Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agenda 2019-03-06
TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council /T Tiburon Town Hall "�\•` March 6,2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard- 7:00 P.M. Special Meeting- ` Tiburon, CA 94920 Reguee lar Mting- 7:30 P.M. f== b a TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING-7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser,Councilmember Thier, Councilmember Wehner,Vice Mayor Fredericks, Mayor Kuhl< INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS &COMMISSIONS • Chuck Hornbrook • Erika Stalilman ADJOURNMENT- to- e uhTmeeti.ng REGULAR MEETING-7:30 P.M. CAI-L TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser,Councilmember Thier,Councilmember Weiner,Vice\-layor Fredericks, A%layor Kulik ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the To\vu Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agelda. \1atte-s requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission,I3oard, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Plcasc limit your comments to three (3)minutes. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN STAFF • David Eshoo,Associate Engineer CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council,public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you \vish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the \Mayor and do so at this time. CC-1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes for February 20, 2019 special and regular meetings (ToNvn Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Investment Summary — Adopt investment summary for month ending January 31, 2019 (Department of Administrative Services) CC-3. Virginia Utility Undergrounding District Project — Award contract for the Virginia Undergrounding District Project to Kerex Engineering,Inc. (Department of Public Works) CC-4. Local Hazardous Mitigation Plan — Adopt Resolution adopting the 2018 Marin County Multi- jurisdictional Local Hazardous Mitigation Plan (Community Development Department) ACTION ITEMS AI-I. Appointments to Town Boards &r Commissions — Consider reappointment of commissioners whose terms have expired or appointment of new members to boards & commissions (Department of Administrative Services) AI-2. Annual General Plan Status Report—Consider acceptance of Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report (Community Development Department) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 490 Ridge Road — Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a request for a deck expansion and a Variance for excess lot coverage (Community Development Department) Owner/Applicant: Stephen Schwartz Appellant(s): Cavi,1985,LLC (480 Ridge Road) Address: 490 Ridge Road Assessor Parcel No.: 059-082-06 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Cotmcil Weekly Digests—February 22 &March 1, 2019 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance Nvith the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Toga%n to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's -\vebsite, www.tovvnoftiburon.org. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address,phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 clays before the mecting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else :raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at,or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. IN Town of Tiburon ° �� 1505 Tiburon Blend. Tiburon CA 94920 Istefani@townoftiburon.orf; 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk MENEM Full Name: Charles Hornbrook Date: 2/13/19 Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: 3 Planning Commission 1 Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board 2 Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission _ Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Address: 1 707 V istazo West est Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 4159027762 Email: clhornbrook@gmail.com For POST, I have been a user of the Tiburon parks and trails for over 18 years, long before I ever moved to Tiburon. When living in San Francisco, I was also an avid supporter of the SF parks financially through the Parks Alliance and through local clean up days at the numerous parks. Parks, Open Spaces & Trails are critical for local communities to meet, play, exercise, commute and other activities & I want to give back to them. The joint recreation board is critical for me because I am consumer of the Ranch's services, primarily through my nine-year old son. We started using the Ranch, before we moved to Tiburon. Our son attended summer camp, and just loved it. He continues to do so in the summer and after school. Recreation opportunities to all of Bel-Tib's residences are critical for a vibrant, healthy & diverse community. Finally, the planning commission is an interest as it guides the town on what our community will be in the future for all the residences and business owners. A vibrant well thought-out community is valuable for everyone now and future residences of the Town. I had the privilege of being on the Public Enrichment Education Fund Community Advisory Committee (PEEFCAC) in San Francisco, which advised the school board on how to use funds that came directly from the city budget for direct student enrichment. The PEEFCAC consisted of appointed teachers, principals, parents and citizens of diverse backgrounds. We needed to actively listen, be patient, understand our role and advise. I was in this role for 3 years, even after my son left the SF Unified School District. I had a very public role managing PG&E's customer solar program from 2007-09. In this role I had to be the face of the utility, manage a diverse team, and provide consensus and advice to management on very visible issues. This role included holding public forums for community feedback. and actively listening to all opinions. Finally, having worked professionally for over 25 years, I have been part of teams and organizations where i needed to actively listen, understand my scope, build consensus and come to decisions, communicate effectively, use discretion and be accountable. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. Chuck Hornbrook 1707 Vistazo St. West Tiburon, CA 94920 February 13, 2019 Tiburon Town Council: Attached is my application and resume for consideration for openings on three Commissions; 1) POST, 2) Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board and 3) Planning Commission. If the Council has other gaps or needs I'd be happy to learn about these and discuss them during the interview process. When I read about the openings in the Ark, I touched base with members I knew on the three aforementioned commissions and understood that there is a vacancy at POST and the possibility of new seats on Recreation and Planning. I briefly mention my interest in these three and qualifications in the space available on the application. My wife,son, dog and I moved to Tiburon in August of 2017 after living in San Francisco since 1998. In San Francisco and now, I have stayed engaged with my community as part of local neighborhood groups, engagement in park, recreation, education and other non-profits. Generally being neighborly and acting locally. Once moving to Tiburon it was no different,getting to know the neighbors, being asked to join the local neighborhood board, attending some Commission meetings,joining an open space non-profit, contributing to the Reed foundation, coaching soccer and basketball to 4t"graders and being the official scorer to little league baseball games. I believe in the overused term of civic engagement and helping out my community, whether it is a resident who has lived here for 40 years or a tourist on a rented bicycle looking for Sam's. Listening well, supporting people, and being engaged, present,thoughtful and observant are traits that have served me well in my professional,civic and volunteer activities and I hope to contribute these to the available commissions or in other areas that the Council believes are needed. I look forward to meeting you all. Sincerely Chuck Hornbrook 415 902 7762 Clhornbrook@gmail.com CHUCK HORNBROOK 1707 Vistazo West, Tiburon, CA (415) 902 7762 chaickc hornbrookeo.com Professional Experience KEVALA—An Electrical Grid Analytics SaaS Company,San Francisco, CA OC'r.2018—PRESENT Senior Vice President • Leading customer acquisition and customer success efforts for Company's 13213 solution. • Establishing processes and systems to execute at scale customer success/support and customer acquisition. • Reporting to Board on results and collaborating with executive team on priorities. STENI—An Al Energy Optimization Company, Millbrae, CA JAN.2016—SEPT.2018 Director of Sales Operations • Lead team of 9 providing sales support, contracts, business operations, commission development and execution, deal review, Salesforce management, referral program management, BI and sales forecasting. • Managed weekly deal review process for exception pricing with executives and sales team. • Delivered over 1000% increase in sales bookings over two years with only 60% increase in head count through increasing sales velocity, automation, and improved communication and execution. • Developed new commission structure to motivate sales team, decrease CAC, reduce risk, and improve post sale execution. Result was 30%reduction in CAC YoY. • Lead cross functional teams to improve hand offs between sales, installation and customer success to increase cash flow from installation of distributed storage services. WAYPOINT BUILDING GROUP-A CRE SaaS Company, San Francisco, CA Nov.2014—DEC.2015 Vice President, Operations • Led utility business development and managing team delivering energy efficiency consulting solutions. • Grew booked revenue by 60%year over year(YoY)and established national partnerships. • Establishing processes and procedures using cloud based applications to meet customer requirements. ICF INTERNATIONAL,A CONSULTING 1--mm,San Francisco, CA SEPT.2013—OCT.2014 Principal and Director of Distributed Fner,�D)Resources • Established ICF's national Distributed Energy Resource (DER) practice, chartered to develop consulting and analytical service to commercial clients. US electric utilities, DER commercial developers. • Led business development and projects targeting commercial, utilities and government clients. • Presented at conferences/webinars highlighting opportunities in the US energy market and ICF services. ITRON,(NASDAQ:ITRI),Oakland, CA Nov.2009-SEPT.2013 Senior Product Manager— Smart Grid Ne rr Product Development and Consulting Services • Business and product development for the Company's smart grid products for distributed energy resources, street lights and other product solutions for the electric utility markets. • Led Company's solar meter product development partnerships, marketing, support strategy, distribution and sales execution for the utility and non-utility markets. • Developed and evangelized Itron's business case financial model used in customer sales and consulting engagements. Model monetized operational, energy reduction, and reliability benefits from grid modernization efforts. Led engagements using model with utilities located in the US, Mexico and Asia. • Led consulting team efforts on providing analysis and impact of distributed generating resources on electrical grid for utility and regulatory customers. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, San Francisco, CA JUN.2007-NoN7.2009 Senior Manager, Solar and C'ustonrer Energv FJficiency Oct. 2007—Nov. 2009 • Led PG&E's customer distributed generation program;. Organization consisted of 36 people accountable for customer success, implementation and management of PG&E's$176M per year delivery of financial incentives. • Established process workflows, metrics and cross functional teams for improved execution. • Supported and presented to senior vice presidents and ('-level executives on fuel cell and solar technologies and customer adoption of distributed solar PV generation. Page 2--Charles Hornbrook Resume PACIFIC GAs& ELECTRIC,San Francisco, CA Supervisor, Sustainable Conninunities Jun. 2007—Oct. 2007 • Developed strategic plan and built internal consensus with team on new product concept integrating energy efficiency, renewable resources, demand response and related utility services. EFI,Foster City, CA(NASDAQ:EFII) AuG.1998-OCT.2006 World Wide Director, Customer Success and Business Development Feb. 2005—Oct. 2006 • Developed strategic direction and led global team of 40 consultants and support engineers located in 6 offices in Europe,Japan and North America • Accountable for delivering services and customer support using Salesforce across different sites. • Created and negotiated multi-year service agreements generating over$13 million in revenue. • Created and led customer quarterly review of post launch products addressing customer success items. Senior Manager, Services and Operations Development Feb. 2002—Feb. 2005 • Collaborated with stakeholders and established Company's first global service levels, product life-cycle support policies, and operational processes for customer support and services for offices in US and Amsterdam. • Led the development and use of Company's first"Product Dashboard"across engineering and services. • Over 2-year period reduced customer response times by 66% and resolution performance by 75%. Senior Manager, Product Marketing Sept. 2000—Feb. 2002 • Collaborated with executive management to develop and define product strategy and marketing plans for solutions targeted for corporate segment, representing approximately 40% of company revenue. • Managed product and feature development and user interface design for EFI's document management,print driver, scanning and office productivity software applications. Manager, Finance and Manufacturing Operations Aug. 1998—Sept. 2000 • Led merger and acquisition valuation team for$146 million successful acquisition of Splash Tech. • Identified and implemented reduction of royalty expenditures (over $2 million in avoided costs) in FY 1999 and FY 2000 by reviewing product configurations and contractual obligations. Education UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, MI Ross School of Business School of Environment and Sustainability Joint Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and Environmental Science(MS), 1998 Master's Thesis: "Tools and Implementation Framework for Environmental Cost Accounting". HOBART COLLEGE, Geneva, NY Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Economics_ 1990 Operational Tools Salesforce. Insightly, Insight Squared, Salesl-food, Atlassian Confluence and .IIRA/Agile development process Community and Other Activities • Cormnunity Advisory Group SFSU Estuary & Ocean Science Center, 2019 • Treasurer—TRUST—Tiburon-Belvedere Residents United to Save Our Trails. 2018-19 • Board Director—Tiburon Hill Haven Neighborhood Association, 2018-19 • Head Coach Tiburon Recreational Soccer and CYO Basketball—4'' grade boys, 2018-19 • Active contributor—San Francisco Parks Alliance. 2012-17 • Treasurer Marin Preparatory School PAC, 2016-17 • Appointed by School Board President_ to SF_School District Public EducationEnrichnient Fund Cornmun ty Advisory Committee, 2013-15, Secretary 2014 Town of Tiburon 1 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 IstefaniiPtownoftibur n.or 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name:Erika Stahlman Date: 02.04.19 a Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. 1 Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Address: 136 Sugarloaf Drive Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon, CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 310.591.0936 Email: erika@erikastahlman.com I recently moved back to the Bay Area and feel strongly about giving back to the local community. It would be an honor to serve on the Design Review Board and play a role in safe guarding the magnificent example of natural and architectural beauty, Tiburon represents. I grew up in the Coachella Valley, surrounded by some of the world's finest examples of mid-century architecture. It was incredibly inspiring and informed my own design aesthetic and language. The impact each home had on the landscape and community was very evident to me. The importance of being respectful to local surroundings is a lesson I exercise in all the projects I undertake in my own work. I have since lived and worked in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Paris, Beijing and Argentina. In each of these cities, I have made it a priority to ensure the design aesthetic is in harmonv with the local environment. I am an Interior Architect and Designer with over 25 years of experience working in Industry. I established my own Interior Design and Architecture Studio, Erika Stahlman International, twelve years ago for which I am the Principle. We have completed numerous high end private residences around the world and in the United States. I am a California native and completed my undergraduate at FIDM here in the Bay area in 1993. where I majored in Interior Design. Prior to opening my own Design Studio, I worked for several major architectural and design studios in California and New York City, including Clodagh and Irene Corzine. This will be my second time volunteering for a City Planning position. I previously worked on the citv olannina council in Palm Desert. I found it incrediblv rewardina and stimulatina. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. ERIKA STAHLMAN RESUME ERIKA STAHLMAN INTERNATIONAL NEW YORK, NY 2007-PRESENT Interior Design/Interior Architect/Owner •70,000 Sq. Ft. Compound Beijing interior architecture+design +art consultation • 3,200 Sq. Ft.Town House Brooklyn interior architecture +design •2,000 Sq. Ft. Condo Brooklyn interior design •OMG Pop office New York, NY interior design •3,400 Sq. Ft.Town House Brooklyn interior+ landscape design •3,600 Sq. Ft. Town House Brooklyn interior+ landscape design •88 Morningside Condo Development New York amenities spaces+ marketing models •Toren Condo Development New York amenities spaces+ marketing models •Oil Hotel Buenos Aires concept design + location scouting •The Hideaway Long Beach NY Concept Design +location scouting CURATED 2006-2007 Creative Director •West Park Condo Development New York FF+E, space planning, amenities spaces, rendering coordination •88 Morningside Condo Development New York FF+E, space planning, amenities spaces; rendering coordination •50 West Condo Development New York marketing models •220 West 111 Condo Development New York marketing models •Savoy Condo Development New York marketing models MICHAEL JOHNSTON DESIGN GROUP 2002-2006 Interior Designer • 3,200 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design •2,600 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design • 1,200 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design • 1,800 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design CLODAGH 2001-2002 Project Director • 12,000 sq. ft. Compound Woodland Hills California interior architecture+design •7,000 sq.ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design •5,000 Sq. Ft. Compound Martha's Vineyard interior architecture+design •2,6000 Sq. Ft. Private Residence interior architecture +design • 1,200 Sq. Ft. Private Residence interior architecture+design COLLEGE 1990-1993 Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, Interior Design, AA VOLUNTEER 1989-1990 Palm Desert Planning Commission 136 SUGARLOAF DRIVE TIBURON,CA 94920 310.591.0936 erika@erikstahlman.com TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING —6:30 P.M. On February 20, 2019, the Council held a special meeting as follows: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmembei- Fraser, COunclllllernbel'Tlhicr (by teleconference), Cot member ,Welner, Vice Mayor Fredericks, Mayor Kulik CLOSED SESSION 1) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY N . TIATORS (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. Property: 500 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, -1i 's 055-093-06, 07, 08, 08 Agency Negotiators: Greg Chanis, Benjamin Sto Negotiating Parties: Town of Tib i and Richar ay Sanitation District Under Negotiation: Price and to I sible prop cquisition. 2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL NS PATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to 'alation Put i aragrap (2) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code S 6.9: (1 itial case) INTERVIEWS FOR ANCIE , N TOW ARDS & COMMISSIONS • Darvin HosseNire" T ADJOURNM -- t"meeting RE .AR MEETING —7:30 P.M. Mayor < called the reg meeting of the TibLn-on 'Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesd bruary 20, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser. Fredericks, Kulik, Thier(by teleconference), Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Kwon, Director of.1dministrative Services Bigall Chief of Page I q1'7 To>>>n Cozriicil Minzrles #03-2019 DR II T February 20, 701�l Police Cronin, Management Analyst Creekmore, Associate Planner O'Malley, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. Mayor Ku1ik noted that all votes would be by roll call vote due to COunCllmember Thier teleconferencing in to the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes—Adopt minutes of February 6, 9 spec d regular meetings (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. 2000 Paradise Drive (Caprice Restaurant)— pt resole 'on partially gra = ng appeal of Design Review Board approval of a 37 sq. foot ad Exterior changes also include raising the roof by 1 foot, a new awninb d 'ranges from west elevation, and change in color(Community Development D ent) Owners/Applicant: Jerry Dal B Hitchco Appellant(s): John Davis i I Address: 2000 Paradise 've Assessor Parcel No.: 05 - 72-46 CC-3. Resolution —Ado esolutI n recog n of Town Services (Department of Administrative ices) "Town Manager Chanis r e nsent r Item No. 1, and Vice Mayor Fredericks moved Consen ..a idar It o. 3 from the Consent Calendar. MOTTO To app► onse - lendar Item No. 2, as written. Mov Fraser, sec d by dericks ROLL VOTE: YES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier. Welner CC-1. Towt F,� ncil � ,nes—Adopt minutes of February 6, 2019 special and regular meetings , erk Stefani) "Town Manager Chanis added a sentence on Page 9, after Line 8 to read: "Town Attorney Stock advised the Council that the action of the Design Review Board is part of the official record, and the Council's deliberation should be based on the official record. not differing interpretations of the action." Chanis also amended Line 8 of the motion on Page 14 to read: "...4) to eliminate fascia requirements except for on the north and west sides of the building." Page 2 q1'7 Toirsi C'oul7cil ALIiniil,,s #03-2019 DRAFT Fcbruary 20, 2019 MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as amended. Moved: Thier. seconded by Welner ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Wehner CC-3. Resolution —Adopt Resolution in recognition of Town Services (Department of Administrative Set-vices) The Town Manager said Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services, was about to retire at the end of an outstanding 40-year career with the Town of Tiburon. 'file Council graciously thanked Heidi for all her years of service, an aid it had been a pleasure. The Mayor called for a vote to approve a Resolution in reco 'on of Heidi MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar Item No. written. Moved: Welner, seconded by Fredericks ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fi ck lik, Thier, Welner RECOGNITION OF TOWN SERVICE • Heidi Bigall, 40 years of service Mayor Kulik presented Heidi Bigall, Direct o Adi ervices, a Town Council Resolution in honor of her 40 y of service ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Town Audit t— Re ccept and file the Town's FY Basic Financial Statern i epee e fi` ditor's Report (Department of Administrative Service Director , dministra I` ervicgall introduced Ralph Marcello to give a brief presentation of th al Year 2017-1 ,,B dit rep -t. Mr. Marc nanked the ncil for the opportunity to do the audit, and spoke briefly about several point ne rep ;f-Rcluding the requirement to report Other Post-Employment Benefits liability. Mr. Marcello noted t(eGeneral Fund revenue had increased 10%this year due to taxes, investment earnings and a large private donation. He said General Fund expenses had increased 8%, primarily due to Capital Improvement Projects. He said the Town's financial statements had been presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles without qualification, which is the highest opinion a CPA firm can give. Page 3 (?1'7 7'oirn Council iWimaes #03-2019 D1?9F7_Fe hrrory 20, 2019 Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public comment. There was none. MOTION: To accept the Fiscal Year 2017-18 annual financial audit, as prepared by Marcelo & Company, C.P.A.'s. Moved: Fraser, seconded by Welner ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulil<, Thier, Welner AI-2. Special Event Permits—Consider two special event permits by the Chain ber of Commerce for two 2019 events to include the closure of Main Stre- hamber of Commerce/Department of Administrative Services) Town Manager Chanis introduced DeAnn Biss, Executive Direct al Chamber of Commerce, to present on two additional events the Chamber wo like to downtown this summer. Ms. Biss said the Chamber had seen great success wit riday *-hts on Maine ts, and is now asking the Council to consider permitting two onal ev ore focused on the promotion of local businesses. Biss summarized the t s, "Summer on Main-" and "Tiburon Best in Show". She said both applications inclu request to close Main Street. She hoped both events would be an opportunit bring comma -tembers downtown to support local businesses. Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public con nt. T e. The Council thanked Ms. Bi ork on events, and each spoke in support of the Chamber's efforts to revi the d town b sting events like these. MOTION: To app two sp t submitted by the Tibi,u-on Peninsula Chamber I -ce, u n Main and Tiburon Best in Show. Moved: secon Fraser ROLL CA S: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulil(. Thier, Welner AI-3. chardson's Ba giona gency Update—Receive update from Executive Director e Richardson's y Regional Agency and consider funding request for Eelgrass sty xecutive D' for Beth Pollard) Town Manager i -oduced Beth Pollard, Executive Director of the Richardson's Bay Regional Agency e an update on agency activities. Ms. Pollard reviewed the background and history of the agency, governance and the agency's fund resources. She said there are approximately 175-200 vessels in their JUrisdictional waters at a time. and about half are usually occupied. She expanded on the agency's challenges: many boats have become an alternative housing option with the onset of the housing crisis and lack of nearby affordable housing, and concern about the effect anchored boats are having on the local ecosystem (eelgrass, in particular). Page 4(?/ 7 Town C ouncil Mrnz.ries 903-2019 DRAFT February 20, 2019 She said the agency is pursuing"science-first" solutions to these problems, and is studying the advantages of placing moorings in the bay. She said the agency would like to hire a consultant to review current conditions and the ecosysterns of Richardson's Bay to determine if moorings would be a good solution. Ms. Pollard said the cost of the consultant would be $40,000, and she is seeking outside funding for other organizations. Councilmember Welner asked about the capacity of the bay for these boat s. Pollard said the boats are not all houseboats, but the number of boats varies. COunCilmember Fraser said the agency is dealing with serious iss n /as important to find a solution to helping those people living on the water transi to oth es to live. Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public comment. Jacek Sochan said lie is a trained geologist, and wo <e to lie] agency however he can. Mayor Kulik closed the floor. The Council discussed the amount of fun ed by the y. Town Manager Chanis noted the Council could consider a request a ndme � $6,000, which, alongside the $1,000 already budgeted for the agency, Id u h what other organizations have contributed. MOTION: To accept eport a pprove dget amendment in the amount of$6,000 for the ardson's Regiona ency. Moved: Freder econd- ROLL CALL VOTE: A F -, Fre "''"+'` {ulik, Thier, Wehner AI-4. Pro oea ergency—Consider Resolution proclaiming a local ,ency Tela o sto mage to Vistazo West and Paradise Drive during a recent iter storm (Off t f the n Manager) Town Ma Chanis sai e Town experienced two significant slide events during a winter storm the prt -ek. He the full extent of the damage, or the cost of repair, is not fully known at this ti Chanis asked the Council to consider adoption of a Resolution proclaiming a local emergency to preserve the Town's ability to get reimbursed for a portion of damages, if funds become available. Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public comment. There was none. MOTION: To adopt the Resolution proclaiming a local emergency. Moved: '{Tier. seconded by Fraser Page 5(?/'7 Town Council,11inzaes 1,03-2019 DRIFT F'ebu-uucn-v 20, 2019 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, KUHL Thier, Welner PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Alta Robles Subdivision —Consider adoption of Resolution granting request for a 3-year time extension on an Approved Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Community Development Department) Associate Planner O'Malley said this item was a request for an extension ne for a vesting subdivision map for the Alta Robles subdivision. She gave a brief histo- the project, and said their approval expires on March 16, 2019. She said the Planning Col ion had reviewed the request, and found the applicants had made a good faith effort to process in a timely manner, and recommended approval of the extension. The applicants asked the Council to approve the time ext n, and if approve the project would proceed as planned. Mayor Kulik opened the floor for public comment. Th as Councilmember Welner asked staff to coi t on the lettei position received. O'Malley said she had met with the resident and sh e unchanb ans, but could not speak for what he had been told previously. MOTION: To adopt the Res ion granti ar time tension, with a new expiration date of Marc Moved: Fredericks onded Thier ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES Fras =redericks, Kulik, Thier, Weiner TOWN COUNCIL R+ Vice Mayo id S Mike McGuire would be speaking at the Marin County Council ayors an cill rs monthly dinner meeting, hosted by the Town of Tibur ater this month. TOWN GER REP T There was none. WEEKLY DIGES S Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the -]'own Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Kulik adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Page 6 of 7 Torun Council Minutes 903-2019 DRAFT Februcrry 20, 2019 DAVID KULIK, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Page 7(?f'7 7'oii,» C'ozlricil IIIinules #03-2019 DRAFT Febi-wary 20, 2019 Town Council Meeting March 6, 2019 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 2 Tiburon, CA 94920 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Accept the January 2019 Investment Summary Reviewed By: /11" c _ N/A Greg Clianis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY Staff provides the Town Council a monthly report on the Town's investment]activity. This report is for the month ended January 31,2019. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) 1. Staff'recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for January 2019 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended January 31, 2019. ANALYSIS January 2019 Agency Interest Investment Amount Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Investment 21,961,019.21 2.291% Liquid Fund (LAIF) Total $21,839,568.63 The total invested at the end of the prior month was $21,839,568.63, therefore; the Town's investments increased by $121,450.58 over December 2019. Attached as Exhibit I to this report is the Town's Public Agency Retirement Services January 2019 Statement_foi- its Section 115 Irrevocable Trusts for Other Post-Employment Benefits and Pension. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 �i)AVII ��(11111C1� i�'ICl'ilil« FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing— safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that acceptance ofthis investment summary is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for January 2019 Exhibit(s): I. PARS Section 115 Trust Account activity for January 2019 Prepared By: Suzanne Sweitzer, Director of Administrative Services TOWN of TiBURON PAGE 2 of 2 PUBLIC q AGENCY ; RETIREMENT _q SERVICES r Ate;✓ TOWN OF 7']]3Z7]ZOAI Account Report foi-the Period PARS Post-Entploymrenl Benefits Trust 1/1/2019 to 1/31/2019 Greg Chanis "Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505-Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon,CA 94920 Acco unt Summar y Beginning Balance as Ending of Balance as of source 1/1/2019 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 1/31/2019 OPEB 52,085,83820 $0.00 $118,450.05 $434.55 $0.00 $0.00 $2,203,853.70 PEtINSION $1,22,267.45 50.00 $39,650.44 $254.85 $0.00 50.00 51,262,663.04 Totals $3,309,105.65 S0.00 $158,100.49 $689.40 50.00 50.00 53,466,516.74 Investment Selection source OPIB Balanced Index PLUS PENSION FAF US"Treasury Money Market Investment Objective Sou,ce I be dual goals of the Balanced Strategy are growth of principal and income.While dividend and interest income are an important component of O11f:13 the obljcctivc's total return,it is expected that capital appreciation will comprise a larger portion of the total return.t he portfolio will be allocated between equity and fixed income investments, The primary goal is to provide current income with liquidity and stability of principal through investments in shore-term U.S. fiensury PENSION obligations. Investment Return Annualised I2cturn — Source I-P9('11111 3-NI-Wis 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years Plan's Inception Date ON 13 5.689/0 2.-2% -1.86% 9/15/2016 PENSION 324°;, 2._3°4. 7610/2015 Infom;ation as I),-&d br I S 13;nk.I rustea I11,4kS; Not 11)C:Insured; No Bank,Guarantee; May Lose Value —� Past r"km.n:mc,docs not gumani"future'sults. N,J—mace auras may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees,which could reduce returns- Information is deente,i reli:;ble bull nmy be sutlicct to chin_•. In...u-nl R,nim: Annualized ata of n-unn is the"non nn an oc>unein over a period other Uma one year multiplied or divided to give a-n)pjrable one-wni M., A--ol bai::oce:arc inclusio,'), I ist Administraut,n.1-rustee. d Investment Nlmmpement tees I Iea,oy-tcs-1150 Von Km mml A" ,Suite 100,Newport Beach,CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250,1250 or,:w.pars nr_r_ EXHIBIT 1 Town Council Meeting • TOWN OF TIBURON March 6, 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC-3 Tiburon, CA 94920 STAFF O . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Public Works Department Subject: Recommendation to Award the Virginia Undergrounding Project to Kerex Engineering, Inc. Reviewed By: kC &' Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY Town received six bids for the Virginia Undergrounding District Project. The low responsible, responsive bidder was Kerex Engineering,Inc.with a bid of$603,290.00. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) 1. Authorize the Town Manager to approve the award of a contract for the Virginia Undergrounding District Project to Kerex Engineering, Inc.in the amount of $603,290.00 with total funding, including contingency, of$754,113, with the award letter to be sent to Kerex Engineering, Inc., at the close of the Bond Sale. BACKGROUND On January 17, 2018, Town Council approved the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Virginia Undergrounding District Project. This report included an estimated total project cost of $1,683,000, and on March 21, 2018, property owners in the district approved assessments in that amount. The design of the project was completed by Harris and Associates and the project put out for bid on January 17, 2019. The engineer's estimate in the Notice Inviting Bids was $740,000 to $850,000. Bids were opened on February 21, 2019. The Town received six bids for the project: Kerex Engineering, Inc. $603,290.00 West Valley Construction, Inc. $755,081.00 Mitchell Engineering $859,091.00 St. Francis Electric, LLC $889,643.00 CF Contracting, Inc. $905,570.00 Tight Access Excavation, Inc. $950,423.28 ANALYSIS TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 Staff has reviewed the lowest bid submitted by Kerex Engineering, Inc. and found they are responsible and responsive. The bid price is below engineer's estimate and the second low bidder. The differences in cost can be attributed to three-line items, traffic control, paving and concrete. Kerex has done quite a bit of paving and concrete work and should understand their costs for doing this type of work. Regarding traffic control, staff notes that this is a one block cul-de-sac. On February 6, 2019, Council stipulated a 25%contingency for the project. With the base bid and contingency,the total cost would be $754,113, resulting in a total project cost of approximately $1,550,000. This will allow the project to move forward without returning to the property owners in the District for a supplemental assessment. Bonds need to be sold to cover the cost of the project, and an item asking for Council authorization to sell bonds will likely be placed on the April 3, 2019 agenda. The close of the bond sale is anticipated to be April 22, 2019. The award letter would be sent to the contractor after the bond sale closes. Staff is recommending Council authorize the award tonight. This will let the contractor begin to work on submittals ahead of award if he chooses. FINANCIAL IMPACT The total cost of this project is covered by residents. There is no direct fiscal impact to the Town. The 2018-19 Capital Improvement Budget included, $1,683,000 for the Virginia Undergrounding District Project, all of which will be provided through the sale of bonds as discussed above. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Categorical Exemption was filed for this project on September 22, 2017. The improvements constitute minor alterations of existing public facilities, pursuant to Section 15301.b. "Existing facilities of both investor and publicly-owned utilities used to provide electric power..... or other public utility services, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." The work would also be exempt with respect to: Section 15302.c. Replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. Section 15304.£ Minor Alterations to Land, (f) minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Authorize the Town Manager to approve the award of a contract for the Virginia Undergrounding District Project to Kerex Engineering, Inc. in the amount of$603,290.00 with total funding, including contingency, of$754,113, with the award letter to be sent to Kerex Engineering, Inc., at the close of the Bond Sale. Prepared By: Patrick Barnes,Town Engineer TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 6, 2019 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: CC-4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Adopt the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCM LHMP) Reviewed By: %J,fj�lJ Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock.Town Attorney SUMMARY Council to adopt resolution to adopt the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan(LHMP). RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Council adopt resolution (Exhibit 1);approving and adopting the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. BACKGROUND Several years ago, the U.S Congress enacted the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). Under the Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires that in order to remain eligible to receive federal funding for both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation, local governments must adopt a FEMA approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). As required, the LHMP trust be updated every five (5) years to remain in compliance with regulations and Federal mitigation grant conditions. The LHMP addresses the natural hazards that impact the Bay Area such as earthquakes and floods. The Town last updated its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2012 (see Exhibit 2) through the adoption of Resolution No. 10-2012; adopting the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan entitled Taming Nalural Disaslers. That plan was created in collaboration with the participating jurisdictions of ABAG as the muIt]-.)Urisclictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Bay Area. In 2016, the Town partnered with the Marin County Sheriff s Office of Emergency Services (OES), County of Marin Department of Public Works. Fire Departments, and all Marin County cities and towns to produce the multi-jurisdictional 1-1-1MP (see Exhibit 5). The cooperative planning process included planning meetings. public outreach and press release. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 \larch 6,2019 The 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCM LHMP), describes updated strategies for sustaining and building current mitigation activities to ensure the future safety of lives, preservation of property and protection of the environment during times of disaster. Mitigation planning also improves the ability to recover from disaster. The MCM LHMP specifically addresses the natural hazards that impact Marin County: earthquakes, flood, landslides, and wildfires. Note that Appendix R of the LHMP contains the analysis specific to Tiburon. The draft MCM 1-1-1MP was approved by CalOES in November 2018, and was subsequently submitted to FEMA and was approved by FEMA on November 28, 2018 (Exhibit 4). The Marin County Board of Supervisor's adopted the MCM LHMP on December 18, 2018. FEMA is requiring local')Llri sd ictions to develop a LHMP in order to mitigate future disasters and reduce repetitive Federal and State claims for similar disasters in the same location. FEMA has indicated that jurisdictions without a Hazard Mitigation Plan approved by FEMA and adopted by local governing body will be ineligible for future pre and post disaster mitigation finds. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The County as the local lead agency finds the MCM LHMP exempt (Exhibit 3) from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA guidelines section 16060 (c)(2), 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule). While subsequent action or projects stemming from the MCM LHMP may be subject to CEQA, the MCM LHMP itself will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt resolution (Exhibit 1) approving and adopting the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. EXHIBITS I. Draft Resolution 2. Town Council Resolution 10-2012 3. California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption 4. Approval letter fi-om FEMA 5. The 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCM LHMP) TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING THE 2018 MARIN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various earthquake-related hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, fault surface rapture, and tSLmam1S; and WHEREAS,the Bay Area is subject to various weather-related hazards including wildfires, floods, and landslides; and WHEREAS,the Town of Tiburon recognizes that disasters do not recognize city,county,or special district boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon seeks to maintain and enhance both a disaster-resistant Town and region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters; and WHEREAS, the preservation of life, property and the environment is an inherent responsibility of the local government; and WHEREAS,natural disasters pose a significant threat to the lives and the property ofTiburon as well as Marin County residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, natural disaster can occLn•with little or no warning; and WHEREAS, Town staff in concert with local public safety organizations, in an effort to identify best practices used in response to the threat and occurrence of natural disasters, did update the Marin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan integrating planning efforts of the Town of Tiburon into the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazards Mitigation Plan to receive mitigation funding from FEMA and that Local Hazard Mitigation Plans must be updated once every five years in order to continue to be eligible for FEMA hazard mitigation project grant funding; and WHEREAS,the project was determined to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2)and Section 15061 (b)(3), and a CEQA Notice of Exemption was prepared and filed by the Marin County Community Development Agency in December 2018. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2019 03/06/2019 I EXHIBIT 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of "Tiburon as follows: 1. Adopts the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as presented to the Town Council 2. The Town Council gives autho►•ity to the County Emergency Services Manager to make any required changes to the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 6, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DAVID KULIK, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL DRAFT RESOLUTION NO.XX-2019 03/06/2019 2 RESOLUTION NO. 10-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) REPORT"TAMING NATURAL DISASTERS" AS THE TOWN OF TIBURON'S LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various earthquake-related hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, fault surface rupture, and tsunamis; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various weather-related hazards including wildfires, floods, and landslides; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon recognizes that disasters do not recognize city, county, or special district boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon seeks to maintain and enhance both a disaster- resistant Town and region by reducing the potential loss of life,property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon is committed to increasing the disaster resistance of the infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment, and land use systems in the Town of Tiburon, as well as in the Bay Area as a whole; and WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster mitigation funding from FEMA; and WHEREAS, ABAG has approved and adopted the ABAG report Tanning Natural Disasters as the multi jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Sap Francisco Bay Area; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Tiburon adopts, and adapts with its local annex, this multi-jurisdictional plan as its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Tiburon commits to continuing to take those actions and initiating further actions, as appropriate, as identified in the Town of Tiburon Annex of that multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. EXHIBIT 2 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 10-2012 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on March 7, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None C JIM FRA EAYOR TOWN OF tBURON ATTE T: DIANE CRANgjACOPI, TOWN CLERK H TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 10-2012 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ...................... ............ ......................... ......................... COUNTY OF MARIN FILING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN FILED RETURN TO: Marin County Community Development Agency Planning Division 3501 Civic Center Drive, #308 San Rafael, CA 94903 Attn: Don Allee NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Marin County Environmental Planning and Review 12/3/18 1. Project Name: Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2. Project Location: Entirety of Main County 3. Project Summary: Marin County (the County) and its partners have developed a Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCM LHMP) to assess risks posed by natural hazards and to develop a mitigation strategy for reducing the County's risks. The County has prepared the MCM LHMP in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000(DMA 2000).The MCM LHMP replaces the County LHMP that was approved by FEMA on August 29, 2013. 4. Public Agency Approving Project: California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Marin County Board of Supervisors 5. Project Sponsor: Marin County Office of Emergency Services 6. CEQA Exemption Status: CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) 7. Reasons for Exemption- While subsequent action or projects stemming from the MCM LHMP may be subject to CEQA, the MCM LHMP itself will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Project Planner: Reviewed by: EXUMIT NO-13- Alex Westhoffh F�eiLd _6 Planner VO�ror mental Planning Manager ........................ .........................................___..........................................-.... ...................... ...................... 3501 Civic Center Drive-Suite 308,Son Rofael,CA 94903-4157-415 473 6269 T-415 473 7880 F-415 473 2255 TTY-Nyww.marincaunty.org/plan U.S.Department of Homeland Security I I I I Broadway,Suite 1200 Oakland,CA.946074052 -uMA November 21, 2018 Thomas Jordan Emergency Services Coordinator Marin County Sheriff/Office of Emergency Services 1600 Los Gamos Drive Suite 200 San Rafael, California 94903 Dear Mr. Jordan: We have completed our review of the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation flan, and have determined that this plan is eligible for fmal approval pending its adoption by Marin County and all participating jurisdictions. Please seethe enclosed list of approvable pending adoption jurisdictions. Formal adoption documentation must be submitted to the FEMA Region IX office by the lead jurisdiction within one calendar year of the date of this letter, or the entire plan must be updated and resubmitted for review. We will approve the plan upon receipt of the documentation of formal adoption. If you have any questions regarding the planning or review processes,please contact JoAnn Scordino, Community Planner; at(510)627-7225 or by email at ioann.scordino c@fema.dhs.g-ov. Sincerely, Juliette Hayes Director Mitigation Division FEMA, Region 1•X Enclosure cc: Julie Norris, Mitigation and Dam Safety Branch Chief, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Jennifer Hogan, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services T N0. Marin County Multi-Jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCM LHMP) 2018 }h , t � p p 6i 14 IN 01 WO i f it f r . my � t r a �y EXHIBIT 5 Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning 1 1.3 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 2 1.4 Grant Programs with Mitigation Plan Requirements 2 1.5 Local Participants 3 1.6 Community Description 3 1.6.1 County of Marin 3 1.6.2 Economy 5 1.6.3 Physical Features 5 1.6.4 Infrastructure 5 1.6.5 Participating Municipalities 6 1.6.6 Participating Special Districts 9 1.7 Description of the Multi Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 10 Section 2 Planning Process 12 2.1 Overview 12 2.2 Initial Planning Process, 2011-2013 12 2.3 Plan Update Process, 2013-2018 12 2.4 Review of Existing Plans, Studies, and Reports 15 2.5 Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement 22 2.5.1 Meetings 22 2.5.2 Media Announcements 23 2.5.3 Public Workshops and Virtual Engagement Series 23 2.5.4 Website 23 Section 3 Hazard Analysis 25 3.1 Overview 25 3.2 Hazard Identification and Screening 27 3.3 Hazard Profiles 30 3.3.1 Earthquakes and Liquefaction 31 3.3.2 Dam Failure 37 3.3.3 Severe Storm 43 3.3.4 Debris Flow (Landslides) 47 3.3.5 Flooding 53 3.3.6 Wind 66 3.3.7 Tsunami 69 3.3.8 Wildfire 75 3.3.9 Post-Fire Debris Flow 100 3.4 Repetitive Loss Properties 101 3.5 Future Development 102 3.6 Natural and Beneficial Functions 105 3.7 Life/Safety Warning/Evacuation Systems 111 Section 4 Mitigation Strategy 114 4.1 Overview 114 4.2 Mitigation Goals 114 4.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions 114 4.4 Implementation of mitigation Actions 127 Section 5 Plan Maintenance 130 5.1 Overview 130 5.2 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan 130 5.3 Implementation Through Existing Planning Mechanisms 132 5.4 Continued Public Involvement 132 Appendix A—FEMA Compliance Documents 1 Appendix B —Adoption Resolutions 6 Appendix C—Planning Committee 8 Appendix D—Plan Review Committee 25 Appendix E - Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement 30 Appendix F - Plan Maintenance 35 Appendix G - Marin County 38 Appendix H - City of Belvedere 52 Appendix I - Town of Corte Madera 61 Appendix J - Town of Fairfax 70 Appendix K - City of Larkspur 79 Appendix L- City of Mill Valley 88 Appendix M - City of Novato 96 Appendix N—Town of Ross 110 Appendix O - Town of San Anselmo 132 Appndix P - City of San Rafael 155 Appendix Q - City of Sausalito 168 Appendix R - Town of Tiburon 173 Appendix S - North Marin Water District 182 Acronyms and Abbreviations 2013 LHMP Marin County 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan CalOES California Governor's Office of Emergency Service CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CGS California Geological Survey County Marin County CRS Community Rating System DC3 Marin Disaster and Citizen Corps Council DFIRM Digital Flood IllsUrance Rate Map DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 DSOD California Division of Safety of Dams FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance GIS Geographic Information System HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program NCDC National Climatic Data Center NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWS National Weather Service OES Office of Emergency Services PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation (Program) RFCP Repetitive Flood Claims Program RL Repetitive Loss SRL Severe Repetitive Loss Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 USC United States Code NMWD North Marin Water District VMP Vegetation Management Plan SECTION 1 Introduction SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW This section provides a brief overview of the topic, an introduction to hazard mitigation planning, and a brief description of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, grant programs with mitigation plan requirements, local participants, and the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Marin County (the County) and its partners have developed this Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (hereinafter referred to as the MCM LHMP) to assess risks posed by natural hazards and to develop a mitigation strategy for reducing the County's risks. The County has prepared the MCM LHMP in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). The Marin County Sheriff s Office of Emergency Services (OES), in conjunction with the Marin County Local Hazard Mitigation Team, has coordinated the preparation of the MCM LHMP in cooperation with municipalities and special district partners. The MCM LHMP replaces the County LHMP that was approved by FEMA on August 29, 2013 and will serve as the current LHMP for all participating jurisdictions. Some participating jurisdictions also have existing single jurisdiction plans in place that are effective until their expiration date. All MCM LHMP partners will be included in an ongoing MCM LHMP plan review process to facilitate the 2023 plan update process. This plan draws heavily, and with gratitude, on what the planning team was able to learn from other jurisdictions who have taken on hazard mitigation planning prior to this effort. In addition, the staff serving the Association of Bay Area Governments, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and Region IX of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were of countless assistance to the planning team. 1.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING As defined in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart M, Section 206.401, hazard mitigation is "any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural hazards."' As such, hazard mitigation is any work to minimize the impacts of any type of hazard event before it occurs. It is a process in which hazards are identified and profiled, the people and facilities at risk are analyzed_ and mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate hazard risk are developed. The implementation of the mitigation actions, which include short- and long-term strategies that may involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities, is the end-result of this process. 1 SECTION 1 Introduction 1.3 DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000 Local hazard mitigation planning is compelled as a matter of law as of the Disaster Mitigation Act signed in 2000 (DMA 2000). On October 30, 2000, Congress passed the DMA 2000 (Public Law 106-390), which amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (Stafford Act) (Title 42 of the United States Code [USC] Section 5121 et seq.) by repealing the act's previous mitigation planning section (409) and replacing it with a new mitigation planning section (322). This new section emphasizes the need for state, tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. This new section also provides the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)mitigation plan requirements for mitigation grant assistance. To implement these planning requirements, FEMA published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002 (44 CFR Part 201). The local mitigation planning requirements are identified in their appropriate sections throughout this MCM LHMP and in the FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Crosswalk/ Review Tool in Appendix A. In addition, this plan addresses the Community Rating System (CRS) 10-step planning process requirements. 1.4 GRANT PROGRAMS WITH MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS Currently, FEMA grant programs are available to participating jurisdictions that have FEMA- approved HMPs and are members ofthe National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Two of the grant programs are authorized under the Stafford Act and DMA 2000. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The FLazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to state, local, and tribal entities to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after declaration of a major disaster. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem (for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damage rather than buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood). Also, a project's potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of ftmding available for the HMGP under a particular disaster declaration is limited. Under the program, the Federal government may provide a state or tribe with up to 20 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA and may provide up to 75 percent of the cost of projects approved under the program, subject to a specified program cap. Between 2016 and 2018 several HMGP applications were submitted by participants in this MCM LHMP. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program provides funds to state, local, and tribal entities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects before a disaster. PDM grants are awarded on a nationally competitive basis. Like HMGP funding, the potential savings of a PDM project must be more than the cost of implementing the project, and funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to. or is in danger of repetitive damage. The total amount of PDM funding available is appropriated by Congress on an annual basis. The cost- sharing for this grant is 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal, although cost-sharing of 90 percent Federal and 10 percent non-Fedcral is available in certain situations. 2 SECTION 1 Introduction 1.5 LOCAL PARTICIPANTS The participating jurisdictions and special districts, referred to in this plan as local participants or partners, are listed below. ❑ Marin County ❑ City of Belvedere ❑ Town of Corte Madera ❑ City of Fairfax ❑ City of Larkspur ❑ City of Mill Valley ❑ City of Novato ❑ Town of Ross ❑ City of San Rafael ❑ Town of San Anselmo ❑ City of Sausalito ❑ City of Tiburon ❑ North Marin Water District ❑ Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1.6 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION 1.6.1 County of Marin Marin County, one of 58 counties in the state, is located on northern California's Pacific coast, just north of San Francisco. Marin County is bordered by Sonoma County to the north; the Pacific Ocean to the northwest and southwest; and the City and County of San Francisco to the south. Marin County spans 828 square miles, of which 520 square miles is land and 308 square miles is water. This footprint makes Marin County among the four smallest counties in the State; the only smaller counties being San Mateo County, Santa Cruz County, and the City and County of San Francisco. The fol lowing protected areas are within or contiguous to Marin: National Protected Areas: ❑ Golden Gate National Recreation Area (U.S. National Park Service) Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge 3 SECTION 1 Introduction ❑ Muir Woods National Monument ❑ Point Reyes National Seashore ❑ San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge ❑ Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary State Parks: ❑ Angel Island State Park ❑ China Camp State Park ❑ Mount Tamalpais State Park ❑ Olompali State Historic Park ❑ Samuel P. Taylor State Park ❑ Tomales Bay State Park Marine Protected Areas: ❑ Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area ❑ Estero Americano State Marine Recreational Management Area ❑ Estero de San Antonio State Marine Recreational Management Area ❑ Point Reyes State Marine Reserve & Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area Marin County was incorporated in 1850 as one of the original 27 counties of California. Within its boundaries are 1 1 municipalities, 20 Census Designated Places, and 8 recognized unincorporated communities. The county seat is the City of San Rafael. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, and using the Population Estimates Program which produces July 1 estimates for years after the last published decennial census (2010), the 3.5% population increase to the 2015 estimate brings the population to 261,221. The county has 111,990 housing units, of a theoretical buildout amount of 120,755. The majority of the county's population resides within the municipalities along I-ligliway 101. Marin County's identity is largely shaped by its abundant natural resources and long history of open space preservation efforts to retain its rural character. A variety of factors have strictly limited development in the County over the last 5 years including large swaths of permanently protected federal and state parkland, large acreage of farm and ranch lands permanently protected through conservation easements, and Countywide Plan policies and development codes which restrain growth in sensitive habitat areas and/or flood hazard areas. Similarly future development is limited by these same constraints, as outlined in Section 3.5 Future Development. 4 SECTION 1 Introduction 1.6.2 Economy Marin County has a strong economic base which has changed significantly over the last century. The county's economy was dominated by agriculture in the early part of its history. However, in recent years, Marin's economy has seen increasing job growth in technology-related fields such as biotechnology, computer software, and multimedia. With several attractions including beaches and parks in Marin, tourism is important to Marin County's economy. Services, retail trade, government, and manufacturing account for the majority of employers in Marin. Some municipalities have also become closely aligned with particular industries. For example, Sausalito is known for its fishing fleet. Health care has a major presence in the City of San Rafael. The county also boasts one the state's highest certified organic and sustainable crop ratios. 1.6.3 Physical Features Marin County is located along California's Pacific Coast (between San Francisco and Sonoma), including 72 miles of coastline. The highest point in the county, Mount Tamalpais, is 2,572 feet above sea level. The county has many microclimates with varying weather patterns, but the climate is generally Mediterranean with an average annual temperature of 79.7 degrees Fahrenheit. The County consists of areas of mountains/hills, valleys, forests, creeks, bayside wetlands and mud flats, and ocean coasts. 1.6.4 Infrastructure Transportation Marin County has an ever-developing transportation system, with most travel concentrated along key highways and arterial streets. There are 5 Highways passing through, terminating, or located wholly in Marin: Interstate 580, U.S. Route 101, State Route 1, State Route 37, and State Route 131. Marin is connected to its surrounding neighbors by bridges. The Golden Gate Bridge is to the south; the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge is to the east; State Route 37 is to the northeast (across filled bay land over San Pablo Bay); and Highway 101 is to the north (which narrows to a 4-lane uncontrolled road that traverses San Antonio Creelo. One of the major problems Marin County faces during an emergency is the possibility of being isolated fi-om the surrounding connnnunities and any resources or help. Light rail service recently began supplementing existing transportation options along U.S. Route 101 between Marin and Sonoma Counties. Utilities Municipal utilities in Marin County include water (drinking water. stormwater, sanitary sewerage), power(electricity and natural gas), telecommunications, and solid waste. Several water management utilities supply treated water-for domesticandlire Suppression purposes. -- - These distribution systems rely largely on the County's topography for collecting surface water, storing it in reservoirs, and distributing it with gravity-fed systems. As such. the water 5 SECTION 1 Introduction management utilities are separated by both functional area and geography, but they are working more and more to coordinate within watersheds. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is the largest water district in Marin, serving central and southern portions of the county east of Mount Tamalpais and Bolinas Ridge. North Marin Water District (NMWD) serves Novato and communities along Tomales Bay including Olerna, Point Reyes Station, Inverness, and Dillon Beach. Bolinas and Stinson Beach, two communities in West Marin, have separate water and sanitary districts. There are 23 agencies providing wastewater services in Marin County, including special districts, municipalities, JPAs and the Federal and State government. (Citation: https://www.marincounty.or(/depts/gi/reports-and-responses/reports-responses/2013- 14/—/media/Files/Departments/GJ/Reports%20Responses/2013/SewerSeggpl pdf) Stormwater utilities such as open channels, catch basins and storm drains are managed by the cities, towns. and the county in unincorporated areas and are coordinated through the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP). Additionally, the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District maintains some larger drainage infrastructure where zones have been designated. The District and some cities/towns such as San Rafael, Corte Madera, and Novato operate stormwater pump stations. Natural gas and electricity distribution occurs through infrastructure owned and maintained by PG&E, a private utility corporation. Natural gas is piped into Marin from the central valley around the North Bay through Solano, Napa, and Sonoma Counties. The main transmission pipelines are underground along Highway 101 and flow south, branching into local distribution lines and private laterals. PG&E also brings power into Marin around the North Bay on overhead transmission lines that emanate from the Ignacio substation in Novato. Additional substations are located along Hwy 101 in Las Gallinas, San Rafael, Greenbrae, and Mill Valley to the South and in Novato, Stafford, Tocaloma, Olema, Bolinas and Woodacre to the North and East. Telecom III Lill ications include telephone service, cable television and wireless services. AT&T maintains infi-astructure for providing landlines, while Comcast provides cable television. A variety of cellular and wireless service companies operate in Marin and provide access points in the form of cellular towers, wireless antennas and equipment. There are six solid waste haulers that operate within Marin County organized geographically and with agreements with cities and towns. All of this garbage, recycling, and greenwaste is brought to one oftwo processing centers; Redwood Landfill in Novato and Marin Resource Recovery Center in San Rafael. 1.6.5 Participating Municipalities Marin County has 1 1 cities and towns, all of which participated in the preparation of this Plan. Using the most up-to-date in provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, these cities and key aspects of their socioeconomic and demographic qualities are described below. City of Belvedere 6 SECTION 1 Introduction The City of Belvedere had an estimated population of 2,068 in 2010, with 1,045 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 2.406 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $130,796 and the per capita income for the City was $113,595. Approximately 2.9 percent of families and 5.7 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Belvedere was incorporated as a city in 1896. Town of Corte Madera The Town of Corte Madera had an estimated population of 9,253 in 2010, with 4,026 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 4.406 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town was $79,839 and the per capita income for the Town was $46,326. Approximately 2.7 percent of families and 4.5 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Corte Madera was incorporated in 1916. Town of Fairfax The Town of Fairfax had an estimated population of 7,441 in 2010, with 3,585 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 2.204 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town is $58,465 and the per capita income for the Town is $34,080. Approximately 4.3 percent of families and 6.5 percent of the population is below the poverty line (20 10 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Fairfax was incorporated as a town in 1931. City of Larkspur The City of Larkspur had an estimated population of 11,926 in 2010, with 6,376 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 3.243 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $66,710 and the per capita income for the City was $56,983. Approximately 1.8 percent of families and 3.7 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Larkspur was incorporated as a city in 1908. City of Mill Valley Mill Valley had an estimated population of 13,903 in 2010, with 6,534 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of4.847 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $90,794 and the per capita income for the City was $64,179. Approximately 2.7 percent of families and 4.5 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Mill Valley was incorporated as a city in 1900. 7 SECTION 1 Introduction City of Novato The City of Novato had an estimated population of 51,904 in 2010, with 21,158 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 27.440 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $63,453, and the per capita income for the City was $32,402. Approximately 3.1 pet-cent of families and 5.6 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Novato was incorporated as a city in 1960. Town of Ross The "Town of Ross had an estimated population of 2,415 in 2010, with 884 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 1.556 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town is $102,015 and the per capita income for the Town is $51,150. Approximately 5.6 percent of families and 8.5 percent of the population is below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Ross was incorporated as a town in 1908. Town of San Anselmo The Town of San Anselmo had an estimated population of 12,336 in 2010, with 5,538 housing units in the Town. "The Town has a total area of 2.677 square miles. The median income for a household in the City is $71,488 and the per capita income for the City is $ $41,977. Approximately 2.5 percent of families and 5.1 percent of the population is below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). San Anselmo was incorporated as a town in 1907. City of San Rafael The City of San Rafael (San Rafael) is the county seat of Marin County. San Rafael had an estimated population of 57,713 in 2010, with 24,011 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 22.422 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $60.994 and the per capita income for the City was $35,762. Approximately 5.6 percent of families and 10.2 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). San Ratael was incorporated as a city in 1874. Citv of Sausalito Sausalito had an estimated population of 7,061 in 2010, with 4,536 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 2.257 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was 587.469 and the per capita income for the City was $81,040. Approximately 2.0 percent of 8 SECTION 1 Introduction families and 5.1 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Sausalito was incorporated as a city in 1893. Town of Tiburon The Town of Tiburon had an estimated population of 8,962 in 2010, with 4,025 housing units in the Town. The `town has a total area of 13.182 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town was $106.611 and the per capita income for the Town was $85,966. Approximately 1.6 percent of families and 3.3 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Tiburon was incorporated in 1964. 1.6.6 Participating Special Districts As noted previously, two of-the participating jurisdictions are special districts. Information about each district is described as follows. North Marin Water District North Marin Water District(NMWD) was formed in April 1948 following voter approval under the California State law known as the County Water District Law (Division 12 of the California Water Code). NMWD primarily serves the City of Novato and surrounding unincorporated areas in Marin County, encompassing approximately 75 square miles. The Novato Service Area has approximately 20,750 active service connections serving approximately 24,000 dwelling units, as well as commercial, industrial and institutional customers. The estimated Novato Service Area Population is 61,000. NMWD also provides service to several small improvement districts in the West Marin Service Area near the Pacific Ocean, via approximately 800 service connections. NMWD owns and operates Stafford Lake and the associated treatment plant, which provides approximately 20% ofNovato's water. The lake lies four miles west of downtown Novato and collects runoff fi-onn 8.3 square miles of watershed property located upstream at the upper tributary reaches of Novato Creek. Water from Stafford Lake is drawn by the intake tower and fed by gravity or by pumping (depending on the lake level) into the treatment plant located just below the dam. In addition to providing water supply for domestic needs and firefighting purposes, Stafford darn provides flood protection for the greater Novato area. The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has partnered with NMWD to share in the cost of obtaining additional flood liability insurance. Water fi-om the Russian River via connection to the Sonoma County Water Agency's aqueduct provides the remaining 80% of the Novato Service Area supply of water. This water originates from both the Eel River and the Russian River watersheds. The water supply for the West Marin Service Area is derived from groundwater. 9 SECTION 1 Introduction NMWD maintains and operates approximately 340 miles of pipeline, 42 tanks totaling over 37 million gallons ofstorage, and associated pump stations, hydropneumatic systems, and regulator valves. NMWD sizes its storage tanks to meet operational, firetightino and emergency requirements. Storage requirements for both the Novato and West Marin Service Areas are updated on a 5-year cycle, and are based in part on input provided by Novato Fire Protection District and Mai-in County Fire. Ensuring water quality and protecting public health is one ofNMWD's primary goals. Water quality data is routinely collected throughout the distribution systems and at water sources. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The District's geographical boundary is the same as the County's and, as a whole, it has no source of revenue. Instead, revenue is collected via ad valorem taxes and fees paid by property owners in one of eight zones covering distinct geographical areas within the District. All expenditures by the District require authorization by the Board of Supervisors of the District and the five members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors serve on the District's board. Eight zones have been established within the District to address specific flooding problems in eight watersheds across Marin County. 1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE Multi Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan is a plan jointly prepared by more than one jurisdiction. Jurisdictions can benefit in several ways when they choose to participate in a multi- jurisdictional planning process. Among such benefits, this process: Enables comprehensive approaches to mitigation of hazards that affect multiple jurisdictions: Allows economies of scale by: o Leveraging individual capabilities; and o Sharing costs and resources; _ Avoids duplication of efforts; and Imposes an external discipline on the process. The remainder of this MCM LHMP consists of the sections described below. Section 2: Planning Process Section 2 describes the planning process. Specifically, this section describes the plan development process and identifies members of the Planning Committee and Plan Review Committee; including a description of the meetings held as part of the planning process (relevant 10 SECTION 1 Introduction documents are attached in the Appendixes). This section also documents public outreach and stakeholder involvement activities and discusses the review and incorporation of relevant plans, reports, and other appropriate information. Section 3: Hazard Analysis Section 3 describes the process through which the Planning Committee identified, screened, and selected the hazards to be profiled in the MCM LHMP. The hazard analysis includes the nature, history, location, extent, probability of future events, impacts, and vulnerability for each hazard. It also summarizes RL and SRL properties, future development, natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, and life safety/warning/evacuation systems. Section 4: Mitigation Strategy Section 4 provides a blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the vulnerability analysis. The Planning Committee reviewed mitigation projects identified in the prior LHMP of the eight participating jurisdictions with existing plans. Every participating jurisdiction with an existing LHMP assessed their progress on previously identified actions and revised their list to reflect updated priorities. Actions common to all jurisdictions were consolidated into a list of "common actions". Section 5: Plan Maintenance Section 5 describes the formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the MCM LHMP remains an active and applicable document. The process includes monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan (relevant documents are attached in Appendix F); monitoring mitigation projects and closeout procedures (relevant documents attached in Appendix F); implementing the plan through existing planning mechanisms; and achieving continued public involvement. 11 SECTION 2 Planning Process SECTION 2 PLANNING PROCESS 2.1 OVERVIEW This section summarizes the planning efforts; details how the plan was updated and who was involved in this process; documents public outreach and stakeholder involvement efforts; and stiurunarizes the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, and reports used to develop the MCM LHMP. Additional information regarding the meetings and public outreach efforts is discussed below and provided in more detail in Appendix C, D and E. The last full update of the Marin Countywide Plan (CWP) was in 2007, and the last Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) update was completed in 2013. As the CWP update preceded the LHMP update, inclusion of the 2013 LHMP into the CWP was not possible. 1-lowever, as Senate Bill 379 requires climate adaptation to be included in County general plans. the 2018 LHMP can serve as a valuable reference document for hazards assessments, potential policies, and implementing programs for the next CWP update 2.2 INITIAL PLANNING PROCESS, 2011-2013 As noted previously, the initial basis for this plan was 2013 Marin County LHMP and LHMPs of partner jurisdictions with current approved and adopted plans. This plan was prepared by the Marin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Team, which consisted of representatives from the County Office of Emergency Services, Department of Public Works, Fire Department, and Community Development Agency. The 2013 LHMP development occurred from December 2011 to July 2013. The 2012 LHMP was adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on October 16, 2012 and approved by FEMA on August 29, 2013. 2.3 PLAN UPDATE PROCESS, 2013-2018 Pursuant to approval and adoption of the 2013 LHMP, the County LHMP Team established a schedule of team meetings to provide opportunity for review and documentation of any changes to LHMP relevant plans, projects, programs, as well as Notices of Intent (NOLs) submitted to CaIOES by their respective groups. In April 2016 the Marin County Sheriff's OES kicked off the official update process. The 2018 plan process became a multi-Urisdictional process to include all municipalities and select Special Districts. The Marin County Sheriff's OES determined that the standing Marin Disaster and Citizen Corps Council (DC')) included almost all of the relevant stakeholders and therefore would make up the 2018 MCM-LHMP Plan Review Committee. The DC3 consists of local officials from the County, cities and towns, and special districts as well as non-governmental agencies, private sector, and special districts that have been delcgatcd the authority of local government emergency services directors, City ]Managers, and the Director of Emergency Services (a member of the County Board of Supervisors)who serves as the DC3 Chairperson. The MCM LHMP's Planning Committee is shown below in Table 2-1. The 2018 DC3, serving as the MCMLHMP Plan Review Committee, is shown below in Table 2-2. 12 SECTION 2 Planning Process Table 2-1. Planning Committee Department, Agency, or Municipality Name Marin County Sheriff's Office Thomas Jordan,Emergency Services Coordinator Hannah Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Bch Skye,Engineering Technician Marin County Department of Public Works Felix Meneau,Assistant Engineer Gerhard Epke, Senior Program Coordinator Marin County Fire Department Scott Alber,Fire Marshal Kristen Drumm, Senior Planner Marin County Community Development Agency Alex Westhoff,Planner Irene Borba,Director of Planning& Building City of Belvedere Laurie Nilsen, Emergency Services Coordinator Kelly Crowe, Senior Civil Engineer Matt Cobb,Battalion Chief Town of Corte Madera Hamid Khalili,Police Captain Adam Wolff,Planning and Building Director Peter Brown,Public Works Director City of Fairfax Mark Lockaby,Chief Building Official Michele Gardner,Deputy Town Clerk Matt Cobb,Battalion Chief Bob Quinn,Public Works Superintendent City of Larkspur Neal Toft,Planning Director Julian Skinner,Public Works Director . Tom Welch,Fire Chief City of Mill Valley Andrew Poster,Public Works Director Elisa Sarlatte, DPW Engineering Manager Richard Simonitch, Public Works Director Town of Ross Heidi Scoble, Planning Manager Erik Masterson,Police Chief Sean Condry,Public Works Director Town of San Anselmo Elise Sernonian,Planning Director Dave Donery,Town Manager Talia Smith, Senior Management Analyst City of San Rafael Quin Gardner,Emergency Management Coord Robert Sinnott, Deputy Fire Chief 13 SECTION 2 Planning Process Kevin McGowan, Asst Public Works Director Bill Guerin, Public Works Director Jonathon Goldman, Public Works Director Bill Frass, Police Captain City of Sausalito Lilly Whalen,Clerk Mike McKinley, Emergency Services Coordinator Kyra O'Malley,Associate Planner Town of Tiburon Laurie Nilsen, Emergence Services Coordinator Scott Anderson,Community Development Director Nancy Andrews, Senior Management Analyst Bob Brown,Community Development Director City of Novato Bill Tyler, Fire Chief Jim Correa, Police Captain Dave Jeffries,Consultant Drew McIntyre,General Manager North Marin Water District Rocky Vogler,Chief Engineer Pippin Cavagnaro,Associate Hannah Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation Felix MeneaU,Assistant Engineer District Gerhard Epke, Senior Program Coordinator Table 2-2. MCM LHMP Plan Review Committee DC3 Position Title Name Chairperson Judy Arnold Marin Managers Joe Chinn Schools Michael Grant Emergency Medical Services Miles Julihn Access and Functional Needs Peter Mendoza MIDC Denis O'Leary Transit -- Mohamed Osman— _---- Health and Human Services Lisa Santora Police Chiefs Tricia Seyler-Campbell Public Works Eric Ste<oer 14 SECTION 2 Planning Process At Large Representative Bill Tyler MCCMC Catherine Way Fire Chiefs Jason Weber American Red Cross Debbie Yee Economic Forum Garry Lion District 1 Frank Cox District 2 Michael McDermott District 3 Keith Kennedy District 4 Anne Sands District 5 Ed Schulze DC3 =Marin County Disaster and Citizen Corps Council County LHMP Team members attended and facilitated meetings with the Planning Committee and coordinated numerous activities to create the 2018 MCM LHMP. Members of the Plan Review Committee were provided project updates at Marin County Disaster and Citizen Corps Council DC3) meetings and draft plans for review via email. Additional information regarding the meetings and public outreach efforts is provided in more detail in Appendix C, D and E. Community RatinI4 System Program Planning Process Several participating jurisdictions in the MCM LHMP are also participants in FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS), including the County of Marin, City of Sausalito, Town of Fairfax, Town of San Anselmo, Town of Ross, Town of Corte Madera, and the City of Novato. The County of Marin hosts regular CRS coordination meetings and invites all jurisdictions, even those that aren't currently part of CRS. The Marin County Public Works Community Rating System representative who hosts those multi-jurisdictional meetings also participated on the MCM LHMP Planning Committee in order to address the CRS Floodplain Management Planning requirements. 2.4 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, STUDIES,AND REPORTS The following Table 2-3 reflects the existing plans, studies, and reports used during the planning process 15 SECTION 2 Planning Process Table 2-3. MCM LHMP Existing Plans. Studies, and Reports Method of Document Title and Date incorporation into the jurisdiction annex All Jurisdictions Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)2010 multi- jurisdictional Local Hazard Hazard Identification and Screening Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area,2010 Update of 2005 Mitigation Actions Plan Marin Map-online mapping tool includes hazard data,assets,zoning, Hazards Analysis current FEMA flood maps www.marinmap.org FEMA data via Flood Insurance Studies, BureauNet Hazard Profiles,Risk Assessments, Repetitive Loss Lists Marin County -California Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP) Hazard Profiles&Mitigation Actions www.firesafemarin.org/cwpp Marin County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessments(BayWAVE Hazard Profiles&Mitigation Actions &C-SMART)and C-SMART Adaptation Report DSOD dam safety information Hazard Profiles ABAG earthquake:http://resilienee.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/rmarin/ 2013 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan Plan Conformance Marin Stormwater Resource Plan 2017 Mitigation Actions The Scoop on Marin County Sewer Systems:Part I Cited in 1.6.3 to describe sewer 2013/2014 Marin County Civil Grand Jury infrastructure U.S.Census Bureau 2010 For socioeconomic and demographic The studies detail flood depths and base flood elevations. Used in aspects of participating municipalities. development of risk assessments and mitigation actions Marin Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan 2015 Referenced by several Jurisdictions (approved June 7,20 16) Countywide Watershed Stewardship Plan Hazard Analysis Plan Bay Area 2040 Sonoma County Water Agency Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Mitigation actions(regional radar project) CAL FIRE&Marin County Fire Department Strategic Fire Plans Hazard Profiles and Mitigation Actions International Urban-Wildland Interface Code 2003 Hazard Profiles Community Exposure to Tsunami I lazards in California report& Hazard Profiles National Geodetic Data Center database of tsunami Occurrences Cliff and Erosion Technical Background Report,2003 prepared for Hazard Profiles Marin County Local Coastal Program update Landslide Inventory, California Department of Conservation Hazard Profiles 16 SECTION 2 Planning Process Marin County Office of Emergency Services,News Release on storm Hazard Profiles damages, 12/29/2014 California Building,Plumbing and Mechanical Codes Hazard Profiles Belvedere Belvedere's 2010 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element has thorough treatment of environmental hazards and references the City's 2005 LHMP and development of the 2011 update.The City's 2011 LAMP contained its Flood Mitigation Plan. 2010 General Plan `Belvedere 2030' Hazard Profiles, Priority mitigation actions and programs 2011 ABAG LHMP Annex Development of Mitigation Actions Flood Management Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Capital Improvement Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Emergency Operations Plan(EOP) Development of Mitigation Actions Traffic Safety Study Development of Mitigation Actions Corte Madera Corte Madera's 2009 General Plan was written before the Town's development of its 2011 ABAG LHMP Annex. The General Plan's implementation measure F-1.4.b calls for implementation of a Hazard Plan,which was completed two years later. The Town's Capital Improvement Plan and building and municipal codes have been updated since 2011 and incorporate portions of the LHMP. Previous LHMPs: 2005 &2010 Hazard Profiles&Development of ABAG Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annexes Mitigation Actions Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) Development of Mitigation Actions General Plan Safety Element Development of Mitigation Actions Fairfax The Town's 2010 General Plan and 2011 ABAG Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex were developed concurrently,so the General Plan Advisory Committee(GPAC) reviewed, refined.and incorporated selected mitigation strategies into the final draft 2010 General Plan Safety Element. The Safety Element states that it"is intended to complement and support not only the other General Plan Elements. but also other Town plans and documents, such as the Emergency Operations Plan(EOP),the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Flood Nlitigation Plan(FMP). 2010 General Plan Safety Element Priority mitigation actions and programs 2004 LHMP ABAG Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Annex 17 SECTION 2 Planning Process Capital Improvement Plan(C1P) Development of Mitigation Actions Emergency Response Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Community Preparedness Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Larkspur Larkspur is in process of updating its General Plan,which was last updated in 1990.The updated plan will comply with the Disaster Management Act 2000 by including a Safety Element that references this Hazard Mitigation Plan. In the meantime,Table K-7 demonstrates the City's continuing progress implementing mitigation measures. General Plan Safety Element Hazard Profiles&Development of Mitigation Actions Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Development of Mitigation Actions City of Larkspur All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Version 2.0 Development of Mitigation Actions Unincorporated Marin County Marin County's prior Hazard Mitigation Plan is referenced in the 2007 Marin Countywide Plan. Appreciable integration of the last LHMP has not yet happened but can be anticipated when the County begins an update on the Countywide plan in the next two years. 2007 Marin Countywide Plan(2015 Update) Hazard Profiles&Development of Mitigation Actions(its policies and development codes that restrain growth in sensitive habitats and/or flood hazard areas,as well as future development in general are outlined in Section 3.5) Local Coastal Program Hazard Profiles&Development of Mitigation Actions Marin County 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Mill Valley Mill Valley's Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved in _2009 and it has been incorporate it into other mechanisms such as the City's General Plan fi-om 2013 which calls for maintenance, updates, and implementation of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan, City All Hazard Mitigation Plan v 4.0 Development of Mitigation Actions 18 SECTION 2 Planning Process 2013 General Plan Update `2040 General Plan' incl Climate Action Development of Mitigation Actions Plan&Hazards&Public Safety Element General Fund and Capital Improvement Plan To be incorporated into actions when complete. Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin(SASM)Master Plan Identifies SASM facilities to replace in Mill Valley City of Mill Valley Emergency Operations Plan Hazard Profiles&Mitigation Actions City of Mill Valley Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2015 Development of Mitigation Actions North Marin Water District NMWD hasn't had a previous LHMP for incorporation into other mechanisms. Stafford Dam EAP 2017 Development of Mitigation Actions 2015 Master Plan Update for the Oceana Marin Wastewater System, Development of Mitigation Actions NMWD Job File 8 4046.00 2018 Novato Water System Master Plan Update,NMWD Job File 1 Development of Mitigation Actions 7039.02 Novato Novato is currently updating its General Plan.The current draft Safety and Health strategy 47a is to"Periodically update the City's Emergency Operations Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to coordinate with emergency plans of other governmental agencies and respond to changing conditions". The new general plan also refers to the previous hazard mitigation plan for additional information on certain hazards such as wildfire. Hazard Mitigation Plans previous annual reviews Development of Mitigation Actions 2035 General Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Existing Conditions Report,April 2014 2008 City Flood Mitigation Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Emergency Preparedness Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Emergency Operations Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Stafford Dam Emergency Action Planning and Risk Awareness in 2015 Development of Mitigation Actions Identified Site Emergency Planning Application,(ISEPA) Development of Mitigation Actions Novato Elected/Appointed Official Guide to Disaster Operations 2017 Development of Mitigation Actions City of Novato Local Drainage Master Plan Development of Mitigation Actions City of Novato Repetitive Loss Plan Development of Mitigation Actions 19 SECTION 2 Planning Process Ross Ross's General Plan was completed and adopted in 2007,before its 2012 hazard mitigation plan.The 2012 LHMP was very good, but it hasn't been incorporated into other planning mechanisms. Town of Ross General Plan 2007—2025 Development of Mitigation Actions 2012 LHMP Development of Mitigation Actions Ross Valley Sanitary District Strategic Plan Cited in 1.6.3 to describe sewer Ross Valley Sewer System Replacement Master Plan 2007 infi-astructure Ross Valley Sanitary District response to Grand Jury Report Dated June 16,2011: "Ross Valley Sanitary District:Not Again!" San Anselmo San Ansclmo's first stand-alone LHMP was adopted in 2017,so there hasn't been sufficient time for its incorporation into other planning mechanisms such as the General Plan,which was adopted in 1988. Prior to that, the ABAG annex was too general to impact local mitigation planning. 2011 Climate Action Plan The plan includes strategies for reducing government greenhouse gas emissions.Policies from the plan have been included as mitigation strategies,where appropriate. 2011 Capital Improvement Plan Study for Flood Damage Reduction and This study has information on projects Creek Management in Flood Zone 9/Ross Valley that may reduce flooding in the San Anselmo watershed.The Town incorporated some of the projects within the Town jurisdiction as mitigation strategies. Town of San Anselmo 2015 General Plan The General Plan is the Town's ]on,,- term blueprint for the community's vision of future growth.This plan N\as reviewed for existing policies and programs to mitigate all hazards. 2008 Flood Mitigation Plan The plan includes goals and strategies developed following the December 31,2005 flood. Used in development of risk assessments and mitigation actions Town of San Anselmo Municipal Code This plan was reviewed for existing policies and programs to mitigate all hazards. It includes regulations for building standards,flood damage prevention,environmental review and restrictions on density in fire prone areas. 7-year Capital Improvement Plan 2015 This plan details the Town's priorities for capital improvement projects for years 2015-2021. Used in development of risk assessments and mitigation actions. 20 SECTION 2 Planning Process Corte Madera Geek 2010 Flood Control Study Baseline Report Documents details efforts to reduce Available through US Army Corps of Engineers and Ross Valley Flood flooding in the Ross Valley and Corte Control Program website Madera Creek. Study consulted for http://www.marinwaterslieds.oi-g/documents and report's/documents/C flood frequency of historic flood orteMaderaCreekFinalBase]ineReport-2010-12-08.pdf events. San Rafael The City's"General Plan 2020"fi•om 2004 calls for preparation and adoption of an LHMP. Since then,the City has prepared and adopted an LHMP.The General Plan is currently being updated. City of San Rafael 2020 General Plan Development of Mitigation Actions City of San Rafael 2020 General Plan Background Report Development of Mitigation Actions City of San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan Development of Mitigation Actions City of San Rafael Community Emergency Preparedness Plan Development of Mitigation Actions City of San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Report Development of Mitigation Actions Climate Adaptation—Sea Level Rise, San Rafael CA. White Paper Development of Mitigation Actions Marin Bay Shoreline Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Development of Mitigation Actions Sausalito Sausalito hasn't had a previous LHMP for incorporation into other mechanisms. 2018-2020 Strategic Plan Development of Mitigation Actions Ongoing General Plan Update Development of Mitigation Actions Tiburon Tiburon's"General Plan 2020"from 2005 calls for the adoption of an LHMP to comply with DMA 2000. Since then the Town has adopted the ABAG LMHP Annex in 2012. ABAG Multijnrisdictional Hazards Assessment Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010 Mitigation Strategies Capital Improvement Plan Mitigation Strategies Emergency Operations Plan Hazards Assessment Mitigation Strategies General Plan Safety Element Hazards Assessment Mitigation Strategies 21 SECTION 2 Planning Process 2.5 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 2.5.1 Meetings During the planning process, Marin County Sheriff's OES staff made presentations at Marin County Disaster and Citizen Corps Council (DC3) and County Emergency Manager group meetings to discuss the MCM LHMP. The Marin County DC3 is an advisory body whose mission is to contribute to a unified effort in improving disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery countywide. These efforts are achieved through a partnership of cooperation and collaboration with all levels of government, non-government and the private sector. Current DC3 members include representatives from Marin County Sheriff's OES, county Fire Chiefs, American Red Cross, Marin County Economic Forum, Public Works, and county Health and Human Services, to name a few. The Marin County DC3 meetings are open to the public and the details for each meeting (including time, date, location, and agenda) are posted on the Sheriff's Office website. At these meetings County staff gave presentations on the MCM [_,HMP and discussed progress to date, the plan adoption process and answered any general questions and comments about the update process. Copies of the agenda and meeting minutes for DC3 /Plan Review Committee meeting and copies agendas for the Planning Committee meetings are provided in Appendix E. In addition to meetings of the Planning Committee and the Plan Review Committee, the County LHMP Team conducted one-on-one plan finalization meetings with each participating municipality on the following dates: City of Belvedere - 7/12/18 =i Town of Corte Madera - 7/19/18 City of Fairfax - 7/23/18 City of Larkspur- 7/18/18 City of Mill Valley - 7/25/18 City of Novato - 7/18/18 Town of Ross - 7/7/18 City of San Rafael - 7/24/18 Town of San Anselno - 7/23/18 City of Sausalito - 7/30/18 City ofTiburon - 7/12/18 North Marin \A ater District - 7/25/18 22 SECTION 2 Planning Process 2.5.2 Media Announcements The County of Marin issued a media release announcing the kick-off of the MCM LHMP update process and sent the release to the Marin Independent Journal and the Point Reyes Light. The media release also provided the MCM LHMP Website link and contact information should further information be desired. A November 4, 2014 on-air interview with national news outlet The Weather Channel also highlighted the MCM LHMP effort and its benefit to the communities of Marin County. A copy of the media release and an article on the MCM LHMP in a local newspaper is provided in Appendix E. 2.5.3 Public Workshops and Virtual Engagement Series County staff working on the MCM LI-IMP hosted a total of 6 Public Workshops. These workshops were held in the North, South —Central, and West areas of the County and were conducted at each location during both working hours and in evenings to insure availability for residents fi-om all areas of the County during business hours and in evening hours. All workshop announcement and outreach materials listed each of the participating jurisdictions so that residents would be aware that this was a countywide effort. Workshops consisted of a presentation on the basics of Hazard Mitigation Planning, the update and multi jurisdictional planning process, and a review of resources for the public. Resources, such as MarinMap and the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Hazard Mitigation activities and projects website, were available on-line so that attendees without internet access at home could view these resources. In addition to in-person workshops, a Virtual Engagement Series (VES) was posted online so that members of the public unable to attend one of the 6 workshops could have access to the workshop contents and ability to comment on the planning process. Over 100 public comments were obtained via the VES process and as such were incorporated in the drafting of the MCM LHMP. 2.5.4 Website As noted above, Marin County Sheriff s OES re-launched the County's HMP Website, which was first used during the development of the 2013 LHMP. For the MCM LHMP, the Website provided information about disasters in Marin County, the DMA 2000, HMP update requirements, and the planning process overview. In addition, Marin County Sheriffs OES posted hazard maps as they were completed and provided copy of the Final Draft online for review and comment. The MCM LHMP Website is located at: http://porta1.count\,oIMarin.or(-,/portal/��e/portal/cov/emergencies/mitigation/plan. A snapshot of the MCM LHMP Website is provided in Appendix E. The County has also developed and launched a Community Rating System vvebsite which includes the Final Draft MCM LHMP. The website is at: littl)s://N,\\\\,.marincountv.1)r(/de1)ts/pw/divisions/creeks-bay-and-hood/fema-Ilood- information 23 SECTION 2 Planning Process This page intentionally left blank 24 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis SECTION 3 HAZARD ANALYSIS 3.1 OVERVIEW A hazard analysis includes the identification and screening of each hazard and then the profiling of each hazard. Consistent with DMA 2000 and reasonable local capabilities this hazard analysis includes natural hazards (not human-caused, such as terrorism). Natural hazards result from unexpected or uncontrollable natural events of significant size and destructive power. Per the local mitigation planning requirements, this hazard analysis consists of the following two steps: 1. Hazard identification and screening 2. Hazard profiles Methodology for assessing vulnerability in the hazard profiles and jurisdiction-specific appendices (G through S) was based upon GIS analysis using spatial asset and hazard data most of which are available to the public at MarinMap.org. MarinMap is a group of local governments, special districts and other public agencies that have joined together to create a Geographic Information System (GIS). Using ArcGIS, asset locations were overlain with maps of higher risk for each of six natural hazards. Where they overlap, they are considered vulnerable. This exercise is not expected to be a prediction of future incidents, nor is it able to be highly precise. This exercise is for assessing vulnerability at a broad scale and for the purpose of comparing the relative threat to assets and communities of each hazard. Table 3-1 Asset Data used Notes Single Family MarinMap use code 11, 12, 61 Parcel, developed with one living unit Multi Family Parcel, developed use code 11 (with 2 LU , 14, 21, 61 Structures Commercial Parcel, developed use code 51 Industrial Parcel, developed use code 61 Historic National and State Cultural Resources Register of Historic Resources Roads MarinMap roads All functional classes network minus dirt roads and trails Transportation Railroad SMART track Plus eastern spur along Hwy 37 Ferry Terminals Sausalito, Larkspur Landing, Belvedere, Angel Island Communication Marin_Emergency-- Locations of radio Proposedsystem Radio Authority towers within County expansion, only (MERA) currently used towers 25 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis were assessed Transmission Tower Marin County GIS database Substation Marin County GIS database Power Natural Gas Marin County GIS Substation database Electric Transmission Marin County GIS Line database Natural Gas Pipeline Marin County GIS database Treatment Plants MarinMap Water/Sewage Pump Stations Marin County GIS database Schools MarinMap Critical Facilities Law Enforcement/Fire MarinMap Medical Facilites MarinMap Airport MarinMap Of the hazards profiled in the plan, spatial data for dam inundation, wildfire (wildland urban interface)tsunamis, landslides. and floods were available. Earthquakes were assumed to cover the entire County. Flood prone areas were profiled as the FEMA I00-year recurrence interval updated August 2017. The I00-year floodplain is also referred to as the Special Flood Hazard Area or base flood, which has a I% chance of occurrence every year. This risk map is updated by FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The landslide layer used was created by the US geological survey. Table 3-2 Hazard Data Used Notes / metadata Earthquake All of Marin County MarinMap Flood Hazard Zone as of August 2017 Flood FEMA current 100-year floodplain Landslide/ MarinMap using USGS layer www.marinmap.org/Publicrecords/OutputStyle.asp Debris Flow Mostly & Many' ?DOC=vectordata/MarinCounty/Landslide.shp.xml ENTERPRISE.DBO.LANDSLIDE Tsunami MarinMap Tsunami Inundation Wildfire MarinMap Wildland Urban Interface WUI MarinMap http://www.marinmap.org/Publicrecords/OutputStyl Dam Inundation Using data developed by dam e.asp?DOC=vectordata/MarinCounty/dam_inundati owners as a CalOES on.shp.xml requirement 26 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING As the first step in the hazard analysis, the MCM LHMP Planning Committee reviewed the list of hazards presented in Table 3-3 and the following questions: -i Is the hazard included in the 2013 County of Marin (unincorporated) LHMP? Is the hazard included in any of the most recent LHMPs of non-County jurisdictions? Is the hazard included in the 2007 Marin Countywide Plan (2015 update)? Is the hazard included in the 2013 or draft 2018 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan? Has the hazard occurred in Marin County and been declared a Presidential or State emergency or disaster in the past 40 years? The results of the screening are presented in Table 3-3. 27 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Table 3-3. Hazard Screening Declared Emergencies Profiled Profiled in and Disasters in 2007 Marin Hazard in prior Y, Profiled in this Plan Ll-IMPs Countywide Marin County, to Present Plan State Federal Agricultural X X No.Human caused, not significant. Snow Avalanche No. Snow extremely rare in this climate. Coastal erosion X X Yes. See Severe Storm. Dam failure X X Yes. See Earthquake. Drought X X X Yes.See Wildfire Earthquake X X X Yes. Sea Level Rise&Storm Surge&Subsidence X Yes. See Severe Storm. Flood X X X X Yes.See Severe Storm. Fog No. Hailstorm No.Hailstorms extremely rare in this climate. Heat Yes. See Wildfire. Hurricane No.Hurricanes do not occwr in this climate. Landslide/mudslide/-'debris X X X Yes. See Severe Storm and flow" Wildfire. Levee Failure X Yes. See Severe Storm. Liquefaction X X Yes. See Earthquake. Severe wind & tornado Yes. See Severe Storm. Severe storm X X Yes. Volcano None. Tsunami/seiche X X Yes. Wildfire/fire X X X X Yes. 28 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis After discussing and reviewing public input on each hazard identified as listed in Table 3-3, the Planning Committee determined that the following hazard groups pose the greatest threat to Marin County and should therefore be profiled or re-profiled in the main body of the MCM LHMP. Hazards specific to individual jurisdictions is profiled in that jurisdiction's annex to the main body of this plan. The Planning Committee's decisions were based on the likelihood of the hazard's occurrence and the feasibility of mitigation. Sections in which hazards are profiled are indicated in parentheses. ❑ Earthquakes and liquefaction (3).3. o Dam failure (3.3.2) ❑ Severe storm (3.3.3) o Debris flow (landslides) (3.3.4) o Flooding (3.3.5) o Wind (3.3.6) ❑ Tsunami (3.3.7) ❑ Wildfire (3.3.8) o Post-fire debris flow (3.3.9) All hazards included in the 2013 Marin County (single jurisdiction) LHMP are included in this multi jurisdictional plan, except for terrorism and agricultural biological hazards as these are caused by human activities and not natural phenomena. Hazards new to the MCM LHMP are: post-fire debris flow and severe storm, which includes wind, in addition to flooding and debris flow which were in the 2013 LHMP (due to the local climate, freezing temperatures and snow are not considered major threats to Marin's infrastructure). Hazards selected for inclusion in this MCM LHMP are those that pose the greatest threat to the County, based on the factors shown in Table 3-3, including the occurrence of a state or presidential disaster declaration for the hazard. Planning Committee members also used their collective knowledge of the hazards and each hazards' potential threat to determine whether or not to include the hazard in this MCM LHMP. This methodology places a focus on current hazards, in which the hazards' threats are easily identifiable, and for which there is a history of the hazards' occurrence. A future hazard that poses a threat to the County is climate change. Climate change is not considered as a separate hazard in this MCM LHMP. Climate change is expected to cause or contribute to numerous other hazards that are already addressed in this and related documents, including wildfires, flooding, severe winter storms, and coastal erosion. For example, two effects of climate change that are already occurring are sea level rise and an increase in the number, frequency, and size of wildfires. "These effects have already been experienced in California over the last century. Wildfires have also increased substantially in frequency, duration, and size in recent years. The forested area burned in the western United States from 1987 to 2003 was 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986. Warmer 29 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis temperatures and longer dry seasons are the main causes of the increase in forest wildfire risk. Sea level in the San Francisco Bay Area has risen eight inches in the past century and could rise nearly 70 inches by the end of the century. Furthermore, as sea level rise submerges more low- lying areas, storm surge will reach further inland, impacting even more of the county's natural and built resources. Additionally, coastal erosion will be exacerbated by rising sea levels, including both beaches and bluff-tops. Sea level rise and future storm effects and potential adaptation measures are being evaluated through County led planning efforts including Bay Adaptation and Waterfront Evaluation (BayWAVE) for bay-side communities and Collaboration Sea Level Marin Adaptation Response Team (C-SMART) for outer coast communities. C-SMART's "Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment" evaluated West Marin vulnerabilities spanning near, medium, and long-term sea level rise and storm scenarios. Likewise, BayWAVE's "Marin Shoreline Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment" analyzed potential physical, social and economic impacts to all of Marin's Bayside communities exposed to sea level rise, up to the end of the century. These two assessments estimate that by 2100 around 7,000 acres, 9,000 parcels, 10,000 buildings and 120 miles of roads throughout Marin County will be exposed to sea level rise and the 100- year storm. Additionally, C-SMART's Adaptation Report outlined potential adaptation solutions for West Marin, including natural and built engineering methods, home retrofits, and relocation of vulnerable assets. Further site-specific evaluation and engineering is necessary to better understand feasibility, environmental impacts, and costs for project implementation. The county is seeking funding for such adaptation planning on Marin's Ocean Coast and Bayside. 3.3 HAZARD PROFILES The hazards selected by the Planning Committee were profiled based on existing available information. The hazard profiling consisted of describing the individual hazard profile, disaster history, location, probability Of future events, extent, impacts, and vulnerability. The hazards profiled for Marin County are presented below in alphabetical order. The order does not signify level of risk. County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation(BayWAVE). (June 20, 20 17)at 25,http://www.marineounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment; County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report(CSMART), September 2015 30 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.1 Earthquakes and Liquefaction Earthquake Hazards (Entire County) � tI i 0 5 10 N Miles Data Source:Marin Map,2018 31 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Hazard Profile According to the 2013 State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (and consistent with the Draft 2018 State Hazard Mitigation Plan) earthquakes represent the most destructive source of hazards in terms of both recent history and probability of future destruction at magnitudes greater than previously recorded. Earthquakes can cause direct damage in several ways including fault rupture, earth shaking, landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis. Indirect effects may include hazardous materials spills, water distribution failure, fires, dam failure, etc. Earth shaking, liquefaction, and darn failure are being described in section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Tsunamis (3.3.7) and fires (3.3.8) are addressed as separate disasters although they can be related. There is not a significant amount of infi-astructure or homes located on faults, so their rupture does not represent a significant risk. Given most of Marin's development occurred prior to modern building codes protecting structures against earthquake damage, severe property damage to public and private structures and infrastructure is likely to occur due to significant earthquakes. This is likely to include large numbers of uninhabitable housing units, and damage to older and not-yet-retrofitted county and city-owned structures, and infrastructure such as roads, electric distribution lines, telecommunications, water, and gas lines. Earthquake aftershocks often occur with additional and unforeseen damage to structures and infrastructure. Disaster History According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Resilience Program, "the San Andreas Fault was the source of the magnitude of 7.8 earthquake in 1906. Marin was sparsely inhabited at that time and experienced relatively moderate property loss and only two deaths. The epicenter was just two miles west of San Francisco and West Mai-in experienced some pronounced earthquake effects. This included a horizontal earth displacement of 21 feet near the head of Tomales Bay." On October 17, 1989, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake occurred on the San Andreas Fault, the largest earthquake to occur in the San Francisco Bay Area since 1906. This earthquake was named the Loma Prieta Earthquake due to its calculated epicenter. The impact of the Loma Prieta Earthquake was most apparent in the northeast area of Santa Cruz. If the fault rupture location were closer, a strong shaking such as this could have caused severe damage within Marin County, including darnage to life-line routes. The Loma Prieta earthquake was not "the big one." which is a common reference to an event with a rna mitude of 8 or larger (such as the 1906 San Francisco quake). Location The potential for earthquake damage exists throughout Marin County because of a combination of the number of active faults within and near the County and the presence of soils vulnerable to liquefaction. These faults are shown on the California Geological Survey (CGS) Fault Activity Map of California (see Figure 3-1. Fault Activity Map below). Descriptions of the most significant active faults to Marin are provided below. 