HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2013-02-15TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of February 11-15, 2013
T;h„rnn
1. Letter - Mayor of San Francisco - Model Gun Control Legislation
2. Letter - Marin County District Attorney - Gun Buy Back Program
3. Letter - Arlene Merino Nielsen - County Ban of Plastic Bags at Supermarkets
4. Email - Marin Energy Authority - MCE-EPA Green Power Community
Recognition
5. Metro - City of Belvedere - Appointment of New City Manager and City
Councilmember
6. Notice of Special Vacancy - Design Review Board
7. Notice of Special Vacancy - Planning Commission
8. Monthly Report - Design Review - January 2013
9. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - January 2013
Agendas & Minutes
10. Minutes - Planning Commission - January 9, 2013
11. Minutes - Design Review Board - January 17, 2013
12. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - February 7, 2013
13. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - February 13, 2013
14. Agenda - Design Review Board - February 21, 2013
Reizional
a) Email - California State Rail Plan - Schedule of Public Open Houses - February
2013
b) Letter - Sponsorship of Marin Conservation League Ann.Dinner - 4/19/13
c) Bay Area Monitor -Newsletter - League of Women Voters - Feb/Mar 2013
Agendas & Minutes
d) Agenda - ABAG General Assembly Business Meeting, April 18, 2013
* Council Only
~o CovNJ,~ DIGEST
1.1 • -
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR W - EDWIN M. LEE
SAN FRANCISCO ~ .
a MAYOR ~
February 5, 2013
Mayor Emmett O'Donnell and the Honorable Members of the Town Council of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Model Gun Control Legislation
Dear Mayor Emmett O'Donnell and the Honorable Members of the Town Council of Tiburon:
I am writing to encourage action amongst the elected leaders of our nine Bay Area counties to
protect our residents and put a stop to preventable deaths caused by gun violence. The
Newtown tragedy has reinvigorated the national gun control debate and inspired many to
ensure that we are doing all that we can to keep citizens safe. I have personally committed
myself and my administration to pursuing any and all avenues to keep guns and the most
deadly forms of ammunition out of ill-intentioned hands.
Which brings me to the purpose of this letter - San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen and I
have introduced two pieces legislation to our county Board of Supervisors. The first would
prohibit the sale and possession of hollow-point ammunition - military-grade bullets that are
designed to inflict maximum harm upon impact. The second piece of legislation would notify
San Francisco Police Department when an individual purchases 500 rounds of ammunition or
more. I believe that these two pieces of legislation will make a measurable impact.
But if we are truly going to succeed in improving the safety of our residents, we must succeed
not as individual cities, but as a region. For that reason, I've submitted for your review the two
aforementioned pieces of legislation for consideration for introduction in your jurisdiction. In
addition to this legislation, I would like to encourage you to make a public pledge of your
support for greater public safety by signing on to the Sandy Hook Promise
(www.sandyhookpromise.org). If you have any questions, or would like to share any of the
work you've done in your jurisdictions, please do get in touch with Jason Elliott in my office,
iason.elliott@sfgov.org. Thank you for your partnership.
Sincerely,
RECEI r~
FEB 11 2013
TOWN MANAGUiS U
Edwin M. Lee TOWN OF TIBE)RO.,`
Mayor
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 200
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4681
TELEPHONE: (415) 554-6141
FILE NO. 130040
ORDINANCE NO.
1 [Police Code - Possession or Sale of Law Enforcement or Military Ammunition]
2
3 Ordinance amending the Police Code, by adding Section 618, to prohibit the
4 possession or sale of certain ammunition, including Black Talon ammunition and
5 ammunition intended exclusively for law enforcement and military purposes.
6 NOTE: Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman;
deletions are
7 Board amendment additions are double-underlined;
Board amendment deletions are
8
9
10 Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
11 Section 1. The San Francisco Police Code is hereby amended by adding Section 618,
12 to read as follows:
13 SEC. 618. PROHIBITED AMMUNITION.
14 (a) Dertnition. For purposes of this Section, "Prohibited Ammunition " shall mean:
15 (1) Ammunition sold under the brand name "Winchester Black Talon " or that has
16 physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to ammunition presently or formerly
17 sold under the brand name Winchester Black Talon; or,
18 (2) Ammunition designated by its manufacturer for purchase by law enforcement or
19 military ajzencies only, unless other ammunition is available to the general public that has physical
20 properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to such ammunition.
21 (b) Possession Prohibited: Exceptions. No person, firm, corporation or other entity may
22 possess Prohibited Ammunition within the Citv and County of San Francisco except that this
23 subsection shall not apply to the otherwise-lawful possession of Prohibited Ammunition by the
24 ollowin :
25
Mayor Lee, Supervisor Cohen
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
1/15/2013
1 (Q Severability. La y provision, clause or word of this Section 618 or the application thereof
2 to and person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision
3 clause, word or application of this Section which can be given effect without the invalid provision
4 clause or word, and to this end the provisions of this Section are declared to be severable.
5
6 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the
7 date of passage.
8
9 Section 3. This section is uncodified. In enacting this Ordinance, the Board intends to
10 amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles, numbers,
11 punctuation, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent part of the Police Code that are
12 explicitly shown in this legislation as additions, deletions, Board amendment additions, and
13 Board amendment deletions in accordance with the "Note" that appears under the official title
14 of the legislation.
15
16
17 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
18 DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney
19
20 By:
THOMAS J. OWEN
21 Deputy City Attorney
22
23
originated at : n:\govern\as2013\1300252\00817412.doc
24 revised on: 1/25/2013 - n:\govern\as2013\1300252\00817412.doc
25
Mayor Lee, Supervisor Cohen
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3
1/15/2013
FILE NO. 130040
LEGISLATIVE DIGEST
[Police Code - Possession or Sale of Law Enforcement or Military Ammunition]
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code by adding Section 618 to prohibit
the possession or sale of certain ammunition, including Black Talon ammunition and
ammunition intended exclusively for law enforcement and military purposes.
Existing Law
Article 9 of the Police Code prohibits the sale (but not the possession) of "enhanced-
lethality ammunition" within the City. "Enhanced-lethality ammunition" is defined in Police
Code Section 613.10(g) as firearms ammunition that:
• Serves no sporting purpose;
• Is designed to expand upon impact and utilize the jacket, shot or materials embedded
within the jacket or shot to project or disperse barbs or other objects that are intended
to increase the damage to a human body or other target; or
• Is designed to fragment upon impact.
This prohibition does not apply to the sale of conventional hollow-point ammunition with a
solid lead core when the purchase is made for official law enforcement purposes and by
someone authorized to make such a purchase by the Chief of Police or the Sheriff.
Amendments to Current Law
The proposal is an ordinance that would add a new Section 618 to Article 9 of the Police
Code to regulate "Prohibited Ammunition.", The ordinance defines "Prohibited Ammunition"
as:
• Ammunition sold under the brand name "Winchester Black Talon," or any other
ammunition having the same ballistic characteristics; and
• Ammunition designated by its manufacturer for sale to law enforcement or military
agencies only, unless other ammunition having the same ballistic characteristics is sold
to the general public.
The ordinance would bar any person or business from possessing Prohibited Ammunition
within the City. This prohibition would not apply to peace officers, federal law enforcement
officers, members of the armed forces, and certain other categories of official security
personnel who otherwise lawfully possessed Prohibited Ammunition issued by their employing
agency.
Mayor Lee, Supervisor Cohen
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
1/11/2013
originated at : n:\govern\a52013t1300252\00818911.doc
revised on: 1/14/2013 - n:\govern\as2013\1300252\00818911.doc
FILE NO. 130039
ORDINANCE NO.
1 [Police Code - Reporting Ammunition Sales of 500 or More Rounds]
2
3 Ordinance amending the Police Code, Section 615, to require firearms dealers to report
4 to the Chief of Police the sale of 500 or more rounds of ammunition in a single
5 transaction.
6 NOTE: Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman;
deletions are .
7 Board amendment additions are double-underlined;
Board amendment deletions are
8
9 Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
10 Section 1. The San Francisco Police Code is hereby amended by amending
11 Section 615, to read as follows:
12 SEC. 615. RECORDS OF AMMUNITION SALES.
13 (a) Definitions.
14 (1) "Firearm ammunition," as used in this Section, shall include any ammunition
15 for use in any pistol or revolver, or semiautomatic rifle or assault weapon, but shall not include
16 ammunition for shotguns that contains shot that is No. 4 or smaller.
17 (2) "Semiautomatic rifle," as used in this Section, shall mean any repeating rifle
18 which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and
19 chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each
20 cartridge.
21 (3) "Assault weapon," as used in this Section, shall mean any of the weapons
22 designated in California Penal Code Section 12276 or 12276.1.
23 (4) "Vendor," as used in this Section, shall mean any person located in the City
24 and CounU of San Francisco who is engaged in the sale of firearm ammunition, including any
25 retail firearms dealer.
Mayor Lee, Supervisor Cohen
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 1
1 /15/2013
1 of complying with this subsection (0(2), the Vendor or Remote Vendor shall include any combination
2 of types, brands or calibers sold or transferred to the transferee.
3 (d) No Vendor peen shall knowingly make a false entry in, or fail to make a required
4 entry in, or fail to maintain in the required manner records prepared in accordance with
5 subsections (b) and (c)(1) here h. No Vendor per-sen shall refuse to permit a police department
6 employee to examine any record prepared in accordance with this Section during any
7 inspection conducted pursuant to this Section. No Vendor or Remote Vendor shall fail to submit
8 the report required under subsection (c)(2), or knowingly include false information in such report.
9 (e) Penalties.
10 (1) First Conviction. Any person violating any provision of this Section shall
11 be guilty of an infraction. Upon conviction of the infraction, the violator shall be punished by a
12 fine of not less than $50 nor more than $100.
13 (2) Subsequent Convictions. In any accusatory pleading charging a violation
14 of this Section, if the defendant has been previously convicted of a violation of this Section,
15 each such previous violation and conviction shall be charged in the accusatory pleading. Any
16 person violating any provision of this Section a second time within a 90-day period shall be
17 guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $300 and not more
18 than $400 for each provision violated, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not
19 more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person violating any
20 provision of this Section, a third time, and each subsequent time, within a 30-day period shall
21 be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $400 and not
22 more than $500 for each provision violated, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period
23 of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
24 (f) Severability. If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Section
25 be for any reason declared unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent
Mayor Lee, Supervisor Cohen
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3
1/15/2013
FILE NO. 130039
LEGISLATIVE DIGEST
[Police Code - Reporting Ammunition Sales of 500 or More Rounds]
Ordinance amending the Police Code, Section 615, to require firearms dealers to report
to the Chief of Police the sale of 500 or more rounds of ammunition in a single
transaction.
