1,137
4,380
3,393
3,394
863
14,629
40
3,277
1,630
1,944
2,167
44,937
2,282
2,705
151
3,043
583
431
453
361
1,060
234
775
218
323
1,772
628
2,826
298
3,463
1,958
3,508
27,072
4,459
4,073
446
2,319
1,110
185
792
194
1,341
214
1,208
221
288
2,513
714
2,603
. 494
4,447
1,653
5,436
34,710
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
Updated on May 10, 2012 - For ABAG Executive Board Review
Marin County
Belvedere
Corte Madera
Fairfax
Larkspur -
Mill Valley
Novato
Ross
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
Tiburon
Marin County Unincorporated
Napa County
American Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville
Napa County Unincorporated
San Francisco County
San Francisco
Total 4
4
3
4
5
16
20
11
12
27
70
15
9
11
25
61
36
17
20
58
131
38
23
24
43
129
99
60
68
187
413
6
3
4
4
18
30
15
18
42
106
210
144
181
494
1,029
I
25
14
15
29
82 j
23
16
18
21
78 j
51
31
37
69
187
557
346
414
1,004
2,320
125
60
62
146
7
2
4
14
215
117
152
383
8
5
5
12
5
2
3
7
57
34
35
62
417
221
261
625
394
27
866
31
17
189
1,524
2007-
2014
RHNA
Total
17
244
108
382
292
1,241
27
113
1,403
165
117
773
4,882
728
94
2,024
121
87
651
3,705
6,499 4,718 5,452 11,350 28,019 31,193
6,499 4,718 5,452 11,350 28,019 31,193
1999-
2006
RHNA
Total
10
179
64
303
225
2,582
21
149
2,090
207
164
521
6,515
1,323
173
3,369
142
87
1,969
7,063
20,372
20,372
Note: This draft 2014-2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
Updated on May 10, 2012 - For ABAG Executive Board Review
2007-
2014
RHNA
Total
San Mateo County
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Woodside
San Mateo County Unincorporated
Santa Clara County
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara County Unincorporated
1999-
2006
RH NA
Total
166
317
426
565
74
1,391
1,282
690
458
84
982
343
666
82
2,544
378
368
2,437
1,331
41
1,680
16,305
Note: This draft 2014-2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
36
26
28
15
110
58
66
133
20
11
13
28
261
137
151
427
19
8
9
34
369
174
219
743
50
51
88
277
144
81
65
139
48
31
32
74
49
28
34
18
214
128
124
236
178
94
107
299
114
61
68
169
21
14
14
16
646
405
490
1,243
304
142
188
558
166
89
94
180
770.
420
498
1,237
511
240
311
965
22
13
15
12
85
54
63
104
4,135
2,267
2,676
6,906
224
121
142
420
432
261
275
391
204
157
215
505
162
98
107
108
45
28
31
18
189
107
131
190
920
497
513
1,255
23
12
13
14
235
139
168
324
712
425
480
1,136
659
420
457
657
8,881
5,356
6,337
16,532
902
608
663
1,640
143
91
102
102
1,540
871
870
2,293
15
9
11
24
15,284
9,200
10,513
25,610
105
366
72
975
69
1,505
466
429
185
129
701
678
413
64
2,784
1,193
529
2,925
2,027
62
306
15,984
906
1,358
1,081
476
122
616
3,186
62
865
2,754
2,192
37,106
3,812
438
5,574
58
60,607
83
399
401
650
65
1,207
630
486
276
86
993
452
275
74
1,856
973
599
3,051
1,635
41
1,506
15,738
892
1,170
1,615
317
81
562
2,487
41
1,312
2,599
2,860
34,721
5,873
292
4,426
1,090
60,338
777
2,720
3,746
261
83
402
4,348
76
2,484
3,423
1,397
26,114
6,339
539
3,836
1,446
57,991
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
Updated on May 10, 2012 - For ABAG Executive Board Review
Solano County
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Solano County Unincorporated
Sonoma County
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
Sonoma County Unincorporated
REGION
56
24
35
82
982
511
579
1,524
19
13
17
55
119
47
51
152
315
148
178
442
318
197
219
626
18
10
12
25
1,934
1,011
1,156
3,017
48
34
36
97
40
25
17
58
37
27
27
65
224
121
120
275
231
136
142
444
1,191
679
836
2,155
28
17
23
53
30
22
30
55
139
79
75
163
263
143
169
380