32 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis San Andreas fault: The San Andreas Fault traverses Marin County running north and south in the western quarter of the county. It enters Marin on the Pacific Coast near Bolinas, follows the path of 1-lighway 1 and Tomales Bay, exiting Marin at sea just west of Dillon Beach. Hayward fault: the eastern, more heavily populated part of Mai-in is less than ten miles from the northern section of the Hayward fault. Rodgers Creek fault: The northern part of Marin is less than ten miles from the Rodgers Creels fault. Figure 3-1. Fault Activity Map =74%, �s rro r In � 1• i ac ` .,..., .,.,� V ae vf ] �1r ti r Probability of Future Events According to a September 24. 2016 article in the Marin hndependent Journal, "The Worl<ing Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has updated its earthquake forecast and determined there is a 72 percent probability - up fi-om 63 percent - of at least one earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater striking somewhere in the Bay Area before 2043." The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Resilience Program projects a 52% chance of a 6.7 or greater earthqual<e on one of the faults affecting Marin between now and 2036 (21% at San Andreas fault and 31% on Hayward/Rodgers Creek). Supporting this article's assertions is the Uniform California Earthqual<e Rupture Forecast. Version 3 (UCERF3), which provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time-averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes in California (see Figure 3-2. - - -- Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast below. The primary achievements have been to JJ SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis relax fault segmentation assumptions and to include multifault ruptures, both limitations of the previous model (UCERF2). 2 Figure 3-2. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast t i ` t `r UCERF3 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast(Version 3) r B ) F., t Three-dimensional perspective view of the likelihood {. • thateachregion ofCaliforniawillexperiencea magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake in the next 30 years(b.l matches the magnitude of the 1994 Northridge earthquake,and 30 years is the typical duration of a homeowner mortgage). V1 00 1/100 trto io too 30-year M.:6.7 likelihood Faults are shown by the rectangles outlined in black.The entire colored area represents greater California,and the white line across the middle defines northern versus southern California.Results -- do not include earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone,a 750-mile offshore fault that extends about 150 miles into California from Oregon and Washington to the north. The September 24, 2016 article goes on to say "Marin sits smack dab (sic) in the middle of two major faults. To the east is the Rodgers Creek-Hayward fault just a few miles from Marin's shores through San Pablo Bay, which the U.S. Geological Survey estimates has a 33 percent likelihood of a 6.7-magnitude quake or greater in the next 30 years the highest probability of any Bay Area fault to slip. But movement on those faults could be worse than originally thought. The Rodgers Creek-Hayward fault, thought to be two separate faults. actually may be linked and have the potential to cause more damage than previously determined, according to USGS research... '`The Rodgers Creek Fault runs from Sonoma County into San Pablo Bay neat- Mai-in's shore. The Hayward Fault runs through the western part of Alameda County into San Pablo Bay east of San Rafael and Novato. They were thought to be offset by about two miles under San Pablo Bay. Field, E.H.,Biasi, G.P.,Bird,P.,Dawson,T.E., Felzer, K.R.,Jackson, D.D..Johnson. K.M.,Jordan,T.H., Madden, C., Michael,A.J., Milner, K.R.,Page, M.T., Parsons,T., Powers, P.M., Shaw. B.E..Thatcher, �\.R., Weldon, R.J.,ll. and Zeng, Y.,2013, Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast,version 3 (UCERF,)—The time-independent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1165,97 p., California Geolooical Survey Special Report 228,and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, llttp://pubs.usgs.(,ov/of/2013/1 165/ 34 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis But underwater exploration done in 2014 seems to link them. More study will occur to confirm those initial findings... The majority ofMarin County's single-family buildings with foundations to bedrock will perform well in a shake. Modern multi-story buildings with foundations to bedrock should not be subject to collapse, although some serious damage may occur. However, many heavier developed areas of Marin are built on soft alluvial soils or filled-in water ways. Due to liquefaction, these soils will significantly increase the shaking effects and will account for the majority of damaged and destroyed structures, regardless of their proximity to the fault line. Liquefaction occurs when ground shaking causes loose, saturated soil to lose strength and act as a viscous fluid. When liquefaction occurs, it can result in the sidelong movement of large masses of soil, loss of strength in the soil supporting structures causing structures collapse, and/or consolidation due to soil settlement decreasing soil surface elevations. Extent The most vulnerable areas of Marin are on Bay Mud and current and former marshlands. Many of these areas have been artificially filled over the last century. Other areas with some risk of liquefaction include those along creeks due to fluvial and alluvial deposits. Unfortunately, much of Marin's residential areas and infrastructure are located on former marshes and along creeks. Tens of thousands of acres of residential areas, along with roads, airports, military facilities, retail centers, schools, hospitals, prisons,jails, government administration centers, convention centers, recreation areas, croplands/pasture are in areas vulnerable to liquefaction in Marin. The ABAG Resilience Program analysis shows risk of liquefaction in Corte Madera, Larkspur, Bel Marin Keys, Novato, Ross Valley along creeks (Ross, San Anselmo, Fairfax), San Geronimo, San Rafael, Santa Venetia, communities around Richardson Bay (Belvedere, Marin City, Mill Valley, Sausalito, Strawberry, Tam Valley, Tiburon), Stinson Beach, Tomales Bay-side communities, and the county-owned Gnoss Field Airport. Impacts Most structures in Marin were built before 1970, when major seismic design changes were made to the building code and are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and liquefaction. Wood- framed homes, however, are light and flexible and can often survive earthquakes with minimal damage as long as the foundations are properly retrofitted (bolted and braced). The County of Marin and it's political subdivisions have adopted California Building, Plumbing. Electrical and Mechanical Codes whereby no building or structure is erected, constructed, enlarged. improved. removed, or converted without a permit. Adherence to these codes currently allows the county to G ather data on retrofitting and current building code compliance. It is important to note that these data continue to have limitations for assessing overall vulnerability in the county for all structures. The county's topography includes large areas of steep slopes, adding to the vulnerability of earthquake induced disasters with the additional danger of Debris flow (landslides). Bluff - erosion alongthe coastal areas also posesuniquethreats to coastal structures and roads d1_11-11-10 - times of earthquake. 35 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Vulnerability For all three faults, many areas of the most severe vulnerability to earthquake coincide with the heavily populated Highway 101 corridor on the eastern side of the county. According to the ABAG Resilience Program, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas fault would leave 3.100 homes in Marin uninhabitable, displace 6,200 households, and result in total building damage of$1,260 billion dollars. Because many people in the region do not have earthquake insurance, many homeowners will not be able to afford to rebuild their hornes. Figure 4-2 from the ABAG Resilience Program shows building damage estimates for different earthquake scenarios. In addition to damaging buildings, the San Andreas earthquake could close 77 roads in Marin due to faulting, liquefaction, debris flow/ landslide, shaking damage to bridges and interchanges, threat of building collapse, structural damage to highway and rail structures. small hazardous material releases, water and pas pipe leaks, and other miscellaneous reasons for closure. 36 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.2 Dam Failure Dam Inundation hF r^J, j Dam Inundation Boundaries 0 5 10 N Miles Data Source:Mann Map.2018 >7 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Reservoirs for water supply and the dams that impound them are integral parts of the municipal infrastructure in Marin County. Unlike most other counties in California, Marin does not import or export water through the Central Valley State and Federal water projects. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and the North Marin Municipal Water District (NMWD) operate and maintain eight major dams for municipal water supplies within their jurisdictions (see Table 3-4) MMWD dams include Alpine Dam, Bon Tempe Dam, Lagunitas Dam, Phoenix Dam, Peters Dam (Kent Lake), Nicasio Dam, and Soula_jule Dam. NMWD maintains and operates one dam at Stafford Lake on Novato Creek for its s►naller service area. None of these reservoirs generate hydroelectricity nor are they actively managed for downstream flood control. The California Water Code entrusts dam safety regulatory power to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Dams greater than 6-feet or holding 15 or more acre-feet are subject to DSOD jurisdiction. According to the California water code, owners of regulated dams are responsible for emergency preparedness with regard to potential loss of life or property. All regulated dams are inspected by DSOD annually. MMWD inspection reports are available on their website. As of 2017 DSOD classifies the public safety risk of all jurisdictional dams. Table 3-4. Marin Dams Dam Name Owner Type Reservoir Capacity DSOD Downstream (Reservoir) (acre-feet) Hazard Alpine MMWD Gravity 8,892 Extremely High (concrete) Bon Tempe MMWD Earthen 4,300 High Lagunitas MMWD Earthen 341 Significant Novato Creek NMWD Earthen 4,430 Extremely High (Stafford) Peters (Kent) MMWD Earthen 32,900 High Phoenix MMWD Earthen 612 Extremely High Seeger MMWD Earthen 22,400 High (Nicasio) Soulajule MMWD Earthen 10.700 High Hazard Profile Significant, even catastrophic flooding can occur in valley areas downstream of major dams in the event of a complete or partial dam failure. Such events are extremely rare due to the stringent design and permitting requirements for dam construction and operation. However, in the active tectonic environment of the San Francisco Bay Area. the risk of a dam failure during a major earthquake remains a possibility. Dam failures can occur in response to full or partial structural 38 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis collapse of the dam face (concrete arch dam) or embankment (earthfill dam) during a major earthquake. A dam could also partially rupture during an earthquake and fail completely sometime later due to leakage/seepage through the damaged embankment or darn face. Given the design, construction, and maintenance protections in California, dam failure as a result of an earthquake is considered the most relevant. Disaster History In February 2017 California witnessed the failure of the spillway and emergency spillway at Lake Oroville leading to the evacuation of 188,000 people from the downstream inundation area. Situations like this, overtopping and erosion of a dam's face as a result of flows exceeding the capacity of spillway is another mechanism of dam failure, however reservoir inflows in Marin County do not have to accommodate the volatility of melting snowpack that occurs in the Sierra Nevada foothills. There is no record of a failure of any regulated dam located in Marin County. Location In the l 970s, State law required dam owners to develop maps depicting areas that might be inundated by dam failure. The law required that each map be produced only once, without any requirements for updating. The maps were developed using engineering hydrology principals and represent the best estimate of where the water would flow if the dam completely failed with a full reservoir, ie a worst case scenario. The inundation pathway is based on completely emptying the reservoir and does not include runoff from storms. Dam inundation maps do not indicate the depth of inundation nor do they indicate or infer the probability of such an event occurring. Major dam inundation areas from the ABAG Resilience Program are shown in Fi('Ure 3-3 below. This does not appear to reflect the more recent analysis on the Stafford Dam, however, so an inundation depth grid from that analysis follows. 39 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-3. County-wide Dam Failure Inundation Map from ABAG Resilience Program ,, „ .. 'ted Peters Dam A Inundation, s Area J% ` F ” S I Staffor,dLake p lnugdation Area (outdated) Phoenix Lake4: +"��`w� irtuhdatian _ Probability of Future Events hnundation maps from dam owners aren't required to be updated and are not required to depict the depth of inundation, so they generally represent just a rough estimate of what areas will be affected with no estimate of magnitude. The recent Stafford Dam analysis is of course an exception to this, where we have a depth grid showing a large portion of the City of Novato, including several Ivey facilities there, flooded Linder several feet of water within several hours of a dam breach. The extent of damage from a dam failure at Stafford or Phoenix Lakes would be massive, however both would likely withstand an earthquake at least magnitude 8.2 on the San Andreas Fault, which is a rare magnitude to encounter(8.0 or greater earthquakes are expected once every 494 years in California according to USGS). Extent According to the 1988 Town of Ross General Plan Safety Element, "in 1974, a seismic stability analysis of Phoenix Lake Dam was conducted for the Marin Municipal Water District. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of seismically induced flooding associated with failure of Phoenix Lake Dam. The earth dam was constructed just prior to the 1906 earthquake, which created a landslide on the inside portion of the dam embankment. The slope stability analysis conducted in 1974 concluded that the dam spillway could settle from 4—6 feet during an earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 8.5 generated along the San Andreas fault. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake had a Richter magnitude ()F8.3)...In response to this assessment, the Marin Municipal Water District has widened the spillway by 5 to 6 feet and has lowered the spillway by 6 feet. Accordingly, these improvements to the dam have reduced the flood risk to one flood in 30,000 years." 40 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis According to MMWD, "the dam has been modified several times in the last 100 years including increased height of fill, outlet works changes, an embankment buttress fill in the I 960 and a new spillway, designed for a spillway design flood with a recurrence interval of once in 10,000 years or so, and an increase in freeboard in the mid-1980s." The Town of Ross's 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan states "the dam is inspected yearly by the California Division of Safety of Dams and has been rated by that agency as acceptable for continued operation. Their rating for the facility is 3C, there is a potential for damage should the dam fail but that the dam is in good condition for its age... "MMWD has a comprehensive Dam Safety Program to ensure all of the MMWD dams and spillways are safe and functioning properly. This program includes three main components: monitoring, routine inspections and maintenance, and emergency preparedness and response planning. The district also works closely with state and federal regulators and local emergency response partners to ensure public safety. MMWD produced a February 13, 2017 inspection report documenting the current conditions... "The Phoenix Lake Dam is over 100 years old. According to ABAG, when a dam in known to have a failure potential, the water level is reduced to allow for partial collapse without loss of water as required by the State Division of Safety of Dams and by safety protocols established by dam owners. Thus, the probability of failure resulting in damage fi-om the inundation is low." According to the City ofNovato's 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, a seismic stability analysis prepared for the North Marin Water District by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1992 confirmed the Stafford Dam was designed to withstand a magnitude 8.25 Richter earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, with a design epicenter located 10 miles fi-om the dam. Impacts Failure of Phoenix dam would flood about 5 miles along Ross Creels down to the "Town of Ross, part of San Anselmo where Ross Creek meets Corte Madera Creek, to unincorporated Kentfield and Greenbrae, and out into San Pablo Bay. The inundated portion of San Anselmo consists of small commercial buildings (some with housing units) and apartment buildings. Ross would be more severely affected with many homes and businesses. a couple major roads, and a fire station in the inundation zone. The unincorporated communities downstream also contain some major roads, many residences, a fire station, and a hospital in the inundation zone. Lagunitas, Bon Tempe, Alpine and Peters dams are a series along LaL'unitas Creek increasing in size going downstream. Failure of the Peters or Alpine Dam could result in flooding in unincorporated areas in West Marin stretching about 10 miles from the reservoir down to Point Rees Station at Highway I and into Tomales Bay. On its path it could flood around 5 miles of a major road, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, which runs along La-Unitas Creek. and several dozen buildings along that road. It could flood Samuel P. Taylor State Park camping areas. The inundation area turns from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard down Platform Bridge Road towards Point Reyes Petaluma Road. Eventually the inundation area reaches Point Reyes Station, going right through the middle of this small town where there is a County fire station. elementary school, senior housing, and a healthcare facility. 41 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis The inundation area from Nicasio dam is largely coincident with the Peters Dam inundation area starting in the vicinity ol'Point Reyes Petaluma Road and Platform Bridge Road. The population that would affected by a failure of the Peters or Nicasio dams are very small relative to the Phoenix and Stafford dams. Failure of the Stafford dam would affect an area that extends approximately 5 miles through incorporated and unincorporated parts of Novato and ending in San Pablo Bay at Bel Marin Keys. Although the probability is remote, the North Marin Water District and City of Novato take this threat very seriously and recently updated the inundation modeling and mapping, developed an emergency action plan, and conducted a tabletop exercise. The new analysis showed the San Marin residential area inundated with 1 foot of water in about half an hour, rising to 9 feet in some areas. In 1-2 hours central Novato is flooded with 1 foot of water, later rising up to 7 feet in some areas, affecting medical facilities, educational facilities, shopping centers, law enforcement, fire stations, and City Hall. Highway 101 is affected within 2-4 hours, with depths reaching more than 9 feet in some locations. Beyond Highway 101, the Novato Sanitary District floods after 2 hours, up to 5 feet. From 4 to 9 hours flooding passes Highway 37 and reaches Bel Marin Keys. Vulnerability Because of the catastrophic nature of the threat of dam inundation, dams tend to be built conservatively and the actual likelihood of either dam overflow or dam failure are extremely low. As stated above, the Stafford and Phoenix Lake dams are expected to withstand an earthquake at least magnitude 8.2 on the San Andreas Fault, which is a rare magnitude to encounter (8.0 or greater earthquakes are expected once every 494 years in California according to USGS). 42 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.3 Severe Storm Hazard Profile The climate on California's central coast is Mediterranean, in which summers are warm and dry and winters are cool and damp. A dominating factor in the weather of California is the semi- permanent high-pressure area of the North Pacific Ocean, sometimes called the Pacific High. This pressure center moves northward in summer. holding storm tracks well to the north, and as a result California receives little or no precipitation during that period. The Pacific High decreases in intensity in winter and moves farther south, permitting storms to move into and across the state and producing strong winds, widespread rain at low elevations, and snow at high elevations. From mid-autumn to mid-spring is the rainy season. During these months, storms may occur. In addition to strong winds and flooding, storms on rare occasions can bring hail and/or lightning to all areas of the County. Disaster History Marin County was included in the Presidential Disaster Declarations for Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides on April 1, 2017; February 14, 2017: June 5, 2006; and February 3, 2006; making severe storms the most frequent cause of major disasters affecting Marin in the last 20 years. A review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)National Climatic Data Center(NCDC) database reveals that, although most not considered disasters, 1 l3 major severe storm events occurred in Marin County betvA een 1996 and 2010. Of these events, 12 caused deaths or injuries, and 65 damaged property. According to NOAA, total property damage estimates (including crops) during this period were $278 million, with some of the most significant (over $50,000 in damage) events listed below in Table 3-5. Table 3-5. Severe Winter Storm Events from NOAA's NCDC Location Event Type(s) Year Damage Est.* Tomales Tornado 1996 $205,000 Southern Marin Flash Flood 1998 $2,000,000 Corte Madera Heavy Rain 2002 $200,000 Coastal Marin Coastal Flood 2005/2006 $340,000 Countywide Flood 2005/2006 $219,000,000 Interior Valleys Debris Flow 2006 $45,900,000 Coastal Marin Strong Wind _ 2006 $500,000 Interior Valleys Frost/Freeze 2007 $3,000,000 43 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Corte Madera Flash Flood 2008 $50,000 Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2009 $140,000 and Mountains Countywide Flood/Wind 2009 $260,000 (Santa Venetia) Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2009 $85,000 Coastal Marin Coastal Flood, Strong 2010 $770,000 Wind, Flood Countywide Heavy Rain/Strong Wind 2010 $100,000 (Larkspur) Countywide Strong Wind 2010 $85,000 Coastal Marin Strong Wind/Storm Surge 2011 $325,000 Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2011 $50,000 Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2011 $200,000 Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2012 $60,000 Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2012 $501,500 and Coast Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2012 $150,000 Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2012 $50,100 Countywide Flood/Strong Wind 2012 $210,100 Mountains Strong Wind 2013 $80,000 Countywide Flash Flood/Debris Flow 2014 $6,001,000 (Greenbrae, Novato, Marin City, Tamalpais Valley, Olema) Interior Strong Wind 2014 $115,600 Valleys/Coast Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2015 $23,500 and Mountains Mill Valley AFS Heavy Rain 2015 No data Interior Valleys Coastal Flood 2016 No data Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2016 No data Alto Flash Flood 2016 No data San Rafael and Flood 2017 No data 44 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Corte Madera Kentfield Flash Flood 2017 No data Tomales Flood 2017 No data Corte Madera Flood 2017 No data lgnacio, Burdell, Strong Wind, Flash 2017 No data Marin City, Flood, Flood Mountains Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2017 No data Mountains Strong Wind 2017 No data Mountains and Strong Wind 2017 No data Coast Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2017 No data and Mountains Greenbrae and Strong Wind, Flood 2017 No data Mountains Interior Valleys Strong Wind 2017 No data and Coast Corte Madera Flood 2018 No data `Damages as listed on NOAA website are in some cases less than local estimates. For example, in 2014 it was estimated in a December 29, 2014 news release from the Marin County Office of Emergency Services that there was approximately $13.3 million in damages countywide. Not included in the available dataset is $8,760,000 in damages reported to the Marin County Board of Supervisors on March 14, 2017 related to disasters declared in January and February of 2017. Damage consisted of 10 debris flows (landslides), 3 badly eroded levees, damage to various storm water pumps and generators, and many sites of downed trees and other debris. Location Many events in the NCDC database described above affected all of Marin County. Indeed, the entire county is susceptible to storms and damage fi-om wind. The coastal and mountainous areas are particularly susceptible to wind, although wind has caused damages throughout the county. Coastal areas are susceptible to storm surge and high tides. Flash flood primarily affects interior valleys, although there are some flashy coastal streams. Localized stormwater ponding and clogged drainage occurs in countless areas throughout Marin during storms and although it can be hazardous, particularly to vehicles when the depth of water is greater-than 6" in the road, it is not considered a major hazard for the purpose of this plan as there is not a significant threat to critical structures. 45 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Probabilitv of Future Events Based on recent history, severe winter storms occur every year, but those leading to federally declared disasters seem to occur about every 10 years—often in clusters and associated with high tides and/or atmospheric rivers. More details on probability of hazards associated with storms are contained in the following sections detailing debris flows, flooding, and wind. Extent A storm can cause heavy rains, flash flooding, tidal flooding, and wind speeds of up to 70 miles per hour. More details on extent of hazards associated with storms are contained in the following sections detailing debris flows, flooding, and wind. Impacts Details on impacts on structures, infrastructure, and systems due debris flows, flooding, and wind are outlined in the following sections. Vulnerability Vulnerability to debris flows, flooding, and wind are outlined in the following sections. 46 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.4 Debris Flow (Landslides) Landslide Hazards � F µ . Landslide PType Few Landslides Many Landslides Mostly Landslide N Surficial Deposits Water 0 5 10 Miles Data Source:Marin Map,2018 47 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Hazard Profile 1,andslide is a general term for the dislodging and fall of a mass of soil or rocks along a sloped surface or the dislodged mass itself. The term is used for varying phenomena, including mudflows, mudslides, debris flows, rock falls, rock slides, debris avalanches, debris slides, and slump-earth flows. Landslides can be earthquake-induced or non-earthquake induced. Earthquake-induced landslides occur as a result of ground shaking. The most common earthquake-induced landslides include shallow rock falls, disrupted rock slides, and disrupted slides of earth and debris. Non- earthquake induced landslides may involve a wide range of combinations of natural rock, soil. or artificial fill. The susceptibility of hillside and mountainous areas to non-earthquake induced landslides depends on variations in geology, topography, vegetation, and weather. They may also occur due to indiscriminate development of sloping ground or the creation of cut-and-fill slopes in areas of unstable or inadequately stable geologic conditions. Non-earthquake-induced landslides can often occur as a result of intense or prolonged precipitation that can saturate slopes and cause failures. Another example of a non-earthquake-induced landslide is that which results from physical undermining of a slope. Most commonly this can occur as a result of high volume and/or high velocity water flows of a creek which lead to scour at the toe of a sloped creek bank. This phenomenon can also occur as a result of man-made excavations where a slope is destabilized as a result of improperly removing soil at the toe of a slope which over time leads to failure of that slope. Prolonged and/or heavy precipitation leads to increases in landslide events in Marin County more often than other natural phenomena referenced above; therefore, it is being addressed as a subset of Severe Storm hazards. There is more about debris flow in the wildfire section (3.3.9 Post-Fire Debris Flow). Disaster History Marin County has sustained significant damage as a result of several natural disasters in recent years. Most notable were the Winter and Spring storms of 2006 (DR-1628 and DR-1646) which resulted in hundreds of locations in Marin County where damage occurred; many of those being landslides, rock fall, or other infrastructure damage related to slope instability. Most recently. severe damage occurred during the January and February Winter storms of 2017 (DR-4305 and DR-4308) resulting in over 100 locations in Marin County where damage occurred. Landslides are a part of natural geologic processes and have impacted both private and public property in various areas throughout Marin County since development began. Much of Marin County was developed in the early 20`x' century prior to the implementation of grading requirements and road design standards. During this time, many of the roads in Marin County were benched or cut into steep hillsides without sufficient compaction of the roadbed. Furthermore, the use of earth retaining structures was not common in roadway construction and'or retaining structures were built using wood materials that have since deteriorated. Marin County is largely undeveloped and has a widespread natural environment where creeks and rivers adjoin both private and public infrastructure. During times of intense rainfall, creeks rise and the resulting high flows can erode roadway supporting earthen embankments leading to landslides and sometimes property damage. 48 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis An example fi-onn the history of debris flow in the county is the bluff along the Bolinas Mesa in the unincorporated town of Bolinas has been associated with a variety of landslide activity. The major cause of earth movement in this area is the extensive presence oil-weak cohesion-less (sandy) soils combined with undermining wave action at the toe of the bluff. As wave action removes toe-supporting soils, the outer face of the bluff slumps or creeps downwards causing settlement and landslides at the top of the Mesa. In 2011, a $1.5M emergency slide repair was constructed at the intersection of Terrace Avenue and Overlook Drive on the Bolinas Mesa to repair recent drastic settlement (up to 8-feet) such that access for emergency vehicles and resident egress could be maintained. As much as 20,000 cubic yards of material was excavated and re-compacted in lifts with earth reinforcing fabric to affect the repair. Location California Geological Survey has an interactive landslide inventory map available on their website (http:/hnaps.conservation.ca.gov/c/cgs/Isi/) that shows records associated with past landslide events in Marin County. A snapshot is in Figure 3-4 below. The inventory shows extensive areas of prior landslides around the county particularly in developed areas. Affected areas notably include many landslides near Bolinas Lagoon, Inverness and Bolinas (Point Reyes Station) ridges on the west coast; throughout Ross Valley including Sleepy Hollow, Fairfax and San Anselmo; San Rafael just outside downtown at Lincoln, Lock Lomond affecting many residences, San Quentin potentially affecting a wastewater treatment plant, and Bret Harte potentially affecting Highway 101; Santa Venetia affecting N. San Pedro Rd; Novato at Little Mountain and Mount Burdell affecting major roads such as Center Road, San Marin Drive and Novato Blvd and their nearby residential areas; Paradise Cay and Reed residential areas near Tiburon-, and Mill Valley at Homestead Valley. Smaller scale, and/or more isolated slides occur throughout the county where there are slopes. These are typically of concern if there are roads or structures affected. 49 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-4. California Department of Conservation Landslide Inventory ti � d , IE 3 f y is Y• moria► i,. 38.168 -122.799 degrees Probability of Future Events Slope instability throughout much of Marin County is related to many factors, including, but not limited to; type(s) of soil involved and various geologic factors (presence of faults or other weakened soil planes), steepness of the slope and surrounding topography, intensity and duration of rainfall, presence of underground springs or groundwater, adequacy of surface water management, and proper erosion protection. While landslides occur in any given year, the frequency and number of landslides has been observed to be directly proportionate to the frequency and duration of rainfall events. Landslides are less likely to occur during the fall months (October-November) when the ground is sufficiently dry and can absorb the moderate rain events typically observed during this time of year. Landslides are more often observed between December and May when rain events are usually more intense and/or frequent. Under these circumstances, the ground has been saturated, becomes heavier, and the presence ofwater within the soil increases the pore pressure thereby reducing the friction between soil particles—which leads to sliding. Proper drainage management to maintain existing sufficient drainage patterns (on both private and public lands) is essential to limiting potential future landslide events. In Marin County, renewed and 50 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis potentially widespread landslide activity will most likely occur during or after future periods of prolonged or intense rainfall. Extent The extent of typical landslides in Marin County, as estimated from previous occurrences, is on the order of 500 cubic yards of material displaced from an area 100 feet long and 30 feet deep. According to County engineering staff, we seem to have bad slide years during heavy storms every five years. During these years, the County repairs a half dozen slides or more, so there might be a dozen bad slides across the County including incorporated areas. According to NOAA, the 5-year recurrence interval precipitation amount is 4 inches of rain in 12 hours, 5.8 inches of rain in 24 hours, or 7.6 inches of rain in 2 days. Marin County is hilly and the distribution of the landslide hazard is varied across the county as indicated in figure 3.3.4. The combination of factors that cause landslides, including geology, vegetation, local drainage, and local grading make slope a poor proxy of landslide risk. However, parcels with an average slope above 20 are considered hillside lots and risks of slides are present slopes of 30 and above. Slopes as high as 60 or 65 are common on hillsides throughout the county. Impacts Historic development in Marin tends to be concentrated in small areas, with many homes located along creeks and on steep hillsides potentially impacted by precipitation-induced landslides. Thousands of existing structures have the potential to be impacted by landslides, including over ten thousand single family homes, in addition to multi-family, commercial structures, and structures on a few industrial parcels. Notably, hundreds of miles of roads are potentially impacted by landslides which can lead to their short-term closure during and after intense storm events. Some power-utility facilities could also be affected. For most jurisdictions, at least 10% of its homes and roadways are potentially impacted by landslides. Vulnerability Landslides due to storms are a relatively frequent occurrence in many populated areas of the County, making the county quite vulnerable to landslides. The following tables summarize countywide vulnerability to debris flow (data from Marin County Department of Public Works sources). Existing Structures Commercial Industrial Single-Family Multi-Family 96 3 10,346 1,897 51 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Transportation Miles of Roads Miles of Railroad Number of Ferry Terminals 562 0 0 Communication MERA Towers I Power Transmission Substation Natural Gas Miles of Electric Miles of Natural Tower Substation Transmission Lines Gas Pipeline 4 2 0 25 5 Water/Sewerage Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Station 0 0 Critical Facilities Schools Police & Fire Medical Airports/Heli Cultural Resources 2 6 0 0 4 52 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.5 Flooding Special. Flood Hazard Areas a >3 Y- g� r � z Flood Zone A Yt AE AH AO N v VE 0 5 10 Miles Data Source:Marin Map,2018 53 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Hazard Profile A flood occurs when the existing channel of a stream, river, canyon, or other watercourse cannot contain excess runoff from rainfall or snowmelt, resulting in overflow onto adjacent lands. In coastal areas, flooding may occur when strong winds or tides result in a surge of seawater into areas that are above the normal high tide line. Other types of flooding in Marin include isolated ponding and stormwater overflow. Isolated ponding is when pools form on the ground and can occur in any area that doesn't drain effectively—for example. in a natural depression in the landscape. Stormwater overflow is when storm drains back up. Stormwater drainage systems quickly convey rainwater through underground pipes to creeks and the Bay. When the stormdrains are obstructed or broken or when the water-bodies to which they lead to are already full, water backs up onto the streets. Although stormwater overflow and isolated ponding also occur throughout the County, the effects are typically not widespread or significantly damaging. A floodplain is the area adjacent to a watercourse or other body of water that is subject to recurring floods. Floodplains may change over time from natural processes, changes in the characteristics of a watershed, or human activity such as construction of bridges or channels. In areas where flow contains high sediment load, such as Easkoot Creek in Stinson Beach (due to an active landslide upstream), the flow carrying capacity of the channel may be reduced dramatically during a single flood event. Coastal Floodplains may also change over time as waves and currents alter the coastline (especially wetlands) and sea levels rise. Physical damage from floods includes the following: ❑ Inundation of structures, causing water damage to structural elements and contents. ❑ Erosion or scouring of stream banks, roadway embankments, foundations, footings for bridge piers, and other features. ❑ Impact damage to structures, roads, bridges, culverts, and other features from high velocity flow ❑ Deposition of debris carried by floodwaters to roads, structures, crossings, etc. Such debris may also accumulate on bridge piers and in culverts, increasing loads on these features or causing overtopping or backwater effects. ❑ Destruction of crops, erosion of topsoil, and deposition of debris and sediment on croplands. U. Release of sewage and hazardous or toxic materials when wastewater treatment plants are inundated, storage tanks are damaged, and pipelines severed. Floods also cause economic losses through permanent or temporary closures of businesses, homes, local/state roadways, and government facilities; disrupt communications; disrupt the provision of utilities such as water- and sewer; result in excessive expenditures for emergency response and may limit the access of emergency responders; and generally disrupt the normal function of a community. In areas such as Marin County that do not have extended periods of below-freezing temperatures or significant snowfall, floods usually occur during the season of highest precipitation or during heavy rainfalls after prolonged dry periods. Marin County is dry during the late spring summer, 54 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis and early fall and receives most of its rain during the winter months. The rainfall season extends from November through April, with most rainfall occurring during this period. Due to varying microclimates within the County, rainfall in water-year 2016-2017 where there are Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District-owned gages ranged inland from as low as 47 inches in Novato to over 82 inches in Kentfield. Along the coast, rainfall ranged fi-om 36 inches at Oceana Marin to 45 inches at Point Reyes Station. In should be noted winter 2016-2017 was an unusually wet year. An average of 56 inches of rain falls each year at the summit of Mount Tamalpais, at 2,572 feet elevation. The rain collects in several channels, flowing down steep slopes and onto broad, flat valleys, many of which are populated. The valleys usually only receive on average 32 inches of rain per year, thus flows from the uplands contribute greatly to flows on the valley floor. During most rainfall events, waterways remain within their channels or underground pipes until they reach a bay or the ocean. Riverine flooding is caused by creek overflow when their banks spill. Naturally, waterways regularly overflowed onto an adjacent floodplain. Buildings are now often located on these flood plains. The size and slope of a channel, blockages, proximity to the bay, and constrictions obstructing flow such as bridges, utility pipes, or adjacent buildings influence riverine flooding. Prior to development, Marin's flat lowlands flooded frequently. When rain fell on Marin, it infiltrated into the ground and moved slowly toward the creek channel. The ground acted like a sponge, storing water and releasing it slowly. While water moved underground, it was naturally cleansed by physical and biological processes. Annual floods brought life-giving water to parched floodplains, nourishing therm with fresh sediment. They recharged aquifers and allowed fish to swim over normally dry land that was rich with food. Tides flooded biologically rich marshes along the bay perimeter twice a day. When humans began to develop the land, we created conflicts between what we built and the natural tendency of creeks to flood. Much of the development in Marin was built in flood-prone areas which put it at risk of inundation. Roads, parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces prevent water from infiltrating the ground. hnstead, it moves quickly across the landscape into pipes and creeks further increasing flood risk downstream. Homes, commercial areas, schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, roads and highways, sanitary sewers and waterlines, sewage treatment plants, pump stations are all located in floodplains in Mai-in. All of Marin's watersheds are small and largely prone to flash flooding. Flash floods are particularly dangerous. The National Weather Service (NWS) defines a flash flood as one in which the peals flow travels the length of a watershed within a 6-hour period. These floods arise when storms produce a high volume of rainfall in a short period over a watershed where runoff collects quickly. They often affect populated areas of Mai-in's cities and towns. They often strike with little warning and are accompanied by high velocity flow. Several Marin Communities, such as Tannalpais Valley, Santa Venetia, Corte Madera, Belvedere, and parts of Strawberry, Novato, and Ross Valley are protected by levees. Levees are typically earthen embankments designed to contain, control, or divert the flow of water to provide some level of protection from flooding. No levee system provides full protection from all flooding events to the people and structures located behind it. Some level of flood risk exists in the levee- affected areas. Except for one levee system in Novato-Hamilton. none of the County's levees are FEMA-accredited. Manny were built many decades ago (non-engineered)by farmers or developers and material may have been added over the years. 55 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Levee failure is the overtopping, breach or collapse of the levee. Levees can fail in the event of an earthquake, internal erosion, poor engineering/construction or landslides, but levees most commonly fail as a result of significant rainfall or very high tides. During a period of heavy rainfall, the water on the water-body side of the levee can build up and either flow over the top ("overtopping") or put pressure on the structure causing quickening seepage and subsequent erosion of the earth. The overflow of water washes away the top portion of the levee, creating deep grooves. Eventually the levee weakens, resulting in a breach or collapse of the levee wall and the release of uncontrollable amounts of water. Disaster History Since the middle of the last century, the winter/spring storms of 1950, 1955*, 1958*, 1963, 1964*, 1969*, 1970*, 1973*, 1978, 1980, 1982*, 1983*, 1986*, 1995*, 1996, 1997*, 1998*, 2002, 2005/2006*, 2006*, 2008, 2014, and 2017* caused significant damage. *Major Federal Disasters declared for flood. Typically storms in which high tides coincide with peals stormwater flow are the most damaging. The New Year's Eve 2005-2006 flood was the last major riverine flooding event that caused widespread damage in Marin. Localized flooding occurred in almost all areas of tile County in the 2006 winter storm. San Anselmo, Ross, Fairfax, and Mill Valley were the most heavily impacted. Power outages peaked at 10,000 customers in January. Nine schools closed due to mud, water and road damages and over 20 major roads were closed during the early part of the storm. Corte Madera Creek in San Anselmo, Ross and Fairfax; Novato Creels; Easkoot Creek in Stinson Beach; and Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio in Mill Valley overflowed their banks. West Creels in Tiburon would also have overflowed its banks but was prevented by a water- inflated property protection bag. Per Table 4-3, at least $219 million in damage was reported in Marin due to this storm, including $94 million in the Ross Valley (Corte Madera Creek) Watershed alone. Over a thousand homes, apartments and businesses were damaged or destroyed. Prior-to 2006, the last flood of similar magnitudes occurred in 1982 and 1983. Many improvements were made to flood facilities since then, particularly in Novato. Novato Creek in the northern part of the county historically caused damage to large numbers of homes, particularly in the 1960's. until the Novato Flood Control Project was completed in eight construction phases starting in the 1980's and continuing through 2006. Novato still experiences some damage during significant winter storms despite the completed Novato Creek Flood Control project. For example, over a million dollars-worth of levee damage occurred in 2014 and 2017 and a heavy burden on stormwater pumping systems caused additional damage to pumping system components. Power outages are also a frequent problem for one of the major- pump stations in the area. Although the current Corte Madera Creek Flood Control project is partially complete (Unit 4 in the Town of Ross is yet to be constructed), flooding will still occur for storms greater than about a 5-year recurrence flood event. Potentially all nine southerly and some centrally located communities of Marin County on this creek are impacted by high tides and heavy rains in above average winter storms. The north-east part of the county, densely populated around the floodplain zones, is threatened every winter and still experiences some damage during winter storms despite the completed Novato Creek Flood Control project. 56 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis E, it VNMMI :. Ruud of 1925: Ros business dlslAL(Photo: €'ou0c,ofBarin Rimm,Mcum) owv v- RUN }epy 9 I r � r r € luod of 1982: Awt (2lmo.Whoto: Courteti� of s;ln AnsJmo llistor�Museum) M qy Irrnl A 1983: SAnki I cnvtb (1'I (wo: Win mm') 1)qmi meat of WE orksl 57 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis f AM- I loo of Dcccmhcr31,200-): tion Anse Imo.(Photo: Marin County Department oCPuhIic 1t r,rksl Location Major county watersheds where significant numbers of structures are at risk from riverine flooding include Coyote Creels, Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, East and West Creek watersheds, Corte Madera Creek, Novato and Rush Creeks, Miller Creek, Easkoot Creek (Stinson Beach), Gallinas Creek. Additionally, many locations along Richardson Bay, Tomales Bay, lower Las Gallinas Creek, the San Rafael Canal, East San Rafael and Novato shores, and the outer Pacific coastline are vulnerable to coastal flooding. In many cases, where there is a significant history of flooding there is a Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District "Flood Zone" established. There are 8 County Flood Zones located in the following areas as described in Table 3-6 and mapped in Figure 3-5. Table 3-6. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District "Flood Zones" "Zone No. Name Location 1 Novato Northern Marin: Most of City of Novato and some surrounding areas within the Novato Creek watershed. 3 Richardson Bay Southern Marin: Marin City watershed, Coyote Creek watershed (includes Tamalpais Valley and Almonte) Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio watershed and Ryan Creek watershed (both include much of the City of Mill Valley), a watershed including Sutton Manor/Alto/part of Strawberry. 4 Bel Aire Southern 1Vlarin: East and West Creek watersheds which run through the Be] Aire neighborhood of the Town of Tiburon and part of(unincorporated) Strawberry. 5 Stinson Beach West Marin: Part of the lower Easkoot Creek watershed 58 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis at Stinson Beach. 6 San Rafael Meadows Central Marin: A part of the Las Gallinas Creek watershed in the City of San Rafael across from the County Civic Center. 7 Santa Venetia Central Marin: The unincorporated community of Santa Venetia along Las Gallinas Creek. 9 Ross Valley Central Marin: The Corte Madera Creek watershed, including the towns of Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross, and Larkspur, as well as unincorporated parts of San Anselmo, Fairfax, Kentfield and Greenbrae. 10 Inverness West Marin: hnverness, along the west shore of Tomales Bay and the East flank of Inverness Ridge. 59 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-5. Marin Count), Flood Control & Water Conservation District "Zones" (ioa SONOMA lk Al 5 �t t i ` / Pt Reyes t /6C '' tt 5tation? ,� t z t ¢ / N., " u K- / y P , zll a f era ' Tiburon Plaod Control Zone rffi. Fbr, rtls.n Etsy _ L-_ fie, A ', �.rza-0el a.re�..0 Sva.:b„rp Cade �� Zone 5-Stinson Geo& .SJ Ra.ael M1e,:u.ty 1`+;s.-E`-'• j{ Zrnir-Set-i rtv Zane 90-1n ernes ' County of Marin Flood Control ZonesCounty of Public Works www.marinwatershed5.org 60 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis All incorporated cities and towns in Marin have flood risk—and are in fact participants in the National Flood Insurance Program. Even those that are not in a Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District"Flood Zone," have robust maintenance and capital improvement programs that help manage and mitigate flood risk. These cities without District Flood Zones include most of San Rafael and Tiburon, and all of Corte Madera, Sausalito, and Belvedere. Additionally, San Ansehno, Ross, Larkspur, Fairfax, Mill Valley and Novato have flood mitigation programs that operate largely independently of the Flood District, although extensive coordination oil-activities and collaboration with the Flood District is facilitated through the Marin County Watershed Program (part of the County Department of Public Works). Every city and town, and many unincorporated communities in Marin contain FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), meaning they have at least a 1% chance of flooding in a given year. They all participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and many of the structures in the SFHA carry FEMA flood insurance or private flood insurance. Marin County and its cities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP makes Federally-backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in communities that adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. Table 3-7 lists the date of the initially mapped FIRM, the emergency/regular program entrance date into the NFIP, and the number of policies in force. Table 3-7. Date of Initially Mapped FIRM and Emergency/Regular Program Entrance Date into NFIP for Marin County and Cities County/Conuntill ity Date of Initially Emergency/Regular Program Number of Policies in Name Mapped FIRM Entrance Date into NFIP Force Marin County 3/1/82 3/1/82 2040 City of Sausalito 9/30/80 9/30/82 78 Town of Tiburon 5/16/77 5/16/77 142 City of Belvedere 5/2/77 5/2/77 283 City of Mill Valley 1/3/79 1/3/79 725 City of Novato 1/19/78 1/19/78 1472 City of San Rafael 5/1/84 5/1/84 1565 Town of San Anselmo 12/1/77 12/1/77 558 Town of Ross 2/4/81 2/4/81 194 City of Larkspur 3/15/84 3/15/84 580 Town of Fairfax 1/5/78 1/5/78 204 Town of Corte Madera 12/15/77 12/15/77 588 Source: FEMA NFIP_effective 11/30/17 61 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Probability of Future Events The County of Marin has several major 100-year and 500-year floodplains which are mapped by FEMA in the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), several of which were recently updated in 2016 and 2017. These floodplains can be viewed for whatever your area of interest on MarinMap.org, where you can also overlay the floodplains with the locations of critical facilities like Fire Stations, Medical Facilities, and Law Enforcement. While they may look small relative to the size of the County as a while, the bulk of the floodplains are located in some of the County's most heavily populated areas along the eastern shoreline: notably portions of Novato. San Rafael, and Mill Valley. These floodplains vary in size, probability and severity of inundation, underlying causes (riverine, tidal, etc.), and potential impacts to the communities in them. The areas of most concern are located in what is designated by FEMA as a 100-year flood zone or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Due to the increased probabilities of flooding (I% chance in any given year), these properties face high insurance premiums and major restrictions on further development. Along the Pacific Ocean there are a number of homes in Stinson Beach which are mapped as being in a VE zone. A VE zone is a 100-year flood zone where tsunamis or other forms of wave action threaten low lying coastal areas. For some of the developments along the San Francisco Bay, such as Santa Venetia and Tamalpais Valley, the main issues concern poor drainage due to flat terrain and/or differential settlement, low elevation relative to the tides, and the reliance on a system of pumps and levees to keep floodwaters fi-om inundating homes. Runoff collecting in this area can be especially difficult to remove during high tides. Other more inland areas, such as areas along Corte Madera Creek and its tributaries, have higher elevations yet still contain properties located in I00-year flood zones. This is mainly due to threats caused by local creeks which have a tendency to overflow their banks when rainfall reaches critical levels. Properties along Novato Creek and its tributaries face similar threats. The main stems of these creeks and manN of their tributaries are constrained by development on the banks. Extent When flooding occurs in Marin County, depths are commonly on the order of 0-2 feet in streets and sidewalks. This level occurs when storm drains are overwhelmed and/or during king tides. Flood depths on the order of 2- 4 feet have occurred in recent memory and represent significant flood events that caused damage to structures and property. 1982 was the flood of record along Corte Madera Creek in Central Marin County and probably had some inundations depths as high as 5 feet. Also in 1982 a levee in Santa Venetia in unincorporated San Rafael was breached by tidal elevations and flooded the neighborhood with 2-3 feet of water. In 2016 the FEMA San Francisco Bay Coastal Study became effective and raised the static Base Flood Elevation of the Bay to an eleN ation of I 0-1'eet NAVD88. This level of flooding has not been observed but is feasible in any _,iven year. If this level of tidal flooding was to occur along 62 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis the bay shoreline there would be inundation depths as much as 6-8 feet in neighborhoods such as Santa Venetia. On Mai-in's outer coast V zones have BFEs of up to 22 feet according to FIRMs updated August 2017. In the unincorporated community of Stinson Beach this corresponds to a maximum inundation depth of 8-I0 feet. Although some houses were destroyed by wave action and storm surge during the 1982 event, nothing approaching this level of inundation has occurred in recorded history here. The other index for extent is the speed of onset of flooding or the rainfall-runoff lag time, which doesn't apply to tidal flooding. The riverine flooding comes directly fi-om rainfall runoff of adjacent uplands in the County's series of relatively small, short watersheds. While antecedent moisture is a big factor, this flash flooding is typically short duration and directly associated with the magnitude of the passing storm system. These storms, often in the form of atmospheric rivers coming off the Pacific Ocean, can last anywhere from a few hours to a day or two. The speed of onset of flooding ranges from minutes to about 2 hours after the precipitation exceeds the drainage capacity. The diversity and dispersion of Marin County's flood hazards, in addition to the tendency for floods to be flashy in nature, make response to emergencies more difficult and increase the need for planning and community awareness in areas of increased flood risk. While property damage to structures within I00-year flood zones is a major concern, damage to roads, utilities, and other supporting infrastructure located in these zones can potentially impact areas of the community outside of the flood zones as well. Dealing with flooding fi•om rain and upstream runoff is already complicated. Sea level rise will make it even more complicated by increasing the frequency and duration of flooding. When water temperature increases, water expands and takes up more space than cold water. As the planet warms, the water in the ocean warms, expands, and elevates sea levels. The changing climate has also melted parts of the ice caps at the North and South Poles. As this ice melts and flows into the ocean, it increases the amount of water in the ocean and raises sea levels even more. Sea levels in San Francisco Bay have risen seven inches over the past century. Predictions of future sea level rise vary from 12 inches by 2030 to 60 inches by 2100. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) recommends using 36 inches of sea level rise for planning purposes. Rising sea levels increase the upstream extent of tidal flooding, worsen creek overflow due to backwater effects of elevated high tides, and create larger, stronger waves which erode the shoreline and destroy sensitive marshes. Coastal flooding will have a large impact on cities and habitat. A 36-inch increase in sea levels will greatly impact peoples lives throughout Marin. Daily high tides will inundate major thoroughfares, schools, retirement communities, private homes, shopping areas, bike paths, and stormwater-detention ponds. Valuable marsh and mudflat habitat will be permanently flooded. Infrastructure will need to be armored, abandoned, or relocated. Shorelines will be eroded by increased wave erosion, threatening even more infrastructure. With sea level rise it is projected that more land along Macro's coastline and bayside will be permanently inundated or subject to more regular flooding. while the fi-equency and intensity of _storm events are anticipated to increase with climate change,_Greater riparian flooding may also occur with sea level rise and future storm events. though modeling is necessar\ to better understand the extent of such hazards. As previously discussed best available yea level rise and 63 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis future flood models indicate that by 2100 around 7,000 acres, 9,000 parcels, 10,000 buildings and 120 miles of roads throughout Marin County may be exposed flooding due to future sea level rise and 100-year storm events.3 Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio is at risk of overtopping due to less than a 5-year flow. On average Corte Madera Creek and Easkoot Creek are at risk of overflowing their banks due to 5- 10 year flow events. Novato Creek overflows in some locations due to 10-year flow. Coyote Creek and Gallinas Creek are more vulnerable to overtopping due to tidal elevations and may be able to carry 100-year riverine flows at low tides. The probability of future levee failures in Marin County is largely unknown but may result from a large winter storm or seismic event. Where more is known about the risks associated with levee failure, we have generally completed Local Levee Evaluations in partnership with the CA Department of Water Resources (DWR). Areas where these studies have been completed include Santa Venetia/Gallinas Creek (further studied in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or "USACE") and Coyote Creek. Levee Evaluations are underway for levees along lower Novato Creek and Corte Madera Creek (also in partnership with USACE). Impacts Thousands of residential and commercial structures, and hundreds of industrial structures are potentially impacted by 100-year floods. Transportation is also heavily impacted (even during smaller storms), with hundreds of miles of roadways potentially flooded, and 19 miles of railroad, during and after flood events. Because of this, access issues during and after major storms can be widespread. Critical water and wastewater facilities may also be affected by flooding, which can have devastating secondary effects on health of residents. Because of the diverse microclimates and small and varying watersheds of Mai-in, it is not common that all areas in designated FEMA 100-year floodplains would severely flood during the same storm system. However, given extensive historical development within the floodplain, impacts of a single powerful storm system to people and infrastructure can be extreme. For most jurisdictions, at least 10% of its homes and roadways are potentially impacted by flooding. Vulnerability Flooding is a relatively frequent occurrence in many populated areas of the county. making the county quite vulnerable to floods. The following tables represent summarize eountvwide vulnerability to flooding (data from Marin County Department of Public Works sources). Jurisdiction-specific data is included in the appendices for each jurisdiction. 3 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation(BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)at 25,http://w\vw.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment; COuntN. of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report(CSMART), (September 2015 64 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Existing Structures Commercial Industrial Single-Family Multi-Family 1,309 288 9.562 3,625 Transportation Miles of Roads Miles of Railroad Number of Ferry Terminals 374 19 4 Communication MERA Towers 0 Power Transmission Substation Natural Gas Miles of Electric Miles of Natural Tower Substation Transmission Lines Gas Pipeline 37 5 l 27 8 Water/Sewerage Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Station 3 22 65 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Critical Facilities Schools Police & Fire Medical Airports/Heli Cultural Resources 14 13 3 2 9 3.3.6 Wind Description Based on the NOAH data presented in Table 3-3, most severe winter storms in Marin come with strong winds and many of them cause damage. This can lead to power outages and/or road Closures, clogged creeks and culverts, damage to structures and cars due to fallen trees, and damage resulting from wind-driven wave erosion. Previous Occurrences Based on Table 3-3, winds were reported as high as 72 knots. Storms with strong winds knock down trees and power lines nearly every year and continue to slowly erode vulnerable coastal areas and critical inland ponds (i.e. reservoirs/dams, berms/levees around stormwater detention ponds, wastewater treatment/storage ponds). One event was characterized as a tornado, in Tomales in west Marin, but this weather phenomenon is extremely rare in this part of California. Location Table 3-3 shows significant damage due to strong winds affecting all areas of Marin —coastal, mountainous. inland valleys, and southern Marin. Locations where there are power lines, roads, and creeks/bridges, and ponded water for infi•astructure (stormwater, wastewater, drinking water purposes) are particularly vulnerable to disruption due to wind damage. as are private structures with nearby trees. Probability of Future Events Wind events and associated damages are expected to continue to occur several times per year. County, city and town public works staff and their contractors remove dead, sick or fallen trees in their right-of-way as needed and as funding allows, but there is no feasible way to prevent this hazard. Extent Marin's damaging wind events tend to range between 7 and I 1 on the Beaufort scale, or 30 to 60 knots. These wind strengths are characterized as high wind to violent storm. Thus, most years 66 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis whole trees are put in motion and the ocean heaps up and white foam and spindrift form. Slight structural damage and uprooted trees can result occasionally. Impacts Although the entire county is affected by wind, coastal areas tend to be impacted more fi-equently by the strongest winds (9+ on the Beaufort scale) than inland areas. Mann's coastal areas have small resident populations but large visiting populations, such as Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, and Bolinas that can be impacted by strong winds. Beachgoers and boaters would be particularly impacted by wind hazards. Tourism is a key part of the economy in Marin, particularly in coastal communities, and thus there are potentially significant economic impacts of wind events. Some communities, such as Oceana Marin and Olema, rely on water and wastewater infi-astructure that has potential to be impacted by coastal erosion, wind driving up wave elevations, and erosion from waves forming due to wind over treatment and storage ponds. Inland critical ponds are also impacted by wind-driven wave erosion such as dams on drinking water reservoirs, and levees/berms containing stormwater retention and detention ponds. Across the county powerlines are potentially impacted by wind, potentially affecting commercial, industrial, and residential areas, and most years downed trees lead to temporary road closures. Vulnerability Impacts of wind events may be fi-equent but the results of those frequent events tend to be short- lived, such as downed trees and powerlines. The systems that are most vulnerable are those that wouldn't be able to be fully repaired quickly should there be a catastrophic failure during an extreme wind event, such as a breach of a levee or dam due to wave erosion. Some examples of vulnerable facilities include: Bridgeway Promenade in Sausalito, an economically significant lifeline route, a portion Of which runs along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and is vulnerable to wind-driven waves. The roLrte is fi-equented by visiting tourists and shoppers that are a key part of Sausalito's economy. The impacts are expected to increase with climate change and sea level rise. Oceana Marin Force Main Pump Station is 60 feet from the edge of a coastal bluff. Coastal erosion rates up to 4.4 feet/year-were anticipated in the Dillon Beach area (where Oceana Marin is located) according to a 2003 Cliff and Erosion Technical Background report prepared to support a Marin County Local Coastal Program update. Although only a small community would be affected by the failure, it would be a long time before the critical water supply facility could be replaced. Additionally, the community has a sewer line potentially vulnerable to coastal erosion. Wind driven waves could flood the Olema Domestic Water Pump Station which would cause electrical and water supply failure to 43 residents, 3 hotels, a church, and a campground. Stafford Dam's (earthen) upstream face is subject to wind and wave action which has been eroding the gunitr and welded wire reinforcement. A catastrophic failure could lead 67 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis to inundation of the City of Novato (see the subsection on Dam Failure for vulnerability analysis). 68 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.7 Tsunami Tsunami Inundation Areas Tsunami Inundation Area 0 5 10 N Miles A Data Source:Mann Map,2018 69 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Hazard Profile "I'sunamis consist of waves generated by large disturbances of the sea floor, which are caused by volcanic eruptions, landslides or earthquakes. Shallow earthquakes along dip slip faults are more likely to be sources oftsunami than those along strike slip faults. The West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center(WC/ATWC) is responsible for tsunami warnings. Tsunamis are often incorrectly referred to as tidal waves. They are actually a series of waves that can travel at speeds averaging 450 (and up to 600) miles per hour with unusual wave heights. Tsunamis can reach the beach before warnings are issued. Associated risks include flooding, contamination of drinking water, ruptured tanks or gas lines, and the loss of vital community infrastructure. Some Marin County communities may be vulnerable to tsunamis because of the location and quality of the built environment. The principal exposure will be people, buildings, and infrastructure located in the low-lying potential inundation area. Especially at risk are visitors, hikers, campers, and non-residents who might be on the shore when the tsunami strikes. Disaster History Prior to the 2011 tsunami impacting Japan, tsunamis have caused loss of life and damaged property in Hawaii, Alaska and the West Coast over the last hundred years. The Alaskan earthquake of 1964 generated tsunami waves affecting the entire California coastline resulting in twelve lives lost and an estimated $17 Million in damages. Mai-in County was not severely affected and there is no history of any significant damage caused by tsunami. Over 80 tsunamis have been observed or recorded along the coast of California in the past 150 years. Since 1946, there have been seven tsunamis known to have caused damage to ports and harbors in California. In 1964, a tsunami caused by a M9.2 earthquake offshore from Alaska resulted in 12 deaths in California and destroyed portions of downtown Crescent City. More recently, a 2006 tsunami (originating in the Kurile Islands region) caused approximately $20 million in damage to Crescent City harbor. A 2010 tsunami (originating offshore from Chile) caused several million dollars in damage to ports and harbors in the state. A tsunami in 2011 (caused by a M9.0 earthquake offshore of Japan) killed one person at the mouth of the Klamath River and caused up to $100 million damage to 27 ports, harbors, and marinas throughout the state. The most damage occurred in Crescent City, Santa Cruz and Moss Landing harbors and a federal disaster was declared in Del Norte, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties. Location Tsunami inundation maps and information specific to Tsunami run up scenarios in Marin were updated in 2012. As part of this project, signage indicating evacuation routes and safety zones has been installed along the coast and informational pamphlets specific to areas of the county have been distributed. Informational pamphlets covering the vulnerable areas of west Marin are available from the Marin County Sheriffs Office OES. The following is a list of tsunami inundation areas for various communities in Marin (please see MarinMap for details on these locations). 70 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis ❑ Almonte Tsunami Inundation Area. Highways I and 101 and residential and commercial areas potentially impacted. ❑ Belvedere and Tiburon Tsunami Inundation Area. Residential and commercial areas near Belvedere Lagoon potentially impacted in Belvedere. Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon City Hall, a fire station and commercial areas potentially impacted in Tiburon. Black Point Tsunami Inundation Area. Residential areas potentially impacted. �❑ Dillon Beach Tsunami Inundation Area. ❑ Kentfield Tsunami Inundation Area. Some residential and educational areas potentially impacted. Bridge to hospital potentially impacted. f Mill Valley Tsunami Inundation Area. Some residential, commercial, and educational areas potentially impacted. ❑ Muir Beach Tsunami Inundation Area. Paradise Cay Tsunami Inundation Area. Residential area and marina potentially affected. ❑ Point San Pedro Tsunami Inundation Area. ❑ San Quentin Tsunami Inundation Area. Potentially affects State Prison and nearby facilities. ❑ San Rafael Tsunami Inundation Area. Potentially affects marinas, commercial areas, and medical clinic. ❑ Sausalito Tsunami Inundation Area. Potentially affects marinas, commercial areas, schools, and the primary road through town. ❑ Stinson Beach Tsunami Inundation Area. Potentially affects fire stations, residential areas, commercial areas, and a National Park -� Strawberry Tsunami Inundation Area. Potentially affects marinas, commercial areas, schools, and the primary road through town. Probability of Future Events The frequency of tsunamis is related to the frequency of the events that cause them, so it is similar to the frequency of seismic or volcanic activities or landslides. Generally four or five tsunamis occur every year in the Pacific Basin, and those that are most damaging have historically been generated in the Pacific waters off South America rather than in the northern Pacific. The greatest threat associated with tsunami is the impact on coastal structure property and threat to human lives. The State of California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) under the California Coastal Act requires cities and counties lying wholly or partly within the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) that must be certified by the Coastal Commission as consistent with-policies of the Coastal Act. (Public Resources Code. Division 20). The U.S. -- 71 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis National Tsunami Flazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) is a State/Federal partnership created to reduce tsunami hazards along United States coastlines. NTHMP coordinates the efforts of five Pacific States including California. Focal points of future efforts include: ❑ The Tsunami Inundation Mapping Effort (TIME) ❑ Tsunami Warning Guidance for Tsunami Warning Centers ❑ hnprove Seismic Networks ❑ Installation of real-time broadband seismic stations ❑ Telemetry upgrades to warning centers ❑ Shortening information dissemination time to emergency services agencies ❑ Deploy Tsunami Detection Buoys ❑ Improve Statewide Coordination and Technical Support for Tsunami Warnings The support of local populations for a variety of mitigation products and programs are essential for mitigation success. To that end, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed the TsunamiReadyTM program. To be recognized as TsunamiReady, here are some of the criteria that a comnumity must meet: ❑ Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center ❑ Have more than one way to receive tsunami warnings and to alert the public ❑ Promote public readiness through community education and the distribution of information ❑ Develop a formal tsunami plan, which includes holding emergency exercises. Ll Comply with TsunamiReady guidelines (which include Communications and Coordination, Warning Reception, Warning Dissemination, Community Preparedness, and Administrative guidance) Marin County, and the communities of Dillon Beach, Belvedere and Tiburon, are now recognized by the NOAA as TsunamiReady, significantly improving public safety before, during, and after tsunami emergencies. Extent Tsunamis can travel at speeds of over 600 miles per hour in the open ocean and can grow to over 50 feet in height when they approach a shallow shoreline, causing severe damage to coastal development. Recent studies of the continental shelfoffthe California coast indicate a potential for underwater landslides capable of generating damaging tsunamis that could threaten coastal con'ununities. The National Geodetic Data Center (NGDC) provides a database cataloging all tsunami occurrences. The database can be used to evaluate past tsunami events at a particular site. 72 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Impacts Community exposure to tsunamis in California varies considerably—some communities may experience great losses that reflect only a small part of their community and others may experience relatively small losses that devastate them. Among the incorporated communities and the unincorporated areas of the county are communities that have the highest number of people and businesses in the tsunami-inundation zone. The communities of Belvedere and Sausalito have the highest percentages of people and businesses in this zone. To download the Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California report visit the USGS website: http://pubs.usgs.o,ov/sir/2012/5222/ Vulnerability Tsunamis are a relatively infrequent occurrence in the County, making Tsunami one of the disasters to which Marin is less vulnerable. The following tables summarize countywide vulnerability to tsunami (data from Marin County Department of Public Works sources). Existing Structures Commercial Industrial Single-Family Multi-Family 360 75 2,890 1,070 Transportation Miles of Roads Miles of Railroad Number of Ferry Terminals 124 2 4 Communication MFRA Towers 0 Power Transmission Substation Natural Gas Miles of Electric Miles of Natural Tower Substation Transmission Lines Gas Pipeline 2 l l 8 l 73 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Water/Sewerage Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Station 2 12 Critical Facilities Schools Police & Fire Medical Airports/Heli Cultural Resources 8 6 1 0 3 74 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.8 Wildfire Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Y IM Wildland Urban Interface 0 5 10 Miles n Data Source:Marin Map,2018 J� 75 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis The Marin County Fire Department in collaboration with FIRESafe Marin finalized the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) in July 2016. The full CWPP is incorporated by reference into this multi,jurisdictional LHMP and most of the information that follows comes directly from the CWPP. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) provides a scientifically based assessment of Wildfire threat in the wildland urban interface (WUI) of Marin County, California. This CWPP was developed through a collaborative process involving Marin County fire agencies, county officials, county, state, and federal land management agencies, and community members. It meets the CWPP requirements set forth in the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act which include: • Stakeholder collaboration (see Section 3 of the CWPP). • Identifying and prioritizing areas for fuel reduction activities (see Sections 4 and 5 of the CWPP). • Addressing structural ignitability (see Section 7 of the CWPP). Wildfire poses the greatest risk to human life and property in Marin County's densely populated WUI, which holds an estimated 69,000 living units. Marin County is home to 23 communities listed on CAL FIRE'S Communities at Risk list, with approximately 80% of the total land area in the county designated as having moderate to very high fire hazard severity ratings. The county has a long fire history with many large fires over the past decades, several of which have occurred in the WUI. To compound the issue, national fire suppression policies and practices have contributed to the continuous growth (and overgrowth) of vegetation resulting in dangerous fuel loads (see Section 1.6 of the CWPP). A science-based hazard, asset, risk assessment was performed using up-to-date, high resolution topography and fuels information combined with local fuel moisture and weather data. The assessment was focused on identifying areas of concern throughout the county and beginning to prioritize areas where wildfire threat is greatest. Hazard mitigation efforts can then be focused to address specific issues in the areas of greatest concern (see Sections 4 and 5 of the CWPP). Mai-in County will reduce wildland fire hazard using a collaborative and integrated approach that includes the following strategies (see Section 8 of the CWPP): • Pre-fire planning. • Public education and outreach to promote and implement fire adapted community practices. • Vegetation management and fuel reduction at the county and community levels. • Reducing structure ignitability by promoting and enforcing building codes, ordinances, and statutes. The CWPP provides a framework for future collaboration that can be used to identify, prioritize, implement, and monitor hazard reduction activities throughout the county. It is intended to be a living document that will be updated periodically by FIRESafe MARIN and the Marin County Fire Department (MCFD) in collaboration with a broader group Of County stakeholders. The CWPP is also intended to support the California Fire Plan and CAL FIRE'S Unit Strate-ic Fire 76 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Plan. While the CWPP broadly covers the entire county, it supports and encourages more focused plans for wildfire protection at the city, community, and neighborhood scales. Fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the federal, state, or local government. On federally owned land, or federal responsibility areas (FRA), fire protection is provided by the federal government, and or in partnership with local agreements. In state responsibility areas (SRA), CAL FIRE typically provides fire protection. However, in some counties CAL FIRE contracts with county fire departments to provide protection of the SRA —this is the case in Marin County, where CAL FIRE contracts with MCFD. Local responsibility areas (LRA) include incorporated cities and cultivated agriculture lands, and fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government. CAL FIRE contracts with MCFD to provide wildland fire protection and associated fire prevention activities for lands designated by the State Board of Forestry as SRA. Marin is one of six counties in the state who contract with CAL FIRE to protect SRA. The MCFD is responsible for the protection of approximately 200,000 acres of SRA within the county and is the primary agency that handles wildland fires. MCFD also provides similar protection services to approximately 100,000 acres of FRA in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), the Muir Woods National Monument, and the Point Reyes National Seashore. See page 5 of the CWPP for a summary of the 13 fire departments and districts within Marin County. Figure 3-6 indicates their jurisdictional areas. 77 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-6. Map of the federal responsibility areas,state responsibility areas and local responsibility areas in Marin County W - �� Legend Responsibility Area Federal reapm NW,nr t°RA} Loral vespensra ity areas(LRA) e. cs.e`. c�-,'°� 4 `e'S •: Statetes pOnsrbdil) a eas SRA DACFC esa r rtrh r ., r' Ar 4 r' f `��alfkr�I�w+1f � S J' 78 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-7. Map of Marin County professional fire service agency jurisdictions w ....z s• - -� e v •Fire Service DistrictsOk c �✓ a,x„se Belinas Fire Protection Disldci ,.�`q P9ilt Valley F€r&Dspartrrreai Coste Mode ra Fire Department Novato Fire Protection 6istriet ln.omess Public Utility Diatecl 10 Ross Valley Fire District $ - = iKsnK3e!d Fire Protection Cistrict W San Rafael Fire Deoartme❑8 Le4spur Fire Department y„q $authern Ulium Fire Proteetlo, Cis ici Caunl• 54.oe adment St9nsan Beach fire Pmteoi—Distrct • 6Pa rzavraod Gomrrrunf€y Services Deluict i Tiburon file Protectian Dlstdct a r l3� 101 Hazard Profile The mix of weather, diverse vegetation and fuel characteristics, complex topography, and land use and development patterns in Marin County are important contributors to the fire environment. The MCFD Woodacre ECC currently manages the data from four Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) for predicting fire danger utilizing the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) during the fire season. The RAWS are located in Woodacre. Middle Peak, Barnabe. Big Rock and a new station will be coming online in Novato. Marin County is bounded by the cool waters of the Pacific Ocean to the west, the San Francisco and Richardson Bays to the southeast, the San Pablo Bay to the east, and Sonoma County agricultural lands to the north. The combination of these large bodies of water, location in the mid-latitudes, and the persistent high pressure over the eastern Pacific Ocean results in several micro-climates. Weather in the county consists of warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The climate in early fall and late spring is generally similar to the summer, and late fall is similar to winter. Spring is generally cool, but not as wet as the winter. While these general weather conditions are fairly representative_ofthe_typical_Marin County weather, complex topography, annual variability of weather patterns, and less frequent and transient weather patterns are important to fire conditions. 79 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis In the late spring through early fall, the combination of frequent and strong high-pressure systems (known as the Pacific High) over California combined with the cool waters of the ocean/bays results in persistent fog and low clouds along the coast (including over southern Marin County near the San Francisco Bay). The fog often penetrates into the inland valleys of northern and central Mai-in County, especially during overnight hours. At the coastline, mist fi•om fog can keep the land surfaces modestly moist while inland land surfaces above the fog or inversion are often very dry. The Pacific High that persists from late spring through early fall over the eastern Pacific, combined with a thermal low pressure over the Central Valley of California, results in an almost continuous sea breeze. These winds usher in cool and moist air and can be strong (15 to 25 mph), especially over the ridge tops and through northwest to southeast lying valleys, including San Geronimo/Ross, Hicks, and Lucas Valleys. These westerly winds are usually highest in the afternoon, decrease in the evening, and are light overnight before increasing again in the late morning/early afternoon. Occasionally in the summer and more often in the fall, the Pacific High moves inland and centers over Oregon and Idaho, while low pressure moves from the Central Valley of California to southern California and Arizona. The resulting north-to-south pressure gradient can be strong enough to retard the typical sea breeze and can even result in winds blowing from the land to the ocean (offshore winds). As the offshore winds move air from the Great Basin to the coastal areas of California, the air descends and compresses, which greatly warms and dries the air. Under these "Diablo" wind conditions, temperatures in Marin County can reach 100°F in the inland areas and even 80°F at the coast, and relative hunidity can be very low. In addition, wind speeds can be high (20 to 40 mph) and gusty and are often much faster over the mountains and ridge tops such as Mt. Tamalpais, Loma Alta, and Mt. Burdell compared to low-lying areas. Wind speeds can be high over the ridges and mountains at all times of day under this "offshore"wind pattern and are often much slower or even calm at night in low-lying areas because nighttime cooling decouples the aloft winds from the surface winds. It is during these Diablo wind events that there is a high potential for large, wind-driven fires should there be an ignition. Historically, the largest and most destructive fires have occurred during these offshore (also known as Foehn) wind events including the Angel Island and the Vision fires. A few times per year in the summer and early fall, monsoonal flow fi-om Mexico brings in moist and unstable air over central and northern California, which can result in thunderstorms with or Without precipitation. With the otherwise dry summer conditions, the lightning can ignite fires. These monsoonal flow patterns are usually only one to two-day events. Beginning in late November and lasting through the end of March, the Pacific High moves south and weakens, allowing storms that originate in the Gulf of Alaska to move over California. These storms bring precipitation and, at times, strong winds out of the south. Each storm usually results in one fourth inch to several inches of rain over a day or so. Near Mt. Tamalpais, rainfall amounts are enhanced by orographic lifting, resulting in higher rain amounts in the Kentfield and Fairfax areas compared to the rest of the county. Typically, after the first rain in November, the cool weather and occasional storm keeps the ground wet through late Spring. However, in some years, significant rain does not occur until later in the year (e.g., early-to-late December) and there can be several weeks without any storms and rain. During storms. temperatures are usually mild. 80 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis When there are no storms over California, a land-breeze typically forms (i.e., winds blowing from the Central Valley to the Pacific Ocean). These winds can reach 30 mph, and travel through the southeast to northwest lying valleys, over low-lying ridges such as the Marin Headlands, and through the Golden Gate. These winds are usually highest in the mid-morning hours and decrease in the afternoon as the Central Valley warms during the day. The winds are associated with cold and modestly moist air. In late February/early March through late April, the Pacific High strengthens and moves north, and storms impacting the county become less frequent. During this time of year there is often a low-pressure area over the desert in southwest California. The combination of the Pacific High to the north and low-pressure to the southwest results in strong winds blowing from the northwest to the southeast. Like the sea breeze, these winds bring in cool, moist air and are usually highest in the afternoon hours. Because of winter and spring rains, the land is wet and there is little danger-of wildland fire despite the strong winds and only occasional precipitation. There is often little coastal fog this time of year. Vegetation, which is also known as fuel, plays a major role in fire behavior and potential fire hazards. A fuel's composition, including moisture level, chemical make-up, and density, determines its degree of flammability. Of these, fuel moisture level is the most important consideration. Generally, live trees contain a great deal of moisture while dead logs contain very little. The moisture content and distribution of fuels define how quickly a fire can spread and how intense or hot it may become. High moisture content will slow the burning process since heat from the fire must first eliminate moisture. In addition to moisture, a fuel's chemical makeup determines how readily it will burn. Some plants, shrubs, and trees such as chamise and eucalyptus (both present in Marin County) contain oils or resins that promote combustion, causing thern to burn more easily, quickly, and intensely. Finally, the density of a fuel influences its flammability; when fuels are close together but not too dense, they will ignite each other, causing the fuel to spread readily. However, if fuels are so close that air cannot circulate easily. the fuel will not burn freely. Marin County has extensive topographic diversity that supports a variety of vegetation types. Environmental factors, such as temperature, precipitation, soil type, aspect, slope, and land use history, all help determine the existing vegetation at any given location. In the central and eastern parts of the county, north facing slopes are usually densely wooded from lower elevations to ridge peaks with a mixture of mostly hardwood tree species such as coast live oak. California bay. Pacific madrone. and other oak species. Marshlands are also present throughout the COMM; once ignited marsh fires can be difficult to contain and extinguish. Grasslands with a mixture of native and nonnative annual and perennial plant species occur most often in the northern and western parts of the county due to a combination of soil type. lower rainfall, and a long history of ranching. The southern and western facing slopes tend to have a higher percentage of grasslands, which in turn have the potential to experience higher rates of fire spread. Grassland fires are dangerous even without extreme fire weather scenarios due to the rapid rate of fire spread; in some cases, fires spread so quickly that large areas can burn before response resources are able to arrive. 81 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis In the west portion of the county closer to the coast, where precipitation is higher and marine influence is greater, most areas are densely forested with conifer species (i.e., Bishop pine, Douglas-fir, and coast redwood) and associated hardwood species. Chaparral vegetation also occurs in parts of the county, especially on steeper south and west facing slopes. This mix of densely forested areas mixed with chaparral results in higher fuel loads and potentially higher fire intensity. Expansion of the residential community into areas of heavier vegetation has resulted in homes existing in close proximity to dense natural foliage; these homes are often completely surrounded by highly combustible or tall vegetation, increasing the potential that wildland fires could impact them. As part of the development of the CWPP, an updated vegetation map layer was created using the most recent vegetation information available from a variety of state and local data sources. Vegetation distribution in Marin County is characterized by approximately 20 different types of vegetation which have been classified into 15 fire behavior fuel models. Table 7 on page 21 of the CWPP lists the fuel model types for Marin County, while Figure 5 shows a fuel model map; the data shown were developed to support this CWPP and represent the most up-to-date and highest-resolution vegetation coverage information for the county. The methods used to develop the data set are described in Appendix A of the CWPP. Insect infestations and plant diseases, such as California oak mortality syndrome (sudden oak death), are increasing and threaten to change the structure and overall health of native plant communities in Marin County. Sudden oak death has no known cure and is the biggest concern; this syndrome is caused by the fungus-like Phytophthora ramorum, which has led to widespread mortality of several tree species in California since the mid-1990s; the tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) in particular appears to have little or no resistance to the disease. Sudden oak death has resulted in stands of essentially dead trees with very low fuel moistures. Studies examining the impacts of sudden oak death on fire behavior indicate that while predicted surface fire behavior in sudden oak death stands seems to conform to a common fuel model already in use for hardwood stands, the very low moisture content of dead tanoak leaves may lead to crown ignitions more often during fires of"normal" intensity. Two other plant diseases prevalent in Marin County are pitch canker(which affects conifers such as Bishop pine and other pine species), and madrone twig dieback (which affects Pacific madrones). Pitch canker is caused by the fungus Fusarium circinatum (F. subglutinans, F. sp. pini), which enters the tree through wounds caused by insects. While some trees do recover, most infected trees are eventually killed by the fungus. Management of this disease largely focuses on containment to reduce the fungus spreading to other trees. Pitch canker is a particular issue in the NPS lands of Pt. Reyes National Seashore, where many acres of young Bishop Pines that were seeded on the Inverness Ridge by the Mount Vision Fire of 1995 have been infected. 82 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-8. Fuel model map for Marin County y � "e High Resblutior Fuel Mode)Data ra L.......1 :"r �`�� a✓Li �s rF f� �,p, to r �atLUatC ci _c �dc sa t r an E E /y y s T� WOW r I � + r c _ These dead and dying trees have created large swaths of land with dense and dry fuel loads. Madrone twig dieback is caused by the native fungus Botiyosphaeria dothidea and appears to be getting worse throughout the county due to drought effects on Pacific madrones. Three additional threats to trees common to Marin County include: • Bark and ambrosia beetles (Monarthrurn dentiger and monarthrum scutellare). which target oak and tanoak trees. Sudden oak death may be exacerbating the effects of beetle infestations which prey on trees already weakened by this disease. • Root rot, caused by oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea), is primarily associated with oaks and other hardwoods but also attacks conifers. These fungal infestations cause canopy thinning and branch dieback and can 1<111 mature trees. As with the beetle infestations. sudden oak death may be exacerbating the effects of root rot fungus in the county forests. • Velvet-top fungus (Phaeolus schweinitzii) is a root rot fungus affecting Douglas-fir and other conifers, with the infection typically occurring through a wound. �'J SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Topography characterizes the land surface features of an area in terms of elevation, aspect, and slope. Aspect is the compass direction that a slope faces, which can have a strong influence on surface temperature, and more importantly on fuel moistures. Both elevation and aspect play an important role in the type of vegetation present, the length of the growing season, and the amount of sunlight absorbed by vegetation. Generally, southern aspects receive more solar radiation than northern aspects; the result is that soil and vegetation on southern aspects is warmer and dryer than soil and vegetation on northern aspects. Slope is a measure of land steepness and can significantly influence fire behavior as fire tends to spread more rapidly on steeper slopes. For example, as slope increases from 20—40%, flame heights can double and rates of fire spread can increase fourfold; from 40—60%, flame heights can become three times higher and rates of spread can increase eightfold. Marin County is topographically diverse, with rolling hills, valleys and ridges that trend from northwest to southeast. Elevation throughout the county varies considerably, with Mt. Tamalpais' peak resting at 2,574 feet above sea level and many communities at or neat-sea level. Correspondingly, there is considerable diversity in slope percentages. The San Geronimo Valley slopes run from level (in the valley itself) to near 70%. Mt. Barnabe has slopes that run from 20 to70%, and Throckmorton ridge has slopes that range in steepness from 40— 100%. These slope changes can make fighting fires extremely difficult. In the WUI where natural fuels and structure fuels are intermixed, fire behavior is complex and difficult to predict. Research based on modeling, observations, and case studies in the WUI indicates that structure ignitability during wildland fires depends largely on the characteristics and building materials of the home and its immediate surroundings. The dispersion of burning embers from wildfires is the most likely cause of home ignitions. When embers land near or on a structure, they can ignite near-by vegetation or accumulated debris on the roof or in the gutter. Embers can also enter the structure through openings such as an open window or vent and could ignite the interior of the structure or debris in the attic. Wildfire can further ignite structures through direct flame contact and/or radiant heat. For this reason, it is important that structures and property in the WUI are less prone to ignition by ember dispersion, direct flame contact, and radiant heat. Marin County's approach to mitigating structure ignitibility is based on findings from the National Institute of Standards and Technology that defensk e actions by homeowners can significantly affect fire behavior and structure loss, and that effective fire prevention practices are essential in increasing structure survivability. The California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A specifically—addresses the wildland fire threat to Structures by requiring that structures located in state or locally designated WUI areas be built of fire resistant materials. However, the requirements promulgated by the state only apply to new construction, and do not address existing structures and additions and remodels to existing structures. Since most of the towns and cities in Marin County are "built-out", most fire departments have applied the Chapter 7A standards to address home ignitibility for both new and existing construction. Specifically, Marin County has extensively amended the 2003 International Urban- Wildland Interface Code. As part of these amendments. MCFD applies more stringent building standards and requires the preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) as defined in 84 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis MCFD's VMP Standard. MCFD also imposes requirements for fire apparatus and water supply access to new and remodeled structures located in the WU1. In addition to the amendments, the county requires that alterations or remodels to structures located in the WUI use specific building elements that comply with WUI-specific standards. For example, if a window is replaced, the new window is required to be dual-paned with one pane tempered. The county has amended the 2013 California Fire Code (CFC) Chapter 49 requirements for defensible space around existing homes (note that the 2013 CFC Chapter 49 requirements are identical to the Public Resource Code and Government Code requirements). The MCFD amendment modifies the language of PRC 4291 such that the property line no longer limits the amount of defensible space required around structures. If the 100-foot defensible space/fuel modification zone extends from private to public lands, the defensible space stops at the property boundary. I3owever, fuel modification/clearance may be permitted after an evaluation and issuance of approval from the public land management agency. Disaster History In the time before the county was settled, fire was a natural part of the ecosystem. Much of the vegetation in what is now the wildlands of Marin County depended on fire to renew itself by removing old, dead fuel in order to make room for healthy new vegetation and promote the V rowth of native plant species. Once the land was settled, business operators, landowners, and homeowners had an interest in protecting the natural assets of Marin County and their own investments. Uncontrolled fires had already burned large tracts in the past and valuable lumber, structures, and field crops had been destroyed. A series of fires that occurred in the late 1800s prompted the organization of the first fire departments in Marin County around the turn of the century. Since then, national fire suppression policies and practices (among other factors) have contributed to the continuous growth (and overgrowth) of vegetation resulting in dangerous fuel density, or fuel loads. Combined with this fuel accumulation, the public have been building homes closer and closer to wildlands, which is creating the WUI fire issues that are now present in many parts of Marin County and the country. Throughout its history, Mai-in County has experienced many wildland fires. Figure 3-9 shows a map of large fires that have occurred in Marin's WUI. 85 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-9. Map of large fires that have occurred in Marin County's WUI Legend J"11", Ffonn rYJi ¢e W tcry a October 1905,The Vision Fire �` burned 12,354 acres September 1923 Wildfire from Ignacio to Woodacre,Lagumtas,, to Bolinas Ridge ;y2 rt�liprF d�ii I June 1976,Sorich Park %, Wildfire September 1945,The Mill Fire•Carson Canyon October 1972,Kent Woodlands Wildfire July 1929 The Graaf Mill Valley Fire. Mill Valtey.Mount Tamalpais �. W' ! ! September 1919 Sausalito Widlire The most recent Marin County fire that resulted in significant structure loss was the Vision Fire in 1995, which destroyed 48 structures in the community of Inverness. In 1929, the base of Mt. Tamalpaisspecifically the community of Mill Valley—experienced a significant fire known as the Great Mill Valley Fire. That tire's footprint is now developed with more than 1,100 homes (valued at $1.3 billion) which have significantly altered the natural vegetation through urban and suburban development. As part of the CWPP, Ignition data for all authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) were acquired and analyzed for 2002 through 201 1 to evaluate ignition trends within the county. Table 8 of the CWPP presents the ignition history for all AHJs classified by ignition category. Figure 3-10 below shows a map of the ignition history for al I AHJs classified by ignition category. 86 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-10. Map of ignition history data for all authorities having jurisdiction in Marin County from 2002 to 2011. s " Legend a / ' ti AHJ ignition History 72002-2011) Ignition Source Mobile P'ope'ty Vehi�ies i NaR,rai V^�eiztion Sfeciai Cutsitle s Cultivaled vegetznon'crrip W, ,yam 1 # Location The WUI zone map used throughout this CWPP was assembled using geographic information system (GIS) data layers acquired fi•om the Marin County GIS web portal. MarinMap. The WUI zone helps inform decisions on where to focus vegetation management and fuel reduction projects. The WUI zone determination is also a major component of MCFD's Strategic Fire Plan (Marin County Fire Department, 2015), which in turn is part of CAL FIRL's Strategic Fire Plan. Homes and structures located anywhere in and around the WUI are at a higher risk for exposure to wildland fire. Fire can spread rapidly throughout WUI areas through adjacent structures and/or vegetation, or by ember dispersion. Property owners in the WUI have a responsibility to prepare their property for structure defense by providing adequate defensible space and complying with WU1 building codes and ordinances (see Section 7 of the CWPP). The W1 if boundaries for Marin County were determined based on areas with high structure density and proximity to areas with a high density of burnable fuels. 87 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Approximately 60,000 acres ]8% of the county's land area—falls within the wildland urban interface (WUI) where residences (i.e., homes and structures) are intermixed with open space and wildland vegetation. Within Marin County, there are 96,195 parcels and 106,679 living units; of these living units, an estimated 69,000 units are located in the WUI. A recent assessment by the Marin COUnty Fire Department (MCFD) revealed that these living units within the WUI are valued at $59 billion (Marin County Fire Department, 2015). Because of the mix and density of structure and natural fuels combined with limited access and egress routes, fire management becomes more complex in WUI environments. In Marin County specifically, many of the access roads within the WUI are narrow and winding and are often on hillsides with overgrown vegetation, making it even more difficult and costly to reduce fire hazards, fight wildfires, and protect homes and lives in these areas. 88 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-11. Map of Marin County and the wildland urban interface (colored red) .,�,�, c��.-, ,�t his ✓, � s� �A \��' is,l"�,��� � �s� �., � °� "� � �, � � •k�,�t � .yam r ,+ I t >d f Q 89 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-12. Marin County's WUI boundaries overlaid with population density r. Legend Wil Sounejaiy Density Population Pa p Y(2010 total popufationtsq.mile) f � 1 � ` •YIp •.M a .^ A f.� 0, 90 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Table 3-8. Marin County communities at risk and fire district jurisdiction Community Fire Department/District Bolinas Bolinas Fire Protection District Corte Madera Central Marin Fire Department Fairfax Ross Valley Fire Department Inverness Inverness Fire Department Inverness Park Inverness Public Utility District Kentfield Kentfield Fire Protection District Lagunitas-Forest Knolls Marin County Fire Department Larkspur Central Marin Fire Department Lucas Valley-Marinwood Marinwood Fire Department Marin City Marin County Fire Department Mill Valley Mill Valley Fire Department Novato Novato Fire Protection District Olema Marin County Fire Department Ross Ross Valley Fire Department San Anselmo Ross Valley Fire Department San Rafael San Rafael Fire Department Santa Venetia San Rafael Fire Department Sausalito Southern Marin Fire Protection District Stinson Beach Stinson Beach Fire Protection District Strawberry Southern Marin Fire Protection District Tamalpais-Homestead Valley Southern Marin Fire Protection District Tiburon Tiburon Fire Protection District Woodacre Marin County Fire Department 91 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-13. Map of areas of concern identified by CWPP stakeholder agencies in Marin Areas of Concern-Organization Eiolfrni FPO L.rxsya.rr "4W tv Ross Vrf ea° Come Made[a ?,10FO WM lm,,t trairay Sas Parael Inverness 'iGC�S.r _f raf;S Sieep�trortow, Kenlraelrj ;a4tl;Yr'Q i Novato souther;a Marin MW 7 kuro-F PD a 0 s � 't le: x f s s � t Extent and Probability Future Events Wildfire threat can be defined as the result of an analysis of potential fire behavior and the likelihood offire to occur relative to the assets (or communities) at risk. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. The maps were last updated in the mid-1980s and early 1990s and are currently being updated by CAL FIRE to incorporate improved fire science, data, and mapping techniques (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007). While the C:1L FIRE FHSZ maps are useful in examining potential fire hazard severity at the state level, the underlying data and methods used to develop the FHSZ maps can be improved upon by using local (and more recent) fuel characteristics and improved lire modeling methods. The CAL FIRE FFISZ maps also do not take into account local perspectives and priorities regarding e0mmunities at risk and areas of concern. To improve upon the currently available state-level fire hazard assessment information, an 92 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis independent hazard, asset risk assessment was performed to help identify and prioritize areas within the county that are potentially at a high threat from wildfire based on more recent fuels data., advanced modeling techniques, and local input. The assessment was performed by modeling potential fire behavior and the probability or likelihood that an area will burn given an ignition. Next, the fire modeling output was combined with areas of concern and assets at risk. Composite maps were generated indicating relative potential fire hazards throughout the county. Assets at risk are defined as structures and resources that can be damaged or destroyed by wildland fire. Assets in Marin County include real estate (homes and businesses), emergency communication facilities, transportation and utility infrastructure, watersheds, protected wildlands, tourist and recreation areas, and agricultural lands. In addition to providing a fi-amework for protecting citizens and providing for firefighter safety, the California Fire Plan identifies the following assets warranting consideration in pre-fire planning: watersheds and water; wildlife; habitat; special status plants and animals; scenic, cultural and historic areas; recreation; rangeland; structures; infi-astructure; and air quality. There are approximately 1 11,000 living units in Marin County with a median home value of approximately $1 million (Mara, 2015). As many homes in the county are located in the WUI, if a major wildland fire were to result in the loss of many homes, it could have a short-term negative impact on Marin County's property tax base. The Mt. Tamalpais watershed supplies central and southern Marin County with 75% of their fi-esh water. Given the area's seasonal rainfall, any major wildfire impacting the heavily forested watershed will result in major silting and subsequent degradation of water quantity and quality in the watershed. This watershedas well as the lands managed by MCOSD, state parks, and NPS—are largely contiguous. They harbor several endangered, threatened, and special-status species, including the coho salmon and northern spotted owl. The area is also part of a major migrating bird flyway and nesting area. Marin County is also a major tourist destination. Major parks within Marin County include California State Parks (Mt. Tamalpais, Samuel P. Taylor, and China Camp),NPS's GGNRA, Muir Woods National Monument, and Point Reyes National Seashore. The Point Reyes National Seashore and Muir Woods National Monument together attract 3.5 million visitors annually. The GGNRA, a majority of which resides within Marin County, attracts an additional 14.9 million visitors per year and contributes an estimated $365.2 million annually to the economy (Prado, 2016). A major wildfire affecting any of these parks could have negative impacts on the local economy for years after the event. Finally, Marin County's agricultural land base includes nearly 137,000 acres of privately owned agriculturally zoned land and 32,000 acres of federally-owned land that is leased to agricultural operators. Agricultural operations include livestock and livestock products; aquaculture: field crops; fruit vegetable, and nursery crops. The gross value of all agricultural production was approximately $101 million in 2014 (Marin County Department of Agriculture, 2014). To help protect people and property from potential catastrophic wildfire, the National Fire Plan identifies communities that are at high risk of damage from wildfire. These high-risk communities identified within the WUI were published in the Federal Register in 2001. In California. CAL FIRE has the responsibility for managing the list. With California's extensive WUI situation, the list of coilnIll Lill ities extends bcyond just those adjacent to Federal lands; there are 1,329 communities currently on the California Co]m17nLm1ties at Risk List. Marin County has 23 of these 93 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis at-risk communities, as shown in Table 12 in the CWPP. A countywide assessment of the wildland fire threat undertaken by CAL FIRE revealed that nearly 313,000 acres (approximately 82%of the total land area of the county) are ranked as having moderate to very high fire hazard severity zone ratings. Using the methodology described in Section 4.2 of the CWPP, a series of models of the hazards, assets, and risks were completed. One model was the average fire season flame length, with lengths above 8 feet possibly exhibiting the more extreme fire behavior and be relatively more hazardous from a fire suppression perspective. Rate of spread is defined as the rate of forward spread of the fire head expressed in feet per minute. The higher the rate of spread, the more difficult a fire is to suppress. A composite map of the flame length, rate of spread, and population density for the average fire season scenario is shown in Figure 3-14; orange and red show areas where more extreme fire behavior is likely given an ignition. To help prioritize areas of the county where fuel reduction and hazard mitigation efforts might be focused, Figure 13 of the CWPP was overlaid with the areas of concern boundaries (Figure 8 in Section 4.1.1 of the CWPP), and GIS processing methods were used to calculate spatial statistics within these areas of concern (see Section 4.2.7 of the CWPP). This information was used to rank the areas of concern. 