Existing Law
Police Code Section 615(b) requires any person selling firearms ammunition within the City
to maintain records of such sales. The records must include: (1) the name of the specific
individual making the sale; (2) the place where the transaction occurred; (3) the date and time
of the transaction; (4) the name, address and date of birth of the buyer; (5) the buyer's driver's
license number; (6) the brand, type and amount of ammunition sold; and (7) the buyer's
signature.
The seller must keep these records on the premises for at least two years, and make them
available for inspection by the Police Department during normal business hours. Section 615
does not require the seller to report the sale to anyone.
Amendments to Current Law
The proposal is an ordinance that would amend Police Code Section 615 to add a new
requirement for persons selling firearm ammunition. The ordinance would require any person
selling five hundred (500) or more rounds of any firearm ammunition to someone in a single
transaction to report the sale to the Chief of Police within 24 hours. The report would have to
include the same information required under Police Code Section 615(b). In determining the
number of rounds sold, the seller would have to include any combination of types, brands or
calibers of ammunition sold as part of the transaction.
This requirement would apply to persons selling ammunition within the City or selling
ammunition for delivery to a San Francisco address.
Mayor Lee, Supervisor Cohen
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
1/15/2013
originated at : \\insitefiles\granicus_nasUnsite\files\sfrn\attachments\45844.doc
revised on: 1/16/2013 - \\insitefiles\granicus_nas\insite\files\sfm\attachments\45844.doc
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
February 4, 2013
I am writing to express my thanks and appreciation to each of you who have contributed so
generously to our Gun Buy Back Program. I had originally intended to write each of you individually;
however, the number of individuals responding made my original plans not feasible.
On January 15, 2013, a highly successful Gun Buy Back Program was conducted at five locations
in Marin County. The Sheriff and all of Marin's police agencies endorsed and supported the
implementation of the program. All members of our County Board of Supervisors endorsed the program
and contributed $10,000 toward the purchase of firearms. The Marin Community Foundation backed
the program both from an endorsement and financial contributor standpoint. Two of the MCF
administered trust funds contributed $10,000 each toward the program. This $30,000 was augmented
by an additional $13,000 in contributions coming from a number of local community residents. Going
into the January 15th Gun Buy Back date, $43,000 was available for the purchase of any qualifying
surrendered firearms.
On January 15th, 827 firearms were surrendered which totally depleted the $43,000 in
contributions that had been collected to fund the program. In fact, the volume of individuals appearing
at the five surrender locations exceeded our expectations and the contributed funds were spent, or
committed to be spent, within the first ninety (90) minutes. At that point vouchers for possible
redemption were given to at least 500 individuals still wishing to surrender their firearms.
Here is a breakdown on the firearms surrendered at the five designated locations on January 15th:
Location
Number of Firearms Ammunition
Novato Police Department 277 2,000 rounds
San Rafael Police Department 223 200 rounds
Larkspur Station (Central Marin Police Authority) 206
Sheriff's Office Marin City Substation 71 1,000 rounds
Sheriff's Office Pt. Reyes Substation 50 100 rounds
The type of firearms surrendered covered a wide variety of models and categories.
There were long rifles (bolt action and semi-automatic); shotguns; sawed-off shotguns; pistols _
and semi-automatic handguns. I have attached a photograph of a semi-automatic assault rifle
(AK-47) surrendered in Pt. Reyes. This particular firearm had a 200 round magazine. The
individual surrendering this firearm also surrendered a number of 30 round magazines.
I personally believe the removal of these 827 firearms from the homes in our
community and our neighboring communities means there are 827 fewer chances that a 7
firearm will be the cause of an accidental death due to the negligent handling by an adult or
child; or be available to someone despondent and suicidal; or be in a home and stolen during a burglary
then subsequently appear in a criminal enterprise; or be available during an explosive domestic violence
incident; or be available to an emotionally or mentally challenged individual at a time of crisis.
We had scheduled for January 21s' a second gun buy back at two surrender locations in the
County. However, due to the exhaustion of our contributed funds on January 15th we had to scale back
our plans. One surrender location was opened four hours at the Mill Valley Police Department. During
that period, even without compensation being paid, 29 additional firearms and over 1,000 rounds of
ammunition were turned-in. Among the firearms surrendered was an AR-15 semiautomatic assault
weapon.
As to the redemption process, a hotline has been set up to provide details on how that will be
accomplished. That hotline telephone number is: (415) 473-2727. Information and updates on the
redemption process can also be found on the Marin County District Attorney website
(http://www.marincounty.org/depts/da/gun-buy-back). The contributions you have made are tax
deductible and you should have received a tax ID number acknowledging the receipt of your
contribution; If you did not receive the tax ID number please contact Ms. Janice Hughes at the Marin
County District Attorney's Office, Attn: Gun Buy Back Program, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 130, San
Rafael, CA 94903.
Again, my sincerest appreciation for your generosity and concern,
Ed Berberian
District Attorney
County of Marin
DlGEST3
Arlene Merino Nielsen
29 Mark Terrace
Tiburon, CA
94920
415-435-2703
arlenenielsen a,mac.com
February 9, 2013
Supervisor Kathrin Sears
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Civic Center
San Rafael, CA
Re: County Ban of Plastic Bags at Supermarkets
Dear Supervisor Sears,
RECD
FEB 12 zo, i
TOWN MANAGERS ut r;~.
TOWN OF TIBURON
I am writing to express my strong disagreement with the County's ban of plastic bags in
supermarkets.
First, it is a childish gesture more appropriate in an elementary school. Clearly, we want
to encourage responsible use of resources and recycling, but enlisting the big guns of
County enforcement on the unfortunate stores that happen to be in County jurisdiction, is
a terrible misuse of government authority and time. When County Supervisors have not
been able to administer the functions of County Government to the tune of more than
thirty million dollars in a bungled purchase of computers, not to mention the major issue
we are facing with unfunded pensions, doesn't it seem totally silly to spend precious
supervisorial time and resources on plastic bags?
Second, at least once a week I happen on an articles in major publications by or about
scientists who have debunked the "terrible environmental damage" these plastic bags are
said to cause. There is no patch of miles of debris floating in the Pacific or the Atlantic
that can be found anywhere beyond the hysterical screams of supposed environmentalists.
Some have even stated that paper bags require more resources and produce more gases
than the manufacture and disposal of plastic bags.
Third, and what finally triggered me to write to you. There is indeed a health hazard in
reusable bags. [Enclosed article from Bloomberg] I often shop at the Safeway in
Strawberry. On two recent occasions I have seen cute little "comfort dogs" riding in the
grocery carts while their owners shop the produce department. The store says there is
nothing they can do to prohibit their presence. Assuming that is the true state of the law
on "comfort dogs," what does it do to us who put (used to put) our loose produce in the
basket, attempting to combine so as to use the fewest of these "horrible plastic baggies"
that mercifully are still available to buy produce? Perhaps it is the silly ban on bags that
has encouraged produce vendors to hyper package their tomatoes, lettuce, apples, grapes
in harder plastic containers?
Why are we wasting precious County time and resources on this silly endeavor? The
check out clerks say the store would be severely fined (by County government personnel)
if there are ANY plastic bags at the checkout counter and they have to ask us if we
"want" to spend 5¢ and buy a paper bag unless we bring our own whatever bag. Why are
we encouraging other jurisdictions to do the same except that perhaps we want to
disadvantage stores equally? Why does the County want to disadvantage and burden
ANY store? Presumably, the County has personnel, not cheap, to police this! ! ! ! If the
hysteria carries over to all our towns and cities, will they be required to hire such
inspectors?
I am sure this too will pass and be added to long list of sillies our governments have tried
to impose. Disposable diapers were eventually blessed for environmental reasons as well
as health. Light bulbs, the federal foible! Ethanol! ! !
There is much work that can be done to encourage responsible stewardship of our
resources. So, why trivialize those efforts? Why not working to convince us, the citizens,
to properly use and dispose of the bags, instead of tying us, and our merchants, in silly
little knots?
Sincerely,
Arlene M. Nielsen
cc: S feway/Strawberry
eggy Curran, Tiburon Town Manager
Enclosures
Bloomberg
The Disgusting Consequences of Plastic-Bag Bans
Conservatives often point out that laws, no matter how benign they may appear, have unintended
consequences. They can reverberate in ways that not many people foresaw and nobody wanted: Raising
the minimum wage can increase unemployment; prohibition can create black markets.
The efforts in many cities to discourage the use of plastic bags demonstrate that such unintended
consequences can be, among other things, kind of gross.
San Francisco has been discouraging plastic bags since 2007, saying that it takes too much oil to make
them and that used bags pollute waterways and kill marine animals. In 2012, it strengthened its law.
Several West Coast cities, including Seattle and Los Angeles, have also adopted bans for environmental
reasons. The government of Washington, D.C., imposes a 5 cent plastic-bag tax. (Advocates prefer to call it
a "fee" because taxes are unpopular.) Environmental groups and celebrity activists, including Eva
Longoria and Julia Louis- Dreyfus, support these laws.
The plastic-bag industry, predictably, wants to throw them away. It says that the making of plastic bags
supplies a livelihood to 30,00o hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic Americans, many of whom have
adorable children to support. It cites a 2007 report by San Francisco's Environment Department that said
plastic bags from retail establishments, the target of the ban, accounted for only o.6 percent of litter.
Spreading Disease
Most alarmingly, the industry has highlighted news reports linking reusable shopping bags to the spread
of disease. Like this one, from the Los Angeles Times last May: "A reusable grocery bag left in a hotel
bathroom caused an outbreak of norovirus-induced diarrhea and nausea that struck nine of 13 members
of a girls' soccer team in October, Oregon researchers reported Wednesday." The norovirus may not have
political clout, but evidently it, too, is rooting against plastic bags.
Warning of disease may seem like an over-the-top scare tactic, but research suggests there's more than
anecdote behind this industry talking point. In a 2011 study, four researchers examined reusable bags in
California and Arizona and found that 51 percent of them contained coliform bacteria. The problem
appears to be the habits of the reusers. Seventy-five percent said they keep meat and vegetables in the
same bag. When bags were stored in hot car trunks for two hours, the bacteria grew tenfold.