2,230
1,282
1,476
3,744
46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950
2007-
2014
RHNA
Total
345
532
197
728
3,596
3,796
104
1,219
370
610
1,082
2,901
1,359
3,100
66
99
7,118
12,985
216
140
156
740
953
4,860
121
137
455
955
8,733
417
257
331
1,945
1,554
6,534
176
353
719
1,364
13,650
187,990
214,500
1999-
2006
RHNA
Total
413
1,464
3,812
1,391
1,004
4,636
3,242
2,719
18,681
423
567
573
1,144
2,124
7,654
274
684
2,071
6,799
22,313
230,743
Note: This draft 2014-2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Overview of the SCSmRHNA Methodology
Step 1: Housing Development Potential (2010 - 2040)
Total Regional Growth: 660,000 Housing Units
Local Input
Housing Unit Growth Distribution
Sustainability, Equity, and Economic Adjustment Factors
Step 2: Household Formation Maximum (110% Upper Threshold)
If growth within PDA(s) 110% of YES: PDA Growth= Jurisdiction's Total RHNA
the household formation growth
(SCS)
(RHNA)
NO: Fair Share Factors Applied (Step 3)
Step 3: Fair Share Scoring to Growth in Non-PDA Areas
Takes into account:
• Past RHNA Performance (1999-2006 for very low and low income)
• Number of Jobs (within the jurisdiction)
• Transit Service (coverage and frequency)
Step 4: Household Formation Minimum (40% Lower Threshold)
(RHNA)
Jurisdictions are assigned a minimum of 40% of their natural household formation growth
Step 5: RHNA Maximum and Minimum
Cities: Total housing allocation is capped at 1.5 times 2007 -2014 RHNA
Counties: Must receive at least 60% of 2007-2014 RHNA
Step 6: Income Allocation Adjustment to Jurisdiction's Total RHNA
For each income category.•
i Adjustment _ Regional Jurisdiction I Jurisdiction
t z W 6 175% 1 Proportion
Factor Proportion } 4 Proportion t J
Adjusted =Income Jurisdiction's RHNA Allocation
Distri= (Housing Units)
1
5th RHNA Cycle 12014 - 2022
Timeline and Next Steps: January 2011- May 2013
Key Activities
• January 2011 to April 2012 - Housing Methodology Committee
• February 2012 - The State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) issued a
determination of the Bay Area's overall housing need for all income levels.
• March 2012 - ABAG Executive Board released preliminary draft Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) Methodology.
• May 2012 - ABAG Executive Board released Draft RHNA Methodology.
• June 2012 - ABAG Regional Planning Committee holds public hearing on Draft RHNA
Methodology.
• July 2012 - ABAG adopts Final RHNA Methodology and releases Draft Allocation.
• July 2012 -Revision and Appeals Process begins.
• February-March 2013 - ABAG holds public hearing on appeals by local jurisdictions.
• April 2013 - ABAG issues Final Allocation.
• May 2013 - ABAG adopts Final Allocation.
• June-July 2013 - HCD reviews Final Allocations.
Opportunities for Public Involvement and Local Jurisdiction Input
• In May 2012, ABAG released Draft RHNA Methodology for public comment at a joint meeting
of ABAG's Administrative Committee and MTC's Planning Committee.
• In June 2012, ABAG holds public hearing on the Draft RHNA Methodology.
• In July 2012, ABAG adopts the Final Methodology and releases the Draft Allocation. Local
jurisdictions may request revisions to their Draft Allocations up till September 18, 2018.
• ABAG responds to request for revisions by November 15, 2012. Local jurisdiction may appeal
ABAG's decision on a request for revisions up till January 11, 2013.
• During February-March 2013, ABAG holds public hearing on appeals and responds to comments.
• In May 2013, ABAG adopts the Final Allocation at a public hearing.