94 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-14. Composite map of population density, flame length, and rate of spread for the average fire season model scenario /s Ins P /p 0 2.5 5 90 � " z Miles Legend F g i Composite Map Average dire Season ', re Very High Flame'_ength,Rate of Spread,&Pop.Density High Fiamp Len-;h,Rate of Spread,&Pop.Density 3` - _ P-oaernTr f{anaP-eng?h,Rite of 5prrad,&Pop_Density 95 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-15. Composite map of population density, flame length, and rate of spread for the average fire season model scenario PIK N' Ir y 3z '4 sWW ay 3 if Argas of Concern Relative Ranking Average Eire Season Very high a �` 3 High 0 2.5 S Files Moderate 96 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Figure 3-16. Composite map of population density, flame length, and rate of spread for the extreme fire conditions model scenario A I IR y� Y-" 3d Areas of Concern ya Retative Ranking Extrema Fire Conditions Very High High 0 2's 5 We* „ t oderate l .... Table 3-9. Marin County communities at risk and relative ranking Communities at Risk and Areas of Concern Relative Ranking Bolinas (water system expansion/improvement Very High/High Corte Madera and Larkspur (Tiburon Ridge, Ring Mountain. Palm Hill Very High WUI) Corte Madera (Marin Estates, Madrono-Pleasant [Town], Madera del High Presidio Phase II, Chapman, Park/Meadowsweet, Christmas Tree Hill, Blithdale Ridge, Palm Hill/Blue Rock, Madera del Presidio Phase 1) Inverness (watershed and residential areas) High/Moderate Kentfield (Evergreen Fire Trail; Rancheria Road; Crown Road from 123 High Crown Road to Phoenix Road and continuing on Indian Fire Road to the Blithedale Ridge/Eldridge Grade intersection; King Mountain Loop pt-oject (Larkspur) to 76 Ridgecrest Road; 12 Ridgecrest Road to 76 - Ridgecrest Road, including all of BlueRidge Road southwest facing slope-, 97 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis the area of Goodhill Road and Crown Road, including the area of Harry Allen Trail; 351 Evergreen Road to 414 Crown Road to 12 Ridgecrest Road, south and southeast facing slope) Larkspur (North Magnolia WUI; Greenbrae Hills WUI; Marina Vista High Area WUI; Baltimore Canyon WUI; Marina Vista/SE Baltimore Canyon; King Mountain/NW Baltimore Canyon) Mill Valley (MMWD land and open space areas) Very High Mill Valley (Scott Valley, Cascade, PG&E property, Summit, City High property, open space, City right-of=way, private property, Warner Canyon/Scott Highlands, MMWD/private/City right-of-way) Marin County Fire Department (Hill Ranch, Los Ranchitos, Summit, High Bay View, San Pedro, Mount Tam Lookout, Sleepy Hollow WUI, Throckmorton/Panoramic WUI, Dickson Lookout, Woodacre/Lagunitas/Forest Knolls WUI, Mount Tam Middle Peak infrastructure, Rancho Santa Margarita WUI, Inverness WUI, Green Gulch, Stinson Beach WUI) Marin County Open Space District Lands (areas in and adjacent to Very High/High neighborhoods) Marin Municipal Water District (Rock Spring, Pine Mountain south High/Moderate gate, Sky Oaks Meadow, Deer Park Road, Sky Oaks Headquarters, Peters Dam) Marinwood/Lucas Valley (Limestone Hill area, CSA 13, Horse Hill area, Very High/High Berry area, Miller Creek Road Area, Valleystone Project, Lucas Valley Estates) Novato (Marin Valley, Novato North, Anderson Rowe) Very High Novato (San Marin, Hilltop, Loma Verde, Wilson West, Cherry Hill, High Pacheco Valley, Little Mountain, Indian Valley, Wildhorse Valley, Wilson East, Ignacio Valley, Atherton, Blackpoint) Ross Valley (Fait-fax, Hawthorne Hills, San Francisco Boulevard. Very High Alameda, Morningside, upper San Ansel -no Avenue) Ross Valley (Ross [east/central/south], San Anselmo [downtown]. High Cascade Canyon, Sleepy Hollow) San Rafael (San Pedro Ridge, Dominican, Glenwood, Peacock Gap, Very High Gerstle Park and Cal Park neighborhoods) San Rafael (Smith Ranch areas, Nest End from San Rafael Hill to High Ridgewood Avenue Bret Harte, Los Ranchitos areas, Terra Linda neighborhoods) Sleepy Hollow (Loma Alta area) High 98 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Southern Marin (Meda project, Milland. Ricardo open space. So. Very High Morning Sun/Tennessee, Hawkhill, Autumn Lane) Southern Marin (Rodeo water tank, U.S. Route 101/Wollback Ridge, High Seminary, Edwards/Marion, Lattie Lane/Highway 1. Blackfield, Laguna/Forest, Cabin Drive, Homestead Valley, Fairview Ring Mountain Area, Aqua Hotel Hill, Highway 1 to Erica/Friars) Tiburon (Middle Ridge, South Knoll Playground, Blackie's Pasture, Very High Greenwood Beach) Tiburon (Ring Mountain, Old St. Hilary's Open Space Preserve, Tiburon High Marsh, Belvedere Lane and right of ways, Tom Price Park, Sugarloaf Drive to Paradise Drive, Middle Ridge open space, Romberg Tiburon Center, Paradise State Park) Unincorporated rural areas within the county include the coastal communities of Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, and Bolinas; communities near Tomales Bay including Olema, Point Reyes Station, Inverness, Inverness Park, Marshall, Tomales, and Dillon Beach; and rural areas in the interior valleys including Nicasio, Lagunitas, Forest Knolls, San Gerommo, and Woodaere. These communities are primarily situated within or adjacent to the WUI, with moderate to dense concentrations of structures. Mai-in County has approximately 60,000 acres of WUI adjacent to 200,000 acres of watershed. Response times in these communities present significant challenges to keeping fires from directly impacting the communities and sub divisions (especially those within the SRA) as emergency fire access and evacuation egress is limited by narrow, winding roads lined with dense vegetation. In Mai-in County, cul-de-sacs generally service new housing developments and most of the smaller canyons, valleys, and hillsides. Some planned unit developments are served by privately- maintained roads, which create access issues (i.e., narrow paved widths and limited on-street parking). According to California Fire Code specifications, roadways that are considered hazardous in terms of fire access and protection are those with • less than 20 feet of unobstructed paved surface and 13.6 vertical feet; • dead-ends longer than 800 feet, and; • cul-de-sac diameter less than 68 feet. Driveways that are less than 16 feet wide or that do not have adequate turnaround space are also considered hazardous. A large number of roadways and driveways in many of Marin County's communities fall into one or more of the above cate-ories. 99 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.3.9 Post-Fire Debris Flow Hazard Profile According to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), "Wildfire can significantly alter the hydrologic response of a watershed to the extent that even modest rainstorms can produce dangerous flash floods and debris flows. The USGS conducts post-fire debris-flow hazard assessments for select tires in the Western U.S. We use geospatial data related to basin morphornetry, burn severity, soil properties, and rainfall characteristics to estimate the probability and volume of debris flows that may occur in response to a design storm." There have been no major wildfires in the County since 2013, although nearby Sonoma and Napa counties currently face a significant threat of post-fire debris flow due to the October 2017 wildfires. Disaster History The MCM LHMP team has not found examples in recent history of post-fire debris flow in Marin. Location USGS analysis does not show any existing significant post-fire debris flow threats in Marin. However, any summer or fall wildfires that occur in the next 5 years could lead to post-fire debris flows originating fi-om the burn areas during the following rainy season. Thus, the location of this hazard coincides with watershed locations with the greatest wildfire and flood threats. Extent and Probability of Future Events Without recently burned watersheds the extent and probability of future events can't be analyzed. However, precautions should always be taken after a burn to ensure that soil stability is maintained to the extent feasible. 100 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.4 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES According to FEMA BureauNet 2018 there are 216 Repetitive Loss (RL) properties in Marin County, including all the jurisdictions. Ten of those properties are considered to have suffered severe repetitive loss. The vast majority, 183, are residential properties. There are also 28 commercial properties and 5 industrial that are RL. Information about RL properties by jurisdiction is located in Table 3-10. Most RL properties are located within Unincorporated Marin, incorporated cities of Novato and San Rafael. For privacy reasons, we are not including maps or addresses of the RLs. Table 3-10. Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Severe Repetitive Residential Commercial Industrial Loss Repetitive Properties Loss Jurisdiction Properties Belvedere 2 0 2 0 0 Corte Madera 10 1 7 2 1 Fairfax 6 0 6 0 0 Larkspur 7 1 4 2 1 Marin County 87 4 81 6 0 Mill Valley 5 0 3 2 0 Novato 38 38 0 0 Ross 14 2 13 1 0 San Anselmo 1 0 1 0 0 San Rafael 37 1 24 12 1 Sausalito 5 1 1 2 2 Tiburon 4 0 3 1 0 Source: FEMA BureauNet 2018 101 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis 3.5 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Marin County's abundance of natural, recreational, and scenic resources has supported a long history of open space preservation. Its rolling hills, expansive ranchlands, beaches, coastlines, and more are appreciated by both visitors and locals alike. This quote, from the Marin Independent Journal 1934 Editorial captures this sentiment: "No community on earth is more favored than Marin with the wealth and beauty of potential playgrounds. If we don't acquire some of these lands, the opportunity will surely slip away from us." In the 1960s, housing/transportation development proposals were underway throughout Marin County including for the Marin Headlands, outer coast, Tomales Bay area and more. Such proposals threatened Marin's rural character and long heritage of family farming, sparking citizen activism which drew national attention. These efforts led to the employment of land use planning tools to ensure the County's natural and agricultural areas remain protected in perpetuity. Establishment of the Point Keyes National Seashore in 1962, and a handful of other Federal/State Park units, ensured the protection of a large amount of the County's most cherished lands as publicly accessible open space. Additionally, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, established in 1980, has placed agricultural conservation easements on over 60,000 acres of farmland, to ensure protection from development in perpetuity. Furthermore in 1972 the California Coastal Commission was established as a regulatory agency whose mission is "To protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline". Pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976, the agency is tasked with the protection of a variety of resources including public access, habitat, water quality and visual. The Commission issues Coastal Development Permits, until a local agency has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), with a land use plan and implementation plan. West Marin's coastal zone covers approximately 82,168 acres. Of this approximately 33,913 acres are owned and managed by the National Park Service, leaving 48.255 acres under County Jurisdiction subject to the LCP. This encompasses a handful of small communities along the Pacific Coast and Tomales Bay shorelines including Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, Bolinas, Inverness. Point Reyes Station, East Shore and Dillon Beach. New growth in these communities is limited by a variety of factors including few remaining undeveloped parcels; land use policies and plans which protect public access and natural resources; and environmental features such as the coast itself, Tomales Bay, and steep bluffs which naturally restrain development. Development in the County over the last 5 years has been limited due to build out, and similarly future development is limited by these same constraints. For this reason development related considerations to plan updates were not applicable to the planning process. Instead, the plan was revised to consider regional development trends and incorporation of new science such as potential climate change impacts. 102 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis NIARIN COUNTY COASTAL ZONA; Legend f=edexal:rind(not in the Coaster Zone)' i Coastal l = am ° oasial Zone(outside of federal jurisdiction)" County Soundan• Cdy Boundaries —° �✓ -— Highways and ttajor Roads N r ato i yrs C" _ � P U San Rafael t Sa yt. � w 1rkspYl(f w ' � G9rte hd�f? mss r, in Rdaru,%ounty C;oa,tai Zt�ne savers alp, toteR' .. .�r... ,. 82.168 acres of Caunty land_ Cf ihrs total.x�p;nr.in?ately 33.913 acres are owned and managed hg the federal acdefnment olational Park Service). Tf,,s leaves 4t,28 acres of the t;aa sial lone under, inl I:rrisdicuon Miles 0 1.25 25 5 7.5 10 N NOTECursuan[to the r co ray wa KaI_��,e r9anar rent Act of 197 i1fa U.S_C 1 d et seq y an. cor ester dh Ca corn a Coastal Act Section 3000E hr, Ccas al core' eeludes ..-�ard the t e o Oich by I ,ucItect Ip t fry the discretion of or which is hers in In,:,t by In,! Go`:e',nient.As officers of acnt4.' SOURCE:Marm County Community Development A gerncy Marin County has focused on sea level rise planning and climate action for several years. CUrrently, the LCP is being updated to reflect the changing risks to coastal areas and develop appropriate policies and actions to avoid and minimize the risk of disaster and harm to its residents infi-astructUre and coastal resources. Coastal Act policies Sections 30210, 30240, and 30251 dictate that new development shall be safe fi•om hazards and recognize that shoreline 103 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis protective devices such as seawalls may be appropriate in certain instances to serve coastal- dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion. However, shoreline protective devices must be designed to eliminate or mitigate the adverse impacts on the sand supply of surrounding natural shorelines. Other development-limiting Coastal Act policies include: Section: 30210: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea including the use of beaches Section 30240: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) shall be protected Section 30251 : The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as resources of public importance. The 2040 population projection for Marin County is 277,087 (Department of Finance). In order .to accommodate population growth over the next several years, Marin County and its incorporated cities have implemented a number of land use plans and development policies to direct growth away from hazardous conditions. For example, as required by state law, the County and each incorporated city have a general plan with a safety element that identifies hazards affecting the County and incorporated cities. Likewise, the County and the incorporated cities have a number of planning policies, such as floodplain ordinances and building codes, restricting new development in hazard areas and/or increasing construction requirements in hazard areas. In addition to steering away growth from hazard areas, Marin County and its incorporated cities have a history of aggressive growth management that seeks to limit growth overall and to direct it within the incorporated cities and urban areas of the unincorporated County. The 2007 Marin Countywide Plan was last updated in 2015 to reflect the theme of planning for sustainable communities. Twelve principles support this theme including the preservation of natural assets and the protection of agricultural assets in order to minimize development in open space. The plan is divided into specific elements, each with goals, policies, and implementation programs. The Plan's land use pattern reflects existing development potential shifted to a degree from environmentally constrained sites to more appropriate locations. Specific Countywide Plan policies which limit urban development through the protection of open space resources include: Biological Resources 1.l Protect Wetland, Habitats for Special-Status Species, Sensitive Natural Communities. and Important Wildlife Nursery Areas and Movement Corridors. Biological Resources 1.2 Acquire Habitat Biological Resources 2.1 Include Resource Preservation in Environmental Review -` Biological Resources 2.2 Limit Development Impacts _1 Biological Resources 3.1 Protect Wetlands Biological Resources 4.1 Restrict Land Use in Stream Conservation Areas Biological resources 5.1 Protect the Baylands Corridor Biological Resources 5.2 Limit Development and Access Biological Resources 5.3 Leave Tidelands in Their Natural State 104 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis I 11 Air 4.m Focus Development in Urban Corridors ❑ Open Space 2.2 Continue to Acquire or Otherwise Preserve Open Space Countywide ❑ Open Space 2.4 Support Open Space Efforts Along Streams ❑ Open Space 2.5 Support Open Space Efforts in the Inland Rural Corridor It 1-1 Open Space 2.6 Support Open Space Efforts in the Coastal Corridor Agriculture LI Limit Residential [Jse ❑ Agriculture 1.2 Encourage Contractual Protection ❑ Agriculture 1.3 Preserve Agricultural Zoning ❑ Agriculture 1.4 Limit Non-Agricultural Zoning ❑ Agricultural 1.5 Restrict Subdivision of Agricultural Lands Within the Coastal, Inland Rural and Baylands Corridors ❑ Agriculture 1.6 Limit Non-Agricultural Development ❑ Additionally, the Plan includes policies to limit development in hazardous areas, including: ❑ Environmental Hazards 3.a Regulate Development in Flood and inundation Areas ❑ Environmental Hazards 3.e Restrict Development in Flood Prone Areas ❑ Environmental Hazards 4.1 Limit Fire Risks to Structures Implementation tools such as the County Development Code are used to carry out Countywide Plan goals. Some of the policies and programs in the Countywide Plan will require rezoning of individual properties for consistency with land use designations and policies. Furthermore, many unincorporated communities are guided by community plans with may include customized building and site design standards, ridgeline and view corridor protection mechanisms, home size regulations and more. 3.6 NATURAL AND BENEFICIAL FUNCTIONS Marin's Watersheds and Wetlands are some of its most valuable assets and can provide protective functions that reduce the magnitude of hazard events. Bounded by ridges, Marin's watersheds carry water, sediments, nutrients, and more, downstream into large water bodies including the Pacific Ocean, San Francisco Bay. and Tomales Bay. Wetlands can be found in the lower watersheds, with habitat types including fi-esh-, salt-, and brackish-water marshes which provide food and shelter for a variety of flora and fauna, including special status plants, fish, birds, amphibians, and mammals. These ecosystems can also buffer flood impacts by reducing wave attenuation from storm surge or serve as detention basins during large rainfall events. Sea level rise threats have led to hciglhtened interest in the use wetlands and other living shorelines such as oyster beds. celgrass, and sand dunes as adaptation strategies to protect lives and properties while providing habitat. recreation, carbon sequestration, and other co-benefits. Several living shoreline pilot projects are currently underway throughout Marin County to demonstrate their effectiveness. 105 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis The Marin County Watershed Program identifies fourteen watersheds throughout the County as follows: • Bolinas Lagoon With a 16.7 mit watershed, Bolinas Lagoon consists of mudflats, marshes, tidal channels and a flood shoal island. Other watershed habitats include coastal scrub, Douglas fir. redwood forests, and grasslands as well as small patches of eucalyptus, oak and oak-bay woodland. and pine cypress forest. Noteworthy species include ridgeway and black rails, salt marsh common yellowthroat, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, American peregrine falcon, Point Reyes mountain beaver, Point Reyes jumping mouse, Coho salmon, steelhead trout, northern spotted owl, black swift, and Marin manzanita. In 2008 the "Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Project: Recommendations for Restoration and Management" was completed by a working group of community representatives and scientists, with recommended actions including restoring natural sediment transport and ecological functions of the lagoon, identifying and managing non- native species, and protecting water quality. • Estero Americano The County's northernmost watershed, the 49 mit Estero Americano watershed straddles the Mai-in and Sonoma County boundaries. Americano Creek draining into Bodega Bay, is the watershed's only tributary, and is ephemeral, generally drying up for 4-6 months between late spring and fall. The Estero Americano contains 301 acres of open water, and 412 acres of wetland habitat with mudflats, seasonal brackish marsh and freshwater marsh. With streamside habitat of grazed pastures with few trees interspersed with dense willow thickets, and coastal oak woodland in the upper watershed, Estero Americano has been identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as among the most significant habitat areas in the State. The watershed's special status species include the Northwestern pond turtle, steelhead trout, California red-legged frog, Myrtle's silverspot butterfly, tidewater goby, and tricolored blackbird. A 1987 enhancement plan led to repair of many of the watershed's eroded areas. which was undertaken by the Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District (RCD) with funding from the State Coastal Conservancy. In 2007 the RCD developed the Estero Americano Watershed Management Plan. • Gallinas Creek Located in Eastern Marin, the 5.6 mi2 watershed has two main drainage areas; the north fork and South Gallinas Slough. The watershed is highly urbanized with fragmented native plant communities. Upper watershed habitats include annual grasslands interspersed with mixed evergreen forest, coastal scrub and small outcroppings of serpentine habitat. Continuous with China Camp State Park is a large tract of oak-bav woodland along the southern watershed boundary. Lower marsh habitats represent some of the largest remaining tidally influenced habitats in the Bay Area with noteworthy 106 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis special status species including the San Pablo song sparrow, California black rail, salt marsh harvest mouse and the ridgeway rail. A three-acre tidal marsh restoration effort by the Marin Audubon Society and Marin Community Foundation was completed in 1977. The Friends of Gallinas Creek, San Pablo Watershed Restoration Program Partners, the Bay Institute and Mai-in County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program are planning extensive restoration in the upper and lower watershed to improve riparian cover, provide habitat, reduce erosion, and restore wetlands. • Tomales Bay The Tomales Bay Watershed encompasses the subwatersheds of Lagunitas Creek, Walker Creek, Inverness Creek, and east shore drainages including Millerton Gulch, Grand Canyon, and Tomasini Canyon. Resource rich, nearly 500 species of birds and the most robust population of native coho salmon remaining in the Central Coast region are supported by the Bay. Tomales Bay is a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance with intertidal, subtidal, and benthic habitas, as well as dunes, mud flats, salt marshes and freshwater marshes. Eelgrass beds are also found throughout Tomales Bay, and provide important habitat for fish, birds, and other species, while combatting shoreline erosion by dampening wave energy and storms. The Tomales Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan was completed in 2003. Restoration projects are underway in the Walker and Lagunitas Creek areas. • Miller Creek With a watershed covering 12 mi,, Miller creek uniquely has a relatively intact riparian area with very high widths and depths relative to its drainage area. While relatively urbanized, the watershed still supports a small population of steelhead. Its lower marsh habitats include some of the Bay Area's largest remaining tidally-influenced habitats that support abundant waterfowl. The watershed is dominated by annual grasslands interspersed with oak-bay woodland and oak savanna in the upper watershed with patches of chaparral. Middle reaches are primarily urbanized. The watershed's lower reaches east of Highway 101 support saltwater and brackish-water marshes subject to tidal action. Noteworthy special status species include the San Pablo Song Sparrow, California black rail, saltmarsh harvest mouse, ridgeway rail and steelhead trout. • Novato Creek As Eastern Marin's largest watershed, Novato Creek Watershed's creeks flow eastward through oak and bay forests. grasslands, unincorporated Marin County, and the City of Novato, and into San Pablo Bay near the mouth of the Petaluma River. The basin is 45 1 i2 and its main drainage is the 17 mile Novato Creek, which has 6 rnajoi-tributaries. Diverse habitat types include saltwater marsh, brackish marsh, freshwater wetlands. oak woodlands. annual grasslands and oak savanna. Special status species include the San Pablo Song Sparrow, California black rail, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, ridgeway rail 107 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis and Western pond turtle. Salmonids including steelhead and Chinook salmon are also found within the watershed. • Point Reyes National Seashore Creeks This watershed is comprised of almost 100 mi2 of land and nearly 80 miles of undeveloped coastline, with subwatersheds that drain into Drake's Estero, Abbotts Lagoon, Estero de Llmanotollr, the Pacific Ocean, portions of the Bolinas Lagoon and the Tomales Bay. Habitat types include estuaries, mud flats, sandy shores, intertidal communities and a variety of upland habitats. Special-status species include the endemic Mountain Beaver, Point Reyes jumping mouse, California freshwater shrimp, Myrtle's silverspot, Point Reyes blue butterfly, San Francisco forktail damselfly and steelhead trout. • Richardson Bay With San Francisco Bay's second largest eelgrass bed, Richardson Bay supports genetically diverse and extensive intertidal habitat. As an Important Bird Area along the Pacific Flyway, the Bay supports hundreds of thousands of migrating waterbirds during the winter months. Noteworthy special-status species include the California black rail, San Pablo song sparrow, salt marsh harvest mouse, and Point Reyes bird's-beak. Salmonids including steelhead trout are also supported. • Ross Valley Receiving over 50 inches of rain annually, the 28 min Ross Valley watershed is one of Marin County's wettest areas. With 28 miles of stream channels, the watershed supports a great diversity of habitats including redwood forests, serpentine outcrops, chaparral, oak woodlands, grasslands and tidal wetlands. Special status wildlife include steelhead trout, spotted owls, San Pablo song sparrow, ridgeway and black rails, and salt marsh harvest mouse. Led by the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the Ross Valley Flood Protection & Watershed Program's objective is to reduce flooding throughout the watershed. Creek improvements being considered include debris clearance, invasive vegetation removal, creek bank stabilization, and habitat enhancement. • Rush Creek At the Northern edge of Novato, Rush Creek's wetland habitats includes coastal saltwater and coastal brackish water marsh habitats. The wetlands provide suitable habitat for San Pablo song sparrow, California black rail, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, California brackishwater snail, and ridgeway rail. Restoration efforts include the Rush Creek and Bahia restoration projects. • San Antonio Creek Covering around 25% of the Petaluma River watershed, the San Antonio Creek 108 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis watershed extends from Antonio Mountain and Chileno Valley in the northwest to Petaluma Marsh and the Petaluma River to the southeast. The upper San Antonio Creek watershed is dominated by annual grassland and mixed evergreen forest with patches of oal< and bay woodland. The lower watershed includes extensive coastal salt marsh and brackish marsh. Special status species include the California blacl< rail, ridgeway rail, salt marsh common yellowthroat, San Pablo song sparrow, Townsend's big-eared bat, California red-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, and salt marsh harvest mouse. Limited salmonids have also been recorded in the watershed. The Petaluma River Watershed Enhancement Plan was completed by the Southern Sonoma County RCD in 1999 with information on riparian and fisheries enhancement. In 2008 the Southern Sonoma County RCD completed the San Antonio Creek Watershed Plan in tandem with local landowners and residents. • San Rafael Creek The 11 mi2 San Rafael watershed is densely developed from its hills to filled wetlands. A small marsh at Pickleweed Park provides habitat for native species, and the watershed's northern edge include intact woodland, grassland and lagoon areas. • Southern Coastal Creeks Several smaller watersheds along over 10 miles of southern Marin's rugged coastlines are protected within National and State Park boundaries. These include Webb Creek, Lone Tree Creek, Cold Stream, Redwood Creek, Alder Creek, Rodeo Lagoon and Tennessee Valley. A variety of habitat types exist amongst these watersheds including seasonal wetlands, riparian woodlands, and freshwater marsh. Special status species include Collo salmon, steelhead trout, California red-legged frog, monarch butterflies, northwestern pond turtle, northern spotted owl and more. • Stemple Creek Bisected by the Sonoma-Marin County boundary, this 50 mitwatershed begins just west of Petaluma and empties into the Pacific Ocean through the Estero de San Antonio. Like Estero Americano, the Estero de San Antonio was identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as among the most significant habitat areas in California with densely wooded riparian ravines, saltgrass areas, mudflats, eelgrass beds and freshwater ponds. Special-state species include the California fi-eshwater shrimp. northwestern Pond Turtle, tidewater goby, Myrtle's silverspot butterfly, and the California red-legged frog. In 1994 an enhancement plan was completed, leading to local landowner gully stabilization projects to reduce erosion. The Marin and Sonoma County RCDs, along with the Natural Resources Conservation Service have brought funding into the watershed to improve water quality. 109 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis Marin County's abundance of natural resources and progressive environmental leadership have supported a long legacy of open space preservation to help protect and restore wetlands and other ecosystems for both habitat and flood control, amongst other co- benefits. The Marin Countywide Plan, last updated in 2007, includes goals, policies, and implementing programs for the acquisition, conservation, and restoration of wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats. The full Plan can be viewed at http://www.mai-incounty.ot-g/depts/ed/divisions/planning/2007-mann-countywide-plan and pertinent policies include: • Biological Resources 1.1 Protect Wetlands, Habitat for Special-Status Species, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Important Wildlife Nursery Areas and Movement Corridors. • Biological Resources 1.2 Acquire Habitat. • Biological Resources 2.1 Include Resource Preservation in Environmental Review. • Biological Resources 2.2 Limit Development Impacts. • Biological Resources 2.3 Preserve Ecotones. • Biological Resources 2.7 Protect Coastal Sensitive Habitat. • Biological Resources 2.9 Promote Early Consultation with Other Agencies. • Biological Resources 3.1 Protect Wetlands. • Biological Resources 3.2 Require Thorough Mitigation. • Biological Resources 4.1 Resvrict Land Use in Stream Conservation Areas. • Biological Resources 4.4 Promote Nalurol Stream Channel Function. • Biological Resources 4.5 Restore and Stabilize Stream Channels. • Biological Resources 4.9 Restore Culverted Streams. • Biological Resources 4.11 Promote Riparian Protection. • Biological Resources 5.1 Protect the Baylands Corridor. • Biological Resources 5.3 Leave Tidelands in Their Natural State. • Biological Resources 5.4 Restore Marshlands. • Biological Resources 5.5 Protect Freshnrater Habitats. 110 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis • Biological Resources 5.10 Encourage Acquisition of Essential Baylands. • Water Resources 1.2 Restore and Enhance Wetlands. • Open Space 2.4 Support Open Space Efforts Along Streams • Open Space 2.6 Support Open Space Efforts in the Coastal Corridor 3.7 LIFE/SAFETY WARNING/EVACUATION SYSTEMS There are several life/safety warning/evacuation systems in Marin County, including the Emergency Alert System, AlertMarin "Reverse 91 1" System, Nixie, Tsunami Watch and Warning Messages, various local warning sirens and horns, and law enforcement/fire agency evacuation procedures. A description of each of these systems and a discussion of the impact of hazards on each system is discussed below. Emergency Alert System: The Emergency Alert System is a network of all radio, TV broadcast stations, and cable TV networks in the county. Messages normally"enter"the system at two points: (1) Mai-in's Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and (2)the NWS headquarters in Monterey, CA. Messages are received by local radio broadcast stations and then relayed to all other radio, TV broadcast stations, and cable companies within the county. Any message transmitted from either the EOC or NWS will be broadcast countywide via all of the stations and cable companies within the county. Messages transmitted through the Emergency Alert System utilize power lines and telephone lines. Thus, the Emergency Alert System could be impacted by an earthquake, landslide, debris flow, or wildfire. An earthquake could cause the power lines or telephone lines to go down and lose functionality. A landslide or debris flow could cause the poles supporting the power lines and telephone lines to collapse, and a wildfire could cause the poles supporting the power lines and telephone lines to burn down. Once the poles are down, the lines could go down and lose functionality. AlertMarin "Reverse 911" System: Emergency officials use the AlertMarin Emergency Notification System to deliver incident-specific information or potentially life-saving instruction to the precise geographic area(s) affected. Messages are sent to recipients" cell phone or Vole (voice over internet protocol) phone to receive emergency alerts sent by call, text, email, or smartphone application from the County of Marin. Nixie: Nixie is a Community hnformation Service dedicated to helping you stay connected to the information that matters most to you, depending on your physical location. You stay connected to your local police department ensuring that you receive trusted and immediate, geographically relevant information. Information is immediately available over your cel I phone by text message, by email, and over the web. Members ofthe public may self-register by texting their zip code to 888777. The system typically alerts via SMS /text, though email & smartphone app. Alerting can be geographically focused fi-om a single zip code to entire county. There are multiple agencies in Marin County that use Nixie including the Marin County Sheriff's Office. 111 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis There are four types of messages; Alerts (many would refer to this as an emergency type alert), Advisories (less urgent need-to-know information), Community Information (day-to-day neighborhood to community-level information), Traffic (very localized traffic information). Tsunami Watch and Warning Messages: Tsunami "Watch" (a tsunami may have been generated) and "Warning" (a tsunami has been generated) messages are issued for Marin County by the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center located in Alaska, with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, located in Hawaii, serving as a backup. Both centers also transmit "Information" messages when significant seismic events occur under the sea floor, even when the seismic events do not the potential to generate a tsuna►ni. Watch and Warning messages are transmitted by the respective Warning Centers over the NOAA Weather Wire system directly to each other, Coastal NWS Forecast Offices and their Area of Responsibility's State Warning Centers. The local NWS Office is located in Monterey serves Marin County. CalOES operates California's State Warning Center in Sacramento. Some messages are transmitted automatically based upon seismic event magnitude and location, and followed shortly by amplifying information (after review by scientists at the Tsunami Warning Centers). Generally, a message is gene►-ated within five minutes of the seismic event. Messages are recorded for transmission of the Emergency Alert System and local National Weather Radio Sites. There is no fixed, audible warning system that covers the entire 42 miles of the County's coastline. Emergency vehicle (and helicopter) public address systems and sirens may be used to alert residents of the need to evacuate. Warnings may not be possible in the event of a tsunami generated by a local seismic event, and will not be available if a tsunami is generated by a local nonseismic event (subaerial or subsea landslide). Local Warning Sirens and Horns: Various entities within the county utilize local, short range sirens and horns for the purpose of alerting small segments of the population to impending hazards. These systems are currently under review and more information will be provided on them in future iterations of this plan. Law Enforcement/Fire Agency Evacuation Procedures: Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters may drive through neighborhoods with sirens activated announcing evacuations and/or emergency directions over their loud speakers. Sheriff's Air Patrol may also fly overhead announcing the same information 112 SECTION 3 Hazard Analysis This page intentionally left blank I1> SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy SECTION 4 MITIGATION STRATEGY 4.1 OVERVIEW A mitigation strategy includes the identification of mitigation goals and actions that will reduce the risks of each hazard and vulnerability to the local population and built environment for each local participant. Per the local mitigation planning requirements, this mitigation strategy consists of the following four steps: 1. Local hazard mitigation goals 2. Identification and analysis of mitigation actions 3. Implementation of mitigation actions 4. Identification and analysis of mitigation actions for NFIP compliance 4.2 MITIGATION GOALS Mitigation goals are defined as general guidelines that explain what a community wants to achieve in terms of hazard and loss prevention. Goal statements are typically long-range, policy- oriented statements representing community-wide vision. For the MCM LHMP, the Planning Committee developed one goal for each identified hazard. As shown in Table 4-1, these goals are 1) earthquake and liquefaction, 2) dam failure, 3) severe storm (wind, flooding, and debris flow), 4)tsunami, 5) wildfire, and 6) post-fire debris flow. Table 4-1. Mitigation Goals Goal Number Goal Description I Reduce the possibility of damages and losses due to earthquakes and liquefaction. Reduce the possibility of damages and losses due to dam failure. Reduce the possibility of damages and losses due to severe storms, including wind,flooding,and debris flow. -I Reduce the possibility of damages and losses due to tsunami. Reduce the possibility of damages and losses due to wildfire and post-fire debris flow. 4.3 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS Mitigation actions are activities, measures, and/or projects that help achieve the goals of a mitigation plan. Mitigation actions are usually grouped into six broad categories: prevention, 114 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy property protection, public education and awareness, natural resource protection, emergency services, and structural projects. The Planning Committee developed overarching mitigation actions to be applied throughout the county referred to as "common actions". In addition, each local participant identified other jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions by reviewing existing resources, identifying past success stories and best management practices, and soliciting input from pertinent departments including planning, public works, and emergency management staff. As a result of both mitigation action identification processes,. each local participant developed several dozen mitigation actions. During the MCM LHMP update process, the Planning Committee reviewed the mitigation strategy of prior LHMPs. This process revealed that the majority of the mitigation actions identified in the in prior LHMPs were not suitable to be included in the MCM LHMP for the following reasons: ❑ Mitigation actions were ineligible for FEMA funding I I Mitigation actions were emergency response, preparedness, and/or recovery focused rather than mitigation focused LI Mitigation actions were not well defined Mitigation actions were not stand-alone projects ❑ Mitigation actions were continued-compliance and/or maintenance focused ❑ Mitigation actions emphasized new and existing infrastructure and buildings As such, for the MCM LHMP Planning Committee developed a handful of mitigation actions based on the MCM LHNIP's hazard analysis, vulnerability analysis, and capability assessments. The list of potential mitigation actions in the MCM LHMP was condensed so local participants would focus their attention and effort on projects that would likely be implemented over the next 5 years (the lifespan of the MCM LHMP). Criteria considered for the development of the new mitigation actions included the following: Mitigation action must be mitigation-focused (as opposed to response, recovery, and preparedness-driven) Mitigation action must meet the 2015 HMA Guidance project criteria eligibility Mitigation action must address the DMA 2000 requirements for the identification and analysis of mitigation actions Mitigation actions must address the MCM LHMP vulnerability analysis results In addition to the potential mitigation actions developed for the local participants, local agencies have their own specific actions in Appendix G— S. Many of the individual jurisdiction's prior mitigation actions were derived from the ABAG 2010 planning process which contained an extensive list of over 250 actions. Many of these actions - were not mitigation specific-(e.(1. preparedness, response, or-recover-y), or were not specific to — individual jurisdictions but rather were regional in scope. 115 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy Additionally, recent declared disasters have provided information that may lead to potential changes in priorities that will be identified in the next iteration of this plan As shown below, for each potential mitigation action, the following information is listed: mitigation action description; mitigation action category; hazard(s) addressed; and type of development affected by mitigation action. Additional mitigation actions reselected and/or added by a local participant and supporting staff are located in his/her local-participant-specific appendix (Appendix G through Appendix S). Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions Existing Potential No. Descri tion Hazard and Goal Local HMA Eligible; ing Responsible p Addressed Mechanism to Activity Type you ce Agencies Implement DAM-1 Encourage property Dam inundation Public 5 Percent Planning and owners in dam awareness or Initiative public works inundation areas to educationdepartments, purchase insurance campaigns Special about districts(water mitigation districts) DAM-2 ;Consider/implement ,Dam inundation Improvements to (related: flood, ;armoring of dams or earthquake and !other improvements. wind) DAM-3 Install accelerometers Dam inundation on and adjacent to (earthquake and 'dams to provide flood) information on structural impacts of seismic events. EQ-I :Use incentives for Earthquake Gants for Structural HUD Planning or mitigation of privately property Retrofitting of CDBG, Building owned at-risk or owners, Existing HMGP, departments seismically deficient guidance Buildings PDM structures(soft story/ '', materials, unreinforced workshops, masonry/old bridges). events or other public engagement initiatives 116 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy EQ-2 Adopt applicable Earthquake Hazard HMGP Planning standards and Mitigation departments identification/assessme'; Planning lit protocols for Related voluntary or Activity mandatory retrofits of seismically vulnerable buildings(such as soft ' story buildings). EQ-3 Upgrade deficient Earthquake Infrastructure HMGP, Public Works ramps and bridges. Retrofit PDM departments EQ-4 Require engineered Earthquake andHazard HMGP Planning or plan sets for seismic Debris Flow Mitigation Building retrofits of homes on Planning departments steep hillsides,soft- Related story homes,and other Activity split-level or vulnerable homes not covered by standard plan set A FIR-1 Develop a plan for Wildfire Hazard HMGP and Fire and appropriate access and Mitigation other Emergency ,evacuation in hillside Planning federal,state Services wildland-urban Related and local departments interface areas,For Activity sources example creation of no parking areas,signage, and early warning and evacuation. FIR-2 Develop a method andWildfire Hazard HMGP and Planning and technologies for Mitigation other Fire regulating and/or Planning federal, state departments enforcing defensible Activity and local spaces. sources FIR-3 Encourage Fire Wildfire Wildfire HMGP and Fire Departments to expand Mitigation other departments vegetation (Creation of federal,state management programs Defensible and local in wildland-urban- Space, sources interface areas to more Hazardous effectively manage the Fuels fuel load through Reduction) various methods ineluding,but not limited to,roadside collection and chipping,mechanical 117 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy fuel reduction equipment,selected harvesting,use of goats 01'other organic methods of fuel reduction. FIR-4 Fuel reduction Wildfire Wildfire HMGP and Fire program for publicly Mitigation other departments owned or open spaces. = (Hazardous federal,state May include targeting Fuels and local invasive and exotic Reduction) sources plants that contribute to fire(and flooding) hazards such as eucalyptus,broom,and. cordgrass. FIR-5 Promote residential Wildfire WildfireHMGP and Fire and fuel modification Mitigation other Planning program. May include (Creation of federal,state departments? special programs for Defensible and local elderly/disabled. Space, sources Hazardous Fuels Reduction) FIR-6 Post-fire soil Post-fire debris Soil HMGP Fire, Planning, stabilization such as flow stabilization and Public planting heat and Works drought tolerant departments vegetation.May include re-routing water channels to prevent landslides fi-om affecting local roadways. FIR-7 Develop and "Post-fire debris Early warning 'HMGP 5% Fire and implement early flow systems that Post Fire Emergency warning systems that monitor and Funding Services monitor surface water alert of departments movement and alert possible post- citizens of possible fire debris post-fire flash floods flows and debris flows. FLD-1 Maintain participation 'Flood CRS staff Hazard FlMGP, Public Works in the National Flood Mitigation PDM, FMA, and Planning Insurance Program and Planning other departments manage beyond Related federal, state minimum requirements Activity and local as appropriate for local funds conditions. Consider improving COmmmflity- Rating System(CRS) score if benefit exceeds cost for a given jurisdiction. FLU-2 Incorporate flood Flood Capital Hazard HMGP and Planning-and 118 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy planning into local improvement Mitigation other Public Works permitting and plans,zoning_ Planning federal,state departments. planing. codes, Related and local development Activity(as finds codes. part of plan update) FLD-4 Conduct education& 'Flood Annual flood Hazard I-1MGP Public Works, outreach for preparedness Mitigation Planning, homeowners regarding] fair,CRS Planning Emergency flood mitigation as part, annual Related Services,Fire, of hazard mitigation outreach,sea Activity(as special plan update. level rise part of plan districts. guide for update) homeowners. FLD-5 Inspect,assess, Flood and erosion 'Capital Localized HMGP Public Works maintain, improve,and`due to flood flows improvement Flood Risk departments ,expand flood programs and Reduction management systems, maintenance Projects such as berms,levees, programs seawalls,drainage basins,catch basins, Pipes,pump stations, ,channels or other flood and stormwater infrastructure. Includes. stabilization of grades and banks in creeks, ;especially where ,critical facilities are nearby or crossing. FLD-6 identify structures, Flood Post-disaster Property FMA, Planning and ;collect and assess community Acquisition HMGP, Public Works information to support planing, and Structure ,Flood departments policy decisions CRS,Local Demolition/Rel'Control & regarding pre-or post- Coastal ocation and Water disaster acquisition, Program, Structure Conservatio relocation,elevation, building Elevation n District or wet/dry codes, floodproofing of flood BayWAVE/C prone structures, -SMART particularly Repetitive Loss.Consider views and aesthetic impacts early in planning. FLD-7 Continue to support Flooding Non-localized Partially Somona the San Francisco Bay Flood Risk funded by County Water Area Advanced Reduction California Agency is the Quantitative Project Department lead agency. `Precipitation of Water Marin County Information System Miscellaneous/Resources partners may project to provide both Other project Integrated include special improved observing that addresses Water districts(water -capabilities and a suite climate change Management and sanitary) of numerical forecast adaptation and and the and Public models to produce encourages Sononna Works 119 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy accurate and timely resiliency. County departments. information fora Mitigation Water variety of user needs, project adapts Agency. including improved to new Potential precipitation and challenges future hydrologic information_ posed by more 'funding to assist the region in powerful sources mitigating flood storms, include hazards, maximize frequent heavy FEMA and water supply,and precipitation, additional enhance ecosystem prolonged partner services.The primary droughts, agencies emphasis will be toextreme (flood, improve short-term(48 flooding, and water, hour)monitoring andother weather _sanitary prediction of high- events. agencies in ;impact rainfall events. the region, The secondary particularly �lemphasis will focus on in the north improved medium- San range precipitation Francisco forecasts(out to 10Bay areas). ;days)for water supply. FLD-8 'Conduct multi- Flood CRS program Hazard HMGP, Public Works jurisdictional repetitive 5-year update Mitigation County departments loss area analysis for Planning general fund full county as part of Related multi-jurisdictional Activity local hazard mitigation' planning FLD-9 Encourage at least one Severe Storm/ CRS program Hazard HMGP, Planning, member of City/Town Flood points, Mitigation professional 'Building,and to be a Certified Floodplain Planning development Public Works Floodplain Manager. Managers Related funds departments Association Activity (as Conferences, part of plan professional update) development, consider hosting a local workshop FLD-10 Participate in C- Flood C-SMART Flazard HMGP. Planning and SMART and and Mitigation other Public Works BayWAVE adaptation BayWAVE Planning federal,state departments planning and programs, Related and local ,implement strategies capital Activities funding stemming from these improvement . programs. tannin FlD-1 IEncourage integration Flood Hazard HMGP. Planning, of SLR and climate Mitigation other Emergency ;change into planning Planning federal, state Services,and documents,systems, Related and local Public Works operations,and Activities funding departments maintenance 120 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy LS-1 Increase efforts to Landslide Hazard Planning and reduce landslides and Mitigation Public Works erosion in existing and Planning departments future development by Related improving appropriateActivity code enforcement and ,use of applicable standards for private property, such as those appearing in the California Building Code,California 'Geological Survey 'Special Report 117— ;Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, American Society of Civil Engineers ;(ASCE)report Recommended Procedures for ;Implementation of DMG Special ;Publication 117: ;Guidelines for Analyzing and 'Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, 'and the California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports. Such ''standards should cover excavation,fill placement,cut-fill transitions,slope stability,drainage and ;erosion control,slope setbacks,expansive soils,collapsible soils, environmental issues, geological and geotechnical investigations,grading plans and specifications, protection of adjacent properties,and review Mand permit issuance. LS-2 Develop and Landslide Emergency Soil HMGP and Public Works implement projects response Stabilization other 121 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy that prevent landslide = stabilization and federal,state departments impacts to roadways. and capital Infrastructure _and local improvement Retrofit sources projects MLT-1 :Integrate the MCM All General Plan Hazard Jurisdiction Planning or LHMP into all updates Mitigation general Public Works ;jurisdictions general Planning funds(soft departments. plan safety elements. Related match), Activity HMGP MLT-2 Assess vulnerability ofAll Needed Hazard HMGP, Building and critical facilities and Mitigation PDM Public Works public buildings to Planning ;departments 'damage in natural Related and special 'disaster. Make Activity districts with recommendations to critical 'staff and governing ;facilities. board on priorities for mitigation, identify ,funding mechanisms, ;conduct :improvements. MLT-3 Adopt,amend as :Earthquake, Severe Existing Hazard Building Planning, needed,and enforce Storm,Wildfire, construction Mitigation ;permit fees Building,and ;updated versions of Tsunami codes Planning Fire estate and federalRelated departments. ;regulations for Activity Building and Fire 'Codes so that optimal ;standards are used in ;construction and :renovation projects of public and private ;buildings and ;infrastructure. MLT-4 'Develop/enforce All Varies by hazard HMGP Planning regulations requiring jurisdiction Mitigation departments. ;replacement of above- Planning ground utilities with Related underground utilities. Activity Require underground utilities be effectively sealed to prevent backflow of ;floodwaters into buildings. MLT-5 Prepare,study, and or All Through Hazard H1vIGP, Emergency provide hazard existing Mitigation PDM Services, information to public PlanningPlanning, Fire, residents,property Outreach Related and Public ;owners and merchants, methods. Activity Works such as hazard maps newsletters. (information departments (e.g. MarinMap and social media dissemination MyHazard)and private' as part of plan mitigation resources. update) 122 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy Do this as part of Hazard Mitigation Planning to be eligible for HMA funding. MLT-6 Partner with utility All Biannual Hazard HMGP, Emergency system providers and i Marin CountyMitigation PDM Services other lifeline Utilities and Planning departments? infrastructure and Public Works Related municipal partners to Meetings Activity(as develop strong and part of plan effective mitigation update) strategies as part of multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning. MLT-7 Train staff in All Professional Hazard HMGP. Emergency emergency response Development.Mitigation PDM, Services, :and hazard mitigation County host Planning EMPG Planning, by hosting trainings Cal OES Related Building, and by encouraging CSTI for _Activity(as Public Works, attendance at training part of plan and Fire conferences and offered to update) Departments. workshops as part of participating multi jurisdictional jurisdictions. hazard mitigation planning. MLT-8 Use partnerships to All General plan ',Hazard HMGP, Parks and protect as open space land use/openMitigation PDM, FMA Planning or parks,wetlands and space Planning (if protect Departments_ those areas susceptible ;elements, Related RL); other County Open to extreme hazards easements Activity; federal, state Space and (such as through land and Property and local Flood Control acquisition.zoning, conservation Acquisition funds and designation as easements and Structure Priority Conservation Demolition/ Areas). Relocation MLT-9 Develop and All As part of Generators HMGP(5 Emergency implement energy capital percent Services, assurance plans. Mayimprovement initiative). Public Works, include backup projects. PDM Fire,and generators. energy special districts storage(e.g. diesel fuel' tanks),and microgrids for critical facilities. MLT-10 Reinforce and/or flood, Debris flow, Capital Infrastructure HMGP, Public Works elevate ramps,bridges,and Earthquake improvement Retrofit other and Planning and roads as needed. plans federal,state departments and local finndino sources MLT-11 Conduct t\vo new fire- Wildfire, Post-fire Part of the 5- Hazard HMGP Planning,Fire, related assessments Debris Flow year update to Mitigation and Public takinginto account — — the LHMP_ Planning Works lessons learned from Related departments the 2017 North-Bay Activity 123 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy wildfires.The new ,data points needed in order to support improved fire hazard 'mitigation include 1) assessing vulnerability ,of public and private 'structures in the wildland-urban interface zones based on building material and roof type,and 2) :identifying areas with ;aging population and/or access and fftmctional needs.This ,analysis could support new mitigation strategies that would ,make Marin more 'resilient to the type of :disaster that occurred in our northern !neighboring county. ; MLT-12 ;Prepare powerful Flood/SLR and Part of the 5- Hazard HMGP Emergency }graphics for the 2023 Wildfire year update to identification Services, MCM LHMP that the LHMP or mapping for Planning,Fire, show how one or both the and Public 'of fire and/or flood implementatio :Works hazards affects the vast', n of mitigation departments majority of populated activities `areas.The goal is to Public 'encourage awareness or communities to work education together towards acampaigns cornmon goal of about minimizing hazard risk= mitigation ;for all. MLT-13 ;Update landslide or Debris flow and Building and Hazard HMGP Planning and wildfire hazard wildfire fire code Mitigation Public Works considerations, updates. Planning departments including roads Local Coastal Related leading to Program. Activity development,when new construction or major remodels are proposed in hillside ureas discourage construction or add mitigation measures as appropriate. MLT-14 Work to ensure a Wildfire Hazard HMGP and Fire reliable source of (/litigation other departments water for fire Planning federal,state and special suppression and Related and local districts(water 124 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy general use Activity sources districts) during/after hazards through the cooperative efforts of water districts,sanitary: districts, fire districts, residents and commercial property downers. MLT-15 Mitigate against wind--Wind,Flood, induced wave erosion :Earthquake on the coast and in `critical ponds (drinking,water treatment,or stormwater storage/detention) through relocation of facilities or improving (such as armoring) banks/berms/levees/sh orelines. Secondary benefits include protection against earthquake-induced damage to critical facilities and flooding that may result due to their damage. MLT-16 Assessment of All Flazard HMGP, Planning properties countywide Mitigation PDM departments to facilitate rapid Planning damage assessment Related post-disaster,and pre- Activity disaster vulnerability analysis for hazard mitigation planning update. MLT-17 Follow all four phases All of FEMA's How-to- Guide: "Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning"to develop and implement a mitigation plan for at risk cultural resources. MLT-13 Design and implement Flood,Tsunami, Capital Hazard HMGP, Planning and projects that protect Wind improvement Mitigation PDM. FMA,Public Works and expand natural projects, Planning other departments flood mitigation zoning and Related federal. state functions. Example setbacks. Activity and local projects include partnership funds 125 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy nature-based sea level based efforts, rise adaptation projects stream that attenuate waves conservation utilizing a living ordinances, shoreline. local coastal plans, building codes. MLT-19 Prevent infrastructure Flood,Tsunami Hazard Planning and expansion in high-risk Mitigation Public Works areas Planning ;departments Related Activities MLT-20 Protect buildings and 'Flood,Tsunami Capital Localized HMGP, Planning and infrastructure fi•om improvement '.flood risk other Public Works flood damage,such as projects, reduction federal,state departments by moving sewers and multi-benefit 'projects and local roads upland. restoration funding Projects TSU-1 Continue participation 'Tsunami Hazard Emergency in NOAA Mitigation Services TsunamiReady Planning departments program,in iRelated communities with Activities ;;significant tsunami risk. 126 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy 4.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS After the list of potential mitigation actions had been developed, each plan participant, along with staff fi-om other relevant departments/agencies within his/her jurisdiction, evaluated and prioritized the potential mitigation actions to determine which mitigation actions would be included in his/her local-participant-specific mitigation action plan. Only mitigation actions that met at least four or more of prioritization criteria listed below was included in the mitigation action plan. Criteria considered for this evaluation process included: ❑ Current or potential support from the plan participant ❑ Plan participant department or agency champion CI Ability to be implernented during the 5-year lifespan of the MCM LHMP ❑ Ability to reduce expected future damages and losses (benefit - cost) ❑ Mitigates a high-risk hazard or multiple hazards Each local participant's mitigation action plan is included in the local-participant-specific appendix (Appendix G through Appendix S). Each mitigation action plan includes: a description of each mitigation action; prioritization criteria selected (numbers 1-5. as shown above); potential facility to be mitigated (if known); responsible department or agency; potential funding source; and implementation timeframe. Criteria for prioritizing actions are evaluated by individual jurisdiction's boards and councils. Cost Benefit may not be a primary consideration in all cases, and the STAPLE(E) criteria developed by FEMA is a commonly applied decision making instrument. The acronym STAPLE(E) is defined as follows: Social—Is the hazard mitigation strategy socially acceptable? Technical—Is the proposed action technically feasible. and cost effective, and does it provide the appropriate level of protection? Administrative—Does the community have the capability to implement the action, and is the lead agency capable of carrying out oversight of the project? Political—Is the hazard mitigation action politically acceptable? Legal—Does the connnunity have the authority to implement the proposed action? Economic—Do the economic base, projected growth, and opportunity costs justify the hazard mitigation project? Benefit cost-analysis is a mathematical method for comparing costs to the benefits to the community of a hazard mitigation action. If the benefits are greater than the costs, the project is cost effective. Comparing the ratios of benefits to costs for several hazard - - mitigation projects helps to identify those that offer the "greatest banL, for the community's - buck." Benefit-cost analysis gives decision makers an understandable way to explain and defend 127 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy their decisions. For many grant programs, FEMA and the State will use benefit-cost analysis to determine whether a project is eligible. The community can save time and energy by limiting planning activities to projects that will be more likely to receive funding. Environmental—Does the proposed action rneet statutory considerations and public desire for sustainable and environmentally healthy communities? The jurisdictions represented in this plan (County, cities, towns and special districts) are authorized by state law and qualify as separate governments. With the exception of the special districts, the jurisdictions all have a general plan that regulates current and future development through zoning based on described hazards. State law requires all California Cities and Counties to adopt general plans which include seven mandatory chapters: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. In addition to General Plans, each jurisdiction has an Emergency Action (or Operations) Plan and a Climate Action Plan. An example matrix outlining legal and regulatory resources for hazard mitigation in Marin County is contained in Appendix G, Table G-9. The jurisdictions each have a municipal code of ordinances to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, access to persons with disabilities, sanitation, adequate lighting and ventilation and energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment; to regulate and control the demolition of all buildings and structures, and for related purposes. The jurisdictions all have planning departments that review proposed developments and new uses for conformance with policies plans and regulations and are served by law enforcement and fire departments. Resources vary greatly between jurisdictions according to general funds and staff, which are roughly proportionate to population size and commercial activity. Regardless of size, mitigation actions tend to leverage federal, state, and regional financial resources heavily in the form of matching grants. Example matrices outlining human, technical and financial resources for hazard mitigation in Marin County are contained in Appendix G, Tables G-7 and G-8. With the protection of plans and codes secured through statute, the expansion and improvement of policies and programs are dependent on the allocation of limited financial resources towards staff administration and implementation. An efficient means of improving and expanding Programs is through shared resources. 'I lie many small jurisdictions in the County often do not have the resources to successfully accomplish the many requirements placed upon them, but through economies of scale they can provide better public service. One example of that is this Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which for most jurisdictions represents a much-needed update. For two of these Jurisdictions this will be a new plan. 128 SECTION 4 Mitigation Strategy This page intentionally left blonk 129 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents SECTION 5 PLAN MAINTENANCE 5.1 OVERVIEW This section describes a formal plan maintenance process to ensure that the MCM LHMP remains an active and applicable document. It includes an explanation of how the Marin County Sheriff's OES and the MCM LHMP Planning Committee intends to organize their efforts to ensure that improvements and revisions to the MCM LHMP occur in a well-managed. efficient, and coordinated manner. The following process steps are addressed in detail below: -! Monitoring, evaluating, and updating the MCM LHMP CImplementation through existing planning mechanisms Continued public involvement 5.2 MONITORING, EVALUATING AND UPDATING THE PLAN The MCM LHMP was prepared as a collaborative effort between the Planning Committee and other representatives of participating jurisdictions. To maintain momentum and build on previous hazard mitigation planning efforts and successes, Marin County Sheriff's OES will make use of the Planning Committee to monitor, evaluate, and update the MCM LHMP. The Marin County Sheriff's OES will continue to serve as the,POC and will coordinate all local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and update this document. Similar to the plan maintenance procedures outlined in the 2013 Marin County LHMP, the Planning Committee will meet quarterly to review related activities and have the opportunity to evaluate the plan annually. As such, the Marin County Sheriff's OES and the Planning Committee have developed the following revised approach to the MCM LHMP plan maintenance. In addition to hosting quarterly review meetings, every 12 months fi-om plan adoption the Marin County Sheriff's OES will email each member of the Planning Committee an Annual Review Questionnaire to complete. The Annual Review Questionnaire will include the following requests: 1) Provide a summary of any hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on your community. 2) Provide a review of successful mitigation initiatives identified in your jurisdictions existing/prior LI-IMP (if applicable). Provide comment on why targeted strategies were not completed. 3) Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term project to a short-term project because of funding availability). 4) Provide recommendations for new projects. 5) Provide recommended changes in, or potential for, new funding options (e.(j. grant opportunities). 130 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents 6) Provide recommendation on integration of new data such as GIS data and mapping used to inform the Plan. 7) Identify the impact of any other planning programs or initiatives within the community that involve hazard mitigation. 8) Attach any additional important notes on vulnerability analysis and hazard mitigation planning for your community (e.g. attach annual reports regarding plan implementation). The Marin County Sheriff's OES will collect all completed questionnaires and determine if the MCM LHMP needs to be updated to address new or more threatening hazards, new technical reports or findings, and new or better-defined mitigation projects. The Marin County Sheriffs OES will summarize these findings and email them out to the Planning Committee. If the Marin County Sheriff's OES believes that the MCM LHMP needs to be updated based on the findings, then department will request that the Planning Committee attend a MCM LHMP update meeting. In addition, the implementation strategy will be monitored and updated through the use of the Mitigation Project Progress Report or a FEMA annual report. During each annual review, each department or agency currently administering a FEMA mitigation project will submit a progress report or quarterly reports to the Marin County Sheriffs OES to review and evaluate. As shown in Appendix F, the progress report will discuss the current status of the mitigation project, including any changes made to the project, identify implementation problems, and describe appropriate strategies to overcome them. After considering the findings of the submitted progress reports, the Marin County Sheriffs OES may request that the implementing department or agency meet to discuss project conditions. In addition to quarterly meetings, the Annual Review Questionnaire, the Mitigation Project Progress Report or FEMA annual report, and any other meetings, the Planning Committee will reinitiate the plan update process MCM LlJMP every 4 years to meet the 5 year planning cycle. To ensure that this update occurs, within the first six months of the fourth year following plan adoption, the Planning Committee will undertake the following update process activities: F1 Research funding available to assist in MCM LHMP update(and apply for finds that may take up to one year to obtain) ❑ Thoroughly analyze and update the risk of natural hazards in the communities of Marin County Complete a new Annual Review Questionnaire and review previous questionnaires ❑ Provide a detailed review and revision of the mitigation strategy 1_1 Prepare a new implementation strateg\ L i Prepare a new draft MCM LHMP and submit it to the local participants governing bodies for adoption Submit an updated MCM LHMP to CalOES and FEMA for approval ❑ Submit approved MCM L1-IMP to governing bodies of each jurisdiction participating in the plan 131 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents 5.3 IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS After the adoption of the MCM LHMP, the Marin County Sheriff's OES and the Planning Committee will ensure that elements of the MCM LHMP are incorporated into other existing planning mechanisms. The processes for incorporating the MCM LHMP into various planning documents will occur as (1) other plans are updated and (2) new plans are developed. Therefore, the MCM LHMP participants will undertake the some or all of the following activities: Activity 1: The County, cities and towns will use information from the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections in the MCM LHMP to update the safety element in their respective general plans. Activity 2: The County, cities/towns, and special districts will use information from the hazard analysis and vulnerability analysis sections in the MCM LHMP to update their respective Emergency Operation Plans. Activity 3: The County, cities/towns, and special districts will use information from the vulnerability analysis section in the MCM LHMP to develop emergency preparedness public information and related outreach efforts. Activity 4: CRS program participants will use information from the vulnerability analysis (specifically the RL properties analysis) in the MCM LHMP to develop CRS-eligible mitigation activities and reduce the number of RL properties within the county. Activity 5: The County, cities, and special districts will refer to the mitigation strategy section in the MCM LHMP when updating their respective capital improvement plans. The responsibility for carrying out these activities is the City/Town Managers, District General Managers, or County Administrators, who may delegate implementation or administration to their staff. 5.4 CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Marin County Sheriff's OES and the MCM LI-IMP Planning Committee are dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual reshaping and updating of this plan. Similar to the 2013 Marin County LHMP, a downloadable copy of the MCM LHMP will be available on the Marin County Sheriff's Office Website. Also, any proposed changes or updates will be posted on this Website. The Marin County's Sheriff's Website will also contain an e-mail address and phone number to which people can direct their comments or concerns. Additionally, copies of the plan will continue to be kept with all of the local participants. The existence and location of these copies will also be posted on the County Website as well as websites maintained by participating jurisdictions. Finally, a press release was issued prior to finalization of the 2018 Marin County Multi- Jurisdictional LHMP. This provided the public an outlet for which they can express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about an; updates/changes that are proposed to the plan. The Marin County Sheriff's OES will be responsible for using county resources to publicize the press 132 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents releases and maintain public involvement through public access channels, web pages, and newspapers as deemed appropriate. DLII-ing the 5-Year plan cycle, the Planning Team will continue to include the general public in notices on the planning process. The Planning Team will solicit feedback fi-om the public on perceived impacts of projects identified in the plan, as well as shifting perceptions of hazards that are identified in the plan. An example of a shift in perception of a hazard is the public view of wildfire as a threat in light of the devastating North Bay fires of 2017 which occurred in neighboring counties. 133 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents Appendix A FEMA Compliance Documents The Local Miligalion Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Mitigation Plan meets the regulation in 44 CFR §201.6 and offers States and FEMA Mitigation Planners an opportunity to provide feedback to the community. Jurisdiction: Title of Plan: Date of Plan: County of Marin and political 2018 Marin County Multi- August 2018 subdivisions Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Local Point of Contact: Address: Thomas Jordan 1600 Los Gamos Drive Title: Suite 200 Emergency Services Coordinator San Rafael,CA 94903 Agency: Marin County Sheriff-Office of Emergency Services Phone Number: E-Mail: 415 473 6584 T_Jordan@MarinSheriff.org State Reviewer: Title: Date: FEMA Reviewer: Title: Date: Date Received in FEMA Region (i,,.,c,.t#) Plan Not Approved Plan Approvable Pending Adoption Plan Approved 1 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents SECTION 1: REGULATION CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS: The Regulation Checklist must be completed by FEMA. The purpose of the Checklist is to identify the location of relevant or applicable content in the Plan by Element/sub-element and to determine if each requirement has been `Met' or `Not Met.' The 'Required Revisions' summary at the bottom of each Element must be completed by FEMA to provide a clear explanation of the revisions that are required for plan approval. Required revisions must be explained for each plan sub-element that is 'Not Met.' Sub-elements Should be referenced in each summary by using the appropriate numbers (Al, B3, etc.), where applicable. Requirements for each Element and sub-element are described in detail in this Plan Review Guide in Section 4, Regulation Checklist. 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Location Plan Regulation(44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) ELEMENT A.PLANNING PROCESS Al.Does the Plan document the planning process,including how it Sections 1.6.5, 1.6.6, was prepared and who was involved in the process for each 2.2,2.3 jurisdiction?(Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) 'fable 2-1 A2.Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring Section 2.4 communities,local and regional agencies involved in hazard Appendix E mitigation activities,agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the tanninprocess?(Requirement§201.6(b) 2 A3.Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the Sections 2.41,2.42, planning process during the drafting stage?(Requirement 2.44 §201.6 b 1 A4.Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of Sections 2.3, 3.2 existing plans,studies,reports,and technical information? Appendices G -S (Requirement§201.6(b)(3)) A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies)will continue Sections5.3, 5.4 public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement§201.6 c 4 iii A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the Section 5.2 plan current(monitoring,evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle)?(Requirement§201.6(c)(4)(i)) 2 APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents 1.REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan Not i Regulation(44 CFR 201.6 ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT 131.Does the Plan include a description of the type,location,and Sections 3.2,3.3 extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? Table 3-3 Requirement§201.6(c) 2 (i)) B2.Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of Section 3.3 hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction?(Requirement§201.6 c 2 i ) B3.Is there a description of each identified hazard's impact on the Section 3.3, community as well as an overall summary of the community's Appendices G -S vulnerability for each jurisdiction?(Requirement§201.6 c 2 ii B4.Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the Section 3.4 jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? Table 3-7 (Requirement§201.6(c)(2)(ii ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY C1.Does the plan document each jurisdiction's existing Section 4.4 authorities,policies,programs and resources and its ability to Appendices G - S expand on and improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement§201.6(c)(3)) C2.Does the Plan address each jurisdiction's participation in the Section 3.3.5 NFIP and continued compliance with NFIP requirements,as Table 3-7 appropriate? Re uirement§201.6 c 3 ii C3.Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term Section 4.2 vulnerabilities to the identified hazards?(Requirement Table 4-1 §201.6(c 3 i)) _.__, C4.Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of Section 4.3 specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being Table 4-2 considered to reduce the effects of hazards,with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure?(Requirement Appendices G - S §201.6 c 3)(ii)) APPENDIX A FEMA Compliance Documents Location1.REGULATION CHECKLIST J in Not Regulation(44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans) Plan Met Met C5.Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the Sections 4.3,4.4 actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review),implemented,and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement§201.6 c 3 iv Re uirement§201.6 c 3 iii C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will Section 5.3 integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms,such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate?(Requirement§201.6(c)(4)(ii)) ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW,EVALUATION,AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicable to plan updates only) D1.Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? Sections 1.6.1,3.5 (Requirement§201.6(d)(3)) D2.Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation Appendices G -S efforts?(Requirement§201.6(d)(3) D3.Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? Section 4.3 (Requirement§201.6(d)(3)) ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT E.PLAN ADOPTION E1.Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval?(Requirement§201.6(c)(5)) E2.For multi-jurisdictional plans,has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption? (Requirement§201.6(c)(5 ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR STATE REVIEWERS ONLY; NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA) F1. F2. ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS 4 APPENDIX A FEMA COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS This page intentionally left blank 5 APPENDIX B Adoption Resolutions Appendix B Adoption Resolutions To be inserted at time of adoption 6 APPENDIX B Adoption Resolutions This page intentionally left blank 7 APPENDIX C Planning Committee Appendix C Planning Committee Department,Agency, or Municipality Name Marin County Sheriff's Office Thomas Jordan,Emergency Services Coordinator Hannah Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Beb Skye,Engineering Technician Marin County Department of Public Works Felix Meneau,Assistant Engineer Gerhard Epke, Senior Program Coordinator Marin County Fire Department Scott Alber,Fire Marshal Kristen Drumm, Senior Planner Marin County Community Development Agency Alex Westhoff,Planner Irene Borba,Director of Planning&Building City of Belvedere Laurie Nilsen,Emergency Services Coordinator Kelly Crowe, Senior Civil Engineer Matt Cobb,Battalion Chief Town of Corte Madera Hamid Khalili,Police Captain Adam Wolff,Planning and Building Director Peter Brown,Public Works Director Mark Lockaby,Chief Building Official City of Fairfax Michele Gardner,Deputy Town Clerk Matt Cobb,Battalion Chief Bob Quinn,Public Works Superintendent City of Larkspur Neal Toft, Planning Director Julian Skinner,Public Works Director. Tom Welch, Fire Chief City of Mill Valley Andrew Poster,Public Works Director Elisa Sarlatte,DPW Engineering Manager Richard Simonitch,Public Works Director Town of Ross Heidi Scoble,Planning Manager Erik Masterson, Police Chief Sean Condry, Public Works Director Town of=San Anselmo _ _ - Elise Semonian, Planning Director 8 APPENDIX C Planning Committee Dave Donery,"Town Manager Talia Smith, Senior Manaaement Analyst Quin Gardner, Emergency Management Coord City of San Rafael Robert Sinnott,Deputy Fire Chief Kevin McGowan, Asst Public Works Director Bill Guerin, Public Works Director Jonathon Goldman,Public Works Director City of Sausalito Bill Frass, Police Captain Lilly Whalen,Clerk Mike McKinley, Emergency Services Coordinator Kyra O'Malley, Associate Planner Town of Tiburon Laurie Nilsen, Emergency Services Coordinator Scott Anderson,Community Development Director Nancy Andrews, Senior Management Analyst Bob Brown,Community Development Director City of Novato Bill Tyler, Fire Chief Jim Correa, Police Captain Dave Jeffries,Consultant Drew McIntyre,General Manager North Marin Water District Rocky Vogler,Chief Engineer Pippin Cavagnaro, Associate Hannah Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation Felix Meneau, Assistant Engineer District Gerhard Epke, Senior Program Coordinator 9 APPENDIX C Planning Committee 5/13/-23,16 Marin County ttt ultWurisdiction l Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-off I ting E �3 F� \ Agenda %V,!:�Mma and tntmtlwtian; • Project f5�^rrs�zvx t&CtA UiFaPV Cf�naak.:PrOCC:orad coff4pMWft • Ptartran�Pracsx: • Nan ComParrcnu • Qunr,%w of Existing LWTS in the Cili7&nty • Praie T xneaine Not Stepa J.L,tvtm n am 1"ptruirg)Arc,w 5exzian wMq vp Welcome and Introductions • Marin Ctur�t p LHMP Team -Ma-2h L".A�5-x ate GW EnSimcr Gamin Ctx w,,C+e+ar[t>ssrn rtt pubk Wu —Tom ford4n,Er¢vesge;ruy Sca Ftp.Codi nwwr •LKa:r1 D am smn pi'trer 3.4a2ilr C--f C Y£33fkUltirY C+!tKr�Y¢tYr O& 7 sCO? Aktxr,fit& a$1Y`.}'gi Sax&r G&+ats[y far C*:.snrecneft 10 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MAP.If•t MULTI JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGAT9CN PLAN KICK-OFF METING : ;:.:`.. KICK=04—MEET]tl24I2Q 3�IAl4t - �'•PR1ryT_.GLF_AF+ Y AGi=FtC.><; -l; . c i 1 . . i n t I `+-'��,, 15 l' ~, 1Eiu},��.tf;i�t.1'�"?�•l:t,i�"''flHa_IY;:,riL �'-;;�.-. :ice,t.._C� •} e. I, T ✓-,, C) t r,_ i �:-Ir 11 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LHMP MEETING #2 Agenda 4/26/2016 10:30—12:30 Marin County Emergency Operations Center 1. Sign in sheet 2. BayWave presentation recap 3. Project LOI Check-ins 4. Project Roadmap—review of changes S. LHMP Element Work: Community Profile&Asset Inventory 6. LHMP related activity Cherie-ins 7. Schedule next meeting for May 8. Discuss planning and logistics for Community Meetings 9. Final Thoughts 12 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN MUILT1.1URISGICTIONAL Loc;AL HAzARD N TIGATEON puled KICK-OFF MEETING -- - --- M -- ARIN C,OUt'1T:Y:MLLT1-J�1 — F'i1SDIGT,IQNAL ,HMP MEETING.:.+�I��1�0`I,1�'i:. I'1AME{PF�wT.�rt G:RLr.�. . AG�NCl"". '. r`` �: F'Ft[�ht�'MU1utBER ..• r� I!oI/t,ti, y i S Tc, LTJ - . r• I 90. ( 9" 17. 1 13 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LHMP MEETING#3 Agenda 6/9/2016 10:00—12:00 Marin County Emergency Operations Center 1. Sign in sheet 2. Project LOI Check-ins 3. Marin County Council of Mayors&Councila-ternbers (MCCMC) meeting discussion 4. Project Roadmap—review of changes 5. LHMP Element Work: Risk Assessment 6. LHMP related activity Check-ins 7. Schedule next meeting for August 8. Discuss planning and logistics for Community Meetings 9. Final Thoughts 14 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN MULTI JURISrilOnORAL Lc7(-;AL.HAZAPO MITIGATIOI'd PLAN KICK-OFF MEETING illflAE21N COUNTY MULTI,)URISOICTIOMAC LHMP MEETl! �: -6/912016 GENGY NAPdE(FRDJT.CLrzARLY� . - 1 . PFEOhiE,hlUlulgE� ..'. - . I 2. I 3. } '—i.. I`•''t'IJ--•_ "i I�`�J �5 `Y js,J� S","5�1 � I r-t tom :--11�1 �tb --Y 7 11 ,-j L,7 f� 7� 'L:'Jry i:�L'I%`•,�`���';SJ1'{- ..... �; 1j-C I i'. x'� �� �I'`:i•-s.;�h yl ''t`U�i'rs I•". {�—`�-��I \ li �"�4l I , 72 I �' _ I 1 I I 1 I - r _• _ _ i� ti' 'I 15 APPENDIX C Planning Committee e MARINCOUMTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL�LHMPMEETING#4 Agenda 8/3U/2016 12:0O-2:OU Marin County Emergency Operations Center 1. Sign insheet 2. Project Hnedrnap—review ofFinal Draft 8. LHK0PElement Work:Activity Sheet discussion 4. Discuss planning and logistics for Community Meetings 5. Discuss planning and logistics for Public Virtual Engagement 6. CRS Overview/Discussion 7. LHK8Prelated activity Check-ins (Projects, Plans, NO[s) 8. Schedule next meeting 9. Final Thoughts APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN MULTI JVRISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGAT[4N PLAtd KICK-OFF MEETING - ;M'ARIN,�OIJNT?t,'�411lJLTI:JU,FiiS�IG710Pf�1L'LHMRMEETI,NG�'-�$I�Q,l`�Q:�Gi,.�..:`:�.,: ,I !. - - ' I f 1� 17 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LHMP MEETING#5 Agenda 2/9/2017 10:00—12:00 Marin County Emergency Operations Center I. Sign in sheet II. Project Roadmap—review Ill. Presentation on the pubic engagement series and workshops. IV. Review of the draft plan V. Update on the SHMP effort and new FEMA R IX HMP Staff. V1. Check in on progress on activity sheets. VII. Q&A VIII. CRS Overview/ Discussion IX. LHMP related activity Check-ins (Projects, Plans, NOIs) X. Schedule next meeting XI. Final Thoughts Is APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN MULTI JURI 5DICT 10NAL LOCAL.HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 1{t7,4i-@ —MEr--Tf?4e W. MARIA!-bUNTY MULT1-"JURjtbI IONAL`LNMP Mt ING 46 2l9I�0.7:7 r. °NAGE PRINT-CLEAHLIl: �. `�A6E�IGY�,:�. . �.RI-ic31;iE`NUfJIBEft: ' I r-- 7L. ✓ I ?''k -: y -'t;. - i I y;J i,. �'Y`i'\--} .��5.1�— 4' J�.� �1� 7. ..Il i;_��_-s �. ,.:�.r;.V,.r i`�rr.r,: '..�, /.'r' r• till i C:: E > — i�orf Jf -1. I 19 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LHMP MEETING Agenda 6/1/2017 1:00—3:00 Marin County Emergency Operations Center 1. Sign in sheet 2. Project Roadmap—review of activities to date 3. "Across the line"game plan 4. LHMP Element Work:Activity Sheet discussion 5. CRS Overview/Discussion 6. LHMP related activity Check-ins (Projects, Plans, NOls) 7. Schedule next meeting 8. Final Thoughts 20 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN MULTI JUR(SOICTI ONAL LOCAL HAZA RO N1rriGATION PLAN KICK-OFF MEET11-ml MarIra;G4�iNr '141ui7iriiiRsic' ionu ;L 1217`.' Y, _ �'PHC7��E`NLlItiIBt=�:_.: - 1. c'�n c-:r::;'_-? r'f.ff{I},l i��t,.i,.s"t; (-.1-i•r i. :•k',�:��'v.' t i'I'� I• iii - I � _ - - 'i 1 _ w�ryy-• 4`��'�r--1_..r 0 c l"',�._•���` 4.1 •� ��- l�}� I k� f�i � tr��)- � -- � i 'rr ��• I Lcla. i1:-Itii���_ .. l-t:'C�� ' it - �� �_•E ,J,tf- =i_'�.: ;."— ., "? ,i a. i 21 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIN COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LHMP MEETING Agenda 2/20/2018 10:00—12:00 Marin County Emergency Operations Center 1. Sign in sheet 2. Round table introductions 3. Review of County BOS Report citing CRS activity credit 4. Confirm receipt of activity sheets from all MCM LHMP partners 5. Round table any open issues 6. Schedule next meeting 7. Final Thoughts 22 APPENDIX C Planning Committee MARIM MU(-II JURISDICTIONAL.I_DiALAR7.ARD i1MITI, f1.'ItDj4 FLAN Kiri<-OFF UF:FTIN(= - - ............- COUNiY:N�ULC�J1t21SL1'I�il{JYtAL E�Pu1F�1'11 .TIFJG;= .N,4fu1E�tPRINT.GLFr'•RLY};... : ' a} :''. '''.<l1ra.t PICY:.,.. .:. ._.. 1'IOFt�.�1IlJN1Ff R..',' '] 7. d. I•t•,.i �i��h�.- L: � f'1 '.�L'j I ✓I F`�•:�,'� �:, �''I `Ill �=1 I n �I I 11 12 23 APPENDIX C Planning Committee This page intentionally left blank 24 APPENDIX D Plan Review Committee Appendix D Plan Review Committee DC3 Position Title Name Chairperson Judy Arnold Marin Managers Joe Chinn Schools Michael Grant Emergency Medical Services Miles Julihn Access and Functional Needs Peter Mendoza MIDC Denis O'Leary Transit Mohamed Osman Health and Human Services Lisa Santora Police Chiefs Tricia Seyler-Campbell Public Works Eric Steger At Large Representative Bill Tyler MCCMC Catherine Way Fire Chiefs Jason Weber American Red Cross Debbie Yee Economic Forum Garry Lion District 1 Frank Cox District 2 Michael McDermott District 3 Keith Kennedy District 4 Anne Sands District 5 Ed Schulze DC3 =Marin County Disaster and Citizen Corps Council 25 APPENDIX D Plan Review Committee 26 APPENDIX D Plan Review Committee 3he5e 11in it les 3iy?e;o4envel and appi ovk,d b),rhe 1h5astei Con ncfl on June 9,2016 MARIN OPERATIONAL AREA DISASTER& CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL 1600 Los Garnos Drive,Suite 2GO,San Raftel,CA 94903-4189 .......... (415)473-6594 FAX(415)473-7450 Minutes of the March 10, 2016 Meeting The Regular meeting of the Marin Operational Area Disaster and Citizen Corps Council(E)C3)was held Thursday,March 10,2616. CouncilMembers Present: Judy Arnold,Frank Cox,Steve Tulsky,Keith Kennedy,Jr-,Anne Sands,Ed Schulze,Bill Tyler,Eric Steger,Catherine Way,Jason Weber,Angel Bemal, Denis O'Leary,Mike Grant, and Amy Van Doren. Council Members Excused: Katie Rice,Heather Ravani,Joe Chinn,Miles Julihn,Gamy Lion,Crystal Silva,and Henry LaRoche, 1. CALL TO ORDER Marin County Supervisor Judy Arnold("Chair')called the meeting to order at 3:63 p-m.The meeting was held in the Community Room located at the Central Marin Police Authority,2.50 Doherty Drive, Larkspur,California. A quorum was present- The Chair welcon-ped new members to the council, Catherine Way,representing the Marin County Council of Ntayors&Councilmembers,and Denis O'Leary,Marin Interagency Disaster Coalition. 2. APPROVAL OF December-10,2015 MINUTES The Chair asked for a Motion to Approve the December 10 21015 minutes- As submitted to the Council, with no cotmchbns or addftns, the Minutes vq,-re adopted. Motion. Schulze/Second.Sands AYES: ALL 3. CHANGES TO AGENDA. Ursula Hanks will give an update on the Marin Interagency Disaster Coalition(MIDC)during Old Business. 4. PRESENTATIONS: None submitted. 5. NEW BUSINESS Tsunami Preparedness Week GES'Ursula Hanks told the council that the Marin County Board of Supervisors passed a Resolution to observe the week of March 20"'as Tsunami Preparedness Week- This is in connection with a promotion by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. This nationwide event('know your zone)hopes to raise awareness about tsunami safety,especially for those coastal communities in the tsunami zone, particularly in the Pacific- Ursula said that the State and National Weather Service are planning communications exercises- Also Marin OES has partnered with Marin Public Works,Cal OES,the National Weather Service,and California Geological Survey to host a community workshop in Stinson Beach to be held on Tuesday,March 29,2016. Presenter,-will speak about tsunami hazards,alerts& 27 APPENDIX D Plan Review Committee Divse,khnuteu ware apprmv-d l the Disaster Council on Sq)teynber 8,2016 MARIN OPERATIONAL AREA DISASTER& CITIZEN CORPS COUNCIL 1600 Los Garnos Drive,Suite 200,San Rafael,CA 94903-4189 (415)473-6584 FAX(415)473-7450 Minutes of the June 9, 2016 Meeting The Regular meeting of the Mann Operational Area Disaster and Citizen Corps Council(DC3),xas held Thursday,June 9,2016- Council Members Present: Judy Arnold,Frank Cox,Steve Tutsky,Keith Kennedy,Jr-,Ed Schulze,Bill Tyler,Joe Chinn,Heaffiff Ravani,Eric Steger,Catherine Way,Angel Bernal, Denis O'Leary,Mike Grant,Miles Julihn,Garry Lion,and Crystal Silva_ Council Members Excused: Katie Rice,Jason Weber,Arny Van Doren,and Anne Sands. T. CALL TO ORDER Marin County Supervisor Judy Arnold("Chair")called the meefing to order at 3-03 p.m-The meeting was held in the Assembly Room of the Mann County Sheriffs Department,located at the County's Emergency Operations Facility,1600 Los Gamos Drive,San Rafael,California, A quorum was present 2. APPROVAL tit=March 10,2016 MINUTES The Chair asked for a Mot on to Approve the December 10, 2015 minutes. As submitted to the Council, with no corrections or additions,the Mnutes were adopted. Motion. Schulze/Second.Kennedy AYES: ALL 3. GHANGES TO AGENDA.: None submitted. � PRESENTATIONS: Mill Valley Community Evacuation Drill Fire Chief Tom Welch told the council about the City of Mill Valley's annual emergency evacuation drill that took place on SaWrday,May 21,2016 and was designed for the residents of Warner Canyon. This area is home to the Mill Valley Goff Course and adjoined by the Camino Alto Open Space Preserve to the east. Previous to the drill,residents received a letter with instructions on how to participate. At 1 G-0 Sam on drill day,the emergency sire-fls,activated to alert residents to evacuate to the designated check-in location at the parking lot of Park SchoG]- OES activated an emergency notificadorvalert through AlertMann,which was sent to all who signed up for AlertMarin. At the check-in after the drill, participants were asked to complete an evacuation survey form- At the Park School,demonstrations and emergency information was provided to the residents by Mill Valley's community emergency partners, FIRESafe Matin,Boy Scouts,PG&E,Salvation Am-iy,American Red CTu-----,Marin Humane Society, Whistle-stop Wheels,Marin Medical Reserve Corps, and the Mill Valley Emergency Preparedness Commission, Some metrics from the drill: 87 Households participated; 155 Residents,69%received AlertMarin notification the week of the drill; 74%received AlertMarin notification the day of the drill;Only 38%heard the siren 28 APPENDIX D Plan Review Committee This page intentionally left blank 29 APPENDIX E Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement Appendix E Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement As described in Section 2.5 of this plan, Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement,over 100 public comments were received in the initial phase of public outreach.These comments were used by the Planning Committee to identify community concerns about specific hazards and ideas about how to mitigate those hazards as well as input on social vulnerabilities. This information was used in the development of the plan as an insight for Comity and Municipal planners on the perceptions held by community members. The following Figures represent Public Outreach effort collateral material: I. Outreach Flyer for the Public Workshops 2. Public Workshop Agenda 3. Media Release to solicit feedback on the Draft Plan a. News Article example from the Pt.Reyes Light Figure I -Workshop Flyer ................ The Marin County Pdtulti-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan(MC:M LHMP) y~V team invites you to participate in the planning process_Please attend to review iden- tified hazards and mitigation strategies and provide your input on prioritization. Start today by participating in the Virtual Engagement Session series: Marlin County Local / Mitigation PublicWorkshops The MGM LHMP Team is comprised of County staff and staff from each Workshops: of the municipalities and participating Special Districts in the County of North Mann Marin. For more information, email Tom Jordan City of Novato Council Chambers 11016 3-�prn or o-F3pm (tjordan@marinsheriff.org) Southern Mann x till Valley Community Center 11316,3-5pm or 6-8pan West Marin I Point Reyes Dance Palace s fjj a 1'/22116 3-5pin or Bpm 30 APPENDIX E Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement 11/29/2016 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Workshop MOO .Agenda mcmL)4"F UZbtePro<__1wdc ,em. • aramirrg c � No.cc sp.q,sft • D Piesv or as ins L*dPatF,irs�+e Carr y project Timeme • Nw T.iep; Qin arId;,hope f)AIZWr >eZiW • W,=up We(corne and 9ntToductivns Wxrwkeepaig —ttertro ,Mt thmugn t,Yer I�the event or e,CnCf —f�ves�en as.J.�n:wsr:es%ori 3I APPENDIX E Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement I igiji-e 3-NIedi;i ILclease P]am Rcx ieti, ' 1-: Au.�t„iNNIY ^A 1313 Teel P.A-,ixe 0!ikip Tr.,t ..,;aMi� r flCl'dn ..l_i11. .01' COUNTY JC},,F' MA RII�i Find <errr�es,f r-rnu and€nf�rr Suiten search .......g}{ ............ ............. You a,e her,.Horne>County News Rete ase,'.K Local Hazard Mitigation Plan County of Marin - News Releases - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan .N.E W..S RELEASE .. .,•.......,•,....•,.••..•.•....•.................. K '..dMur'.MMy.IIM�.iq .......,......................................................... For Imn-; diate Release August 10.2018 Contact: County Seeks Feedback on Hazard Mitigation Pull lhornas lordar. Process to prepare for natural disasters steeds updating Program Co rdmato- Mwin Eounry he*nfi"s riffice of tan Rafael,,C�A-Mann County is updating its , �I H»ae>-!P"•r:cation Pian ¢LH#AFj,a document that helps Emergency Serr res floe County government mitigate tate impar s of natural disasters,and the invitation is open for public Emergency©peretions F dliry feedback before the document is finalized. 1600 Lois Gan-r35 Cinwe The County last updated its LHMP it 2013.The plan lays San Rafael CA 94903 �- otia ce.ss to Prepay r for,.and lessen thimpacts of, (415)47,3-6584 specified rafts al nazarusuch eartliqual< s wildfires, , Emit Th r. rc- and floods.7fttc latest planning ftort was&:aderxed to rJ �i��l� �. snJr,d lura[towns,citrss,and special disbicts as planning partneis. staff from the Marir-, , �• the. m»,lAV�L ai"=a.rsF..t.�..,the s.1»e and the ja3,— - or -_ xe¢,t of`-j <=aa .-.m_.but d fresh content to an updated draft of the plan fr.,llowving a series of o ;aim � public meetings.Ali of M9arin's toGyns and citiesare participating in the plan's update along with the North _ ye e3eu tes r.,rte 9ir�m J tk r :vr� �act:.r�,:ucPr Marin'Water C i:tt,ict and the Mal in Caunt;,1 Floud Control and'Nater{�nservat.,n The multrlurisdictionaE partnership-Has zofTned to pool resources and create a unifom•=hazard niitiyation sttategy that can be applied consistently to the defir ed planning area and used to ensure eiigibility for,spcgifted grant funding success. The eommert period is open from August o dvough Aug st 24.Conirnants may be directed to Phomas 0idan. EmEi a -ac7C-noes Coordinator,at$-f.,r+f=; 32 APPENDIX E Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement �i;iE,re•.:!- :3'lan 3Z.r�ica; _Siticicd't hk+es l..i„;irt T IT I E Y E S L I G T �l Count- .seeks feedback for disaster plan update Imagine that you are building a sandcastle near a rising tide.To counteract the risk of destruction from incoming waves, You dig a shoat to combat disaster if and when it occurs.This is the visual Tom Iord<an,ennergency services coordinator for the Aurin County Sheriffs Office,used to describe emergency mitigation planning during a public workshop in Point Reyes Station last week,'It's us consideringthe risks and strategy"so that when a catastrophe kits,Marin gill be better prepared to receive aide,he said.Arid,he added,"rich uncle FEN ANvants to know of our effort.'The Federal Emergency Management Agency requires that state,local and tribal governnnents Update their disaster mitigation plans every°fire _years;and the Alarin County il4ulti-Jurisdiction Loma Hazard Mitigation Plan is on trach for its spring 20i7 deadline. The plain is a partnership between the Marin County Sheriff's Office,the Marin County Fire!)epartment,the-Marin County Department of Public Works and the Marin County Community I}evelopment Agency.As part of the update,Air. Jordan wrapped up a series of outreach workshops that described the update process,and solicited public.continent through an oniline survey-.He said he expects to receive more than 200 indi-6dlral responses to the Silo-Bey,which is atvafl,ibleatsurveNm-i,:)nl,ey7.com/rl'vT-S Sessioni.The short survey asks participants to define which hazard they believe is the greatest threat in their area—earthquake,tsunami,flood or fire—arid it proNides information about how to prepare for those disasters."The mood on the[update]process and eventual plan is positive,"Mr.Jordan said, 33 APPENDIX E Public Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement This page intentionally left blank 34 APPENDIX F Plan Maintenance Appendix F Plan Maintenance The Planning Committee has developed the following revised approach to the MCM LHMP plan maintenance. hn addition to hosting quarterly review meetings, every 12 months from plan adoption the Marin County Sheriff's OES will email each member of the Planning Committee an Annual Review Questionnaire to complete. The Annual Review Questionnaire will include the following requests: 1) Provide a summary of any hazard events that occurred during the prior year and their impact on your community. 2) Provide a review of successful mitigation initiatives identified in your jurisdictions existing/prior LHMP (if applicable). Provide comment on why targeted strategies were not completed. 3) Re-evaluation of the action plan to determine if the timeline for identified projects needs to be amended (such as changing a long-term project to a short-term project because of funding availability). 4) Provide recommendations for new projects. 5) Provide recommended changes in, or potential for, new funding options (e.g. grant opportunities). 6) Provide recommendation on integration of new data such as GIS data and mapping used to inform the Plan. 7) Identify the impact of any other planning programs or initiatives within the community that involve hazard mitigation. 8) Attach any additional important notes on vulnerability analysis and hazard mitigation planning for your community (e.g. attach annual reports regarding plan implementation). The Marin County Sheriff's OES will collect all completed questionnaires and determine if the MCM LHMP needs to be updated to address new or more threatening hazards, new technical reports or findings, and new or better-defined mitigation projects. The Marin County Sheriff's OES will summarize these findings and email them out to the Planning Committee. If the Mai-ill County Sheriff's OES believes that the MCM LHMP needs to be updated based on the findings, then department will request that the Planning Committee attend a MCM LHMP update meeting. In addition, the implementation strategy will be monitored and updated through the use of the Mitigation Project Progress Report or a FEMA annual report. During each annual review, each department or agency currently administering a FEMA mitigation project will submit a progress report or quarterly reports to the Marin County Sheriffs OES to review and evaluate. The 35 APPENDIX F Plan Maintenance progress report will discuss the current status of the mitigation project, including any changes made to the project, identify implementation problems, and describe appropriate strategies to overcome them. After considering the findings of the submitted progress reports, the Marin County Sheriff's OES may request that the implementing department or agency meet to discuss project conditions. In addition to quarterly meetings, the Annual Review Questionnaire, the Mitigation Project Progress Report or FEMA annual report, and any other meetings, the Planning Committee will reinitiate the plan update process MCM LHMP every 4 years to meet the 5 year planning cycle. To ensure that this update occurs, within the first six months of the fourth year following plan adoption, the Planning Committee will undertake the following update process activities: Research funding available to assist in MCM LHMP update (and apply for funds that may take up to one year to obtain) Thoroughly analyze and update the risk of natural hazards in the communities of Marin County � Complete a new Annual Review Questionnaire and review previous questionnaires _i Provide a detailed review and revision of the mitigation strategy Prepare a new implementation strategy Prepare a new draft MCM LIJMP and submit it to the local participants governing bodies for adoption Submit an updated MCM LHMP to CaIOES and FEMA for approval Submit approved MCM LHMP to governing bodies of each jurisdiction participating in the plan 36 APPENDIX F Plan Maintenance This page intentionally Ieft blank 37 APPENDIX G Marin County Appendix G Marin County Table G-1'.Vulnerability of Structures in Unincorporated Marin Single- amilMulti-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 19,441 100% 3057 100% 368 100% 12 100% 17 100% Flood 3350 17% 353 12% 142 39% 12 100% 4 23.5% Fire 15022 77% 2180 71% 240 65% 1 8% 4 23.5% Tsunami 1485 8% 247 8% 96 26% 11 92% 2 11.8% Landslide 3432 18% 545 18% 36 10% 0 0% 2 11.8% Dam Inundation 1 524 3% 86 3% 61 17% 0 0% 0 0% Table G-2'.Vulnerability of Transportation in Unincorporated Marin Roads Railroads Miles %of Total Miles %of Total Earthquake 945 100% 8 100% Flood 175 19% 8 100% Fire 450 48% 1 13% Tsunami 68 7% 1.2 15% Landslide'' 392 41% 0 0% Dam Inundation 48 5% 0 0% Table G-3!,.Vulnerability of Communication in Unincorporated Marin —.._ MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 6 100% Flood 0 0% Fire 1 16% Tsunami 0 0% Landslide 4 67% Dam Inundation 0 0% 38 APPENDIX IC Marin County Table G-4.Vulnerability of Power in Unincorporated Marin Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Miles %of Miles %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 14 100% 6 100% 2 100% 65 100% 22.2 100% Flood 8 57.1% 2 33.3% 0 0% 7.5 11.5% 1.4 6.3% Fire 7 50% 3 50% 2 100% 9.5 14.6% 1 3.3 14.9% Tsunami 2 14.3% 0 0% 0 0% 4 6.2% 0 0% Landslide 3 21.4% 1 16.7% 0 0% 20.6 31.7% 1.7 7.7% Dam Inundation 1 7.1% 1 16.7% 0 0% 1.6 2.5% 0 0% Table G-5.Vulnerability of Water/Se wage in Unincorporated Marin Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 3 100% Flood 1 33.3% Fire 2 66.7% Tsunami 0 0% Landslide 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% Table G-6.Vulnera ility of Critical Facilities in Unincorporated Marin Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number r %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 21 100% 26 100% 12 1000% 2 100% Flood 3 14.3% 1 3.8% 0 0% 2 100% Fire 9 42.9% 16 61.5% 3 25% 0 0% Tsunami 1 4.8% 1 3.8% 0 0% 0 0% Landslide 1 4.8% 3 11.5% 0 0% 0 0% Dam Inundation 1 4.8% 3 11.5% 2 16.7% 0 0% 39 APPENDIX G Marin County Table G-,7.Unincorporated Marin County Human and Technical Resources for Hazard Mitigation Staff/Personnel Resources Department or Agency Principal Activities Related to Hazard Mitigation Develops and maintains the General Plan,including the Safety Element. Develops area plans based on the General Plan,to provide more specific guidance for the development of more Planner(s),engineer(s)and technical Community Development specific areas. staff with knowledge of land Agency,De artment of Public Reviews private development projects and proposed capital improvements proects and other physical proectsdevelopment,land management practices,and natural hazards. Works involving property for consistency and conformity with the General Plan. Anticipates and acts on the need for new plans,policies,and Code changes. Applies the approved plans,policies,code provisions,and other regulations to proposed land uses. Engineer(s),Building Inspectors/Code Enforcement Officers or other Community Development professional(s)and technical staff Agency,Department of Public Oversees the effective,efficient,fair,and safe enforcement of the California Building Code trained in construction requirements Works and practices related to existing and new buildings. Engineers,construction project Community Development Provides direct or contract civil,structural,and mechanical engineering services,including contract,project,and managers,and supporting technical Agency,Department of Public construction management. staff. Works Engineer(s),project manager(s), Maintains and operates of a wide range of local equipment and facilities as well as providing assistance to technical staff,equipment operators, Department of Public Works members of the public.These include providing sufficient clean fresh water,reliable sewer services,street and maintenance and construction maintenance,storm drainage systems,street cleaning,street lights and traffic signals. staff. Reviews and ensures that new development proposals do not increase flood risk,and that new developments are Floodplain Administrator Department of Public Works not located below the 100 year flood level.In addition,the Floodplain Administrator is responsible for planning and managing flood risk reduction projects throughout the local jurisdiction. Sheriff Office of Emergency Maintains and updates the Emergency Operations Plan for the local jurisdiction.In addition,coordinates local Emergency Management response and relief activities within the Emergency Operation Center,and works closely with local,state,and Services federal partners to support planning and training and to provide information and coordinate assistance. Procurement Services Manager GSA Provides a full range of municipal financial services,administers several licensing measures,and functions as the local jurisdiction's Procurement Services Manager. 40 APPENDIX G Marin County Table G-8.Marin County Financial Resources for Hazard Mitigation Type Subtype Administrator Purpose Amount General Fund Program operations and specific Local WPD/Property Tax,Land WPD Director projects. Variable. Development fees IWPP/CIP Hazard Mitigation Grant Federal EmergencySupports pre-and post-disaster Available to California communities after a Presidentially declared disaster has occurred in Program(HMGP) Management Agency mitigation plans and projects. California.Grant award based onspecific projects as they are identified by eligible applicants.(FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation FEMA Supports pre-disaster mitigation Available on an annual basis as a nationally competitive grant.Grant award based on specific (PDM)grant program plans and projects. projects as they are identified(no more than$3M federal share for projects). Flood Mitigation Mitigates repetitively flooded Available on an annual basis,distributed to California communities by the California Office of Assistance(FMA)grant FEMA structures and infrastructure. Emergency Services(Cal OES).Grant award based on specific projects as they are identified. program Provides equipment,protective gear,emergency vehicles,training, Federal Assistance to Firefighters FEMA/USFA(U.S.Fire and other resources needed to Available to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services providers.Grant Grant(AFG)Program Administration) protect the public and emergency awards based on specific projects as they are identified. personnel from fire and related hazards. Acquisition of real property, relocation and demolition, rehabilitation of residential and non- Community Block Grant U.S.HUD(U.S. residential structures,construction Department of Housing of public facilities and Program E titlement Available to entitled cities.Grant award based on specific projects as they are identified. Communities Grants and Urban improvements,such as water and Development) sewer facilities,streets, neighborhood centers,and the conversion of school buildings for eligible purposes. 41 APPENDIX G Marin County Through financial and technical assistance offers an innovative way for a community to organize and take action to reduce toxic pollution Community Action for a U.S.Environmental (i.e.,stormwater)in its local Renewed Environment Protection Agency environment.Through CARE,a Competitive grant program.Grant award based on specific projects as they are identified. (CARE) (EPA) community creates a partnership that implements solutions to reduce releases of toxic pollutants and minimize people's exposure to them. The CWSRF is a loan program that provides low-cost financing to eligible entities within state and tribal lands for water quality CWSRF programs provided more than$5 billion annually to fund water quality protection Clean Water State projects,including all types of non- Revolving Fund(CWSRF) EPA point source,watershed protection projects for wastewater treatment,non-point source pollution control,and watershed and Federal or restoration,estuary management estuary management. (cont) projects,and more traditional municipal wastewater treatment projects. Funds are intended to upgrade Department of Health state and local public health Public Health Emergency and Human Services' jurisdictions'preparedness and Preparedness(PREP) (HHS')Centers for response to bioterrorism,outbreaks Competitive grant program.Grant award based on specific projects as they are identified. Cooperative Agreement. Disease Control and of infectious diseases,and other Prevention(CDC) public health threats and emergencies. Build and sustain preparedness Homeland Security technical assistance activities in support of the four homeland Preparedness Technical FEMA/DHS security mission areas(preventionTechnical assistance services developed and delivered to state and local homeland security , Assistance Program personnel.Grant award based on specific projects as they are identified. (HSPTAP) protection,response,recovery)and homeland security program management. 