That study also found, happily, that washing the bags eliminated 99.9 percent of the bacteria. It undercut
even that good news, though, by finding that 97 percent of people reported that they never wash their
bags. ,
Jonathan Klick and Joshua Wright, who are law professors at the University of Pennsylvania and George
Mason University, respectively, have done a more recent study on the public-health impact of plastic-bag
bans. They find that emergency-room admissions related to E. coli infections increased in San Francisco
after the ban. (Nearby counties did not show this increase.) And this effect showed up as soon as the ban
was implemented. ("There is a clear discontinuity at the time of adoption.") The San Francisco ban was
also associated with increases in salmonella and other bacterial infections. Similar effects were found in
other California towns that adopted such laws.
More Deaths
Klick and Wright estimate that the San Francisco ban results in a 46 percent increase in deaths from
foodborne illnesses, or 5.5 more of them each year. They then run through a cost-benefit analysis
employing the same estimate of the value of a human life that the Environmental Protection Agency uses
when evaluating regulations that are supposed to save lives. They conclude that the anti-plastic-bag
policies can't pass the test and that's before counting the higher health-care costs they generate.
The authors argue, not completely convincingly, against the idea that regular washing and drying of
reusable bags would solve the problem. They point out that the use of hot water and detergent imposes
environmental costs, too. And reusable bags require more energy to make than plastic ones. The stronger
argument, it seems to me, is that 97 percent figure: Whatever the merits of regularly cleaning the bags, it
doesn't appear likely to happen.
The best course for government, then, is probably to encourage people to recycle their plastic bags or,
maybe, just let people make their own decisions. Plastic-bag bans are another on a distressingly long list of
political issues where I cannot see eye to eye with Eva Longoria.
(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Ramesh Ponnuru at rponnuru(ipbloomberg net
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Timothy Lavin at tlavinl a bloomberg.net
02013 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Page 1 of 2
Peggy Curran
From: Simon Loos [sloos@marinenergyauthority.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Mayor Emmett O'Donnell; Peggy Curran
Cc: Dawn Weisz
Subject: MCE - EPA Green Power Community Recognition
Dear Director O'Donnell and City Manager Curran,
W,uesr y
We have some great news to pass along. MEA recently initiated a process with the Environmental
Protection Agency to grant "Green Power Partner" recognition to the Town of Tiburon for purchasing
power from MCE. MEA is able to facilitate the process of applying for this recognition on behalf of our
participating municipalities so no action is required by your city.
Further, MEA is seeking "Green Power Community" recognition for the whole Tiburon community. This
recognition is awarded based on the amount of green power used by all the residents and business in
your community. The aforementioned "Power Partner" recognition is only for local government
facilities' green power use.
As a result of this effort, the Town of Tiburon will be receiving two road signs for outdoor display,
reading "Welcome to a Green Power Community: We exceed EPA guidelines for buying clean renewable
energy".
http://www.epa. ~I
i
C
Further, all of the qualified jurisdictions are in a position to receive community-wide recognition as
national Top 20 Green Power Communities.
In addition, please note the basic "Green Power Partner" recognition - and use of the EPA Green Power
logo - is available to all businesses within your jurisdiction who choose to buy power from MCE. Feel free
to let businesses know about this opportunity! The application is simple, and we're happy to assist with
the process.
For further information about the EPA program, please see the attached brochure. Your green power
data summary is included below. Let us know if you have any questions and we will keep you informed
of progress towards this exciting recognition for your environmental commitment.
Overall
Total
CY 2013
Voluntary Green
Green
Community
Voluntary Green
Projection
Power Percent
Power
Usage (kWh)
Power (kWh)
Percent
Town of Tiburon
23.88%
39.28%
41,631,066
9,940,129
2/11/2013
Page 2 of 2
*Overall Green Power Percent - The percent of Tiburon energy from MCE Green Power (50%'Light Green'
minus portion of PG&E customers)
*Voluntary Green Power Percent - The percent of Tiburon energy from MCE Green Power, not including the
RPS-mandated 20% Renewable Energy (not considered voluntary). This percentage will be displayed on the EPA
website, and places Tiburon in the Top 20 of National Green Power Communities by percent.
All good things,
Simon Laos I Data Analyst
sloos@marinenergy.com 1415-464-6030
www.marincleanenergy.com
MCE is committed to protecting customer privacy. Learn more at: www.marincteanenergy.com/privacy
2/11/2013
Cities and towns across the country are increasingly recognizing
the roles they can play in fighting climate change. Many of
these leading local governments are partnering with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to become Green Power
Communities (GPCs). GPCs are towns, villages, cities, counties, or
tribal governments in which the local government, businesses, and
residents collectively buy green power in amounts that meet or
exceed EPA's GPC purchase requirements.
Become an EPA Green Power Community
EPA is ready to assist your community in contributing to a clean energy future through
a green power purchase. Joining is as easy as 1-2-3:
1. The local government must join the Green Power Partnership as a partner and
buy green power for its operations in amounts that meet EPA minimum purchase
requirements. The local government can be a town, village, city, county, or Native
American tribe.
2. The local government (or its designee) initiates a community-wide green power
campaign to encourage local businesses and residents to buy or produce green
power in amounts that meet the GPC purchase requirements. EPA is available to
provide technical and outreach assistance.
3. Once the community has collectively met the GPC minimum purchase requirement,
the local government submits a signed GPC Partnership Agreement to EPA and
commits to annually updating EPA on its total green power and electricity use.
-".EPA
GREEN
WER
'PO
PARTNERSHIP-'
Clean Renewable
Energy
Green power is electricity
generated from
environmentally preferable
renewable resources,
such as solar, wind,
geothermal, low-impact
biomass, and low-impact
hydro resources.
An Environmental
Choice
Conventional electricity
is one of the most sig-
nificant environmental
impacts in your commu-
nity. Purchasing or using
on-site green power is one
of the easiest ways for a
community to reduce its
carbon footprint.
Supporting
Domestic Energy
Supply
Using green power
helps to accelerate the
development of new,
domestic renewable
energy sources, while
playing an important
roue in the security of
America's energy supply.
EPA's Green Power Partnership is ready to assist you in achieving
your environmental goals through a green power purchase. The
Green Power Partnership offers the following assistance to
communities that join the Partnership.
Publicity and Recognition
EPA actively promotes and recognizes Green Power Communities as environmental
leaders. Your community can benefit from EPA's recognition and publicity efforts by:
• Being highlighted on EPA's website (www.epa.gov/ Welcome
greenpower/communities) _ to a
• Using the EPA Green Power Partner mark on Green Power }
marketing materials and websites. CtJ►►n'111 uni
• Becoming eligible for EPA's Green Power Community We exceed EPA
of the Year Award guidelines for buying
clean renewable energy
• Receiving two Green Power Community signs for sEPA
outdoor display GREEN
POWER 2013
ru PARTNERSHIP
Tools and Resources
EPA offers communities a variety of tools and resources located on the EPA website.
EPA's tools and resources can be invaluable by:
• Offering relevant and timely answers to procurement questions
• Fostering peer-exchange opportunities for communities to share information on
best practices and lessons learned about green power procurement
• Assisting with messaging and promoting the concept of green power to your
community stakeholders
• Providing you with a means to estimate the
environmental benefits of switching to green power
t
Credibility
Becoming a GPC signifies that your community's green power
commitment meets nationally accepted standards in terms of size,
content, and resource base. This allows for you
to compare your community's green power
commitment to others and increase your
community's stakeholders' confidence
in your purchase. JL
IL
Launch Your Careen Power
Campaign Today
Join other leading U.S. communities by launching a green power
campaign today. Before signing the GPC Partnership Agreement,
communities must be collectively purchasing or producing green
power on-site in amounts that meet EPA requirements. The table
below outlines the respective EPA Green Power Community usage
requirements based on the community's electricity use. Working
with your local utility or power provider, determine the amount of
electricity used within the community boundary (city limits). The
community must collectively use green power in amounts that meet
or exceed the corresponding percentage for the matching baseload
electricity use level.
Green Power Community Usage Requirements
If your community's annual Your community must, at a
electricity use in minimum, use this much green
kilowatt-hours is... power to qualify as a GPC'...
100,000,001 kWh
3% of your use
10,000,001-100,000,000 kWh
5% of your use
1,000,001-10,000,000 kWh
10% of your use
1,000,000 kWh
20% of your use
About EPA's Careen Power
Partnership
The Green Power Partnership is a voluntary program that
encourages organizations to buy green power as a way to reduce
the environmental impacts associated with purchased electricity
use. The Partnership currently has more than 1,300 Partner
organizations voluntarily purchasing billions of kilowatt-hours of
green power annually. Partners include a wide variety of leading
organizations such as Fortune 50011 companies, small and medium
sized businesses, local, state, federal, and tribal governments, and
colleges and universities.
For More Information:
WA
MT
0R
F
LVY
NV
LIT
CO
CA
i
AL
NM
ND MN
,aD W1
NE IA
CH
IL IN
KS MO i
OX
Are
r,e
TX
AK
runs Xi
~a
KY
TN
GA
ME
VT
NH
NY MA
RE
T
1'A - N:1
- CAE::
WV ~ MD
VA LAC
NC EPA's Green Power
Communities are collectively
SC buying billions of kWh of green
power annually, equivalent
to the carbon dioxide (CO,)
emissions from the electricity
FL use of hundreds of thousands
of homes.
Santa Clara, California River Falls, Wisconsin
Since 2008, the City of Santa Clara, The City of River Falls, Wisconsin, is
California, has been a proud EPA Green located in northwestern Wisconsin. The
;k
Power Community. With nine percent of city's public power provider, River Falls
residents and businesses in the com- Municipal Utilities, coordinated and
munity purchasing green power, Santa implemented a community-wide effort
Clara is near the top of the list of EPA to "green" the city by demonstrating the
Green Power Communities using the most kilowatt-hours of green effectiveness of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable
power annually and is home to EPA's top green power user, Intel resource development. As a result, the community's businesses
Corporation. In February 2007, the City Council issued a challenge and residences purchase more than 17 million kWh of green
to its residents to use clean power; people responded, and ever power annually.
since, enrollment in green power programs has been climbing.