Board Action
• Release of draft RHNA methodology (May 2012)
• Adopt RHNA methodology (July 2012)
• Release draft RHNA allocation (July 2012)
• Adopt final RHNA allocation (May 2013)
ts/S Q&
o r
lb _ o
595 Heiman Lane
Cotati, CA 94931
1.800.231..3236 or 707.285.2200
707.285.2210 fax
www.msmosquito.com
Philip D. Smith
District Manager
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Ed Schulze, President
Marin County At Large
Paul Libeu, Vice President
Rohnert Park
Judith Trusendi, Secretary
San Rafael
Guy Wilson, Treasurer
Sebastopol
Tamara Davis
Sonoma County At Large
Richard Stabler
Sonoma County At Large
Steve Ayala
Petaluma
Jim Wood
Healdsburg
Yvonne Van Dyke
Cotati
Charles Bouey
Sonoma
Bill Pitcher
Santa Rosa
Margaret G raham
Ma rin County At Large
Marty Castro
Windsor
Tom Bradner
Larkspur
Sandra Ross
Mill Valley
Fran k- Egger
Fairfax
Herman Zwart
Novato
Iris Winey
Ross
William Holland
San Anselmo
Roger Sin ith
Tiburon
William Ring
Sausalito
Nancv Barnard
Corte Madera
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the
Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District's
Integrated Vector Management Program
Date: May 25, 2012
To: State Clearinghouse; Responsible, Trustee, and Interested
Agencies; and other Interested Organizations and Individuals
The Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District (District) as Lead Agency
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will prepare a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) on its Integrated Vector
Management Program (Project). We need to know the views of your agency as to
the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your
agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed Project. Your
agency may need to use the PEIR prepared by the District when considering any
necessary permit or other approval for the Project. Interested parties and
individuals are also invited to comment on alternatives to, concerns with, and
environmental issues or potential effects of the Project.
Public Scoping Meetings
Two public scoping meetings will be held to receive agency and public comment
on the scope of analysis and PEIR content for the proposed Program.
June 12 at 7 pm at the San Rafael Community Center (Clubrooms 2,
3 & 4), 618 B Street, San Rafael, CA 94901.
June 14 at 7 pm at the Rohnert Park Senior Center, 6800 Hunter
Drive, Rohnert Park, CA 94928.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent
at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to: Philip D. Smith, 595 Helman Lane, Cotati, CA
94931; or fax: 707-285-2210; or email: phils@msmosquito.com. Project files will
be maintained at this location.
Za/t4j~k
Philip D. Smith, District Manager
S 2S /Z0~ Z
Date
Integrated Vector Management Program (IVMP) Project Description
Summary
The Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District undertakes activities through its
Integrated Vector Management Program to control the following vectors of disease and/or
discomfort in the Service Area: mosquitoes, rats, yellowjackets, midges, ticks. (A vector is
defined as "any animal capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease or capable
of producing human discomfort or injury..." (The California Health and Safety Code, Section
2200(f)). The District also performs vegetation management activities. The District (Project
Sponsor) is preparing a Programmatic EIR (PEIR) to evaluate the effects of the continued
implementation of the control strategies and methods prescribed in its Integrated Vector
Management Program (IVMP or Control Program). Since the mid-1980s, the District has taken
an integrated systems approach to mosquito and vector control, utilizing a suite of tools that
consist of education, surveillance, source reduction (physical control), biological, and chemical
controls. These Project tools or components are described below. The implementation of the
Control Program is weighted heavily towards the education, surveillance, source reduction and
biological control components, in part, to reduce the potential for environmental impacts. In
order to realize effective and environmentally sound vector management, vector control must be
based on several factors: carefully monitoring or surveying vector abundance and/or potential
contact with people; establishing treatment criteria (thresholds); and appropriately selecting from
a wide range of control methods. This dynamic combination of surveillance, treatment criteria,
and use of multiple control activities in a coordinated program is generally known as Integrated
Pest (or Vector) Management (IPM or IVM). This overall Control Program and its component
activities will be evaluated for their potential environmental impacts in this PER.
Proiect Location
The Integrated Vector Management Program's (Program) "Project Area" or Program Area
consists of the District's "Service Area" boundaries, which generally includes all lands within
Marin and Sonoma counties. The Program Area is shown in Figure 1, Marin/Sonoma Mosquito
and Vector Control District Program Area.
Background
The District was established to reduce the risk of vector-borne disease and discomfort to the
residents of its Service Area. In addition to being nuisances by disrupting human activities and
enjoyment of public and private areas, certain vectors can transmit a number of diseases. The
diseases of most concern in the Program Area currently are West Nile virus, (WNV), western
equine encephalomyelitis (WEE), St. Louis encephalitis (SLE), dog heartworm, and malaria,
which are transmitted by mosquitoes; rabies transmitted by skunks; plague and murine typhus
transmitted by fleas; leptospirosis and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome associated with rats and
other rodents; and Lyme disease, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis transmitted by ticks.