42 APPENDIX G Marin County Table t;-9.Marin County, Legal and Regulatory Resources for Hazard Mitigation Regulatory Mitigation, Preparedness, Affects Development in Tool Name Description(Effect on Hazard Mitigation) Hazards Addressed Response,or Recovery Hazard Areas? Couitywide Plan: Water Resources, Environmental Hazards,and Describes hazard areas and regulates current and future Earthquake,landslides, Mitigation& Yes Public Safety development based on known hazard areas. fires,flooding Preparedness Sections (2007,updated 2015) Pursuant to the California Coastal Act,Marin County's Local Coastal Program guides land use and development to ensure Local Coastal protection of public access and other coastal resources along Earthquake,flooding, Mitigation& Procram(last Marin County's Pacific coastline.Included is a hazards section Yes Plans updated 1981) with policies that guide development standards and project coastal erosion,landslides Preparedness review for areas subject to hazards including flooding,bluff retreat,earthquakes,and coastal erosion. Describes what the local jurisdiction's actions will be during a response to an emergency.Includes annexes that describe in more detail the actions required of the local jurisdiction's City/District departments/agencies.Further,this plan describes the role of Emergency the Emergency Operation Center(EOC)and the coordination Varied Response No Response Plan that occurs between the EOC and the local jurisdiction's or Emergency departments and other response agencies.Finally,this plan Operations Plan describes how the EOC serves as the focal point among local, state,and federal governments in times of disaster. Seismic events,wildfire, Area Housingfloods and mudslides,train Enhances the Area Housing Authority's ability to effectively Authority ,derailmentdam failure, Preparedness,Response respond to emergencies by establishing procedures and No Organizational assigning responsibilities hazardous spills,terrorism, and Recovery Emergency transportation accidents, Plans(cont) Response Plan plan crashes Marin SWRP is a watershed-level resource planning document Mitigation & Stormwater covering the County and Marin's 11 cities that describes Stormwater Yes Resource Plan watershed issues,identifies project opportunities with multiple Preparedness (SWRP) benefits,and creates a prioritized list of project opportunities 43 APPENDIX G Marin County based on quantifying multiple benefits. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health,safety,and general welfare through structural strength,means of egress facilities,stability,access to persons with disabilities, Flooding,Wildfire, Mitigation,Preparedness, Policies Code of sanitation,adequate lighting and ventilation and energy Earthquake and Response Yes Ordinances conservation,and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment;to regulate and control the demolition of all buildings and structures,and for related purposes. The following actions were included in the County of Marin's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Many of these actions are being implemented by the Marin County Flood Control &Water Conservation District which is staffed by the County of Marin. Table G-10. Evaluation of Existing County of Marin and Marin County Flood Control &Water Conservation District Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs indicates the status of these actions. Table G-11. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs to be carried out by or in partnership with County of Marin and/or Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District includes details and actions being considered in addition to those in Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables G-1 through G-6). Table G-,10. Evaluation of Existing County of Marin and Marin County Flood Control&Water Conservation District Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects'and Programs Status', Project or Program Name and Description Timeline Ongoing Seismic Retrofit of County-owned buildings not current to code. 2012-2025 Goal is for all County-owned buildings to comply with current codes and standards for public safety. The specific work plan for implementation of the project will be informed by the seismic data assessment and asset management database creation underway over the next 3-5 years. Next steps for County-owned buildings include working on the jail and Hall of Justice at the Civic Center,and the Fire and Sheriff station at Point Reyes Station.The next MCM LHMP should include a project for input of the seismic assessment data into a database.Individual building projects are being identified through the seismic assessment. Public Works is currently working on several facility renovations and design projects on County facilities: 1 West Marin Service Center,Point Reyes Station:Expansion of existing facility that includes additional office areas,interview rooms,a community room, 44 APPENDIX G Marin County and other utility upgrades.Upon completion in mid-2018,the facility will comply with the 2013 California Building Code. (2)Civic Center Roof Replacement:The complete removal of all adhered roofing systems,repair of the concrete domes,and installation of a new roofing system.Inspection of the existing structural concrete of the roof domes will be undertaken during the project. (3)Tomales Fire Station-Replacement:Project is currently under design and consists of the complete replacement of the current 3,500 sf facility with a new, 8,600 sf state-of-the art fire station.All design will comply with the existing CA Building Code. (4)120 N.Redwood-Seismic Assessment:DPW coordinated a seismic assessment of the facility in late 2017 for a required Employment Development Department(EDD)certification. (5)Ma in Center-Seismic Assessment of the Veteran's Memorial Auditorium&Exhibit Hall:Seismic Assessments of these two facilities,which are part of the County's Marin Center campus(i.e.,cultural events center,fairgrounds,and conference/convention facility).The assessment will guide future strategic planning for improvements within the campus.Currently seeking HMGP funding for implementation of seismic retrofits. Additionally,the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is preparing to implement seismic upgrades(bolting and anchoring pumps and roof)Ic the Cove Pump Station building in Tiburon.Staff also continue gathering available seismic assessment data on County-owned(and possibly leased sites in the future)facilities.This information will be brought into an asset management database,which is in the early stages of development,and will support risk assessment and work plan development Ross Valley 10 Year Work Plan 2012 to 2027 Ongoing Initiated environmental review for the overall program as well as several projects,and made progress on feasibility studies for key flood risk reduction and likely projects.Due to high level of public outreach and inter-agency coordination required,work plan will be reduced in scope and timeline will extend beyond beyond 2022,to at least 2027. Marin County Watershed Program Phase 1—2008 Ongoing 15'phase complete.Completed 16 studies as part of 15'phase and identified potential projects in Novato,Gallinas,Richardson's Bay,and Stinson Beach to 2017 watersheds.Second phase is yet to be funded. Phase 2-TBD Las Gallinas Levee Evaluation Completed Phase 1 of Evaluation and prepared preliminary design for system improvements(funding shortfall identified).Next phase of evaluation on hold Phase 1—2008to 2014 Ongoing indefinitely due to U.S.Army Corps of Engineers program limitations.With grant funding from other sources,would proceed with smaller-scale system improvements.A 2016 request for FEMA HMGP funding for"spot improvements"of the system was denied,and the request was resubmitted in 2017 for Phase 2-TBD system-wide improvements(pending review).If FEMA funding is approved,levee system improvements could be made as early as 2020. Marin County Structure Elevation Program For individual homeowners to elevate their homes above the base flood elevation with FEMA HMA funding. Ongoing Advertised program and submitted funding applications to CaIOES/FEMA for homes across the County(both incorporated and unincorporated). 2016 to TBD If FEMA funding is approved,could proceed with home elevation projects at up to 16 homes as early as 2019.Program may be ongoing. 45 APPENDIX G Marin County Table G-11.Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs to be carried out by or in partnership with County of Marin and/or Marin County Flood Control&Water Conservation District No. Description Hazard New or Existing Responsible Agency Potential Funding Timeline Addressed Construction Source Acquire electric bikes and safety equipment for official use during State and Federal Grants, 1 major disasters such as earthquakes to facilitate transportation All New Any and All Departments local matching funds 0-5 years and response. potential Marin Center Facilities Seismic Retrofits-two significant structures of the Marin Center,the Veterans'Memorial Auditorium and the Marin Exhibit Center,do not meet the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings(BPOE),defined in the ASCE 41 State and Federal Grants, standard for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Public Works/Flood 2 and the performance objective required by the California Building Earthquake Existing Control local matching funds 5 years Code.The proposed intervention will correct the identified seismic potential deficiencies and improve the seismic performance to meet the performance objective for State-owned buildings of the California Building Code. San Anselmo Flood Risk Reduction Project(formerly Memorial State and Federal Grants, 3 Park-includes Building Bridge#2 and the Former Sunnyside Flood New and Existing Public Works/Flood local matching funds 0-5 years Nurser flood diversion and story e basin) Control y g potential Corte Madera Creek Flood Risk Management Project,Phase I Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 4 (Formerly Phoenix Lake detention basin) Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 5 Azalea Ave Bridge Replacement Flood Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 6 Nokomis Ave Bridge Replacement Flood Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 7 Madrone Ave Bridge Replacement Flood Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 8 Winship Bridge Replacement Flood Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential 9 Sycamore Ave Bridge Replacement Flood Existing Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 0-5 years Control local matching funds 46 APPENDIX G Marin County potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 10 Lower Corte Madera Creek Improvements-Hillview Drainage Flood New Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Continue supporting the Sonoma County Water Agency led Advanced Quantitative Precipitation Information effort.DWR and Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 11 pntPnfially FEMA grant funding will he used to place new X-band Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years radar units throughout the Bay Area to provide more precise potential rainfall forecasting for atmospheric rivers. Restore Pacheco Pond and peak flood flow diversion to wetlands Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 12 to improve water quality and habitat.Upgrade tide gates. Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5+years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 13 Restore Deer Island Basin to Full Tidal Conditions. Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 3-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 14 Rush Creek Drainage Improvements Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 2-3 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 15 Novato Levee Evaluation,Improvements,and Repairs Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds Ongoing,0-5 years potential Upgrade stormwater pump stations:Farmers,Cheda,and Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 16 Lynwood. Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds Varies,0-5 years potential Simmons Slough Water Management System—Flood risk Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 17 Reduction Project Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 2-3 years potential City of Novato Drainage Improvements per Storm Drain Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 18 Masterplan Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Encourage property owners located in the dam or levee Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 19 inundation hazard areas to purchase voluntary flood insurance. Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds Ongoing, potential 20 Build Flood Flow Bypass from Easkoot Creek.Likely to include Flood New and Existing Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 5-10 years wetland and riparian habitat restoration. Control local matching funds 47 APPENDIX G Marin County potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 21 Santa Venetia Timber-Reinforced Berm Improvement Project Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 22 Meadow Drive Interceptor and Ditch Upgrades Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 23 Santa Venetia Pump Station No.4 Upgrades Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds —5 years potential Pump Station No.2 Upgrade,Outfall Rehabilitation,and Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 24 interconnection to Pump Station No. 1 Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5+years potential Pump Station No.5 Upgrade(including address leaking tide gate Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 25 adjacent) Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 26 Corrillo Drive Pipe Rehabilitation and Gate Flood New and Existing local matching funds 1-2 years Control potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 27 Santa Venetia and Rafael Meadows Street Drain Upgrades Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Gallinas Creek Geomorphic Dredge to support navigation and Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 28 storm drain outfall. Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 29 McInnis Park Wetland Restoration Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5 years potential Levee Setback and Upgrade Project,Wetland Restoration on Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 30 County property near San Rafael Airport. Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds unknown potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 31 Pump Station No. 1 Upgrade(SCADA) Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5 years potential 32 Estancia Ditch and Pum Station Upgrades Flood New and Existing State and Federal Grants, 0-5 ears Pump p9 g Public Works/Flood y local matching funds 48 APPENDIX G Marin County Control potential Cove Pump Station Improvements includinggenerator State and Federal Grants, 33 9 Flood New and Existing Public Works/Flood local matchingfunds 0-1 year installation g Control y potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 34 Tiburon Street Drainage Improvements Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds unknown potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 35 Karen Way Ditch Improvements Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5-years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 36 Strawberry Levee Improvements Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5-years potential Public Works l Flood State and Federal Grants, 37 West Creek Flood Wall Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5+years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 38 East Creek Outfall Modifications(tidal) Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 3 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 39 Mill Valley Comprehensive Flood Control&Drainage Master Plan Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 3 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 40 Coyote Creek Levee Improvements Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 41 Marin City Drainage Improvements Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 42 Richardson Bay Shoreline Protection Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5+years potential Bothin Marsh Restoration and Beneficial Reuse of Coyote Creek Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 43 sediments(removed for flood control) Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5+years potential 44 Manzanita Modifications(Caltrans) Flood New and Existing Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, ongoing local matching funds 49 APPENDIX G Marin County Control potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 45 Lower Ryan Creek Pump Station Study and Upgrades Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5+years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 46 Crest Marin,Cardinal,and Shoreline Pump Station Upgrades Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 3-5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 47 Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio Riverine Flood Risk Reduction Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 5 years potential Public Works/Flood State and Federal Grants, 48 Flood Preparedness Pilot Program Flood New and Existing Control local matching funds 0-5 years potential Consider sea level rise adaptation findings and recommendations Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, 49 from CSMART Flood New and Existing Public Works/Flood local matching funds Ongoing Control potential Initiate',Community Plans for Adapting to Coastal Hazards in conjunction with community members and asset managers for site scale planning around vulnerable assets of community wide Existing—focus should Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, importance(roadways,utilities,etc.).Specific tasks may include Flooding 50 be on existing Public Works/Flood local matching funds Ongoing identifying subarea boundaries for prioritization based on flood (coastal) infrastructure. Control potential frequency,impacts and more;and conduct engineering studies with cost estimates to evaluate alternatives which may include armoring,elevation,realignment,etc. Develop a"Homeowners Guide to Flood Preparedness"to help property owners navigate regulatory system and funding opportunities to retrofit homes to accommodate sea level rise and Existing—residential storms.Topics could cover the County Permitting process,permitand commercial Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, 51 development requirements,agency compliance(FEMA,CA Flooding(coastal buildings subject to Public Works/Flood local matching funds 0-5 years Coastal Commission and technical information and guidance on and riverine) current and/or future Control g potential home retrofitting options including elevation and floodproofing. flooding. The Guide could be mailed to homeowners,available in libraries, posted',online and presented in public workshops. 52 Follow all four phases of FEMA's How-to-Guide:"Integrating All Existing—historic Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, 0-5 years Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into buildings and other Public Works/Flood local matching funds 50 APPENDIX G Marin County Hazard Mitigation Planning"to develop and implement a cultural resources Control potential mitigation plan for at risk cultural resources. exposed to hazards Conduct a comprehensive finished floor-elevation inventory to Flooding(coastal Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, 53 fully assess West Marin building flood vulnerabilities. and riverine) Existing Public Works/Flood local matching funds 5 years? Control potential Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, 54 Protect and restore natural buffers which may include wetland Flooding(coastal Existing Marin County Parks and local matching funds Ongoing and beach/dune habitat. and riverine) OpenSpace District/Public potential Works Assess bulkheads surrounding Tomales Bay to determine their Flooding State and Federal Grants, 55 structural integrity and continued capability to protect surrounding (coastal) Existing Community Development local matching funds Ongoing homes,roadways and other assets from flooding. potential Marin County Fire/ Establish additional'ocal funding mechanisms for increased flood Community Development/ State and Federal Grants, 56 and fire mitigation. Fire Existing Marin County Parks and local matching funds Ongoing OpenSpace District/Public potential Works 51 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Appendix H City of Belvedere City of Belvedere The City of Belvedere had an estimated population of 2,068 in 2010, with 1,045 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 2.406 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $130,796 and the per capita income for the City was $113,595.Approximately 2.9 percent of families and 5.7 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Belvedere was incorporated as a city in 1896. Table H-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Belvedere Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 773 100% 87 100% 11 100% 0 N/A 1 100% Flood 334 43% 41 47% 9 82% 0 N/A 0 0% Fire 493 64% 51 59% 5 45% 0 N/A 1 100% Tsunami 339 44% 42 48% 9 82% 0 N/A 0 0% Landslide 93 12% 14 16% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Dam 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 1 100% Inundation''. 52 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Table H-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Belvedere Roads Ferry Landing Railroad Miles %of Total Number %of Total Miles %of Total Earthquake 13 100% 1 100% 0 N/A Flood 4 31% 1 100% 0 N/A Fire 10 77% 0 0% 0 N/A Tsunami 5 38% 1 100% 0 N/A Landslide 3 23% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Table H-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Belvedere MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 53 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Table H-4.',Vulnerability of Power in Belvedere Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 NIA 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 NIA 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Table H-5 Vulnerability of Water I Sewage in Belvedere Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A Table 1-1-6 Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Belvedere Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 0 1 100% 1 100% 0 N/A Flood 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 54 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Fire 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0 1 100% 0 0% 0 N/A Landslide 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table H-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables H-1 through H-6). Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table H-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions), Table H-7.Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Belvedere Included in Action Number/Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Updated Action Plan 2011 ABAG Plan Annex Strategy Priorities Implement the goals and objectives set forth in the Flood Mitigation Plan X X X Fund study and possible repair to elevation of rip rap at Bay,adjacent to San Rafael X X X Avenue Update Tiburon Peninsula,Joint Disaster Plan X X X Educational and training outreach to community regarding disaster preparedness, X X X personal awareness,and flood insurance Update staff training under SEMS&other applicable disaster response training X X X programs Develop recommendations based on future California or US Geological landslide& X X X tsunami mapping&studies Implement recommendations based on future California or US Geological landslide& X X X tsunami mapping&studies 55 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere 2011 Flood,Mitigation Plan Objectives Objective 1:Obtain FEMA Accreditation of the Beach Road and San Rafael Avenue Levees and Revision of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Feasibility Study for Beach Road and San Rafael Avenue Levees X X X Hydrology/Hydraulic Study of Interior Drainage System X X X Permit,Design,and Construct Modifications to Levees and Improvements to Interior X X X Drainage System FEMA Accreditation of Levees X X X Objective 2:,FEMA's Community Rating System Implement System X X X Objective 3?,Update and Enforce City Codes and Ordinances to Minimize the Flood Hazard Risk Continue to enforce the City Flood Ordinance X X X Continue to comply with all requirements of the NFIP X X X Explore potential for enhancing current building codes or design standards that will X X X result in reduced surface runoff to interior drainage system Objective 4: Increase the mitigation capability of residents,business owners,and others who could be affected by floods Continue to,use the TENS flood warning system X X X Continue Get Ready X X X Explore use of Belvedere Lagoon for flood protection X X X Objective 5'i Increase the City's Capabilities to Respond and Recover from Emergencies and Disasters Caused by Flood Hazards Develop/Disseminate Warning Protocols/Procedures I I X X X Table H-8.Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs Ongoing Mitigation Activities Responsible Department or Agency Timeframe Funding Fund study and possible repair to elevation of rip rap at Bay,adjacent to San Rafael Avenue City Engineer 5-year Not Identified Update Tiburon Peninsula Joint Disaster Plan City Manager,Joint Disaster 5-year Not Identified Council&Town of Tiburon Educational and training outreach to community regarding disaster preparedness,personal City Manager 5-year Not Identified awareness,and flood insurance & 56 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Joint Disaster Council Update staff training under SEMS&other applicable disaster response training programs City Manager Ongoing Not Identified Develop recommendations based on future California or US Geological landslide&tsunami mapping &studies City Engineer Unknown Unknown Implement recommendations based on future California or US Geological landslide&tsunami mapping&studies City Engineer Unknown Unknown Feasibility Study for Beach Road and San Rafael Avenue Levees City Engineer/Public Works 5-year General Fund Hydrology/Hydraulic Stuc'y of Interior Drainage System City Engineer/Public Works 5-year General Fund Permit,Design,and Construct Modifications to Levees and Improvements to Interior Drainage System City Engineer/Public Work 5-year T.B.D. FEMA Accreditation of Levees City Engineer/Public Work 5-year N/A Implement FEMA Community Rating System Planning/Building 5-year General Fund Explore potential for enhancing current building codes or design standards that will result in reduced Planning/Building,Public Works Ongoing General Fund surface runoff to interior draina e system Continue to use the AleriMarin flood warningsystem Police,Marin County Office of y Emer enc Services Ongoing General Fund Continue Get Ready Police,Tiburon Fire Protection District Ongoing General Fund Explore use of Belvedere Lagoon for flood protection City Engineer/Public Works,BLPOA 5-year General Fund Develop/Disseminate Warning Protocols/Procedures Police 5-year General Fund Website Manager,Tiburon Fire We Continue Disaster Preparedness Website City Protection District Ongoing General Fund Continue Joint Disaster Advisory Council City Councils of Belvedere and Tiburon Ongoing General Fund Disaster Preparedness Education City Manager& Ongoing General Fund Joint Disaster Council Block Captain Program City Manager& Ongoing General Fund Joint Disaster Council Sand Bag Program City Manager& Ongoing General Fund Joint Disaster Council Dead Tree Removal Public Works Ongoing General Fund Sea Wall Repair Renovat;on(two projects) Public Works Ongoing General Fund New Mitigation Activities Responsible Department or Agency Timeframe Funding Evacuation decal project with Tiburon City Manager&Joint Disaster Council 5 year General Fund 57 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Culvert repair/replacement on San Rafael Ave at Lagoon where flooding occurred.(Belvedere- Public Works 5-year General Fund Tiburon joint project) Beach Road,sea wall repair renovation phase 1 Public Works 5-year General Fund Phase 2 sea wall long-term sustainability project.Identify and implement flood and seal level rise Public Works 5-year Unknown protection for island residents and lagoon properties Sidewalk repairs Public Works Ongoing General Fund Hillside stability database/rating system Public Works Unknown Unknown Program or protection against damage from loose boats in Richardson Bay Public Works Unknown Unknown 58 APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Table H-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement 2010 General Plan The General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy.It describes hazard areas and regulates current and future Plan 'Belvedere 2030' development based on known hazard areas.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated risk information and strate ies. Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan This Hazard Mitigation Plan and its predecessors identify risks from natural hazards present in the City/Town and includes strategies 2011 ABAG Annex to reduce these risks. The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)directs construction activities for City owned facilities and infrastructure for the next five years. Plan Capital Improvement Plan Mitigation actions may involve construction of new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated strategies. Plan 2011 Flood Miti ation Plan This plan includes morespecific information on Flood Miti ation,inclung listing additional resources,goals,strategies,and actions. The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes standards for Policy Zoning Ordinance where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance, The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation. Title 2:Administration and Personnel;Chapter 2.32 Disaster Council and Emergency Services This Chapter provides for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within this City in the event of an emergency;the direction of the emergency organization;and the coordination of the emergency functions of this City with all other public agencies,corporations,organizations and affected private persons. Policy Municipal Code Title 8:Health and Safety;Chapter 8.36 Urban Runoff and Pollution Prevention;Section 8.36.100 Watercourse Protection This Section requires property owners to keep watercourse that pass through private properties free of obstructions that could retard the flow of water through the watercourse and not modify the natural flow of water in a watercourse. Title16:Building and Construction;Chapter 16.20 Flood Damage Prevention This Chapter prevents or minimizes flood damage in flood hazard areas by regulating construction and other land use activities. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology,and Administrative Department business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the de artment's sco e. These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental Administrative and City Planning,Building,and review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning and building can be j Personnel Public Works Departments implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for City-owned infrastructure,including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains,traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,f in the purview of the Public Works Department City Police Department The Belvedere Police Department condi iergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to I emer enc re aredness can be im lemented b the Police De artment. APPENDIX H City of Belvedere Tiburon Fire Protection The Tiburon Fire District protects the town of Tiburon,the city of Belvedere,and the surrounding area.The Fire District's boundaries Personnel represent a diverse community with responsibility for commercial,residential,wildland I urban interface,and parts of the San District Francisco Bay.The Fire Protection District supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These include Financial State and Federal Grants State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP,Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA Training and Outreach City Block Captain Program The block-captain program trains volunteers throughout the community to act as a conduit between neighbors and emergency services in the case of a disaster The Community Rating System(CRS)is a voluntary program for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program Training and Outreach Community Rating System (NFIP)to earn flood insurance premium reductions for property owners.A Countywide collaboration of CRS community staff has Working Group been started in recent years and has led to shared resources including outreach materials and floodplain management training.This collaboration has the potential to expand and lead to a wide variety of flood mitigation activities. The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is designed to Training and Outreach Get Ready help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. t!tpL//read_ymarin.org/get-ready/) 60 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Appendix I Town of Corte Madera Town of Corte Madera The Town of Corte Madera had an estimated population of 9,253 in 2010, with 4,026 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 4.406 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town was$79,839 and the per capita income for the Town was $46,326. Approximately 2.7 percent of families and 4.5 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Corte Madera was incorporated in 1916. Table 1-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Corte Madera Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number 0/0 of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 2,538 100% 716 100% 106 100% 5 100% 0 N/A Flood 91-5 38% 114 16% 81 76% 5 100% 0 N/A Fire 1253 49% 204 28% 18 17% 0 0% 0 N/A Tsunami 191 8% 40 6% 13 12% 1 20% 0 N/A Landslide 479 19% 141 20% 4 4% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 37 5% 7 7% 0 0% 0 N/A Table 1-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Corte Madera Roads Railroads Ferry Number %of Total Miles %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 50 100% 0 0% 0 N/A 61 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Flood 24 48% 0 0% 0 NIA Fire 25 50% 0 0% 0 N/A Tsunami 4 8% 0 0% 0 NIA Landslide 12 24% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 2 4% 0 0% 0 NIA Table I=3. Vulnerability of Communication in Corte Madera MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A Table I'-4. Vulnerability of Power in Corte Madera Transmission Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans. Natural Gas Tower Substation Line Pipeline Number %of Number %of Number %of Miles %of Miles %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 3.9 100% 2.9 100% Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 2.5 64.1% 1.5 51.7% Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 1.3 33.3% 1.2 41.4% 62 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 1.2 30.8% 0 0% Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A .6 15.4% .6 20.7% Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A .5 12.8% 0 0% Table 1-5.Vulnerability of Water 1 Sewage in Corte Madera Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 10 1000% Flood 0 N/A 10 100% Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 5 50% Landslide 0 N/A 2 20% Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A Table 1-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Corte Madera Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 4 100% 4 100% 2 100% 0 N/A Flood 2 50% 2 50% 0 0% 0 N/A Fire 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Tsunami 1 25% 1 25% 0 0% 0 N/A Landslide 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table 1-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these .actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will 63 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera continueimplementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables 1-1 through 1-6). Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table 1-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table 1-7.Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Corte Madera Action Number/Name Completed Ongoing Not Still Included in Updated Started Relevant Action Plan(New#) Mitigation Activities and Priorit es4rom 2012 Government Mitigation Strategies:As a member of the Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA),the Town participates in the decisions on management of the current county-wide, interagency,emergency radio system.MERA,with the Town as participant,is also studying the replacement for the system as it reaches the end of its service life.Town employees have X X MLT-14 been offered CERT,Get Ready,and appropriate EOC training for their duties as disaster service workers.An updated General Plan was adopted which includes significant public safety components. Education Mitigation Strategies:Education facilities in town are either under the Larkspur- Corte Madera School District,or are private.The Town has a close working relationship with X discard the schools to facilitate disaster planning,exercises,and facility upgrades. Health Mitigation Strategies:The Town of Corte Madera is not responsible for health care facilities within the Town's boundaries.The Marin County Health Department would be the X discard responsible'agency,along with the State of California.We are in close cooperation with those entities to pre-stage disaster-related resources in town. 64 APPENDIX 1 Town of Corte Madera Economy Mitigation Strategies:The Town continues to review and adopt current California Building and Fire codes.The town also provides public disaster preparedness education to the X Remove:response and business community to reduce the impact and aid the recovery of their economically vital recovery functions.We also work closely with the Chamber of Commerce in these endeavors. Environmental Mitigation Strategies:The Town now requires Vegetation Management Plans (VMP)for development in the Wildland-Urban Interface(WUI)areas.This reduces the chance of a wildland fire igniting he structure(s)and reciprocally,wildland ignition from a structure fire.. X X For CM Annex The Town also has been removing exotic,invasive,and hazardous species and replacing with native,safer vegetation. Housing Mitigation Strategies:The Town continues to review and adopt current California Building codes.A new 79 unit,multi-building,multi-story apartment building(affordable and CWPP standard super- green building components)was constructed.It meets or exceeds codes for seismic,flood,fire X X cedes and other disaster scenarios.The Town has adopted the International Wildland Urban Interface Code and applied it to new construction and substantial remodel work. Earthquake natural gas valves are required in new construction or during substantial remodel X X For CM Annex work Infrastructure Mitigation Strategies:As new development occurs,roadways and driveways are required to be of minimal 12 to 20 foot width and with approved turnarounds and/or turnouts. The Town demolished a seismically unsafe sanitary district structure and constructed a new facility.Countywide GIS emergency response mapping was completed.A Mutual Threat Zone Carry road width forward, (wildland mutual aid)plan was developed.The water district has continued replacement and X X X completed other,carry upsizino of wafer mains tanks,and hydrants using funds from a district-wide bond. Utility forward undergrounding has been completed in the historic"Town Square"district.Completed public works improvement projects include replacement of aging sewer and storm drain pipes,pump stations,and facilities. 65 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Land Use Mitigation Strategies:The Town continues to keep local ordinances compliant with the FEMA model ordinance,and applies flood ordinance provisions diligently.In addition to X Discard:following NFIP is using FEMA maps to regulate flood hazard areas,the Town may require elevation certificates implicit at the building permit stage to verify compliance with NFIP requirements. Future Mitigation Activities and Priorities'from 2012 The Town is developing a joint Emergency Operations Center(EOC)with the City of Larkspur. It will be located in a new Twin Cities Police Authority building(serving Corte Madera and Larkspur) The state of the art facility is scheduled for completion in January 2012.It will meet X EOC is shared with County or exceed requirements for disaster resistance.The existing EOC will be retained as a back- up.A new internet-based mass notification/information/education platform will be launched with the opening of the new facility. In 2014,the,Town Council will adopt the 2013 California Building,Fire,Residential and other model codes which apply to all construction activity within the Town boundaries.The Codes incorporate public health,safety,energy,green building and access standards used in the X Adopting current state design and construction of all buildings.The new code provisions will allow the Town to utilize building codes is implicit the latest technologies,advances in construction standards and seismic design for use in new residential and commercial construction and in remodels. The Town has historically been very focused on flood control mitigation.Capital improvement projects,as well as maintenance and upgrading of flood control and sewer facilities have been Carry CIP forward to CM of very high',priority.Currently however,the economic realities faced by government and X X Annex private entities alike have delayed scheduled projects.It is anticipated that these projects will resume when funding is available. Ongoing Mitigation Strategy Programs'from 2012 Continue to enforce and/or comply with State-mandated requirements,such as the California X Implicit Environmental Quality Act Incorporate'',FEMA guidelines and suggested activities into local government plans and X X FLD-2 procedures for managing flood hazards 66 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Continue to participate in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program and Community Rating X X FLD-1 System(CRS) Continue to comply with all applicable building and fire codes as well as other regulations X Implicit when constructing or significantly remodeling infrastructure facilities Continue to facilitate the distribution of emergency preparedness materials and trainings through the Corte Madera Fire Department.Evacuation shelter identification and X Discard-preparedness management,CERT classes,Get Ready classes. Conduct periodic tests of the emergency sirens,AM radio station,and CERT emergencyX Tech-nology has changed, warning systems see MLT 14 Continue to maintain the existing emergency operations center as a back-up X Discard,not mitigation specific-ally Development of interoperable communications for first responders from cities,counties, X X MLT-14 special districts,state,and federal agencies. Participation in general mitual-aid agreements and agreements with adjoining jurisdictions forX Discard,not mitigation cooperative response to fires,floods,earthquakes,and other disasters. specific-ally Continue to repair and make structural improvements to storm drains,pipelines,and/or channels to enable them to perform to their design capacity in handling water flows as part of X X FLD-5 regular maintenance activities. Programs to reduce the amount of flammable vegetation. Including weed wrench loaning, voluntary inspections and recommendations to property owners,free"chipper days" X X FIR-3 program annum'inspecfions and mandatory ahafement program Active participation in the local Fire Safe Marin council. Fire code amendments to reduce the damage to structures from earthquake,landslide and Carry CIP forward to CM fire.Including automatic natural gas shut-off valves and fire sprinklers for new and X X substantially remodeled structures. Annex 67 APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Table 1-8.Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs Action Number/Name Responsible Agency Potential Funding Source Timeline Corte Madera Mitigation Activities and Prioritiesfrom 2012 Require Vegetation Management Plans(VMP)for development in the Wildland-Urban Interface(WUI)areas. This reduces the chance of a wildland fire igniting the structure(s)and reciprocally,wildland ignition from a structure fire.The Town also has been removing exotic,invasive,and hazardous species and replacing with Fire Department Unknown 5-year native,safer vegetation. Earthquake',natural gas valves are required in new construction or during substantial remodel work Building Department Unknown 5-year As new development occurs,roadways and driveways are required to be of minimal 12 to 20 foot width and with Fire Department Unknown 5-year approved turnarounds and/or turnouts. Implement projects identified in Capital Improvement Plan,such as maintaining&upgrading of flood control and Public Works Unknown 5-year sewer facilities. Fire code amendments to reduce the damage to structures from earthquake,landslide and fire.Including Fire Department Unknown 5-year automatic natural gas shut-off valves and fire sprinklers for new and substantially remodeled structures. Table 1-9 Planning Mechanisms,Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement The General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy.The Town has a Safety Element in its General Plan that includes a discussion of fire,earthquake,flooding,and landslide hazards.This plan was adopted as an implementation Plan 2009 General Plan appendix to the Safety Element.In addition,the Town enforces the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),which,since 1988,requires mitigation for identified natural hazards.The Town has used these pre-existing programs as a basis for identifying gaps that may lead to disaster vulnerabilities in order to work on ways to address these risks through mitigation,As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated risk information and strategies. Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011 This Hazard Mitigation Plan and its predecessors identify risks from natural hazards present in the Town and includes strategies ABAG Annex to reduce these risks. The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)directs construction activities for Town owned facilities and infrastructure for the next five Plan Capital Improvement Plan years.Mitigation actions may involve construction of new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated strategies. The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development. It includes standards Policy Zoning Ordinance for where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. Policy Municipal Code The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation including Title 6 Health and Sanitation,Title 15 Buildings and Construction,and Title 16 Protection of Flood Hazard Areas Administrative Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology,and APPENDIX I Town of Corte Madera Department business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the department's scope. These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning Administrative and Town Planning,Building,and and building can be implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for Town-owned infrastructure, Personnel Public Works Departments including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains,traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Central Marin Police Authority The Central Marin Police Authority conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department. Personnel Corte Madera Fire The Corte Madera Fire Department protects the town from the effects of fire and other hazardous conditions and supports Department implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These Financial State and Federal Grants include State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP),Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA Training and Outreach Weekly Newsletter website The Town produces a weekly digest of local issues in Town,which is an effective outreach tool.Additionally the Town website contains links to a wide variety of mitigation information and training opportunities. The Community Rating System(CRS)is a voluntary program for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Training and Outreach Community Rating System Program(NFIP)to earn flood insurance premium reductions for property owners.A Countywide collaboration of CRS Working Group community staff has been started in recent years and has led to shared resources including outreach materials and floodplain management training.This collaboration has the potential to expand and lead to a wide variety of flood mitigation activities. The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is Training and Outreach Get Ready designed to help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s://read marin.g / et-read / 69 APPENDIX J Town of Fairfax Appendix J Town of Fairfax Town of'Fairfax The Town of Fairfax had an estimated population of 7,441 in 2010, with 3,585 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 2.204 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town is $58,465 and the per capita income for the Town is $34,080. Approximately 4.3 percent of families and 6.5 percent of the population is below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Fairfax was incorporated as a town in 1931. Table J-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Fairfax Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %ofNumber %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 2.104 100% 532 100% 87 100% 0 N/A 1 100% Flood 212 10% 78 15% 32 37% 0 N/A 0 0% Fire 1849 88% 447 84% 27 31% 0 N/A 1 100% Tsunami 0 0% 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Landslide 412 20% 41 8% 1 1% 0 N/A 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 00% 70 APPENDIX ,J Town of Fairfax Table J-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Fairfax Roads Railroad Ferry Miles %of Total Miles %of Total Earthquake 33 100% 0 0 Flood 4 12% 0 0 Fire 28 85% 0 0 Tsunami 0 0% 0 0 Landslide 11 33% 0 0 Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0 Table J-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Fairfax MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 NIA Flood 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 71 APPENDIX J Town of Fairfax Table J-4.Vulnerability of Power in Fairfax Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Table J-5.Vulnerability of Water 1 Sewage in Fairfax Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 72 APPENDIX ,J Town of Fairfax Table J-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Fairfax Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 4 100% 2 1000% 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 0% 1 500% 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 4 100% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table J-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables J-1 through J-6).Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table J-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table J-7—Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Fairfax Action Number(Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Included in Updated Action Plan(New#) 'Future Mitigation Actions and Priorities'from 2012 In January 2011.the Town Council adopted the 2010 California Building Code which applies to all construction activity within the Town boundaries.The California Building Code is comprised of 11 parts that incorporate public health,safety,energy,green building and access standards used in the X X MLT-3 design and construction of all buildings.The new code provisions will allow the Town to utilize the latest technologies,advances in construction standards and seismic design for the use in new residential and commercial construction and in remodels. 73 APPENDIX J Town of Fairfax The Town has determined that the combination of construction type,age,and shaking exposure to the Fairfax Pavilion which is the only facility suitable as a shelter,are significant.The Town has X X For Fairfax Annex applied for and received a Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant to seismically retrofit this building.The Pavilion renovation will qualify as a principal disaster shelter by Red Cross standards. No determination has been made at this time for the Town-owned Women's Club(Council X X For Fairfax Annex Chambers).It is anticipated this building will need seismic retrofitting. The Town will establish a General Plan Implementation Committee(GPIC)to guide and assist in the implementation of the Town's new 2010 General Plan,including the implementation of the new X no Safety Element section titled"Community Preparedness." Ongoing MitigationStrategies from 2012 Continue to comply with all applicable building and fire codes as well as other regulations when X X MLT-3 constructing',or significantly remodeling infrastructure facilities Continue toenforce and/or comply with State-mandated requirements such as the California X X Implicit Environmental Quality Act Incorporate FEMA guidelines and suggested activities into local government plans and procedures X X FLD-2 for managing flood hazards Continue to participate in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program X X Implicit Continue to facilitate the distribution of emergency preparedness materials and trainings through the X X Preparedness General Plan Implementation Committee Conduct periodic tests of the emergency sirens and emergency warning systems X Continue to maintain the emergency operations center X X Response 74 APPENDIX ,l Town of Fairfax The Town will participate in the Ross Valley Watershed group,which is how priorities were set for flooding hazard mitigation.A successful local election has created a flood Fairfax Annex-update fee generating revenues to fund watershed wide flood mitigation projects through the local flood X X language control district.A hydrolocic study has been completed that encompasses the entire Ross Valley watershed in order to determine the effects of potential flood mitigation projects. As new flood-control projects are completed.request that FEMA revise its flood insurance rate maps and digital Geographic Information System(GIS)data to reflect X X Fairfax Annex and MLT 5 flood risks as accurately as possible—ongoing project,Planning and Building Dept. Enforce and/or comply with the hazardous materials requirements of the State of California Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA)—Ross Valley Fire Department, X X Implicit-requirement ongoing project. Seek grant funding for vegetation removal along roadways and roadside collection/chipping of X X FIR-3,FIR-5,FIR-6 hazardous vegetation within the Wildland-Urban Interface. Ross Valley Fire to work with other Marin County Fire agencies and Marin Municipal Water District to X X FIR-4 review and update MMWD Fireflow Master Plan to improve the water distribution system. Table J-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Fairfax Potential Funding Hazards addressed Responsible Agency Source Timeline Fairfax Mitigation Activities and Priorities from 2012 Seismically retrofit and/or renovate the Town Pavilion Earthquake Town Administration,DPW, HMGP,PDM grants 1-5 years Building Seismically retrofit/renovate Town-owned Women's Club(Council Chambers) Earthquake,Flood Town Administration,DPW, HMGP,PDM grants 5-10 years Building Conduct periodic tests of the emergency sirens&emergency warning systems Flood Police,Fire,Town general funds Ongoing Administration Continue to maintain the emergency operations center All Police,Fire,Town general funds Ongoing Administration Continue to participate in the Ross Valley Flood Protection&Watershed Program,which Special flood fee,state establishes priorities for flooding hazard mitigation projects. Flood Town Administration,DPW and federal grants Ongoing As new flood-control projects are completed,request that FEMA revise its flood insurance Flood Planning Department general funds As constructed rate maps and digital Geo, ra hic Information S stem GIS data to reflect 75 APPENDIX J Town of Fairfax flood risks as accurately as possible—ongoing project,Planning and Building Dept, New Fairfax Mitigation Activities Continue to use Town Nixle forublic outreach All Police,Fire,Town p Administration general funds Ongoing Mitigate flooding impacts at Town facilities such as Town Hall Flood Town Administration,DPW Special flood fee,state 5+years and federal drams 76 APPENDIX ,J Town of Fairfax Table .I-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools, and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement The General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy. The new Safety Element includes a discussion of fire,earthquake,flooding,and landslide hazards;and importantly includes a section on Community Preparedness. Plan 2010 General Plan Consistent with the Plan Maintenance and Update Process section of the 2004 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan(LHMP)Annex, the General Plan Advisory Committee(GPAC)reviewed,refined,and incorporated selected mitigation strategies into the final draft 2010 General Plan Safety Element. As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated risk information and strategies. Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011 This Hazard Mitigation Plan and its predecessors identify risks from natural hazards present in the Town and includes ABAG Annex strategies to reduce these risks. The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)directs construction activities for Town owned facilities and infrastructure for the next Plan Capital Improvement Plan five years.Mitigation actions may involve construction of new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated strategies. Emergency Response Plan& Plan Community Preparedness These plans inform priority mitigation actions and programs. Plan The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes Policy Zoning Ordinance standards for where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation.The Town adopts the current California Building Code which applies to all construction activity within the Town boundaries.The California Building Code is comprised of 11 Policy Municipal Code parts that incorporate public health,safety,energy,green building and access standards used in the design and construction of all buildings.The new code provisions will allow the Town to utilize the latest technologies,advances in construction standards and seismic design for the use in new residential and commercial construction and in remodels. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology, Administrative Department and business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the de artment's scope, These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning Administrative and Town Planning,Building,and and building can be implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for Town-owned infrastructure, Personnel Public Works Departments including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains,traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Fairfax Police The Town Police Department conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department. Personnel Ross Valley Fire Department The Ross Valley Fire Department protects the town from the effects of fire and other hazardous conditions and supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. APPENDIX J Town of Fairfax Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These Financial State and Federal Grants include State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP),Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA Training and Outreach Fairfax Volunteers Fairfax Volunteers supplement town staff in a variety of outreach and community activities related to hazard mitigation.This includes organizing neighborhood groups,creek and path stewardship and emergency preparedness coordination. The Community Rating System(CRS)is a voluntary program for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Community Rating System Program(NFIP)to earn flood insurance premium reductions for property owners.A Countywide collaboration of CRS Training and Outreach Working Group community staff has been started in recent years and has led to shared resources including outreach materials and floodplain management training.This collaboration has the potential to expand and lead to a wide variety of flood mitigation activities. The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is Training and Outreach Get Ready designed to help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s://read marin.or I et read I 78 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur Appendix K City of Larkspur City of Larkspur The City of Larkspur had an estimated population of 11,926 in 2010, with 6,376 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 3.243 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $66,710 and the per capita income for the City was $56,983. Approximately 1.8 percent of families and 3.7 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Larkspur was incor?orated as a city in 1908. Table K-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Larkspur Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Numoer %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 2,478 100% 1482 100% 134 100% 10 100% 4 100% Flood 485 20% 282 19% 42 31% 10 100% 0 0% Fire 1535 62% 164 11% 22 16% 0 0% 1 25% Tsunami 353 14% 191 13% 41 31% 10 100% 1 25% Landslide 411 17% 205 14% 6 4% 0 0% 0 0% Dam 511 21% 465 31% 55 41% 5 50% 0 0% Inundation 79 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur Table K-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Larkspur Roads Railroads Ferry Stations Miles Number Miles Percent Number Percent Earthquake'' 51 100% 1 100% 1 100% Flood 12 24% 0 0% 1 100% Fire 25 49% 0 0% 0 0% Tsunami 11 22% 0.1 10% 1 100% Landslide 10 20% 0 0% 0 0% Dam Inundation 12 24% 0 0% 1 100% Table K-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Larkspur MERA Number %of Total Earthquake0 N/A Flood 0 N/A Fire --- -- 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 80 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur Table K-4.Vulnerability of Power in Larkspur Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %0f Number %of Miles %of Miles %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0.7 100% Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0% Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0.3 42% Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0% Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0% Table K-5.Vulnerability of Water 1 Sewage in Larkspur Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 81 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur Table K-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Larkspur Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake6 100% 3 100% 0 N/A 0 NIA Flood 2 33% 3 100% 0 N/A 0 NIA Fire 1 18% 3 100% 0 NIA 0 NIA Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 NIA 0 NIA Landslide 0 0% 0 0% 0 NIA 0 NIA Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 NIA 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table K-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables K-1 through K-6). Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table K-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table K-7-Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Larkspur Included in Number Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Updated Action Plan(New#) AH-1 Backup Generators X X MLT-9 AH-2 Public Works Corporation Yard Office Seismic Tie Down X AH-3 Engineering Public Works Office X 82 APPENDIX k; City of Larkspur AH-4 Public Works Office X AH-5 Public Works Corporate Shop Generator X X MLT-9 AH-6 50KW Mobile Generator with trailer X X MLT-9 AH-7 80KW Backup Generator X X MLT-9 AH-8 Public Outreach Program X X prevention-for EOP AH-9 Partnerships with local jurisdictions and mutual stakeholders to prevent collaborative X X MLT-6,MLT-8 disaster damage AH-10 Information Technology System Upgrade X not mitigation-for EOP AH-11 Cache of Err ergency Supplies and Container X preparedness-for EOP AH-12 Mobile Disaster Command Center X response-for EOP AH-13 Larkspur Disaster Council X not mitigation-for EOP AH-14 Community Emergency Response Team(C.E.R.T)Cache and Storage Unit X for EOP AH-15 Community raining Room Expansion X preparedness-for EOP AH-16 Upgrade 9-1 1 Telephone System X AH-17 Telephone System Upgrade X new building AH-18 LCD w/DLP Capability Televisions X AH-19 Wireless Computers(Wireless I.T.System X AH-20 Electrical upgrade for remodeled EOC X Now part of County EOC AH-21 Emergency Operations Center Remodel X Now part of County EOC EQ-1 City Hall Seismic Upgrade X X X for Larkspur Annex EQ-2,WF-1 Fire Station Seismic Upgrade X X X for Larkspur Annex EQ-3,WF-2 Fire Station Expansion X X X for Larkspur Annex For Larkspur FL-1,SW-1 Upgrade Storm Drain System X Annex-storm drain master plan FL-2 Buy Out Program X X FLD-6 FL-3 Property Development Program X X FLD-2 FL-4 Elevate Home Program X X FLD-6 83 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur FL-5 Trash Pumps(two 6 inch) X X for Larkspur Annex combine FL-6 Five(5)Discharge Suction Hoses X X for Larkspur Annex combine FL-7 Two 4 inch Trash Pumps wl suction hoses X X for Larkspur Annex combine FL-8 Future Flood Elevation Feasibility Study for Coastal Buildings X X FLD-10,FLD-11 FL-9 Flood Mitigation Plan X X for Larkspur Annex WF-2 High Fire Zone Assessment Program X X for Larkspur Annex WF-3 lContract Service for Vegetation Debris Bins X X FIR-3 WF-4 Chipper Program X X FIR-3 WF-5 Fuel Management Program X X FIR-9,FIR-5,FIR- S 84 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur Table K-8-Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Larkspur Former Action Action Name Number,if Description Responsible Potential Funding applicable p Agency Source Timeline A complete seismic upgrade of City Hall,to interior&exterior walls,floors&footings. City Hall Seismic EQ-1 Removal of second floor storage room and reconstruction of the rear wall.A preliminary Public Works Federal/ 5-years Upgrade structural analysis was prepared in 1994.A partial seismic upgrade based on that study was State Grants(PDM) completed when the roof was replaced in 1997. Fire Station complete seismic upgrade of the Fire Station attached to City Hall.Including improvements Public Works,Fire Federal/ Seismic Upgrade EQ-2,WF-1 to interior&exterior walls,floors,roof structure&footing. Included are improvements to bring Department State Grants(PDM) 5-years the buildinq up to current ADA requirements.Repair and patch interior and exterior finishes. Fire Station Construction of a new second floor,Area of construction 4000 sq.ft at the City Hall Fire public Works,Fire Federal/State Expansion EQ-3,INF-2 Station w/parking below.The addition links Fire Station&City Hall.The second floor allows Department Grants(PDM) 5-years for the expansion of the Cit Offices,and additional room for a Incident Command EOC. Upgrade current storm drainage system to accommodate increased water flow from excessive rains.Which entails: 1.Replacing&enlarging current drain pipe(8 crossings x 40 ft) approximately 2 miles of the existing 15. 2.Replacing two(2)dozen gates/valves at critical discharge points. 3.Install two(2)new pump stations at;A)Hillview B).Larkspur Marine Federal/State Upgrade Storm FL-1,SW-1 4.Upgrade existing Grants;Flood Drain System P9 g pump stations at A)Heathergarden B)Larkspur Plaza Public Works Mitigation Hazard ASAP C)Industrial Way g Program 5.Install back flow check valve at 4 ft culvert under A)Hwy 101 at Redwood B)Hwy 101 at Industrial Way 6.Install 1000 ft of new culvert under public streets 7.Replace 250 catch basins/drain inlets 8.Install 20 new catch basins/drain inlets Federal/State Trash Pumps FL-5,FI--6,FL-7 Public Works Grants;Flood 5-year Mitigation Hazard Purchase 6 inch trailer mounted Trash Pumps&discharge suction hoses Pro ram Federal/State Flood Mitigation FL-9 Public Works Grants;Flood 5-year Plan Develop a Comprehensive Flood Mitigation Plan.The Plan will identify repetitive flood areas Mitigation Hazard and develop short and long term flood mitigation strategies Program 85 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur High Fire Zone Fire dept staff goes door-to-door and assess fire treat potential to business and private home Assessment WF-2 owners.The staffs make suggestions/enforce defensible space according to city fire codes [Fire Department General Budget Ongoing Program and ordinances. Table K-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools, and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement Larkspur is in process of finalizing an update to its General Plan,which is scheduled for adoption in 2019. The General Plan outlines the City's long-term strategic goals,policies and programs that affect the City's growth and development such as land Plan 1990 General Plan update use,transportation,streets and sidewalks.utilities&infrastructure,parks,housing and neighborhoods,recreation and community facilities,commercial services and products,the environment,public health and safety,and flooding.Chapter 7,Community Health and Safety,addresses many of the hazards addressed in this plan, Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan Larkspur's previous Hazard Mitigation Plan identified risks from natural hazards present in the City and informed strategies to reduce these risks presented in this plan. Every year,City staff develops a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program(CIP)for council consideration,which serves as a Plan Capital Improvement Program multi-year planning tool to coordinate the financing and scheduling of major projects to improve and maintain its infrastructure. The CIP directs construction activities for City owned facilities and infrastructure for the next five years.Mitigation actions may involve construction of new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure. The city's subdivision ordinance,establishes standards to regulate the division of land and also establishes standards to restrict Subdivision Regulations; the creation of building sites in areas where flooding,lack of adequate access or services,or other conditions may create Policy Municipal Code Chapter 17 hazards to life or property.The regulations promote public health,safety and general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to hazardous conditions in specific areas and insure that reasonable caution is taken to preclude loss or damage to life and proerty. The zoning ordinance implements the general plan by establishing specific regulations for development.The zoning ordinance Zoning Ordinance;Municipal defines minimum lot sizes,densities and development standards,and regulates land use in hazardous areas.It includes Policy standards for where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of Code Chapter 18 activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the zoning ordinance. The slope and hillside ordinance reduces densities and impervious construction in steep hillside areas. The ordinance provides a Slope&Hillside Ordinance; higher standard of review at the planning phase to address potential for hazards and environmental degradation related to slope Policy Municipal Code Chapter 18.34 failure,increased erosion,sedimentation,storm water run-off,fire hazards,loss of vegetation,excessive grading,visual intrusion of structures,and potential for traffic hazards.The ordinance serves to protect public health,safety and general welfare and minimize public expense for long-term maintenance of sloe areas resulting from over-development in hillside areas. Policy Fire Prevention:Municipal Code Chapter 15 The City also adopted the most recent State of California approved Uniform Building Code,including the Residential Building Code and Wildland-Urban Interface(WUI)standards to safeguard life,health,property,and public welfare by providing enhanced Policy Building Regulations; fire resistance for exterior treatments and new roof coverings in high fire hazard zones. The Seismic Safety Code contains Municipal Code Chapter 15 structural requirements to insure structural integrity during seismic and other hazardous events and prevent personal injury,loss of life and substantial structural damage.The City requires the undergrounding of utilities in the case of new construction and major remodels.The City has also adopted the International Property Maintenance Code to provide for the abatement of unsafe 60 APPENDIX K City of Larkspur and/or uninhkitalble buildin s. The city of Larkspur enforces floodplain management regulations in special flood hazards identified by the Federal Insurance Administration,through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These regulations address the construction,location, Floodplain Management; extension,conversion or alteration of structures or land in special flood hazard zones,including both new development and Policy Municipal Code Chapter 15.18 modifications to existing uses and structures.The ordinance regulates and restricts development in flood-prone areas to promote the public health,safety and general welfare,to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas,and to minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. The City enforces regulations for best management practices during development as well as permanent and ongoing erosion Stormwater Management; control measures to minimize off-site stormwater flow and buildup of sedimentation and other obstacles in drainage ways. The Policy Municipal Code Chapter 9.11 city identifies drainage ways and watercourses as public easements and provides standards for the protection,maintenance, and 9.12 enhancement and restoration of streams and waterways in a manner which preserves the conveyance of stormwater run-off and enhances their eco lo qical integrity and resource functions and value. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting risk management information technology,and Administrative Department business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the department's scope. • Conducts comprehensive planning activities,including preparation of the General Plan. • Develops and enforces zoning regulations. o Prepares CEQA documents. Administrative and Planning&Building . Verifies compliance with Uniform Building Code through checking plans,issuing permits,and inspections. Personnel Department • Oversee flood plain management program,including flood elevation determinations and flood-proof construction. • Coordinates development review with public works,fire,polices,and outside agencies. o Conducts site inspections to enforce permit and code compliance. • Leads damage assessments and documentation during emergency. Administrative and Public Works Department is responsible for City-owned infrastructure,including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains, Personnel Public Works Department traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Central Marin Police Authority The Central Marin Police Authority conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department. Larkspur Fire Department protects the city and portions of unincorporated Greenbrae from the effects of fire and other hazardous Personnel Larkspur Fire Department conditions and supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Larkspur also has a volunteer fire department and manages its vegetation management program 87 APPENDIX L City of Mill Valley Appendix L City of Mill Valley City of Mill Valley Mill Valley had an estimated population of 13,903 in 2010, with 6,534 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 4.847 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $90,794 and the per capita income for the City was $64,179. Approximately 2.7 percent of families and 4.5 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Mill Valley was incorporated as a city in 1900. Mill Valley completed a single-jurisdiction All Hazards Mitigation Plan in 2017 which is hereby incorporated by reference into this appendix and includes much more jurisdiction-specific information about Mill Valley. Below are summary tables updating Mill Valley's vulnerability analysis and mitigation strategies. Table L-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Mill Valley Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake', 3,556 100% 1439 100% 220 100% 0 N/A 2 1005 Flood 585 16% 316 22% 137 62% 0 NIA 0 0% Fire 2683 75% 927 64% 61 28% 0 N/A 2 100% Tsunami 97 3% 259 18% 41 19% 0 NIA 0 0% Landslide 662 19% 149 10% 12 5% 0 NIA 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 NIA 0 0% 88 APPENDIX L. City of Mill Valley Table L-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Mill Valley Roads Railroad Ferry Miles %of Total Miles Number Earthquake 75 100% 0 0 Flood 13 17% 0 0 Fire 64 85% 0 0 Tsunami 4 5% 0 0 Landslide 19 25% 0 0 Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0 Table L-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Mill Valley MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 2 100% Flood 0 0 Fire 2 100% Tsunami 0 0 Landslide 1 50% Dam Inundation 0 0 89 APPENDIX L City of Mill Valley Table L-4.Vulnerability of Power in Mill Valley Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Miles %of Miles %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 NIA 1 100% 1 100% 3.1 100% .9 100 Flood 0 NIA 0 0% 0 NIA .5 16% 0 0 Fire 0 N/A 1 100% 0 NIA 2.2 71% .8 88.9% Tsunami 0 NIA 0 0% 0 NIA .4 13% 0 0 Landslide 0 NIA 1 100% 0 NIA 1.0 32% .5 55.6% Dam Inundation 0 NIA 0 0% 0 NIA .5 16% 0 0% Table L-5.Vulnerability of Water I Sewage in Mill Valley Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 1 100% 6 100% Flood 0 0% 5 83.3% Fire 0 0% 0 0% Tsunami 1 100% 0 0% Landslide 0 0% 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 90 APPENDIX I_ City of Mill Valley Table L-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Mill Valley Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 12 1009% 3 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 7 58.3% 3 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 2 16.7% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 NIA Landslide 1 8.3% 2 66.7% 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table L-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables L-1 through L-6).Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are eithe discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table L-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table L-7—Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Mill Valley Action Number/Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Included in Updated fiction Plan(New#) 'Future Mitigation Actions'from Sin le-Jurisdiction Plan Per`orm appropriate seismic and fire safety analysis based on Building Assessment current and future use for all City-owned facilities and X MLT-2 tructures. Strengthen and/or Strengthen and/or replace City-owned buildings in the Replace City ider:tified prioritized order as funding is available. X MLT-2 Buildings 91 APPENDIX L City of Mill Valley Soft StoryAssessment of Soft-Story Buildings(non-City owned)for X Potential Mandated Retrofit Program. EQ 2 I Non-City Bu,ildngs Reduce hazard vulnerabilities for non-City-owned buildings X MLT-3 throughout Mill Valley, Fire Code Reduce fire risk in existing and new development through fire X MLT-3 code updates and enforcement. Vegetation Reduce fire risk in existing and new development(non-City X FIR-2,3,4,5 Management owned)through vegetation management. Collect,analyze and share information with the Mill Valley Hazard Information community about Mill Valley hazards and associated risk X MLT-5 reduction activities. Ensure that the City provides leadership and coordinate with Partnerships the private sector,public institutions,and other public agencies X MLT-6 and annex in disaster mitigation. MMWD Work with MMWD to ensure an adequate water supply during X MLT-14 emergencies and for disaster recovery Streamline Rebuild Streamline the zoning and permitting process to rebuild X annex residential and commercial structures following disasters. .Energy Assurance Develop an Energy Assurance Plan for City Operations X MLT-9 I Improve the disaster-resistance of the natural gas delivery Gas Safetysystem to increase public safety and to minimize damage and X MLT-6 and annex service disruption during and after a disaster. 92 APPENDIX l_ City of Mill Valley Re iabilitate and improve the capacity of the City's storm water Storm Water System system to reduce local flooding caused by inadequate storm X Fld-5 and annex drainage. Extreme Heat Reduce Mill Valley's vulnerability to extreme heat events and X annex associated hazards. Severe Storms Reduce Mill Valley's vulnerability to severe storms and X annex associated hazards. Collaborate with local,state,regional and federal partners to Water Security increase the security and capacity of Mill Valley's water supply X annex from climate change impacts NFIP Maintain City participation in the National Flood Insurance X Fid-1 Prcgram. Sea-Level Rise Mitigate the impacts of sea-level rise in Mill Valley. X Fid-10,11,13 Table L-8.Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Mill Valley Action enc Responsible A Potential Funding Timeline p Agency Source Ensure that the City provides leadership and coordinate with the private sector,public institutions,and Administration/Public Partnerships other public agencies in disaster mitigation. Works/Planning/ General Fund Ongoing Building Departments Streamline the zoning and permitting process to rebuild residential and commercial structures followingPublic Works/ Streamline Rebuild disasters. Planning/Building General Fund Ongoing Departments Gas SafetyImprove the disaster-resistance of the natural gas delivery system to increase public safety and to Public Works/ minimize damage and service disruption during and after a disaster. Planning General Fund Ongoing Storm Water Rehabilitate and improve the capacity of the City's storm water system to reduce local flooding caused Public Works/ General Fund Ongoing System by inadequate storm drainage. partnerships 93 APPENDIX L City of Mill Valley Public Works/ Extreme Heat Reduce Mill Valley's vulnerability to extreme heat events and associated hazards. Planning/Building General Fund Ongoing Departments Public Works/ Severe Storms Reduce Mill Valley's vulnerability to severe storms and associated hazards. Planning/Building General Fund Ongoing Departments Collaborate with local,state,regional and federal partners to increase the security and capacity of Mill Public Works/ Water Security Planning/Building General Fund Ongoing Valley's water supply from climate change impacts Departments 94 APPENDIX L City of Mill Valley Table L-9 Planning Mechanisms,Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement Plan 2013 General Plan Update Mill Valley's General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy.The General Plan is currently being updated. `2040 General Plan' Plan City All Hazard Mitigation Plan Mill Valley's previous Hazard Mitigation Plan identified risks from natural hazards present in the City and informed strategies to v 4.0 reduce these risks presented in this plan. Every year,City staff develops a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program(CIP)for council consideration,which serves as a Plan Capital Improvement Program multi-year planning tool to coordinate the financing and scheduling of major projects to improve and maintain its infrastructure. The CIP directs construction activities for City owned facilities and infrastructure for the next five years.Mitigation actions may involve construction of new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure. The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes standards Policy Zoning Ordinance for where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. Policy Municipal Code The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology,and Administrative Department business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the department's scope. These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting Administrative and City Planning,Building,and environmental review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning and Personnel Public Works Departments building can be implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for City-owned infrastructure,including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains,traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Mill Valley Police The Police Department conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency prepare ness can be implemented by the Police Department. Personnel Mill Valley Fire Department Mill Valley Fire Department protects the city from the effects of fire and other hazardous conditions and supports implementation of miti ation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These Financial State and Federal Grants include State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP),Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA Training and Outreach Website The City website contains links to a wide variety of mitigation information and training opportunities. The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is designed Training and Outreach Get Ready to help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s://read marin.or I et-read / 95 APPENDIX M City of Novato Appendix M City of Novato City of Novato The City of Novato had an estimated population of 51,904 in 2010, with 21,158 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 27.440 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $63,453, and the per capita income for the City was $32,402. Approximately 3.1 percent of families and 5.6 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Novato was incorporated as a city in 1960. Table M•1.Vulnerability of Structures in Novato Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 11,815 100% 4909 100% 516 100% 218 100% 3 100% Flood 1606 14% 605 12% 128 25% 41 19% 1 33.3% Fire 7029 59% 2550 52% 106 21% 72 33% 0 0% Tsunami 86 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Landslide1885 16% 293 6% 25 5% 3 1% 0 0% Dam 2682 23% 1061 22% 287 56% 13 6% 0 0% Inundation' 96 APPENDIX M City of Novato Table M-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Novato Roads Railroads Ferry Miles %of Total Miles %of Total Number Earthquake 237 100% 9 100% 0 Flood 53 22% 7 78% 0 Fire 117 49% 4 44% 0 Tsunami 2 1% 0 0% 0 Landslide 34 14% 0 0% 0 Dam Inundation 66 28% 3 33% 0 Table M-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Novato MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 97 APPENDIX M City of Novato Table M-4.Vulnerability of Power in Novato Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %0f Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 36 100% 3 100% 2 100% 26.5 100% 2 100% Flood 29 80.6% 1 33.3% 0 0% 8.2 30.9% 0 0% Fire 6 16.7% 1 33.3% 2 100% 8.5 32.1% 2 100% Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% .1 .4% 0 0% Landslide 1 2.8% 0 0% 0 0% 1.8 6.8% 0 0% Dam Inundation 11 30.6% 1 33.3% 0 0% 7.4 27.9% 0 0% Table M-5!Vulnerability of Water I Sewage in Novato Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 2 100% 4 100% Flood 0 0% 4 100% Fire 0 0% 0 0% Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% Landslide 0 0% 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 98 APPENDIX M City of Novato Table M-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Novato Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 21 100% 5 100% 10 100% 0 0% Flood 2 9.5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Fire 4 19.0% 0 0% 2 20% 0 0% Tsunami 0 0% 0 00% 0 0% 0 0% Landslide 0 0% 1 20.0% 0 0°/0 0 0% Dam Inundation 7 33.3% 1 20.0% 4 40% 0 0% The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table M-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implemen?:ation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables M-1 through M-6).Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation"(they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table M-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table M-7—Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Novato Action Number/Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Included in Updated Action Plan(New#) 1.1.3 Update the City of Novato's Local Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years. no Repair water leak in the Police Building,(designated as an alternate EOC facility),to CIP project to 1.2.1 avoid any disruption to using the facility as an alternate EOC during an emergency. be completed x this year 1.2.2 Install an above ground diesel tank at the Corporation Yard to have diesel fuel readily x x MLT-9 available during an emergency. 1.3.2 Compile and inventory City-owned buildings at risk. Completed 2013 x MLT-2 99 APPENDIX M City of Novato Continue the code enforcement inspection program for apartments of 3 or more units 1.3.3 in the City to find seismic safety,flood and health and safety compliance issues and to x x MLT-3 and annex identify buildings at risk to specific hazards. Continue to conduct annual inspection and maintenance of storm sewer drainage 1.3.4 systems and utilize new vacuum truck with additional capacity and enhanced storm X x FIM drain clearing technology. 1.5.1 Identify appropriate staffing levels of public safety personnel to address vulnerabilities x not mitigation identified within the capabilities of the City. Purchase and install an emergency generator at the City's Todd Senior Center,(a 1.5.2 designated emergency shelter)to provide power if electrical service is disabled during x x MLT-9 an emergency. 1.5.3 Conduct training biannually on response and recovery exercises for city staff and x not mitigation volunteers. referenced in plan Implement and maintain the telephone emergency response system to broadcast x-see County under the 1.5.5 emergency information and warnings to designated first responders,the public, contract for Warnings section individuals,pre-designated telephone listing and selected geographical areas. ALERT Marin rather than mitigation actions for CRS purposes Prepare a site-specific vulnerability assessment of City-owned critical facilities that use human-caused not 1.5.6 the best available science and technology with regards human-caused hazards. relevant to DMA 2000 Protect the city's data technology infrastructure and staff against cyber attacks such human-caused not 1.5.7 as but not limited to: relevant to DMA 2000 Identity Theft Virus/Malware/Spyware/Spam Network and system attacks Web site hacking 21 Encourage the public to prepare and maintain a 3-day preparedness kit for home and Prepared-ness, work useable for all hazards. not mitigation Continue the City's outreach program to flood-prone property owners and the citizens 2.2 of Novato to helpthem mitigate their flood risks. x x FLD-4 x-as part of Update City websites to provide convenient public access to earthquake hazard maps,' multi- 2.3 and educational mitigation materials and distribute printed publications to the jurisdictional x MLT-5 community concerning hazards LHMP virtual engagement Update the City's Emergency Preparedness Plan,as needed and update the plan x-update Preparedness 3.1. when the State of California and the County of Marin update their Emergency x ongoing not mitigation replaced with language to Operations in Preparedness plans. EOP column 2- 100 APPENDIX fel City of Novato Still Valid Identify projects for pre-disaster mitigation funding and assure adequate funding x-discuss 3.4 where feasible to restore damaged facilities. projects with x Fld-5,EQ-3,LS-2 DPW 4.1.3 Request Caltrans to seismic retro-fit US-101 bridge sections located within the City of x x EQ-3 Novato. x-update ongoing language to include assessment, 4.1.5 Annually inspMt the Hamilton levees and associated flood control pump stations. maintaining x Fld-5 accreditation, and making necessary improvements to levee/pump ` stations Repair and resurface Atherton US 101 bridge crossing for safe vehicle traffic and x-verify with x as a retrofit,not 4.1.6 protect rebar tat is beginning to be exposed,this bridge crossing is a major EQ-3 evacuation route for the Novato area. DPW simple repair Participate in the completion of the County's Watershed Stewardship Plan.The plan's Fld 5 and annex Storm 4.2.1 projects will address preventative measures to mitigate flood impacts. x Drain Master Plan projects Require all development in the 100 year flood zone to comply with the Floodplain Zoning requirements in the Novato Municipal Code and ensure projects comply with 4.2.4 the California E=nvironmental Quality Act and refer any development proposal that has x x Fld-2 a direct or indi-ect impact on flood protection to Public Works for comment and other agencies as necessary. 4.2.6 Maintain Novato's compliance and good standing under the National Flood Insurance program NFIP and the CommunityRatingSystem(CRS). x x Fld 1 Create a comprehensive computerized model of the Novato's basins and produce maps to aid the Clean Storm Water program by completing the Storm Drainage annex does DPW have 4.2.7 Master Plan.The GIS database will work to monitor flow throughout the City's network x x x specific projects that of storm drains. came out of this? Meet annually with all agencies involved in Marin County Flood Control projects to 4.2.8 ensure that structural projects are considered and continue to cooperate with Marin jurisdictions in pursuing all available sources of funding to finance improvements to x x x annex storm drainage facilities. Prepared-ness, not mitigation as 4.2.9 Train Public Works and Police personnel in emergency flood response techniques, x is,but MLT-7 MLT-7 broadens to mitigation training 101 APPENDIX M City of Novato 4.2.10 Reduce flooding in northeasterly area of downtown Novato by providing x x Fld-5 enhancements to the existing ditch on the west side of the railroad tracks. 4.2.11 Participate with FEMA to update and maintain the Flood FIRM/DFIRM maps. x delete ongoing 4.2.12 provide emergency flood control resources such as plastic sheeting and sand bags to x preparedness,not businesses and citizens in emergencies. mitigation 4.2.13 Manage seepage at the Hamilton Levee to minimize impacts and inundation risks to x-verify with x Fld-5 'private property. DPW pollution not part Install pollution prevention devices at outfalls throughout the city to mitigate storm of this plan,refer 4.2.14 water discharges into the creeks. to Stormwater Resources Plan SWRP 4.3.1 Expand the GIS system to identify properties located within the Wildland-Urban x x MLT-11 Interface WUI . 4.3.2 Promote defensible space on City land behind homes in Novato. x x FIR-3,FIR-5 NFD-1 Complete a Novato Specific Community Wildfire Protection Plan new proposal annex NFD-2 Develop an inventory of structures with shake and shingle roofing material to identify new proposal MLT-11 and target education efforts and the need for roof conversions. NFD-3 Consider ways to use drone technology for disaster response,recovery,including fire new proposal not really annex protection. mitigation oriented' NFD-4 Articulate and promote the concept of land use planning related to fire risk and new proposal annex individual landowner objectives and responsibilities. Coordinate with county and local government staff to integrate Firewise approaches annex-or consider NFD-5 into planning documents and ordinances. new proposal adding multi-jurisdictional action Continue to support community vegetation reduction grants and chipper programs to NFD-6 encourage compliance with defensible space and vegetation management new proposal FIR-3,FIR-5 requirements. Consider the creation of transition zones(areas between developed residential areas annex-or consider NFD-7 new proposal adding multi-jurisdictional and open space areas)where additional defensible space clearance is needed. action Continue inter-agency coordination with Marin's fire service community and other annex-or consider NFD-8 partners to maintain a community presence and to develop and distribute public new proposal adding multi-jurisdictional information regarding fuel reduction efforts throughout the county. action Continue efforts to partner with neighborhoods located in WUI areas to educate them annex-or consider NFD-9 on becoming fire adapted or Firewise communities. new proposal adding multi-jurisdictional action annex-or consider NFD-10 Continue implementation of the countywide fuel break and fire plan implementation new proposal adding multi-jurisdictional action NFD-11 Prioritize evacuation routes for fuel reduction programs new proposal FIR-1 NFD-12 Encourage community-level drills for evacuation preparedness new proposal not mitigation annex 102 APPENDIX IM City of Novato Work to reduce regulatory barriers that limit hazardous fuels reduction activities(e.g., annex-or consider NFD-13 tree removal process). new proposal adding multi-jurisdictional action EOC Display upgrade:Design and budget also includes power requirements, NFD-14 programming and integration of existing AV equipment for the new Video Wall location new proposal annex as well as removal of the existing front projection system. NFD-15 Map all City owned open space I new proposal annex NFD-16 Develop a Vegetation Management Plan(VMP)for all City owned open space new proposal FIR-4 NFD-17 Annual weed abatement on City owned land new proposal FIR-4 NFD-18 Creation of shaded fuel breaks on City owned land near residential&commercial new proposal FIR-4 structures Table M-8-Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Novato # Description Hazard(s) Responsible Agency Potential Timeline Notes addressed Funding Source Mitigation Activities and Priorities from Prior LHMP Continue the code enforcement inspection program for N-1 apartments of 3 or more units in the City to find seismic safety, All Novato Community City General Fund On-going flood and health and safety compliance issues and to identify Development buildings at risk to specific hazards. Update the City's Emergency Preparedness Plan,as needed andCity General Fund Novato Emergency Phase 1-2018 N-2 update the plan when the State of California and the County of All Management and Fire General phase 2-2020 reference Novato EOP in annex Marin update th&r Emergency Preparedness plans. Fund Participate in the completion of the County's Watershed Fld-5 and annex Storm Drain Master N-3 Stewardship Plar.The plan's projects will address preventative Storm/Flood Novato Public Works City General Fund On-going Plan projects.does DPW want to add measures to mitigate flood impacts. specific projects? Create a comprehensive computerized model of the Novato's basins and produce maps to aid the Clean Storm Water program N-4 by completing the Storm Drainage Master Plan.The GIS Storm I Flood Novato Public Works City General Fund 2019 annex-does DPW have specific database will work to monitor flow throughout the City's network projects that came out of this? of storm drains. Meet annually with all agencies involved in Marin County Flood Control projects to ensure that structural projects are considered Dam/Storm/ N-5 and continue to cooperate with Marin jurisdictions in pursuing all Flood Novato Public Works City General Fund On-going x-check with DPW available sources of funding to finance improvements to storm draina e facilities. 103 APPENDIX M City of Novato New Miti'ation Activities and Priorities NFD-1 Complete a Novato Specific Community Wildfire Protection Plan Fire Novato Fire District Fire General Fund On-going annex NFD-2 Consider ways to use drone technology for disaster response, Fire Novato Community City General Fund On-going not mitigation oriented recovery,including fire protection. Development 9 Articulate and promote the concept of land use planning related Novato Fire District& Fire General Fund NFD-3 to fire risk and individual landowner objectives and Fire Novato Community and City General On-going annex responsibilities. Development Fund NFD-4 Coordinate with county and local government staff to integrate Novato Public Works City General Fund and Fire General 2020 annex-or consider adding multi- Fund Fire,rewise approaches into planning documents and ordinances. and Novato Fire District Fund jurisdictional action Consider the creation of transition zones(areas between or consider adding multi- NFD-5 developed residential areas and open space areas)where Fire Novato Fire District Fire General Fund On-going annex 9 additional defensible space clearance is needed. jurisdictional action Continue inter-agency coordination with Marin's fire service NFD-6 community and other partners to maintain a community Fire Novato Fire District Fire General Fund On-going annex-or consider adding multi- presence and to develop and distribute public information jurisdictional action re ardin fuel reduction efforts throw hout the count . Continue efforts to partner with neighborhoods located in WU annex-or consider adding multi- -7 areas to educate them on becoming fire adapted or Firewise Fire Novato Fire District Fire General Fund On-going 9 jurisdictional action communities.J Continue implementation of the countywide fuel break and fire Fire Novato Community City General Fund On-going annex-or consider adding multi- NFD-8 plan implementation Development j urisdictional action Novato Public Works& NFD-9 Encourage community-level drills for evacuation preparedness All Community City General Fund 2019 not mitigation Development NFD-10 Work to reduce regulatory barriers that limit hazardous fuels Fire Novato Fire District Fire General Fund On-going annex-or consider adding multi- reduction activities e. .,tree removal process). jurisdictional action EOC Display upgrade:Design and budget also includes power requirements,programming and integration of existing AV Novato Community NFD-11 q p 9 g g g Fire City General Fund On-going annex equipment for the new Video Wall location as well as removal of Development the existing front projection system. Novato Fire District& Fire General Fund EMapCity owned open spaceNFDCity owned open space Fire Novato Community and City General On-going annex E Development Fund 104 APPENDIX M City of Novato Table M-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools, and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement The City is currently finalizing an update to its General Plan,which serves as a basis for decisions that affect the City's growth and development such as transportation,land use,streets and infrastructure,parks,housing and neighborhoods,recreation and community Plan 2016 General Plan Update facilities,downtown,the environment,public health and safety,and flooding.The General Plan is a strategic and long-term document 'General Plan 2035' identifying goals and polices that guides and directs the City in terms of implementing policies,programs and resources.As required by State law,the City of Novato's General Plan includes seven chapters,or"elements":land use,circulation,housing,conservation,open space,noise and safety. 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Novato's previous Hazard Mitigation Plan identified risks from natural hazards present in the City and informed strategies to reduce these Plan &2008 Flood Mitigation risks presented in this plan.The 2008 Flood Mitigation Plan was developed in conjunction with the Hazard Mitigation Plan and contains Plan more details specific to the local flood hazards.The Flood Mitigation Plan is now incorporated into this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City's subdivision ordinance,Chapter 9 of the City of Novato Municipal Code establishes standards to regulate the division of land, defines minimum lot sizes,densities and development standards,and regulates land use in hazardous areas. Policy Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations also establish standards to regulate the division of land and eliminate the creation of building sites in areas where flooding may create hazards to life or property.The regulations promote public health,safety and general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas and insure that reasonable caution is taken to preclude loss or damage to life and property. The City's Zoning Ordinance establishes various zoning districts and implements the goals and policies of the Novato general plan by Policy Zoning Regulations classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City of Novato.In addition,it protects and promotes the public health, safety,and general welfare of residents,and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the city.When lots are subdivided,the developer is required to provide adequate access for firefighters,flowrates and storage of water for firefighting. This regulation ensures the future health,safety,and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Novato by establishing a funding source Clean Storm Drain to provide enforcement of the city's Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Ordinance,to provide maintenance and repair of the city's Policy Regulation stormwater drainage facilities,to provide capital improvements to the city's storm drainage system,and to provide other clean stormwater activities.It also protects and enhances the water quality of the State's,and the Nation's watercourses,water bodies,and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act. The development standards in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code are authorized by the California Government Code which allows local Policy Development Standards government controls in building,planning and subdivision.The City development standards enforce disaster-resistant development to minimize risk from natural hazards. Each permit or approval application affected by this requirement shall indicate the way water is to be supplied.The degree of specificity shall relate to the type of permit or approval requested.All affected permit or approval processes shall include provisions for adequate Policy Adequate Water Supply water supply.This insures that the North Marin Water District will provide water to serve the use and/or development upon the establishment of the use or the completion of the development.Each use or development proposal which involves or requires water service(domestic,commercial,industrial,agricultural)either for sanitary use,consumption,production,irrigation or visual amenity,shall rovide for such water by agreement with the North Marin Water District. Flood Damage Prevention Chapter 5-31 of the Municipal Code is titled Flood Damage Prevention Requirements.It was adopted to reduce flood hazards in the Policy Requirements special flood hazard areas within the City of Novato.It addresses the construction,location,extension,conversion or alteration of structures or land in special flood hazard zones.These regulations apply to both new development and construction and existing 105 structures.By regulating and restricting development in such areas will minimize risks of public and private losses due to flood hazards in APPENDIX M City of Novato these specific areas.The areas of special flood hazards are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration,through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is the purpose of this section to promote the public health,safety and general welfare,and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas,and to minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. This ordinance provides standards for the protection,maintenance,enhancement and restoration of streams and waterways in a manner which preserves and enhances their ecological integrity and resource functions and value.This ordinance establishes adequate buffer polhoy Waterway and Riparian areas along watercourses to avoid flood hazards and maintain or expand storage capacity for flood waters;protect water quality and in- Protection stream habitat;preserve,enhance and restore riparian habitat and adjacent wetlands and upland buffers;and,provide for continuous wildlife migration corridors connecting habitat areas.This regulation allows development,which is compatible with the important physical, habitat,aesthetic,and recreational functions of waterways,while ensuring that these functions and values are protected in perpetuity. This ordinance reduces the potential for hazards and environmental degradation related to slope failure,increased erosion, Policy Hillside and Ridgeline sedimentation,storm water run-off,fire hazards,loss of vegetation,excessive grading,visual intrusion of structures,and potential for Protection traffic hazards.It also provides for proper maintenance and fire management and minimizes public expense for long-term maintenance of slo e areas and public improvements in hillside areas. In Section 5-15 of the Municipal Code standards for drainage are defined and are necessary to insure that underground and surface Policy Drainage Development waters are conducted through and away from developments in such a manner as to not detrimentally affect other properties;insure that Requirements underground and surface water is not a problem within the completed development;and further,to correct or improve existing underground or surface water problems within the boundaries of the development and within the immediately affected surrounding area. 106 APPENDIX M City of Novato The City of Novato recognizes the Novato Fire Protection District as the agency responsible for providing fire prevention and firefighting services to the incorporated area of the City of Novato. Therefore,Chapter 5-21 of the Municipal Code requires all applications for permits or approvals affected by this chapter shall be referred to the Novato Fire Protection District for its review and comment. Fire regulations are adopted to minimize the hazard to life and property due to fire.All affected permit or request for approval applications shall include fire safety provisions.Such as: •Emergency Vehicle Access including but not limited to:Minimum street widths,grades,horizontal and vertical clearances are defined so certain major equipment can properly function on such streets to provide access and egress that is optimal for emergency response vehicles. •Certain developments that include proposed open space dedications or where developments abut existing open space,access for fire equipment to that open space shall be provided. •New developments,and certain types of remodels,proposed in identified fire hazard severity zones or in the defined Wildland Urban Policy Fire Safety Interface(WUI)areas shall use ignition resistant building construction materials and methods to reduce structural ignitability. •Any new development or substantial remodel construction to occur in areas defined by the Novato Fire District Board,and adopted by resolution of the City Council,as Wildland Urban Interface areas shall,prior to final clearance occupancy or use,eliminate certain types of fire prone vegetation,except single specimen shrubs or trees,within 30 feet(or up to 100 feet for extra hazardous conditions upon direction of the fire chief)of all structures. The purpose of the Building and Housing code is to establish rules and regulations governing building activity in the city and to safeguard life,health,property,and public welfare by providing minimum fire retardancy requirements for new roof coverings.This information is also needed to assist the city in compiling information on the use,location,and condition of properties within the jurisdiction of the City of Novato and provides for the abatement of unsafe buildings.By agreement,for health and safety reasons,the city may share this Policy Building and Housing information or resultant vital statistics with other governmental agencies. The City has also adopted the most recent State of California approved Building Code,Mechanical Code,Seismic Safety Code,and National Electrical Code which contain structural requirements for existing and new buildings.The codes are designed to insure structural integrity during seismic and other hazardous events and prevent personal injury,loss of life and substantial structural damage.The City is re ared to dopt new codes and standards as passed by the State of California. 107 APPENDIX M City of Novato • Maintains insurance on City facilities Administrative Administrative Services • Operates the City Redevelopment Agency and manages Housing activities Department . Manages internal City communications and computer systems • Desi nated a grant analyst position to develop additional funding opportunities for various projects and programs. Administrative Disaster Council • Established by City Municipal Code,2-13 • Develops and recommends emergency and mutual aid plans and agreements • Provides road construction and maintenance services • Conducts emergency repair services to transportation and public works infrastructure systems • Maintains drainage infrastructure Administrative and Public Works Departments • Oversees floodplain management and flood mitigation programs Personnel • Makes flood elevation determinations • Works with water and sewer agencies to maintain surviving utilities,and services and evaluates the safety of public structures and infrastructure during emergency responseDesigns constructs and maintains city owned buildings • Manages the Repetitive Loss Program • Verifies compliance with Building Code through checking plans,issuing permits,and conduction field inspections. • Conducts comprehensive planning activities,including leading preparation of the General Plan Administrative and Community Development Develops zoning regulations Personnel • Prepares CEQA documents • Leads situation analysis,damage assessments and documentation during emergency response • Conducts site inspections to enforce permit and code requirements • Plans and coordinates response,recovery and mitigation activities • Develops emergency operation plans for the City • Leads emergency response and coordinates with fire for rescues and hazardous materials response • Communicates with federal,state,and other local agencies Personnel Novato Police • Coordinates with the County to utilize the Marin Medical Reserve Corps(MMRC),Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service(RACES) and other volunteer organizations. • Oversees disaster volunteers • Performs emergency response activities,including evacuation and security • Utilizes the emergency warning systems through telephone notification utilizing reverse 911 and the EAS system as their primary warningca abilit . The City of Novato recognizes the Novato Fire Protection District as the agency responsible for providing fire prevention,firefighting services and emergency medical services to the incorporated area of the City of Novato.The district also responds to hazardous material incidents. Personnel Novato Fire Protection • Coordinates emergency response,including rescues,fire suppression and hazardous materials response. District • Plans and coordinates response,recovery,and mitigation activities • Conducts emergency management and preparedness trainings • Provides plan check and inspection services for fire related code compliance • Enforces the Vegetation Management Plan which sets clearance distances,type of vegetation for fire fuel breaks around structures Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and typically fund the majority of personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. 