Washington, D.C. Cornwall, Connecticut
In 2011, Washington, D.C., became the In 2010 the Town of Cornwall,
j..
largest EPA Green Power Community Connecticut, became the first EPA
and was one of two winners of the first- Green Power Community in New
ever GPC Challenge, using more than England. The Town's green power cam-
750 million kilowatt-hours of green power paign was led by the Cornwall Energy
annually, equal to more than eight percent Task Force, which, through a grassroots
of total electricity consumption. D.C. repeated its success in the effort, was able to motivate more than 30 percent of the local
second annual GPC Challenge, using more than 1 billion kilowatt- households to switch to green power. In recognition of the Task
hours annually. "This is a huge honor for Washington, D.C., and we Force's accomplishments promoting clean energy and environ-
are proud to be recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection mentally-friendly actions, they were honored by the Governor at
Agency," said Mayor Vincent Gray. "The purchase of green power an event in Hartford in 2009.
by our citizens and businesses is cleaning our air and supporting
growth of the clean energy economy."
r
CITY OF BELVEDERE
Memorandum
February 11, 2013
TO: Local Agencies
FROM., Leslie Carpentiers, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appointment of New City Manager and City Councilmember
The contact information for Belvedere's new City Manager:
MARY NEILAN
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF BELVEDERE
450 SAN RAFAEL AVE
BELVEDERE CA 94920-2336
MNeilan@cityofbelvedere.org
Office: 415-435-3838
Direct: 415-435-8906
Fax: 415-435-0430
www.cityofbelvedere.org
s
RECEIV '
FEB 14 2013
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
The contact information for our new City Council Member who is filling the seat
vacated by Siavash Barmand:
JAMES CAMPBELL
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
CITY OF BELVEDERE
450 SAN RAFAEL AVE
BELVEDERE CA 94920-2336
c/o clerk@cityofbelvedere.org
Office: 415-435-3838 (message)
City of Belvedere • 450 San Rafael Ave. • Belvedere, CA 94920-2336
Phone 415.435.8908 • Fax 415.435.0430 • lcarpentiers@cityoThelvedere.org
o.
TOWN OF TIBURON
SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE
On Town of Tiburon Boards, Commissions & Committees
February 2013
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD -
Statutory Authority: Section 3.02 of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
Term: Four years
Purpose: The Design Review Board reviews and acts on applications for Site Plan
and Architectural Review, which can include plans for new residential and
commercial building, remodels, additions, accessory buildings, swimming
pools, fences, decks, and other structures. This review includes both the
site layout and architectural design characteristics of a proposal. Decisions
of the Board are final, unless appealed to the Town Council.
Qualifications: A licensed architect is preferred to this vacancy, although not required.
Applicants should be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have an
interest and time available to help promote the general welfare and
aesthetics of the community through proper regulation of site planning and
architectural design. Formal training, experience and familiarity with
architecture, design, and/or landscape architecture are preferred but not
required.
Term:
4 years.
The vacancy on the Design Review Board has occurred as follows:
Appointees Date Appointed Date Resigned Term Expires
1) Greg Johnson September 2011 February 2013 February 2013
Deadline for Applications: March 1, ZO13 (Position open until filled.).
Applications can be found on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us (link to "Useful
Forms"). Submit your application and letter of interest to Town Clerk, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, CA 94920.
--Notice published in The Ark on Februaiy 20 and 27, 2013
--Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Bel/Tib Library
7.
TOWN OF TIBURON
SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE
On Town of Tiburon Boards, Commissions & Committees
February 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION -
(Statutory Authority: Section 3.04 of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance)
Purpose: The Planning Commission reviews and acts on applications for
Conditional Use Permits, Secondary Dwelling Unit Use Permits, Minor
Subdivisions, Lot Line Adjustments and certain other required
applications. The Planning Commission also makes recommendations to
the Town Council regarding Zone Changes, Zoning Text Amendments,
Precise Development Plans, Major Subdivisions, and amendments to
Master Plans and the Tiburon General Plan. Decisions of the Commission
are final, unless appealed to the Town Council.
Qualifications: Applicants must be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the interest,
dedication and time commitment to promote the general welfare of the
community through proper interpretation and implementation of the
Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
Term:
4 years.
The vacancy on the Planning Commission has occurred as follows:
Appointee Date Appointed Date Resizned Term Expires
1) John Kunzweiler February 2004 February 2013 February 2013
Deadline for Applications: March 1, ZOI3 (Position open until filled.).
Applications can be found on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us (link to "Useful
Forms"). Submit your application and letter of interest to Town Clerk, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, CA 94920.
--Notice published in The Ark on February 20 and 27, 2013
--Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Bel/Tib Library
TOWN OF TIBUR0N
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT
JANUARY 2013
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED
2011
■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
0
1
■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
2
1
■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
1
0
■ (not eligible for Staff Review)
■ SIGN PERMITS
0
0
■ TREE PERMITS
3
3
■ VARIANCE REQUESTS
6
1
■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS
0
2
■ EXTENSION OF TIME
0
0
STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500
square feet.
4
11
APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL
REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary
DATE OF REPORT: February 11, 2013
O O M N
X11
G
tV
O
N
W
fl
mom
'Z
V
soft
J
lilt
r_ I o 1 M 1 co I O I d
O ~
O
!
rl
r
r
O
O
M
r
N
O
I
I
O
N
O
M
CO
O
~t
O
i
'
W
~
J
o
W
w
i
J
w
~
Q
Q
W
W
V
V
w
J
Q
a
W
Q
W
Z
W
LL
1
3
Z
W
S2
w
a
a
a
;
o
z
2
N
F-
>
U.
0
Q
a
N
D
N
L
n
1J
JJ
3
J
u
_C
ID.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MINUTES NO. 1028
January 9, 2013
Regular Meeting
Town of Tiburon Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Tollini called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Present: , Chair Tollini, Vice Chair Weller, Commissioner Kunzweiler
Absent: Commissioners Corcoran and Welner
Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Associate Planner Tyler and
Minutes Clerk Rusting
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
Director Anderson said the meeting for January 23, 2013 will likely be cancelled since there are
currently no items on the agenda. There are three items scheduled for the February 13, 2013
meeting: The annual status report on General Plan implementation, Tiburon Lodge CUP review,
and a wireless communication facility at 700 Tiburon Boulevard, as continued from a prior
meeting. In addition, he said they expect to add the new Paradise Foods Store at the Cove
Shopping Center to that meeting agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 23 CECILIA COURT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS
PRECISE PLAN (PD#15) TO ESTABLISH A SECONDARY BUILDING
ENVELOPE FOR LOT 12; FILE #31202; Thibault de Chatellus, Owner; Pedersen
Associates, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-360-08 [LT1
Associate Planner Tyler said 23 Cecilia Court has applied to amend the Tiburon Highlands
Precise Plan to establish a secondary building envelope to expand an outdoor patio area. The
total size of the envelope would be 766 square feet, and will include retaining walls, stairways,
exterior lighting and a spa. There do not appear to be any negative impacts to any of the
properties to the north, south, and east, but she said staff recommends that plantings be
incorporated on the back side of the proposed retaining wall, in order to soften the appearance of
the wall from the residences below the subject site. She said the proposed secondary building
envelope would be consistent with the intents of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan as well as
the Tiburon General Plan and the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1028 PAGE 1
precise plan amendments. She said no letters have been received regarding the application, but
the applicant provided an approval letter from the Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Association
as well as several letters of approval from neighbors. Any action by the Planning Commission on
this project would be in the form of a recommendation to the Town Council. If the amendment
to the precise plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits would include
Site Plan and Architectural Review and building permits for the proposed spa, retaining walls,
exterior lighting and overall landscape improvements.
Pete Petersen, landscape architect, said they have put together a design to give the owner more
usable area on the property. There was a slide repair done on the property adjacent which
allowed more flat area on the parcel. They are trying to make the area in the back more usable
and the only way they could do it was to submit the current application.
Chair Tollini asked about the topography and location of the private open space between the
fence and the back of the adjacent property. Mr. Petersen said each parcel has private open
space and the intent of the project is to have all of the development occur within the building
envelope.
Chair Tollini opened the public hearing.
Mark Cooper said his property is located below the subject property, and he is most affected by
the project. He said he is not opposed to the plan, but wants to be sure there is enough screening
between the properties. He said he is also concerned about drainage and wants to be sure the
runoff from the property is accounted for.
Chair Tollini closed the public hearing.
Thibault de Chatellus, owner, said he has talked to all of the neighbors and they have been very
supportive. He said Mr. Cooper is most affected and has been supportive. They cleared the
plants between the two houses and now each house can see the other. He said they will plant
landscaping between the properties to preserve privacy.
Commissioner Kunzweiler said because of the history of the area he is not usually enthusiastic
about these types of projects. However, in this particular case he thinks the concept is reasonable
and retains the character of what was discussed in 1988. He said the vegetative screening and
drainage issues are being addressed in a reasonable fashion.
Vice Chair Weller agreed with Commissioner Kunzweiler, said he sees a reasonable rationale for
the proposal, and was glad to see the adjacent property owners working together.
Chair Tollini said she does not see room in what is set out in the Precise Plan for any
development of this type. She asked if something has changed that would change their minds
about those restrictions.
Commissioner Kunzweiler said over the years there have been a number of applications that
were not in the spirit of what was intended for the development. He said this is not an expansion
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1028 PAGE 2
of the structure but is truly out of sight from the street and does not affect neighbors below. It is
a minor change and he is glad they are going through the process. He said the last several
projects they reviewed would have been precedent setting if they were approved and believed
that this proposal is reasonable.
Commissioner Weller asked staff for the best procedure to be sure the project includes
implementation of the landscaping plan and adequate drainage. Director Anderson said those
items will be in the minutes and are routinely required in the Design Review Board approval. He
therefore does not think it is necessary to add a condition of approval for those items.
The Commissioners discussed the wording of Finding D in the draft resolution, and suggested
adding language to address the limited scope of the current project, point out the careful
consideration of this project, and highlight that the work is consistent with existing uses of
adjacent properties.
ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kunzweiler) to recommend approval to the Town Council of the
amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan for the property at 23 Cecilia Court as set
forth in the draft resolution, with the addition to Finding D of the draft resolution stating that the
current project is limited in scope and is consistent with existing uses of adjacent properties.
Motion carried: 3-0.