Most of the relevant vectors are quite mobile and cause the greatest hazard or discomfort at a
distance from where they breed. Each potential vector has a unique life cycle and most of them
occupy several habitats. In order to effectively control them, an integrated vector management
program must be employed. The District identifies those species that are currently vectors, to
provide education and recommend techniques for their prevention and control, and to anticipate
and minimize any new interactions between vectors and humans.
NOP_MSMVCD_Fina]_R1_5-25-12 Page 2 of6
t(3LiSt"
Clea r lAt:
!A
?17s~
IvIeridoc,ric, Countv Cobb
Sonoma County Clover alc'
G
S,E
Naps
Hz~lc3sb:~rc~
ngwin
Windsor
Source. M12 a eNtrsl7y ►
0
Legend VEC i Ok +v1F.fa,,, Ei 'ENT PRO' ~ ~ R. ~,.,i R
Program Area
N I Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District
Ft1 j o a s 1 2 , Figure 1 - Program Area
Scale in M Iles
NOP_MSMVCD_Final _R1_5-25-12 Page 3 ol"6
Proposed Proiect
The Integrated Vector Management Program (IVMP) of the District is an ongoing program of
surveillance and control of mosquitoes and other vectors of human disease and discomfort.
The District's IVMP consists of five general types of coordinated and component activities:
Public Education: This activity is to encourage and assist reduction and prevention of vector
habitats on private and public property. Public education is also employed to inform the public
regarding the District's activities and to provide information with regard to the prevention of
vector-borne diseases. While a critical element of the District's IVMP, public education activities
are categorically exempt from CEQA review [CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15322] based on a finding
by the State Secretary of Resources that these activities do not have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, these education activities will not be reviewed further in the PEIR.
Surveillance: Surveillance is conducted for vector populations and habitats, vector-borne
diseases, and public distress associated with vectors. Vector surveillance activities include field
sampling, and trapping, along with the laboratory analysis of vectors, their hosts, and pathogens
to evaluate populations and disease threats; field inspection of known or suspected habitats
where vectors live; maintenance of paths and the use of all-terrain vehicles to access vector
habitat; analysis of public service requests and surveys; and other methods of data collection.
Source Reduction (i.e. Physical Control): Management of vector habitat, especially through
educating the public regarding management of "backyard" type mosquito sources, working
collaboratively with other agencies regarding "water related" projects and management, water
management or improvement/maintenance of channels, tide gates, levees, and other water
control facilities, vegetation management etc., is known as "Source Reduction". Activities
designed to reduce vector populations through changes in the physical environment which
reduce its habitat suitability for vectors, or which improve habitat or mobility of natural predators
of vectors, are considered Source Reduction; activities related to rearing or relocating these
predators are discussed below as Biological Control. Source Reduction activities with regard to
vegetation management, involve the use of herbicides, hand tools, or other mechanical means
of vegetation removal or thinning to improve access to vector habitat, improving surveillance
and reducing vector habitat.
Biological Control: Rearing, stocking, and providing "mosquitofish" Gambusia affinis and
applying the bacterium, Bacillus sphaericus, and the potential use of other predators or
pathogens of vectors is known as "Biological Control." Gambusia affinis and Bacillus
sphaericus reproduce in natural settings, for at least some time, after release. Bacillus
thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) materials applied by the District do not contain live organisms, only
spores made up of specific protein molecules. Because the potential environmental impacts of
Bacillus sphaericus or Bti applications are generally similar to those of chemical pesticide
applications, these materials will be evaluated under Chemical Control.
Chemical Control: Chemical Control is defined as the application of insecticides to directly
reduce populations of larval or adult mosquitoes and other invertebrates of public health
importance (e.g., yellowjackets) and the use of rodenticides to control rats.
Other Vertebrate Vector Control: This activity includes the trapping of rodents that pose a
threat to public health and welfare.