108 APPENDIX IM City of Novato Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These include State Financial State and Federal Grants flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that have being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP,Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA A non-profit organization supported by the Novato Fire Protection District provides enhanced fire and life safety programs,services and Training and Outreach Novato Fire Foundation education to the Novato community. (htt2s://www.novatofirefoundati2L.or / The CERT program,or Community Emergency Response Team is a national program to train citizens to help fill the gap between a Training and Outreach CERT disaster or emergency and the arrival of professional services. Novato participates in providing CERT training in coordination with other Marin County agencies. htt s://read marin.or /cert! The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is designed to help Training and Outreach Get Ready residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s://read marin.or I et read / Firewise Neighborhoods:The Firewise USATM program has empowered neighbors to work together in reducing their wildfire risk.Using a five-step process,communities develop an action plan that guides their residential risk reduction activities,while engaging and Training and Outreach Firewise USA 1n encouraging their neighbors to become active participants in building a safer place to live. 109 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Appendix N Town of Ross Town of Ross The Town of Ross had an estimated population of 2,415 in 2010, with 884 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 1.556 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town is $102,015 and the per capita income for the Town is $51,150. Approximately 5.6 percent of families and 8.5 percent of the population is below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Ross was incorporated as a town in 1908. Table N-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Ross Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 750 100% 64 100% 12 100% 0 N/A 5 100% Flood 218 29% 11 17% 10 83% 0 N/A 3 60% Fire 764 100% 64 100% 12 100% 0 N/A 5 100% Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Landslide 43 6% 1 2% 1 8% 0 N/A 0 0% Dam 276 37% 20 31% ° ° Inundation' 11 92/° 0 NIA 5 100% 110 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Table N-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Ross Roads Railroad Ferry Terminals Number %of Total Miles Number Earthquake 20 100% 0 0 Flood 3 15% 0 0 Fire 20 100% 0 0 Tsunami 0 0% 0 0 Landslide 2 10% 0 0 Dam Inundation 7 35% 0 0 Table N-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Ross MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 NIA Flood 0 NIA Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 NIA Landslide 0 NIA Dam Inundation 0 NIA 111 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Table N-4.Vulnerability of Power in Ross Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Miles %of Miles %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Table N-5.Vulnerability of Water 1 Sewage in Ross Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 112 APPENDIX lel Town of Ross Table N-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Ross Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 2 100% 2 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 1 50% 2 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 2 100% 2 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 011/1, 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 2 100% 2 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A The following actio is were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table N-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables N-1 through N-6). Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered"mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table N-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actionss they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table N-7—Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Ross Action Number/Name - Complete Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Included in Updated Action Plan New# AH-1 rain homeowners to locate and shut off gas valves if they smell or hear discard No,not a hazard mitigation as leaking. action AH-2 Conduct periodic tests of the alerting and warning system. X X Annex Implement Ross Valley Emergency Preparedness.Initiate discussions with other Ross Valley jurisdictions to consider opportunities to jointly respond o emergencies such as flood,fire,earthquake or other emergency AH-3 situations.Cost savings and coordination opportunities could include the X X MLT-6 creation of a Town staff disaster planning coordinator,formation of a disaster preparedness committee reporting to Town staff(resident volunteers,Town official),sharing of resources and development of outreach programs to residents and businesses to provide training and 113 APPENDIX N Town of Ross information about disaster preparedness.(General Plan Program 5.13) Encourage the formation of a community-and neighborhood-based AH-4 approach to wildfire education and action through local Fire Safe Councils X X Annex and the Fire Wise Program to take advantage of grant funds currently available to offset costs of specific Promote attendance at local or regional hazard conferences and workshops for elected officials and staff to educate them on the critical AH-5 need for programs in mitigating earthquake,wildfire,flood,and landslide X X MLT-7 hazards. Facilitate the distribution of emergency preparedness or mitigation materials that are prepared by others.such as by posting links at the Town web site,emails and placing materials at the Ross Post Office.Conduct AH-6 workshops,and/or provide outreach encouraging residents,school X X FLD-4 employees,and private businesses'employees to have family disaster plans that include drop-cover-hold earthquake drills,fire and storm evacuation procedures,and shelter-in place emergency uidelines, AH-7 Review and,if necessary,update evacuation plans.Consider organizing X X FIR-1 evacuation drills Consider expanding residential building reports to include hazard disclosure for known natural hazards in Ross:1)Special Flood Hazards AH-8 Areas(designated by FEMA),2)Areas of Potential Flooding from dam X X Annex failure inundation,3)Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones,4)Wildland Fire Zones,and 5)Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards Zones(designated under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act). Establish preservation-sensitive measures for the repair and re-occupancy of historically significant privately-owned structures,including requirements AH-9 or temporary shoring or stabilization where needed,arrangements for X X MLT-17 consulting with preservationists and expedited permit procedures for suitable repair or rebuilding of historically or architecturally valuable structures, Create incentives for private owners of historic or architecturally significant buildings to undertake mitigation to levels that will minimize the likelihood AH-10 that these buildings will need to be demolished after a disaster,particularly X MLT-17 if those alterations conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Continue development and maintenance of the Local Hazard Mitigation discard,no longer using AH-11 Plan.Consider coordination with the ABAG Regional Hazard Mitigation ABAG plan.See MLT-1 Plan in the future. Create and update hazard mitigation page on the Town website that provides a copy of the hazard plan,progress reports,information on Remove.This is a good AH-12 hazards and mitigation with an emphasis on what residents may undertake X X action,but not relevant to o mitigate for their own sites,emergency response and warning mitigation funding information. 114 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Continue to regulate and enforce the location and design of street-address Remove.This is a good AH-13 numbers on buildings. X X action,but not relevant to mitigation funding Encourage replacing above ground electric and phone wires and other structures with underground facilities,and use the planning-approval AH-14 process to ensure X X MLT-4 that all new phone and electrical utility lines are installed underground. Support and encourage efforts of lifeline infrastructure/utility system providers(PS&E,MMWD and Marin Sanitary Service)as they plan for and AH-15 arrange financing for seismic retrofits and other disaster mitigation X X MLT-6 strategies.(For example,by passing resolutions in support of retrofit ro rams. Assist residE!nts and businesses in the development of defensible space AH-16 through roac!side collection and/or chipping services(for brush,weeds,and X X FIR-3 tree branches). Consider establishing a hazard mitigation fee for building permits to create AH-17 a hazard mitigation funding source for initiatives or grant cost-share X X Annex(?) requirements Consider halard abatement districts as a funding mechanism to ensure Remove.This is a good AH-18 X X action,but not relevant to that mitigation strategies are implemented and enforced over time. mitigation funding AH-19 Consider improvement of currently unused pedestrian rights-of-way/paths X X Annex as walkways to serve as additional evacuation routes. AH-20 Map areas of vulnerable roads and develop action plan to assist residents X LS-1,LS-2 Po repair private roads,driveways and slide hazard areas. Identify and work with non-profits and through other mechanisms to protect AH-21 as open space those areas susceptible to extreme hazards(such as X X MLT-8 through land acquisition,zoning,and designation as priority conservation areas). Develop a continuity of operations plan for the Town that includes back-up storage of plans and essential electronic files as well as procedures to continue normal Town operations after a disaster.Identify and mitigate Remove.This is a good AH 22 problems with architectural components and equipment that will prevent X X action,but not relevant to critical buildings from being functional after major natural disasters,such as mitigation funding computers and servers,phones,files,and other space those areas susceptible to extreme hazards(such as through land acquisition,zoning,and designation as priority conservation areas). Prepare a basic Recovery Plan that outlines the major issues and tasks Remove.This is a good AH-23 that are likely to be the key elements of community recovery,as well as X X action,but not relevant d integrate this planning into response planning(such as with continuity of to operations plans). mitigation funding il� APPENDIX N Town of Ross AH-24 Elevate Public Safety building and Town Hall above the base flood X X MLT-2 elevation and upgrade to meet current fire and seismic safety standards. Consider retrofit or replacement of critical facilities that are shown to be AH-25 vulnerable to damage in natural disasters,considering any issues of X X MLT-2 historical significance. Comply with all applicable building and fire codes,as well as other regulations(such as state requirements for fault,landslide,and liquefaction Remove.This is a good AH-26 X action,but not relevant to investigations in particular mapped areas)when constructing or mitigation funding significantly remodeling Town-owned facilities. AH 27 Establish plans for ensuring fuel will be available for police,fire and X X MLT-9 vehicles Remove.This is a good AH-28Train on call public works staff in emergency response. X action,but not relevant to mitigation funding.See MLT-7 If necessary,when remodeling Town-owned buildings and facilities, Remove.This is a good AH-29 remove asbestos to speed up clean up of buildings so that they can be X action,but not relevant to reoccupied more quickly. natural hazard mitigation funding Develop and enforce a repair and reconstruction ordinance to ensure that Annex-combine with AH- AH-30 damaged buildings are repaired in an appropriate and timely manner and X X 31 retrofitted concurrently. AH-31 Develop post-disaster development and recovery ordinance to facilitate X X Annex-combine with AH- recovery, 30 Consider a program to encourage owners of private buildings and educational facilities to participate in a program similar to San Francisco's Building Occupancy Resumption Program(BORP).This program permits Discard,not practical for AH-32 owners of private buildings to hire qualified structural engineers to create X small town building-specific post-disaster inspection plans and allows these engineers o become automatically deputized as City/County inspectors for these buildings in the event of an earthquake or other disaster. Continue to maintain a list of property owners that may need assistance Remove,not hazard AH-33 during or after a hazard event and their contact information,such as X mitigation per say seniors and the disabled. AH-34 Continue the neighborhood watch block captain and team programs. X Remove,not hazard miti ation per say Continue to sponsor the formation and training of Get Ready Ross/ Remove.This is a good AH-35 Community Emergency Response Teams(CERT)for residents in the X action,but not relevant to community. natural hazard mitigation funding AH-36 Continue to work with other local agencies to offer the 20-hour basic CERT X Remove.This is a good raining course, action,but not relevant to 116 APPENDIX N Town of Ross natural hazard mitigation fundis Consider relocating or setting up backup Town Emergency Operations Remove.This is a good AH-37 Center out of the floodplain and train employees on how to access the area X action,but not relevant to and on the EOC plan. natural hazard mitigation fundis JProvide information to encourage residents to maintain at least 72 hours Remove.This is a good AH-38 and up to one week of emergency supplies in the event of isolation during X action,but not relevant to an emergency for work and home. natural hazard mitigation fundis In the event that lights are needed for rapid evacuation after a disaster, AH-39 consider installing battery back-ups,emergency generators,or lights X X MLT-9 powered by alternative energy sources to ensure that intersection traffic lights function following loss of power. Remove.This is a good AH-40 Consider relaxing development standards for installation of emergency X action,but not relevant to enerators(such as exceptions to setbacks). natural hazard mitigation fundis Obtain at least three laptop computers for use outside of Police AH-41 Department should the public safety building be uninhabitable due to X X Annex hazards. AH-42 Obtain propane heaters,stoves and lanterns for emergency use for X employees. Remove.This is a good AH-43 Encourage employees to have a family disaster plan so that they are X action,but not relevant to prepared to assist the Town in the event of a disaster. natural hazard mitigation fundis Ensure that f're, police,and other emergency personnel have adequate Remove.This is a good AH-44 radios,breathing apparatuses,protective gear,and other equipment to X action,but not relevant to respond to a major disaster. natural hazard mitigation fundis Remove.This is a good AH-45 Maintain the Town's emergency operations center in a fully functional state X action,but not relevant to of readiness, natural hazard mitigation funding JUpdate and maintain the Town's Standardized Emergency Management Remove.This is a good AH-46 System(SEMS)Plan and the National Incident Management System X action,but not relevant to (NIMS)Plan,and submit NIMSCAST report. natural hazard mitigation funding Work cooperatively with the American Red Cross.Town schools,churches. Remove.This is a good AH-47 MA&GC and non-profits to set up memoranda of understanding for use of X action,but not relevant to education facilities an appropriate as emergency shelters following natural hazard mitigation disasters. funding 117 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Minimize the likelihood that power interruptions will adversely impact AH-48 critical facilities by ensuring that they have adequate back-up power. X X MLT-9 Obtain small gasoline powered generator for emergency power for public safety to charge flashlight,portable batteries,etc. Remove.This is a good AH-49 Develop a program to provide at-cost NOAA weather radios to residents of X action,but not relevant to flood hazard areas. natural hazard mitigation funding Remove.This is a good AH•50 Offer CERT training to employees. X action,but not relevant to natural hazard mitigation funding Remove.This is a good Continue to implement activities in the Town of Ross Climate Action Plan action,but not relevant to AH-51 (November 2010). X natural hazard mitigation funding Improve coordination among the Marin Municipal Water District and the DAM-1 Town so that the Town can better plan for evacuation of areas that could X X Annex be inundated if the Phoenix Lake Dam fails. Remove.This is a good DR-1 Continue to require projects to comply with MMWD water conservation X action,but not relevant to ordinances. natural hazard mitigation funding Obtain a current initial earthquake performance evaluation of Town owned buildings(public safety,Town Hall,post office).Inform staff,Town Council and the public,regarding the extent to which the Town buildings may be EQ-1 affected by an earthquake and if they will only perform at a life safety level X MLT-2 (allowing for the safe evacuation of personnel)or are expected to remain functional following an earthquake. If necessary,research to determine seismic stability of Town-owned EQ-2 bridges.If work is necessary,expedite the funding and retrofit of X X EQ-1,EQ-3 seismically-deficient Town-owned bridges by working with Caltrans and other appropriate governmental agencies, Continue to require preparation of site-specific geologic or geotechnical reports for development and redevelopment proposals in areas subject to Remove.This is a good EQ-3 earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction and condition project X action,but not relevant to approval on the incorporation of necessary mitigation measures related to natural hazard mitigation site remediation,structure and foundation considering they are historic funding [structures, 118 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Require that local government reviews of geologic and engineering studies Remove.This is a good EQ-4 are conducted by appropriately trained and credentialed staff or X action,but not relevant to contractors. natural hazard mitigation funding Investigate and adopt appropriate financial,procedural,and land use EQ-5 incentives fcr property owners to retrofit vulnerable structures(see X X EQ-1 http://quake.abag.ca.gov/fixit), Inform residents that retrofits are exempt from increases in property taxes. Create a mechanism to require the bracing of water heaters and flexible mitigation relevant to fun EQ-6 couplings or gas appliances,and/or the bolting of homes to their X X ding,see foundations and strengthening of cripple walls to reduce fire ignitions due Efun o earthquakes. Continue to-equire engineered plan sets for seismic retrofitting of heavy Remove.This is a good EQtwo-story homes with living areas over garages,split level homes,soft- X action,but not relevant to tory seismic;retrofits,and hillside homes,until standard plan sets and natural hazard mitigation construction details become available. funding Continue to require that all new privately-owned buildings be constructed in Remove.This is a good EQ-8 compliance with requirements of the most recently adopted version of the X action,but not relevant to California Building Code. natural hazard mitigation funding Ensure that building department staff and contract building inspectors are appropriately trained and certified and support continued education to EQ-9 ensure enforcement of building codes and construction standards,as well X X MLT-6 as to identify typical design inadequacies of housing and recommended mprovemems. Remove.This is a good EQ-10 Promote regional retrofit classes or workshops for homeowners. X action,but not relevant to natural hazard mitigation funding EQ-11 Require geologic reports in areas mapped by others as having significant X X LS-1,EQ-4 liquefaction or landslide hazards. Encourage contract building inspector and building staff to take classes on EQ 12 a periodic basis(such as the FEMA-developed training classes offered by X X MLT-7 BAG)on retrofitting of single-family homes,including application of Plan Set A., EQ-13 Expedite the funding and retrofit of road structures by working with X X EQ-3 Caltrans and other appropriate overnmental agencies. Remove.This is a good EQ-14 Consider modification to Town building code to initiate a lower threshold for X action,but not relevant to seismic improvement. natural hazard mitigation funding EQ-15 Utilize or consider adoption of a retrofit standard that includes standard X plan sets and construction details for voluntary bolting of homes to their 119 APPENDIX N Town of Ross foundations and bracing of outside walls of crawl spaces("cripple"walls), such as Plan Set A developed by a committee representing the East Bay- Peninsula-Monterey Chapters of the International Code Council(ICC), California Building Officials(CALBO),the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California(SEAONC),the Northern California Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute(EERI-NC),and ABAG's Earthquake Program. EQ-16 Install earthquake-resistant connections when pipes enter and exit bridges X X EQ-3 and work to retrofit of these structures. Prepare an inventory of private facilities that are potentially hazardous, EQ-17 including,but not limited to,multiunit,soft story,concrete tilt-up,and X X EQ-2 concrete frame buildings. s new flood-control projects are completed,request that FEMA revise its FL-1 food-insurance rate maps and digital Geographic Information System X GIS data to reflect flood risks as accurately as possible. Remove.This is a good FL-2 Document and install plaques to inform property owners of historic flood X action,but not relevant to levels. natural hazard mitigation funding Work with San Anselmo to improve their drainage system and add new culverts at seven sites along upper Oak Avenue in San Anselmo,as identified as Measure 1 in the"Final Draft Report:Planning-Level FL-3 Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Reducing Street Inundation and X Overflow by Stormwater;Bolinas Avenue in Ross and San Anselmo, California,"January 25,2011, Remove.This is a good FL-4 Consider amending the Town floodplain management ordinance to create X action,but not relevant to cumulative substantial improvement rules, natural hazard mitigation funding Remove.This is a good FL-5 Prepare articles to educate/remind homeowners of actions they can take X action,but not relevant to before/after California,"January 25,2011, natural hazard mitigation funding Annually inspect and clean Town creeks of debris.Use public outreach to FL-6 inform the Town's residents of the annual creek clean-up work.Maintain a X X FLD-5 log of debris removed annually. Remove.This is a good FL-7 Continue to provide information on locations for obtaining sandbags deliver X action,but not relevant to hose materials to vulnerable populations upon request. natural hazard mitigation funding FL-8 Continue to provide link to web enabled and publicly-accessible County X X Annex automated system of flood gauges. FL-9 Assist,support,and/or encourage the U.S.Army Corp of Engineers, X Remove.This is a good 120 APPENDIX N Town of Ross various Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts,and other action,but not relevant to responsible agencies to locate and maintain funding for the development of natural hazard mitigation flood control projects that have high cost-benefit ratios(such as through funding as written he writing of letters of support and/or passing resolutions in support of hese efforts). Continue to encourage new development near floodways to incorporate a Remove.This is a good FL-10ra'tershed back from watercourses to allow for changes in stormwater flows in the X action,but not relevant to over time. natural hazard mitigation funding Remove.This is a good FL-11 Continue to lave Town staff inspect creek areas after each storm. X action,but not relevant to natural hazard mitigation funding Remove.This is a good FL-12 Continue to inspect creek areas in response to citizen complaints. X action,but not relevant to natural hazard mitigation funding Remove.This is a good FL-13 Encourage residents and business owners to elevate structures within X action,but not relevant to flood hazard areas. natural hazard mitigation funding Enforce provisions under creek protection,stormwater management,and Remove.This is a good FL-14 discharge ccntrol ordinances designed to keep watercourses free of X action,but not relevant to obstructions and to protect drainage facilities to conform to the Regional natural hazard mitigation Water Quality Control Board's Best Management Practices. funding Continue to enforce regulations concerning new construction(and major FL-15 improveri to existing structures)within flood zones in order to be in X X FLD-1 compliance with federal requirements and become a participant in the Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program. Annex?or discard.This have been included FL-16 Install grates to catch debris. mightregarding Phase II stormwater permit Participate it Ross Valley Flood Protection and Watershed Program.Work Remove.This is a good FL-17 with other Ross Valley jurisdictions to address a watershed-wide approach X action,but not relevant to o drainage,warning systems,emergency response,and flood insurance natural hazard mitigation programs. General Plan Program 6.A funding Perform annual creek dredging to remove accumulated sediments from New bridge doesn't FL-18 Lagunitas Road to the fish ladder. X necessitate dredging Continue to repair and make structural improvements to storm drains, FL-19 pipelines,and/or channels to enable them to perform to their design X X MLT-1,FLD-5 capacit in handling water flows as part of regular maintenance activities. 121 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Continue to request private property owners to do the same, as necessary. Work with other Ross Valley jurisdictions to explore and adopt land use FL-20 regulations to minimize additional runoff,or reduce runoff,within the Ross X X Annex? Valley watershed. General Plan Program 6.0 Prepare GIS storm water map of the watershed to determine the water flow Annex.Partially FL-21 and design a culvert system appropriate to the volume and flow of peak X X completed,reword as runoff.Complete the identification of existing culverts and the need for new stormdrain master plan? ones. FL-22 Reconstruct and enlarge bridge openings and culverts. X X MLT-10 Construct a new 1,400 ft.long,42-48"diameter reinforced concrete pipe culvert network running under the south gutter line on lower Bolinas Avenue.The culvert would originate with inlets at the Richmond Avenue FL-23 intersection and outfall to Corte Madera Creek at the Sir Francis Drake X X Annex Boulevard Bridge,as identified as Measure 4 in the"Final Draft Report: Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Reducing Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater,Bolinas Avenue in Ross and San nselmo,California,"January 25,2011. Construct an approximately 300,000 gallon subsurface stormwater detention vault beneath Richmond Avenue as identified as Measure 8b in FL-24 he"Final Draft Report:Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for RemoveThis isn't even in T Reducing Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater;Bolinas Avenue the Town of Ross in Ross and San Anselmo,California,"January 25,2011. Create bioretention areas at the St.Anselm Church overflow parking lot and the Town's adjacent right of way as identified as Measure 4b in the FL-25 "Final Draft Report:Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for X X Annex Reducing Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater;Bolinas Avenue in Ross and San Anselmo,California," Ensure staff are knowledgeable regarding floodplain management regulations to improve enforcement of current standards for all FL-26 development within flood hazard areas. Ensure that contract building X X FLD-9 inspectors have appropriate training and expertise in floodplain management regulations to monitor construction projects. Secure a one-way flap gate at the existing Corte Madera Creek outfall at he Winship Avenue Bridge section as identified as Measure 2j in the"Final FL-27 Draft Report:Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for X X Annex Reducing Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater;Bolinas Avenue in Ross and San Anselmo,California,"January 25,2011. Remove.This is a good FL-28 Create and update a photo record of the Town creeks to document X action,but not relevant to condition and structures linked with GPS. natural hazard mitigation funding FL-29 Continue maintenance efforts to keep storm drains and creeks free of X Remove.This is a good 122 APPENDIX N Town of Ross obstructions,while retaining vegetation in the channel(as appropriate)to action,but not relevant to allow for the free flow of water.Develop a"Maintain-a-Drain"campaign, natural hazard mitigation similar to that of the City of Oakland,encouraging private businesses and funding residents to keep storm drains in their neighborhood free of debris. Support creation of detention basins at Phoenix Lake and locations in the No longer being FL-30 Ross Valley and other flood control projects as recommended in the Ross considered as part of the Valley Flooc Damage Reduction Feasibility Study. flood control program [urfaces, ontinue to develop guidelines that limit the coverage of impervious Remove.This is a good FL-31 that require the use of permeable surfaces,that implement other Xaction,but not relevant to gulations to effectively channel and minimize site runoff,and that allow natural hazard mitigation ater to percolate into the ground. General Plan Program 6.13funding FL-32 neighborhoods to develop regular program of inspecting and X FLD-5 rssist earin private road culverts. To reduce flood risk,thereby reducing the cost of flood insurance to private FL-33 property owners,apply for participation in the Community Rating System of X FLD-1 he National Flood Insurance Program and work to qualify for the highest- feasible rating. When properties that may provide opportunities for drainage improvements FL-34 are for sale,acquire easements to install drainage improvements,such as X X Annex between Bolinas Avenue and Fernhill. Amend Town floodplain management regulations to review thresholds for Remove.This is a good FL-35 'substantial mprovement"to take into account the depreciated cost value X action,but not relevant to of structures.rather than the market value. natural hazard mitigation funding FL-36 Create a building and elevation inventory of structures in the floodplain X X Annex [d opt regulations or design guidelines to limit basement and understory Remove.This is a good FL-37 torage and mechanical areas below the base flood elevation,particularly X action,but not relevant to or repnatural hazard mitigation etitive damaged properties. funding Amend Town floodplain management regulations to adopt freeboard regulation to require finished floor to be 18"above the base flood elevation, FL-38 rather than at the base flood elevation,to protect joists and vents from X Annex,Reword flood damage.Develop base flood elevation map using historical flood data. FL-39 Purchase three pair hip-wader pants,for use by on-duty personnel to reach X Annex Flooded areas. FL-40 Purchase one SUV for use in flooding situations where patrol cars may not X Annex be able to operate due to high water. Continue the Town of Ross participation in the National Flood Insurance partially addressed with FL-41 Program(NFIP)and require projects that result in substantial X FLD-1 Elevation improvemen is to comply with the Town floodplain development regulations Certificates is good and provide elevation certificates to the Town. strategy but not nec 123 APPENDIX N Town of Ross applicable to HMGP funding Establish and enforce provisions under the creek protection,grading,storm LS-1 water management,and discharge control ordinances designed to control X ? erosion and Town. Remove.This is a good LS-2 Continue to enforce requirements in zoning ordinance to address hillside X action,but not relevant to development Town. natural hazard mitigation funding Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future development by improving appropriate code enforcement and use of applicable standards for private property,such as those appearing in the California Building Code,California Geological Survey Special Report 117 Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE)report Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DIG Special Publication 117: LS-3 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, X X LS-1 and the California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports.Such standards should cover excavation, ll placement,cut-fill transitions,slope stability,drainage and erosion control,slope setbacks,expansive soils,collapsible soils,environmental issues,geological and geotechnical investigations,grading plans and specifications,protection of adjacent properties,and review and permit issuance. Require geotechnical and soil-hazard investigations be conducted and filed LS-4 to prevent grading from creating unstable slopes,and that any necessary X Annex? corrective actions be taken prior to development approval. Remove.This is a good LS-5 Require that staff and consultants reviewing these investigations are X action,but not relevant to appropriately trained and credentialed. natural hazard mitigation funding Ensure that Town-initiated fire-preventive vegetation-management techniques and practices for creek sides and high-slope areas do not contribute to the landslide and erosion hazard.For example,vegetation in WF-1 these sensitive areas could be thinned,rather than removed,or replanted X X FIR-6,FIR-5 with less flammable materials.When thinning,the non-native species should be removed first.Other options would be to use structural miti ation,rather than vegetation management in the most sensitive areas. WF 2 Work with Marin Municipal Water District to identify needed improvements X X MLT 14 o the water supplyfor fire suppression Continue to adopt and amend as needed updated versions of the California WF-3 Building and Fire Codes so that optimal fire-protection standards are used X This is implicit in construction and renovation projects. 124 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Annex or discard? WF-4 Increase local patrolling during periods of high fire weather. X X Probably not HMGP fundable Monitor weather during times of high fire risk using,for example,weather WF-5 stations tied into police and fire dispatch centers. X X Annex Participate it multi-agency efforts to mitigate fire threat,such as the Hills WF-6 Emergency Forum(in the East Bay),various FireSafe Council programs, X X Annex and town/city-utility task forces.Such participation increases a jurisdiction's competitiveness in obtaining rants. Increase effcrts to reduce hazards in areas exposed to high to-extreme fire threat through improving engineering design and vegetation management WF-7 or mitigation,appropriate code enforcement,and public education on X X FIR 2,FIR-3,FIR-5 defensible space mitigation strategies. Expand vegetation management program to more effectively manage the WF-8fuel load thrcugh roadside collection and chipping,mechanical fuel X X FIR-5 reduction equipment,use of goats or other organic methods of fuel reduction. WF-9 Continue the defensible space vegetation program. X X FIR-2 Maintain fire roads and/or public right-of-way roads and keep them passable at all through roadside collection and chipping,mechanical fuel WF-10 reduction X X FIR-2,FIR-5 equipment,use of goats or other organic methods of fuel reduction.Plan or any additional tanks the Town may need to ensure enough capacity for ire fighting. JPrepare an accurate database of water tanks owned by Marin Municipal WF-11 Water District and privately owned tanks and swimming pools that are ? Annex available for;ire fighting. Conduct periodic fire-safety inspections of all multi-family buildings,as an WF-12 required by State law.Conduct periodic fire-safety inspections of all X Discard.This is ongoing program m private) -owned commercial and buildings. Remove.This is a good WF-13 For new development,ensure all dead-end segments of roads and/or long X action,but not relevant to driveways include turn-around sufficient for fire equipment. natural hazard mitigation funding [eov nsider fire safety,evacuation,and emergency vehicle access when WF-14 iewing proposals to add secondary units or additional residential units in XX FIR-1 IIdland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed hi h-to-extreme fire threat. Create a mechanism to enforce provisions of the California Building and Fire Codes and other local codes that require the installation of smoke Annex or discard? WF-15 detectors and fire-extinguishing systems on existing residential buildings X Probably not HMGP by making installation a condition of finalizing a permit for any work valued fundable at over a fixed amount and/or as a condition for the transfer of property. 125 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Annex or discard? WF-16 Require fire sprinklers in all new or substantially remodeled structures. X Probably not HMGP fundable Require that new homes in wildland-urban-interface fire-threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat be WF-17 constructed of fire-resistant building materials(including roofing and X Isn't this already a policy? exterior walls)and incorporate fire-resistant design features(such as minimal use of eaves,internal corners,and open first floors)to increase .structural survivability and reduce ignitability. rWW _1'F Work with Marin Municipal Water District and homeowners to upgrade fire X X MLT-14 hydrants and water lines as necessary. Require that development in hillside areas provide adequate access roads F-19 (with width and vertical clearance that meet the minimum standards of the X X FIR-1 Fire Code or relevant local ordinance),onsite fire protection systems,and Fire breaks. Prepare Water System(Pressure)Master Plan.Coordinate with the Marin Municipal Water District(MMWD)to evaluate water pressure and water lines to ensure adequate fire protection. Identify locations where WF-20 X Annex?or MLT 14 improvements are needed and adopt requirements and funding mechanisms in coordination with MMWD to implement these improvements. General Plan Program 5.A Continue to ensure existing and new development have a reliable source See MLT-14.Remove. WF-21 of water for fire suppression(meeting acceptable standards for minimum X This is a good action,but volume and duration of flow). not relevant to natural hazard mitigation funding Develop plans for evacuation or sheltering in place of Ross and Branson Remove.This is a good school children in the event of a wildfire emergency so that streets are not X action,but not relevant to WF-22 overloaded near schools by students evacuating and parents attempting to natural hazard mitigation pick up their children,which may restrict access by emergency vehicles. funding 126 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Table N-8-Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Ross Potential Action Number I Name Estimated Cost Funding Timeline Responsible Agency Sources AH 17 Consider establishing a hazard mitigation fee for building permits to create a hazard mitigation funding source Revenue Administration,Planning or initiatives or rant cost-share requirements LOW 13 gen - years and/or Building AH 19 Consider improvement of currently unused pedestrian rights-of-way/paths as walkways to serve as additional High General Fund 2-5 years Public Works and/or Plannin evacuation outes. g AH-2 Conduct periodic tests of the alerting and warning system. Low General Fund Continuous Fire AH-30 Develop and enforce a repair and reconstruction ordinance to ensure that damaged buildings are repaired in an Low General Fund 6-12 months Planning appropriate and timely manner and retrofitted concurrently. AH-31 Develop post-disaster development and recovery ordinance to facilitate recovery. Low General Fund 6-12 months Planning Encourage the formation of a community-and neighborhood-based approach to wildfire education and action General Fund AH-4 through local Fire Safe Councils and the Fire Wise Program to take advantage of grant funds currently available TBD and State fire 1-2 years Fire 0 offset costs of specific rants General Fund AH-41 Obtain at least three laptop computers for use outside of Police Department should the public safety building be $3,000 and/or 1 Year Police uninhabitable due to hazards. State/Federal Grants General Fund AH-42 Obtain propane heaters,stoves and lanterns for emergency use for employees. Low and/or 1 Year Police State/Federal Grants Consider expanding residential building reports to include hazard disclosure for known natural hazards in Ross: AH-8 1)Special Flood Hazards Areas(designated by FEMA),2)Areas of Potential Flooding from dam failure Low General Fund 1-3 years Building and/or Planning inundation,3)Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones,4)Wildland Fire Zones,and 5)Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards Zones(designated under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act). DAM-1 Improve coordination among the Marin Municipal Water District and the Town so that the Town can better plan LGeneral 1-3 years Fire or evacuation of areas that could be inundated if the Phoenix Lake Dam fails. Fund/staff time ow FL-16 Install rates to catch debris. General Funds, 9 Medium DPW Continuous Public Works FL-20 Work with other Ross Valley jurisdictions to explore and adopt land use regulations to minimize additional runoff, Low General Funds Ongoing Public Works,Planning and/or r reduce runoff,within the Ross Valle watershed. General Plan Program 6.0 Administration Prepare GIS storm water map of the watershed to determine the water flow and design a culvert system General Funds Two to Five FL-21 appropriate to the volume and flow of peak runoff.Complete the identification of existing culverts and the need $80,000 and County months Public Works For new ones. Partnerships Construct a new 1,400 ft.long,42-48"diameter reinforced concrete pipe culvert network running under the south utter line on lower Bolinas Avenue.The culvert would originate with inlets at the Richmond Avenue intersection State Federal FL-23 and outfall to Corte Madera Creek at the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Bridge,as identified as Measure 4 in the $780,000 Grants 1-2 years Public Works "Final Draft Report:Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Reducing Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater;B°linas Avenue in Ross and San Anselmo,California,"January 25,2011. 127 APPENDIX N Town of Ross State Federal Create bioretention areas at the St.Anselm Church overflow parking lot and the Town's adjacent right of way as Grants/drainage FL-25 identified as Measure 4b in the"Final Draft Report:Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Reducing $220,000 fees,Partnership 1-2 years Public Works Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater;Bolinas Avenue in Ross and San Anselmo,California," with San Anselmo Secure a one-way flap gate at the existing Corte Madera Creek outfall at the Winship Avenue Bridge section as State Federal Public Works,County of Marin identified as Measure 2j in the"Final Draft Report:Planning-Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for Reducing Grants/drainage agencies responsible for FL-27 Street Inundation and Overflow by Stormwater,Bolinas Avenue in Ross and San Anselmo,California,"January $20,000 fees,Partnership 1-2 years implementing the Ross Valley 25,2011. with San Anselmo Flood Reduction and Creek Mona ement Strategy. FL-34'Install When properties that may provide opportunities for drainage improvements are for sale,acquire easements to High unknown Ongoing Public Works drainage improvements,such as between Bolinas Avenue and Fernhill. FL-36'Create a building and elevation inventory of structures in the floodplain Medium General Fund 1-3 years Building and/or Planning Amend Town floodplain management regulations to adopt freeboard regulation to require finished floor to be 18" FL-38above the base flood elevation,rather than at the base flood elevation,to protect joists and vents from flood Low General Fund 1-5 years Building and/or Planning damage. Develop base flood elevation map using historical flood data. FL-39'Purchase three pair hip-wader pants,for use by on-duty personnel to reach flooded areas. $1,500 General Fund 1 Year Police General Fund, FL-40'Purchase one SUV for use in flooding situations where patrol cars may not be able to operate due to high water. $45,000 state/federal 1 Year Police rants FL-8 Continue to provide link to web enabled and publicly-accessible County automated system of flood gauges. 0 General Fund Completed Administration LS-1'Establish and enforce provisions under the creek protection,grading,storm water management,and discharge Low General Fund Ongoing Building control ordinances designed to control erosion and Town. LS-4Require geotechnical and soil-hazard investigations be conducted and filed to prevent grading from creating Low General Fund Ongoing Building and/or Planning unstable slopes,and that any necessary corrective actions be taken prior to development approval. Prepare an accurate database of water tanks owned b Marin Municipal Water District and privately owned General Fund, WF-11 P y P P y TBD staff time, 1 to 5 years Fire and/or anks and swimming pools that are available for fire fighting. partnershipsJPlanning Create a mechanism to enforce provisions of the California Building and Fire Codes and other local codes that WF-15 require the installation of smoke detectors and fire-extinguishing systems on existing residential buildings by Low General Fund Continuous Building and Fire making installation a condition of finalizing a permit for any work valued at over a fixed amount and/or as a condition for the transfer of property. General Fund, WF-16 Require fire sprinklers in all new or substantially remodeled structures. Low Fire Department Continuous Fire staff time Prepare Water System(Pressure)Master Plan.Coordinate with the Marin Municipal Water District(MMWD)to General Fund, WF 20 evaluate water pressure and water lines to ensure adequate fire protection.Identify locations where TBD Fire Department Ongoing Fire improvements are needed and adopt requirements and funding mechanisms in coordination with MMWD to staff time implement these improvements, General Plan Program 5.A WF-4 Increase local patrolling during periods of high fire weather. General Fund, P 9 g P g Low Fire Department Continuous Fire 128 APPENDIX N Town of Ross staff time Monitor weather during times of high fire risk using,for example,weather stations tied into police and fire General Fund, WF-5 dispatch centers. Low Fire Department Continuous Fire staff time Participate it multi-agency efforts to mitigate fire threat,such as the Hills Emergency Forum(in the East Bay), General Fund, WF-6 various FireSafe Council programs,and town/city-utility task forces.Such participation increases a jurisdiction's Low partnerships& Continuous Fire competitiveness In obtaining grants. Fire Department staff time 129 APPENDIX N Town of Ross Table N-9 Planning Mechanisms,Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement The General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy. Portions of the plan that support mitigation include: • Location of Future Development.(General Plan Policy 5.1) • Geologic Review Procedures.(GPP 5.2) • Fire Resistant Design.(GPP 5.3) • Maintenance and Landscaping for Fire Safety.(GPP 5.4) • Fire Safety in New Development.(GPP 5.5) • Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal.(GPP 5.11) • Access for Emergency Vehicles.(GPP 5.12) Plan 2007 General Plan Town Responsibilities for Emergency Preparation and Response.(GPP 5.13) • Flood Protection in New Development.(GPP 6.1) • Flood Control Improvements.(GPP 6.2) • Ross Valley Flood and Watershed Protection.(GPP 6.3) • Runoff and Drainage.(GPP 6.4) • Permeable Surfaces.(GPP 6.5) • Creek and Drainageway Setbacks,Maintenance and Restoration.(GPP 6.6) • Riparian Vegetation.(GPP 6.7) Town of Ross 2012 Local The Town's prior Hazard Mitigation Plan is a stand-alone document which identifies risks from natural hazards present in the Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan Town and includes strategies to reduce these risks.Many of the strategies identified in 2012 were carried forward to the multi- jurisdictional plan. The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes standards Policy Zoning Ordinance for where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation.The Town adopts the current California Building Code which applies to all construction activity within the Town boundaries.The California Building Code is comprised of 11 parts that Policy Municipal Code incorporate public health,safety,energy,green building and access standards used in the design and construction of all buildings.The new code provisions will allow the Town to utilize the latest technologies,advances in construction standards and seismic design for the use in new residential and commercial construction and in remodels. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology,and Administrative Department business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the department's scope. These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning Administrative and Town Planning,Building,and and building can be implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for Town-owned infrastructure, Personnel Public Works Departments including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains,traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or F 0 retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Ross Police The Town Police Department conducts emergency re aredness activities for the community,Mitigation activities related to APPENDIX N Town of Ross emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department. Personnel Ross Valley Fire Department The Ross Valley Fire Department protects the town from the effects of fire and other hazardous conditions and supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These Financial State and Federal Grants include State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP),Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA Much of what happens in Town happens at each month's regular Town Council meeting.But since most Town residents don't regularly attend Council meetings,The Morning After,our monthly e-newsletter,was created to fill that void by delivering up-to- Training and Outreach Town Newsletter the-minute news highlights delivered by email the day following the Council meeting. The Morning After is the flagship publication of the Town's email list designed to keep residents,business owners,Ross organizations and interested parties up- to-date on Town news and information. The Community Rating System(CRS)is a voluntary program for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Training and Outreach Community Rating System Program(NFIP)to earn flood insurance premium reductions for property owners.A Countywide collaboration of CRS community Working Group staff has been started in recent years and has led to shared resources including outreach materials and floodplain management training.This collaboration has the potential to expand and lead to a wide variety of flood mitigation activities. The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is designed Training and Outreach Get Ready to help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe, htt s://read marin.or I et-read / 131 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Appendix 0 Town of San Anselmo Town of San Anselmo The Town of San Anselmo had an estimated population of 12,336 in 2010, with 5,538 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 2.677 square miles. The median income for a household in the City is $71,488 and the per capita income for the City is $ $41,977. Approximately 2.5 percent of families and 5.1 percent of the population is below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau), San Anselmo was incorporated as a town in 1907. The Town of San Anselmo completed a single-jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan in 2017 which is hereby incorporated by reference. The referenced plan has much more information in addition to the update on San Anselmo vulnerability and mitigation actions below. Table 01.Vulnerability of Structures in San Anselmo Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 3,768 100% 536 100% 176 100% 1 100% 0 N/A Flood 587 16% 219 41% 92 52% 1 100% 0 N/A Fire 2678 71% 288 54% 55 31% 0 0% 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 09% 0 N/A Landslide 662 18% 33 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 21 1% 1 7 1% 5 3% 0 0% 0 N/A 132 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Table 0-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in San Anselmo Roads Miles %of Total Earthquake 56 100% Flood 9 16% Fire 42 75% Tsunami 0 0% Landslide 14 25% Dam Inundation 0.5 1% Table 0-3.Vulnerability of Communication in San Anselmo MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 1 N/A Flood 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 133 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Table 0-4 Vulnerability of Power in San Anselmo Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Substation Pipeline Number of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Check data Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 NIA 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Table 0-5.Vulnerability of Water 1 Sewage in San Anselmo Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 134 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Table 0-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in San Anselmo Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 30 100% 3 100% 4 100% 0 N/A Flood 2 6.7% 3 100% 0 0% 0 N/A Fire 16 53.3% 1 33.3% 1 25% 0 NIA Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Landslide 0 0% 0 00% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A The following actio is were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table 0-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions, Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables 0-1 through 0-6), Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either-discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table 0-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table 0-7—Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in San Anselmo Included in Action# Description Completed Ongoing I Not Started Still Relevant JUpdated Action Plan(New#) Expedite the funding and retrofit of seismically-deficient Town-owned bridges and road structures by working with Caltrans and other appropriate governmental agencies.Identify AH-01 those that affect or are affected by flooding and either elevate them to increase stream flow I X X EQ-3 and maintain critical ingress and egress routes or modify the channel to achieve equivalent objectives. Assess the vulnerability of critical facilities(Town Hall,fire stations,corporation yard buildings)to damage in natural disasters(earthquake,wildfire,flood)based on occupancy AH-02 and structural :ype,make recommendations on priorities for structural improvements, X X MLT-2 mitigation,replacement or occupancy reductions,and identify potential funding mechanisms.Inform staff,Town Council and the public,regarding the extent to which the 135 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Town buildings may be affected by a natural disaster and if they will only perform at a life safety level(allowing for the safe evacuation of personnel)or are expected to remain functional following a disaster. Assess the vulnerability of non-critical facilities(ICC,Robson House,Library)to damage in natural disasters based on occupancy and structural type,make recommendations on priorities for structural improvements,mitigation or occupancy reductions,and identify AH-03 potential funding mechanisms.Clarify to workers in public facilities and emergency X X MLT-2 personnel,as well as to elected officials and the public,the extent to which public facilities are expected to perform only at a life safety level(allowing for the safe evacuation of personnel)or are expected to remain functional following a natural disaster. Adopt,amend as needed,and enforce updated versions of the California Building and Fire AH 05 Codes as well as other regulations(such as state requirements for fault,landslide,and X X MLT-3 liquefaction investigations in particular mapped areas)so that optimal standards are used in' construction and renovation projects of private and public buildings and infrastructure. Continue to enforce existing regulations requiring replacement of above ground electric and phone wires and other structures with underground facilities. AH-06 Require underground utilities to be effectively sealed to prevent backflow of floodwaters into X X MLT-4 the building and electrical utilities below the flood protection level to be protected against floodwaters. AH-07 Provide information to residents and private business owners and their employees on the X X MLT-5 availabilityof interactive hazard maps on MarinMa 's web site. AH-08 Consider landslide or wildfire hazard concerns,including roads leading to the development, AH-09 when new construction or major remodels are proposed in hillside areas discourage X X MLT-13 construction or add mitigation measures,as appropriate. AH-10 For new development,require a buffer zone between residential properties and X X MLT-13,LS-1 landslide areas or other appropriate miti ation to avoid hazards to persons or property, Work with Town Open Space and Recreation Committees,non-profits and through other AH-11 mechanisms to protect as open space or parks those areas susceptible to extreme hazards X X MLT-8 such as through land acquisition,zoning,and designation as priority conservation areas). Develop evacuation plans for Town,which are necessary in order to include Local Hazard Discard-send to AH-12 Mitigation Plan into the General Plan Safety Element, X General Plan Safet Element Inform residents and businesses through publications and media announcements of actions they can take to mitigate hazards,including elevation of appliances above expected flood AH-13 levels,use of fire-resistant roofing and defensible space in high wildfire threat and wildfire- x x MLT-5,FLD-4 urban-interface areas,structural retrofitting techniques for older homes,and use of intelligent grading practices. Use disaster anniversaries,such as April(the 1906 earthquake)and October(Loma Prieta AH-14 earthquake and Oakland Hills fire)and December(local New Years Flood)to remind the x Discard public of safety mitigation activities. AH-15 Conduct and/or promote attendance at local or regional hazard conferences and X X MLT-7 workshops for elected officials and staff to educate them on the critical need for programs in' 136 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo mitigating earthquake,wildfire,flood,landslide hazards,and climate adaptation. Create incentives for private owners of historic or architecturally significant Combine with buildings to undertake mitigation to levels that will minimize the likelihood that these AH 16 buildings will need to be demolished after a disaster,particularly if those alterations conform' X X AH-17 for Town to the federal Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Annex Develop list of locally historic resources. Continue to require discretionary review and review under the California Environmental Quality Act for the demolition of historically significant privately-owned structures in order to encourage their preservation. Combine with AH-17 Establish preservation-sensitive measures for the repair and re-occupancy of historically X X AH-16 for Town significant privately-owned structures,including requirements for temporary shoring or Annex stabilization where needed,arrangements for consulting with preservationists,and expedited permit procedures for suitable repair or rebuilding of historically or architecturally valuable structures. Continue to work with utility system providers and other lifeline infrastructure(including AH-18 natural gas,electricity,water,wastewater system,transportation and communications)and X X MLT-6 other municipal partners to develop strong and effective mitigation strategies for infrastructures stems and facilities. Discard-send to AH-19 Increase recycling rates in local government operations and in the community. X X climate action plan Help educate:he public,schools,professional associations and businesses about climate Discard-send to AH-20 action and Greenhouse Gas reduction. X X climate action plan Update and continue to implement Climate Action Plan which inventories global warming Discard-send to AH-21 emissions of operations and in the community&sets reduction X X climate action targets. plan Increase the use of clean,alternative energy by advocating for the development of Discard-send to AH-22 renewable energy resources and supporting the use of waste to energy X X climate action technology. Ian Discard-send to AH-23 Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for local government use. X X climate action plan Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles;reduce the number of Discard send to AH-24 vehicles;launch an employee education program including anti-idling X X climate action messages;convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel. plan Promote transportation options such as walking,bicycling,commute trip reduction Discard-send to AH-25 programs,incentives for carpooling and public transit. X X climate action Ian Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements,retrofitting Town Discard-send to AH-26 facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save X X climate action money. plan AH-27 Maintain healthy urban forests;promote tree planting to increase shading andto absorb X X Discard-send to 137 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo CO2. climate action Ian AH 28 Consider if establishing special funding mechanisms(such as Fire Hazard Abatement X Discard as a Districts or regional bond funding)to ensure mitigation strategies are enforced overtime. funding measure AH 29 Develop unused or new pedestrian rights-of-way as walkways to serve as additional X evacuation routes. X For Town Annex Review existing regulations and,if necessary,develop and enforce a repair and reconstruction ordinance to ensure that damaged buildings are repaired in an appropriate AH-30 and timely manner and retrofitted concurrently.This repair and reconstruction ordinance X Discard should apply to all public and private buildings,and also apply to repair of all damage, regardless of cause. Continue to enforce State-mandated requirements,such as the California Environmental Quality Act,to ensure that mitigation activities for hazards,such as seismic retrofits and Discard- vegetation clearance programs for fire threat,are conducted in a way that reduces following state AH-31 environmental degradation such as air quality impacts,noise during construction,and loss X X regulations is of sensitive habitats and species,while respecting the community value of historic considered preservation. implicit AH 32 Develop a public education campaign on the cost,risk,and benefits of earthquake,flood, X X Discard and other hazard insurance as compared to mitigation. Periodically assess the need for new or relocated fire or police stations and other Discard- AH-33 emergency facilities. X X covered 2 by MLT- AH-34 Support and/or facilitate efforts by the California Geological Survey to complete the X Discard earthquake-induced landslide and liquefaction mapping for the Bay Area. Encourage staff to participate in efforts by professional organizations to mitigate earthquake and landslide disaster losses,such as the efforts of the Northern California Chapter of the Discard- AH-35 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,the East Bay-Peninsula Chapter of the X X covered by MLT- International Code Council,the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California,and 7 the American Society of Grading Officials Discard,see EQ- Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future private development 4.Town won't AH-36 through continuing education of design professionals on mitigation strategies. X realistically train design professionals Discard- AH-37 Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl,preserve open space,and create X X Covered by compact,walkable urban communities. existing General Plan Work with the State Fire Marshall,the California Seismic Safety Commission,Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center(PEER),and other experts to identify and AH-38 manage gas-related fire risks of privately-owned soft-story mixed use buildings that are Discard- prone to collapse and occupant entrapment consistent with the natural gas safety covered by EQ-1 recommendations of Seismic Safety Commission Report SSC-02-03.Note-See http://www.seismic,ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2002-03_Natural%20Gas%20Safety.pdf.Also note 138 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo any values that are installed may need to have both excess flow and seismic triggers ("hybrid"valves). Inventory global warming emissions in your own local government's operations and in the Discard-send to AH-39 community,set reduction targets and create an action plan. X X climate action plan Balance the need for the smooth flow of storm waters versus the need to maintain wildlife Discard-not a AH-40 habitat by developing and implementing a comprehensive Streambed Vegetation X X mitigation Management Dian that ensures the efficacy of flood control efforts,mitigates wildfires and measure maintains the viability of living rivers. Encourage Marin Municipal Water District to review and update mapped inundation area for DAM-01 Phoenix Dam and coordinate with the Town on procedures for the emergency evacuation of X For Town Annex areas that would be inundated by a failure of Phoenix Dam, Enhance Town Landscaping and Design Measures: •Incorporate drought tolerant or xeriscape practices into new Town landscape designs to Discard- DR-01 reduce dependence on irrigation. X X Drought not a •Use permeable surfaces where feasible to reduce runoff and promote groundwater covered hazard recharge. Investigate and adopt appropriate financial,procedural,and land use incentives(such as parking waivers)as incentives to encourage retrofitting of privately-owned seismically EQ-01 vulnerable residential buildings,such as:(a)waivers or reductions of permit fees,(b)below- X X EQ-1 market loans,(c)local tax breaks,(d)grants to cover the cost of retrofitting or of a structural analysis,(e) and use(such as parking requirement waivers)and procedural incentives,or technical assistance. EQ-02 Adopt the latest applicable standard for the design of voluntary or mandatory soft-story or X X EQ-2 seismical) vu>nerable building retrofits. Encourage building inspectors to take classes on a periodic basis on retrofitting of single- EQ-03 X X MLT-7 familyhomes,includingapplication of Plan Set A. Conduct appropriate employee training and support continued education to ensure EQ-04 enforcement cf building codes and construction standards,as well as identification of typical: X X MLT-7 design inadequacies and recommended improvements. EQ 05 Conduct an inventory of privately-owned existing or suspected soft-story structures as a X X Town Annex first stepin es:ablishin voluntaryor mandato programs for retrofittingthese buildings. Use the soft-story inventory to require private owners to inform all existing and prospective EQ-06 tenants that they live or work in this type of building and may need to be prepared to live or X X Town Annex work elsewhere following an earthquake if the building has not been retrofitted. Require private owners to inform all existing tenants(and prospective tenants prior to signing a lease agreement)that they live in an unreinforced masonry building and the EQ 07 standard to which it may have been retrofitted.Require private owners to inform all existing X X Town Annex tenants that they may need to be prepared to work elsewhere following an earthquake even if the building ias been retrofitted,because it has probably been retrofitted to a life-safety standard,not to a standard that will allow occupancy following major earthquakes. Recognizing that the California Geological Survey has not completed earthquake-induced EQ-08 landslide and liquefaction mapping for much of the Bay Area,identify and require geologic X X EQ-4 reports in ares mapped by others as having significant 139 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo liquefaction or landslide hazards. EQ 09 Promote regional retrofit classes or workshops to property owners,contractors and X Discard coverd inspectors. by MLT-7 Require preparation of site-specific geologic or geotechnical reports for development and redevelopment proposals in areas subject to earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction EQ 10 as mandated by the State Seismic Hazard Mapping Act in selected portions of the Bay Area X X EQ-4 where these maps have been completed,and condition project approval on the incorporation of necessary mitigation measures related to site remediation,structure and foundation design and/or avoidance Require engineered plan sets for seismic retrofitting of heavy two-story homes with living EQ-11 areas over garages,as well as for split level homes(that is,homes not covered by Plan Set X X EQ-4 A),until standard plan sets and construction details become available. EQ-12 Require engineered plan sets for seismic retrofitting of homes on steep hillsides(because X X EQ-4 these homes are not covered b Plan Set A). EQ-13 Require engineered plan sets for voluntary or mandatory soft-story seismic retrofits by X X EQ-4 private owners until a standard plan set and construction details become available. EQ-14 Install earthquake-resistant connections when pipes enter and exit bridges and work to X X MLT-4,MLT-10 retrofit these structures. EQ-15 EQ-16 Inventory non-ductile concrete,tilt-up concrete,and other privately-owned potentially structurally vulnerable buildings. FL-01 Work for better cooperation among the patchwork of agencies managing flood control X X MLT-6 issues. FL-02 Conduct annual outreach to property susceptible to flooding as part of Town's participation X X FLD-1 on Community Rating System. FL-03 Ensure one member of Town staff is a Certified Floodplain Manager. X X FLD-9 FL-04 Continue Mapping of the creeks to further evaluate,design,and implement additional flood X X Town Annex control projects, Pursue funding for the design and construction of storm drainage projects to protect FL-05 vulnerable properties,including property acquisitions,upstream storage such as detention X X Town Annex and retention basins(excluding Memorial Park),and channel widening with the associated right-of-way acquisitions,relocations,and environmental mitigations. Develop an approach and locations for various watercourse bank protection strategies, including for example,(1)an assessment of banks to inventory areas that appear prone to FL-06 failure,(2)bank stabilization,including installation of rip rap,or whatever regulatory X X Town Annex agencies allow(3)stream bed depth management using dredging,and(4)removal of out- of-date coffer dams in rivers and tributary streams Working with stakeholders and the community,consider feasibility(including cost,funding, environmental and downstream impacts)and options for purchasing and removal of FL-07 Building Bridge 2;the structure at 634-636 San Anselmo Avenue which is a major flow X X FLD-6 constriction at flood levels and within the floodway.As funding becomes available, encourage private business owners to participate in acquisition and relocation programs. 140 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Working with stakeholders and the community,consider feasibility(including cost,funding, FL-08 environmental and downstream impacts)and options for removal of Morningside Avenue X X Town Annex Bridge and po`;ential construction of upstream and downstream extended wing walls. Recognize that a multi-agency approach is needed to mitigate flooding by having flood control districts,cities,counties,and utilities meet at least annually to jointly discuss their FL-09 capital improvement programs for most effectively reducing the threat of flooding.Work X Town Annex toward makinc this process more formal to insure that flooding is considered at existing joint-agency meetings. FL-10 Improve upon existing hydrologic analysis of runoff and drainage systems to predict areas X X Town Annex of insufficient capacity in the storm drain and natural creeks stem. Preparedness FL-11 Continue and expand the"Village Volunteers"campaign encouraging private businesses X X instead of and residents to keep storm drains in their neighborhood free of debris. mitigation so discard Continue to develop guidelines that limit the coverage of impervious surfaces,that require FL-12 the use of permeable surfaces,that implement other regulations to effectively channel and X X Town Annex minimize site runoff,and that allow water to percolate into the ground, As funding opportunities become available,encourage home and apartment owners and FL-13 private business owners to participate in elevation and flood proofing programs for areas X X FLD-6 within flood hazard areas. Discard-this is For public infrastructure projects,perform a watershed analysis to examine the impact of required as part FL-14 project development on flooding potential downstream,including communities outside of the X of CEQAIEIR of jurisdiction of proposed projects. proposed flood control projects Discard already Ensure that new private development pays its fair share of improvements to the storm codified as a predrainage system necessary to accommodate increased flows from the development,or building it FL 15 does not increase runoff by Low Impact Development techniques such as pervious areas or X X requiremenntt and detention facil ties. per Phase 2 water board NPDES permit Encourage owners of properties in the floodplain to consider purchasing flood insurance. FL-16 For example,point out that most homeowners'insurance policies do not cover a property X X DAM-1 for flood damage. FL-17 Encourage home and apartment owners to get elevation certificates. X X Town Annex Continue to apply floodplain management regulations for private development in the Discard-this is FL-18 floodplain and floodway. X X current MFIP regulation Enforce provisions under creek protection,stormwater management,and discharge control MLT-3 enforcing FL-19 ordinances designed to keep watercourses free of obstructions,protect drainage facilities, X X existing conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Best Management Practices and regulations is comply with ap licable performance standards of the National Pollutant Discharge considered 141 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Elimination System Phase II municipal stormwater permit that seeks to manage increases in implicit stormwater run-off flows from new development and redevelopment construction projects. Enforce and comply with the grading,erosion,and sedimentation requirements by prohibiting the discharge of concentrated stormwater flows by other than approved methods'' that seek to minimize Assist,support,and/or encourage the U.S.Army Corp of Engineers,various Flood Control Discard.Good and Water Conservation Districts,and other responsible agencies to locate and maintain action,not FL-21 funding for the development of flood control projects that have high cost-benefit ratios(such X x fundable through as through the writing of letters of support and/or passing resolutions in support of these FEMA hazard efforts). mitigation grants Seek funding for,and continue to repair and make structural improvements to,storm drains, FL-21 pipelines,and/or channels to enable them to perform to their design capacity in handling X X FLD-5 water flows as part of regular maintenance activities. FL-22 Continue maintenance efforts to keep storm drains and creeks free of obstructions,while X X FLD-5 retaining vegetation in the channel as appropriate)to allow for the free flow of water. FL-23 Continue to encourage new development near floodways to incorporate a setback from X X Town Annex watercourses to allow for changes in stormwater flows in the watershed over time. FL-24 Continue to have Town staff inspect creek areas after each storm. X X Town Annex Discard.Good Continue to investigate and seek funding for flood control ideas and projects throughout action,not FL-25 Town X X fundable through FEMA hazard FL-26 Work with other Ross Valley jurisdictions to explore and adopt land use regulations to mitigation grants minimize additional runoff,or reduce runoff,within the Ross Valle watershed. X X Town Annex Working with stakeholders and the community,consider feasibility(including cost,funding, FL-27 environmental and downstream impacts)and options for reconstructing and enlarging X X MLT-10 bridge openings and culverts. Create and update a photo record of the Town creeks to document condition and structures Discard as not FL-28 linked with GPS. X X mitigation measure Working with stakeholders and the community,consider feasibility(including cost,funding FL-29 environmental and downstream impacts)and options for flow bypass accommodation for X X Town Annex downtown constrictions Establish and enforce requirements for new development so that site-specific designs and Discard- FL-30 source-control techniques are used to manage peak stormwater runoff flows and impacts X X covered by from increased runoff volumes. existing policies and regulations Provide an institutional mechanism to ensure that development proposals adjacent to Discard- FL-31 floodways and in floodplains are referred to flood control districts and wastewater agencies X X covered by for review and comment(consistent with the NPDES program). existing building ermit rocess FL-32 Continue to enforce regulations concerning new construction and substantial improvements - X X FLD 1 142 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo to existing structures within flood zones in order to be in compliance with federal requirements and to continue participation in the Community Rating System(CRS)of the National Flood Insurance Program. As new flood-control projects are completed,request that FEMA revise its flood-insurance FL-33 rate maps and digital Geographic Information System(GIS)data to reflect flood risks as X X Town Annex accurate) as )ossible. FL-34 Consider adopting cumulative substantial improvement requirement of 3 to 5 years under X X Town Annex Municipal Code Protection of Flood Hazard Areas. Conduct a watershed analysis at least once every ten years,or more frequently if there is a Reword to FL-35 major development in the watershed or a major change in the Land Use Element of the X X update existing General Plan of the cities or counties within the watershed. hydraulic model To reduce flood risk,thereby reducing the cost of flood insurance to private property FL-36 owners,work to maintain participation in the Community Rating System of the National X X FLD-1 Flood Insurance Program and to qualify for the highest-feasible rating. FL-37 Participate in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program&Community Rating System X X FLD-1 Require an annual inspection of approved flood-proofed privately-owned buildings to FL-38 ensure that(a)all flood-proofing components will operate properly under flood conditions X X Town Annex and(b)all responsible personnel are aware of their duties and responsibilities as described in their buildinq's Flood Emergency Operation Plan and Inspection&Maintenance Plan. Discard-housing Balance the housing needs of residents against the risk from potential flood-related will be required FL-39 hazards. X X to comply with flood protection ordinance Increase efforts to reduce landslides and erosion in existing and future development by improving appropriate code enforcement and use of applicable standards for private property,such as those appearing in the California Building Code,California Geological Survey Special Report 117—Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,Amarican Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE)report Recommended Procedures LS-01 for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117:Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating X X LS-1 Landslide Hazards in California,and the California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports.Such standards should cover excavation,fill placement,cu';-fill transitions,slope stability,drainage and erosion control,slope setbacks, expansive soils,collapsible soils,environmental issues,geological and geotechnical investigations,grading plans and specifications,protection of adjacent properties,and review and emit issuance. Discard-as Continue to enforce design review requirements in zoning code and review under the ongoing program LS-03 California Environmental Quality Act to address hillside development constraints,especially X X and covered by in areas of existing landslides. existing regulations LS-04 Establish and enforce provisions(under Building Code,subdivision ordinances or other X X Discard as means)that geotechnical and soil-hazard investigations be conducted and filed to prevent covered b 143 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo grading from creating unstable slopes,and that any necessary adopted building corrective actions be taken. codes Discard-already Establish and enforce grading,erosion,and sedimentation ordinances by requiring,under have grading LS-06 certain conditions,grading permits and plans to control erosion and sedimentation prior to X X permit building permit approval. requirements in lace Discard-already LS-07 Establish and enforce provisions under the creek protection,storm water management,and X X have permit discharge control ordinances designed to control erosion and sedimentation. requirements in Ensure that Town and Ross Valley Fire Department-initiated fire-preventive vegetation- place management techniques and practices for creek sides and high-slope areas do not LS-1 contribute to the landslide and erosion hazard.For example,vegetation in these sensitive X X Town Annex areas could be thinned,rather than removed,or replanted with less flammable materials. When thinning,the non-native species should be removed first.Other options would be to use structural mitigation,rather than vegetation management in the most sensitive areas. The Director of Public Works and Building should require that local government reviews of LS-2 geotechnical and soil-hazard investigations and geologic and engineering studies are X X Discard as conducted by appropriately trained and credentialed staff or outside consultants. existing practice Develop a plan for appropriate access and evacuation in hillside wildland-urban-interface WF-01 areas.For example,creation of no parking areas for emergency vehicle access and X X FIR-1 resident evacuation,signage,and early warning and evacuation. WF-02 Tie public education on defensible space and a comprehensive Fire Wise and defensible X X Town Annex s ace ordinance to a field program of enforcement. Encourage Ross Valley Fire Department to expand vegetation management programs in wildland-urban-interface areas to more effectively manage the fuel load through various WF-03 methods including,but not limited to, roadside collection and chipping,mechanical fuel X X FIR-3 reduction equipment,selected harvesting,use of goats or other organic methods of fuel reduction. WF-04 Encourage the formation of a community-and neighborhood-based approach to wildfire X X Town Annex education and action throu h local Fire Safe Councils and the Fire Wise Program. Review existing General Plan policies,Municipal Code regulations and Ross Valley Fire WF-05 Department standards for roads to develop policies and regulations that ensure public X X FIR-1 safety in wildfire hazard areas and protect the environment. Encourage Ross Valley Fire Department to participate in multi-agency efforts to mitigate fire Discard as not WF-06 threat,such as the Hills Emergency Forum(in the East Bay),various FireSafe Council X X mitigation programs,and city-utility task forces.Such participation increases a jurisdiction's competitiveness in obtainin rants. measure Assist private businesses and residents in the development of defensible space through the FIR 1,FIR-2, WF 07 use of,for example,"tool libraries"for weed abatement tools,roadside collection and/or X X FIR-3,FIR-5, chipping services(for brush,weeds,and tree branches)in wildland-urban-interface fire threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. FIR-6 144 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo WF-08 Encourage Ross Valley Fire Department to increase local patrolling during periods of high X X Combine with fire weather. WF-09 WF-09 Encourage Ross Valley Fire Department to monitor weather during times of high fire. X X Combine with WF-08 WF-10 Work to ensure a reliable source of water for fire suppression through the cooperative X X FIR-4 efforts of water districts,fire districts,residents and commercial property owners. Seek funding to develop and implement a program to control invasive and exotic species that contribute to fire and flooding hazards(such as eucalyptus,non-native broom and WF-11 cordgrass).This program could include vegetation removal,thinning,or replacement in X X FIR-5 hazard areas where there is a direct threat to structures. Seek funding to prepare a Biodiversity,Fire,and Fuels Integrated Plan(BFFIP)that WF-12 describes action that the Town will take to minimize fire hazards and maximize ecological X X Town Annex health in its o ens ace areas. Work with inSL.rance companies to create apublic/private partnership to give a discount on Discard as not WF-13 fire insurance premiums to"Forester Certified"Fire Wise landscaping and fire-resistant X X mitigation building materals on private property. measure Consider fire safety,evacuation,and emergency vehicle access when reviewing proposals WF-14 to add secondary units or additional residential units in wiidland-urban-interface fire- X X FIR-1 threatened communities or in areas exposed to high-to-extreme fire threat. Improve engineering design and vegetation management for mitigation,appropriate code WF-15 enforcement,and public education on defensible space mitigation strategies. X X Town Annex WF-16 Ensure adequate fire department access to developed and open space areas and keep fire X X Town Annex roads and public rights-of-way passable at all times. 145 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Table 0-8 Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in San Anselmo What is the process by which the Town Responsible Agency/ will incorporate the Action Revised How will action be requirement of the Funding Source& Type of mitigation p g p action Number or New Mitigation Strategy implemented and mitigation plan into Cost/Benefit New Priority Timeline yp :: administered? other planning mechanisms(such as General Plan) Develop list of locally historic resources and create incentives for private owners of historic or architecturally General Fund,Staff significant buildings to undertake mitigation to levels that Town Manager or their Not determined,may be AH-16& will minimize the likelihood that these buildings will need designee will draft in annual budget or in time and resources 9 Long Term,5-10 Local Planning and 17 to be demolished after a disaster and/or establish incentives for Town buildingor zoning and may result in Moderate 9 years Regulations preservation-sensitive measures for the repair and re- Council consideration. regulations. improvement of few occupancy of historically significant privately-owned buildings. structures. To be incorporated into General Fund, Town Council to Safety Element of Unknown cost AH-29 Develop unused or new pedestrian rights-of-way as consider incorporating General Plan and,if , Long Term,5-10 Structures and walkways to serve as additional evacuation routes. requirement in Town conducted by Town,in potential life savings Moderate for improved y ears Projects Infrastructure General Plan Capital Improvement evacuation routes Plan General Fund, Encourage Marin Municipal Water District to review and Director of Building Unknown cost. update mapped inundation area for Phoenix Dam and and Public Works to Chance of dam failure DAM-01 coordinate with the Town on procedures for the draft letter for Town To be incorporated into is unlikely.Inundation Long Term,5-10 Local Planning and emergency evacuation of areas that would be inundated CounciElement area wown may Moderate Years I to consider Town Safety Elt within TRegulations by a failure of Phoenix Dam. sending to Water be shallow and lower District. than Base Flood Elevation Town Manager or Conduct an inventory of privately-owned existing or Town Council to direct General Fund,Staff To be incorporated into suspected soft-story structures as a first step in Public Works and time, otential for hi h Ver High-Active/ Short Term,0-5 Local Planning and EQ-05 Safety Element of p g y g y establishing voluntary or mandatory programs for Building Department life and property Looking for Funding years Regulations retrofitting these buildings. Staff to conduct General Plan savings 9 inventory. 146 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Use the soft-story inventory to require private owners to inform all exist ng and Public Works and To be incorporated into General Fund,Low prospective tenants that they live or work in this type of Very High-Actively Short Term,0-5 Education and EQ-06 Building Director to Safety Element of cost,does not result in building and may need to be prepared to live or work implement General Plan mitigation Looking for Funding years Awareness elsewhere following an earthquake if the building has not been retrofitted. Require private;owners to inform all existing tenants(and prospective tenants prior to signing a lease agreement)that they live in an Town Public Works unreinforced masonry building and the standard to which and Building Official to it may have been retrofitted.Require private owners to incorporate new Adopted by ordinance General Fund,Low Very High-Actively Short Term,0-5 Education and EQ-07 inform all exist ng tenants that they may need to be requirements into local into Town Municipal cost,residents more Looking for Funding years Awareness prepared to work elsewhere following an earthquake regulations and notify Code prepared for hazard even if the building has been retrofitted,because it has property owners of probably been retrofitted to a life-safety standard,not to required disclosures. a standard that will allow occupancy following major earthquakes. Public Works and Building Department General Fund or Director to ensure potentially state Continue Mapping of the creeks to further evaluate, federal grants. Very High-Looking Local Planning and On Going FL-04 Protection and Safety Element of Ross Valley Flood To be incorporated into design,and implement additional flood control projects. Unknown cost,assists for Funding Regulation Watershed Program General Plan n evaluating flood conducts project,or seek funding for Town control projects to conduct project Public Works and Building Department State or Federal Pursue funding for the design and construction of storm Director to ensure Grants.Cost varies drainage projects to protect vulnerable properties, Ross Valley Flood To be incorporated into and benefit varies. including property acquisitions,upstream storage such Protection and Safety Element of Certain projects(such Very High-Looking Structure and FL-05 as detention a id retention basins(excluding Memorial Watershed Program General Plan and as detention basins On Going Park),and channel widening with the associated right-of- conducts project,or Capital Improvement and property for Funding Infrastructure Project ay acquisitions,relocations,and environmental seek funding for Town Plan acquisitions) mitigations. to conduct project and unpopular include on Capital with public Improvement Plan 147 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Develop an approach and locations for various Public Works and watercourse bank protection strategies,including for Building Department example,(1)an assessment of banks to inventory areas Director to ensure To be incorporated into State,regional,or that appear prone to failure,(2)bank stabilization, Ross Valley Flood Safety Element of local funds.Cost Very High-Looking Structure and FL-06 including installation of rip rap,or whatever regulatory Protection and General Plan and On Going agencies allow(3)stream bed depth management using Watershed Program Capital Improvement varies and benefit for Funding Infrastructure Project dredging,and(4)removal of out-of-date coffer dams in conducts project,or Plan varies. rivers and seek funding for Town tributary streams to conduct project Public Works and Building Department To be incorporated into Working with stakeholders and the community,consider Director to ensure Safety Element of State or Federal feasibility(including cost,funding,environmental and Ross Valley Flood General Plan and,if Grants.High cost, Very High-Looking Short Term,0-5 Structure and FL-08 downstream impacts)and options for removal of Protection and conducted by Town,in large number of for Funding years Infrastructure Project Morningside Avenue Bridge and potential construction of Watershed Program Capital Improvement buildings protected upstream and downstream extended wing walls. conducts project,or Plan seek funding for Town to conduct project Recognize that a multi-agency approach is needed to Public Works and mitigate flooding by having flood control districts,cities, Building Department counties,and utilities meet at least annually to jointly To be incorporated into Director to seek Very High-Looking Short Term,0-5 Local Planning and FL-09 discuss their capital improvement programs for most Safety Element of Staff time effectively reducing the threat of flooding.Work toward agencies to consider General Plan for Funding years Regulation making this process more formal to insure that flooding is flooding all least considered at existing joint-agency meetings. annually. Public Works and Building Department Director to ensure Ross Valley Flood State or regional Improve upon existing hydrologic analysis of runoff and Protection and To be incorporated into funding.Unknown Very High-Looking Local Planning and FL-10 drainage systems to predict areas of insufficient capacity Watershed Program Safety Element of cost,assists in On Going in the storm drain and natural creek system. conducts project,or General Plan evaluating flood for Funding Regulation seek funding for Town control projects to conduct project and include on Capital Improvement Plan 148 APPENDIX 13 Town of San Anselmo Continue to develop guidelines that limit the coverage of Public Works and impervious surfaces,that require the use of permeable Building Department To be incorporated into FL-12 surfaces,that implement other regulations to effectively Director to draft Safety Element of General Fund,Staff Very High-Looking On Going Natural Systems channel and minimize site runoff,and that allow water to regulations for General Plan and Town time for Funding Protection percolate into the ground. consideration by Town Zoning Regulations Council Encourage home and apartment owners to et elevation Public Works and To be incorporated into Education and FL-17 e p g Building Department Safety Element of General Fund,Staff ExistingProgram On Goin Awareness certificates. Planning Department General Plan time g g 9 Pro ram Town Public Works and Building Continue to encourage new development near floodways Department staff to FL-23 to incorporate a review development Incorporate Policy into General Fund,Staff Existing Program On Goin Natural Systems setback from watercourses to allow for changes in projects for General Plan time g Protection stormwater flews in the watershed over time. conformance with Town Municipal Code Continue to have Town staff inspect creek areas after Public Works Director To be incorporated into FL-24 p to implement with Safety Element of General Fund,Staff Existing Program On Going Natural Systems each storm. Public Works staff. General Plan time Protection Public Works and Building Department Director to ensure Ross Valley Flood Work with other Ross Valley jurisdictions to explore and Protection andTo be incorporated into FL-26 adopt land use regulations to minimize additional runoff, Watershed Program Safety Element of General Fund,Staff Existing Program Short Term,0-5 Local Planning and or reduce runoff,within the Ross Valley watershed. conducts project,or General Plan time years Regulation propose regulations for Town Council to consider and encourage other jurisdictions to adopt 149 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Public Works and Building Department To be incorporated into Working with stakeholders and the community, Ross Valley Flood consider Director to ensure Safety Element of feasibility(including cost,funding,environmental and General Plan and,if General Fund, Short Term,0-5 Structure and FL-29 Protection and Existing Program downstream impacts)and options for flow bypass conducted by Town,in Unknown cost years Infrastructure Project accommodation for downtown constrictions Watershed Program Capital Improvement conducts project,or Plan seek funding for Town to conduct project Public Works and As new flood-control projects are completed,request that Building Department To be incorporated into FEMA revise its flood-insurance rate maps and digital Director to request Safety Element of General Fund,Staff Local Planning and FL 33 Geographic Information System(GIS)data to FEMA to revise time Existing Program Long Term Regulation reflect flood risks as accurately as possible. FIRMS when General Plan necessary Public Works and General Fund,Staff Consider adopting cumulative substantial improvement Building Department To be incorporated into time,Low cost and Director to draft Safety Element of Short Term,0-5 Local Planning and FL-34 requirement of 3 to 5 years under Municipal Code results in increase in Existing Program Protection of Flood Hazard Areas. regulations for General Plan and Town elevated years Regulation consideration by Town Zoning Regulations structures Council Public Works and Building Department Update hydaulic model at least once every ten years,or Director to ensure General Fund,Staff more frequently if there is a major development in the Ross Valley Flood To be incorporated into time or regional Long Term,5-10 Local Planning and FL-35 'watershed or a major change in the Land Use Element of Protection and Safety Element of Moderate he General Plan of the cities or counties within the Watershed Program General Plan Partners.Unknown years Regulation watershed. conducts project,or cost seek funding for Town to conduct project Require an annual inspection of approved flood-proofed privately-owned buildings to ensure that(a)all flood- proofing components will operate properly under flood Public Works and General Fund,Staff Long Term,5-10 FL-38 conditions and(b)all responsible personnel are aware of Building Director to time Moderate ears their duties and responsibilities as described in their implement y building's Flood Emergency Operation Plan and Inspection&Maintenance Plan. 150 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Ensure that Town and Ross Valley Fire Department- General Fund.Cost: initiated fire-preventive vegetation-management Town attorney time to techniques and practices for creek sides and high-slope Grading permit is prepare ordinance and areas do not contribute to the landslide and erosion required from the San Anselmo Municipal standards for adoption hazard.For example,vegetation in these sensitive areas Director of Public Code 3-18 will be by Town Council.Cost Ver High-Actively Short Term,0-5 Local Plannin and LS-1 amended to specify of appropriate review y g y g could be thinned,rather than removed,or replanted with Works prior to any Looking for Funding years Regulations less flammalb a materials.When thinning,the non-native grading over 25 cubic applicable standards for can be charged to species should be removed first.Other options would be yards. review. permit applicant. to use structural mitigation,rather than vegetation Benefits:Increased management in the most sensitive areas. review of gradingplans. Town Manager to State or Federal Tie public education on defensible space and a consult with personnel To be incorporatedinto Grants and Fire WF-02 comprehensive Fire Wise and defensible space Safety Element of at Ross Valley Fire Department funds. Very High-Actively Short Term,0-5 Local Planning and ordinance to a field program of enforcement. Department and,if General Plan Unknown cost.High Looking for Funding years Regulations necessary,RVFD benefit to reducing Board. wildfire risk. State or Federal Town Manager to Grants and Fire Encourage the formation of a community-and consult with personnel To be incorporated into Department funds. "VF-v4 neighborhood-based approach to wildfire education and at Ross Valley Fire Cost of staff time and Short Term,0-5 Education and v Safety Element of Moderate action through local Fire Safe Councils and the Fire Wise Department and,if General Plan benefit of more years Awareness Program. necessary,RVFD educated residents Board. that take mitigation actions. Town Manager to Fire Department consult with personnel general fund for staff Encourage Ross Valley Fire Department to increase local at Ross Valley Fire To be incorporated into time Unknown cost. Natural Systems WF-08 patrolling during periods of high fire weather. Department and,if Safety Element of Local residents likely Existing Program On Going Protection necessary,RVFD General Plan to report any visible Board. fires. Town Manager to personnel Encourage Rens Valley Fire Department to monitor consult with pTo be incorporated into Fire Department WF-09 at Ross Valley Fire Natural Systems Bather during times of high Safety Element of general fund for staff Existing Program On Going ire. necessary,RVFD Department and,if General Plan time.Unknown cost. Protection Board. 151 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Seek funding to prepare a Biodiversity,Fire,and Fuels State and Federal rant Funding.to To be incorporated into gg. Integrated Plan(BFFIP)that describes action that the Town ManagerShort Term,0-5 Natural Systems WF-12 work with Ross Valley Safety Element of Unknown cost, Moderate Town will take to minimize fire hazards and maximize Fire Department General Plan eventually results in years Protection ecological health in its open space areas. plan to reduce fire risk. Town Manager to Improve engineering design and vegetation management ensure that RossTo be incorporated into Fire Department Fire WF-15 or mitigation,appropriate code enforcement,and public Valley Safety Element of general fund for staff Existing Program On Going Local Planning and education on defensible space mitigation strategies. Department continues General Plan time. Regulations existing efforts to reduce hazards. To be incorporated into Fire Department Town Council to Safety Element of general fund for staff Ensure adequate fire department access to developed Structures and consider incorporating General Plan and,if time.Unknown cost, WF-16 and open space areas and keep fire roads and public requirement in Town conducted by Town,in potential life savings Existing Program On Going Infrastructure rights-of-way passable at all times. General Plan Capital Improvement with adequate fire and Projects Plan evacuation routes 152 APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Table 0-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement Resource The Town's General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy. It describes hazard areas and regulates Plan sown of San Anselmo General Plan current and future development based on known hazard areas.The General Plan has been amended every few years since 1975 and as this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated risk information and strategies. Town of San Anselmo 2017 Local Hazard The Town's prior Hazard Mitigation Plan is a stand-alone document which identifies risks from natural hazards present in Plan Mitigation Plan the Town and includes strategies to reduce these risks.Many of the strategies identified in 2017 were carried forward to the multi-urisdictional plan.Prior to this document the Town LHMP was an annex to the 2011 ABAG multi-jurisdictional plan, Town of San Anselmo 2008 Flood San Anselmo's 2008 Flood Mitigation Plan provides a glimpse of the Town's response to the 2005/06 flood and the Plan Mitigation Plan mitigation options that were considered before the 2011 Capital Improvement Plan Study for Flood Damage Reduction and Creek Mana ement 20`1 Capital Improvement Plan Study for This study describes plans and technical rationale for a suite of projects along the watershed that work together as a Plan Flood Damage Reduction and Creek system to reduce flooding and seeks to restore the ecological health and function of Corte Madera Creek and its tributaries. Management The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes Policy Zoning Ordinance standards for where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation.The Town adopts the current California Building Policy Municipal Code Code which applies to all construction activity within the Town boundaries and supports earthquake and fire mitigation. Watercourse Protection and Floodplain Development are sections that protect against worsening flood situations.The Muni code is updated periodically to improve mitigation efforts. l` Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing budgeting,risk management,information technology, Administrative Administrative Services Department and business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the de artment's scope. These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to Administrative Town Planning,Building,and Public planning and building can be implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for Town-owned and Personnel Works Departments infrastructure,including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains,traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Ross Police The Town Police Department conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department, Personnel Ross Valley Fire Department The Ross Valley Fire Department protects the town from the effects of fire and other hazardous conditions and supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Personnel Marin County Flood Control District The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District supports flood mitigation efforts by partnering with Cities and Towns to design,construct and maintain flood control infrastructure and channel improvements, The Town has several volunteer groups that can help hazard mitigation efforts including the Town Council,Planning Personnel Volunteer Boards and Commissions Commission,Flood Committee and the Quality of Life Committee.These groups are both personnel resources and can make recommendations to the Town Council,the governing body,which can update municipal and zoning codes. 1�3 i APPENDIX 0 Town of San Anselmo Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement pro ects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These Financial State and Federal Grants include State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program(HMGP),Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA Training and Town Managers Newsletter The Town Manager's newsletter was initiated after the 2005-06 floods and became a regular method of communication Outreach between the Town and its residents. The Community Rating System(CRS)is a voluntary program for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Training and Community Rating System Working Program(NFIP)to earn flood insurance premium reductions for property owners.A Countywide collaboration of CRS Outreach Group community staff has been started in recent years and has led to shared resources including outreach materials and floodplain management training.This collaboration has the potential to expand and lead to a wide variety of flood mitigation activities. Training and The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is Outreach Get Ready designed to help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s:llread marin.or / et read / 154 APPENDIX F1 City of San Rafael Appendix P City of San (Rafael City of San Rafael The City of San Rafael (San Rafael) is the county seat of Marin County. San Rafael had an estimated population of 57,713 in 2010, with 24,011 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 22.422 square miles. The median income for a household in the City was $60,994 and the per capita income for the City was $35,762. Approximately 5.6 percent of families and 10.2 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). San Rafael was incorporated as a city in 1874. The City of San Rafael completed a single-jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2017 which is hereby incorporated in its entirety by reference into this appendix. It includes much more jurisdiction-specific information to supplement the vulnerability and mitigation updates below. Table P-1.Vulnerability of Structures in San Rafael Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 10,310 100% 4809 100% 1062 100% 250 100% 9 100% Flood 1125 11% 1508 31% 556 52% 174 70% 0 0% Fire 7502 73% 2599 54% 118 11% 5 2% 6 66.7% Tsunami 270 3% 136 3% 61 6% 5 2% 0 0% Landslide 1E85 16% 387 8% 11 1% 0 0% 1 11.1% Dam D 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Inundation 155 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael Table P-2'.Vulnerability of Transportation in San Rafael Roads Railroads Ferry Miles %of Total Miles %of Total Number Earthquake 327 100% 6 100% 0 Flood 67 20% 2 33% 0 Fire 213 65% 2 33% 0 Tsunami 17 5% 0.1 2% 0 Landslide', 55 17% 0 0% 0 Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 Table P-3.Vulnerability of Communication in San Rafael MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 4 100% Flood 0 0% Fire 2 50% Tsunami 0 0% Landslide1 25% Dam Inundation 0 0% 156 APPENDIX ID City of San Rafael Table P-4.Vulnerability of Power in San Rafael Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Ntimher %ofNumher %of Number %0f Miles %of Miles %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 2 100% 4 100% 15.9 100% 14.5 100% Flood 0 N/A 1 50% 1 25% 7.6 47.8% 2 13.8% Fire 0 N/A 1 50% 1 25% 2.1 13.2% 5.6 38.6% Tsunami 0 N/A 0 0% 1 25% 1.5 9.4% .1 .7% Landslide 0 N/A 0 0% 0 0% .2 1.3% 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Table P-5.Vulnerability of Water!Sewage in San Rafael Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 2 100% 7 100% Flood 1 50% 7 100% Fire 0 0% 0 0% Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% Landslide 0 0% 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 1 0% 0 0% 157 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael Table P-6;Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in San Rafael Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 30 100% 9 100% 16 100% 0 N/A Flood 2 6.7% 3 33.3% 3 18.8% 0 N/A Fire 16 53.3% 3 33.3% 3 18.8% 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 1 6.3% 0 N/A Landslide 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table P-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continueimplementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables P-1 through P-6).Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 4.2 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table P-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). Table P-7.Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in San Rafael Action Number/Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Included in Updated Action Plan(New# Future,Mitigation Actions'from 2017 1.Integrate'Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into Safety Element of General Plan X X MLT-1 2.Identify the locations then subsequently equip,stock and train staff in order to establish emergency evacuation shelters used to temporary house people during major X Annex emer encies. 3.Update the San Rafael Emergency Operations Center(EOC)Handbook X Annex 4.Outfit and equip the City's new Emergency Operation's CenterX Annex-but tweak to refer to EOC scheduled for operation in Calendar Year 2019 improvements in disaster 158 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael resistance of this critical facility 5.Plan,prepare,conduct community outreach and deploy emergency evacuation exercises in neighborhoods prone to wildfire or tidal flooding during extreme wet weather X Annex periods. 6.Bayside Acres Beach Sewer Relocation/Replacement X X Annex 7.Beach Drive(Fiberglass)Pump Station and Sewer Rehabilitation X X Annex 8.Recruit and ultimate appoint a new Emergency Management Coordinator(EMC)to fill X NIA vacant post. 9.Evaluate and Implement signal timing for first responders X ? Annex 10.Tree Safety Maintenance Program X X Annex 11.Purchase and installation of EMTRAC signal control equipment into 17 San Rafael X ? Annex Fire Vehicles and 25 intersections. 12.Develop an Energy Storage Plan X ? MLT-9 13.San Rafael Capital Improvement Program(CIP)Implementation X X Annex 14,San Rafael Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement Program X X Fld-5 15,Elevate/Raise Low Lying Roadways X X MLT-10, MLT-20 16.Elevate Critical Infrastructure X X MLT19,Fld-6 17.Improvements to Existing Berms,Levees and Flood Control Systems X X Fld-5 159 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael 18.Continued involvement in the BayWAVE county-wide vulnerability assessment X X Fid-10 (Phase 1 and 2),Implement resulting strategies from Phase 2 of the program. 19 Develop a climate adaptation plan,and implement resultinq strategies X X Annex and/or consider Fld-11 20.Freitas Ditch Riparian and Flood Improvement Project X X Fld-5 21.Spinnaker Point Levee Assessment Study X X Annex 22.Water Storage Facility Study X ? Annex 23.Leaky Pipe Replacement Program X ? Annex 24.Marin Municipal Water District exploration of desalination plants X ? Annex 25.Evaluate the use of reclaimed water/increase purple pipes X ? Annex 26.Evaluate and enhance conservation measures to reduce water consumption X ? Annex or MLT-2 27.Retrofit/upgrade four remaining URM's X X MLT-2(if these URMs are City-owned buildings) 28.Earthquake Hazard Study X X Annex or MLT-2 29.Public Facility Vulnerability Assessment and Improvements X X MLT-2 30.Structural Soft Story Identification and Mitigation Plan X X EQ-1 and/or annex 31.Develop and Maintain a Community Rating System(CRS) X X Fld-1 32.Beach Drive Structural Flood Protection X X Fld-5 33.Adopt a Drain Program X X annex or Fld-5 34.City Pump Station Analysis and Improvements X X Fld-5 35.City Storm Drain System Analysis and Improvements X X Fld-5 or annex 36.City Flood Alert System X annex 37.Gallinas Creek Dredging X X Fld-5 38.San Rafael Canal Dredging X X Fld-5 39.70-96 Bret Harte Sewer Easement Repair X X annex 160 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael 40.Landslide Identification and Management Program X X LS-2/ annex 41.Fairhills Slide Repair X X LS-2/Annex 42.Funding for Vegetation Management Coordinator Position X X FIR-3?FIR-9?Public or Private lands? 43.Create a City of San Rafael specific Community Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP). X X Annex or FIR-1 44.Create new strategic fuel interruption zones in WUI areas and maintain and expand X X Annex or FIR-3 existingfuel interruption zones alreadyin place. 45.Juniper and Bamboo Clearing Program from Residential Properties within WUI. X X FIR-5,FIR-9 46.Create new point specific wildfire prevention programs specifically targeting areas X X annex where homeless encampments are known to exist. 47.San Rafael Measure A Project Implementation X X annex 48.East San Rafael Shore Project:Plan X X annex 49.East San Rafael Shore Project:Permitting and Construction X X annex Table P-8.Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in San Rafael Action#and Name Hazard(s) Responsible Potential Timeline addressed Agency Fundin Source City of San Rafael Fire Department, Emergency Grant Funding, 2.Identify the locations then subsequently equip,stock and train staff in order to establish emergency All Hazards Management General Funding Immediate evacuation shelters used to temporary house people during major emergencies. Coordinator, possible American Red Cross,Salvation Army City of San Rafael Fire Department, Grant Funding, To be prepared during late 3.Update the San Rafael Emergency Operations Center(EOC)Handbook All Hazards Emergency General Funding 2017 and 2018 calendar years. Management Possible Coordinator City of San Rafael 4.Outfit and equip the Ci.y's new Emergency Operation's Center Fire Department, Grant Funding, Planning in 2018 with (EOC)scheduled for op&-ation in Calendar Year 2019 All Hazards Emergency General Funding purchase and installation in Management Possible 2019. Coordinator 161 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael City of San Rafael 5.Plan,prepare,conduct community outreach and deploy emergency evacuation exercises in Fire Department, Grant Funding, neighborhoods prone to wildfire or tidal flooding during extreme wet weather periods. All Hazards Emergency General Funding Planning in 2018 into 2019. Management Possible Coordinator Severe Storms, San Rafael Capital 6.Bayside Acres Beach Sewer Relocation/Replacement Sea level Rise Sanitation District Improvement FY 16117 to FY 18119 Program Severe Storms, San Rafael Capital 7.Beach Drive(Fiberglass)Pump Station and Sewer Rehabilitation Improvement FY 18/19 to FY 19/20 Sea level Rise Sanitation District Program All Hazards, Seeking grant 8.Recruit and ultimate appoint a new Emergency Management Coordinator(EMC)to fill vacant post. Disaster City of San Rafael funding Immediate. Management Fire Department opportunities. 9.Evaluate',and Implement signal timing for first responders All Hazards Public Works— City General Fund Immediate. Traffic Operations Minimize public safety impacts Public Works— 10.Tree Safety Maintenance Program from trees falling Traffic Operations City General Fund FY 2019/20 in the road right of way. City of San Rafael 11.Purchase and installation of EMTRAC signal control equipment into 17 San Rafael Fire Vehicles and Emergency Fire Department Grant Funding. 