2. 700 TIBURON BOULEVARD: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY; FILE #11102; Belvedere Tennis Club, Owner, AT&T Mobility,
Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-201-36 [DWI Continued to 02113113
MINUTES:
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 28, 2012
Commissioner Kunzweiler suggested the following corrections:
• Page 8, paragraph 3: "Ms. Caceres" should be changed to "Mr. Caceres" in two
places
Chair Tollini suggested the following corrections:
• Page 7, item 3: End of sentence should say "AMENDMENT OF"
• Page 8, item 4: A space should be added between "FOR" and "DOWNTOWN"
ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kunzweiler) to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2012
meeting, as amended. Motion carried: 3-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1028 PAGE 3
ERIN TOLLINI, CHAIR
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 9, 2013 MINUTES NO. 1028 PAGE 4
MINUTES #1
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD -
MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 2013
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Emberson.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Emberson, Vice-Chair Johnson, Boardmembers Chong and Kricensky
Absent: Boardmember Tollini
Ex-Officio:' Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Goldstein
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING - None
D. OLD BUSINESS
1. 1865 CENTRO WEST STREET: File No. 712104; Patrick McNerney, Owner; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a
Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct a new three-story house. The
lot coverage for the property would be 5,875 square feet (24.9%). The proposed house
would have 4,618 square feet of floor area, with a 600 square foot garage, which is 261
square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No.
059-071-18.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three-story
single-family dwelling on property located at 1865 Centro West Street. The subject site is
occupied by a one-story dwelling, which will be demolished as part of this project.
This application was first reviewed at the December 6, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. At
that meeting, several neighboring property owners expressed their support for the project,
particularly the removal of a number of large trees on the site which have impinged on their
views. The applicant and a nearby resident on St. Bernard Lane clarified potential view blockage
issues that had been raised in the previous staff report, presenting photographs that indicated that
the proposed house would not interfere with Golden Gate Bridge views from any homes in the
vicinity.
The Design Review Board expressed their appreciation of the overall project design, but objected
to the size of the proposed house. The Board did not support the requested floor area exception,
which would have resulted in a house size 956 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for this
lot, noting that the house would have also included 2,314 square feet of basement space. The
Board continued the application to the January 17, 2013 meeting and directed the applicant to
return with a project design that complied with the floor area ratio for this property.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/17/13
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The basic design of the house was
unchanged, as the applicant has slightly reduced the living area in various portions of the house.
The lot coverage of the house was reduced by 271 square feet to a total of 5,875 square feet
(24.9%) of the site, which would be less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the
R-2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house and garage was reduced by 695 square feet, to a
house size of 4,618 square feet, with a 600 square foot garage. The project would still be 261
square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size, and a floor area exception was
therefore again requested. The applicant also submitted an alternative project design that reduced
the house size an additional 225 square feet to 4,393 square feet, with a 600 square foot garage,
which is 36 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size.
Fu-Tung Cheng, architect, said that the intent in designing the home was to create an interesting
home without having large facades visible from the street, while also complying with guidelines.
He said that the house would be located up the existing driveway with the garage housed so as
not to be visible from the street, and would contour to the land as much as possible while
meeting the owners' requirements.
Mr. Cheng noted that at the last meeting the Board loved the design but requested a size
reduction of 956 square feet. He felt that they achieved the primary goal set forth while not
significantly affecting the design. He said that they cut approximately 75% of the target floor
area without compromising the elegance of the architecture. He stated that they were still at a
little more than 260 square feet over the FAR, but if they did not count the cantilevered
overhang, they were only 166 square feet over compliance. He hoped that the Board would see
that they followed the spirit of the codes and requirements while still creating an aesthetically
pleasing home that fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Cheng stated that great architecture might
not always comply lockstep with the formulas in place to prevent bad design and that their goal
was to create a thoughtful, site-sensitive design while meeting the guideline criteria as well as the
criteria of the owners' growing family.
Mr. Cheng presented drawings and explained the reduction in size across multiple areas of the
home that resulted in over 700 square feet of reduction. He also explained that the basement
square footage was reduced by over 200 square feet even though this was not a requirement. He
said that the floor plan was very logical for the site and took into account the viewlines of the
neighbors. He said that the home would have a very dramatic cantilever and they went to great
effort to create interest from multiple angles.
Mr. Cheng next explained the alternative project design that met more of the criteria imposed.
He described the new design as not optimal and he hoped that the Board would see that he had
sincerely tried to accommodate all of the requirements.
Patrick McNerney, owner, clarified that the alternative design project would still necessitate a
request for 36 square feet of floor area exception. He summarized that the redesign achieved a
700 square foot reduction while maintaining design and most functional objectives. He also
reiterated that the requested exception of 261 square feet was comprised of 95 square feet of
outside, unoccupied space and only 166 square feet of interior space. He said that the alternate
plan that did not change the overall bulk of the home but would require an additional 100 cubic
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 2
1/17/13
yards of excavation. He said that the home was to be served by an elevator to accommodate an
aging family member and parts of the home would no longer be accessible in the alternative
plan. He pointed out that major remodels are coupled with teardowns and new construction in the
zoning ordinance and are subject to the same criteria in regard to floor area exceptions. He
researched the DRB minutes over the last year and stated that there were 11 floor area exceptions
granted with an average of 564 square feet. He stated that the FAR guidelines permit exceptions
under 2 prerequisites: being compatible with the site and compatible with the neighbors. He felt
that they met those requirements and accomplished most of the requested changes imposed and
he was hopeful that the approval would be granted.
There were no public comments.
Boardmember Chong asked if a design was ever contemplated from the beginning that would
have met all of the requirements. Mr. McNerney replied that there was not an original design that
was completely in compliance but was, in fact, even bigger. He said that through his experience
with neighbors who had floor area exceptions, he thought that they were freely granted. He
realized now that would not be the case and had worked on making the reductions.
Boardmember Kricensky said that the changes proposed were just an exercise in number
crunching. He said that the additional reductions would not change the building mass or public
perception no matter how the interior was reduced. He said that the cantilevers, while being an
architectural statement, also provide energy savings.
Boardmember Chong said that he liked the design and would have found it easy to approve
without looking at the numbers. He noted a trend in the neighborhood of homes over their FAR,
but this would be one of the largest homes in the area. He said that the intent of the FAR
guidelines was to reduce massing and he felt the design did that. He typically favored FAR
exceptions for homes that did not have a large impact on the neighborhood, such as this design
and he thought a lot of other homes had more of an impact from the street.
Chair Emberson pointed out that the basement level area that was going to be used as their
grandma's room and a rumpus room was not being counted in the floor area exception.
Vice-Chair Johnson stated that this was one of the nicest designs he had seen in a while;
however, they would need to find the findings for the floor area exception. He said that this
house would blend into the hillside much more than two other homes up the street. He said that
from his perspective, they would be looking at an exception for 166 square feet. He said that the
architect shaved the floor area in a logical way and if asked to shave further, he thought it would
affect the architectural design. Vice-Chair Johnson was not in favor of further excavation in
order to expand the basement space. He noted he was leaning toward supporting the project
given the challenges and the quality of the design.
Boardmember Kricensky noted that by decreasing the living space and increasing the basement
space, the mass would stay the same but become extremely inconvenient.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/17/13
Boardmember Chong asked about the directive from the last meeting, as he was absent. Planning
Manager Watrous quoted the minutes from the last meeting wherein the Board requested that the
home be reduced in size to comply with FAR guidelines.
Chair Emberson found Boardmember Chong's question interesting in regard to the applicant's
initial intent not to design a house that complied with the FAR requirements. While she agreed
that it was a beautiful house, she felt that homeowners often compare their requests other over
the FAR. She felt "worn down" by applicants coming in with huge overages and then scaling
back. She said that while the home would not be massive when viewed from the street, there
would be a huge rumpus room in the basement which would not be counted toward the FAR. She
was also torn because on one hand it would only be over by 166 square feet but the FAR set a
guideline for maximum square footage and the initial intent was not to even try to meet
compliance. She said that she could vote either way and asked if the other Boardmembers could
make the findings necessary to approve the exception. She also did not think that the alternate
project plan made any sense from a design standpoint even though it would bring it closer to
compliance.
Boardmember Chong indicated that he was leaning toward Boardmember Johnson's assessment.
He said that they could send the project back to the drawing board but did not think it would
necessarily accomplish anything as the size and massing would remain the same. He was
concerned about projects routinely being designed over the guidelines and did not want it to be
the norm to bring a huge design and then scale down once the Board reviewed it.
Vice-Chair Johnson agreed with the feelings of Chair Emberson and Boardmember Chong but
also thought that the site was challenging and preferred the extra floor area granted as an
exception rather than additional excavation.
Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Vice-Chair Johnson but was also concerned about the large
basement. He asked Planning Manager Watrous if the neighboring houses with floor area
exceptions were due to smaller lots. Planning Manager Watrous confirmed that in general, but
noted that there were a couple of exceptions.
Vice-Chair Johnson also asked if it would be possible to grant an approval subject to the
applicant reducing the project by 166 square feet to be approved by staff. Planning Manager
Watrous confirmed that staff could approve the reduction if it did not substantially change the
design.
Chair Emberson wanted to state for the record that the Board made findings for particular lots
and designs and that it did not sway the Board's decision when an applicant compared
exceptions that neighbors may have received.
Boardmember Chong also stated that he was irritated when applicants quote the number of FAR
exceptions granted when the Town sees hundreds of applications within the FAR guidelines that
did not require debate by the Board.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 4
1/17/13
Chair Emberson said that the size and scale were better than other houses in the area and the
physical characteristics were in accordance with guidelines and she would find it easy to make
the findings but was sorry that they did not try to design the house to comply from the beginning.
ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Kricensky) that the application for 1865 Centro West Street is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request for floor area
exception, subject to attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0-1 (Tollini absent).
Boardmember Tollini joined the meeting.
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
2. 3 SANTA ANA COURT: File No. 21219; Steven and Jennifer Lamar, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling, with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a
Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct additional floor area and a
new garage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,560 square feet (24.5%),
which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). A portion
of the additions would extend to within 14 feet, 7 inches of the rear property line, which
is less than the 25 foot rear yard setback in the RO-2 zone. The proposal would result in a
gross floor area of 3,551 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio for the
property by 100 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-271-12.
The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with
variances for reduced rear yard setback, excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception.
Currently the property is improved with a single-story dwelling.
The proposed project would result in a new split level home, with a two-car garage and
mechanical room located below the main level of the home. The main level would include an
entry foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, a home office, a laundry room, three bedrooms,
two bathrooms, a powder room, and a master bedroom suite. An interior courtyard would be
accessed through the entry foyer and kitchen areas. Decks would extend off the master bedroom,
bedroom No. 3 and the living room.