While these program elements together encompass the District's Integrated Vector
Management Program, it is important to note that the specific activities performed by District
staff vary from day to day, and from site to site, in response to the vector species that are active,
their population size or density, age structure, location, time of year, local climate and weather,
NOP_MSMVCD_Final_Rl_5-25-12 Page 4 of 6
potential for vector-borne disease transmission, proximity to human populations, including: a)
proximity to sensitive receptors; b) access by District staff to vector habitat; c) abundance of
natural predators; d) availability and cost of control methods; g) effectiveness of previous control
efforts at the site; h) potential for development of resistance in vector populations; i) landowner
policies or concerns; j) proximity to special status species; and k) applicability of Endangered
Species Recovery Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans,
and local community concerns, among other variables. Therefore, the specific actions taken in
response to current or potential vector activity at a specific place and time depends on factors of
vector and pathogen biology, physical and biotic environment, human settlement patterns, local
standards, available control methods, and institutional and legal constraints. While some
consistent vector sources are exposed to repeated control activity, many areas with minor
vector activity are not routinely treated, and most of the land within the District Service Area has
never been directly treated for vectors.
The District's IVMP, like any IPM program, by definition, seeks to use procedures that will
minimize potential environmental impacts. The District's Program employs IPM principles by
first determining the species and abundance of mosquitoes through evaluation of public service
requests and field surveys of immature and adult mosquito populations; and then, if the
populations exceed predetermined criteria, using the most efficient, effective, and
environmentally sensitive means of control. For all mosquito species, public education is an
important control strategy. In some situations, water management or other physical control
activities can be instituted to reduce mosquito-breeding sites. The District also uses biological
control such as the planting of mosquitofish in some settings. When these approaches are not
effective, or are otherwise deemed inappropriate, then pesticides are used to treat specific
sources of vector production.
Mosquito control activities are conducted at a wide variety of locations or "sites" throughout the
District's Program Area. These sites can be roughly divided into those where activities may
have an effect on the natural environment either directly or indirectly (through drainage), and
sites where the potential environmental impacts are negligible ("Non-Environmental Sites").
Examples of "Environmental Sites" in the Program Area include tidal marshes, duck clubs, other
diked marshes, lakes and ponds, rivers and streams, vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands,
storm water detention basins, flood control channels, spreading grounds, street drains and
gutters, wash drains, irrigated pastures, or agricultural ditches. Examples of "Non-
Environmental Sites" include animal troughs, artificial containers, tire piles, fountains,
ornamental fish ponds, swimming pools, liquid waste detention ponds, and non-natural
harborage (such as covered wood piles, residential and commercial landscape, trash
receptacles, etc.
Scope of the PER Analvsis
The No Project alternative would be equivalent to "No Action," or to discontinue the control
program elements described above. A range of project alternatives will be developed by the
District, partially as result of input from the scoping process, and these alternatives and others
will be described and evaluated in a technical report for the PEIR. These existing alternatives
include specific surveillance, source reduction, biological control, and chemical control
(approved insecticides) that are existing components of the District's overall Control Program.
Based on current information, the Proposed Program alternatives for evaluation in the PEIR are
those five components (excluding public education) previously described.
The PEIR will evaluate potential environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) and
focus on the following environmental resources and concerns: human health, ecological health,
land use, public services/hazard response, water quality (surface and ground waters), air
quality, climate change (greenhouse gas production), noise, and biological resources. The
NOP_MSMVCD_Fina1_R1_5-25-12 Page 5 of 6
human and ecological health risk evaluations are expected to be technical appendices to the
PER with important results summarized in the appropriate sections of the PEIR.
Issues that are raised during public scoping on the proposed alternatives (or other alternatives)
and the potential for impacts to the environment will be incorporated into a public scoping report
and made available to the public and preparers of the Draft PEIR. These concerns will be
addressed, as needed, in studies and reports that are being prepared to support the PEIR
process. These include human and ecological health risk analyses or toxicological studies, as
well as air quality, noise, and biological resource technical studies. The potential for risk to
human and ecological health from chemical treatments will be evaluated based in large part on
pesticide-specific toxicological studies. The findings of all the technical studies will be
incorporated into the environmental impact analyses prepared for the PEIR.
For More Information
Additional information can be found at District's website at www.msmosquito.com and at the
District's office located at: 595 Helman Lane, Cotati, CA 94931.
NOP_MSMVCD_Final_R1_5-25-12 Page 6 of 6