25 intersections. Response City of San Rafael General Funding, Immediate. Public Works Department All City 13.San Rafael Capital Improvement Program(CIP)Implementation Multi-Hazard departments as CIP Current year-19/20 identified in the CIP Sustainability Coordinator, Climate Change, Community Grants,general 19.Develop a climate adaptation plan,and implement resulting strategies SLR,coastal Development, fund,permit fees, Short term,0-5 years flooding Public Works public-private Department,PIO, partnerships City Manager's Office 162 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael Drought and Water Shortage, Wildfire. 22,Water Storage Facility Study Minimize Public Works— City General Fund FY 2020 Study— dependency on Parks outside water sources for irrigation 23.Leaky Pipe Replacement Program Drought and Public Works— City General Fund FY 2020 Water Shortage Parks Public Works Department, 24.Marin Municipal Wat,>r District exploration of desalination plants Drought and Sustainability Rate mechanisms, Mid term,3-7 years water supply Coordinator, grants Community Development,PIO Public Works Department, Rate mechanisms, 25.Evaluate the use of reclaimed water/increaseur le es Drought and Sustainability P p pipes water supply Coordinator, Planning fees, Near term, 1-5 years Community grants Development,PIO Sustainability Drought and Coordinator,City Rate mechanisms, 26.Evaluate and enhance conservation measures to reduce water consumption water supply Manager's Office, planning fees, Near term, 1-5 years Community grants Development,PIO Community Development/Buil 28.Earthquake Hazard turfy Earthquake ding Grants Within 5 years Hazards Inspection/Public Works Community Earthquake Development/Buil 30.Structural Soft Story Identification and Mitigation Plan Hazards ding Grants Within 5 years Inspection/Public Works 33.Adopt a Drain Program 100/500-year Public Existing budgets, FY19/20 and Storm WorksNolunteer staff time. 163 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael Flooding Coordinator 100/500-year Grants,Capital 35.City Storm Drain System Analysis and Improvements and Storm Public Works Improvement FY19/20 Flooding Program 100/500-year Public 36,City Flood Alert System and Storm Works/Emergency Grants Study–FY18/19 Flooding Services San Rafael Capital 39.70 96 Bret Harte Sewer Easement Repair Landslide Improvement FY 18/19 Sanitation District Program Public 40.Landslide Identification and Management Program Landslides Works/Community Grants FY20/21 Development 41,Fairhills Slide RepairPublic Grants or General Landslides Works/Community Fund 1-5 years Development 43.Create a City of San Rafael specific Community Wildfire Protection Plan(CWPP). Wildfire City of San Rafael FEMA PDM and Immediate. Fire Department HMGP grants. City of San Rafael Fire Department Marin County Grant Funding. 44.Create new strategic fuel interruption zones in WUI areas and maintain and expand existing fuel Open Space General Funding interruption zones already in place. Wildfire District unlikely.FEMA Immediate, Marin County Fire PDM and HMGP Department– grants. Tamalpais Fire Crew City of San Rafael Fire Department -City of San Grant Funding. 46.Create new point specific wildfire prevention programs specifically targeting areas where homeless Rafael Homeless General Funding encampments are known to exist. Wildfire Outreach unlikely.FEMA Immediate. Coordinator PDM and HMGP ➢City of San grants. Rafael Police Department– 0 en Space 164 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael Ranger City of San Rafael Public Works Department ➢ Marin County Open Space District ➢ Marin County Fire Department— Tamalpais Fire Crew Wildfire,other City departments hazards as identified in the Measure A Current Measure A workplan 47.San Rafael Measure A Project Implementation depending on Measure A funding 2017 to 2018 and annually current Measure Workplan thereafter A priorities Maritime and fluvial flooding in TBD May include Proposition AA, the Central and City of San RbD Competition, 24 months from project 48.East San Rafael Shore Project:Plan East San Rafael Rafael/Resilient other sources to initiation valley, Shore/Shore Up be determined adaptation for Marin sea level rise Maritime and Proposition AA, fluvial flooding in TBD May include district the Central and the city of San assessments, 49.East San Rafael Shore Project:Permitting and Construction East San Rafael Rafael and for a redirected flood 5-10 years valley, special district insurance adaptation for such as a GHAD premiums,and sea level rise other sources to be determined 165 APPENDIX P City of San Rafael Table P-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools, and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name ilit to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement Plan City General Plans City General Plan'2020'was adopted in 2004 and been amended several times since.The City is currently undergoing its next General Plan update'2040'and community workshops are being held. Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan City recently completed a stand-alone Hazard Mitigation Plan: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/hazard-mitigation-plan/ City of San Rafael Community Plan Emergency Preparedness Plan 2009 Yes,subdivision ordinance,floodplain ordinance,stormwater ordinance Chapter 4.12—Wildland Urban Interface Title 7—Emergency Services Title 12—Building Regulations Policy City Ordinances Title 14—Building Code and Zoning Title 15—Subdivisions Title 17—Waters and Waterways Title 18—Protection of Flood Hazard Areas Title 19—Open Space The Zoning Ordinance sets forth regulations and standards for development to ensure that the policies,goals,and Policy Zoning objectives of the General Plan are carried out.Rezoning can be initiated by the City Council,Planning Commission,or by an individual property owner. Administrative Administrative Services Provide support with plan maintenance and update process. Department Administrative Disaster Council Provide support with plan maintenance and update process, Administrative and Public Works Departments Provide support with plan maintenance and update process. Personnel Administrative and Community Development Provide support with plan maintenance and update process. Personnel Personnel Police Provide support with Ian maintenance and update process. Personnel Fire Protection District Provide support with plan maintenance and update process. rima o � Financial General Fund Provide r supplemental project funds. Financial State and Federal Grants Provide primary or supplemental project funds. Financial Capital improvements project Provide primary or supplemental project funds. 1 6 funding Financial Authority to levy taxes for specific Provide primary or supplemental project funds. purposes Financial Incur debt through general Provide primary or supplemental project funds, obligation bonds and/orspecial APPENDIX ID City of San Rafael tax bonds Local citizen groups or non-profit organizations focused on Training and Outreach environmental protection, Community Emergency Response Team,Marin Conservation League,City of San Rafael Climate Action Team emergency preparedness,access and functional needs populations, etc. Ongoing public education or information program(e.g., Training and Outreach responsible water use,fire safety, County Household Hazardous Waste Program,MCSTOPP,Marin County Environmental Health Services,The Bay Institute household preparedness, environmental education Training and Outreach Natural disaster or safety related Get Ready: school programs 167 APPENDIX Q City of Sausalito Appendix Q City of Sausalito City of Sausalito Sausalito had an estimated population of 7,061 in 2010,with 4,536 housing units in the City. The City has a total area of 2.257 square miles, The median income for a household in the City was $87,469 and the per capita income for the City was $81,040. Approximately 2.0 percent of families and 5.1 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Sausalito was incorporated as a city in 1893. Below is a summary of vulnerability and potential jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions in Sausalito. This is the City of Sausalito's first Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, therefore there are no prior mitigation actions to evaluate. Table Q-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Sausalito Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 1,293 100% 1548 100% 170 100% 49 100% 9 100% Flood 24 2% 57 4% 37 22% 45 92% 0 0% Fire 1158 90% 1174 76% 63 37% 0 0% 3 33.3% Tsunami 16 1% 83 5% 54 32% 48 98% 0 0% Landslide 0 0% 39 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 11.1% Dam Inundation 0 00% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 168 APPENDIX Q City of Sausalito Table Q-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Sausalito Roads Ferry Landing Miles %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 44 100% 1 100% Flood 7 16% 1 100% Fire 30 68% 0 0% Tsunami 10 23% 1 100% Landslide 0 0% 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% Table Q-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Sausalito MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 169 I APPENDIX Q City of Sausalito Table Q-4,Vulnerability of Power in Sausalito Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline i Substation %of %of %of %of %of Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Earthquake 0 NIA 1 100% 0 N/A 1.9 100% 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 1 100% 0 N/A 1.18 62% 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A Table Q-5.Vulnerability of Water I Sewage in Sausalito Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 170 APPENDIX Q City of Sausalito Table Q-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Sausalito Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 3 100% 4 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 2 66.7% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 0% 2 50% 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 0% 1 25% 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Table 4-2, Potential Common Mitigation Actions includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which tey were found to be vulnerable(in Tables Q-1 through Q-6), which is all except dam inundation. Table Q-7. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation ''rojects and Programs represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i.e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions, or for which that they wanted to include additional details). Table Q-7.Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Sausalito Hazard(s) Responsible Agency Potential Timeline Action Description addressed Funding Source Develop and maintain an improvements and property value All Public Works/Building Unknown 5-years database as a hazard mitigation planning activity Departments Design and construct nature-based living shorelines and Flood/Tsunami Public Works,partner State/Federal Long term,5- breakwaters to attenuate wave amplitude agencies Grants 10 years Develop tools and policies for adapting to subsidence Flood Public Works/Planning Unknown 5-years Incorporate historic preservation into adaptation,mitigation and All Public Works,Planning, Long term,5- recovery activities Building Departments Unknown 10 years 171 APPENDIX Q City of Sausalito Table Q-8 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools, and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement The General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy.It describes hazard areas and regulates current and j future development based on known hazard areas.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated risk Plan General Plan information and strategies. The City of Sausalito General Plan last received a comprehensive update in September 1995,The Circulation Element was last updated in 1999.The Housing Element was last updated in 2015.A General Plan Update process began in 2016 and is expected to continue for three years. Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan The City has not previously had a Hazard Mitigation Plan.This multijurisdictional plan is the first plan to focus on the mitigation of natural hazards. Policy Municipal Code The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation including Title IV Land Improvement and Use,Title V Public Works,and Title VI Public Health,Safety and Welfare. Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes standards for Policy where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology,and Administrative business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the Department de artmenYs cope. Administrative and Public Works Department is responsible for City-owned infrastructure,including streets,bike lanes and sidewalks,storm drains, Personnel Public Works Departments traffic signals,and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure,as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Administrative and Community Development This department is responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental Personnel Department review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning and building can be implemented by this department. Personnel City Police Department The Sausalito Police Department conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department. Southern Marin Fire The District has responsibility for fire suppression and emergency response in commercial,residential,wildland I urban interface, Personnel Protection District and parts of the San Francisco Bay.The Fire Protection District supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These Financial State and Federal Grants include State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGP,Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is designed Training and Outreach Get Ready to help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s://readymarin.org/get-reky!) Training and Outreach Newsletter The Tiburon Talk newsletter gets emailed every other month and often contains articles about hazard preparedness and mitigation,including how to sign up for Get Ready classes. APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Appendix R Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon The Town of Tiburon had an estimated population of 8,962 in 2010,with 4,025 housing units in the Town. The Town has a total area of 13.182 square miles. The median income for a household in the Town was $106,611 and the per capita income for the Town was $85,966.Approximately 1.6 percent of fam'lies and 3.3 percent of the population were below the poverty line (2010 data, U.S. Census Bureau). Tiburon was incorporated in 1964. Table R-1.Vulnerability of Structures in Tiburon Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Historic Sites Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 2,402 100% 870 100% 49 100% 0 N/A 4 100% Flood 61 3% 41 5% 43 88% 0 N/A 1 25% Fire 2191 91% 729 84% 9 18% 0 N/A 0 0% Tsunami 53 2% 72 8% 45 92% 0 N/A 0 0% Landslide 582 24% 49 6% 0 0% 0 N/A 1 25% Dam 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Inundation 173 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Table R-2.Vulnerability of Transportation in Tiburon Roads Ferry Landing Railroad Number %of Total Number %of Total Miles Earthquake 45 100% 1 100% 0 Flood 3 7% 1 100% 0 Fire 39 87% 0 0% 0 Tsunami 4 9% 1 100% 0 Landslide 11 24% 0 0% 0 Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 Table R-3.Vulnerability of Communication in Tiburon MERA Number %of Total Earthquake 1 100% Flood 0 0% Fire 1 100% Tsunami 0 0% Landslide 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 174 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Table R-4.Vulnerability of Power in Tiburon Transmission Tower Substation Natural Gas Electric Trans.Line Natural Gas Pipeline Substation Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Number %of Total Total Total Total Total Earthquake 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A .4 100% Flood 0 NIA 0 N/A 0 NIA 0 NIA 0 0% Fire 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A .3 75% Tsunami 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0% Landslide 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A .2 50% Dam Inundation 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0% Table R-5.Vulnerability of Water/Sewage in Tiburon Wastewater Treatment Plants Pump Stations Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 3 100% 2 100% Flood 1 33.3% 0 0% Fire 0 0% 0 0% Tsunami 1 33.3% 0 0% Landslide 0 0%, 0 0% Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 175 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Table R-6.Vulnerability of Critical Facilities in Tiburon Schools Law Enforcement&Fire Medical Facilities Airports Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Number %of Total Earthquake 4 100% 3 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A Flood 4 100% 1 33.3% 0 N/A 0 N/A Fire 0 0% 2 66.7% 0 N/A 0 N/A Tsunami 0 0% 1 33.3% 0 N/A 0 N/A Landslide 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A Dam Inundation 0 0% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A The following actions were included in this jurisdiction's prior local hazard mitigation plan. Table R-7 Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions indicates the status of these actions and also refers to related actions from Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions through which this jurisdiction will continue implementation or consideration of these actions. Table 4-2 includes activities that address all hazards and this jurisdiction will select from those associated with hazards to which they were found to be vulnerable (in Tables R-1 through R-6). Actions that aren't related to specific actions in Table 42 are either discarded because they are not considered "mitigation" (they may rather be preparedness, recovery, response etc.), or are carried forward in Table R-8. Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs which represents this jurisdiction's jurisdiction-specific actions (i,e. actions they want to implement that are not part of the Table 4-2 of common activities that was prepared for use by all jurisdictions). 176 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Table R-7.Evaluation of Prior Mitigation Actions in Tiburon Action Name Completed Ongoing Not Started Still Relevant Included in Updated Action Plan(New#) 'Future Mitigation Actions'from 2012 In January 2011,the Town Council adopted the 2010 California Building Code which applies to all construction activity within the Town boundaries.The California Building Code is comprised of 11 parts that incorporate public health,safety,energy,green building and access standards X X MLT-3 used in the design and construction of all buildings.The new code provisions will allow the Town to utilize the latest technologies—advances in construction standards and seismic design for use in new residentiaand commercial construction and in remodels. As part-of the Capital Improvement Program,the Town will implement a Shoreline Park rip rap restoration,in order to shore up all the larger rocks at Shoreline Park and help prevent erosion X into the San Francisco Bay.Shoreline Park is fully exposed to the Bay which is susceptible to sea level rise,tsunamis and possible tidal flooding. Also as part of the Capital Improvement Program,the Town will implement a foundation repair to a section of Paradise Drive in order to shore up the embankment by constructing a"soil nail" wall.This would help stabilize the exposed earthen bank that holds up Paradise Dr.just past the X X For Tiburon Annex Caprice restaurant,which street segment could be susceptible to landslide as a result of earthquakes or storms. The Town will continue to research the possibility of construction of a new LEED certified Public Works Corp Yard,as this is the Town's primary critical facility in need ofrepair/updating.Seismic X X For Tiburon Annex retrofit work would be done simultaneously in order to ensure this critical facility could withstand the next major earthquake in the Bay Area.This project is largely dependent on funding. In order to assist with the prevention of wildfires,the Town will work with Conservation Corps North Bay to obtain a matching Cal Fire Grant in order to implement the fire related items within the Town's Open Space Management Plan,The Town's Public Works Department will also begin working on a"zone approach"to remedy the highest priority areas in the open space to X X X clear out invasive species and heavy brush.In addition,the Town will begin implementation of a program designed for residents living adjacent to open space,which outlines the guidelines for mowing grasses and vegetation clearing on open space lands. 'On-Going Mitigation Strategies'from 2012 F.Continue to comply with all applicable building and fire codes as well as other regulations X X MLT-3 177 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon when constructing or significantly remodeling infrastructure facilities(INFR, HOUS,ECON, GOVT Complying with State and Continue to enforce and/or comply with State-mandated requirements,such as the California X X Federal regulations is Environmental Quality Act(ENVR a-1) considered implicit in this Ian Incorporate FEMA guidelines and suggested activities into local government plans and X X FLD-2 procedures for managing flood hazards LAND,GOVT,HODS,INFR Complying with State and Continue to participate in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program(GOVT d-5) X X Federal regulations is considered implicit in this Ian Continue to facilitate the distribution of emergency preparedness materials and trainings X X For Tiburon Annex through the Tiburon Office ofEmer enc Services INFR,HOUS,ECON,GOVT Conduct periodic tests of the emergency sirens and BEARS emergency warning systems X X For Tiburon Annex GOVT c-15 Continue to maintain the emergency operations center(GOVT c-1 0) X X For Tiburon Annex Table R-8-Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs in Tiburon Activity Responsible Agency Potential Timeline lFundingSource Mitigation Activities and Priorities from Prior LHMP Also as part of the Capital Improvement Program,the Town will implement a foundation repair to a section of Paradise Drive in order to shore up the embankment by constructing a"soil nail"wall.This would help stabilize the exposed City Engineer/ General Fund, 0-5 years earthen bank that holds up Paradise Dr.just past the Caprice restaurant,which street segment could be susceptible to Public Works Federal Grants landslide as a result of earthquakes or storms. The Town will continue to research the possibility of construction of a new LEED certified Public Works Corp Yard,as this is the Town's primary critical facility in need of repair/updating.Seismic retrofit work would be done simultaneously in City Engineer/ General Fund, 0-5 years order to ensure this a ideal facility could withstand the next major earthquake in the Bay Area.This project is largely Public Works Federal Grants dependent on funding. In order to assist with the prevention of wildfires,the Town will work with Conservation Corps North Bay to obtain a matching Cal Fire Grant in order to implement the fire related items within the Town's Open Space Management Plan. The Town's Public Works Department will also begin working on a"zone approach"to remedy the highest priority areas Fire Department General Fund, 0-5 years in the open space to clear out invasive species and heavy brush.In addition,the Town will begin implementation of a Federal Grants program designed for residents living adjacent to open space,which outlines the guidelines for mowing grasses and vegetation clearing on open space lands. Continue to facilitate the distribution of emergency preparedness materials and trainings through the Tiburon Office of Tiburon Office of General Fund, Emergency Services Emergency Services Federal Grants 0-5 years 178 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Tiburon Office of ...General Fund Conduct periodic tests of the emergency sirens and BEARS emergency warning systems Emergency Services Federal Grants 0-5 years Continue to maintain the emergency operations center Tiburon Office of General Fund,Emergency Services Federal Grants 0 5 years New Mitigation Activities and Priorities Address coastal erosion along Main Street seawall City Engineer/ General Fund, 0-5ears Public Works Federal Grants 0-5y ears existing hydraulic analysis to design and implement improvements to Beach Road area drainage. City Engineer/ General Fund, Public Works Federal Grants 0 5 years Culvert repair/replacement on San Rafael Ave at Lagoon where flooding occurred. Belvedere-Tiburon joint project) City Engineer/ General Fund, Public Works Federal Grants 0 5 years 179 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon Table R-9 Planning Mechanisms,Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement General Plan(Tiburon The General Plan outlines long-term direction for development and policy.It describes hazard areas and regulates current and Plan 2020) future development based on known hazard areas.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated risk information and strategies. Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan This Hazard Mitigation Plan and its predecessors identify risks from natural hazards present in the Town and includes strategies to 2012 ABAG Annex reduce these risks. The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)directs construction activities for Town owned facilities and infrastructure for the next five Plan Capital Improvement Plan years.Mitigation actions may involve construction of new or upgraded facilities and infrastructure.As this plan gets updated there is potential to improve it with updated strategies. Plan Open Space Management Open Space management influences risk of landslides,wildfire,and in some cases flooding.The Town manages 250 acres of open Plan space.Fire hazard and fuel loading is the primary concern driving management of non-nativespecies in this pan. Policy Municipal Code The Muni Code includes several sections that address hazard mitigation including Title IV Land Improvement and Use,Title V Public Works,and Title VI Public Health,Safety and Welfare. Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing specific regulations for development.It includes standards for Policy (Chapter 16 of Municipal where development can be located,how buildings must be sized,shaped,and positioned,and what types of activities can occur in Code) an area.Mitigation actions that pertain to new or substantially redeveloped buildings can be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance. Administrative Services Administrative Services Department handles finance and purchasing,budgeting,risk management,information technology,and Administrative Department business licensing for the community.The department may be responsible for implementing mitigation actions related to the department's scope. These departments are responsible for planning and building related activities including issuing permits,conducting environmental Administrative and Town Planning,Building, review,preparing planning documents,and addressing housing issues.Mitigation activities related to planning and building can be Personnel and Public Works implemented by this department.Public Works Department is responsible for Town-owned infrastructure,including streets,bike Departments lanes and sidewalks.storm drains.traffic signals.and streetlights.Mitigation actions involving new or retrofitted public infrastructure, as well as those related to water conservation,fall within the purview of the Public Works Department Personnel Town Police Department The Tiburon Police Department conducts emergency preparedness activities for the community.Mitigation activities related to emergency re aredness can be implemented by the Police Department. Tiburon Fire Protection The Tiburon Fire District protects the town of Tiburon,the Town of Belvedere,and the surrounding area.The Fire District's Personnel District boundaries represent a diverse community with responsibility for commercial,residential,wildland I urban interface,and parts of the San Francisco Bay.The Fire Protection District supports implementation of mitigation actions that reduce the risk of wildfire. Financial General Fund General Fund monies come primarily through property taxes and sales taxes and fund the personnel resources above as well as capital improvement projects. Matching grant programs are one of the largest sources of funding dedicated to hazard mitigation and risk reduction.These include Financial State and Federal Grants State flood control grants that have been awarded and FEMA grants that are being pursued.These FEMA grant programs include Hazard Miti anon Grant Program HMGP,Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program(PDM),Flood Mitigation Assistance FMA The Get Ready program,developed in Marin County,is a free 2-hour course provided to the community.The course is designed to Training and Outreach Get Ready help residents plan for an emergency with a family plan,evacuation checklist,and strategies to keep residents and their families safe. htt s:llreadymarin.org/get-rgjqdL/) Training and Outreach Newsletter The Tiburon Talk newsletter gets emailed every other month and often contains articles about hazard preparedness and mitigation 180 APPENDIX R Town of Tiburon 181 APPENDIX S North Marin Water District Appendix S North Marin Water District North Marin Water District North Marin Water District (NMWD) was formed in April 1948 following voter approval under the California State law known as the County Water District Law (Division 12 of the California Water Code). NMWD primarily serves the City of Novato and surrounding unincorporated areas in Marin County, encompassing approximately 75 square miles. The Novato Service Area has approximately 20,750 active service connections serving approximately 24,000 dwelling units, as well as commercial, industrial and institutional customers. The estimated Novato Service Area population is 61,000. NMWD also provides service to several small improvement districts in the West Marin Service Area near the Pacific Ocean, via approximately 800 service connections. NMWD owns and operates Stafford Lake and the associated treatment plant, which provides approximately 20% of Novato's water. The lake lies four miles west of downtown Novato and collects runoff from 8.3 square miles of watershed property located upstream at the upper tributary reaches of Novato Creek. Water from Stafford Lake is drawn by the intake tower and fed by gravity or by pumping (dependin(T on the lake level) into the treatment plant located just below the dam. In addition to providing water supply for domestic needs and firefighting purposes, Stafford dam provides flood protection for the greater Novato area. The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has partnered with NMWD to share in the cost of obtaining additional flood liability insurance. Water from the Russian River via connection to the Sonoma County Water Agency's aqueduct provides the remaining 80% of the Novato Service Area supply of water. This water originates from both the Eel River and the Russian River watersheds. The water supply for the West Marin Service Area is derived from groundwater. NMWD maintains and operates approximately 340 miles of pipeline, 42 tanks totaling over 37 million gallons of storage, and associated pump stations, hydropneumatic systems, and regulator valves.NMWD sizes its storage tanks to meet operational, firefighting and emergency requirements. Storage requirements for both the Novato and West Marin Service Areas are updated on a 5- year cycle, and are based in part on input provided by Novato Fire Protection District and Marin County Fire. Ensuring water quality and protecting public health is one of NMWD's primary goals. Water quality data is routinely collected throughout the distribution systems and at water sources. 182 APPENDIX ,S North Marin Water District As NMWD's service area includes the City of Novato, the Vulnerability Analysis tables (M-1 through M-6) in Appendix M apply to NMWD as well. With some of unincorporated Marin County also part of their service area, some of the vulnerabilities summarized in Table S-9 Planning Mechanisms,Regulatory Tools,and Resources tables G-I through G-6 also apply to NMWD. Because both the City of Novato and unincorporated Marin are vulnerable to all hazards outlined in the main body ofthis MCM LHMP, NMWD is also considered to be vulnerable to all hazards: i.e. earthquake, flood, fire, tsunarni, landslide, and darn inundation. Table 4-2. Potential Common Mitigation Actions lists actions that NMWD and other participating agencies may employ, with the most likely actions including DAM-2, DAM-3, FLD-5, MLT-6, MLT-14, MLT-15, MLT-20, and TSU-1 (NMWD does not have a direct role in TSU-1, but Dillon Beach and other unincorporated Marin communities it serves are working to maintain TsunamiReady status). Additional details and jurisdiction-specific actions to be considered by NMWD are included in Table S-1 —Current and Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs. This is NMWD's first Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and therefore there are no prior mitigation actions to evaluate. Table S-1 -Current acid Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects and Programs Name Hazard(s) Potential Funding Source Timeline addressed Oceana Marin Treatment and Storage Pond Repair Storm(wind) Federal Grants 0-5 years Oceana Marin Force Main Replacement and Main Pump Station Storm(Flood/wind) Federal Grants 0-5 years Upgrade/Relocation Oceana Marin Cliff-sideSewerLining Storm (wind/coastal Federal Grants 0-5 years erosion Olema Domestic Water Pump Station Flood Protection Storm(flood) Federal Grants 0-5 years Creek Crossing Upgrades(Rush,Novato,Leveroni) Storm(flood) Federal Grants 0-5 years Stafford Dam Upgrades-Upstream Face Armoring,Accelerometers Storm(wind), Federal Grants 0-5 years earthquake 183 APPENDIX S North Marin Water District Table S-9 Planning Mechanisms, Regulatory Tools,and Resources Type of Resource Resource Name Ability to Support Mitigation and Potential for Improvement The Strategic Plan is the District's highest-level planning document.It represents the Board's direction for the future and the staff's work plan for implementing it.It identifies the agency's mission,vision,and values,while providing a set of goals and objectives that becomes a framework for all decision-making. The Plan is also a practical working tool that provides clear direction to the staff about the Board's goals and objectives,and Plan Strategic Plan 2018 includes a work plan developed by the staff to meet those goals and objectives.As such,it is referred to regularly as a guide to District actions during the period covered. To keep it fresh and provide opportunities for improvement,it should be updated every five years and rolled forward so that there is always a five-year guide to the future. Plan 5-year Master Plans NMWD uses Master Plans or Capital Improvement Plans for guiding infrastructure maintenance and upgrades of its systems grouped by service district such as Novato,West Marin and Oceana Marin. Policy Board of Directors North Marin Water District is an independent special district governed by a five-member Board of Directors elected at large for four-year terms. North Marin Water District is a public agency of the State of California established under the County Water District law (Division 12 of the California Water Code). Policies and regulations have been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Policy Policies&Regulations District pursuant to Water Code Section 31024 and establish the procedures under which the District operates,including the terms and conditions under which facilities will be installed and water will be supplied to users and the charges and rates for such service. The Administrative Department is comprised mprised of the Administrative Services,Consumer Services,Finance and Information Administrative and Administration I Finance System.Consumer Services is responsible for reading water meters,responding to customer calls for service and Personnel Department assistance with their water service,creation and mailing of water bills,and answering customer questions regarding their bill or water use.Finance is responsible for general accounting and budgeting,payroll,purchasing,financial investments,risk management and informations stems. The Engineering Department consists of a small professional and technical staff that oversees the planning,permitting, Administrative and design,construction and project management of water supply,treatment,transmission and distribution facilities necessary to Personnel Engineering serve NMWD's customers.Engineering functions for wastewater-related facilities are also provided by the Engineering Department to support the NMWD wastewater collection,treatment and disposal system in Oceana Marin(Dillon Beach area). The Construction/Maintenance Department has a variety of duties,principally related to the installation,repair and Administrative and replacement of water main pipelines,their appurtenances and performs all"underground"maintenance for the District.The Personnel Construction/Maintenance Construction/Maintenance Department also assists other departments to upkeep structures,grounds,storage tanks and pumping facilities Administrative and The Operations/Maintenance Department manages the supply,distribution and water quality for the City of Novato and the Personnel Operations I Maintenance West Marin communities,and performs all"above-ground"maintenance for the District Financial Combined Budget The budget of combined service areas pays for the District's operating expenses and comes from the revenue from water 184 APPENDIX S North Marin Water District sales. Financial Grants Federal,State,and local grants offer opportunities to invest in mitigation improvements that would otherwise not be feasible or prioritized. Training and Outreach Social Media NMWD is endeavorin to increase the use of social media for public outreach materials. Training and Outreach Staff Training and Professional NMWD supports staff involvement in local,regional,and national water industry organizations including payment of Development subscription dues and attendance at conferences. 185 Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON March 6, 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: Al - 1 Tiburon, CA 94920 STAFF O . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Consider Reappointment of Commissioners and Appointments to Fill Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions Reviewed By: �� A511 Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY The Town Council appoints board and commissioners to staggered,4-year terms on the Town's boards, commissions and committees.Most terms expire annually on February 28 of each year.Tonight the Council will consider making reappointments``to,board or commission members who seek another term, or appointing new applicants to any open seats. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Consider reappointment of any board or commission members;whose terms expired on 2/28/19. 2. Consider appointment of new applicants to the open seats. 3. Direct staff to continue accepting applications for any seats that remain vacant. BACKGROUND At the .January 16. 2019 regular Town Council meeting, Mayor Kulik announced the current and pending vacancies on Town boards, commissions and committees in the coming year. Pursuant to Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure), the Town Clerk published a Notice of Current & Pendine Vacancies on Boards & Commissions (Exhibit 1) in the Ark(1/9. 1/16 and 1/23 editions), and posted it at Town Hall, the Belvedere-Tiburon Library, and on the Town's website. This notice serves to inform the public of the current and pending vacancies and invites applications for these positions. The Town Clerk contacted all the current board and commission members whose terms were set to expire on 2/28/19, and several of them notified the Town of their interest in seeking reappointment to another term (Exhibit 2). The terms of the lollowinu, board and commission members expired on February 28, 2019: • Belvedere-'Fibercon Joint Recreation Committee (The Ranch)—Jerry Riessen (seeks reappointment) TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE I OF 4 V2iii:h • Belvedere-TibUrOn Joint Recreation Committee (The Ranch)-Jane Jacobs (does not seek reappointment) • Building Code Appeals Board -Mark Swanson (seeks reappointment) • Design Review Board -John Kricensky (does not seek reappointment) • Design Review Board-Linda Emberson (seeks reappointment) • Heritage & Arts Commission-Victoria Fong (seeks reappointment) • Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission (POST)-Jim Wood (resigned 12/11/18) • Planning Commission -Erica Williams (seeks reappointment) Other Existing Vacancies There are several boards and commissions on which there are already existing vacancies. One is the Town's Building Code Appeals Board, a five-member board that has had an open seat since 2015. The Heritage &Arts Commission also has one existing vacancv since the resignation of Commissioner Lily Smith on 7/18/18. The Town has been seeking applicants to fill this seat since that time. Upcoming Vacancies Later in 2019 The term of Belvedere-Tiburon Library Trustee Tom Grain will expire at the end of June 2019. The Town Council will consider this appointment in Jllne/July. ANALYSIS It is regular practice of the Town Council to consider making their annual appointments at the First regular Town Council meeting in March (the first meeting following the expiration of terms), to minimize the impact of open seats on the Town's boards and commissions. However, the Council may only make these appointments if all interested applicants have been interviewed. There have been scheduling conflicts with one remaining applicant for the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (The Ranch), so the Council will interview this applicant and consider the second appointment to the Committee at a later date. Of the remaining seats, the Council has interviewed three (3) additional applicants seeking consideration for appointment. Their applications are attached as Exhibits 3-5. The applicants could be eligible for any of the open seats, but have indicated their first preference of appointment as follows: • Darvin Hosseinyoun -Planning Commission • Chuck Hornbrook- Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission • F.rika Stahlman — De.simn Review Rnard Tom,—,ht's Appointments TONN\ OF T1BURON Pact:2 OF 4 .....:I i "� 'i?nL, Tonight, the Town Council will consider reappointment of board or commission members seeking another term and/or appointment of new members to any of the open seats (except one on the Ranch Committee). The Council may reappoint all current board and commission members seeking reappointment by one motion. if all current board or commission members are reappointed, the Council should consider the above applicants for the following vacancies: • Building Code Appeals Board (I remaining vacancy) • Design Review Board (1 remaining vacancy) • Heritage & Arts Commission (I remaining vacancy) • Parks. Open Space and Trails Commission (1 remaining vacancy) The Council may appoint the interviewed applicants to all, some, or none of these remaining seats. 11-vacancies remain. the Council should instruct the Town Clerk to reopen the application period(s) and accept applications and schedule interviews with the Council for any of the remaining open seats until the seats are filled. A summary of the possible actions is provided in the figure below. Reappoint Incumbent And/Or The Ranch Jerry Riessen No action at this time. (2 vacancies) Building Code Appeals Board Mark Swanson Consider New Appointment (2 vacancies) Accept More Applications Design Review Board Linda Emberson Consider New Appointment (2 vacancies) Accept More Applications Heritage & Arts Victoria Fong Consider New Appointment (2 vacancies) Accept More Applications POST Consider New Appointment (1 vacancy) Accept More Applications Planning Commission Erica Williams Consider New Appointment (1 vacancy) Accept More Applications FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt fi-om the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: TowN or Tit;t tioN PAG,E 3 or 4 I�IrcI10. :�011) 1. Consider reappointment of board and commission members that seek reappointment, including: a. Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee—Jerry Riessen b. Building Code Appeals Board— Mark Swanson c. Design Review Board—Linda Emberson d. Heritage & Arts Commission —Victoria Fong e. Planning Commission—Erica Williams 2. Consider appointment (by separate Council motions) of the following individuals to any of the remaining open seats: Darvin Hosseinyotm, Chuck I lornbrook, Erika Stahlman. 3. Direct staff to continue to accept applications and schedule interviews for any remaining vacancies at a future Town Council meeting. Exhibit(s): 1. Notice of Pending Vacancies on Town Board,Commissions&Committees -January 2019 2. Emails from Board or Commission members concerning reappointment 3. Darvin Hosseinyoun Application Materials 4. Chuck Hornbrook Application Materials 5. Erika Stahlman Application Materials Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk TOWN OP'TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 C:4f f TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES on Town Boards, Commissions & Committees January 2019 BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (THE RANCH) BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY BOARD OF TRUSTEES BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION XX XXX: XX The following vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees are current or pending in 2019. Pursuant to Resolution No. 16-2007, the Tiburon Town Council will conduct interviews of interested applicants beginning in February 2019. Current commissioners whose terms are expiring may seek reappointment for another term; commissioners who have served terms of less than two years are eligible for automatic re- appointment. Applicants should be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the time. interest and desire to serve on the board or commission, including attendance at regular monthly meetings and other activities. Some commissions are comprised of residents of both Tiburon and Belvedere, or the Tiburon Peninsula. Applications can be obtained at Town Hall (1505 Tiburon Boulevard) or online at -v�.��-�.townol-tibwon.or��. You may also contact Town Cleric Lea Stefani at lstefiani(� toNv�noftiburon.ort or (415)435-7377 for more information. Application Deadline: February 14,2019 at 5:00 P.M. EXHIBIT 1 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES ON BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES JANUARY 2019 BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (THE RANCH) Appointee Appointed Term Expires Jerry Riessen Oct. 1992, 1999, 2003., 2007, 2/28/2019 201 1. 2013. 2015 Jane Jacobs Nov. 2008;201 1, 2013. 2015 2/28/2019 BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Appointee Appointed Term Expires Torn Gram November 2012; 2015 6/30/2019 BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD Appointee Appointed Term Expires Vacant since 2015 2/28/2020 Mark Swanson February 2012; 2015 2/28/2019 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Appointee App ointed Term Expires John Kricensky March 2009; 2011, 2015 2/28/2019 Linda Emberson July 2010; 2015 2/28/2019 HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION Appointee Appointed Term Expires Vacant since 2018 2/28/2020 Victoria Fong July 2015 2/28/2019 PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION Appointee Appointed Term Expires Vacant since 2018 2/28/2019 PLANNING COMMISSION Appointee Appointed Term Expires Erica Williams May 2014; 2015 2/28/2019 '.1ppointees who have served terms(?1'2 yeors or less are eligible for automatic reappointment **Ao set term limit Copies to: The Ark(for publication on 1/9, 1116 and 1/23/2019) and:Marin lnth pendent Journal Votice Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere'Tiburon Library From: Jerry Riessen To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:Term Expiration-Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Date: Tuesday,January 22,2019 10:44:43 AM Hi Lea, I would be honored to be reappointed. I believe it is a critical tirne to have experience on the board as be are seeking a replacement Director for Cathleen. Thanks, Jerry On Jan 22, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Lea Stefani <Istefania townoftiburon.org> wrote: Dear Jerry: My records indicate that your current term on the Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee will expire on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. Please let me know by February 7, 2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Thanks, Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 Istefani(@townoftiburon.org EXHIBIT 2 From: lane To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:Term Expiration-Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Date: Tuesday,January 22, 2019 11:17:22 AM Dear Lee, After serving on the Ranch board for eight years, I have decided to not seek another term. I was happy to serve. Jane Jacobs. Sent fi-om my Whone On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Lea Stefani <Istefan i0�townoft iburon.ora> wrote: Dear Jane: My records indicate that your current term on the Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee will expire on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. Please let me know by February 7, 2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Thanks, Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 IstefaniCoPtowooftiburon.org From: Mark Swanson To: Lea Stefani Subject: RE:Term Expiration-Building Code Appeals Board Date: Tuesday,January 22,2019 3:39:21 PM Lea, I am interested in pursuing another term. The only request I have is that if I am granted another term, I receive a Town of Tiburon hat. Thankyou! Mark Mark Swanson Jamba Construction 415.342.0096 cell 415.435.4481 office 415.435.4491 fax From: Lea Stefani <Istefani@townoftiburon.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:55 AM To: Mark Swanson <mark@jambaconstruction.com> Subject: Term Expiration - Building Code Appeals Board Dear Mark: My records indicate that your current term on the Building Code Appeals Board will expire on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. Please let me know by February 7, 2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Thanks, Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 Istefani Cb)townoftiburon.org From: John Kricensky To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:Term Expiration-Design Review Board Date: Friday,January 25,2019 1:06:59 PM Hi Lea, Sad to say, I will not be seeking another term on the Design Review Board. I have enjoyed my 10 years on the Board but due to some personal reasons, I must bow out. John John A. Kricensky From: Lea Stefani <Istefani@townoftiburon.org> Date: Tuesday,January 22, 2019 at 9:53 AM To: John Kricensky<jal<plan@comcast.net> Subject: Term Expiration - Design Review Board Dear John: My records indicate that your current term on the Design Review Board will expire on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. Please let me know by February 7, 2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Thanks, Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 IstefaniCn)townoftiburon org From: Linda Emberson To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:Term Expiration-Design Review Board Date: Tuesday,January 22,2019 12:03:00 PM Dear Lea, Yes, please convey my interest to the Town in persuing an appointment to another term on the DRB. If you need a more formal letter I can send one. Tell me who to address it to, Town Council? Thanks Linda Emberson On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:53 AM, Lea Stefani <lstefanintownoft iburon.orC7> wrote: Dear Linda: My records indicate that your current term on the Design Review Board will expire on February 28, 2019. t Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear frorn you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act t accordingly. Please let me know by February 7, 2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Thanks, Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 Istefani «xownoftiburon.or<r From: Victoria Fonn To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:Term Expiration-Heritage&Arts Commission Date: Tuesday,January 22,2019 3:21:19 PM Dear Lca. Thant:you for your notice and follow-up to our conversation on January I Oth. Yes, I am interested in serving another term on the Heritage and Arts Commission. Please let me if time is needed for an interview. Appreciate yow•service and assistance. Reeards. Victoria 415.435.4676 -------------------------------------------- On TUC, 1/22/19,Lea Stefani <Istefani ci)townoltiburon.org>wrote: Subject:Term Expiration-Heritage&Arts Commission To: "Victoria Fong" <vtbngtib'q,pacbell.net> Date:Tuesday,January 22,2019,9:53 AM Dear Victoria: My records indicate that V01-11'current term on the Heritage&Arts Commission will expire on February 28,2019. Pursuant to Town Council policy("Appointments Procedure"),the Town %%oulCI like to hear firom you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly.Please let me know by February 7.2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon conununity. Thanks_ Lea Lea Stel'ani fo\\n Clerk I "town of Tiburon From: Erica Williams To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:Term Expiration-Planning Commission Date: Wednesday,January 23,2019 10:19:11 PM Thanks for the update, Lea. Yes, I love the planning commission and would be very interested in seeking reappointment. On another note, I gave my original ethics certificates to Kyra to give to you. My new job keeps me in the city from Sam to bpm & it's been tough to find the time to drop them off. Sorry for the delay! Thanks, Erica From: Lea Stefani Sent:Tuesday,January 22, 2019 9:53:00 AM To: Erica Williams Subject: Term Expiration - Planning Commission Dear Erica: My records indicate that your current term on the Planning Commission will expire on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"),the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or email will do. I will advise the Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. Please let me know by February 7, 2019. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Thanks, Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 Istefani(@townoftiburon.org Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 ' I tefani@townoftiburon.orf; 415,435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name: Darvin Hosseinyoun Date: 1/22/2019 Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order.- 2 rder:2 Planning Commission 4 Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. 1 Design Review Board 3 Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board 10 Heritage & Arts Commission 6 Disaster Advisory Council 5 Bel-Tib Library Board 8 Commission on Aging 7 Affordable Housing 9 Building Code Appeals Board EXHIBIT 3 96 Mount Tiburon Road Address: Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon, CA, 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: (415)-320-3801 Email: darvinhoss@gmail.com I'm interested in these areas because I believe I can be the most help in these areas with the skillsets and experience I have garnered. Planning is of particular interest because it involves creativity, vision, and real estate knowlege, which was something I studied extensively. Design review is also fascinating because it helps expose you to different ideas and perspectives of what people in the community are seeking approval for which can be not only be an invaluable learning process but an insight into what people are passionate about. I recently graduated from New York University (NYU) with Cum Laude distinction. I studied real estate at my university and complimented this with numerous internships. I continue to apply these coursework learnings as a full-time valuations analyst at Prologis. Prologis, is a real estate investment trust (REIT), that focuses on high-barrier and high-growth markets with an emphasis on logistics and this exposure has quickly developed my thought process, critical thinking, and accountability as I'm being tasked to evaulate a sizeable portfolio with a plethora of assets. I believe this background will bring forth both a healthy concept of knowledge along with the ability to bring forth a different perspective. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials Darvin Hosseinyoun 96 Mount Tiburon,CA_94920•416-320-3801•dhosscincou�iS.com EDUCATION New York University,Nev, York,NY Graduation:Mav,2018 Schack Institute of Real Estate Major GPA:3.94 Bachelor of Science in Real Estate Cumulative GPA:3.76 Honors Received:Cum Laude ACTIVITIES Kappa Sigma Fraternity:Previous social chair,intramural chair.and volunteer Chair Aug 2014 to Present Best Buddies:Nonprofit,volunteering position Aug 2016 to Present Real Estate Club Aug 2014 to Present COURSEWORK Commercial Lease Analysis Real Estate Principles CalCnlnS •Real Estate Finance Financial Modeling Microeconomics •Real Estate Accounting&Taxation Real Estate Law Real Estate Valuation •Intro to Risk and Portfolio Management •Real Estate Development PrOCCSS Macroeconornics Real Estate Market Analysis •Real Estate Capital Markets Algebra and Calculus AWARDS AND SCHOLARSHIPS New York University Honors Scholar Aug 2014 to.lune 2018 New York University Dean's List Aug 2016 to.lune 2018 California Scholarship Federation Aug 2010 to.lune 2014 EXPERIENCE Prologis,San Francisco,CA Sep 2018 to Present Valuations Analyst • Supporting the valuation team in preparing,reviewing.and presenting models across markets wing discounted cash flow, residual analysis,and income capitalization methods • Interacting with regional operating teams and market otticers to understand local market trends and property specific characteristics • Participating in market research of comparables for quarterly tracking.and providing feedback]or determination of market rents,growth rates,cap rates,value trends and risk tactors • Providing 3rd party appraisers with property information_revicv,ing appraisals for reasonableness,accuracy,and consistency, and assisting in providing feedback on draft appraisal reports • Assisting in the preparation of quarterly Investment Committee reports summarizing portfolio results,value changes,and the group's outlook based on the market trends • Providing internal valuations and analytical assistance to regional teams and lot strateene decisions and acquisition/disposition efforts,as needed • Assisting in ongoing development of the Valuations group.inCludine the development of appropriate applications and processes,and the enhancement of our data mining capabilities Equiventure Capital LLC.New York,NY Nov 2016 to Aug 2017 Assistant Financial Analyst • Flelped the vetting,underwriting,and analysis of numerous real estate projects ranging tiom domestic to international locations • Inspected numerous components ofeach proposal including.but not limited w.competitive properties_proposed sources and uses offrmds=site plan.timeline.and demographic research • Exposed to a wide variety of corn mercial projects such as retail.ground up.rCSidcntial Condominium:and mixed-use • Aided the JD Manager with the lending process and helped decipher prudent investments SKILLS Trilingual:Spanish,Farsi,and English Proficient in Microsoft Word.PowerPoint.Excel-and Outlook Argus:Enterprise and Ueveloper Proficient in Dropbox_Salesforce,and Yardi Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Bivd., Tiburon, CA 94928 r; Isefaniowr�oftiburon.org W-AMEMMEM 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name. Charles Hornbrook Date. 2/13/19 Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: 3 Planning Commission 1 Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board 2 Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code AppealsBoard - EXHIBIT 4 Address: 1 707 Vistazo Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 4159027762 Email: clhornbrook@gmail.com For POST, I have been a user of the Tiburon parks and trails for over 18 years, long before I ever moved to Tiburon. When living in San Francisco, I was also an avid supporter of the SF parks financially through the Parks Alliance and through local clean up days at the numerous parks. Parks, Open Spaces & Trails are critical for local communities to meet, play, exercise, commute and other activities & I want to give back to them. The joint recreation board is critical for me because I am consumer of the Ranch's services, primarily through my nine-year old son. We started using the Ranch, before we moved to Tiburon. Our son attended summer camp, and just loved it. He continues to do so in the summer and after school. Recreation opportunities to all of Bel-Tib's residences are critical for a vibrant, healthy & diverse community. Finally, the planning commission is an interest as it guides the town on what our community will be in the future for all the residences and business owners. A vibrant well thought-out community is valuable for everyone now and future residences of the Town. I had the privilege of being on the Public Enrichment Education Fund Community Advisory Committee (PEEFCAC) in San Francisco, which advised the school board on how to use funds that came directly from the city budget for direct student enrichment. The PEEFCAC consisted of appointed teachers, principals, parents and citizens of diverse backgrounds. We needed to actively listen, be patient, understand our role and advise. I was in this role for 3 years, even after my son left the SF Unified School District. I had a very public role managing PG&E's customer solar program from 2007-09. In this role I had to be the face of the utility, manage a diverse team, and provide consensus and advice to management on very visible issues. This role included holding public forums for community feedback, and actively listening to all opinions. Finally, having worked professionally for over 25 years, I have been part of teams and organizations where I needed to actively listen, understand my scope, build consensus 'S nd cn-rn r- tn- rla c IS Irani nnmmi ate lAFFe;Ct 1;, �.1.. .J. -" ri--1 I'-e n'a41_ u�iu vvr�i.. w uv�1.:�ivl ro, \.v111111uilii,G lc CIICI.0 VCM, UJe UIZIUICULl allU U QI.I.V III I ICI IJIC. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. Chuck Hornbrook 1707 Vistazo St. West Tiburon, CA 94920 February 13, 2019 Tiburon Town Council: Attached is my application and resume for consideration for openings on three Commissions; 1) POST, 2) Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board and 3) Planning Commission. If the Council has other gaps or needs I'd be happy to learn about these and discuss them during the interview process. When I read about the openings in the Ark, I touched base with members I knew on the three aforementioned commissions and understood that there is a vacancy at POST and the possibility of new seats on Recreation and Planning. I briefly mention my interest in these three and qualifications in the space available on the application. My wife,son, dog and I moved to Tiburon in August of 2017 after living in San Francisco since 1998. In San Francisco and now, I have stayed engaged with my community as part of local neighborhood groups, engagement in park, recreation, education and other non-profits. Generally being neighborly and acting locally. Once moving to Tiburon it was no different,getting to know the neighbors, being asked to join the local neighborhood board, attending some Commission meetings,joining an open space non-profit, contributing to the Reed foundation, coaching soccer and basketball to 4th graders and being the official scorer to little league baseball games. I believe in the overused term of civic engagement and helping out my community,whether it is a resident who has lived here for 40 years or a tourist on a rented bicycle looking for Sam's. Listening well, supporting people, and being engaged, present,thoughtful and observant are traits that have served me well in my professional, civic and volunteer activities and I hope to contribute these to the available commissions or in other areas that the Council believes are needed. I look forward to meeting you all. Sincerely Chuck Hornbrook 415 902 7762 Clhornbrook@gmail.com CHUCK HORNBROOK 1707 1/istazo West, Tiburon, C,4 (=115) 902 7762 chz-ick'c hornbrookco.com Professional Experience KEVALA—An Electrical Grid Analytics SaaS Company,San Francisco, CA OCT.2018—PRESENT Senior Vice President • Leading customer acquisition and customer success efforts for Company's B2B solution. • Establishing processes and systems to execute at scale customer success/support and customer acquisition. • Reporting to Board on results and collaborating with executive team on priorities. STEM—An Al Energy Optimization Company, Millbrae, CA JAN.2016—SEP7'.2018 Director of'Sales Operations • Lead team of 9 providing sales support, contracts, business operations, commission development and execution, deal review, Salesforce management, referral program management, BI and sales forecasting. • Managed weekly deal review process for exception pricing with executives and sales team. • Delivered over 1000% increase in sales bookings over two years with only 60% increase in head count through increasing sales velocity, automation. and improved communication and execution. • Developed new commission structure to motivate sales team, decrease CAC, reduce risk, and improve post sale execution. Result was 30%reduction in CAC YoY. • Lead cross functional teams to improve hand offs between sales, installation and customer success to increase cash flow from installation of distributed storage services. WAYPOIN"r BUILDING GRoUP-A CRE SaaS Company, San Francisco, CA Nov.2014—DEC.2015 Vice President, Operations • Led utility business development and managing team delivering energy efficiency consulting solutions. • Grew booked revenue by 60%year over year(YoY)and established national partnerships. • Establishing processes and procedures using cloud based applications to meet customer requirements. ICF INTERNATIONAL,A CONSULTING PIRD�I,San Francisco, CA SEPT.2013—OCT.2014 Principal and Director of'Distributed Energy Reso117'CCS • Established ICFs national Distributed Energy Resource (DER) practice, chartered to develop consulting and analytical service to commercial clients, US electric utilities, DER commercial developers. • Led business development and projects targeting commercial, utilities and government clients. • Presented at con ferences/webinars highlighting opportunities in the US energy market and ICF services. ITRON,(NASDAQ:ITRI),Oakland, CA Nov.2009-SEPT.2013 Senior Product Manager—Smart Grid Neer Product Development and Consulting Services • Business and product development for the Company's smart grid products for distributed energy resources, street lights and other product solutions for the electric utility markets. • Led Company's solar meter product development partnerships, marketing, support strategy, distribution and sales execution for the utility and non-utility markets. • Developed and evangelized Itron's business case financial model used in customer sales and consulting engagements. Model monetized operational, energy reduction, and reliability benefits from grid modernization efforts. Led engagements using model with utilities located in the US, Mexico and Asia. • Led consulting team efforts on providing analysis and impact of distributed generating resources on electrical grid for utility and regulatory customers. PACIFIC GAS& Et.I:CTRIC, San Francisco, CA JUN.2007-Nov.2009 Senior]VIunager, Solar and Customer Energy Efficiencv Oct. 2007—Nov. 2009 • Led PG&E's customer distributed generation programs. Organization consisted of 36 people accountable for customer success, implementation and management of'PG&E's $176M per year delivery of financial incentives. • Established process workflows, metrics and cross functional teams for improved execution. • Supported and presented to senior vice presidents and C-level executives on fuel cell and solar technologies and customer adoption of distributed solar PV generation. Page 2—Charles Hornbrook Resume PACIFIC GAs&ELECTRIC,San Francisco, CA Supervisor, Sustainable Connnunities Jun. 2007—Oct. 2007 • Developed strategic plan and built internal consensus with team on new product concept integrating energy efficiency, renewable resources, demand response and related utility services. EFI,Foster City, CA(NASDAQ:EFII) AUG. 1998-OCT.2006 World Wide Director, Customer Success and Business Development Feb. 2005—Oct. 2006 • Developed strategic direction and led global team of 40 consultants and support engineers located in 6 offices in Europe, Japan and North America • Accountable for delivering services and customer support using Salesforce across different sites. • Created and negotiated multi-year service agreements generating over$13 million in revenue. • Created and led customer quarterly review of post launch products addressing customer success items. Senior Manager, Services and Operations Development Feb. 2002—Feb. 2005 • Collaborated with stakeholders and established Company's first global service levels, product life-cycle support policies, and operational processes for customer support and services for offices in US and Amsterdam. • Led the development and use of Company's first "Product Dashboard" across engineering and services. • Over 2-year period reduced customer response times by 66%and resolution performance by 75%. Senior Manager, Product Marketing Sept. 2000—Feb. 2002 • Collaborated with executive management to develop and define product strategy and marketing plans for solutions targeted for corporate segment, representing approximately 40% of company revenue. • Managed product and feature development and user interface design for EFI's document management,print driver, scanning and office productivity software applications. Manager, Finance and Manufacturing Operations Aug. 1998—Sept. 2000 • Led merger and acquisition valuation team for$146 million successful acquisition of Splash Tech. • Identified and implemented reduction of royalty expenditures (over $2 million in avoided costs) in FY 1999 and FY 2000 by reviewing product configurations and contractual obligations. Education UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, MI Ross School of Business School of Environment and Sustainability Joint Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and Environmental Science(MS), 1998 Master's Thesis: "Tools and Implementation Framework for Environmental Cost Accounting". HOBART COLLEGE, Geneva, NY Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Economics. 1990 Operational Tools Salesforce, Insightly, Insight Squared, SalesHood. Atlassian Confluence and J1RA/Agile development process Community and Other Activities • Community Advisory Group SFSU Estuary & Ocean Science Center. 2019 • Treasurer—TRUST—Tiburon-Belvedere Residents United to Save Our Trails,2018-19 • Board Director—Tiburon Hill Haven Neighborhood Association. 2018-19 • Head Coach Tiburon Recreational Soccer and CYO Basketball —4"' grade boys. 2018-19 • Active contributor—San Francisco Parks Alliance. 2012-17 • Treasurer Marin Preparatory School PAC, 2016-17 • Appointed by School Board President to SF School District Public Education Enrichment Fund Community AdvisorN Committee. 2013-15,Secretary 2014 Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 stefani to r�oftiburo� 415.4353377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name:Erika Stahlman Date: 02.04.19 Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order.- Planning rder:Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. 1 Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board EXHIBIT 5 Address: 136 Sugarloaf Drive Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon, CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 310.591.0936 Email: erika@erikastahiman.com I recently moved back to the Bay Area and feel strongly about giving back to the local community. It would be an honor to serve on the Design Review Board and play a role in safe guarding the magnificent example of natural and architectural beauty, Tiburon represents. I grew up in the Coachella Valley, surrounded by some of the world's finest examples of mid-century architecture. It was incredibly inspiring and informed my own design aesthetic and language. The impact each home had on the landscape and community was very evident to me. The importance of being respectful to local surroundings is a lesson I exercise in all the projects I undertake in my own work. I have since lived and worked in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Paris, Beijing and Argentina. In each of these cities, I have made it a priority to ensure the design aesthetic is in harmonv with the local environment. 13 I am an Interior Architect and Designer with over 25 years of experience working in Industry. I established my own Interior Design and Architecture Studio, Erika Stahlman International, twelve years ago for which I am the Principle. We have completed numerous high end private residences around the world and in the United States. I am a California native and completed my undergraduate at FIDM here in the Bay area in 1993, where I majored in Interior Design. Prior to opening my own Design Studio, I worked for several major architectural and design studios in California and New York City, including Clodagh and Irene Corzine. This will be my second time volunteering for a City Planning position. I previously worked on the citv plannina council in Palm Desert. I found it incrediblv rewarding and stimulatina. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials ccnstitute a public record and may be publicized in - their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. ERIKA STAHLMAN RESUME ERIKA STAHLMAN INTERNATIONAL NEW YORK, NY 2007-PRESENT Interior Design/Interior Architect/Owner •70,000 Sq. Ft. Compound Beijing interior architecture +design + art consultation • 3,200 Sq. Ft.Town House Brooklyn interior architecture+design •2,000 Sq. Ft. Condo Brooklyn interior design •OMG Pop office New York, NY interior design •3,400 Sq. Ft. Town House Brooklyn interior+ landscape design •3,600 Sq. Ft. Town House Brooklyn interior+landscape design • 88 Morningside Condo Development New York amenities spaces+ marketing models •Toren Condo Development New York amenities spaces+marketing models •Oil Hotel Buenos Aires concept design +location scouting •The Hideaway Long Beach NY Concept Design+location scouting CURATED 2006-2007 Creative Director •West Park Condo Development New York FF+E, space planning, amenities spaces, rendering coordination • 88 Morningside Condo Development New York FF+E, space planning, amenities spaces, rendering coordination •50 West Condo Development New York marketing models •220 West 111 Condo Development New York marketing models •Savoy Condo Development New York marketing models MICHAEL JOHNSTON DESIGN GROUP 2002-2006 Interior Designer • 3,200 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design •2,600 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design • 1,200 Sq, Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design • 1,800 Sq. Ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design CLODAGH 2001-2002 Project Director • 12,000 sq.ft. Compound Woodland Hills California interior architecture+design • 7,000 sq. ft. Condo New York City interior architecture+design • 5,000 Sq. Ft. Compound Martha's Vineyard interior architecture+design •2,6000 Sq. Ft. Private Residence interior architecture+design • 1,200 Sq. Ft. Private Residence interior architecture+design COLLEGE 1990-1993 Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, Interior Design,AA VOLUNTEER 1989-1990 Palm Desert Planning Commission 136 SUGARLOAF DRIVE TIBURON,CA 94920 310.591.0936 erika@erikstahtman.com 1. TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting f Marc 6, 2019 r ;� 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: A1-2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Consider Acceptance of the Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report for Calendar Year 2018. Reviewed By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY Town Council reviews the draft annual report, make any desired revisions and accept the Annual Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S), Staff recotntnends the Town Council accepts the Annual General Plan Implementation Report for Calendar Year 2018. BACKGROUND Government Code Section 65400(a)(2) requires that an annual report be prepared by the planning agency of each town or city, which is then forwarded to the appropriate legislative body, on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation. In Tiburon, the "planning agency" is the Planning Commission. The statute also requires a progress report on meeting the community's regional fair share housing allocations. State law also requires that the annual report is forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and to the Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR) by April 1 of each year. ANALYSIS Attached Exhibit 1 sets forth the Tiburon 2020 General Plan programs and describes progress made by the Town in implementing those programs. Please note the Housing Element portion is formatted differently from the others, and has an expanded format this year as required by new state law, in order to comply with specific reporting requirements for that Element. For example, projects are now tracked at all stages of development, from initial proposal to final certificate of occupancy. Progress and commentary added or amended for Calendar Year (CY) 2018 is underlined for easy identification in the-case-of all Elements. Tiburon 2020 as-a-planning document has held up very well over the years, but within the next year or two, a comprehensive March 6,2019 updating should be started. Additional funding for that task is set aside each year, with a current projected account balance of$332,000 as of July 1, 2019 in the long-range planning reserve fund. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission reviewed the draft annual report at its February 13, 2019 regular meeting and recommended acceptance to the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council accepts the Annual General Plan Implementation Report for Calendar Year 2018. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report for Calendar Year 2018 dated March 2019. _.. .. ........................_ _. Annual General Plan Implementation Progress Report Tiburon 2020 Calendar Year 2018 Reviewed by Planning Commission 02/13/2019 Accepted by Town Council 03/06/2019 Introduction On September 7, 2005, the Town Council adopted a new General Plan, Tiburon 2020. This Plan contained a planning horizon for the Year 2020, by which time it is anticipated that a comprehensive update of entire General Plan will ensue. This annual report is the fourteenth performed since that adoption. This report generally reviews progress on implementing programs contained within Tiburon 2020 during the Calendar Year 2018. The purposes of this annual report are to: 1. Provide information regarding how the General Plan is being implemented with respect to its adopted implementation programs. 2. Identify any approved or needed amendments to the General Plan. 3. Provide information as to specific actions taken and ongoing strategies and practices to implement the General Plan. 4. Provide information regarding the Town's progress in meeting its fair share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove governmental constraints. The Annual Report is organized by the eight elements in the General Plan, with a list of each implementing program and the status of that program, in the order that the element and implementing program appears in the General Plan. The eight (8) elements of Tiburon 2020 are as follows: Land Use Open Space & Conservation Parks & Recreation Safety Downtown Noise Circulation Housing Per state requirements, the Housing Element reporting follows a prescribed format that is different than the format used for other elements, and has been augmented this year pursuant to new state reporting requirements. The most notable change is that housing projects are now tracked at all stages of development, from application submittal to final/certificate of occupancy. The table below summarizes the information that will be reported to the State, as reflected in the tables prescribed by Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). EXHIBIT 1 Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Town Council Draft 3/06/2019 Page 1 SUMMARY OF NEW HOUSING UNITS CALENDAR YEAR 2018 APN STREET ADDRESS UNIT TYPE AFFORDABILITY STATUS CATEGORY 1 038-031-12 5025 Paradise Drive ADU Moderate Final Inspection 2 055-261-08 3 Las Palmas Way ADU Low Building Permit Issued 3 039-290-02 10 Via Paraiso West ADU Above-Moderate Building Permit Issued 4 038-431-03 337 Blackfield Drive ADU Above-Moderate Building Permit Issued 5 058-231-24 3 Berke Court ADU Above-Moderate Completed Entitlement 6 038-081-02 127 Taylor Road SFD Above-Moderate Completed Entitlement 7 039-061-96 5 Trestle Glen Circle SFD Above-Moderate Completed Entitlement 8 059-071-51 275 Diviso Street SFD Above-Moderate Building Permit Issued 9 058-301-47 77 Round Hill Road SFD Above-Moderate Building Permit Issued 10 058-261-19 96 Mount Tiburon Court SFD Above-Moderate Final Inspection/ C of O The Town adopted a comprehensive update of its Housing Element on August 20, 2014. HCD certified the Housing Element as "in compliance" on September 5, 2014. The next Housing Element update is due in 2023. A comprehensive update of the Circulation Element was adopted by the Council on February 3, 2016. Relatively minor amendments have been approved to each of the other six General Plan elements since their original adoption in 2005. The following tables contain a program-by-program status report on all of the General Plan implementing programs in the currently-adopted Tiburon General Plan 2020. Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Town Council Draft 3/06/2019 Page 2 Implementing Lead Current CY2017 CY2018 Program # Program Summary Dept. Priority Status Status Description of Activity Land Use Element LU-a The Town shall periodically review and, if appropriate, revise CDD High Completed; Completed; All high priority amendments to the Municipal Code to achieve consistency with the new General its Municipal Code and other regulations to reflect the goals, Ongoing Ongoing Plan were adopted in 2006. Lower priority amendments were adopted in 2007 and 2008. Final policies, densities, intensities and the land use designations of consistency amendments were incorporated into the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update this General Plan which was adopted by the Town Council on March 17, 2010. In 2016, the Town completed or commenced municipal code amendments involving zoning ordinance provisions, firearms regulation, water-efficient landscaping, building and construction code updates, electric bicycles, accessory and junior accessory dwelling units, and electric vehicle charging stations. In 2017,the Town Council adopted a comprehensive update of the Subdivision Ordinance incorporating numerous General Plan goals and policies into the review process. In 2018, the Town Council amended the parking provisions of the zoning ordinance to provide more flexibility in decision- making and to reflect trends in parking demand in Downtown Tiburon and nationwide LU-b The Town shall revise the Zoning Map as necessary to achieve CDD High Completed; Completed; Ordinances 491 N.S. and 493 N.S. adopted in 3/2006 and 4/2006, respectively, completed high consistency with the General Plan Ongoing Ongoing priority rezonings; lower priority zoning map amendments were completed as part of comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, which was adopted by the Town Council on March 17, 2010. In 2016, Town staff began work with MarinMap personnel to update the Town's various digital maps from the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to reflect boundary changes, flood map changes, and other changes over time. In 2017, digital map updates were completed for several maps, including Zoning, Planned Developments, General Plan Land Use, Secured Open Space, Peninsula Parks, Downtown Property Ownership, Homeowner Association boundaries, and several other General Plan Diagrams. Following the extensive mapping work performed in 2017 no substantive map updatingactivity ctivity was necessary in 2018. LU-c The Town shall periodically revise its application forms, CDD High Completed; Completed; All CDD application forms reviewed and revised by July 2006;procedures were revised as part of processing procedures, and development review procedures as Ongoing Ongoing comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, which was implemented in April, 2010. This is an necessary to reflect and implement the goals and policies of ongoing process. In 2012, application forms were developed for chicken and bee-keeping, this General Plan temporary use permits, flood variance applications, and applications for reasonable accommodation. In 2016, all forms were updated and revised. The number of application forms and the amount of informational material on the website was greatly expanded in 2016. In 2017, several new or updated application forms were created or updated, and new informational guides were created and placed on the Town's website. These included a"Do I Need a Permit" information sheet for the public. No major activity was conducted in 2018. LU-e The Town shall require that plans for new construction include CDD High Completed Completed Site Plan&Architectural Review application forms revised June 2006 to require exterior lighting a lighting plan for review as part of the Site Plan and plan and details as part of a complete application. Review of lighting plans as part of Site Plan & Architectural Review process Architectural Review applications is ongoing. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 3 Implementing Lead Current CY2017 CY2018 Program # Program Summary Dept. Priority Status Status Description of Activity LU-f The Town, in conjunction with LAFCO and the County of CDD/ High Ongoing Ongoing Study completed in September 2006 by CSW/Stuber-Stroeh regarding current conditions and costs Marin, shall conduct a study to establish the true cost and other DPW of improving and maintaining Paradise Drive. Discussions with County of Marin and Marin implications of annexing Paradise Drive and work to create LAFCO followed. The Town was unable to reach an agreement with the County over future with the County of Marin and LAFCO a viable financing plan maintenance. Formal discussions ended in December 2009, although the Town continues to be which would make annexation of properties in the Paradise alert for opportunities to continue the dialogue with the County on this issue. With the annexation Drive area feasible and fiscally acceptable to the Town of the SODA (Alta Robles project)property completed in 2013, there are currently no additional portions of Paradise Drive which the Town has committed to annex. The Martha Company MOU, which contemplated but made no commitment to annexation that would include a 1.1 mile portion of Paradise Drive, was allowed to expire by the Martha Company in 2014. No activity in 2016. No activity in 2017 or 2018. LU-g The Town shall identify priority locations for the use of Rule DPW High Completed; Completed Town Council adopted priorities list on 9/21/2005. The top priority areas were the power poles on 20A undergrounding funds Ongoing prioritization Tiburon Boulevard near the curve at Trestle Glen Boulevard, and the poles along Tiburon list in 2005; Boulevard between San Rafael Avenue and Mar West Street. In 2012, the Lyford Multi-modal progress is Parking Lot project began construction and several power poles associated with the second priority ongoing as item were removed; the project was completed in 2013. Progress toward additional funding undergrounding in the Lyford Drive/Mar West Street area was made in 2014. In 2015,two poles becomes were undergrounded between Mar West and available Lyford Drive. Another pole was removed when Comcast and AT&T removed their utilities. PG&E agreed to begin design on undergrounding poles from Lyford Drive to Ned's Way in October 2016 when the Town provided PG&E with a base map. Town-retained engineer is actively working with PG&E on design; PG&E is the lead on design. In 2017, design and permitting progressed. Due to extraordinarily high projected construction costs this project was abandoned (for the time being) by the Town Council in early 2018. Open Space & Conservation Element OSC-a Applicants shall be required to demonstrate that proposals for CDD High Part 1 Part 1 Precise Development Plan application submittal requirements revised in June 2006 to incorporate development minimize environmental impacts and comply completed in Completed this program. Part 2 was abandoned by Town Council on May 6, 2009. with the General Plan and applicable regulations, ordinances 2006; and guidelines. The Town shall require an environmental Part 2 Part 2 assessment process, similar to that used by the County of Abandoned in Abandoned Marin, for Precise Development applications filed for large 2009 undeveloped properties OSC-b The Town shall review development applications submitted CDD High Ongoing Ongoing County-referral applications are screened on a case-by-case basis and Town comments are with the County within its sphere of influence and areas of submitted as deemed appropriate. Staff performs ongoing review of County referrals. Substantive interest in order to encourage conformance with Town referrals that received staff attention 2016 included the ongoing Martha Company development, policies, including minimizing the visual impact of the North Coast Property Holdings application to replace the Golden Gate Baptist Seminary in CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 4 Implementing Lead Current CY2017 CY2018 Program # Program Summary Dept. Priority Status Status Description of Activity development on surrounding hills visible from Tiburon Strawberry with a private high school and 300 new housing units, renovations of the Marin Country Day and New Horizon schools in Corte Madera and a proposed residential development at the Corte Madera/Tiburon boundary off Paradise Drive. In 2017, staff continued work on referrals for the above-listed projects as well as applications for single family homes in the unincorporated portion of the Tiburon Planning Area. Very few new application referrals were received in 2018 and the two residential proiects referenced above did not show substantial processing progress in their respective jurisdictions. OSC-c The Town shall require an environmental assessment for CDD Medium Ongoing Ongoing Environmental review procedures of the Town require this information to be prepared where such development proposed on sites that may contain sensitive resources exist and implementation is ongoing. biological resources, including wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities, native wildlife nurseries and nesting locations, and native wildlife movement corridors. The assessment shall be conducted by a qualified professional to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive resources which could be affected by proposed development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and shall define measures for protecting the resource and surrounding buffer habitat OSC-d Where hill slope stabilization is proposed as part of CDD Medium Completed; Completed; Precise Development Plan application submittal requirements were revised in June 2006 to development proposals, or wherever such stabilization is Ongoing Ongoing incorporate this program, and its implementation is ongoing. required by the Town to protect public safety, the Town shall require the project to evaluate all slope repair-related modifications such as the secondary impacts of subsurface drainage on site and watershed ecological communities, including special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. In the event impacts are likely, modifications to the proposed project shall be considered. In the event avoidance and project modification are infeasible, appropriate on- or off-site habitat mitigation shall be required prior to project approval, as mandated by the State and federal regulatory agencies OSC-e The Town shall establish a clearinghouse of information for CDD Low Completed; Completed; The Associate Planner developed an informational list for agencies associated with environmental public use related to protection of sensitive biological and Ongoing Ongoing protection in 2007. Periodic updating is performed. wetland resources, maintain contacts for agencies responsible for their protection, and encourage programs dedicated to the restoration and management of the remaining natural area OSC-f The Town shall consider revising and expanding the Tiburon CDD Low Abandoned Abandoned Item tabled by the Town Council on May 6, 2009. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 5 Implementing Lead Current CY2017 CY2018 Program # Program Summary Dept. Priority Status Status Description of Activity Tree Ordinance to provide protection of both individual trees and native woodlands. Factors to consider in expanding the current ordinance include the importance of protecting smaller sapling trees and balancing their protection against those of designated "protected trees", defining critical management guidelines necessary to maintain healthy woodlands, and methods to encourage natural regeneration in woodland habitats OSC-g The Town shall develop and adopt an Open Space DPW High Completed; Completed; The Open Space Resource Management Plan was adopted by the Town Council on November 17, management program that identifies maintenance projects and Ongoing Ongoing 2010. The Open Space Maintenance Fund receives appropriations each year for ongoing funding sources maintenance of open space lands in accordance with the adopted Management Plan. In 2014,the Town continued its implementation of the spending plan for Measure A (Open Space and Parks Initiative) funds,primarily devoted to removal of invasive plants in the Town's parks and open spaces and path development. The Town anticipates receiving nearly a half million dollars in Measure A funds over the next eight years. The Public Works Department reported that virtually all top-priority work identified in the Open Space Resource Management Plan has been or were addressed (at least initially) as of the end of FY 2014/15. Ongoing maintenance of such areas will be required on a less extensive basis in the future. In 2015, work consisted of removing fire fuel plants and non-native plant species in the lower half of the Del Madera Open Space Area, Parcel 26. This area is bounded by the Lower Middle Ridge Fire Road to the north, Gilmartin Drive to east, Via Paraiso West to the south and the open space boundary to the west; approximately 4.4 acres in size. The work removed all woody species including: French broom, pine, acacia and eucalyptus trees and herbaceous species to include; pampas grass, pride of Madera, sweet fennel, Harding grass and various species of thistle. In 2016, work consisted of removing fire fuel plants and non-native plant species and the creation of a fire break. The fire fuel reduction work concentrated on the removal of Pampas Grass and French Broom in parcels 21, 23, 24, 25, and 28. All Pampas Grass plants were removed from these parcels and French Broom was primarily removed within 100 feet of homes. A 10-foot fire break was created along Gilmartin Drive through parcels 26 and 28 which primarily involved the removal of Harding Grass within 10 feet of the road and along the entire length of the specified parcels. In 2017, large areas of French Broom were removed adjacent to the lower Hacienda Fire Road between Gilmartin Drive and the Hippie Tree junction. This work involved removal of French Broom in areas adjacent to biologically significant serpentine outcrops. Five large pine trees were removed from a hillside above the serpentine outcrops. A 10-foot fire break for cars was maintained along Gilmartin Drive. French Broom was removed adjacent to the following properties: 9 & 10 Miraflores Lane, 109 Gilmartin, 300 Round Hill, 193 Gilmartin, and 99 Mt Tiburon Ct. All pampas grass plant heads were clipped and disposed of in the Middle Ridge parcels. In 2018,the Town removed broom in parcels 9 21 31 and 33, and pampas grass was cut back in parcel 21. In addition 25 flammable non-native coniferous trees located within 100 feet of homes at the end of Gilmartin Drive were removed This was done under an encroachment permit by a property owner. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 6 Implementing Lead Current CY2017 CY2018 Program # Program Summary Dept. Priority Status Status Description of Activity OSC-h The Town shall create and adopt an overlay zone for the area CDD High Completed Completed Included in comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, adopted March 17, 2010 by Town Council. containing the Town's Inventory of Local Historical Buildings and adopt additional protection measures for the structures identified in the Inventory OSC-i The Town shall either establish an inventory of sites which CDD Medium Ongoing on Ongoing on The Town utilizes an archeological sensitivity map in its review of small projects. have known archaeological sites or the possibility of Part 1 for Part 1 for containing archaeological sites; or enter into an agreement small projects. small projects. with an outside entity which can provide similar services. Large projects Large projects Where sites have the possibility of containing archaeological are subject to are subject to resources,project sponsors shall be required to notify detailed detailed contractors to cease construction activities upon encountering cultural cultural archaeological artifacts or human remains until proper resource resource authorities have been notified and a mitigation plan is review review developed procedures; procedures; Part 2 is Part 2 is already already required by required by state law state law OSC j Revise the Town's water conservation ordinance when CDD Medium Completed, Completed; Ordinance adopted by Town Council on March 17, 2010. Amendments to reflect the latest required by changes in MMWD's water conservation Ongoing Ongoing MMWD water conservation regulations were adopted by the Town Council in August 2011. In ordinance 2016, the Town updated its water-efficient landscaping ordinance to incorporate the latest standards required by MMWD. No new activity required in 2017 or 2018• implementation is ongoing. OSC-k Consider the adoption of a wood smoke ordinance to reduce CDD Medium Under No longer Item tabled by the Town Council in 2009. the emission of particulate matter into the air Consideration under active consideration OSC-1 The Town shall pursue the gradual replacement of the Town's All High Ongoing Ongoing The Community Development Department and Police Department both purchased low emission vehicle fleet with zero or low emission vehicles, where vehicles in 2009 (Honda Civic Hybrid and Ford Escape Hybrid). In 2014, the Community appropriate Development Department purchased a 2015 model year Subaru hybrid vehicle for building inspection purposes. In 2016, the Community Development Department purchased an all-electric vehicle (Kia Soul). This vehicle has been assigned to the Building Inspector and is the Department's most-driven vehicle. At this point in time, the Community Development vehicle pool is entirely comprised of low-emission or zero-emission vehicles. In 2018,the Communitv Development Department replaced its Honda Civic hybrid with an all-electric Nissan Leaf, and the Public Works Department's gas-powered 2002 Nissan Maxima was also replaced with an all- electric Leaf. OSC-m The Town shall attach BMP conditions to permits that are CDD/ High Completed; Completed; BMP conditions routinely attached to Encroachment Permit conditions and selected Zoning issued by the Town, as appropriate DPW Ongoing Ongoing Permits. Field review for BMP compliance is routine for Building Division and Public Works project inspections. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 7 Implementing Lead Current CY2017 CY2018 Program # Program Summary Dept. Priority Status Status Description of Activity OSC-n Recycling bins shall be placed adjacent to refuse cans on the DPW Medium Completed; Completed; Bins are replaced or refurbished as needed. Town's public property, with special emphasis on high traffic Ongoing Ongoing areas, such as Shoreline Park and the Richardson Bay Lineal Park OSC-o The Town shall continue to be an example and a resource for All High Ongoing Ongoing Construction debris and battery recycling programs continue to be implemented. Solar panels were the community in recycling by continuing programs such as installed on Town Hall in 2006; other programs are being considered as part of the Town's Green the construction debris program, household battery program Building Program. The Town's Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2011. This Plan calls for and by reducing the waste of resources in conducting the adoption of a Zero Waste Resolution, an ordinance (as opposed to a policy) regarding construction Town's business debris waste recycling, and update multi-family residential recycling standards during 2012. The Zero Waste Resolution and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance were adopted in 2012. In 2016, all the Zero Waste diversion and recycling forms were updated across Marin County, and the lists of recycling facilities and services were updated and expanded to reflect increasing options for these services. In 2017,the Town ordered electric air dryers for each of the three restrooms in Town Hall, reducing paper waste going to landfills. In 2017, the Town completed storage bins to store mulch material created by the chipper bought in 2016, to allow greater reuse of green waste. In 2017, the Town agreed to purchase all power"Deep Green" from renewable resources. In addition, Town Council approved projects to convert cobra head streetlights to LED lights and place solar power at the Police Station. Both of these projects progressed in 2018 but neither was completed. OSC-p The Town shall develop an ordinance or guidelines for CDD Medium Completed; Completed; The Green Building Ordinance was adopted in November 2008 and was enforced through the end outlining green building principles Ongoing Ongoing of 2010. On January 19, 2011 the Town Council adopted the 2010 Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC or CALGreen) which supersedes the Green Building Ordinance. The Green Building Ordinance was repealed in 2011 and replaced with the state-wide CALGreen Code, which is implemented through the standardized Building Codes. In 2013,the Town Council upgraded the Town's adoption of the CALGreen Code by adopting Tier 1 standards for new construction. In 2014, the Town Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance requiring installation of solar energy systems on newly-constructed residences. This ordinance was adopted in 2015. In 2016, enhanced energy codes were adopted by the Town pursuant to the latest standardized California Construction Codes; the Town continues to implement Tier I CalGreen standards and require installation of solar energy systems on new homes. In 2017, Town staff worked with the Sustainability Team of the County of Marin Community Development Agency to draft"Green Building Reach Codes" intended for adoption by all Marin County municipalities and the County of Marin over the next few years. In 2018, Reach Codes were finalized by County staff and may be considered for adoption by Tiburon at the next Building Codes update cycle in late 2019. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 8 Downtown Element DT-a The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance shall be revised to be CDD Highest Completed Completed Primary Zoning Ordinance amendments related to the Downtown Element were adopted in early 2008; consistent with the goals and policies of this Element and to remaining secondary items were included in the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update adopted by implement the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Town Council on March 17, 2010. Handbook DT-b Adopt a property maintenance ordinance for Downtown that CDD Low Completed Completed A property maintenance ordinance was adopted by the Town Council on May 20, 2015. The ordinance will require that public and private improvements (including applies to the entire Town of Tiburon, including the Downtown area. In 2016, 2017, and 2018, the Town signs) be kept in good repair invoked the Property Maintenance Ordinance on several occasions to help clear code enforcement violations. DT-c Fulfill the Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area requirements All High No Progress; No Progress; Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2006 to upzone properties and to provide incentives for affordable for construction of very-low income housing units through Ongoing Ongoing housing production. In 2011,the State Legislature abolished all redevelopment agencies in California creation of additional units in the Downtown and the Town Council appointed the Town of Tiburon as the successor agency to the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency for purposes of fulfilling its housing production requirements. An updated Redevelopment Project Area Housing Implementation Plan was adopted by the Town Council in 2012.The Housing Element and the Implementation Plan continue to designate several properties in the former Redevelopment Project Area boundaries for housing purposes, with incentives offered. In 2012, 2013, and 2014, no new affordable units were constructed in the Tiburon Redevelopment Project area. However, one new affordable housing overlay site (4 Beach Road) was added to the town's zoning map in 2014. There were no additional actions taken or projects proposed in 2016, although ACV-Argo continues with preliminary design work for a mixed use project at the former Shark's Deli site at 1600 Tiburon Boulevard that would include affordable housing units. In 2017, Staff continued to work with ACV-Argo on possible designs and parameters for the above project. In 2018, AC Ventures placed on hold plans for a mixed use project at the former Shark's Deli site and instead focused on renovations to the former Guaymas Restaurant and construction of the replacement mixed use building at the New Morning Cafe site. No progress was made toward the creation of additional affordable housing units in the Downtown area. DT-d Over the long-term, implement installation of streetscape All Medium Ongoing Ongoing Property owners and agents are advised of these guidelines and are provided copies of the Handbook. improvements to Tiburon Boulevard's public right-of-way as Staff continues to hold discussions with property owners for the purpose of encouraging projects that described in the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. These promote the goals of the Handbook. New streetlight fixtures were installed in 2008 to eliminate glare improvements may include, but are not limited to, widening problems from the older fixtures. Staff continues to review development applications for opportunities to sidewalks to a minimum of eight feet; providing a landscaped implement this program. For example, the Boardwalk Shopping Center improvements associated with planter strip between sidewalks and streets on both sides of Woodlands Market include wider sidewalks and safer vehicle entry points, among other improvements. Tiburon Boulevard; installing new street trees in these planter The hanging flower basket program was initiated and continues to be performed annually. In 2011, the strips; and replanting the existing median strip with lower- CVS pharmacy tenant made numerous property upgrades including but not limited to new and wider growing vegetation sidewalks on its Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road frontages, new landscaping and lighting, and cross- walk improvements. In 2012,the Town commissioned the Downtown Tiburon Circulation and Parking Analysis, which contains recommendations that if implemented,would seek to improve the Downtown Tiburon Boulevard streetscape. In 2012, the Town Council also took preliminary steps to initiate a CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;A dmin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 9 relinquishment process with Caltrans for the portion of State Route 131 in the Downtown area, partly in an effort to obtain more control over streetscape appearance and improvements. In 2014, the Town secured Caltrans approval for a mid-block crosswalk in Tiburon Boulevard opposite the Tiburon Lodge, and also completed the brick sidewalk connecting Lower Main Street to Ark Row. In 2015, the mid- block crosswalk in front of the Tiburon Lodge was installed. No additional actions taken in 2016, or 2017. DT-e Facilitate the long-term future improvement of the four corner CDD/ High Ongoing Ongoing Properties on all four corners were up-zoned to a higher FAR limit and affordable housing overlay and properties at the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Admin density bonus provisions were placed on two of the corner properties. The Woodlands Market Road and adjacent sites completed exterior upgrades in 2011 at the Boardwalk Shopping Center, as did the CVS pharmacy tenant across the street. The Town has also approved permits for upgrades to the Boardwalk Shopping Center parking lot and entryways (these improvements have not yet been constructed). In 2012, the parcels constituting the other two corners of the Beach Road/Tiburon Boulevard intersection were sold by the Abrams family to A & C Ventures of Sonoma. Staff continues to encourage and work with property owners to renovate and/or replace the older buildings and facilities in these key locations. In 2013, ACV indicated that it is considering a mixed use commercial/residential project for the Sharks Deli site at 1600 Tiburon Boulevard. In 2014,the Boardwalk Shopping Center completed limited upgrades to its parking lot at this intersection. Additionally in 2014, ACV engaged architects to draw up preliminary designs for the former Sharks Deli site project; the preliminary design work for a new mixed-use project on this site continued in 2016 and 2017. See DT-c above. DT-f The Town shall adopt a street furniture/outdoor seating plan CDD/ Low Progress No progress Town staff conducted a survey of downtown street furniture and made recommendations regarding for Main Street, with possible future extension of the plan to Private but ongoing as placement of additional seating (benches) and trash receptacles along Main Street. The Downtown other areas of Downtown opportunities Committee reviewed and accepted these recommendations. Additional bench seating and other arise improvements were installed in Spring 2012. No actions taken in 2016 or 2017 or 2018. DT-g The Town shall adopt a resolution designating the former CDD Low No progress No progress No progress. Prior entreaties to the tree owner have been without response. Northwestern Pacific Railroad Yard palm tree as a protected tree DT-h Consider installation of a Downtown Tiburon entry CDD Low No progress No Progress This concept and many other ideas are to be considered as part of the Downtown Vibrancy Project, sign/planter area at an appropriate location discussed in more detail below. Options for possible locations include the corner near the Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library and the Lyford Drive Multi-modal Parking Lot. In 2014,the Landmarks Society secured its final approvals for relocation of the Gallows Wheels form the corner of Mar West Street and Tiburon Boulevard. The gallows wheels relocation project was completed in 2015. The Town is considering the former location of the gallows wheels at Mar West Street as an entry sign/planter area, possibly in conjunction with the construction of the Library expansion project. No action in 2016 or 2017 or 2018. DT-i Consider adoption of a public art ordinance and establishment CDD Low Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned by Town Council May 6, 2009. of a community program to encourage public art where appropriate DTj The Town shall install signs or kiosks where appropriate to CDD Low Completed Completed In 2012, design work proceeded for an information center to be located at Ferry Plaza that would provide CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 10 indicate the location of off-street parking within walking a variety of information about Tiburon. A coordinated plan for informational sign locations was distance of Downtown Tiburon underway and expected to be implemented in 2013. The information station was installed in 2013. New way-finding signage was designed in 2013 with installation expected in 2014. Final approval of way- finding signage was secured in 2014; selected way-finding signage was installed in 2015. DT-k For the Main Street Parking Lot, designate and enhance Private Medium No progress No progress Decorative signs naming the various paths and stairways leading down from Upper Main Street to the pedestrian walkways, stairways, lanes and intersection points Main Street Parking Lot were installed by Zelinsky Properties in 2010, and other physical improvements through signage, pavement markings or other methods, and to certain of these connections have been made in recent years. Additional measures to improve enhance or replace existing parking lot landscaping along pedestrian connectivity between Ark Row and other parts of Downtown were studied as part of the Juanita Lane. The Town and property owner should study Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis, without much success. A preliminary recommendation to alternative vehicular entry and/or exit points for this parking extend the brick sidewalk from Lower Main Street to Ark Row was made to the Town Council in late lot 2012. This brick sidewalk extension was completed in 2014. No reportable actions in 2016, 2017, or 2018. The property owner has indicated no interest in relocating the entry points to the Main Street Parking Lot. DT-1 Pave and improve the Tiburon Boulevard pay parking lot CDD/ High Completed Completed Parking lot paved and improved in 2008. located at 1525 Tiburon Boulevard. If feasible, designate bus Private parking spaces in this lot, with signage prohibiting the idling of buses DT-m The Town, along with Downtown property owners and DPW Medium Ongoing Ongoing Hours allowed for loading and unloading of trucks on Main Street were expanded in 2008 at the request merchants, shall periodically review the relationship between of the Chamber of Commerce. Parking fines for over-time violations were increased in 2010 by the Downtown businesses and the time limit regulations of on- Town Council. The Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis, released in 2012, made several street parking and study changes to the current public street recommendations for parking and circulation improvements in Downtown that will be considered by the parking regulations to best serve Downtown merchants and Town Council in 2013. Several changes were made to timed parking regulations and curb colors in 2013, their patrons resulting in the creation of several additional parking spaces. The Town Council's ad-hoc downtown parking committee continued to study parking issues and meet with Downtown property owners in 2013. The Town retained the services of Nelson-Nygaard to assist in the preparation of a Downtown Parking Strategy, with public meetings scheduled for 2014. A Downtown Parking community meeting was held on April 10, 2014, primarily focusing on parking meters in Downtown.No reportable actions in 2016, 2016, or 2017. In 2018, the Town retained Nelson-Nygaard to conduct summertime peak parking counts in the Downtown area. The results corroborated strong anecdotal evidence that Downtown Tiburon's peak parking demand has decreased significantly over the past 20 years, and provided support for the Town's commercial area parking code modifications also adopted in 2018. DT-n The Town shall explore the desirability and feasibility of a All Medium No progress Not being Results of the Downtown Vibrancy Committee Report of Findings and Proposed Plan dated May 2011 public parking structure in Downtown actively indicate no lack of overall parking in the Downtown area,reducing the likelihood of need for a parking pursued at this structure in the near future. The 2012 Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis likewise found ample time overall parking and made no recommendations to consider construction of a parking structure. A parking structure would likely be a long-term consideration, beyond the scope of any current efforts and does not appear warranted given decreasing Downtown peak parking demand and current and emerging trends in transportation and parking behavior. DT-o With the owners of Downtown private parking lots, the Town Admin/ Medium No progress Not being The Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis contained recommendations to create a preferential shall examine the feasibility of instituting a preferential CDD I actively parking permit process in conjunction with installation of parking meters in the Downtown area. This CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 11 parking program for residents pursued at this concept will be considered by the Town Council in 2013, along with other recommendations of the time Analysis. The Downtown parking committee continued its study of parking meters and resident permit programs in anticipation of a preliminary Downtown Parking Strategy being released for public review in 2014. A Downtown Parking community meeting was held on April 10, 2014, primarily focusing on parking meters in Downtown. The community meeting provided mostly negative feedback on meters and any associated resident parking program and this is not currently being actively pursued. See DT-m and DT-n above. DT-p Install a traffic signal at Mar West Street and Tiburon CDD/ Low Progress Progress/ Signal warrants are not yet met to allow signal installation approval by Caltrans. The Mar West Street Boulevard as soon as permission from Caltrans can be secured DPW Ongoing intersection was reviewed as part of the Library expansion project processing in 2011, but the EIR concluded that the Library project alone would not trigger signal warrants at this intersection. The traffic studies indicated that signal warrants would be met at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula as projected in the Tiburon General Plan, and the Library project's conditions require a contribution toward intersection improvements, including the possibility for a traffic circle/roundabout. The intersection was studied as part of the Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis in 2012. In 2015 the town worked with a traffic consultant to produce three concepts for the intersection: a traffic signal and two versions of a roundabout. Very rough prices were provided for the roundabout. In 2016, the Town Council adopted an updated Circulation Element and formally included a roundabout as the preferred circulation improvement for this intersection. In 2017, the Town Council authorized a 5-year extension of the Library expansion project approval and related agreements. In 2018,the Town Council approved amendments to the Library expansion project, moving the project closer to actual construction. The Town would re-evaluate the functioning of the Mar West Street intersection once the expanded Library is completed and operational, and prioritize any needed circulation improvements accordingly. DT-q Reduce the bicycle/vehicular conflict at the Mar West CDD/ High No progress Progress/ In association with approval of the general plan amendment for the Library Expansion project in 2011, Street/Tiburon Boulevard intersection. Study the installation of DPW Ongoing the Town gained a potential future source of revenue for improvements at this intersection. Also, the a delineated left-turn bicycle lane from westbound Tiburon 2012 Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis recommended installation of a roundabout at this Boulevard to the multi-use path entrance at this location, as intersection in lieu of signalization. In 2015, as part of the ongoing General Plan Circulation Element well as other options. Such improvements may (but need not) Update process, a roundabout at this intersection was included in the proposed list of circulation system occur in conjunction with signalization of the intersection improvements. See Program DT-p. DT-r Relieve the pedestrian congestion points near the intersection CDD/ Low Progress Progress/ Installation of different tables and chairs and minor public improvement relocations have somewhat of Juanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard through physical DPW Ongoing reduced the congestion in this location. The departure of the Paradise Cafe in 2010 has further reduced changes and improved enforcement of the public right-of-way congestion at this point. In early 2012, Staff was in communication with an architect working on the design of a new building at this location (1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard), but the properties sold at the end of 2012 and those plans have been withdrawn. Staff will continue to address future improvement of the situation with the new property owners. In 2013, the site's new owners indicated their intention to replace the current building at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard with a new building containing ground floor restaurant and upper floor apartments. The application to demolish and replace the building with a three-story building(condos over restaurant) was received in 2014. In 2015, the Town approved the conditional use permit application, including a condition that the applicant contributes financially to the pedestrian congestion point relief as part of the construction of the new building. In 2016, the Town Council authorized the design of improvements at this location and Town staff is continuing to work with ACV-Argo on implementation of the improvements in conjunction with construction of the new building CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 12 at this location. In 2017, ACV-Argo placed the new building project on hold and progress on the sidewalk improvements is likewise on hold. DT-s Install a paved pedestrian pathway or similar suitable CDD/ Medium Completed Completed The paved pedestrian walkway along Mar West Street from Tiburon Boulevard to the TPC property line improvement along Mar West Street from Tiburon Boulevard DPW was installed in 2007. An easement agreement for public access from Teather Park to the Tiburon to the Tiburon Peninsula Club, and install a pathway Peninsula Club was secured in 2006 and the public access easement recorded in 2007. The trail alignment connecting Teather Park to Judge Field was subsequently pioneered in 2009 and the trail improvements were completed in 2012. DT-t Actively monitor the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Admin Low Inactive Inactive The Town Council at one time had a representative on the Citizen's Advisory Committee for this Authority process in order to promote ferry use Agency. The name of the agency was subsequently changed to the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. The Citizens Advisory Committee was disbanded in 2014. DT-u Facilitate expansion of the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library CDD High Completed; Completed; The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the streamlining ordinance in by employing streamlined permit review processes typically Ongoing Ongoing December 2011. Town Council adopted the streamlining ordinance in early 2012. The Town Council used for major public projects approved the final design drawings for the Library Expansion project on August 1, 2012. As of the end of 2016,the building permit and associated encroachments permits are the final entitlements needed from the Town. In 2017, the Town Council authorized a 5-year extension of the Library expansion project approval and related agreements. See DT-p. DT-v Implement recommendations of the Railroad Marsh DPW High Ongoing Ongoing A major cattail removal effort took place in the Fall of 2012, in conformance with the Marsh Maintenance Plan prepared by Wetlands Research Associates Maintenance Plan. A major cattail removal project was performed in the fall of 2014 and was likely instrumental in reducing flood damage resulting from a severe December 2014 rainstorm. Major cattail removal from the Marsh took place in 2015. Maintenance-level cattail removal occurred in 2016, completing the three-year program. In the future the Town will need to again evaluate dredging or a multi-year program of vegetation removal. DT-w Consider the installation of a small public restroom facility in DPW Medium Completed Completed In 2011, the Town Council budgeted CIP money for both improvements to the existing public restrooms or near Shoreline Park at 23-25 Main Street, as well as for determining feasibility of a Donahue Building public restroom. The Donahue Building Public restroom concept was tabled, but in 2012 the Town retained an architect to design the complete renovation and redesign of the public restroom area at 23-25 Main Street. The project was completed in January 2014. Circulation Element NOTE: A comprehensive update of the Circulation Element was adopted by the Town Council on February 3, 2016. C-a Traffic Model and Monitoring. The Town shall maintain its CDD High NA Completed; The traffic model was updated in 2015 during the Circulation Element revision process and appropriate traffic model and traffic monitoring program, which Ongoing traffic mitigations were developed based on the updated model and traffic counts. Updated transportation periodically measures intersection performance, evaluates the mitigation fees were adopted by the Town Council in August 2017 to reflect the list of needed roadway impact of new projects on vehicle delay, and re-evaluates improvements contained in the updated Circulation Element. No reportable actions in 2018. appropriate transportation mitigation fee amounts. The evaluation of transportation impacts at relevant sites shall be expanded to take into account impacts on multimodal access, including the impact of new projects on pedestrians, bicyclists, CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 13 and transit users C-b Reviewing Transportation Mitigation Fees. The Town's CDD High NA In Progress Near the end of 2016, the Town retained Nelson-Nygaard to update its nexus study for the ongoing traffic model shall be used to periodically review the collection of transportation mitigation impact fees; that update is in progress. The Town Council adopted Town's transportation mitigation fees to ensure that they are updated transportation mitigation fees in August 2017. No reportable actions in 2018. based on current information and that they are adequately capturing the impacts of new projects on the roadways in the Planning Area, including effects on bicyclists,pedestrians, and transit users. The Town shall update its transportation mitigation fees as necessary. C-c The Town shall periodically update and re-evaluate its list of CDD/ High NA Completed; The circulation improvements list was updated as part of the new Circulation Element and the nexus needed circulation improvements DPW Ongoing study per Program C-b is based on the new list of improvements. In 2017, the Town contributed $60,000 toward a joint study with the County of Marin, Mill Valley, Belvedere and Caltrans to improve capacity and traffic operations at the westbound Redwood Highway Frontage Road intersection and the U.S. Highway 101 northbound on-ramps.No reportable actions in 2018. C-d Funding for Local Roads. The Town shall work with All High NA Ongoing Town Council and staff continue efforts to maintain and/or secure new funding for maintenance of local funding agencies such as Metropolitan Transportation streets. Commission and the Transportation Authority of Marin to ensure funding for critical local roads C-e Bay Trail Funding. The Town shall use the designation of All Medium NA Ongoing No progress to report in 2016 or 2017 or 2018. Paradise Drive as part of the Bay Trail as a tool in applying for improvement funding for the road C-f Increase Connectivity in the Downtown. Improve pedestrian All High NA Ongoing New crosswalk by Lodge completed in 2015. This completed all active recommendations in the Town's connectivity, linkages and ease of movement throughout the pedestrian plan for downtown. In 2018, bollard lighting was added to Fountain Plaza to improve the Downtown area through various physical and signage safety of pedestrian movement during non-daylight hours. improvements C-g Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Town shall review CDD/ High NA Completed; A comprehensive update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by the Town Council on and update its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan DPW Ongoing July 20, 2016. In 2017, additional work was done to develop and implement a bike/pedestrian safety periodically, and revise the list of improvements and actions education program. The Town's Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Automobile Education Report was received called for in the Master Plan when implementation of adopted and accepted by the Town Council at the end of 2017 and its implementation began in earnest in 2018 improvements has occurred, and/or when conditions warrant C-h Bay Trail Improvement. The Town will work cooperatively CDD/ High NA Ongoing In 2016, Town staff consulted with and received comments and recommendations from the Bay Trail with ABAG and neighboring jurisdictions to improve the Bay DPW Project staff during the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update. No reportable action in 2017 or 2018. Trail around the Tiburon Peninsula C-i Transit Facilities. The Town shall encourage the provision of All High NA Ongoing In 2016, the Town Council and staff were involved in extensive efforts to retain adequate feeder bus adequate transit facilities in cooperation with transit service for the Peninsula and to retain commuter ferry service from Tiburon to San Francisco. In 2017, agencies and operators Golden Gate Ferries assumed the commuter ferry runs out of Tiburon from the Blue and Gold Fleet and bus transit service remained stable. No reportable action in 2018. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 14 C j Transit Schedules. The Town shall make available through Admin Medium NA Completed; The Town's website has links to ferries, buses and other transit services through the 511 system and links on its website schedules for buses, ferries, and any transit Ongoing Golden Gate Bridge District websites. Other website links include Marin Transit, Golden Gate Ferry, agencies that connect with those modes Blue and Gold Fleet, and the Transportation Authority of Marin. C-k Safe Routes to School Program. The Town shall continue to All High NA Progress/ The Yellow School Bus Challenge 2.0 program was implemented starting in August 2015, and has work with the Reed Union School District, Tamalpais Union Ongoing provided tangible relief along Tiburon Boulevard and appears highly successful. In 2016,the Town of High School District, St. Hilary School, and with the Tiburon, City of Belvedere and RUSD formed a Joint Powers Authority to manage future bus service and Transportation Authority of Marin as the administrator of the potentially create a means to provide long-term funding opportunities for the busing program. Enhanced County's Safe Routes to Schools Program, to promote software and an expanded bus fleet were introduced in Fall 2016. In 2016, the Town implemented alternative transportation programs that reduce traffic bicycle boxes and completed the Blackfield Drive/Greenwood Cove Drive safety improvement project at congestion around schools. This will include improving safe the intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. The POST Commission worked with Safe Routes to School access routes to school for children walking and biking, as and others to make recommendations on bicycle and pedestrian safety education and held a public forum well as developing appropriate measures identified by the on the issue. Staff added a tab to the Town website for bicycle safety education related materials. In Community Action to Reduce Traffic (CART) committee 2017, bike route maps were created for Bel Aire school, with work on maps for the other two schools continuing. The Town's Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Automobile Education Report was received and accepted by the Town Council at the end of 2017 and its implementation began in earnest in 2018 C-1 Ridesharing. The Town shall promote and publicize the 511 Admin/ Medium NA Ongoing The 511 Rideshare Program can be accessed through a link on the Town's website. Rideshare program to employers and employees as a resource CDD for exploring ways to reduce traffic and parking congestion C-m Mitigation Fee Program in Unincorporated Areas. CDD High NA Progress/ In 2016,the Town worked in coordination with not only the County of Marin but also Mill Valley, Coordinate with Marin County for complementary spending of Ongoing Belvedere and Caltrans on funding for various improvements within the Tiburon Planning Area, transportation mitigation fees collected from Planning Area primarily focusing on the Tiburon Wye area including the frontage road and North Knoll Road. In 2017, projects on improvements within the Tiburon Planning Area the Town continued discussions and planning with other agencies and entered into an MOU for funding design. Caltrans has since incorporated this project into their ramp-metering project. No reportable actions in 2018. C-n U. S. Highway 101 Corridor Planning. Maintain an active All High NA Ongoing Councilmember Fredericks continues to serve as the Town's representative on the TAM Board. role in the Transportation Authority of Marin and/or U.S. Highway 101 Corridor planning program with the purpose of ensuring that improvements enhance inter-city movement C-o Complete Streets Implementation. Implement the complete DPW High NA Ongoing The Department of Public Works reviews all capital improvement projects for consistency with the streets goals and policies set forth in this Element by utilizing Complete Streets Policy and identifies opportunities for implementation as projects arise. Referrals to the Town Council Resolution No. 42-2012 and referrals to the BPAC are routine in such instances. Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission (acting as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee) C-p Review and Revise Parking Regulations for Downtown. CDD High NA No progress No activity to report in 2016. In December 2017, staff began work on drafting zoning ordinance Review and revise the parking regulations set forth in the amendments for this program and submitted a proposed timeline to the ad-hoc Downtown Revitalization Tiburon Zoning Ordinance to better reflect the realities and Committee of the Town Council. The revised parking regulations for Downtown commercial areas were uniqueness of Downtown Tiburon's parking milieu and to adopted in May 2y 018. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 15 encourage increased activity near streets, such as outdoor dining C-q Main Street Enhancement. Enhance Main Street usage for DPW Medium NA No Progress The Town initiated a regular and successful Farmers Market event held on Thursdays during the summer, pedestrian-only events on selected occasions by use of bollards during which Main Street was closed off to vehicular traffic and open for use by pedestrians only. The or similar devices allowing for periodic temporary event Farmers Market successfully continued in 2017 and 2018. closures Safety Element SE-a Where possible,the Town should advise residents of the All Medium Ongoing Ongoing The Tiburon Talk e-newsletter is used as a method of communicating with residents on these issues. Tiburon Planning Area of ways that they can reduce geologic, Articles regarding winterization and other forms of prevention are included in the newsletter at fire and flooding hazards appropriate times during the year. SE-b The Town shall require project applicants for new CDD High Complete Complete Precise Development Plan submittal requirements revised June 2006 to require this information as part of development to prepare a hydraulic and geomorphic a complete application. assessment of on-site and downstream drainageways that are affected by project area runoff. Characteristics pertinent to channel stability would include bank erosion, excessive bed scour or sediment deposition, bed slope adjustments, lateral channel migration or bifurcation, and the condition of riparian vegetation. In the event existing channel instabilities were noted, the applicant could either propose their own channel stabilization program, or defer to the mitigations generated during the Town's environmental review. Any proposed stabilization measures shall anticipate any project-related changes to the drainageway flow regime SE-c Through the application review process, the Town shall CDD/ High Ongoing Ongoing Working with the Fire Districts, the Town has added Vegetation Management Plans to submittal continue to require review by the appropriate Fire District for DPW requirements for certain projects and has incorporated Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) regulations into fire prevention considerations its review process. SE-d As part of an Open Space Management program, the Town DPW Medium Ongoing Ongoing See OSC-g shall develop a plan, including funding sources and/or other opportunities, such as volunteer groups, for reducing fire hazards and maintaining fire roads on Town-owned open space SE-e The Town shall continue to review and update the Police High Ongoing Ongoing Emergency response training sessions are held each year by staff in the Emergency Operations Center at Emergency Operations Plan to ensure that it remains up- the Tiburon Police Station. In 2013, emergency notification sirens were installed at several Peninsula to-date locations, intended to be audible from every locale on the Peninsula. The Town contributed $108,000 to the project. The siren project was been completed and periodic test-soundings are performed. SE-f The Town shall adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to CDD High Completed Completed; Plan adopted in October 2005; Resolution 53-2005. The Town fully participated with ABAG and other CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 16 comply with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Ongoing municipalities in the LHMP update process in 2009. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on maintain eligibility for hazard mitigation funding from FEMA an update to the Town's Mitigation Strategies portion of the LHMP in November 2010. The Town Council adopted an updated LHMP in March 2012. In 2016, the majority of towns and cities of Marin County agreed to partner with the County of Marin in the preparation of a joint LHMP. Associate Planner O'Malley has spearheaded the Town's role in this update, for which significant progress was made over the course of the year. The LHMP update was adopted by the County of Marin in November 2018, and will be considered for adoption by Tiburon in early 2019. SE-g The Town shall use its best efforts to disseminate emergency Police High Ongoing Ongoing Get Ready!! Program launched in 2006. To date, over 1,700 persons have signed up for or received preparedness information to the community emergency preparedness training. The program is ongoing. The Town's Emergency Services Coordinator releases email news bulletins to inform residents of emergencies and preparedness issues and lists preparedness tips in the Ark newspaper. In 2015,the TibTalk e-mail list was used to distribute time- sensitive alerts to the community on a variety of topics, and this practice continued during the very wet final months of 2016. No reportable actions in 2017 or 2018. SE-h The Town shall conduct an immediate post-earthquake CDD High NA NA The Town stands ready to implement this program in the event of a major earthquake. assessment of critical facilities and buildings in the Planning Area to determine the extent of damages, if any, to essential Town infrastructure. This should be performed by trained professional(s)utilizing the current state-of-knowledge regarding post-earthquake assessment SE-i The Town shall coordinate with the Marin Municipal CDD/ Low Complete Complete Over the past several years, new MMWD tanks have been installed at Spring Lane and Mount Tiburon, Water District to replace the piping and fittings in those DPW and older tanks have been upgraded. The Sugar Loaf Tank project, which involves the replacement of a water tanks in the Planning Area that are not currently redwood tank with a welded steel tank and the installation of a second welded steel tank, was fully fitted with flexible, earthquake-resistant joints. In addition, completed in 2011. MMWD currently indicates that the updating of all Tiburon Peninsula tanks for the water tanks should be evaluated to ascertain their seismic safety is complete as of 2012. ability to withstand strong seismic ground shaking SE-j The Town shall create and implement a Seismic Improvement DPW High Ongoing Ongoing With the exception of the Public Works Corporation Yard buildings, the Town's physical plant of Program. The Program shall include conducting a seismic risk buildings is relatively new and is designed and built withstand seismic events. The Town continues to set assessment of existing Town infrastructure, which would help aside funds for eventual replacement of the Corporation Yard buildings. No reportable actions in 2016, to create a list which would prioritize the buildings and 2017, or 2018. equipment that should be retrofitted. Following risk assessment,the Town should adopt a program that would upgrade vulnerable facilities based on the priority list SE-k The Town shall increase education regarding upgrading of CDD Low Ongoing Ongoing The Town's Residential Building Resale Inspection process provides opportunities to inform and advise buildings using structural and non-structural mitigation owners of potential structural issues at the time of sale. In 2016,the Town added the voluntary seismic measures retrofit specifications to its list of resources available on the website. In applicable situations, homeowners are advised of the seismic upgrade options at the public counter or in the field. SE-1 The Town shall evaluate the potential impacts related to CDD High Ongoing Ongoing This potential safety impact is addressed in the environmental review process and included in the Initial hazardous materials during the environmental review Study Checklist. process for new developments or businesses where the production, use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is proposed. The potential impacts CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 17 should be fully mitigated SE-m The Town shall coordinate hazardous materials with other All Medium Ongoing Ongoing Coordination is ongoing. public agencies Noise Element N-a The Town should periodically assess the noise All High Ongoing Ongoing Building construction hours in the Municipal Code were modified to address week-end noise problems. environment to identify noise sources that should be Town Council updated and amended the Leaf Blower and Hedge Trimmer Ordinance (Ordinance regulated to reduce excessive or offensive noise 518N.S.) in 2009 which went into effect February 18, 2010. In 2015, the Town Council requested that the ordinance be scheduled for a review of its provisions. In 2016, the Town Council reviewed the Leaf Blower ordinance at a public meeting and determined that no revisions were warranted. No reportable action in 2017 or 2018. N-b The Town should contact the appropriate regulatory agencies Admin/ Low Ongoing Ongoing Staff is not aware of any recent legitimate complaints regarding aircraft noise. to ensure that they are aware of the Town's policy CDD discouraging aircraft flyovers of the Tiburon Planning Area Parks & Recreation Element PR-a The Town should work with the Belvedere - Tiburon CDD/ High Progress/ Progress/ Phase I study of recreation needs authorized in 2006 and completed in 2007. Phase 2, the Recreation Recreation Department and the City of Belvedere to DPW Ongoing Ongoing Needs Assessment Report prepared by The Sports Management Group, was accepted by the Town consider the long and short term need for additional Council on July 20, 2011. The study found that recreation needs of peninsula residents are being met parklands, sporting facilities, picnic facilities, play areas, through a variety of methods. The study found no obvious gaps in the provision or availability of and to develop a master plan for meeting the community's recreation facilities or programming. One of the findings in the Needs Assessment was that the proposed recreational programming and facilities needs Ned's Way Recreation Facility would provide additional space and opportunity for enhanced recreation services on the peninsula. In 2012, construction began on the Ned's Way (Dairy Knoll) Recreation Facility. The facility was occupied in late 2013. In 2014,the Town Council initiated plans for additional picnic-type facilities at Blackie's Pasture, and for study of other improvements of a longer- term nature. In 2015,the Blackie's Pasture Picnic Area project was constructed, locations for a kayak- launching point were explored, and discussions began for an upgrade to the McKegney Green surface. In 2016, the Town Council considered a number of ideas for renovating McKegney Green. A pre-design study was completed to facilitate decisions. In 2017, the Council approved a natural grass, sand-based field renovation project and provided funding for the design of the field. The design is currently at 99% CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 18 and is pending funding for construction,part of which depends on private funds raised by users. The McKegney Green renovation project was successfully completed in 2018 PR-b The Town shall examine development applications for the CDD High Progress/ Progress/ Public access easements secured in 2006 from Tiburon Peninsula Club and Tiburon Glen development existence and potential creation of easements and/or trails that Ongoing Ongoing projects. A public access easement offer of dedication was secured as part of the Stony Hill Road (Ling) connect or continue to allow public access to shoreline, project in 2008. The Town also performed work on the Teather Park to Tiburon Peninsula Club path in recreation and open space areas; Town Staff shall monitor 2009. The Town approved plans for upgrading of the Esperanza Street to Mar West Street path in 2009. construction with a view toward the successful creation and/or Work was completed on this path improvement in 2010. The Teather Park to Tiburon Peninsula Club maintenance of such easements and/or trails pathway improvements were completed in 2012 and are open to the public. In 2014, the Town continued to pursue construction of a pathway connecting Reed School to the Dairy Knoll Recreation facility. In 2015, the Town reached an agreement with the Point Tiburon Bayside Association for a public access easement across its common area and perfected the trail alignment down the unimproved portion of Las Lomas Lane through a formal grant of easement from the underlying owner. In 2016, the Town began construction work on upgrading the Las Lomas Lane pathway just below Centro West Street, and the Point Tiburon Bayside Association moved closer to securing its building permit for the reconstruction of the stairway leading down from Mar West Street to it common area. In 2017, the Town completed construction work on the upper Las Lomas pathway improvements and acquired an easement for the stairway and pathway from Mar West Street across the Point Tiburon Bayside Association common area. The stairway reconstruction was completed and the Town assumed control and responsibility for the stairway as a public pedestrian easement. In 2018, new signs were installed for the Tiburon Ridge Trail. PR-c The Town should explore the need and desirability for Admin High Ongoing Ongoing Within its limited scope and resources, the Recreation Needs Assessment completed in 2011 touched establishing a community center which would accommodate upon the issue of demand for a community center. The term "community center" is broad and means recreational and other needs for the entire community different things to different people. While 48% of residents surveyed rated the importance of a community center with space for programs, classes, and events as "extremely" or "very important", the survey fell short of identifying strong support for pursuing a community center on the Peninsula. The Assessment's authors concluded that in any future [recreation-related] study, the interest in and specific features of a community center should be explored. This should include a"willingness to pay" component for a major facility of this type. While not a community center, the Dairy Knoll Recreation facility now provides additional programming space for a variety of recreational and community events to serve community needs. In 2018, the potential was raised for surplus land becoming available in the foreseeable future at a portion of the Richardson Bay Sanitary District headquarters site at 500 Tiburon Boulevard, on land surrounded by the Town's Richardson Bay Lineal Park. The Town is currently exploring its options with respect to possible acquisition and uses. CDD= Community Development Department; DPW=Department of Public Works;Admin=Administration Department;All=All Departments Tiburon 2020 Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report Calendar Year 2018 Town Council Draft 3/6/2019 Page 19 TABLED: Program Implementation Status Town of Tiburon Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 Section 6202) Reporting Period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Prog. # Objective Timeframe Status OPro ram Im lemeutation H-a Focus Town Resources on Key Housing Sites. Focus Town-controlled resources toward the design, approval, Encourage development of Resources (in-lieu fees and housing set-aside funds) are in place and financing, and construction of housing, especially affordable housing, on key sites identified in the Tiburon Housing one or more housing available for any such project. Element. opportunity sites by 2022. No key housing sites were developed in 2015, 2016, or 2017. Total production (building permit finaled) of entirely new dwelling units in Tiburon in 2018 (not including teardowns/rebuilds) was one single family home and one accessoa dwelling unit. H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues, and Programs. The Town will promote the availability Ongoing The Town launched its updated website in 2015. It contains a link to of Marin County programs for housing construction, homebuyer assistance, rental assistance, Marin Housing Authority the Housing Authority. information, code enforcement, information about affordable housing, fair housing and housing rehabilitation through Housing-related information and handouts are available at Town Hall. the following means: (a) Create a link on the Town's website that describes housing programs and provides direct links to County agencies No additional progress was made on items in this program in 2015, that administer the programs. 2016, 2017 or 2018. (b) Include contact information on County programs in Town newsletters and other general communications that are sent to residents. (c) Maintain information and handouts at the Town's public counter. (d) Train selected Town staff to provide referrals. (e) Distribute information on programs at public locations (library, schools). (f) Collaborate with other agencies (County of Marin, Tiburon Ecumenical Association, Marin Housing Authority, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, Ecumenical Association for Housing, Housing Council) to prepare presentations and distribute informational materials to improve awareness of housing needs, issues and available housing programs. (g) Distribute materials to neighborhood groups, homeowner associations, religious institutions, businesses, and other interested groups (Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) in the Tiburon area. H-c Community Outreach When Implementing Housing Element Programs. Coordinate with local businesses, housing Ongoing No housing programs or substantial projects were considered by the advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, and the Chamber of Commerce and participate in the Marin Consortium for Town in 2015. In 2016, the Town updated its informational and Workforce Housing in building public understanding and support for workforce, special needs housing and other issues application forms for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory related to housing, including the community benefits of affordable housing, mixed use and pedestrian-oriented Dwelling Units and added "quick checklists" to enable owners to determine if their property was eligible for either type of unit. No development. The Town will notify a broad representation of the community when housing programs are discussed by public workshops were held in 2017 or 2018. the Planning Commission or Town Council. Specific actions should be linked to the preparation and distribution of materials as identified in Program H-b. Specific outreach activities include: (a) Maintain the Housing Element mailing list and send public hearing notices to all interested public, non-profit agencies and affected property owners. (b) Post notices at Town Hall, the library, and the post office. (c) Publish notices in the local newspaper. (d) Post information on the Town's website. (e) Conduct outreach (workshops, neighborhood meetings) to the community as Housing Element programs are implemented. (f) Provide an informational guide to homeowners explaining the benefits, "best practices" and procedures for adding or legalizing a secondary dwelling unit. Page 23 TABLED: Program Implementation Status Town of Tiburon Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 Section 6202) Reporting Period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Prog. # Ob'ective Timeframe Status of Pro ram Im lementation H-d Foster Meaningful Assistance from Other Agencies. Town staff will meet and work with other public agencies and Ongoing No progress in 2015 or 2016. In 2017, state legislation went into special districts (water, fire, schools, sanitary districts, etc.) to promote affordable housing through the provision of fee effect that prevents special districts from charging fees for junior waivers, fee reductions, development of property, or other assistance for affordable housing projects. In addition, accessory dwelling units and certain types of accessory dwelling participate in ongoing regional planning activities related to housing and the Sustainable Communities initiative. units. No reportable Town actions on fees in 2018. H-e Conduct Outreach for Developmentally Disabled Housing and Services. Work with the Golden Gate Regional Initiate in 2015 No progress in 2015. In 2016, a link to the Golden Gate Regional Center to implement an outreach program that informs families within Tiburon on housing and services available for Center was added to the Town's website. No reportable actions in persons with developmental disabilities. Provide information on services on the Town's website and distribute 2017 or 2018. brochures supplied by the service providers. H-f Coordinate with Water and Sewer Providers. As required by State law, the Town will provide a copy of the adopted Within one month of Copies of the updated Housing Element and a summary and housing element update to water and sewer providers, including the Marin Municipal Water District, Sanitary District Housing Element adoption quantification of the Town's Regional Housing Need were provided to Number 5 of Marin County, Richardson Bay Sanitary District, and Sanitary District Number 2 of Marin County. The the requisite agencies within 15 days of adoption. Town will also provide a summary and quantification of Tiburon's regional housing need allocation. H-g Review the Housing Element Annually. As required by State law, the Town will review the status of Housing Annually by April 1s' The Housing Element was reviewed by the Town Council in March of Element programs and submit a progress report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development and 2016 as part of the annual implementation status report for that year. the Governor's Office of Planning and Research by April 1s` The Town Council performed a similar review in 2017 and 2018. H-h Update the Housing Element. Update the Tiburon Housing Element consistent with State law requirements. Update by 2023 No updates needed in 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018. H-i Redevelopment Agency (Town of Tiburon as Successor Agency). In conjunction with the Marin Housing Authority, Ongoing Town staff communicates at least annually with Housing Authority use remaining housing set-aside funds to meet existing affordable housing obligations and, once those are met, staff regarding potential affordable housing projects and the expend the funds solely for the provision of affordable housing in Tiburon consistent with the Tiburon General Plan. continuing availability of set-aside funds for this purpose. H j Apply for State Funds for Affordable Housing. Apply for State affordable housing funds including, but not limited to, Apply for funding at least No application was filed. No affordable housing projects were the Multifamily Housing Program, the Cal-Home Program, and the Homebuyer's Down-payment Assistance Program. three times during the forthcoming in 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018. Commit these funds to one or more projects located on designated housing sites as shown in the Town's Housing planning period. Element, to projects targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, and to projects targeted to extremely-low income households. H-k Apply for and Utilize Local Funds for Affordable Housing. Potential sources of funds could include, but would not Apply for funding at least Same as H-j. be limited to: three times during the (a) Marin Workforce Housing Trust planning period. (b) Marin Community Foundation (c) Federal Grants (d) Transportation Authority of Marin (e) Voluntary donations (such as bequeaths, trusts, donations of land and buildings, etc.). (f) Affordable Housing Impact Fee on larger single-family homes. (Size to be determined —for example, Marin County has a sliding scale housing impact fee on homes over 2,000 square feet in size). (g) Inter-Jurisdictional Housing Trust Fund (with Belvedere and Marin County) that could include housing impact fees, in-lieu fees, co-funding one nexus study for a housing impact, and the accumulation of any other housing-related monies for use in a mutually beneficial way to meet each jurisdiction's RHNA through a combination of contributions to the Fund and units created. Page 24 TABLED: Program Implementation Status Town of Tiburon Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 Section 6202) Reporting Period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Prog. # Objective Timeframe Status of Pro ram Im lemeatation H-1 Work with Non-Profits on Housing. The Town will work with non-profits to assist in achieving the Town's housing Outreach to non-profits No outreach was made in 2015, 2016, or 2017. In 2018, Town staff goals and implementing programs. Coordination should occur on an ongoing basis, and as special opportunities arise biennially met on several occasions with staff from the Ecumenical Association related to specific housing sites and as the Housing Element is implemented. for Housing (EAH) regarding one of the Town's identified affordable housing opportunity sites and opportunities for an affordable housing project at that site. H-m Work with the Marin Housing Authority. Continue to implement the agreement with the Marin Housing Authority Ongoing Town staff communicated periodically with MHA in 2015 regarding (MHA) for management of the affordable housing stock in order to ensure permanent affordability, and implement existing and potential affordable housing units, including resale and resale and rental regulations for very low, low and moderate income units, and assure that these units remain at an rental restrictions and defending against the loss of affordable status through lending institution errors. No reportable action in 2016. affordable price level. Periodic contact resumed in 2017 and continued in 2018. H-n Staff Training. Conduct a training session for Town employees regarding the receipt, documentation, and proper As needed No reportable progress in 2017 or 2018. Training was provided referral of housing discrimination complaints and other information related to housing programs. previously to key staff. H-o Housing Discrimination Complaints. Refer discrimination complaints to the appropriate legal service, county, or Ongoing Ongoing. Complaints are referred by Town staff to the appropriate state agency or Fair Housing of Marin. The Community Development Director is the designated person in Tiburon with agency upon receipt. responsibility to investigate and deal appropriately with complaints. Discrimination complaints will be referred to Fair Housing of Marin, the Marin Housing Authority, Legal Aid, HUD, or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, as appropriate. Information regarding the housing discrimination complaint referral process will be posted on the Town's website. H-p Provision of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households. Provision of Affordable Housing for Special Ongoing Ongoing. The Town continues to apply its inclusionary housing Needs Households. Continue to facilitate programs and projects which meet federal, state and local requirements to ordinance provisions to new housing projects. provide accessibility for seniors, persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, large families, and single-person and single parent households. Apply current inclusionary housing provisions that require 10% of new units to be designed for special needs households. Specific types of housing include: (a) Smaller, affordable residential units, especially for lower income single-person and single parent households. (b) Affordable senior housing to meet the burgeoning needs of an aging population, including assisted housing and board and care (licensed facilities). (c) Affordable units with three or more bedrooms for large family households. (d) Affordable housing that is built for, or can easily and inexpensively be adapted for, use by people with disabilities (specific standards are established in California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations for new and rehabilitation projects, augmented by Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines) and people with developmental disabilities. H-q Emergency Housing Assistance. Participate and allocate funds, as appropriate, for County and non-profit programs Respond to requests for In 2017 and 2018, the Town contributed monetarily to county-wide providing emergency shelter and related counseling services. assistance homeless programs. H-r Provide Town Employee Housing Assistance. Identify opportunities for local government employees (especially Ongoing The Town currently owns seven (7) Point Tiburon Marsh condo units public safety personnel) to find housing locally through such efforts as construction of workforce housing at public that it makes available to Town employees who qualify. Six of the facilities or parking lots or subsidizing mortgages or rents. seven units are currently occupied by Town of Tiburon employees. - - H-s - Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing in Commercial Zones. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to specifically Adopt ordinance within 180 Ordinance No. 554 N.S. implementing these revisions was adopted on February 18, 2015. Page 25 TABLED: Program Implementation Status Town of Tiburon Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 Section 6202) Reporting Period January ], 2018 through December 31, 2018 Prog. # Objective Timeframe Status ofPro ram Im lemeutation identify transitional and supportive housing as conditionally permitted uses in the neighborhood commercial (NC) and days of Element adoption village commercial (VC) zones. Transitional and supportive housing will be treated as a residential use subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses in the NC and VC zones. H-t Rehabilitation Loan Programs. In cooperation with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA), improve citizen awareness of Ongoing Information continues to be made available. MHA rehabilitation loan rehabilitation loan programs. brochures are available at the public counter in Town Hall. H-u Conduct Residential Building Report Inspections. The Town will continue to inspect and report on all residential Ongoing Ongoing. The Town continues to conduct such inspections and units prior to resale, with the intent to maintain and upgrade the safety of housing within the town consistent with reports as part of the housing unit resale process. The Town adopted Uniform Building and Housing Codes, which provide standards for safe dwelling units. In addition to the health conducted approximately 146 resale inspections in 2016, 154 in and safety concerns, the residential building report discloses the authorized use, occupancy and zoning of the property 2017, and 174 in 2018. and an itemization of deficiencies in the dwelling unit. H-v Acquisition of Rental Housing. Contact potential non-profits (such as Tiburon Ecumenical Association, Ecumenical Annually No affordable housing opportunities resulted from occasional contact Association for Housing, Citizens Housing, BRIDGE Housing, etc.) who may be seeking to acquire and rehabilitate with non-profits in 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018. rental housing units in order to maintain ongoing affordability of the units. Provide assistance that will include, but not be limited to: (1) support necessary to obtain funding commitments from governmental programs and non- governmental grants; (2) assistance in permit processing; (3) waiver or subsidy of fees; and (4) use of local funds if available. H-w Use of Rental Assistance Programs. Continue to publicize and participate in rental assistance programs such as Ongoing Ongoing. The Town continues to participate in these programs as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, the Housing Stability Program, and other available rental programs. part of the joint program with the County of Marin and other Marin municipalities. H-x Condominium Conversions. Preserve rental housing by enforcement through the Town's condominium conversion Ongoing Ongoing. The Town enforces these policies and regulations. ordinance and Housing Element policy. H-y Link Code Enforcement with Public Information Programs on Town Standards, Rehabilitation and Energy Ongoing Other than ongoing processes, no progress was made on these items Loan Programs. Implement housing, building and fire code enforcement to ensure compliance with basic health and in 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018. safety building standards and provide information about rehabilitation loan programs for use by qualifying property owners who are cited. Specific actions include: (a) Coordinate with the Marin Housing Authority and PG&E to make available loan programs to eligible owner and renter-occupied housing. (b) Provide public information on alternative energy technologies for residential developers, contractors and property owners. (c) Publicize tenant assistance and energy conservation programs and weatherization services that are available to provide subsidized or at cost inspection and corrective action. (d) Contact owners of structures that appear to be in declining or substandard condition, offer inspection services, and advertise and promote programs that will assist in funding needed work. (e) Provide an informational guide to homeowners explaining the benefits, "best practices" and procedures for adding or legalizing a secondary dwelling unit. H-z Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites. Work with Non-Profits and Encourage development of Zoning amendments were adopted in 2015 to designate new Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites. Encourage cooperative and joint ventures between owners, one or more housing affordable housing opportunity sites, reduce the percentage of developers and non-profit groups in the provision of below market rate housing. Work with non-profits and property opportunity sites. Take affordable units required, and allow housing by right in such zones. owners to seek opportunities for an affordable housing development on one of the key housing opportunity sites. specific actions by 2015 No affordable housing projects were constructed in 2015,2016, 2017,and development of or 2018 althou h Town staff continued to review and encourage Page 26 TABLED: Program Implementation Status Town of Tiburon Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 Section 6202) Reporting Period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Prog. # Objective Timeframe Status ofPro ram Implementation Undertake the following actions to encourage development of multi-family, affordable housing: housing site or sites by conceptual proposals for a mixed use affordable project on the 1600 (a) Meet with non-profit housing developers (EAH, MHA, others) and property owners to identify 2022. Tiburon Boulevard affordable housing overlay site and initiated housing development opportunities, issues and needs during 2015. renewed conversations with the Reed Union School District regarding (b) Select the most viable site during 2015. its affordable housing overlay site. See also Program H-I. (c) Undertake community outreach in coordination with the potential developer and property owner during 2015. (d) Complete site planning studies, continued community outreach, and regulatory approvals in coordination with the development application. (e) Facilitate development through regulatory incentives, reducing or waiving fees, fast track processing, and assistance in development review. (f) Develop ongoing and annual outreach and coordination with non-profit housing developers and affordable housing advocates to assist in the development of housing for extremely low-income households. (g) Facilitate development of housing for extremely low-income households by allowing housing as a use by-right as part of the "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone." (h) Review funding options as part of the annual Housing Element review and apply for funding or support funding applications as opportunities are available, and will undertake other actions (such as modifications to parking requirements and granting concessions and incentives) to assist in the development of housing for extremely low income households. H-aa Implement "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone" Zoning for Affordable Projects. Annually monitor the Ongoing Zoning ordinance amendments implementing the overlay zone effectiveness of the "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone" as part of the annual Housing Element review (see Program revisions set forth in this program were adopted in March 2015. No (H-g), and implement the affordable housing overlay zone where residential densities will be increased up to 100% if a affordable housing units were approved or built in 2015 pursuant to specified level of affordability is achieved. As part of the annual review there will be a review as to whether the program the affordable housing overly zone; however, residential construction has been effective in encouraging very low and low income housing. The program will be revised if it is found to be activity of"new" dwelling units (as opposed to tear-down/rebuilds) ineffective. Initially, this zone shall be modified so that proposals must include a minimum of 15 percent very low and was zero in 2015, and two (2) in 2016. The total number of new low and 10 percent moderate income housing units (25% of the project shall be dedicated to very low, low and dwelling units finaled increased to seven (7) in 2017. In 2018, one moderate income units). Facilitate development of housing for extremely low-income households by allowing housing new unit was finaled, in addition to three others being approved but as a use by-right as part of the "Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. not vet finaled. H-bb Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law. The Town will offer density Ongoing No applications requesting state-mandated density bonuses were bonuses consistent with the State Density Bonus Law. received in 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018. H-cc Design Review of Multi-Family Housing. Conduct design review to assure excellence of design in new multi-family Ongoing No such projects were proposed in 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018. housing development that is compatible with the surrounding area. H-dd Housing Impact Fee for Larger Homes. Consider an affordable housing impact fee on larger single-family homes. 2016 No progress in 2015, 2016, 2017, or 2018. H-ee Implement Second Dwelling Unit Development Standards and Permit Process. Continue to allow second Ongoing No secondary dwelling unit applications were received in 2015. Two dwelling units. (2) applications for secondary dwelling unit were received in 2016. Two (2) applications for accessory dwelling unit were received in 2017. Four applications for accessory dwelling units were received and approved in 2018. Page 27 TABLED: Program Implementation Status Town of Tiburon Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 Section 6202) Reporting Period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 Prog. # Ob'ective Timeframe Status ofPro ram Implementation H-ff Adopt Standards for Junior Second Units. Review and consider adopting standards to allow the creation of junior Consider adoption in 2015 Ordinance No. 555 N. S. adopting standards for junior second units second units. Standards to consider should include, but not be limited to, the following: was adopted in February 2015. In 2017, new state laws went into (a) Conversion of existing bedroom required — no building expansion; effect that limit or prohibit special district fees for junior accessory (b) Maximum 500 square-foot size; units. Despite that and a nominal Town application fee of$250, no (c) Wet-bar type kitchen only with limitations on size of sink, waste line and counter area; applications for junior accessory dwelling units were received in 2017 (d) Cooking facility limited by electrical service (110v maximum) and prohibition of gas appliances; or in 2018. (e) Separate bathroom permitted, but not required; (f) Require external access and internal access to the remainder of the home; (g) No additional parking required if dwelling complies with current parking standards and there is adequate on-street parking to accommodate the additional use; (h) Owner occupancy required; and (i) Ministerial approval process. The Town will work with utility districts to reduce or waive fees for junior second units. H-gg Jobs/Housing Fee. Adopt a Jobs/Housing Linkage Fee Ordinance that includes the following or similar exaction 2017 No progress in 2015 or 2016. No reportable action in 2017 or 2018. requirements: As significant jobs creation projects in Tiburon are highly unusual, any (a) Exaction requirements for dwelling units and/or in-lieu fees should be set according to empirically based evidence such ordinance would rarely if ever be utilized. On those several sites in the Downtown area where the Town has placed an affordable and must comply with all other legal tests. housing overlay zone, such an ordinance could actually be (b) The inclusion of affordable housing units within developments of hotels, offices, or other commercial buildings if counterproductive. feasible (options may include housing on-site, off-site, subsidizing mortgages or rents, or paying an in-lieu fee for housing production), or (c) Payment into the Housing Fund of in-lieu fees based on a dollar amount per square foot of office, commercial, and industrial building development. (d) In-lieu fees would be waived in projects containing significant affordable housing components. H-hh Encourage Residential Development on Mixed Use Sites. Encourage residential development on key housing sites Ongoing No progress in 2015. In 2016, Town staff met on several occasions that are designated for mixed use. Incentives are identified in the Affordable Housing Overlay zone. with representatives of ACV-Argo and provide advice on the development of a mixed-use project in Downtown that included affordable housing units. In 2017, staff met with ACV-Argo to review conceptual designs for a mixed use project on the former Sharks Deli site at 1600 Tiburon Boulevard. Density bonus provisions were discussed as well as Town incentives to encourage the project. See Program DT-c. Page 28 Please Start Here General Information Submittal Instructions Jurisidiction Name Tiburon Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) forms and tables must be Reporting Calendar Year 2018 submitted to HCD and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on or before April 1 of each year for the prior calendar year; submit separate reports Contact Information directly to both HCD and OPR pursuant to Government Code section 65400. First Name Sun There are two options for submitting APRs: Last Name Kwon 1. Online Annual Progress Reporting System (Preferred) -This enters your Title Community Development Director information directly into HCD's database limiting the risk of errors. If you would like to use the online system, email APR(a)-hcd.ca.gov and HCD will send you the login Email skwonatownoftiburon.orq information for your jurisdiction. Please note: Using the online system only provides Phone (415) 435-7393 the information to HCD. The APR must still be submitted to OPR. Their email Mailing Address address is opr.apr@opr.ca.gov. Street Address 1505 Tiburon Boulevard 2. Email - If you prefer to submit via email, you can complete the excel Annual Progress Report forms and submit to HCD at APR(a_)hcd.ca.gov and to OPR at City Tiburon opr.apr(q-)_opr.ca.gov. Please send the Excel workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy Zipcode 94920 of the tables. v1_29_19 Annual Progress Report January 2019 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25§6202) ,�f4�r�S1�iCtlpn Tibgrnn Note:+Optional field t f;8`bttin Year; 2tl18„ ,� 1Sii«; ,pee, [ Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table A Housing Development Applications Submitted Date Total Total Project Identifier Unit Types Application Proposed Units-Affordability by Household Incomes Approved Disapproved Streamlining Notes Submitted Units by Units by Project Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1NaS APPLICATION T 'ED DISAPPRO e- [✓rate „:.. . ._ y 1 ✓ren. r t A i" 2 a o ®. d._: - <,. O [ten) Strea m rmn u is ae w ZM 055-261-08 3 Las Palmas Way ADU2018-01 ADU R 2/2/2018 1 y: 1 No 038-431-03 337 Blackfield Dr. ADU2018-002 ADU R 5/2/2018 1 1 1 No 039-290-02 10 Via Paraiso ADU2018-03 ADU R 7/9/2018 No West 058-231-24 3 Berke Ct. ADU2018-004 ADU R 10/25/2018 1 1 1 No 038-081-02 127 Taylor Rd. DR2018-006 SFD 0 4/30/2018 1 1 No 039-061-96 5 Trestle Glen Cir DR2018-096 SFD 0 8/28/2018 1 1 1 No „w r ti ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation 25 §6202) Note: + Optional field Cells in grey contain auto-calculatic Table A2 1 of 4 Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed l Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitl 2 3 4 ti „ { 4 Z l { T 2 7. S 4'. x T Q Uni to 4 . 9 ,. . t. _. Lo 1>J, r d c q96.4 �. c � c Nr� _ , +. „ In tca. C.urre P Str a res „ :, r h A e t dd s. ;, 1; ASFA. F _ . , N �3 to ._ n e rn2 ._ om _ . ., A A N „ Pro ctS nc , P r- P .. , Na_e ..., e I� d ., ee . . D _ _ t �� _ . NQr� d . . , 1 + n R r � t ,, w T ck D .,, a H a. .ADU M _ r „<< _... . � i 1r f'�est arc. _ Ye .,. o . f p t 1 r F yper+. r t t. 5' z a. } r r 5. K: i t ISO= S L . t PEW am ill 038-031-12 5025 Paradise Dr. BR18-020 ADU R 1 055-261-08 3 Las Palmas Way ADU2018-01 ADU R 039-290-02 10 Via Paraiso West ADU2018-03 ADU R 038-431-03 337 Blackfield Dr. ADU2018-002 ADU R 058-231-24 3 Berke Ct. ADU2018-004 ADU R 038-081-02 127 Taylor Rd. DR2018-006 SFD O 039-061-96 5 Trestle Glen Cir DR2018-096 SFD O 059-071-51 275 Diviso St. BR18-210 SFD O 058-301-47 77 Round Hill Rd. BR17-144 SFD O 058-261-19 96 Mount Tiburon Ct. BPA14-369 SFD O )n formulas Table A2 - 2 of 4 !nits lement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Low- � s t trt , nttlXnnt �sd Very Low- Income Non Low-Income Low-Income Moderate- Moderate- Above Building Permits #of Units Issued �� < �l�tlot4 DtAo�redt�tis Income Deed Deed Deed Non Deed Income Deed Income Non Moderate- Date Issued Building Permits 4uh , lnct �nt Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Deed Restricted Incomee c S < F s 1 ' 5/22/2018 1 8/30/2018 1 7/2/2018 1` 1 11/7/2018 1 5/17/201812, 1 9/20/2018 ` 1 10/18/2018 1 4/16/2018 r t , t t 5 Table A2 - 3 of 4 Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy Streamlining Infill Housing with Finar and/or Deed R 11 12 13 14 15 16 MM or MOO �--,17"` 7 7, 7, 77- �:(S]5,35�Stto th-th 16"ni MY '---Y N-, ............ ............-, 10/15/2018 N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y ............ N Y N Y vJv N Y N Y 1 1/11/2018 N Y 7 7777 Table A2 - 4 of 4 ficial Assistance Housing without Financial Term of Affordability estrictions Assistance or Deed or Deed Restriction Demolished/Destroyed Units Notes Restrictions 17 18 19 20 21 Far,un�ts affordable wii�OU f�nancaal assXstance Ordeed ©emolisled/ Tenn of Affiordabllt ar Nurriber of Y . n Demolished:ar Destro e Deed Rgstriction„ restr�c#ion%,,vxplai hPv the Yd Deed:Restrc#lon `ears) Demolrshedl (Y lies#ro`ed Uni#s,_ , Type lacal�ty determined the units Y No#es cif affordable�n perpetu�# pestrayed (see ar�structions) were affordable eri Y llni#s owner pr {see 'C-10 Renter # r � ) lnts r ADU Survey ADU ADU Survey ADU ADU ADU ADU new sfd new sfd new sfd new sdf new sfd ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs. eF+ ► Ys 2b18' � n pec` , Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here Table B Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Permitted Units Issued by Affordability 2 3 4 To mai"in tit lie n t # itao _ ae Deed Restricted` Very Low Non-Deed Restricted Deed Restricted Low Non-Deed Deed Restricted yyp Moderate Non-Deed Restricted Above Moderate 2 7 4 � Total RHNA $,. Total Units 44 Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25§6202) fdKtYo „,„ fi4�Jffi Note:+Optional field t RB 41711@�1 " 1�1$,° art 1 „j3eo 3i), Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table C Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Project Identifier Date of Rezone Affordability by Household Income Type of Shortfall Sites Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t,o a J'risii c#� jf e e rt aYl a Y „ f e ai - _, � Re 1Ys Yc.G aci V c No v a u M F nd xr 1E< t e � s ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) Jurisdiction Tiburon Reporting Year 2018 (Jan. - Dec. 31) , Table D 1 of 2 Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 Housing ProgramsProgress Report Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. ' 7 2 3 4 Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Table D - 2 of 2 H-a H-b H-c ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) Jurisdiction Tiburon Note: + Optional field TV 1 eriod� �20�8 � J46, 1 -Dec. 31 Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table E Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Project Identifier Units Constructed as Part of Agreement Description of Commercial Commercial Development Bonus Development Bonus Date Approved 2 3 4 Local Jurisdiction Very LowLow Moderate Above Moderate Description of Commercial Commercial Development Bonus APN Street Address Project Name Tracking ID Income Income Income' Income Development Bonus , Date Approved Summary Row: Start Data Entry BeloAnnual Progress Report w January 2019 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) Jurisdiction Tiburon Note: + Optional field Reporting Period 2018 (Jan, 1 -Dec. 31). Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table F Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(2) This table is optional.Jurisdictions may list(for informational purposes only) units that do not count toward RHNA, but were substantially rehabilitated, acquired or preserved. To enter units in this table as progress toward RHNA, please contact HCD at APR@hcd.ca.gov. HCD will provide a password to unlock the grey fields. Units may only be credited to the table below when a jurisdiction has included a program in its housing element to rehabilitate, preserve or acquire units to accommodate a portion of its RHNA which meet the specific criteria as outlined in Government Code section 65583.1(c)(2). Units that Count Towards RHNA+ Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+ Note-Because the statutory requirements Beverly,limit what can be Listed for Informational Purposes Only counted, please contact HCD to receive the password that;will enable you to populatethese fields. The description should adequately document how each Activity Type unit complies with subsection(c)(7)of Government Code Section 65583.1+ Extremely Low- Extremely Low- Very Low- income+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ Income+ Income+ Low-income+ TOTAL UNITS+ ,;, v;rv::>, t..;... . Rehabilitation Activit y ;;H Preservation of Units At-Risk _..,.....m..............,. may. Acquisition of Units � ;. .N, -...��s.H��»CHH�",�';vi',' a�v�, 'sM;�rviy.,,,, �iu�:•' .H r�ti,�s.�::�. ��� ";�/i zxiH Total Units by Income ,._.......,,._;;_....,.,w�;�;.„,�.........._...,.,_...._............ ........,_...._..,, ::Liv".63'u'✓ ,ro+rvinri..� a�rnSLi,'vi"as=:+'viiZb:::hGiiiu%"•"nmsa7vmrx.v m�"'•'•,;L':r»;»;Y.i7'i:�"'•",••�.�,•, � �" Annual Progress Report January 2019 Summary Page Permttted_t1r��fs Issued b Affor�lb�li Surrama_ ,,,. Inconr`e Level Gotten#;Y�ar ;, Deed Restricted Very Low Non-Deed Restricted Deed Restricted Low Non-Deed Restricted Deed Restricted c Moderate Non-Deed Restricted Above Moderate ` Total Units 44 4 Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Entitlement 3mrna Total Housing Applications Submitted: 6 Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received: 6 Total Housing Units Approved: $ Total Housing Units Disapproved: tJse of SIS 35 T", Number Provisions`. Number of Applications for Streamlining Number of Streamlining Applications Approved ` Total Developments Approved with Streamlining Total Units Constructed with Streamlining lln►ts;Cor�struc#ed .5,>�� �t�rearrtl�ntn Perr>�ii#s Income .:2ental.' .. flwnersh�p . . .. To#ai Ver Low Moderate ` Above Moderate Total Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas c0�, TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 6, 2019 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Itcm: PH-1 STAFF REPOR To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 490 Ridge Road: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the Construction to Expand and Existing Deck for an Existing Single-Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage; Stephen Schwartz Owner; Cavi 1985, LLC Appellants; File Nos. DR2018-070 & VAR2018-022; Assessor Parcel No. 059-082-06 Reviewed By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is considering an appeal of the Design Review Board's approval of the proposed project located at 490 Ridge Road RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) Staff recommends the Town Council hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure, close the public hearing, deliberateand consider adopting one of the following options:'. 1) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2) Grant the appeal, denying the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting 3) Partially grant the appeal by making revisions or adding conditions to the Design Review Board's approval, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting 4) Alternatively, remand the item to the Design Review Board with specific direction regarding any aspect of the project needing further review and deliberation. The Board's decision on remand would again be appealable to the Council. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 March 6,2019 PROJECT DATA Address: 490 Ridge Road Owner: Stephen Schwartz Applicant: Wade Skeels Appellants: Cavi 1985, LLC (480 Ridge Road) Assessor's Parcel: 059-082-06 File Numbers: DR2018-070 & VAR2018-022 Lot Area: 21,424 square Feet Zoning: RO-2 (Residential Open; 20,00 square foot minimum lot area) General Plan: M (Medium Density Residential) Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-year flood zone) SUMMARY On December 6, 2018, the Design Review Board voted 2-1 to conditionally approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application, with a Variance for excess lot coverage for the expansion of an existing deck in the rear property for an existing single-family dwelling located at 490 Ridge Road. The owners of the property at 480 Ridge, Alessandra and Alessandro Beraldi (hereafter referred to as "appellants"), have tiled a timely appeal of the Board's decision. The appeal is attached Exhibit 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Design Review Board has conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review for a deck expansion in the rear property for an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling with two levels of exterior decks; an existing upper level 881 square foot wooden deck with glass railing that is proposed to be expanded to the rear by 203 additional square feet, and at grade lower level deck. The new upper level expansion would also have glass railing. The existing tile decking would be replaced with new IPE decking and a new fire pit kould be situated on the exterior deck. The deck expansion would have a height of 9 feet fi-om grade, which would be the same height as the existing deck (see Exhibit 7). Given that decks are not included in the floor area calculations, the project resulted in no change to the existing floor area of the single family home of 4.159 square feet. However, in regards to lot coverage, the Town's Zoning Code requires that half the area of all decks higher than three feet above grade are counted towards the lot coverage calculations. The proposed deck addition resulted in a lot coverage of 3,912 square feet (18.26%), which is above the maximum permitted iot coverage in RO-2 zone (15.0%). TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 10 March 6,2019 REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board held two separate hearings on the application. The staff reports and minutes of those meetings are attached as Exhibit 3. A brief summary is as follows: Design Review Board meeting of October 18. 2018 The application was first reviewed at the October 18, 2018 Design Review Board meeting. During the meeting, the neighbor at 480 Ridge Road stated their opposition to the proposal and had concerns regarding deck expansion towards their property, which would appear to create privacy impacts. The Design Review Board determined that a portion of the proposed deck expansion would appear to loom over the backyard and would need to be pulled back from the side property. The application was continued to the December 6, 2018 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the project design. Design Review Board meeting of December 6 2018 The applicant submitted revised plans for the project, which were reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 6, 2018 meeting. The deck expansion was reduced from 315 square feet to 203 square feet. The deck expansion was pulled back approximately 15 feet from the side setback line (30 feet from the side property line). The revised proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,912 square feet (approximately 18.26%), which would continue to be over the lot coverage and a Variance for excess lot coverage would remain as requested by the applicant. The existing lot coverage for the site is 3,811 square feet (approximately 17.78 %) and therefore, the lot coverage would increase by 0.48% from the existing calculations. The property has been through a variety of planning review processes throughout the years and the home and garage are non-conforming structures. The Design Review Board approved a new home in 2007 (the existing structure was demolished), which resulted in a lot coverage of 15%, which is the limit for the RO-2 zone. In 2010, the Board, approved a new detached garage with two Variances for excess lot coverage and reduced fi-ont setback. The Variance lot- lot coverage was approved at 3,368 square feet (15.6%). In 2014, two minor additions were approved by the Planning Division staff as they were less than 500 square feet. Even though the additions increased in lot coverage (3,811 square feet), the practice at the time was that if the application increased the lot coverage to a level greater than 15%, a variance for excess lot coverage was not required. as the increase in lot coverage was less than 1%. Planning Division staff approved other minor improvements as well for landscaping and a roof height increase. The Design Review Board concluded that the proposed decl< expansion would be a modest expansion and the revisions were enough for two of the three Board members to support the Variance findings. In addition, the Board determined that pulling bacl< the proposed deck would adequately reduce any privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors. The Board voted 2-1 to approve the project with a memo to staff and future board members that the current Board highly discourages any future increases in lot coverage for the property at 490 Ridge Road. On December 17, 2018, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 10 Nlarclh 6,2019 GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Town Council may wish to review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). I. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed pro,jeet. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to he made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 10 March 6,2019 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES The Town Council should also review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16- 52.020 (J). Design review guidelines. In reviewing applications for site plan and architectural review, the review authority shall also apply goals and principles, as appropriate to the project, set forth in the Hillside Design Guidelines, Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, and any other guidelines adopted by Council, copies of which are available fi-om the planning division. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1: The proposed deck expansion would create a privacy impact and noise impact for the appellants. Staff Response: The majority of the Design Review Boardmembers visited the appellants property and evaluated the potential noise and privacy impacts of the proposed deck expansion. Boardmember Kim said on December 6, 2018 that "she does not see that privacy of the neighbors has been injured and thinks this is a modest proposal." Chair Chong stated that "he appreciates the applicant going back and pulling the deck back. At this time, there is no other part of the addition that gets closer to the neighbors." Boardmember Kricensky said "he thinks that given the way houses are built along that area and the Board has reviewed this many times. one house is higher and the other lower, leading to the potential problems. Pulling the deck back has helped in regards to the privacy..." The Board concluded that pulling back the deck on the south side would substantially lessen any privacy or noise impacts for the appellants. The plans show the existing deck approximately 16 feet from the south side property line. Staff visited the exterior deck on multiple occasions to view the story poles. The existing deck cLu-rently has a dining table and couch on the south side and another set of chairs situated in the existing bump out of the upper level deck. The deck expansion would be 30 feet from the same side property line. The owner of 490 Ridge Road has expressed that they would lil<e to re-oriented the existing couch and add a TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 10 \/larch 6,2019 fire pit to enjoy the outdoors and the existing views of Angel Island, bay, Golden Gate Bridge, and San Francisco skyline. Staff also visited the appellants property on multiple occasions during the design review process. The existing deck and story poles could not be seen from the interior of the home, but could be viewed from the side patio area off the kitchen of the existing home. Both properties have existing landscaping and vegetation along the side property line. The owner of 490 Ridge Road has a number of cypress trees planted along the side property line that appears to provide a privacy buffer between the two properties. Ground #2: The Design Review Board did not adequately address the Variance Findings Staff Response: In the October 18, 2018 staff report, staff provided facts that could be used to support the four required findings for the Variance request and the Board concluded that they supported the findings from the staff report. In the October 18, 2018 staff report, staff informed the Board that they would need to make all four findings for the Variance request in order to approve the project. Those four findings are stated in the Town's municipal code section 16-52.030(E) and are derived fi-om State law. The four findings are as follows: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Finding from staff report: Due to the slope of the lot, there is limited potential for outdoor space. The deck expansion would allow for the applicant to have additional outdoor space. There are other properties in the area that have more usable outdoor space than this property. • The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Finding from staff report: The 21,424 square foot property size of the subject property is larger than the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size in the RO-2 zone. Numerous other properties zoned RO-2 have been granted variances for excess lot coverage, but generally for homes that are located on properties that are smaller than the minimum lot area. Other homes in the area; however, have more usable outdoor space than the subject property. This Variance request would allow for additional outdoor space on a sloped lot. • The strict opplication of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constintte special circim7stances. A self-created hardship results ftom actions taken by present or prior o>>>ners of the property that consciously create the vete difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis f n,an application for a variance. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 10 March 6,2019 Finding from staff report: Excess lot coverage variances typically address properties within predominantly one-story neighborhoods where the homes are limited to a single- story design because of potential view and privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors. For this property, there are two levels of decks currently situated on the property and the request is to expand the upper level deck. There are no self-created hardships related to this project. The applicant is requesting this Variance to allow for more usable outdoor space. Without the Variance, the applicant would need to expand the outdoor space down the hill. This would require construction of retaining walls and possibly the removal of foliage. This could result in a slight hardship for the property owner. Other properties on Ridge Road and Mountain View Drive in the neighborhood have larger outdoor spaces as they are on flat lots and are not sloped like the subject property, which limits the space for outdoor entertainment area. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Allowing additional deck space would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adjacent neighbor at 480 Ridge Road has expressed some concerns about privacy. The Design Review Board, could reduce the sire of the deck on the on southwest side and/or require landscaping to screen the two properties to address this concern if the Design Review Board determined if the deck reduction or screening would be necessary. The applicant submitted revised plans that were presented to the Design Review Board at the December 6, 2018 meeting with a request for a smaller deck expansion. As mentioned before, the deck was pulled back an additional 15 feet from the property line for a total of 30 feet from the side property line. As mentioned above, Chair Chong and Boardmember Kim both stated that the deck expansion would be very modest and could support the findings, but they also were in support of the concern for future development on this property, especially if a variance for excess lot coverage was involved with the application. In addition. Chair Chong states that "he thinks the hardship is the nature of the steep lot and not be able to have sufficient outdoor area. Also, this deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground." Chair Chong and Boardmember Kim stated that language should be in the file that indicated for future Board to not allow additional excess lot coverage for this property. The Board concluded that with the language to "stop the incremental requests for lot coverage for this property" would provide guidance for fixture Board members to consider. Ground #3: The Design Review Board set an unenforceable limits for future increases on lot coverage at 490 Ridge Road. Staff Response: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 10 .March 6,2019 All requests for Variances are on a case by case basis and must be reviewed and supported by the review authority to be granted. The Board expressed concern of the many variances granted for the subject property over the years (2007-present) and that a statement for future Board members Should be considered when reviewing applications for this property and variances for excess lot coverage should not be supported. Staff has added a memo for the file and the minutes for the meeting are on record. The memo states for future board members, additional increase in lot coverage for this property should be strongly discouraged. Ground #4: The deck expansion would block sun light for the patio area at 480 Ridge Road. Staff Response: The upper level deck expansion would be 30 feet from the side property line and would be 9 feet tall fi-om grade and would extend off the applicant's home the same length as the existing decl< (13 feet). Staff visited the property of 480 Ridge Road during the Design Review process and noted that story poles could be seen from the appellants property from the outdoor patio area, but the upper level deck expansion did not appear to create a blockage of sunlight for the adjacent neighbor and this concern did not appear to be an issue for the Board. In addition, the side property has existing vegetation that screens the existing upper level deck and the expansion between the two properties. The Town Council is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the deck expansion would create any visual and noise impacts on the adjacent neighbors, especially for the outdoor patio area. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board reviewed the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project, and adopted findings that the proposed deck expansion would adequately address any potential privacy and noise impacts for the appellants and granted the Variance Tor excess lot coverage. The "Town Council may review these findings de novo and decide whether to make similar findings. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is categorically exempt fi•om the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On December 6. 2018 the Dcsign Review Board, as part of its review of the project and approval of the decl< expansion for an existing single-family dwelling, deemed the project to be exempt from CEQA Pursuant to the Class I and 3 categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 10 \larch 6,2019 Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). To the extent further analysis is required, staff recommends that the Town Council similarly determine that with respect to the limited Site Plan and Architectural Review approval at issue the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the same Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions, and that no exceptions to the exemptions apply. Class I Categorical Exenyw.ion (CEQA Guidelines§15301-Existing Facilities The proposed project involves a deck expansion to an existing deck for an existing single-family home in a residential zone. The area is urbanized with other single-family homes on all sides of the property. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15303 — New Construction/Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project is a deck expansion for an existing single-family dwelling. The deck expansion would add approximately 203 square feet of deck to an existing 881 square foot deck in the rear property. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA Guidelines§ 15300.2) Further, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. hldeed, the proposed project would not significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition, there is no evidence that any significant cumulative impacts would occur. Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following: 1) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 2) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 3) The structure is not a historical resource because 1) the structure is not listed on the Town's Local Historic Landmarks list; 2) the structure is not listed on the California Historic Resources list; 3) the structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and 4) there is not evidence that the structure meets any of the criteria for the listing. The house was built in 2007. 4) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon's Design Review Board to approve deck expansions for an existing home. There are numerous examples in Tiburon including 2340 Paradise Drive and 172 Avenida Mirafiores. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council conduct a public hearing on this matter, deliberate and then consider adopting one of the following options: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 10 \%larch 6,2019 5) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 6) Grant the appeal, denying the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting 7) Partially grant the appeal by making revisions or adding conditions to the Design Review Board's approval, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting Alternatively, remand the item to the Design Review Board with specific direction regarding any aspect of the project needing further review and deliberation. The Board's decision on remand would again be appealable to the Council. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal. 2. Design Review Board action letter with final conditions of approval 3. Design Review Board staff report dated December 6, 2018 with attachments, including the October 18, 2018 Staff Report with attachments, late mail is also included. 4. Minutes of the October 18, 2018 Design Review Board meeting. 5. Minutes of the December 6, 2018 Design Review Board meeting. 6. Resolution 17-2010 Appeal procedures. 7. Letter dated February 26, 2019 from Alessandra Beraldi 8. Letter dated February 27, 2019 from Jonathan Kathrein 9. Approved site plan and architectural drawings reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 6, 2018. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 10 '2[118 tJl J €�. is _.Y - TOWN Or TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1-50-5 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 Phone 41.5-43.5-7373 APPELLANTS) (Attach odelitional pages if necessary) Alessandra Beraldi, on behalf of Cavi 1985, LLC (480 Ridge, Tiburon, CA) Name: PCS Box 537, Tiburon, CA 94920 Mailing Address: 650-544-4080 (mobile) Telephone:_ — _ (Work) _ (home) 480R@cavi 1985.com FAX and/or e-mail (optional): ACTION BEING APPEALED Design Review Board Review Authority Whose Decision is.Being Appealed: December 6, 2018 Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: Stephen Schwartz Name ofApp}icant:_ Site plan and architectural review Type of Application or Decision: �__-- GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached. EXHIBIT 1 ;'Eyr,.�v,.r;.r:#;}:r,.: X�a->$'V YYYYYy�,;#:;j%,-#;1t;ac:k�c.14:k:;: r��'�����>#�%4%Y(•%�'iN%1����>k�;#:h, ;Y h: ::K�:>,'<.'c J::{<.�:��k%f�'F>k* STAFF(ISE OA'L,Y BELOW THIS LINE Last Dai to File A>x al: :. Date Appeal>eal I fled: 1 I 1 ' ? _._.__._.. I 1 Fee Paid: tX� :. _ Receipt Nt�. Date of Appeal IIcarin�: ( Al G i 1� .5 {. NOTE: Cur1eiit Tiling I ee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat 1' e for non-applicant .5'A1dIttinisIra/ionVh)tno`,Noticeollppeu1joiInI:rised.39-2010.doc Ret.vedMai,h 0/0 | ' � , Grounds for appeal mfDR2O18-07Oand WAR2O18-022; 490 Ridge Road. / The Design Review Board ignored how this upper-floor deck expansion negatively impacts neighboring properties, including, but not limited to, 480 Ridge Road and 500 Ridge Road. Such expansion will decrease privacy and increase noise at both of 490's immediate neighborsmnd will decrease our property value.Any claim that the current owners do not heavily use the deck will be meaningless once the deck is larger, and more suitable for guests and entertainment, or when afuture owner has adifferent use pattern. The variance findings required by the Town Code cannot be made, particularly, but without limitation, with regard toexcess lot coverage. The Design Review Board's attempt(omake such finding was insufficient and done in error. State and |000| |avva require that variance findings identify how a property is different from others similarly situated and in the same zone. The Design Review Board could not make such findings. The Design Review Board did not make findings that were particular to the property, but instead attempted to, at best, rezone the entire Ridge Road area—without actually doing so, or at worst, ignored the Town's zoning standards all together. The Design Review Board found that all houses on Ridge Road have a downslope topography and lack of privacy, therefore it seemed to conclude that 490 should be allowed to ignore zoning limitations, particularly the lot coverage limit, so that 490 can have excessive upper-floor deck-space. But such downslope topography is not unique to 490 and it should be noted that 490 has already had its fair share of variances: for excess lot coverage, reduced front yard setback and reduced side yard setback, as a result of several projects of incremental creep since it was built in 2007. 490 is a fully-developed property that already has an expansive 881 oq ft upper-floor deck, a landscaped yard and large, flat, outdoor space in both the front and back of the hnme, and a lower deck. Besides, even if the Town can make the variance findings, the Town ianot required tngrant the variance; |tcan still bedenied. Further, the Design Review Board attempted to set unenforceable limits to future lot coverage increases at 490 Ridge Road by asking staff to note in the meeting minutes that, "this will be the last time a variance will be given at the property." Meanwhile, the Design Review Board ignored similar previous attempts at limitations, including notes of previous neighbor negotiations, on the same issue, and previous Design Review Boards'discussion regarding the need to set limitations. The Design Review Board is attempting to set a rule they themselves are breaking. For these reasons, and others to be described to the Council', we ask that the Town of Tiburon grant this appeal and deny the project. Sincerely, A|eosandnaBsrmNi ' `--/ -- — ---------- / Weherehyincoqmmte the analysis contained in our letters of November 27, October 10,August 1,July 3 2018 arid ilia analysis contained inthe letter ofour counsel, RogVhiamiFreitas, LLP ofNovember 2gand October/e o0�8 ' \ Kyra O'Malley From: Kyra O'Malley Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 9:30 AM To: 'Wade Skeels'; 'Stephen Schwartz' Subject: 490 Ridge Road- DR2018070 and VAR2018-022 Attachments: 490 Ridge Road Approval Letter.pdf Good Morning- Please find attached the approval letter for 490 Ridge Road. Keep in mind,there is a 10 calendar day appeal period, which ends on December 17`h at 5:30 PM. Also,the Board had a statement of intent for future boardmembers that additional increase in lot coverage for this property would be strongly discouraged. Thank you, Kyra Kyra O'Malley Associate Planner Town of Tiburon-Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 415/435.7397 www.townoftiburon.org N { r "Town Hall is closed on December 24-January 1sc=r. z EXHIBIT 2 ... _ .. _ lo�,vn z� Cburc�n° I>i)S"Tiburon ard iSoulcv , Iibui <_,P. on, 9.1'920^[?!15.435.7373 P.4 15-435-1438 40 °ww•.:coFviirf'cburon.or:, NOTICE OF Fraser DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION Jing i�tFras David Kulik On December 6, 2018, the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following Vice Mayor action: Alice Fredericks Granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to expand an existing Councihnenzber deck for an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot ............ .... coverage, located at 490 Ridge Road (File#DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022) xatii Thier Councilmember () Approved as submitted (x) Approved with conditions Jonvelne r {) Denied as submitted Council nember {) Continued to Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval or other requirements. The following materials are Greg chanis attached and should be retained for your records: Tow'Ji Manager () Approved plans O Appeal provisions of the Town () Revised conditions of approval O No attachments (x) Other— Final Conditions of Approval Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following the meeting, and will be provided upon request. There is a ten (10) day appeal period of any decision made by the Design Review Board. To appeal this decision, the prescribed form shall be filed in with the Town Clerk, accompanied with the appropriate fee. Appeals will be forwarded to the Town Council for review. After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain a Building Permit from the Tiburon Building Division for your project. Information on Building Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Division at (415) 435-7380. For addition--! information regarding this application, please call rete at (4i 5) 435- 7397. .+q f Si,ricerely, `^ v I � iJr� j/ si lyra C' alley Asso8iate Planner f C�i;n Rcvicv. Board\kering Dcccmha 6,2_015 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 490 RIDGE ROAD FILE NOS. DR2018-070 AND VAR2018-022 Community Development Department 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 3. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge, with defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 4. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on December 6, 2018, as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated November 26, 2018, stamped"Approved by Resign Review Board December 6, 2018", as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 5. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of Action", including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project, shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 5 i81�f1 I�CFlI'\'.'�ipfll'C�;VtCE'1'lll;; Dccclnha 6,2018 8. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the .Town's Noise Standards Policy for Air Conditioning Units. www.towno:ftiburon.ora/DocumentCenterNiew/1050/HVAC-and-Similar-Mechanical- Equipment-Noise-Policy. If the units exceed this noise standards at the property line, noise baffles or other sound reduction shall be required to reduce the sound levels at the property lines and may require a separate Design Review application. 9. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 10. Prior to under-floor inspection, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor of the structure foundation is required to be submitted to the Building Division. Required documents shall include: 1) graphic documentation accurately locating the building on a site plan; 2) specific distances from property lines and other reference points to the foundation as appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No additional inspections will be provided Lentil the confirming survey results have been submitted. 11. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final building inspection sign-off,all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plaits, The installation of plantings and irrigation shalt be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Public Works Department 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mestoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 13. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including,which shall be noted on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check. Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) I iiirouglioiit tiie dLlfat1U11 of pfoject CURStruction, all reitLiireiilents of file rife PIUMQtioii District shall be met. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 5 JC514.?.ta 1�C�'ICA*°1ip,?Ii�;A1l't'lltl� Duccinhe'6.'2018 Other Agencies 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 17. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy. -------End of Conditions of Approval ------- TOWN OF TIBURON __ PAGE 5 OF 5 TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board Meeting December 6,2018 l 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: PH-1 B 0 Yi To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Kyra O'Malley,Associate Planner Subject: 490 Ridge Road; File Nos. DR2018-070 and VAR2018-422; Site Plan and Architectural Review to Expand an Existing Deck for an Existing Single-Family Dwelling,with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-06 (Continued from October 18, 2018) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting design review approval to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage on property located at 490 Ridge Road. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling with an existing upper level 881 square foot wooden deck with glass railing on the rear of house. The application was first reviewed at the October 18, 2018 Design Review Board meeting. During the meeting, the neighbor at 480 Ridge Road stated their opposition to the proposal and had concerns regarding deck expansion towards their property, which would appear to create a privacy impact. The Design Review Board determined that a portion of the proposed deck expansion would appear to loom over the backyard and would need to be pulled back from the side property. The application was continued to the December 6, 2018 meeting to allow the applicant time to revised the project design. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The deck expansion was reduced from 315 square feet to 203 square feet. The revised proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,912.4 square feet (18.26%), which would continue to be over the lot coverage and a variance for excess lot coverage would remain as requested by the applicant. For information for the Board, the existing lot coverage is 3,811 square feet (17.78 %) and therefore, the lot coverage would increase by 0.48% from the existing calculations. ANALYSIS Design Issues The revisions to the project design appear to respond to some of the direction given by the Design Review Board at the previous meeting. The deck would expand 21 feet towards the south instead of 35 feet from the original deck location, which was shown on the previous submittal. The deck would remain the same height and the same design with IPE decking and glass guardrail. Even EXHIBIT 3 TOWN OF TIBURON MAGE 1 OF 5 Dl'ccnihcr lh'01 with the reduction in the deck expansion, a portion of the deck would be seen from the patio area of the downhill neighbors at 480 Ridge Road. The Design Review Board should evaluate the revised project design and determine if the changes are sufficient to address its concerns raised at the October 18, 2018 meeting (Attachment 4). The design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the proposed deck expansion would create any privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors, especially for the neighbors at 480 Ridge Road. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in general conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone, with the exception of the requested variance for excess lot coverage. In order to approve the proposed project as revised, the Design Review Board would need to make all four findings for this Variance request. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, two letters has been received regarding the subject application since the October 18,20,18 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020(H) Guiding Principles, Section 16-52.030 Variance, and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the Board can make the required findings to approve the project as proposed, it is recommended that the attached draft conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Revised application materials 3. Design Review Board staff report dated October 18, 2018 4. Minutes of the October 18, 2018 Design Review Board meeting 5. Letter dated November 29, 2018 from Alessandra Beraldi 6. Letter dated November 29, 2018 from Jonathan Katherin 7. Architectural plans by Skeels Design Architecture TOWN OF-TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 5 e�i�n Rei ic . linarc!\%leein;; Dcccinhcr 6,2018 DRAFT CONDITI®NS OF APPROVAL 490 RIDGE ROAD FILE NOS. DR2018-070 AND VAR2018-022 Community Development Department I. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 3. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge, with defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims.or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 4. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on December 6, 2018, as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated November 26, 2018, stamped "Approved by Design Review Board December 6, 2018", as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 5. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when constriction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise,must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of Action", including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project, shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 5 )coign Rc: icw Board\leeLing Nceniha 6,'201S 8. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the Tolvn's Noise Standards Policy for Air Conditioning Units. www.townofliburon.ori/DocumentCenterNiew/1050(HVAC-and-Similar-Mechanical- Equipment-Noise-Policy. If the units exceed this noise standards at the property line, noise baffles or other sound reduction shall be required to reduce the sound levels at the property lines and may require a separate Design Review application. 9. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state; ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 10. Prior to under-floor inspection, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor of the structure foundation is required to be submitted to the Building Division. Required documents shall include: 1) graphic documentation accurately locating the building on a site plan; 2) specific distances from property lines and other reference points to the foundation as appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No additional inspections will be provided until the confirming survey results have been submitted. IL Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final building inspection.sign-off, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Public Works Department 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mestopl2p.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 13. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, which shall be noted on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check. Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) 14. Throughout the duration of project construction, all requirements of the Fire Protection District shall be met. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 5 %e ian Itcic:�� I;>�ir�) `.9e�rint; Dcc�m+a 6,201S Other Agencies 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District(MMWD). 17. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy. ------End of Conditions of Approval ------- TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 5 Ms.Alessandra Bomldi ^1 41531s1 15, Tiburon, November 27, 2O18 NOV 2 9 2018 PLANNING DIVISION Mn. KyraO'MaUey Associate Planner, Planning Division Town ofTiburon Delivered hyemail: konna||ey@tovvnohibupon.orU Re: Comments to project foLa (upper floor) deck expansion at 490 Ridge Road Letter in response toplans filed on 11/26 for a public hearing on 12/6 Dear Ms. O'Malley: We are the owners of48U Ridge Road neighboring property of4gORidge Road ("4S0') inthe Hill Haven neighborhood |n Tiburon. VVeare opposing 4SO\srevised plans (the "NemExpansion")usp[emented. Theproject is injurious toour property ed480because: ^ Our privacy isnegatively affected ^ Our ability toenjoy Vu[rearpotioa. ouron|yoneonforentert8iDnlent, isnogad|ve|yaffo[ted ^ The development value nfour lot ionegatively affected While the New Expansion looks like areduction compared tothe plans presented tuDRB nn October 18, 2O18/t/s simply arehash mfthe expansion plans 4&0had already presented boStaff last July, which vvehad opposed cdthe dnne'. Toboclear: atthe October 18thDRB hearing, 4QOpresented plans that were larger than what 490 had presented to Staff three months earlier. le., 490 went artificially big, so that they can now pretend to show they were "listening" to the comments from DRB implementing an alleged reduction. But this approach is a disingenuous attempt to game the system. Our comments of last July have been ignored.The neighbors at 490 have not made any attempt ioreach out tnueafter the DRB hearing.This |snot right. 490isalready enjoying asignificant variance over lot coverage, today at17.7896where 15.O96 is allowed, as a result of several additional "small" proiects over the years.49}isnot under hardship anddoes not lack space for entertaining byany stretch nfthe imagination. 4SO does not need more deck. Board members Cousins and Kricensky were clear about that. 490's request for variance should not be granted because the findings required by law to give a variance cannot be met. We are asking the DRB to deny 490's New Expansion. Alternatively, we are asking the DRB to give 490 continuance and to direct our neighbors at 490 to engage in discussions with us to see if it is possible to reach a solution. ` See our letter ofAugust 1. 2O18.Also, our previous letters, dated July 8' 2O18and October 10'2U18 are hereby incorporated in their entirety. Nothing we say or not say in this letter can be construed as having waived or otherwise solved, either directly or indirectly, any of the concerns we expressed in our previous letters. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480R(�cavil�$5.com 1. PRIOR DRBs RECOGNIZED THAT 490 HAS A LARGE DECK ALREADY The photograph of the existing deck and poles attached (Exhibit A) speaks volumes. The existing deck is 881 sq. ft and over 74'long. It is large and comfortable. It has two sitting areas and one large dining area(not shown, to the west) protected by a trellis with a retractable tent to provide cover(not extended in Exhibit A). The L-shaped deck wraps around the west side of 490. 50%of the existing 74'-long deck has depth that varies between 16'and 20'. The remaining parts of the deck are 7' 6" deep.The lower deck shown in Exhibit A is also of significant size. The existing upper deck is not by any means "modest in size" as 490 suggests. In fact, Board member Cousins said that 490 has a very generous space and more outdoor space than many properties he has visited over the years. 2.THERE WAS A LOT OF GIVE-AND-TAKE WHEN 490 PLANS WERE APPROVED We have found evidence in DRB meeting minutes, when 490 was approved for previous projects that there was a lot of give-and-take between the 490 prior owners, the DRS and neighbors. The prior owner of 480 did express concerns regarding the privacy impacts of 490's upper floor deck on 480. Ultimately, the Town approved 490's plans after many revisions and with a variance. This means that 490 is a fully developed property... and some. Granting an additional variance is an undoing of those compromises. The New Expansion is incremental creep that would not have been approved at the time 490's plans were previously approved.There is no reason to re-open those discussions:the existing deck profile respects the neighboring properties and should be left alone. 3.490 CANNOT MAKE THE FINDING OF"NEED" OR "HARDSHIP" 490 does not come even close to making the findings of"need" or"hardship" because: • It already has an upper-floor deck of 881 sq.ft., with 2 sitting and 1 dining areas; PLUS • A large lower-floor deck with lounge chairs and expansive, landscaped outdoors; PLUS A landscaped spa and sitting area at the front of the house 490 has plenty of areas for entertaining and does not "need"the additional 203 sq.ft. of deck space- a 23% increase-, coming 22' towards our 480 property. 4.490 CANNOT MAKE THE FINDINGS OF LACK OF INJURY TO 480: NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PRIVACY AND ABILITY TO ENJOY OUR PROPERTY IN PEACE The New Expansion comes 22'towards our property.The resulting upper deck floor looms out- of--grade over 4Wvv's outside patio affeiting areas that are iii1pGi iat it to us. 490 sits 15-20 feet above our 480 property and is oriented differently. The extended deck would dominate and tower over the portions of our patio where we have a dining table and plan to have lounge chairs to enjoy the afternoon sun. Those portions of the patio are Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480R@cavi19a5.cam important to us because they are the only portions of the patio that have (some) afternoon sun. They are also our only areas for entertaining, given the small size of our house (1,900 Sq. ft; compared to the nearly 4,000 sq.ft. home at 490) and covered living area. We object to 490's statements and suggestions that we are "...heavily shielded by mature landscaping trees and hedge".That is simply not true. Thinking that our privacy can be protected by planting more trees on either property is wishful thinking. Trees have been the cause of many issues with the prior owner of 480. Planting trees to provide us with privacy would block the view they are seeking. We do not want complications in our life. We also object to statements made at the DRB hearing that"hillside properties are not private". it depends on the orientation of the properties and contours of the hill. For example, we do not see any of the patios of our other immediate neighbor at 460 Ridge. Part of the financial value of our home is its relative privacy. For this we paid a premium. We do not think we should suffer and lose value because 490 has suddenly decided that they want more deck as 881 sq.ft. are not enough. 5.490 CANNOT MAKE THE FINDINGS OF LACK OF INJURY To 480:480'S PROPERTY VALUE IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED The main value of 480 is its frontal Golden Gate bridge views.Such intrinsic value will be realized by developing the lot, one day, to take full advantage of the lot orientation. 490 has frontal views of Angel Island (not of the GG bridge)consistently with the slope and orientation of its lot. The planned deck extension at 490 protrudes outwards and off-grade. It moves 22'towards the key, flat areas of future development potential of 480.490 will tower over areas of obvious expansion for 480. A direct line-that today does not exist -will be created between the extended deck and the Golden Gate Bridge. Such line passes straight over 480's key areas of possible expansion or remodel.490's extended deck would put its owners in a position to "borrow"(from 480) /claim direct views of the GG Bridge that 490 currently does not have;views 490 was not intended to have based on its orientation. 490's deck extension will create new constraints to the future development of 480. We are concerned because it will adversely and disproportionally affect 480's property value. Our concerns are confirmed by what 490 wrote in their attempt to make the findings. Instead of explaining how the granting of the variance will not be injurious to our property, 490 flipped the matter on its head and wrote "... This proposed deck expansion hopes to provide additional views which may help to mitigate anticipated view loss due to the neighbors' development." It is an acknowledged pre-emptive strike, admittedly boxing our property into a corner. We find that the irony is rich. First of all, when (and if} we present a development project for 480, 490 will be protected by the existing town guidelines and DRB process. le., 490 does not need a pre-emptive strike. Second, mentioning that the project is to "provide additional views" confirms our argument fully: 490 has no "need" of more deck.This project is about 490 wanting more views and putting more constraints on our property, constraints that today do not to exist. We cannot accept this injury to the value of our property. It is also not the type of good neighbor conduct the DRB should reward. 490's arguments are not good or proper reasons to make findings to ask the town for granting an additional variance. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015; cavi1985.com ------------- At the time we bought 480 in May 2017, we did inquire with Planning Division staff about future development potential at 480 and history/status of the neighboring properties. Staff told us: • 480 sit between two fully developed properties (460 and 490), both relatively new; • 490 had already a significant variance in lot coverage(17.78%, where 15.0% is allowed) and had already come to the town for several additional projects (garage, landscaped spa, etc.) requiring a variance; • It is very difficult for any new property already enjoying a variance to argue for additional variance. These were important considerations in our decision to buy the property at 480. We are asking DRB for consistency, We are asking DRB to deny 490's project and the New Expansion. 