The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,551 square feet, which exceeds the maximum
permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (3,451) by 100 square feet. Therefore, the
applicant has requested a floor area exception. The proposal would result in lot coverage of
3,560 square feet (24.5%), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone
(15.0%). The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage.
In addition, the minimum required rear yard setback for the property is 22 feet. The proposal
would encroach 7' 5" into the rear yard, for a reduced rear yard setback of 14' 7". Therefore, the
applicant has also requested a variance for reduced rear yard setback. It should be noted that the
proposed shared bathroom projection into the rear yard would not require a variance, per Section
16-30.030(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, as this area is cantilevered over the ground, similar to a
bay window.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/17/13
Mark Swanson, applicant, explained that the house had been vacant for a number of years and in
severe disrepair. He said that he and the owners intend to improve the home, landscaping and
neighborhood. He planned to build a warmer, modern home in order to blend with the
neighborhood which would have earth tone finishes, clerestory windows on top to let in natural
light and energy savings. He said that the landscaping would be cleared including removal and
pruning of pine trees, and the new landscaping would be minimalist and drought tolerant. He
displayed pictures of homes with similar proposed landscaping.
Mr. Swanson noted that he spent time with the uphill neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Courtney, and
came up with a mutually agreed-upon design. He commented that a lot of time was spent
working on the design with input from neighbors and Planning Manager Watrous. He said that
initially the, design was larger but Mr. Watrous encouraged reduction and the current design
required the applicant to request a floor area exception of 100 square feet. Mr. Swanson stated
that the element that made up the overage was the side stairs that would allow better ingress and
egress from the garage as well as a more open floor plan and added dimension to the elevation.
Mr. Swanson explained additional benefits of the design which include removal of a detached
office structure and an existing portion of the house that would allow for increased setback from
the neighbors. He said that they planned to use the existing foundations and not add a second
story to preserve existing views. He said that the garage would be brought forward and put
underground to reduce the climb through a straight driveway. He said that the design would also
take advantage of a Golden Gate Bridge view.
Mr. Swanson noted that he met with the neighbors at 1 Santa Ana Court who were concerned
about screening, and the applicant was willing to accommodate the neighbors and plant trees for
screening. He stated that the fence between 1 & 3 Santa Ana Court was not on the property line
and the applicant planned on moving it to the correct location and also accommodating
neighbors" request for fence design. Mr. Swanson showed photographs of houses in the
neighborhood that were similar in mass.
Chair Emberson asked for clarification as to the location of the fence to be moved and Mr.
Swanson confirmed the location on the survey. Mr. Swanson reiterated that the neighbors were
aware of the relocation of the fence and that the applicant would comply with their request of
fence design.
Vice-Chair Johnson asked Planning Manager Watrous if the interior courtyard on the main level
counted in the FAR. Planning Manager Watrous replied that it would not as it did not have a roof
over it.
The public hearing was opened.
Janet Fall said that she had survived their own renovation as well as remodels of other homes in
the neighborhood and was generally unopposed to change, but was opposed to this design that
would fundamentally change the neighborhood. She was also opposed to the extensive
excavation that would be required in order to take advantage of a bridge view since the home
already enjoyed unobstructed city views. She said that the proposed concrete building materials
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 6
1/17/13
and hardscape would not be in character with the neighborhood. She noted that several pine trees
would be removed to capture the desired view and she thought that the applicant would be
removing trees in the cul-de-sac island that also provide screening. She said that the proposed
landscaping would replace beautiful, lush trees with cactus. She felt that the owners did not
engage the neighbors in any meaningful way during the design process and one neighbor
discussed privacy concerns with the applicant but was not confident the concerns would be
addressed.
Donald Baum complimented the applicant on not increasing the height of the home, as privacy
and views were of primary concern. While he loved the modern aesthetic of the design, he was
not fond of the light intrusion and character of the new design. He said that he liked a lot of the
features but thought that some features were too stark. He noted that the staircase was at the
property edge and not set back and the massive front of solid glass. He said that privacy was
paramount in the neighborhood and a main concern was the mass and size of the front room and
the light pollution. He felt that the landscaping would be too minimalist, with standard planting
and a few cacti that was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. He asked for a
softening of the landscaping and stated that a single homeowner should not control the center
island. He wanted the home to be an attribute and fit in with the community.
Jeffrey Zalles said that he shares the fence with 3 Santa Ana Court. He said that he liked the
design but noted that the existing homes in the neighborhood are oriented away from the street
and the new home would be right on the street facing the neighbors. He said that privacy was a
concern due to this orientation as well as light pollution from the high windows, and he also felt
that landscaping was an issue.
Elona Baum echoed the prior sentiments of one homeowner that one homeowner should not
control the center island.
Planning Manager Watrous confirmed that the island was within the public right-of-way and the
applicant had submitted no plans for approval regarding landscape in this area. Chair Emberson
also confirmed that the center island would not be addressed.
The public comment period was closed.
Mark Swanson confirmed that they are trying to take advantage of more than one view from the
site. He said that there would be no overheight concrete walls within the setback and therefore
the driveway should not be tunnel-like. He said that he met with the owner of 5 Santa Ana Court
who was concerned about the view from her bathroom and thought he had alleviated her
concerns. In regard to the light pollution issue, he said that they did not plan to install any
lighting in the clerestory windows so light should not be an issue. He said that the windows on
the front of the house were due to its primary viewing direction.
Chair Emberson asked Mr. Swanson to clarify the height of the wall leading into the driveway on
the left-hand side. John Maitland, designer, responded that none of the wall heights exceeded 6
feet, as required.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/17/13
Boardmember Tollini said that he felt very conflicted on the project. He thought that this was a
fairly modest proposal to improve an obviously dilapidated home, but he struggled with the
amount of impact that a project of this size would have. He said that the site would go from a
disappeared, overgrown house to a home that was very modern and minimalist, even though it
was not massive. He said that there were basically no screening, hard surfaces without any
softening, and the off-white stucco was disappointing. He was also concerned from the
standpoint of 1 Santa Ana Court once all of the vegetation was removed, as any rebuild would
seem obtrusive. He cited the primary issue was the impact of the back yard to 1 Santa Ana Court
and the amount of glazing seen from the street.
Vice-Chair Johnson agreed with Boardmember Tollini about the project's impacts and said that
he did not anticipate the neighbor's complaints, but thought the project was well designed and a
pretty home. He said that the aesthetics would have a profound impact on the character of the
street. He thought that additional refinement was needed on the neighbor outreach and the
screening. He suggested blending the character of the street with the new design in terms of trees
and vegetation. He understood the desire to take advantage of the views with the front room. He
thought refinements to the design with proper outreach to the neighbors would be necessary for
his approval.
Boardmember Chong said that he liked the design of the home with the mix of Craftsman and
modern style. He took issue with the landscape plan, as it was currently a lush area and the
proposed landscape plan did not have adequate screening and was a little shortsighted in his
view. He said that he visited the area and spoke with some neighbors who would feel impacted
by the project, especially by light pouring from the windows on the front of the home. He had no
issue with taking advantage of every view possible, thought there were lost opportunities in
regard to neighbor outreach and understanding, and felt that the retaining walls could be set back
a little further with plantings that would soften the impact. He said that he could get behind the
project from a design standpoint but would like a more detailed landscaped plan to add more
lushness and height to the area. He also wanted to see concerns addressed about the clerestory
windows on the northwest elevation.
Boardmember Tollini said that he was not concerned about the clerestory windows due to the
elevation change which would block them from view.
Boardmember Kricensky said that he agreed with most everything already said. He was
concerned about the landscaping being very minimalist and the light intrusion from the living
room glass window. He had no issue with trying to take advantage of every view and thought
there might be a better way to frame the view than a blank wall of glass as it may be a beacon in
the neighborhood. He voiced concern about allowing the 100 square foot over the FAR in
combination with the variance for excess lot coverage and thought that better communication
with the neighbors would have saved a lot of fret and discussion over the building and design.
Chair Emberson agreed with all of the comments made thus far. She was concerned about the
mass of the home and did not think it was fair to the neighbors. She said that preserving the
views was important but they need to minimize impacts on the neighborhood. She said that she
loved minimalist landscaping in general, but not in this case or this neighborhood. She
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1
1/17/13
encouraged the applicant to put in trees that would not get too large but do an adequate job of
screening. She said that the clerestory windows on the northeast side did not look like they
would gain much light and might be bothersome to the neighbors, and she thought that perhaps it
was not the best option or required better screening. She encouraged transparency in
communicating with the neighbors and listening to their concerns. She agreed with
Boardmember Kricensky about the combination of a floor area exception and lot coverage
variance. She found it hard to get behind project the way it was presented without a few tweaks.
Boardmember Kricensky also thought that the living room mass above the garage was
disproportionate and that the thirteen-foot ceilings may be excessive. Chair Emberson agreed.
Boardmember Chong was pleased that the applicant avoided adding a second story to the project
and kept the design a single story.
Chair Emberson applauded the effort as well and thought it was easy to get behind excessive lot
coverage when keeping a single story, but thought that the floor area exception and excessive lot
coverage were too much.
Chair Emberson reiterated that the Board would like to see the glazing reduced, better
landscaping and screening, and the massing from the front section reworked.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) to continue the request for 3 Santa Ana Court to the February
21, 2013 meeting. Vote: 5-0.
3. 280 ROUND HILL ROAD: File No. 712131; Alexander and Yami Anolik, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached parking structure, with
a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct a new 2,400 square foot
parking garage that would occupy a portion of an existing tennis court. The project would
increase the lot coverage on the site by 2,400 square feet to 10,837 square feet (13.9%).
The project would increase the floor area of the property by 2,400 square feet to 8,920
square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 920 square
feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-171-20.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a detached parking
structure on property located at 280 Round Hill Road. The property is currently developed with a
single-family dwelling and detached accessory structures occupied by a pool cabana and a tennis
pavilion.
The proposed parking structure would be a 2,400 square foot garage that would occupy a portion
of the location of an existing tennis court on the site. The tennis court would be converted into a
driveway leading to the garage and new surface parking spaces. The 60 foot wide, 40 foot deep
and 15 foot tall garage is intended to house the car collection of a prospective purchaser of this
property.
The project would increase the lot coverage on the site by 2,400 square feet to 10,837 square feet
(13.9%), which is less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. The
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 9
1/17/13
calculated floor area of the property would also increase by 2,400 square feet to 8,920 square
feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 920 square feet. A floor area
exception is therefore requested.
Alexander Anolik, applicant, provided some background information on his property and the
tennis court. Mr. Anolik was hopeful to sell his home and move and said that the prospective
purchaser was requesting to build an auto storage facility on the existing tennis court site. Mr.
Anolik stated that the tennis court was not very visible to the surrounding homes and was
shielded by trees.
The public hearing was opened.
Desmond Fitzgerald said that his property tucks into Mr. Anolik's. He was reluctant to oppose
the project, but he said that the idea of building a garage or automobile museum was of concern
as it would spoil the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood had endured
multiple construction projects and he was reluctant to begin again. He stated that there was a
spring that flowed down the hill from Mr. Anolik's property and his home was built around this
feature and he was concerned that the new construction would impact the brook.
Cynthia Fitzgerald stated that a 12-car car-park was inappropriate for the bucolic neighborhood
which had endured lots of construction and renovations and she was reluctant to endure more.
Mr. Anolik responded to his neighbors' concerns, stating that the stream would not be touched
but have a frame protecting it. He said that the cars in the proposed garage would not be going in
and out of the property but housed and moved one or two times per year.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Chong stated that staff made an excellent recommendation and described the
Town's guidelines well. He said that he would have a hard time getting behind the application.
He said that he was not against the number of cars if there was good cause but he wanted to see
more of a plan and to see a real need from the applicant.
Boardmember Kricensky said that he agreed with Boardmember Chong up to a point. He pointed
out that if a building was to be erected, the tennis court site would be a natural place to do it;
however, a large garage in this neighborhood would be out of place. He questioned if the
building would be approved if it were reduced in size, conformed to FAR guidelines, and called
something else.
Boardmember Chong stated that he could more easily get behind the project if it was within the
FAR. Vice-Chair Johnson agreed that if the building met the FAR guidelines there would not be
an issue.
Boardmember Tollini commented that there were ordinances for garages, secondary dwelling
units, and others with requirements on each that need to be met. He said that a garage is being
requested and, according to the Town's ordinance, it required good cause to be demonstrated, not
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 10
1/17/13
just owning a large number of cars. He said that the project was not close to meeting the
ordinance guidelines.
Chair Emberson said she reluctantly could not make the findings due to the zoning ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Anolik requested a continuance from the Board. Planning Manager Watrous responded that
the only reason to grant a continuance would be to recommend substantial changes and direction.
If the Board did not think that was possible, the Board was not obligated to continue the
application.
Boardmember Tollini asked if there were an enclosed garage on the property. Planning Manager
Watrous confirmed that there was a large carport attached to the building with additional parking
underneath. Planning Manager Watrous pointed out that the Design Review Board was
discouraged from taking the individual needs of a homeowner into consideration when
determining a ruling. Vice-Chair Johnson felt that the individual needs of this homeowner was in
the back of their minds as they were discussing the issue. Chair Emberson agreed and also felt
that she had to uphold the guidelines.
Vice-Chair Johnson asked if it would be acceptable if the tennis pavilion was removed and
replaced with a single outbuilding that met FAR guideline. He thought perhaps looking at the
overall site in a holistic manner would be a solution.
Boardmember Tollini said that he could potentially approve the removal of the tennis pavilion
and a garage for a reasonable number of cars. He said that he could support some sort of
accessory building with good cause that would be a fraction the size of what has been proposed.
ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Kricensky) to continue the request for 280 Round Hill Road to the
February 21, 2013 meeting. Vote: 5-0.
Boardmember Chong departed the meeting.
MINUTES
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #18 OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2012 DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the December 6, 2012 meeting, as
written. Vote: 4-0-1. (Chong absent.)
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 11
1/17/13
/a.
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Action Minutes -Regular Meeting
Design Review Board
February 7, 2013
7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES #2
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM
Present: Chair Emberson, Vice Chair Johnson, Boardmembers Chong and Kricensky
Absent: Boardmember Tollini
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21220; Mar East Realty LLC, Owner; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling, with a Variance for 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 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 2,809 square feet, which would exceed the floor area
ratio of 615 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03.
Continued to 317113
2. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: File No. 712143; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc, Owner;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of exterior alterations to an existing
commercial building for occupancy by a grocery store (Paradise Foods). The project
would expand the existing store by 955 square feet, modify the existing entrance and
loading docks of the building, install additional rooftop mechanical equipment for the
new grocery store and install a utility pole. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-212-18 Approved
4-0
3. 5 ROLLING HILLS ROAD: File No. 21223; Vacpro, Inc., Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with a Variance for excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants
propose to construct a new second story, expand the existing first story and basement
area and add 5 new skylights. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,616 square
feet (18.0%), which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone
(15.0%). The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,525 square feet, which
exceeds the maximum floor area ratio for the property by 75 square feet. Assessor's
Parcel No. 058-141-21. Approved 4-0
Design Review Board Action Minutes February 7, 2013
Page 1
MINUTES
4. Regular Meeting of January 17, 2013 Approved 4-0
ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 PM
Design Review Board Action Minutes February 7, 2013 Page 2
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting lie
Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 13, 2013 - 7:30 PM
Tiburon, CA 94920
ACTION MINUTES
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM
Chair Tollini, Vice Chair Weller, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Kunzweiler,
Commissioner Welner All Commissioners Present
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There K'ere 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 continents 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. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE, SUITE K: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AND
EXPAND A GROCERY STORE; FILE #11206; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner;
Paradise Foods, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No., 034-212-18 [DW] Approved 5-0
2. 1651 TIBURON BOULEVARD: SIX-MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT GRANTED TO EXPAND THE FRONT OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AND
ALLOW ACOUSTIC INDOOR/OUTDOOR MUSIC FOR THE TIBURON TAVERN
RESTAURANT, AND MODIFY THE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PATTERN FOR
THE LODGE AT TIBURON; FILE #11203; Tiburon Hotel, LLC, Owner; Adam Hollander,
Applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-87 [DW] Found in Compliance with Conditional
Use Permit
Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 1
NEW BUSINESS
3. ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2012: Consider Recommendation to Town Council on Acceptance
of the Report [SA] Recommended Acceptance to Town Council 5-0
MINUTES
4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 9, 2013 Approved as
Amended 5-0
ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 PM
a021313
Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 2
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
February 21, 2013
7:00 P.M.
Chair Emberson, Vice Chair Johnson, Boardmembers Chong, Kricensky 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)
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
OLD BUSINESS
1. 3 SANTA ANA COURT: File No. 21219; Steven and Jennifer Lamar, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling, with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a
Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct additional floor area and a
new garage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,560 square feet (24.5%),
which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). A portion
of the additions would extend to within 14 feet, 7 inches of the rear property line, which
is less than the 25 foot rear yard setback in the RO-2 zone. The proposal would result in a
gross floor area of 3,551 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio for the
property by 100 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-271-12. [DW] CONTINUED
TO 3/7/13
Design Review Board
February 21, 2013
Page 1
2. 280 ROUND HILL ROAD: File No. 712131; Alexander and Yami Anolik, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached parking structure, with
a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct a new 2,400 square foot
parking garage that would occupy a portion of an existing tennis court. The project would
increase the lot coverage on the site by 2,400 square feet to 10,837 square feet (13.9%).
The project would increase the floor area of the property by 2,400 square feet to 8,920
square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 920 square
feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-171-20. [DW] CONTINUED TO 3/7/13
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 137 HACIENDA DRIVE: File No. 21303; Dana Polk., Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new detached garage, with Variances for
reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicants propose to construct a new 400
square foot garage in the general location of an existing garage on the site. The garage
would extend to within 21 feet, 8 inches of the front property line and to within 16 feet,
10 inches of the eastern (left) side property line, which would be less than the 30 foot
front yard setback and 20 foot side yard setback required in the RO-1 zone. Assessor's
Parcel No. 039-121-13. [DW]
4. 4745 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 712144; Sean Coletta, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot. The new
dwelling would result in a total floor area of 3,901 square feet, and lot coverage of
12.1 Assessor's Parcel No. 038-091-30. [DW]
5. 2070 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 21224; Joseph Sherer, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot, with
Variances for reduced front yard setback, excess lot coverage and excess building height,
and a Floor Area Exception. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 3,154
square feet, in lieu of the floor area ratio of 1,173 square feet. The lot coverage of 76.0%
would exceed the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The house
would extend to within 1 foot of the front property line, which is less than the 15 foot
front yard setback required in the R-2 zone. The maximum building height of 54 feet, 9
inches would exceed the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-
181-85. [DW]
MINUTES
6. Regular Meeting of February 7, 2013
ADJOURNMENT
Design Review Board February 21, 2013 Page 2
as
Diane Crane lacopi
From: CSRP [csrp@arellanoassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:46 PM
To: Diane Crane lacopi
Subject: California State Rail Plan Public Open Houses - February 2013 - REMINDER
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
ti
California
MIL PLAN INTFRREC)FQNAI BLUEPRINT
QIWWWI RO Rd INN
CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES - FEBRUARY 2013
SACRAMENTO, OAKLAND, SAN DIEGO, LOS ANGELES, FRESNO
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is pleased to host a series of open
houses for the California State Rail Plan (CSRP). Caltrans will be presenting the Draft of the
CSRP, which establishes a statewide vision, sets priorities, and develops implementation
strategies to enhance passenger and freight rail service in the public interest.
Your Input is Important to Us!
To review the Draft Plan and comment, please join us at one of the five events listed below.
Comments may be submitted at any of the Open House meetings. The public comment
period will begin on February 8, 2013 and end on March 11, 2013. The Draft CSRP will be
available on February 8, 2013 at http://californiastaterailplan.com/project-materials.
Reasonable accommodations will be provided upon request for people with disabilities and
for those who require Spanish translation. Please call Shelly Chernicki at (916) 654-6142.
If you are unable to attend a meeting, you can participate in the online Webinar on
February 26 as shown below. Each of the scheduled open houses will present the same
project information.
2/7/2013
The open house schedule is as follows:
Sacramento
February 12, 2013 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
California State Railroad Museum, Stanford Gallery
111 1 Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 - MAP
Oakland
February 14, 2013 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Elihu M. Harris State Office Building, Room 1
1515 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612 - MAP
San Diego
February 19, 2013 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Caltrans District 11 - San Diego Office Building 1st Floor Conference Room
4050 Taylor Street, San Diego, CA 92110 - MAP
Los Angeles
February 20, 2013 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Lobby
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012 - MAP
Fresno
February 21, 2013 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Hugh M. Burns State Building, Assembly Room 1036
2550 Mariposa Mall Fresno, CA 93721 - MAP
Online Webinar
February 26, 2013 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
WebLink: https://aecom.webex.com/aecom/onstage/g.php?d=597054493&t=a,
Event Password: RailPlan1
If you have any questions in advance of the meetings, please contact us through the
website at: http://californiastaterailplan.com/contact/
Caltrans Division of Rai! Office of Planning and Policy 1120 N Street Sacramento CA 95814
Forward this email
2/7/2013
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A G E N D A
ABAG GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUSINESS MEETING
Thursday, April 18, 2013, 12:15 PM
98 Broadway-Pavilion (Old Barnes and Nobles Site)
Jack London Square
Oakland, California
The ABAG General Assembly may act on any item on this agenda.
Agenda and attachments available at ABAG Home Page
For information, contact Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, at (510) 464 7913.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
4. APPROVAL OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUSINESS MEETING SUMMARY
MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2012
Action
Attachment: Summary Minutes April 19, 2012
5. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
6. PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-
2014, INCLUDING MEMBER DUES
Action
Attachment: Proposed Annual Budget and Work Plan
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Ezra Rapport, Secretary--T-r-e urer
Agenda
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510; 464-7970 info@abag.ca.gov
Location: Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756
0
ABAG
•
SUMMARY MINUTES (DRAFT)
ABAG General Assembly
Business Meeting, April 19, 2012
Oakland Marriott City Center
Oakland, California
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by President Mark Luce, Supervisor, County of
Napa, at 12:18 p.m.
President Luce led members in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. CONFIRMATION OF QUORUM
Kenneth Moy, Legal Counsel, and Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, reported that
quorum was present.
Countv Delegates and Alternates Present Jurisdiction
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
County of Contra Costa
Vice Chair Brad Wagenknecht
County of Napa
County Administrator John "Maltbie
County of San Mateo
Supervisor David Cortese
County of Santa Clara
Supervisor Barbara R. Kondylis
County of Solano
Vice Chair David Rabbitt
County of Sonoma
County Delegates Absent
Jurisdiction
Supervisor Malia Cohen
City and County of San Francisco
Supervisor Scott Haggerty
County of Alameda
Supervisor Susan Adams
County of Marin
City/Town Delegates and Alternates Present
Jurisdiction
County of Alameda
Vice Mayor Marge Atkinson
City of Albany
Councilmember Susan Wengraf
City of Berkeley
Councilmember Eric Swalwell
City of Dublin
Councilmember Ruth Atkin
City of Emeryville
Vice Mayor Suzanne Lee Chan
City of Fremont
Vice Mayor Ana M. Apodaca
City of Newark
Councilmember At Large Rebecca Kaplan
City of Oakland
Vice Mayor Michael J. Gregory
City of San Leandro
Councilmember Jim Navarro
City of Union City
County of Contra Costa
Councilmember Wade Harper
City of Antioch
Councilmember Julie Pierce
City of Clayton
Councilmember Timothy Grayson
City of Concord
Councilmember Janet Abelson
City of El Cerrito
Councilmember William Wilkins
City of Hercules
Mayor Carol Federighi
City of Lafayette
Vice Mayor Janet Kennedy
City of Martinez
Item 4
Summary Minutes (Draft)
ABAG General Assembly
Business Meeting, April 19, 2012
2
Vice Mayor Amy Worth
Councilmember Jack Weir
Vice Mayor Jim Rogers
Councilmember Phil O'Loane
Councilmember Cindy Silva
Councilmember Karen Mendonca
County of Marin
Councilmember Ann Morrison
Mayor Pro Tem Pat Eklund
Councilmember Carla Condon
County of Napa
Councilmember Belia R. Bennett
Mayor Jack Gingles
County of San Mateo
Vice Mayor Christine Wozniak
Councilmember Cliff Lentz
Councilmember David Canepa
Councilmember Rick Kowalczyk
Vice Mayor Peter Ohtaki
Vice Mayor Gina Papan
Councilmember Sue Digre
Councilmember Robert Grassilli
Councilmember Robert Ross
Vice Mayor Pedro Gonzalez
County of Santa Clara
Councilmember Rich Waterman
Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney
Councilmember Peter Arellano
Councilmember Ronit Bryant
Councilmember Greg Schmid
Councilmember Sam Liccardo
Councilmember Kevin Riley
Councilmember Emily Lo
Mayor Anthony (Tony) Spitaled
City of Orinda
City of Pleasant Hill
City of Richmond
City of San Ramon
City of Walnut Creek
Town of Moraga
City of Larkspur
City of Novato
Town of Corte Madera
City of American Canyon
City of Calistoga
City of Belmont
City of Brisbane
City of Daly City
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Menlo Park
City of Millbrae
City of Pacifica
City of San Carlos
City of San Mateo
City of South San Francisco
City of Campbell
City of Cupertino
City of Gilroy
City of Mountain View
City of Palo Alto
City of San Jose
City of Santa Clara
City of Saratoga
City of Sunnyvale
County of Solano
Councilmember Christin Strawbridge
Vice Mayor Dane Besneatte
Councilmember Curtis Hunt
Vice Mayor Erin Hannigan
County of Sonoma
Councilmember Mike Maacks
Mayor Susan Harvey
Mayor Jake Mackenzie
Councilmember John Sawyer
City of Benicia
City of Dixon
City of Vacaville
City of Vallejo
City of Cloverdale
City of Cotati
City of Rohnert Park
City of Santa Rosa
Item 4
Summary Minutes (Draft)
ABAG General Assembly
Business Meeting, April 19, 2012
3
Councilmember Sam Salmon Town of Windsor
City/Town Delegates Absent Jurisdiction
City and County of San Francisco
Legislation and Governmental Affairs Director City and County of San Francisco
Jason Elliott
County of Alameda
Mayor Marie Gilmore
City of Alameda
Councilmember Francisco Zermeno
City of Hayward
Mayor John Marchand
City of Livermore
Mayor John Chiang
City of Piedmont
Councilmember Jerry Thorne
City of Pleasanton
County of Contra Costa
Mayor Robert (Bob) Taylor
City of Brentwood
Mayor Kevin Romick
City of Oakley
Councilmember Tim Banuelos
City of Pinole
Mayor Ben Johnson
City of Pittsburg
Councilmember Paul V. Morris
City of San Pablo
Councilmember Robert Storer
Town of Danville
Count of Marlin
Mayor Gerald Butler
City of Belvedere
Mayor Garry Lion
City of Mill Valley
Vice Mayor Marc Levine
City of San Rafael
Councilmember Linda Pfeifer
City of Sausalito
Councilmember David Weinsoff
Town of Fairfax
Councilmember Christopher Martin
Town of Ross
Vice Mayor Kay Coleman
Town of San Anselmo
Mayor Jim Fraser
Town of Tiburon
County of Napa
Mayor Jill Techel
City of Napa
Councilmember Catarina Sanchez
City of St. Helena
Mayor John F. Dunbar
Town of Yountville
County of San Mateo
Councilmember Cathy Baylock
City of Burlingame
Councilmember David E. Woods
City of East Palo Alto
Mayor Art Kiesel
City of Foster City
Councilmember Barbara Pierce
City of Redwood City
Mayor Jim Ruane
City of San Bruno
Mayor Richard Garbarino
City of South San Francisco
Mayor Bill Widmer
Town of Atherton
Vice Mayor Joanne F. del Rosario
Town of Colma
Councilmember Christine M. Krolik
Town of Hillsborough
Vice Mayor John Richards
Town of Portola Valley
Mayor David Tanner
Town of Woodside
Item 4
Summary Minutes (Draft)
ABAG General Assembly
Business Meeting, April 19, 2012
4
County of Santa Clara
Mayor Pro Tem Jarrett Fishpaw
Vice Mayor Pete McHugh
Mayor Susan Garner
Councilmember Gordon Siebert
Councilmember Ginger Summit
Mayor Steve Rice
County of Solano
N4ayor Harry T. Price
Councilmember Janith Norman
Councilmember Michael A. Segala
Councilmember Dilenna Harris
City of Los Altos
City of Milpitas
City of Monte Sereno
City of Morgan Hill
Town of Los Altos Hills
Town of Los Gatos
City of Fairfield
City of Rio Vista
City of Suisun City
City of Vacaville
County of Sonoma
Councilmember Jim Wood
Mayor David Glass
Mayor Guy Wilson
Councilmember Laurie Gallian
City of Healdsburg
City of Petaluma
City of Sebastopol
City of Sonoma
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
William Wilkins, Councilmember, City of Hercules, spoke about how General Law
counties and cities could increase their revenue by changes to the Revenue and Tax
Code related to local ordinances for documentary transfer tax.
4. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY MINUTES, APRIL 14, 2011, GENERAL ASSEMBLY
BUSINESS MEETING*
President Luce recognized a county motion, and a second, to approve the minutes of
the General Assembly Business Meeting of April 14, 2011. The county motion
passed unanimously.
President Luce recognized a city motion, and a second, to approve the minutes of
the General Assembly Business Meeting of April 14, 2011. The cities motion passed
unanimously.
5. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Luce announced his pleasure to serve as the President for the next two
years. He reported on upcoming challenges and noted that ABAG is in its 51St year
of service. Members were encouraged to contact the President about improvements
and new services ABAG can provide its members. Members interested in serving on
ABAG committees were asked to contact the President for consideration for
appointment.
6. PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN-FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013*
President Luce recognized Acting Executive Director Patricia Jones who presented a
summary of the Annual Budget and Work Program for fiscal year 2012-2013,
including annual member dues, which was reviewed by the Finance Committee and
forwarded by the Executive Board to the General Assembly for approval.
Item 4
Summary Minutes (Draft)
ABAG General Assembly
Business Meeting, April 19, 2012
5
President Luce recognized a city motion, which was seconded, to approve the
Annual Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, including member dues.
The city motion passed unanimously.
President Luce recognized a county motion, which was seconded, to approve the
Annual Budget and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, including member dues.
The county motion passed unanimously.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no other announcements.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at about 12:25 PM.
Ezra Rapport, Secreta - "urer
* Indicates attachments.
Item 4