490 has not shown the DRB a path to make the findings of need or hardship and of lack of injury to our property and has already a significant variance. Our property at 480 is injured by this project that negatively affects our privacy,the.enjoyment of our home and is detrimental to its value.The variance findings cannot be made. Alternatively,we are asking the DRB to give 490 a continuance and to direct our neighbors at 490 to engage in discussions with us to see if it is possible to reach a solution. Sincerely; Alessandra Beraldi EXHIBIT A Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015; A, 701 v 1 yier�N'aY`/� �ii?•ifs �4 CL T / X- ^� IJ �""fgYi�by� CL __ , 4 ❑ U) "qua e fi� �' b � 3 RI i{S m Ys}tt�gxY, t` N .y% WD r N RagghlantilF e.itaS LLP Attorneys at Law 110150,Avenue,Suite 100 San Rafael,CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 Jonathan R.ICathrein facsimile 415.453.8269 jkathrein@rflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com November 29, 2018 Via E-Mail Onlv Design Review Board Town of Tiburon :NOVron Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 p1M',,+fi�ING OMS10I`1 Re: 490 Ridge Road,Tiburon, Opposition to revised applications DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Our office continues to represent Cavi 1985, LLC, Alessandra Beraldi and her family ("Neighbors"), the owners of 480 Ridge Road in Tiburon ("Beraldi Property"). The Beraldi Property shares its eastern property line with 490 Ridge Road ("Schwartz Property"),owned by Stephen and Honey Schwartz ("Applicants"). We analyzed applications DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022, including current and prior submissions, ("Application") with regard to conformance with the Town's Code and other applicable laws. The modified deck expansion continues to be inappropriate, and we support the DRB's previous analysis and conclusion that the Application does not support the findings necessary to grant a variance. On October 18th, the DRB granted a continuance and directed Applicants to engage the Neighbors in an effort to find an acceptable resolution; this has not happened. The Application has not changed in any way that makes a variance more appropriate than before. It is just a smaller variance request, a continued case of incremental creep, consistent with the history of this property. As a result our clients oppose -1-te rP-17i od plan set, submitted to the Town on November 26, 2017 ("Revised Plans") and the Application. In this letter, we incorporate the analysis contained in our letter dated October 18, 2018, and add additional points, especially with regard to the Revised Plans. We also propose alternatives. Ragghianti I Freitas LLP Page 2 of 9 BACKGROUND At the Design Review Board ("DRB") meeting held October 18, 2018 ("October 18th Meeting"), the DRB was unable to make the findings necessary to grant a variance for the excess lot coverage created by the Applicants' proposed deck expansion. Nothing has changed in the Application and Revised Plans that makes a variance more appropriate than it was on October 18th, The Applicants continue to propose a deck expansion, along with changes to deck materials. While the expansion has been reduced from 315 square feet to approximately 203 square feet,the same findings must be made by the DRB before granting a variance, and those required findings still cannot be made. In addition, the design of the home and decks currently on the Schwartz Property was the result of a carefully crafted negotiation with the Town and neighbors over many years, and through many applications to the Town. For example, the minutes of a DRB meeting held August 3, 2006 demonstrate that in response to an application to add square footage to the house, including a second story, the DRB considered feedback from neighbors about the size of the proposed expansion, including the size of the deck. The DRB then approved scaled-back plans to remodel the home. That carefully thought- out approval should not be ignored today nor expanded upon. In fact, it was those additional square feet in the 2006 approval that caused the Schwartz Property to exceed the 15% lot coverage limit. This is but one example of the home and decks at the Schwartz Property slowly growing larger, both under previous owners, and under the current owners. It is time for this incremental creep, additionally imposing on the neighbors slowly over time, to cease. The expansion over time can be seen in the following ima es. as 5,11 211 a�y 2007 2018 RagghlantliFrettas LLP Page 3 of 9 Besides unwinding the results of the previous negotiations, the Application is inconsistent with the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings ("Design Guidelines"), such that the findings necessary to grant a variance for another deck expansion cannot be made. LOT COVERAGE "Lot coverage" is the percentage of a lot that is covered by structures. (TMC 16-100.020 and 16-30.120(B)(1).) Lot coverage includes decks that are more than three feet in height above the ground, though only one-half of the area of decks is counted. (TMC 16- 30.120(B)(2) and (3).) These Code sections provide the Neighbors with a solution; expand the at-grade deck. The essence is that decks be incorporated into the grade, instead of elevated from the second story of a home and causing the impacts seen here. This concept of maximizing the use of the landscaped living spaces, at grade, rather than additional building space and raised decks,is embodied in the Code. "Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic dualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(B)(1).) Here, the Schwartz Property already exceeds the lot coverage maximum, and proposes to increase this overage even further. Ignoring lot coverage lin-tits here will negatively impact both spaciousness and privacy. A lot in an RO-2 zone, like the Schwartz Property, is capped at 15% maximum lot coverage. (TMC 16-21.040, Table 2-2.) The lot area of the Schwartz Property is 21,424 square feet according to the Application. Their lot coverage is already 17.78% and, in the Revised Plans, they wish to extend it to 18.76%. This is a relatively significant increase in lot coverage, and the lot coverage already exceeds the maximum allowed. Statements made by the Applicants at the October 18th Meeting, such as those suggesting that the Applicants are only two people, travel much of the time, do not make much noise, and are just trying to enhance their property "with the limited space they have," does not carry any weight in the consideration. The fact is, the Schwartz Property already exceeds the lot coverage limit. If, for example, the Applicants sell their property, the impacts to the Neighbors, based on a new owner's use, could be dramatically different. Applicants also do not have limited outdoor space; in fact, DRB members who have visited the property commented that it had more outside deck than many properties they had visited. Further, they have a lower deck and nearly 18,000 square feet of yard they can use for outdoor space; in addition to a landscaped spa and sitting area at the front of the house. Ragg.hianti (Freitas LLP Page 4 of 9 As an alternative, the Applicants could increase the size of their deck at grade, or improve the usability of their yard through landscape design, although, the house is well-served by significant decking already. Such an improvement would be more appropriate, less impactful to all neighbors, protect the privacy of the Schwartz Property for the current and future owners, and not exceed the Town's stated development standards,it also would stop the incremental creep of excess lot coverage. VARIANCE According to state law, variances should be granted only when, "because of special circumstances applicable to the property,including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity." (Gov. Code § 65906.) Here, the Schwartz Property has a big, beautiful home, in excess of the lot coverage maximum, and already serviced by abundant decking. The property and its owners are certainly not being deprived of privileges granted to other properties. The threshold for granting a variance under state law is quite high. {See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, holding that the language of Gov.Code, § 65906 (granting of variances), emphasizes disparities between properties, not treatment of the subject property's characteristics in the abstract. It also contemplates that at best only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance.) The variance findings simply cannot be made here, and the assertion that many other variances have been granted in the area makes it less, not more appropriate to grant a variance for the Schwartz Property. The Board is required to make all the following findings before granting a variance: 1. Special circumstances applicable to the property, and the strict application of the zoning ordinance,will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. The Schwartz Property is like other properties in the RO-2 zone. There are no special circumstances. The Application claims that the "natural downslope topography" puts the Schwartz Property at a disadvantage. This is not a special circumstance for the Applicants. It does not deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other properties; all the properties here are situated on a hillside. Furthermore, it is clear that the RagghiantilFreitas LLP Page 5 of 9 property has been developed. The applicants have not been deprived of building a home with expansive views and large outside deck space. Applicants could landscape the property to solve their perceived problem of insufficient outdoor space, though they admit that as two people who travel much of the time, they do not need or use much of the space. A request to expand outdoor space the Applicants do not need,certainly is not a deprivation. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges,inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. Granting a variance would be a special privilege because the home already exceeds the lot coverage ratio. There are also alternatives to requesting; a variance. The argument that others have received special privileges, and now the Schwartz Property should too, must fail. Granting this variance would still be providing a special privilege. The contention that other homes have more usable outdoor space than the Schwartz Property is simply inaccurate. The Schwartz Property has plenty of usable outdoor space. It already has an upper deck and a lower deck in the rear of the house, and a spa area in the front of the house. It has additional usable undeveloped outdoor space, at-grade, just farther down the hill. In addition, using the available at-grade outdoor space, below the existing decks, would not be counted toward lot coverage if it is not raised. Accordingly, ample legal opportunities exist if more decking is desired. A variance is not needed to accomplish this. 3. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. The Schwartz Property, and the Applicants, are not facing a practical hardship because the property already contains an attractive, large home. The Schwartz Property already has a lot coverage of 3,811 square feet. The gross floor area for the property is 4,159 square feet. The lot coverage already exceeds the maximum allowed. "I want a bigger deck,`" is not the type of hardship contemplated by variance law. ILF Ragghlanti l F r eitaS LLP Page 6 of 9 There is no hardship. The analysis must start with whether there is a hardship. Here there is none, and this does not justify the grant of a variance. 4. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. As is explained in the Code, lot coverage restrictions are designed to promote "aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(B)(1).)As more fully discussed below, the expansion of an already large deck toward the Beraldi Property is contrary to these goals of spaciousness and privacy. The deck would become unnecessarily close to the Beraldi Property and would reduce the privacy of both the Applicants and the Neighbors. The Applicant's argument, that they are only two people and don't entertain much,has no bearing on the consideration here. As soon as they sell the property this could change. In addition, a larger space may cause them to justify entertaining more, and their use of the deck may increase as it is expanded. Any additional use of the deck would impact the Neighbor's privacy and enjoyment of their home and their yard. As judged by the Design Guidelines, discussed in detail below, acoustic impacts, and privacy impacts, this deck expansion would absolutely be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties, especially the Beraldi Property. In summary,none of the required variance findings can be made. In fact, the Applicants have hardly presented an argument to support variance findhigs. An argument, based on an inaccurate assertion, that "the Beraldi Property is the only property on the street with privacy," as Applicants argued at the October 18th Meeting, or that "other neighbors have received variances, so should we," does not suffice. The Schwartz Property already exceeds the lot coverage limit, and has a huge beautiful. deck. It is not suddenly a hardship on the Applicants that they carmot impose on the Neighbors' privacy. Tlie Application should be denied for the reason that the required findings cannot be made. DESIGN GUIDELINES Many of the goals and principles of the Design Guidelines cannot be met here because the deck expansion impacts the living space of the Beraldi Property causing privacy, RagghiantilFreitaS 1-,LP Page 7 of 9 acoustic, and view impacts. Most notably, the impacts of extending the deck are incompatible with Goal 2, Principle 9, acoustic impacts, Goal 3, Principle 4, view quality, and Goal 3, Principle 6,privacy impacts. Goal 2, Principle 9-Acoustic privacy is important to all residents Goal 2, Principle 9 states that "any dwelling should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors." (Design Guidelines,page 23.) `O a 7�✓a7��U c f, .' :iL I rj. }iVv , Y - i Figure: Design Guideline Goal 2,Principle 9 Nothing in the Revised Plans protect the Neighbors from noise pollution. I€the impetus for expanding the deck is simply to expand the Applicants' outdoor living space, as was suggested by the Applicants and their architect at the October 18th Meeting, the lower- level deck could be expanded, plants could be used to screen between the Beraldi and Schwartz Properties, or the hillside could be landscaped to increase the usable space. But the Revised Plans make no such effort. The noise pollution reduction goals cannot be met because the Applicants continue to propose bringing their deck closer to the Neighbors' property, locating it above the existing critical screening trees, and ignoring the possibility of adding screening vegetation. Ragghian ti I Frei tas LLP Page 8 of 9 Goal 3, Principle 6 - Privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict. Goal 3, Principle b is not satisfied here because the attempt of the Applicants to capture an additional view is in direct conflict with the Neighbors' privacy. The deck extension would hang nearly over the Beraldi Property. As the images below demonstrate, deck expansion is incompatible with privacy. The Application will turn will turn the deck into a looming mass perched right above the Neighbors' yard. As noted in this principle, "prethinking solutions to this problem is important." (Design Guidelines, page 32.) Here, screen planting, one solution to protect the privacy of both parties would block the view from the deck. In addition, the deck is so close to the property Pule already,it is not clear the Applicants have space for additional planting of the size that would be required and would likely necessitate removal of their lower patio and stairway, outdoor space that is not counted toward the lot coverage limit. In fact, as is shown in the minutes of the October 18th Meeting;the Applicants and their architect acknowledge that the Beraldi Property is private. The private portion of the Beraldi's yard is shown in the image below. It is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, for the neighbors to encroach on the Beraldi s privacy. In short, this privacy goal is not met and the solution does not work. :':;C`G" Fps % G�P�vt':ZPht NS _j -:-�✓";'Grp � �= �v___Na"U!;G. 1`16 ,at707Ele- v2 :.ate S7 �!r�NF�c� 'GtJ�2�.:..v21''Cs,W`rJ�;G•;�i{'r�fl�f�: Figure: Design Guideline Goal 3,Principle 6. Page 9 of 9 Ragghianti jFreitas LLP CONCLUSION The findings required by law cannot be made here and the impacts on our clients' property are serious. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and in our previous letter, we request that the Board deny this Application, especially with regard to the request for a variance. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, t j ,d. CC: Client Jonathan R. Kathrein Riley F. Hurd Ill TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard October 18, 2018 f's Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda ltern:PH-1 To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Kyra O'Malley,Associate Planner Subject: 490 Ridge Road; File Nos.DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022; Site Plan and Architectural Review to Expand an Existing Deck for an Existing Single-Family Dwelling,with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-06 PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 490 RIDGE ROAD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 459-082-06 OWNER: STEPHEN SCHWARTZ ARCHITECT: WADE SKEELS FILE NUMBERS: DR2018-070 AND VAR2018-022 LOT SIZE: 21,424 SQUARE FEET ZONING: RO-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN) GENERAL PLAN: M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: SEPTEMBER 24,2018 PSA DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 21, 2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review approval to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage on property located at 490 Ridge Road. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling with an existing upper level 881 square foot wooden deck with glass railing on the rear of house. The proposal includes expanding the existing upper level deck to the rear by 315 square feet with a new glass railing, replacing the existing the decking with new IPE decking and a new glass railing, and adding a new gas fire pit on the new decking. The proposed deck would be the same height as the existing deck at 9 feet from the grade. The proposal would result in no change to the existing floor area of 4,159 square feet. According to the Zoning Code, half the area of oll decks higher than three feet above grade are counted towards the lot coverage calculations. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,968 square feet (18.52%), which is above the maximum permitted lot coverage in RO-2 zone (15.0%). Therefore, a variance for excess lot coverage is required and has been requested by the applicant. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 8 n This application was first submitted for staff level design review. During the review of this application, staff discovered that the deck expansion would continue to exceed the lot coverage and that a variance for excess lot coverage would be required and therefore, the application was referred to Design Review Board. In addition; the neighboring property owners at 480 Ridge Road raised objections to the design of the proposed deck expansion. Project Setting y r '490 Ridge Roz 1 i 0 1 1 The subject property slopes downwards from Ridge Road near the intersection of Mountain View Drive. The property has views of the East Bay, the bay, Angel Island, and side views of San Francisco cityscape and Golden Gate Bridge. The deck expansion would appear to increase the views of Golden Gate Bridge and the cityscape for the subject property. ANALYSIS Design Issues The closest neighbor to the location of the deck expansion is the home at 480 Ridge Road. The two properties are close proximity to one another and the residence at 480 Ridge is at a lower elevation than the subject property. The existing decks are screened by existing landscaping. However, a portion of the deck expansion could be seen from the neighbors' patio areas located off the kitchen and family room and would appear to create a privacy impact on the adjacent neighbor. In addition, a portion of the deck expansion would not be screened and would appear to bring the deck closer to the neighboring property and residence, which could also create a noise impact on the adjacent property. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the upper level deck expansion from the subject property and from the adjacent properties to determine if the deck would create any privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone. t:?cwl r 18. 201S In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Variance Findings L Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Due to the slope of the lot, there is limited potential for outdoor space. The deck expansion would allow for the applicant to have additional outdoor space. There are other properties in the area have more usable outdoor space than this property. The Design Review Board may wish to consider whether this finding can be made. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. The 21,424 square foot property size of the subject property is larger than the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size in the RO-2 zone. Numerous other properties zoned RO-2 have been granted variances for excess lot coverage, but generally for homes that are located on properties that are smaller than the minimum lot area. Other homes in the area; however; have more usable outdoor space than the subject property. This Variance request would allow for additional outdoor space on a sloped lot. The Design Review Board may wish to consider whether this finding can be made. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. Excess lot coverage variances typically address properties within predominantly one-story neighborhoods where the homes are limited to a single-story design because of potential view and privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors. For this property; there are two levels of decks currently situated on the property and the request is to expand the upper level deck. There are no self-created hardships related to this project. The applicant is requesting this Variance to allow for more usable outdoor space. Without the Variance, the applicant would need to expand the outdoor space down the hill. This would require construction of retaining walls and possibly the removal of foliage. This could result in a slight hardship for the property owner. The Design Review Board may wish to consider whether this finding can be made. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. --- _-.-..-----— __ ----- W!ohrr Allowing additional deck space would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adjacent neighbor at 480 Ridge Road has expressed some concerns about privacy. The Design Review Board, could reduce the size of the deck on the on southwest side and/or require landscaping to screen the two properties to address this concern if the Design Review Board determined if the deck reduction or screening would be necessary. The Design Review Board may wish to consider whether this finding can be made. In order to approve the proposed project, the Design Review Board would need to make all four findings for this Variance request. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, two letters have been received regarding the subject application. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) Guiding Principles, Section 16-52.030 Variance, and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the Board can make the required findings to approve the project as proposed, it is recommended that the attached draft conditions of approval be applied. Attachments: 1, Draft Conditions of Approval 2. Application and Supplemental Materials 3. Letter dated July 3, 2018 from Alessandra Beraldi 4. Letter dated August 1, 2018 from Alessandra Beraldi 5, Submitted Plans DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 490 RIDGE ROAD FILE NDS. DR2018-070 AND VAR2018-022 Community Development Department 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge, with defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 3. The construction of this project shall substantially conforin to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on October 18, 2018, as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated August 30, 2018, stamped "Approved by Design Review Board October 18, 2018", as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 4. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. S. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, a photovoltaic energy system shall be shown on the drawings in compliance with the requirements of Section 16-40.080 of the Tiburon Municipal Code and shall be installed and operational prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign-off. 0;,Z ol;,,r I A 201 7. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. 8. At the time of building permit submittal/planning conformance check, it shall be confirmed that all skylights will be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner (minimum 25%), and no lights shall be placed in the wells of the skylights. Installation in accordance with the approved plans shall be documented prior to final building inspection sign-off. 9. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of Action", including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project,shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. 10. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the Town's Noise Standards Policy for Air Conditioning Units. w,,vw.townoftiburon.ora/DocumentCenter/View/1050/HVAC-and-Similar-Mechanical- Equipment-Noise-Policy. If the units exceed this noise standards at the property line, noise baffles or other sound reduction shall be required to reduce the sound levels at the property lines and may require a separate Design Review application. 11. Throughout project construction, fencing and/or walls located within a required setback shall not exceed six feet (6') in height at any point, measured from grade on both sides of the fence/wall, except where allowed by Municipal Code section 16-30.040(B)(2). All new fencing, walls and footings shall be located entirely on the subject property. 12. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information, job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 13. Prior to under-floor inspection, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor of the structure foundation is required to be submitted to the Building Division. Required documents shall include. 1) graphic documentation accurately locating the building on a site plan; 2) specific distances from property lines and other reference points to the foundation as appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No additional inspections will be provided until the confirming survey results have been submitted. 14. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final building inspection sign-off, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Public Warks Department ()C<o cr 18._OIS 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stornawater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mcstoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 16. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check: (a) If over 2,500 square feet of surface area will be added or replaced, the site must provide at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town's. Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual .Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma,Napa, and Solano Counties. (b) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign- off, a licensed land surveyor shall verify that fencing, walls, footings and building foundations are entirely within the subject property. If it is found that any portion of the structure(s) were placed outside of the property, that portion of the structure shall be removed and relocated to be entirely within the property boundaries. A certification letter, stamped and signed by the surveyor shall be provided as documentation. The letter is required to state that the licensed professional surveyor located the property boundary of the subject property and "certifies" that all structures, including fencing and foundations are located entirely within the subject property and do not encroach beyond it. The certification letter shall reference the building permit number, provide the date when the surveyor performed their services and must reference the property address and assessor's parcel number. (e) If project requires movement (including cut, fill, displacement, import and/or export) of earth measuring 50 cubic yards or greater, then the following are required: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found in the helpful forms and documents section of the Town's website. Link: http://townoftiburon.ora/156/Helpl'ul-Forms-DoeLunents. Please note that projects with over 50 cubic yards of earth movement shall also be subject to post-ram- event erosion control inspections. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide a geotechnical report, a grading plan and drainage plan to the Town Engineer. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit, review and acceptance of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Town Engineer is required. Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) 17. Throughout the duration of project construction, all requirements of the Fire Protection District shall be rrzet, including but not limited to the following: I.. a C'lc•���I;rr 14' �(il (a) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system is required to be installed in all new residences, including garages, conforming to NFPA Standard 13D, TFPD Policy 429.5, and as modified by the Fire Marshal. Plans and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to installation. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District should an upgrade for the domestic water meter be needed. Additional sizing may be required due to available pressures and fire flow. (b) Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10. (c) Firefighter Access: Access shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. CFC 503.LI (d) Provide the length from the side staircase to the lowest landing point to not exceed 150'. (e) 'Knox' key access shall be installed at the premises conforming to TFPD Policy 423.1. (f) This project is located in a wildland-urban interface area and must meet all applicable California Building Code requirements. See CBC Chapter 7A (g) NFPA, California Fire Code, State Fire Marshal Building Standards and Regulations, Conformance Required. Subject to AB 2188 and Tiburon Building Division jurisdiction. (h) No Acacia tree species are permitted to be planted on.the site. Other Agencies 18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from Sanitary District No. 5 confirming that there are no sanitary sewer facilities within the former 5 foot wide sanitary sewer easement abandoned as recorded on March 29, 2017: Applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 19. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from the Sanitary District confirming that all applicable requirements of the District have been satisfied for occupancy. 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 21. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for etc :parity. ------- End of Conditions of Approval ------- E H7 JUN .1 2018 TOWN OF TIBURON PLANNING DIVISION LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TYPE OF APPLICATION o Conditional Use Permit o Design Review (DRB) o Tentative Subdivision Map o Precise Development Plan Design Review (Staff Leve[) o Final Subdivision Map o Secondary Dwelling Unit o Variance(s) _i o Parcel Map 0 Zoning Text Amendment Floor Area Exception o Lot Line Adjustment o Rezoning or Prezonin; o Tidelands Permit o Condominium Use Permit o General Plan Amendment o Sign Permit o Seasonal Rental Unit Permit o Temporary Use Permit o Tree Permit o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION �y SITE ADDRESS: ® � � � PROPERTY SIZE: Get t " PARCEL NUMBER: QGM LXb1, 0 ZONING: f--0 PROPERTY OWNER: lEw '"z- ` MAILING ADDRESS: � _ � 7.._--_— PHONE/FAX NUMBER: , E-MAIL.: Q . tem APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): _ MAILING ADDRESS; �,�.tc�r PHONE/FAX NUMBER:9LU. ,0 _ 2– E-MAIL: (�[� _ ��t(� _c ev-\ ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/EN GIN EER MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER.: _E-MAIL: -- — Please indicate with an asterisk (*)persons to whom Town correspondence should he sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (rrttrrch selmrate sheet ifrreeded): bis -- -- r - S'isrii.rn�rix:m'].If.iiia,v Fou.iitriraIlo,v rol1W /.7181"I&A, tmr042018 1,the undersigned owner(or authorized agent)of the property herein described,hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions ofthe Town Municipal Code,and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit(or that oftny principaI). Therefore,if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge,with the defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request ofthe Town Iso agree to defend,indemnify and hold..the Town harmless from any costs,claims or liabilities arising from the al, i luding, without limitation,a" ward of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. Signature:* Date:. The property involving this pen-nit quest t y be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs),which may restrict the pro s use and development.These deed restrictions are private agreements and areNOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon-Consequently,development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. You are advpadj, e f the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so,contact the appropriate homeowners association ant neigh rs about your project pri 'p oeeding with construction. Following this procedure will minimize thl ' r lis r ient among ne ors and possible litigation. Signature:* Date: Joq *If other than omier,;oust Icave an rrthorizati t leiter from the otvtrer or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this a NOTICE.TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65945,applicants may request to receive notice from the Town of'riburon of any general(non-parcel- specific),proposals to adopt or amend the General flan,Zoning Ordinance,Specific Plans,or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits. If you wish to receive such notice,then you may madte a written request to the Director of Community Development to be included on a mailing list for such purposes,and must spccifj which types of proposals you wish to receive notice upon. The written request must also specify the length of time you wish to receive such notices(s),and you must provide to the'fown a supply ofstamped,self-addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the To"n for the duration of the time period requested for receiving such notices. The notice will also provide the status of the proposal and the date of any public hearings thereon%which have been set. The Town will determine whether a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application,and send the notice on that basis.Such notice shall be updated at least everysis weeks unless there is no change to the contents of the notice that would reasonably affect your application.Requests should be mailed to: Town ofTiburon Community Development Department ` ' 1` t Y` RE j,11) Planning Division iWl 15505 Tiburon Boulevard t 'Jul- 'j I 3y1 Tiburon,CA 94920 (415)435-7390(Tel) (415)435-2438(Pax) .towno"iburon.ar f'Lt 1�11.I1j`,IG `s�i'l`{Si l DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 1 f Vit}I -0 92 DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 _ Application No.940--? )�'-670 GP Designation: Fee Deposit: Date Received: 13� [ Received By�.q ,t Receipt#: ' Date Deemed Com fete: � By: e, Acting Body: Action: � li '� r Date: L (j Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance# Surrt.i+"rr:,viae;fvtuCarronF�nutrpithlrwolzAt.rer�arrav rcmKNor-rrlitnroN ar-r.04i2018 PAGE 6 r � pLA Planning Division Community Development Department 9505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone(415)435-7390 FAX(495)435»2438 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning regulation or standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must be caused by physical conditions on or in the immediate vicinity of a site. Please refer to Section 16.52.030 of Chapter 16 (Zoning)of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. WHAT VARIANCE(S)ARE YOU REQUESTING? This Magnitude Zoning Existing Application Of Variance Condition Requirement, Condition Proposes Requested Front Setback Rear Setback Left Side Setback Right Side Setback u/ Lot Coverage 1 `� �(�� i , -7 t Height Parcel Area Per Dwelling Unit Usable Open Space Parking Expansion of Nonconformity Other(Please describe): APPLICATION FOR YARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON REY 0312016 Page 1 Variance Application - 490 Ridge Road - Schwartz Residence— Nov. 20, 2018 Findings: 1)The natural downslope topography of the lot accessed from Ridge Road puts the main Living Areas of the house elevated a story above the rear yard. This is also the Bay view side of the house and the sunny side of the house, so that is naturally where the outside entertaining and much day to day living is done. The existing deck is modest in size, as is the Proposed Expansion. It appears the other properties along Ridge Road also enjoy similar outdoor living/entertaining areas. 2)The Proposed Deck is well within the allowable side and rear yard setbacks of the property. Even with the proposed expansion, the large landscape front, side and rear yards of the home provide large amounts of open space. The proposed expansion is negligible in that regard, and no areas of landscaping will be removed for the project. The size and scale of the proposed deck expansion appears to be compatible with the size and scale of adjacent properties usable open space and deck areas. Several other properties in the area have been granted similar Lot Coverage variances. 3)Considering the value and necessity of the second floor deck as an extension of the main level living area, the existing deck is simply too small and poorly configured to provide enough usable outdoor space for the extended family of the homeowners to gather. Further, It is also anticipated that the adjacent western neighbor will proposed a large addition or even a new home directly in front of 490 Ridge's current Golden Gate View from the existing deck. This proposed deck expansion hopes to provide additional views which may help to mitigate anticipated view loss due to the neighbors development. 4) The Proposed Project is for a simple 'thin lined' steel and wood deck structure with a transparent glass guardrail. This replaces a heavier wood and glass guardrail. We believe the proposed project is amore streamlined and less bulky visual element across the back of the house than the existing, which will improve the viewscape of adjacent Easterly upslope neighbors. The Proposed Deck Expansion is 29'- 6" away from the West Side Property Line. It does not appear that the neighbors to the West are visually impacted by the proposed deck project. Further, the neighbors to the west enjoy the front view position toward the Golden Gate Bridge. They are also slightly downslope and heavily shielded by mature landscaping trees and hedge. fr NOV , f i A ��N ccii f l �� � '/�A) ,- ,- MINOR ALTERATION SUPPLEMENT Please fill inthe information requested below: . � ' Briefly describe the roposed,pr 'ect(attach separate sheet as needed): 2. Lot area insquare feet (Section 18'1OU.02O(L))^ Zoring:'7^�/'��___ 3. Square footage ofLandscape Area: 4. |m Uncubic yards): a) Existing Impervious Surface Area: q,'J b) Completed Project Impervious Surface Area* o) Land Area(in square feet) 0000disturbed/cleared during construction: d)Amount nfGrading orEarth Movement involved (total incubic yendet —~~ Ms.Alessandra Beraidi +1 415 316 1015;480R@.avi19a5-com Tiburon, July 3, 2018 Ms. Jayni Allsep Contract Planner, Planning Department City of Tiburon Delivered by email: jaiIsep@townoftiburon.org Re: File No. DR2018070 Comments to project for a(upper floor) deck expansion at 490 Ridcte Road Dear Ms. Allsep: We are the owners of 480 Ridge Road (°480"),the neighboring property of 490 Ridge Road ("490") in the Hill Haven neighborhood in Tiburon: BACKGROUND We are new to Hill Haven, we bought the property at 480 about a year ago. 480 is a small ranch house built in the `50s, about 1,900 sq.ft.. Our lot is flat, with SW orientation towards the Golden Gate bridge, of which we have a frontal view. We bought 480 to build our own family home (3,200- 3,500 sq. ft.), developing the lot as it deserves and permits. Our 480 property is under-developed. It sits between two fully developed properties,460 Ridge Rd and 490. 490 was built in 2009. Researching the history of the development, it was not a simple project. The final house design at 490, while maxed out as per lot coverage and floor area, was the result of many compromises between the original owners/developers, the neighbors and city planning. Indeed, we understand that the prior owner of 480 appreciated the compromises done at the time. In particular, that the design of the new house at 490 followed the orientation of the lot (straight towards Angel Island) and its steep grade, so that 490 did not come to dominate, with either covered areas or deck areas, the key outside living areas of 480-which sits 15-20 feet below 490. 490 has two existing, large decks that follow the steep grade of the 490 lot. A large upper- floor deck that has both sitting and dining areas, and a larger, lower-floor deck. Both decks run the entire length of the 490 side towards Angel Island.The outer edge of the upper-floor deck (object of the proposed expansion) has a deeper, central portion of hexagonal shape that protrudes outwards towards Angel Island while it is less deep towards both its left side and right side to respect the grade and the adjacent properties at 500 Ridge Rd and 480. THE PROPOSED (PROJECT: UPPER-FLOOR DECK EXPANSION We understand the proposed project at 490 has two objectives,The first objective is to improve upon the existing view by having a a full glass construction of its sides. The second objective is to expand the deck area. Such expansion is to be accomplished by extending the edge of both the left side (east) and the right side (west, adjacent to 480) of the existing upper- floor deck outwards, towards Angel Island. After such expansion, the whole deck will have the same depth across Its entire length tr iat t�ie current deeper central tr ai area (a half hexagonal shape protruding outwards) of the deck has. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480RQcavi1985 com WE GATHERED INFORMATION AND MET WITH OUR NEIGHBORS We have looked at the story poles for the project from different points and angles of our lot. We have talked to our neighbors, Stephen and Honey Schwartz, and visited with them. We researched the history of the development of the 490 House which was built in 2009. We reviewed notes of our due diligence at the time we bought 480. We spoke with city planning and invited Ms.Ailsep to 480. OUR COMMENTS We are sending you the comments below after careful considerations. While we have no problem with the first objective of the project(full transparent glass on the deck edge and sides)as long as the outward profile of the upper floor deck is unchanged, we have two concerns with the proposed deck expansion:the negative impact on both our privacy and on the value of our 480 property. The proposed extension of the upper deck floor will literally loom over 480's outside patio affecting areas that are important to us. While the existing deck profile is barely visible from our patio and respects the grade of 490's lot,the proposed expansion makes the deck bulky, prominently visible from our patio as it protrudes out of grade. As 490 sits 15-20 feet above our 480 property,the extended deck would dominate and tower over the portions of our patio where we plan to have a dining table and lounge chairs to enjoy the afternoon sun. Those portions of the patio are important to us because they are the only portions of the patio that have (some) afternoon sun, as the orientation of 480 and our patios is such that the sun is shaded mid-afternoon and later. They are also important to us because they are our only effective areas for entertaining, given the small size of the house and covered living area. A second area of concern is the impact on the value of our 480 property.The main value of 480 are its frontal Golden Gate bridge views. Such value will be realized by developing the lot to take full advantage of the lot grade and orientation. 490 has frontal views of Angel Island (not of the GG bridge) consistently with the slope, grade and orientation of its lot.The planned deck extension adjacent to 480 that is of concern to us will protrude outwards significantly off grade. By doing so, it will tower over the very key area of future development for 480, effectively "borrowing" from 480 (or claiming from 480) direct views of the Golden Gate bridge that 490 does not have. We are concerned that such deck extension may create constraints to the future development of 480, thereby significantly impacting the(very high) value we paid for the 480 property. 480 should not be "boxed in"any further than it already is between two properties that are a_Iready fufly devel)ped up to the maximum allowed by granting 490 additional "small" exceptions for"minor alterations" when such alterations impact 480. CONCLUSION 490 is a fully developed property with both an existing large upper-floor deck and a larger lower-floor deck. The upper-floor deck has already both dining and sitting areas. Researching the history of the 490 development (built in 2009), it was a remarkable result of many compromises that allowed full development of a steep graded lot whose main orientation is towards Angel Island. The development- as it exists- respects the neighboring properties with a profile that fits with grade and is shielded by soft landscaping. We feel that the planned deck extension is an undoing of those fine tuned compromises. While it is a request for a "minor alteration'; it has in fact a pronounced effect on our 480 property. Our main areas of concern are the negative impact on our privacy and on the value of 480. Our concern is about the planned deck extension, while we are supportive of having transparent glass on the sides of the deck instead of the existing frame as long as the outward profile of the deck is unchanged. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;48D @-QaYU2E -QM We have shared our initial concerns with our neighbors, who we like very much. We met them a week or so ago when we first saw the poles.The comments in this letter are the result of our research and further considerations we have made after that first meeting. We have not yet shared this letter with them, as we are both away for the 4th July break. We are looking forward to continue these discussions to find a solution that is respectful of everyone involved and of every piece of property - including our yet-to-be-developed property- in this wonderful neighborhood. Sincerely, Alessandra Beraldi Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480B@'avi1985 com Tiburon, August 1, 2018 Ms. Jayni Allsep Contract Planner, Planning Department City of Tiburon Delivered by email: jailsep@townoftiburon.org Re: File No. DR2018070 Comments to project for a (upper floor) deck expansion at 490 Ridge Road 2nd Letter, in response to revised plans Hear Ms. Allsep: We are the owners of 480 Ridge Road ("480"), the neighboring property of 490 Ridge Road ("490") in the Hill Haven neighborhood in Tiburon. We have reviewed the new plans submitted by 490 and met with our neighbors several times. We continue to have serious concerns about the proposed upper floor deck expansion at 490, as explained below. Our previous letter, dated July 3, 2018 is hereby incorporated in its entirety. Nothing we say or not say in this letter can be construed as having waived or otherwise solved, either directly or indirectly, any of the concerns we previously expressed in our previous letter. 1.480 RIDGE IS AN UNDER-DEVELOPED PROPERTY 480 is a small ranch house built in the `50s, about 1,900 sq. ft.. Our lot is flat, with SW orientation towards the Golden Gate bridge, of which we have a frontal view. 480 sits between two properties that are already fully developed, 460 Ridge Rd and 490. The most natural areas for 480's development are the flat areas of the two outdoor patios that are at the same level of the main house. These key entertainment and development areas are negatively impacted by the planned deck expansion at 490 Ridge. 2.490 RIDGE IS ALREADY A FULLY-DEVELOPED PROPERTY.AND WITH A LARGE EXISTING DECK 490 IS WELL OVER 15% LOT COVERAGE. Built in 2009, 490's floor area is 4,159 sq. ft.. The final house design at 490 was the result of many compromises between the original owners/ developers, the neighbors and city planning. Lot coverage seems to have increased since 2009 as a result of a several additional development projects to the current 17.78%.490's lot coverage is already 18;5%more' than the 15%limit of City guidelines. 490'S EXISTING UPPER FLOOR DECK is 881 SQ. FT. AND OVER 74' LONG2. 490's existing deck is large and beautiful, with both dining and sitting areas. It runs through the whole length of the front facade of 490,facing Angel Island, it is over 74'long.The deck has an L-shape. (17.78- 15.00)/15.00 = 18.53% 2 490 has also a larger, lower floor deck which we discussed in our July 3, 2018 letter. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;4BDB@_Qwi19B5 ,= A. EXISTING DECK DINING AREA OF 300 sQ. FT. (15' x 20') • Walking out of the living room onto the deck facing Angel Island, the shorter leg of the L-shape develops to the right, wrapping around the right side of the house, at the border with 480. Such shorter leg of the L-shaped deck is home to a dining area of approximately 15' x 20', 300 sq. ft., which is covered3. B. EXISTING DECK SITTING AREA OF 350 SQ. FT. (22' x 161) a Walking out of the living room onto the deck, there is a half octagonal shape that protrudes off-grade out towards Angel Island. This is a sitting area, approximately 22' (out of the 74' length)x 16' deep4, 350 sq. ft. The remaining parts of the deck have'a depth of 7' 6". In sum, 50% of the existing 74-feet long deck at 490 has depth that varies between 16'and 20':490's existing deck is NOT by any means an under-developed deck. There is a clear reason why the existing deck profile is the way it is. The half octagonal deeper portion of the deck follows the profile of the covered living area of the lower floor. The deck has a profile that respects the neighboring properties. The outward protrusion off-grade, albeit a significant 22' long, is limited to a central area of the deck length, so that it does not become imposing on either of the adjacent properties at 500 Ridge or 480 which sits below 490. 3.THE PROPOSED UPPER-FLOOR DECK EXPANSION ADDS TO THE EXCEPTION The core of the project is enlarging and extending the large, half octagonal protrusion towards Angel Island (currently 22' long x 15' 8"" deep)to become an even larger rectangular protrusion off-grade 44' long x'15' 8"" deep. It is an addition of 202.8 sq, ft. of deck area. Counting it @50% for purposes of lot coverage, the expansion brings 490's lot coverage to 15.26%, which is 21.7%5 over the 15%limit of City guidelines, compared to the existing exception of 18.5% over the 15% limit. The entire 22' of additional length is added towards the 480 property. in our view, this project is an unnecessary over-reach that impacts 480 greatly. 4.480 IS BOXED-IN ALREADY. HOW MANY MORE HITS SHOULD IT TAKE?ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS ADVERSELY AFFECTS 480'S VALUE The main value of 480 are its frontal Golden Gate bridge views. Such value will be realized by developing the lot to take full advantage of the lot orientation. 490 has frontal views of Angel Island (not of the GG bridge) consistently with the slope, grade and orientation of its lot. The planned deck extension at 490 protrudes outwards off grade and moves 22' towards the very key, flat areas of future development of 480, towering over them. A direct line- that today does not exist- will be created between the extended deck and the GG bridge. Such line passes straight over 480's key development areas. 490's extended deck will - .f approved as 3 r+ a + +,, +� + f + n a hi tint t provide sF,a ins nr nthonnrica rp�ror, I Iiere is a wooden structure that support an ex"end abic o provide. 4 The depth of this part of the deck is 7' 6" (basic depth of the deck)+ 8' 2" (depth of the 22' wide protrusion)=15' 8" approximated to 16' 5 (18.26- 15.00)/15.00= 21.73% Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480R@cavi1985_= presented - effectively be "borrowing"from 480(or claiming from 480) direct views of the Golden Gate bridge that 490 does not have. 490's deck extension will create new constraints to the future development of 480. We are concerned because it will adversely and disproportionally affect 480's property value. 480 should not be"boxed in" any further than it already is between two properties that are already fully developed up to the maximum allowed and more. Our concerns are not theoretical,they were confirmed by discussions with our neighbors, the 490 owners. 5.WE MET WITHOUR NEIGHBORS SEVERAL TIMES We like our neighbors. We are disagreeing about this project, but we both have done so transparently, politely and respectfully. We do appreciate that the Schwartzs decided to reduce somewhat the scope of their planned expansion. Unfortunately, in our view, the project simply went from gargantuan to massive, so we had to express to them our continuing concerns. In the discussions that ensued, we found confirmation of our concern about additional constraints being imposed on 480. While Mr. Schwartz is aware that 480 is to be developed and offered general assurances about his thinking on the matter, he made specific statements about how he thinks 480's development should look like; all while standing on his deck and pointing to its expansion.These were observations about views that are at 80-90 degrees from 490's main core view of Angel Island. We are aware that 480's development cannot be unfettered and that it will have constraints because of the neighbors. We simply do not think it is fair to impose upon 480 new and additional constraints from point of views 1 angles(such as from the extended deck)that today do not exist. All the more reasons, when such new constraints come from additions to a fully developed property, already over the lot coverage limit and with an existing, large deck. 490's project is a nice-to-have deck expansion that gives marginal benefit to 490 at the expense of a major reduction in the core value of 480. We want our neighbors to enjoy their property fully, -and they are-, but NOT at the detriment of our own enjoyments of our property at 480 andlor at the detriment of its value. 6.WE SUPPORTA SMALLER PROJECT We are supportive of a smaller project. We support the change in the side appearance of the deck, with transparent glass instead of the existing frame, as presented. We also would support a reconfiguration of the existing half-octagonal protrusion outward to a rectangular shape of approximately the same width 1 length, if a rectangular shape were preferred for ease of furnishing or other reasons. 6 We discussed in our prior letter h our outdoor patios are essential to the current enioyl ent of our small house, independently from any future development. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 318 1015;480R@Savi1!� 5.corn 7. CONCLUSION We ask the Planning staff NOT to support the 490 project as presented. The City 15% limit of lot coverage has to have a meaning. Projects need to be evaluated balancing the delicate ecosystem of all properties affected. We feel that, in this particular case, 490 has already had its fair share of exceptions. Not supporting the project will NOT impose any hardship on 490's owners or prevent them from enjoying their property because 490 is already a fully developed property, already over 15% lot coverage, with an existing large upper-floor deck that showcases both a 300 sq.ft. dining area and a 350 sq,ft. sitting area, in addition to a larger lower-floor deck. We wonder: how much more deck is needed at 490, really? 490s development (built in 2009) was a remarkable result of many compromises that allowed full development of a steep graded lot whose main orientation is towards Angel Island.The development-as it currently exists - respects the neighboring properties and was praised by staff and DRB members at the time. The planned deck extension is an undoing of those fine tuned compromises. Our main areas of concern are the negative impact on the only outside patio areas 480 has for entertainment (our house is small) and that have some afternoon sun, and the adverse impact on its value. 480 Ridge is already boxed-in: it should not be boxed-in further. The marginal benefit to 490 of going from a very large deck to a massive deck cannot justify the significant subtraction of value to the 480 property that is yet to be fully developed.Status quo is better overall for the two properties taken together compared to the result of the 490's project, which is a net negative7 for the value of the two properties combined. We are looking forward to continue these discussions to find a solution that is respectful of everyone. We hope our neighbors give some thought to the smaller project we would support. Sincerely, Alessandra Beraldi 7 490 will have a small plus(marginal benefit), 480 will have a significant minus. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480R@cavi1985= Tiburon, October 10, 2018 r Ms. Kyra O'Malley fi',", Associate Planner, Planning Division m, SK Town of Tiburon :- Delivered by email: komalley@townoftiburon.org Re: Comments to project for a (upper floor) deck expansion at 490 Ridge Road 3rd tetter, in response to pians filed on 10/4 for a public hearing on 10/18 Dear Ms. O'Malley: We are the owners of 4801 Ridge Road ("480"),the neighboring property of 490 Ridge Road ("490") in the Hill Haven neighborhood in Tiburon. We are writing a 3rd letter of comments because the plans currently under review are the third iteration of 490's deck expansion project. Unfortunately, the project as presented has now gone backwards to its first aver-reaching iteration, ignoring the comments we have made both in writing and in person to the 490's owners in the past few months'. We do not support 490's expansion project because it is injurious to our property at 480 • Our privacy is negatively affected • Our ability to enjoy our rear patios, our only areas for entertainment, is negatively affected • The development value of our lot is negatively affected We cannot accept injury to our property especially considering that 490 is a fully developed property that has already enjoyed its fair share of exceptions. Since 490 was built in 2009, the town of Tiburon has already granted 490's current owners several additional permits for improvements (garage,spa and landscape, etc)that have resulted in a significant variance to lot coverage, today at 17.78% where 15.0% is allowed. But 490 keeps asking for more. 490 has a large, beautiful, upper floor deck of over 880 sq. ft, over 74' long, with 2 sitting areas and one large dining area; plus it has a lower deck with several lounge chairs and a table. In addition, 490 has a spa and landscaped area with more sitting space in the front of the house. 490 is not under hardship or lacks space for entertaining by any stretch of imagination. In sum, 490 does not "need" more deck. Our hope is that 490 learns to stay within its current envelope and allow its neighbors to enjoy their own property in peace as much as the 490 owners are enjoying theirs. We hope that the town concurs with our position and denies 490's application as presented. 1 Our previous letters, dated July 3, 2018 and August 1, 2018 are hereby incorporated in their entirety. Nothing we say or not say in this letter can be construed as having waived or otherwise solved,either directly or indirectly, any of the concerns we expressed in our previous letters. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480RQcavi1985.co0j 1. 490'5 DECK IS LARGE AND THE EXPANSION ADDS TO THE MASS AND BULK OF THE HOUSE The photograph of the existing deck and poles attached (Exhibit A) speaks volumes; The existing deck is 881 sq. ft and over 74' long. It has two sitting areas (shown in the photograph) and one large dining area (not shown). The L-shaped deck wraps around the west side of 490. 50% of the existing 74'-long deck has depth that varies between 16' and 20'.The remaining parts of the deck are 7' 6" deep. The dining area(not shown) is adjacent to a sitting area (shown) in a deck area that is 15' x 20' protected by a wooden structure from which a tent extends to provide cover. The lower deck(shown) is also of significant size The existing upper deck is not by any means "modest in size" as the applicant wrote in their findings and the proposed expansion is not a "small addition". Indeed, the proposed expansion adds 315 sq, ft. of deck surface (a 36% increase), adding to the mass and bulk of the house. The poles in the photograph attached clearly shows the magnitude of the increase. There is a clear reason why the existing deck profile is the way it is and should be left alone The existing deck profile respects the neighboring properties. The outward protrusion off-grade, albeit a significant 22' long, is limited to a central area of the deck, so that it does not become imposing on either of the adjacent properties, including ours, which sits below 490. 2.490 CANNOT MAKE THE FINDING OF"NEED"AND THEY HAVE EFFECTIVELY SAID SO 490 cannot argue that they "need" this bulky expansion project as they themselves had presented a smaller project for staff-level approval at the end of July. In such project -which we objected to- 490 was expanding the deck 22' towards our property.The current project is proposing to expand the deck a further 15' (so 22' + 15' = 37'total)towards our property. While we understand that there is some see-what-we-can-get-away-with gamesmanship being played in these applications, we feel that the cry of"need" to request variance for the project as presented rings hollow not only because the existing deck is already large, there is a large lower deck and other areas for entertainment, but also given the history of this application. 3. OUR PRIVACY AND ABILITY To ENJOY OUR PROPERTY IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED The proposed extension of the upper deck floor looms over 480's outside patio affecting areas that are important to us. While the existing deck profile is barely visible from our patio and respects the grade of 490's lot, the proposed expansion makes the deck bulky, prominently visible from our patio as it protrudes out of grade. As 490 sits 15-20 feet above our 480 property, the extended deck would dominate and tower over the portions of our patio where we have a dining table and plan to have lounge chairs to enjoy the afternoon sun. Those portions of the patio are important to us because they are the only portions of the patio that have (some)afternoon sun, as the orientation of 480 and our patios is such that the sun is shaded mid-afternoon and later. They are also our only areas for entertaining, given the small size of our house (1,900 Sq. ft) and covered living area. We object to the applicant's statement in their findings that we are "...heavily shielded by rn aim�.'ir'�ir=apmg trees and hedge". T hat Is simply not true. Indeed, we did not need a letter from the town to be notified of the poles: we saw them immediately and we were in utter disbelief by the invasion of our privacy. Thinking that our privacy can be protected by planting more trees on either property is wishful thinking. Trees- and they would need to be tall -when "views" properties are involved are an ongoing cause of troubles and fights among neighbors, EXHIBIT A Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 415 316 1015;480B@cavi1985.com causing unnecessary costs and further aggravation down the road. Indeed, we understand from the prior owner of 480 that there had been unpleasant discussions with 490 re: tree management and one of the comments to this project on 7/2/2018 was from a neighbor at 1895 Mountain View, asking the town to make trimming certain trees at 490 a condition for approval.We do not want additional complications in our life. 4. 480's PROPERTY VALUE Is NEGATIVELY AFFECTED The main value of 480 are its frontal Golden Gate bridge views. Such intrinsic value will be realized by developing the lot to take full advantage of the lot orientation. 490 has frontal views of Angel Island (not of the GG bridge) consistently with the slope and orientation of its lot. The planned deck extension at 490 protrudes outwards off grade and moves 37'towards the very key, flat areas of future development of 480, towering over them.A direct line-that today does not exist- will be created between the extended deck and the GG bridge. Such line passes straight over 480's key development areas. 490's extended deck will effectively be "borrowing"/claiming from 480 direct views of the GG bridge that 490 does not have. 490's deck extension will create new constraints to the future development of 480. We are concerned because it will adversely and disproportionally affect 480's property value. 480 should not be"boxed in" any further than it already is between two properties that are already fully developed up to the maximum allowed and more. Our concerns are not theoretical,they were confirmed by discussions with the 490 owners and by what they wrote in their findings. Instead of explaining how the granting of the variance will not be injurious to our property,490 flipped the matter on its.head and wrote"... This proposed deck expansion hopes to provide additional views which may help to mitigate anticipated view toss due to the neighbors' development."We find that the irony is rich. First of all, when (and if)we present a development project for 480, 490 will be protected by the existing town guidelines and DRB process. le., 490 does not need a pre-emptive strike. Second,mentioning that the project is to "provide additional views" confirms our argument fully: 490 has no "need" of more deck.This project is about 490 wanting to put more constraints on our property, constraints that today do not to exist. We cannot accept this injury to the value of our property. 490's arguments are not good or proper reasons to make findings to ask the town for granting additional variance. ------------- We are asking Planning and the town to deny 490's project. 490 cannot make the findings of need or hardship and of lack of injury to our property. Our property at 480 is injured by this project that negatively affects our privacy, the enjoyment of our home and is detrimental to its value. We find this unacceptable and even more so considering that 490 has already had its share of variance exceptions from the town and is - yet again - asking for more. Sincerely, Alessandra Beraldi EXHIBIT A Ms.Alessandra Beraldi +1 A 5 A 6 1015; 8Q.F3QCavi19$;z 9m low � e v P z t ✓.i L CL R1 4. �✓ II _ p wmv owl C . Q) in 1 t njoy -E MAIL # PH Raggl�ianti lFreltaS LLP Attorneys at Law 110]5th Avenue,Suite 300 San Rafael,CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269 jkatllrein@rflawllp.coni www.rflawllp.com October 18,2018 Via E-Mail.Only Design Review Board Town.of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 Re: 490 Ridge Road,Tiburon, Opposition to DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Our office represents Cavi 1985, LLC, Alessandra Beraldi and her family ("Neighbors"), the owners of 480 Ridge Road in Tiburon ("Beraldi Property"). The Beraldi Property shares its eastern property line with 490 Ridge Road ("Schwartz Property"), owned by Stephen and Honey Schwartz ("Applicants"). We were engaged to analyze this application ("Application") in regards to conformance with the Town's Code and other applicable laws. We understand that our clients have identified the serious impacts of further deck expansion at the Schwartz Property in the past. `lie design of the home and decks currently on the Schwartz Property was the result of a carefully crafted negotiation with the Town and neighbors in and before 2009. Our purpose in writing today is to explain why;this expansion would unwind the results of the previous negotiations, and why the Application is inconsistent with the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings ("Design Guidelines") such that the findings necessary to grant a variance for another deck expansion cannot be made. BACKGROUND "Lot coverage" is the percentage of a lot that is covered by structures. (TMC 16-100.020 and 16-30.120(B)(1).) Per TMC 16-30.120(B)(2) and (2), lot coverage includes decks that are more than three feet in height above the ground, and only one-half of the area of decks is counted. Ragghianti Frei taS LLP Page 2 of 7 The essence of these Code sections is that decks be incorporated into the grade, instead of elevated from the second story of their home and causing the impacts seen here. This concept of maximizing the use of the landscaped living spaces, at grade, rather than additional building space and raised decks, is embodied in the code. "Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TNTC 16- 30.120(8)(1).) Here, the Schwartz Property already exceeds the lot coverage maximum, and proposes to increase this overage even further. A lot in an RO-2 zone, like the Schwartz Property, is capped at 1510 maximum lot coverage. (RMC 16-21.040, Table 2-2.) The lot area of the Schwartz Property is 21,424 square feet according to the Application. Their lot coverage ratio is already 17.78% and they wish to extend it to 18.76%. That is a nearly 10%increase its their lot coverage.This is significant, not just because the lot coverage already exceeds the maximum allowed, but because of the serious privacy impacts that will result. The numerical overage by itself would not be a major issue but-for the impacts that result. VARIANCE According to state law, variances should be granted only when, "because of special circumstances applicable to the property,including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity." (Gov. Code § 65906.) Here, the Schwartz Property has a big, beautiful home, in excess of the lot coverage maximum, and already serviced by abundant decking. The property and its owners are certainly not being deprived of privileges granted to other properties. The threshold for granting a variance under state law is quite high. (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Sr.tpervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, holding that the language of Gov. Code, § 65906 (granting of variances), emphasizes disparities between properties, not treatment of the subject property's characteristics in the abstract. It also contemplates that at best only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance.) The variance findings simply cannot be made here, and the assertion that many other variances have been granted in the area snakes it less, not more appropriate to grant a variance for the Schwartz Property. RagghiantllFreitaS LLP Page 3 of 7 The Board is required to make all the following findings before granting a variance: 1. Special circumstances applicable to the property, and the strict application of the zoning ordinance,will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. The Schwartz Property is similar to other properties in the RO-2 zone. The Application claims that the "natural downslope topography" puts the Schwartz Property at a disadvantage. The Staff Report attempts to adopt this assertion, though it is not a special circumstance applicable to the Schwartz Property. An the homes on the southern side of Ridge Road have a similar topography. The homes on the southwest side of Straits View Drive also have a similar topography. This is not a special circumstance for the Applicants, depriving them of privileges enjoyed by other properties. All properties here are situated similarly. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. Granting a variance would be a special privilege because the home already exceeds the lot coverage ratio. This would be granting a 10% additional increase. The Applicants and the Staff Report argue that a deck expansion in excess of the lot coverage ratio is not a grant of a special privilege because others have done it. The argument that others have also received special privileges and now the Schwartz Property should too must fail. Granting this variance would still be providing a special privilege. Other homes do not have more usable outdoor space than the Schwartz Property, as the Staff Report suggests. The Schwartz Property has plenty of usable outdoor space. It already has an upper deck and a lower deck in the rear• of the house, and a spa area in the front of the house. It has additional usable undeveloped outdoor space, at-grade, just farther down the hill. In addition, using the available at-grade outdoor space, below the existing decks, would not be counted toward lot coverage if it is not raised. Accordingly, ample legal opportunities exist if more decking is desired. A variance is not needed to accomplish this. RagghlantiIFrei tas LLP Page 4 of 7 3. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. The Schwartz Property is not facing a practical hardship because it already contains an attractive, large home. The Schwartz Property already has a lot coverage of 3,811 square feet. The gross floor area for the property is 4,159 square feet. The lot coverage already exceeds the maximum allowed. "I want a bigger deck," is not the type of hardship contemplated by variance law. The Staff Report suggests that there is no self-created hardship. That is because there is not hardship. The analysis must start with the first step, whether there is a hardship. Here there is none,and this does not justify the grant of a variance. 4. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. As is explained in the Tiburon Municipal Code, lot coverage restrictions are designed to promote "aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16- 30.120(B)(1).) As more fully discussed below, the expansion of an already large deck toward the Beraldi Property is contrary to these goals of spaciousness and privacy. T7ie deck would become unnecessarily close to the Beraldi Property and would reduce the privacy of the Neighbors. The Staff Report suggests that the deck expansion would not be detrimental to the public welfare. As judged by the Design Guidelines, acoustic impacts, and privacy impacts, discussed in detail below, this deck expansion would absolutely be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties, especially the Beraldi Property. In summary, none of the required variance findings can be made and the application should be denied for this reason. HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES Many of the goals and principles of the Design Guidelines cannot be met here because the deck expansion impacts the living space of the Beraldi Property causing privacy, acoustic, and view impacts. Most notably, the impacts of extending the deck are incompatible with Goal 2, Principle 9, acoustic impacts, Goal 3, Principle 4, view quality, and Goal 3, Principle 6, privacy impacts. Ragghianti I Frcitas LLP Page 5 of 7 Goal 2,Pringle 9 -Acoustic privacy is important to all residents. Goal 2, Principle 9 states that "any dwelling should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors." (Design Guidelines, page 23.) Figure: Design Guideline G2,P9 Here, noise pollution reduction goals cannot be met because the Applicants propose to bring their deck inappropriately closer to the Neighbors' property, and locate it above the existing critical screening trees. Active areas at the Schwartz Property are currently located elsewhere, and those areas could be expanded without similar noise pollution impacts, for example,by expanding the lower deck,or landscaping the hillside. In the image below, the story poles are outlines in red, showing just how close the deck will extend to the Beraldi Property. x r x �s - 44. a�rr ` � , x Figure: View of Schwartz Property from Beraldi Property Ragghlantij reitas LLP Page 6 of 7 Goal 3, Principle 6 -Privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict. Goal 3, Principle 6 is not satisfied here because the attempt of the Applicants to capture an additional view is in direct conflict with the Neighbors' privacy. Tlne deck extension would hang nearly over the Beraldi Property. As the images below demonstrate, deck expansion is incompatible with privacy. The Application will turn will turn the deck into a looming mass perched right above the Neighbors' yard. As noted in this principle, "prethinking solutions to this problem is important." (Design Guidelines, page 32.) Here, screen planting, one solution to protect the privacy of both parties would block the view from the deck. In addition, the deck is so close to the property line already,it is not clear the Applicants have space for additional planting of the size that would be required and would likely necessitate removal of their lower patio and stairway. In short,this goal is not met and the solution does not work. 9 m l 1" 5 a �z „,,,C:,C •trs,.���...:. ,_�. 'w.°s�.»,�_` .�..a-�> ��vr- �:"��m�.�',*..u�a.�.ka+<..'.F.,"'-��.r,::.�- u�`Y�ra�s`° Figure:View of Beraldi Property from Schwartz Property line, currently protected from view. Ragghianti IFreitas LLP Page 7 of 7 're Akl—Y vr 0 vF. Figure:. Design Guideline G3,P6. a - ✓sem � li gg j 3 � T 3 5 ,uy /� N�A /6 kv�q° Bea •'c t i Figure:View of Schwartz Properly and Beraldi Property. CONCLUSION The findings required by law cannot be made here. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein,we request that the Board deny this Application. '11ank you. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan R. Kathrein CC: Client Riley F. Hurd Ill MINUTES #17 TIBURON DESIGN RENEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2018 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bryan Chong; Vice Chair Gordon Cousins; Boardmember John Kricensky Absent: Boardmembers Linda Emberson and Suzanne Kim Ex-Officio: Plaruiing Manager Sung Kwan and Associate Planner Kyra O'Malley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None STAFF BRIEFING—None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 19 NOCHE VISTA LANE; Assessor's Parcel No. 039-070-19; Brett and Steffney Crawford, Owners; Kevin Mostyn, Appellant; Adoption of resolution denying the appeal of a Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for addition to an existing single-family dwelling. File No. DR2018-068 [KO] ACTION: It was MIS (Cousins/Kricensky) to adopt resolution denying the appeal of a Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for addition to an existing single-family dwelling; File No. DR2018-068. Vote: 3-0, PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 490 RIDGE ROAD: Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-06; Stephen Schwartz, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The project would cover 3,968 square feet (18,52%) of the site, which is greater than the 15,0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. Nile Nos. DR2018-070 &VAR2018-022 [KO] Wade Skeels, Architect, gave a presentation on the request to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family home with a variance for excess lot coverage due to its doGvn-sloping topography of the lot. The current deck in this location is the main, outdoor living area algid it is modest in its configuration. He voted they request an increase of .75% of the current lot coverage, adding less than 158 square feet to the lot coverage calculations. The project also includes replacing new and less bulky glass railings which should reduce visual bulk and impact of the existing deck. Also, the proposal would have minimal if any impact on neighboring property's views, with no impact on the iconic views of the City, the Golden Gate Bridge or Angel Island, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 417 1 10/18/18 EXHIBIT 4 He displayed a photo taken from the Schwartz's deck which views Ridge Road looking eastward and said no one along the ridge has privacy from their neighbors, including the Schwartz's. The only property with privacy along this part of the street is 480 Ridge, neighbors due west of the Schwartz's. Mr. Skeels presented another photo from the Schwartz's deck looking westward and said it is difficult to see much if anything at 480 Ridge Road due to the elevation change and mature landscaping, and it does not appear privacy impacts of the new deck will change this condition. Further, the privacy between 480 and 490 Ridge Road has been and can continue to be easily maintained with landscaping. He emphasized that 480 Ridge Road will continue to have far more privacy than any of the. other neighbors to the east, including the Schwartz's. He also believes it is true of many other properties in the area that they may trade privacy for views. He did not believe the proposal's noise impact on neighbors, including 480 Ridge Road, would be measurably different than what already exists between the properties. While some amount of noise between neighbors is common and normal, it is something neighbors on Ridge Road have taken in stride and he knows the Schwartz's will continue to be respectful of this. He then displayed the overhead view of the property showing landscaping between 480 and 490 Ridge Road. He pointed to the amount of open space on the owner's property, but as mentioned, they have little useable outdoor space and what is useful is off of their kitchen and living room area. It appears from aerial photographs of the neighborhood it shows many properties enjoy much more usable outdoor space off of their main living areas than the Schwartz's and this is the case at 480 Ridge Road, as well. Due to the hillside topography at 490 Ridge Road and the downslope approach to the home, the main level including kitchen and living room are arrived at first above a daylight basement below. The lower floor with bedrooms, media space and storage is limited in access, light and views. The configuration of the existing deck being the only real usable outdoor space as an extension of the home does not reasonably provide enough area for extended family gatherings, nor does it afford the appropriate usable outdoor space erijoyed by many of the neighbors. He takes issue with a sentence in the staff report that suggests their proposal would "appear to bring the deck closer to the neighboring property" and he cannot see how this is true. As viewed from above, they maintain the same 15 foot side yard setback the house follows and will be no closer to the neighboring property with the 8 feet of southwest deck expansion. The wording of the staff report suggests a possible impact on 480 that will not occur with their proposal. Today, at 2:30 he received a letter from a law firm representing the Beraldi of 480 Ridge Road and staff forwarded it to him via email. He did not fully address the letter but it appears to be a significant misrepresentation of their proposal and its impact on 480 Ridge Road. In fact, the letter wrongly suggests that "the applicants propose to bring their deck inappropriately closer to the neighbor's property." Much of the Schwartz's property is terraced and beautifilily landscaped adding to the open space enjoyed by the surrounding neighborhood. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 917 2 10/18/18 Due to the hillside topographical challenges specific to 490 Ridge Road he believes this is exactly the type of project that merits variance approval for the limited deck expansion to afford the Schwartz's similar outdoor living space that their neighbors enjoy. If the Schwartz's main living level was at grade as many in the neighborhood are, they could expand their usable outdoor livable area all the way to the property line without a variance application. In closing, he believes this proposal will have very minimal, if any, additional impacts on the neighbors, including 480 Ridge Road, beyond what already exists between them. And,diose impacts if any are easily resolved with a relatively small amount of landscaping. The staff report mentions other properties that exceed lot coverage, including 430 Ridge Road at 22%, 440 Ridge Road at 19% and 510 Ridge Road at 16%, to name a few. Further, the staff report finds that the proposed deck expansion is in conformance with the development standards for the RO zone. Chair Chong opened the public hearing and called on public speakers. Public Comments: Alexandra Beraldi, 480 Ridge Road, said they recently purchased their property and one of the things she loves is the outside and the fact it is a very private home, They barely see their neighbors below or above and she is concerned about the proposal because their patio is the only place they sit outside. Their property is larger as compared to others around them and their outside is very important to them for entertaining and for family use. They have a flat area which gets a lot of shade in the afternoon and the only space in the sun all the time is the part which is going to be affected through the proposed construction. She was planning to have lounge chairs where there is the most sun but she feels like if the Schwartz's are going to move forward with their project, she will not have the same privacy as now. The proposed patio will match outside and will be overlooking their property. Based upon the picture, people can see both structures, but cannot see the water underneath. When standing on the patio and looking down, all of her property can be seen. This would affect her lounge chairs, the space in the sun, and also their dining area, all of which is below the Schwartz's house. On the contrary,there are at least two other areas they can stay outside which are the entrance and the back of the house and she said they currently have a huge patio underneath of the first floor. The Schwartz's patio has a big dining table and two different seating areas on the patio and she was concerned about privacy, noise, and opposed the project. Alexandro Beraldi, 480 Ridge Road, said the privacy concern is real and they did not receive notice about the story poles. They were outside in the patio having lunch, and his wife questioned what the poles were. They visited the Town offices to check what was happening with the property and when they returned, they moved their- patio table more towards their home because the story poles were right in front of them. TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES#17 3 10/18/18 The other thing interesting is that their patio is a mess because his wife has been trying to develop it for the last three months because there will be a tower looming over them and this was the area for their lounge chairs, as she described. Therefore, the project has affected their behavior and ability to enjoy their property. He has met with Mr. Schwartz and was polite but the discussion was influenced by the fact he had a hunch that the City would approve the project so there was little to discuss. The first iteration of the project was coming towards them 37 feet, then it went to 22 feet and then he said either we like it or they will present back to the City what they are presenting today, which shows they do not need this much development. He also learned after talking to Mr. Schwartz was landscaping and an item of contention with the prior owners of 40 years had been trees. In fact; most of his conversations with Mr. Schwartz related to trees on his property that are infringing on his views. Also, he told him where his future development should be from the deck and exactly what it should be because he told him they bought their property undeveloped to perhaps develop it over the flat area which today is their outside patio. So, this was a pre-emptive strike towards putting more constraints on a development that he did not even present to the City. So, when he heard all of this, he decided to take a stand and oppose the project. Lastly, he said asking for a variance is a big deal and the property before the Board shows them there is a landscaped area and a sitting area they can use. They have an upper deck of 880 square feet where they have two sitting areas and a dining area and a massive deck underneath. It seems that the first question should be about need and whether they need a deck at all. Secondly, the Board cannot make the finding that is not injuring his property because they are for privacy, noise, value, and he is paying an attorney because he is spending money to protect himself from injury. So, it is about the fair share and lie thinks they have had it. Jonathan Kathrein, representing_ the Beraldi family at 480 Ridge Road, said the Board has heard about privacy issues but this is also a project of incremental creep. In 2009 when the house was developed there was a certain characteristic to the setbacks, the impact it had on neighbors, In 2016, it was expanded upon and it being expanded upon today. The most important thing here tonight is that they do not believe the variance findings can be made. He believes three of the four findings are not even close to being made. To make the first finding, the Town needs to be depriving the applicant of a privilege. Here is a house with a deck, with views of the City and it is not being deprived of anything. The second finding which is the most difficult to make is that the variance is not a grant of special privileges. The problem is that variances have been granted up and down the street to the point where everybody seems to be getting a special privilege, but looking at this property in particular the variance is not appropriate. The third one is that the zoning ordinance would otherwise cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The intent of the third element here is that it renders the property undevelopable and this property has a home with views, with decks. The fourth finding is that it needs to be found to not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property and he presented a graphic showing his drawing lines of the story poles to one another with super- imposed people. TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES#17 4 10/18/18 The point he is making with the picture is that if someone is standing in his yard, they cannot deny that the only outdoor living space the Beraldi have is going to be directly underneath it a few feet away with an entertainment area with a fire pit towering over them. It is the only place in their yard they have to sit. Therefore, what the Board is doing in granting this variance is making their yard simply not private. Unusable might be too extreme but it is definitely not private. In his letter submitted this afternoon on the 6"' page is a picture of part of the yard they would be looking at. It is the only part of their yard they can sit, and therefore, he strongly believes the variance findings cannot be made. Rebuttal—Appliccant Wade Skeels, Architect, said it is quite challenging to be discussing or arguing a letter they received at 2:30 p.m. today as it relates to the project. Secondly, he said to him this is fairly disingenuous, showing the people large and leaning on the railing, looming over to try and look to see as much as they possibly can to the Beraldi's house with red railing coming in front of the landscaping which is at the property line where they are actually 15 feet from the property line. Therefore, the drawing does not carry merit. The report he briefly read today does a very good job of making a case for him, as the picture in the staff report shows how well the landscaping is doing by creating privacy between the two properties and also the 2x4s creating the story poles are at the top of the glass railing which is a thin, stainless steel line and the actual deck itself is 42"below that so it would not loom and be tower-like. Lastly, in the letter received today, he sees a significant amount of open space at 480 Ridge Road at the main level which they can enjoy which the Schwartz's do not get to enjoy because of the topography that has created challenges, which is the reason for the application. The setbacks are doing their job and he would encourage Boardmembers to visit the site if they have not already. Iia closing, Mr. Skeels said he does not think 480 Ridge Road should be entitled to more privacy than anyone else in the neighborhood. He was not sure this was criteria and, again, landscaping can fix that job. Their proposal will not change the dynamic between the two properties. Stephen Schwartz, property owner, said they are just two people and do not make much noise. They travel 50% of the time and are not big entertainers. They do not have big parties or play music outside. They are just trying to enhance their property and get the most use out of the limited space they have. They never use the downstairs deck as it is absolutely useless to them. The only thing they use in the front is the hot tub which is in the shade most of the day and they are only asking for.75 over the I%. He does not believe the deck looms and right now when standing on his deck where the property line is, they can see over and the only privacy they have is the privacy he affords them by having planted the juniper trees along the property line. If these trees were not there they would be in the same position he is in when looking back at 500 Ridge. They are basically touching his deck and when looking down the line, there are many houses, wide open with no privacy; pools are on top of big decks because they are elevated. In going down the slope hornes are all on much flatter lands and do not need decks, and this is the reason they would like the added deck. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 417 5 io��sns Boardmember Kricensky said when this house came through for approval, lie asked staff if they looked at what the discussion was and determine whether there was any give and take about the decks. Associate Planner Kyra O'Malley said she did some research and found there were quite a few projects from 2006 on which included more skylights and not decks, and these were for neighbors at 500 and 510 Ridge Road but there was nothing for downhill neighbors. Vice Chair Cousins said he visited both properties today and he thinks that the revised deck railing would be an architectural improvement. He does struggle with the application because it is a variance and there are several reasons. One is that the Board has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to. The existing raised deck at the second story level has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space and there are other decks available around the property. They may not offer the same views, although the one below does but they would not be able to see the Golden Gate Bridge from it, but it is still a spectacular space with views of Angel Island. ,Therefore, he does not think there is a hardship associated with this house if the Board voted not to increase the deck further. Also, because of the orientation of the two adjoining buildings, the fact that 480 Ridge Road is at an angle, bringing this deck forward brings it out into the view from this side of the building far more. It is different to looking around a sweep of buildings that are several hundred feet away, particularly with the change in elevation to have a building only 15 feet from the boundary and is coming out. The projecting deck will be projecting 50 feet from the face of the building out to where it will be and he thinks it is too far. For those reasons, he would struggle to agree the Beard should approve the variance. Boardmember Kricensky said views into backyards are common place in some areas. Where lie lives is a prime example. There is a person behind hint and they have a full length deck that looks right down into his backyard and two kids' bedrooms. But it is the way it is.They are up on a hill and he is down below and so it happens. However, the differences are that they are a long ways away and this makes a lot of difference. While the deck is full length it is only 7 or 8 feet. In this case, he hears people up there but it is never like a big group of people because there is not an area large enough to have a fire pit and entertain, which makes a big difference. Also, as far as he knows the house has no variances for coverage. To him, these are three big differences. In terms of the one photograph, he thinks the people are out of scale but the red line is accurate. He stood there and could see the corner, and it is getting closer to the view as to what is seen and it does loom over that part of the backyard. While landscaping could be done, there is so much deck area now and to ask for a variance to add even more he thinks is not a hardship. Chair Chong said he struggles with this one and said the diagram is a bit disingenuous as far as scaling. Plus,the deck does sit behind the tree. Boardmember Kricensky noted that the corner is there. TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES iVI 7 6 10/18/18 Chair Chong pointed to another photo and said lie did not see how the red Pane represents what he saw. The other thing is there is lot coverage and setbacks and it would be clear that if the applicant was trying to extend into the side yard setback it makes an easy argument for why a variance like this should not be approved. Vice Chair Cousins said the reason he thinks the projection has more impact is because of the orientation of the house. It is a quite prominent area and it is going at an angle. Chair Chong spoke about the positioning of the homes and area and Vice Chair Cousins said when he originally read the staff report, the Board has reviewed decks that are S feet off of the ground rather than re-terracing the surface and these have been approved for variances because they do not have a significant impact, but this is different because it is 12 feet in the air, and part of the existing deck is covered over and possibly with umbrellas covering the added part and it will be up at a significant height, much higher than the adjacent property. So, he thinks it has a much bigger impact. Boardmember Kricensky said also by indicating a fire pit, they will Have groups of people on that corner around the pit. Chair Chong referred to the drawing and said in staying with the same square footage that the applicant is looking to add the corner could be moved over, but then the other neighbor would have an issue. He said it is the corner that will cotyle the closest to the Beraldi's property. Vice Chair Cousins said if pulled back from that corner it might be more acceptable and have less impact,but lie thinks story poles would need to be put up to confirm this. Chair Chong said given they need two votes for the item, they could vote or continue the matter and determine if the applicant is amenable to pull it.away from the corner. Vice Chair Cousins said he hesitates to give any further variance given it is already over the area and there is already a lot of deck. He did not feel very strongly the owners are would suffer from not having the additional square footage of decking. Chair Chong said lie is coming from the stance of living in a hillside area over time. Vice Chair Cousins thought it is one thing where people are stacked. I-Ie looks down onto their neighbors and his neighbors look down on the back of them, but they all have a space out the front where they are not overlooked, but this deck pushed out starts to be looking into the front of this neighbor's area which one would expect to be private. Chair. Chong said much of this deck is extending over an existing lower deck, but he assumes because of the height of that deck it was never included as part of the original lot coverage and asked staff about this. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#17 7 10/18/18 Ms. O'Malley said according to the staff report this deck is supposed to be at grade or less than 3 feet, so it did not factor into the lot coverage. Chair Chong said in the spirit of giving the applicant some guidance, he would be supportive of the lot coverage variance, but the other two boardmembers are struggling with approving it. He asked if there was some amount of coverage that is not as large and impactful for the neighbor they would be supportive of. Vice Chair Cousins said when lie visited the property if it was just extending the deck a bit to the end of the wall he would be okay with this. Mr. Kwon interjected, stating the applicant has gone back and forth between several designs and he is sure they are open to any design considerations the Board may have for them. Chair Chong asked to re-open the hearing, and Mr. Kwon said if it is opened back up, the neighbors would be able to speak as well as the applicant. Chair Chong said he believes they are looking towards continuance to give the applicant a chance to come up with another design and erect new story poles and have the chance for neighbors and Boardniembers to go back and visit to look at the revisions. Vice Chair Cousins asked the applicant if he would agree to a continuation to revise the plan. Ms. O'Malley said November I" would be the next meeting date, but staff would need drawings and the story poles would need to be up by October 22"d or alternatively November 15'n or December 6'' would be future meeting dates. Chair Chong suggested setting the continuance for November 1S' and it can always be pushed forward as needed. Mr. Kwon said the PSA deadline is November 21't and he asked if the applicant would be willing to sign a PSA extension so there is more time in case the matter is continued past the 21', and the applicant agreed. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Kricensky) to continue 490 Ridge Road to November 1, 2018. Vote: 3-0. 3. MINUTES: Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of October 4, 2018. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the DRB Meeting of 11 October 4, 2018, as submitted. Vote: 3-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#l7 8 10/18/18 MINUTES #19 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 6,2018 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bryan Chong; Boardmember Suzanne Kim and John Kricensky Absent: Vice Chair Gordon Cousins and Boardmember Linda Emberson Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Sung Kwon and Associate Planner Kyra O'Malley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None STAFF BRIEFING —Planning Manager Kwon gave the following briefing: Director of Community Development Scott Anderson is retiring after 30 years with the Town, and a reception will be held on December 19 between 5 and 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ® He announced that 4719 Paradise Drive has been continued to January 17, 2019. The Board will be hearing two appeals for 2000 Paradise Drive and 8 Rolling Hills Road. He suggested one or two Design Review Boardmembers consider attending the Town Council meeting for those appeals which are tentatively.scheduled for January 16 for 2000 Paradise and February 6 for 8 Rolling Hills. ® Staff is planning to cancel the December 20 and January 3 DRB meetings. 0 In the future, the DRB minutes will be heard after staff's briefing. MINUTES- Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of November 15, 2018. F was M/S (Kim/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 15, 2018, as ubmitted. Vote: 3-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-I 490 RIDGE ROAD; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-06; File Nos. DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022; Stephen Schwartz, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The project would cover 3,912.4 square feet (18.26%) of the site, which is greater than 15.0 % maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. [KO] Continuer) fr©m October 18, 2018 Wade Skeels, Architect, described the proposal to build expand an existing deck which will result in less than one-half percent increase in lot coverage of what currently exists. He provided a background of neighborhood lots sizes, noting every property has open space. The issue here TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 419 12/6/18 EXHIBIT 5 is usable open space where it is needed off of the kitchen and living room where it will be used. Ile pointed to the drawings and existing decks facing the water, dining area, sitting area and said most of this is not usable except for walking through the rooms. The main living room and kitchen are on the upper level because of the topography, which be briefly described. The decks are outdoor functional living space and for purposes of usable open space and entertaining. He said it is not reasonable to consider locating the decks to the lower grade elevations or other areas which are removed from the kitchen and living room, and this is true for many of the large properties. Furthermore, they have made the variance findings, as has Planning staff in their staff report to justify the variance request which is a hardship created by the topography. He asked to increase the main space and what is minimal usable outdoor living space where it is needed most which other properties in the area have or are entitled to have, and their access is from above and elevated off of existing grades by one story. One concern raised was privacy and Mr. Skeels presented a view from the Schwartz's deck at 490 Ridge Road. Looking eastward, there is no privacy whatsoever for any neighbors on Ridge. They have had some pushback from the neighbor to the west at 480 Ridge and it seems they have a significant amount of privacy, and more than others. Because of the mature trees, nothing can be seen from the Schwartz's deck. Since the matter was continued from a previous meeting, they have scaled their project back 15 feet from the property line. They are now 30 feet back from the property line to the edge of the deck expansion. He believes strongly that this proposal solves the privacy issues and concerns of the previous design. Combined with the trees the owners planted some years ago, this makes 480 Ridge Road nearly disappear which he displayed in the photographs. More landscaping could be added if this was necessary to mitigate concerns. Because the proposed deck will extend to the front edge of the existing deck no new views will be created with this proposal. There will be no additional privacy impacts on neighbors from what already exists, and they believe this proposal should allow both properties to co-exist peacefully. With the assistance of planning staff, he displayed the neighborhood lot coverages which included variances and the Board will see their proposal is on the lower end of the Iist. Their variance range is at 18.2% and some variances range from 1.6.9 to 22%. In closing, they believe this modest, very much needed variance has merit as there is a topographical hardship in the property. They feel the proposal is reasonable, taking into account the usable needs of the Schwartz's as well as concerns of the neighbors and he asked for approval by the Board. Chair Chong opened the public comment period. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 12/6/18 Alexandra Boraldi said she lives at 480 Ridge Road which is below the property at 490 Ridge Road and is very concerned about her privacy, noise and light. She puts her lounge chair at the very end of the part where this deck is and it will loom over her sitting area. She also has a table and chairs for entertaining and this is a place where she and her husband sit most of the time. She presented a picture showing their small umbrella and when standing by it much more of the expansion would be seen than what the applicant presented. She also spoke with the previous owner of 480 Ridge Road and during construction of their-house she was concerned with privacy at that time, as well. Alexander Boraldi said he did not believe this was a reduction and said he researched the history of the house and found that in 2007 the house was built where the DRB reduced the house fi•orn 16.9% to 15%, given concerns from neighbors, one of which was concern from the prior owner. Then, the Town and neighbors allowed this property over time to build up. Today, the property enjoys 17.7% of lot coverage and also variances for- reduced front and side yard setbacks, yet they are asking for more to 18.2%. His contention is that if the fully developed house came today with all of its variances through the process of approval, the Board would ask the Schwartz's to work with their neighbors to be more modest and allow other people to enjoy their privacy. He did not think the Board could make the finding for a hardship that a house must have 880 square feet of deck. IIe noted that Boardmember Krieensky said at the last hearing that this house has more deck space than any house he has seen over the last S years and he believes there are other solutions for other space that could be explored. The applicants already have a lower deck, a landscaped area in the back, and this is also a property where the variance cannot be met due to lack of injury, but he and his wife are injured by it. He spoke with the 83 year old neighbor up the hill who asked him to speak on his behalf and indicate lie is also concerned about the impact of the views and noise because there is no shielding. Therefore, he asked that the Board deny this application because the property is fully developed, has had its fair share of variances over time and other properties have the right to enjoy their properties too. Jonathan Kathrein representing the.Boraldi family at 480 Ridge Road, said the direction from the Board from the October meeting was that the item be continued so neighbors could cooperate and try to come to resolution. This has not happened and neighbors Have not had any meaningful dialogue. The issue is whether to grant a variance. Being on a hillside and having topography consistent with all other houses in the area is not a reason to grant a variance. There needs to be special circumstances, hardship, and that it does not injure other properties and does not grant special privileges. He stated the California Appellate Court in one case said even though a Board of Supervisors issued lengthy findings in support of granting a variance, the Board failed to show that the subject property differed substantially from other properties in the area, and this is similar to what the Board is hearing tonight. The court went onto say that the subject property must differ substantially in relevant aspects from other parcels in the zone. If the Town wants to allow an TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 12/6/18 ' increase in lot coverage, the area should be rezoned and the corresponding zoning regulations and the General .Plan should be changed. The California Supreme Court opined in one case that by granting a variance like the one applied to for tonight, the Board begins to radically alter the nature of the entire zone. Such change is proper for legislation, not for administrative adjudication, Mr. Kathrein then distributed a graphic since 2013 showing multiple photos of the property which grows and continues to grow, and if the trend continues they can expect to be back here in the next couple of years. If the area is inappropriate for a larger house,the house should be built elsewhere or the area rezoned, and this does not mean a variance should be granted. I Ie therefore asked that the Board deny the variance. Rebuttal—Applicant Stephen Schwartz, owner, 490 Ridge Road, said comments were disingenuous and said the first picture shown was the original house that was there in 2003. They bought the house in 2010 so the house seen in 2009 was already built when they bought it. The garage was asked to be added by the former owner and he is the person who applied for the variance for the garage. They were told they have a right to have a garage to keep their vehicles protected. The only thing they have added to the house was the bathroom which he believes is 168 square feet in lot coverage which affected no one. He also spoke to Richard Dwyer at 500 Ridge Road and he saw this and never has complained. Originally, he was going to build the deck all the way to his side and he thought this alight be unfair to him and so they pulled back the deck. Over the last 4 or 5 months, they have had homeowners over to look at the property and he thinks the privacy issue is a moot issue. The photographs were taken from a drone at a 6 foot height looking down at the Boraldi's property and there is no discernable difference between what they now have as a view of their property and what the new view will be. Mr. Schwartz then displayed a picture from their existing view and explained this is what they have now which is no different than the view at the corner. Truthfully, they will not be standing on the deck looking into their property but sitting on their couch looking out at the view. From the couch,there are no privacy issues whatsoever. Furthermore, although they have deck space it is unusable. The deck below is unusable and the have never sat down there. The furniture is there purely for decoration and it is far from the main living area. So, the only area they have is the couch area that seats 6 people. When they want to have their family over of 12, there is no way to sit altogether. If they want 3 couples over, they have no place to put them. They cannot open the table because the couch is in the way; and all they want to do is turn their couch around and look at the view. The purpose is to open up a big enough area so they can turn the couch around so it is not looking into the house but out at the view. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 q 12/6/18 Regarding noise, they travel a lot and might be home 7 to 8 months of the year. He is 70 years old and does not have wild parties but rather small gatherings. There has never- been a noise complaint and he can hear noise from water and from town and rarely hears noise from neighbors, so this is not an issue. They are adding no lights to the project so he was not sure this would be an issue. Regarding privacy, the only privacy the Boraldi's have right now is the privacy he affords them. The juniper trees were put in by him 8 years ago in order to separate the property to give privacy for him and for those below. If he removes them there is absolutely no privacy whatsoever. The Boraldi's have one tree which is somewhat dead but other than that there is no privacy. He believes that by pulling the deck back 15 feet they have addressed what the Board has asked them to do to compromise and now there is a 30 foot buffer between his deck and the property line. Boardmernber Kricensky said both parties have made good points. He thinks that given the way the houses are built along that area and the Board has reviewed this many times, one house is higher and the other lower, leading to the potential for problems. Pulling the deck back has helped in regards to the privacy, but does not address the concern that regardless of placement, the addition will still exceed the allowable lot coverage for this zoning district. The other issue is that the house is one-story and it cannot go two stories because of neighbors so the.Board typically allows more FAR He said he understands wanting to have more space but when they already exceed the lot coverage, he could not make the findings for hardship. There are areas down below which could be increased for gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings. Boardmernber Kim said on one hand she sees that there was compromise because the deck was originally proposed further out. She does not see that the privacy of the neighbors has been injured and thinks this is a modest proposal. However, similar to Boardmember Kricensky, she questioned where it would stop. The law is a law and this is a variance and she questioned how many more times they would return. She asked if there was a way to indicate that nothing more should be done to the property in terms of expansion. Given Board turnover in the future, this would be the only way for the Town to restrict any further creep. She said it is the incremental changes that very much bother herr and the slow creep which she finds injurious. On the other hand, she agreed it is a modest proposal which she does not find injurious to the neighbors, so she was unsure. Chair Chong said le appreciates the applicant going back and pulling the deck back. At this time, there is no other part of the addition that gets closer to the neighbors. He was looking at two areas; impact and the vai iailCe, and 1he did not see there was any Impact. There Is no Increase in noise, light and he did not see any privacy issues. He also knows that having next door neighbors in Tiburon is that there is the possibility one will see their neighbors in their homes. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 5 12/6/18 Regarding the variance, he also concurred with the statement of where it would stop. But, as far as deck expansions, he thinks it is very modest. He also looks at the various times the Board has looked at the hardship and, for anybody in town that has a hillside home, outdoor space is extremely valuable, especially flat space adjacent to living areas. So, he thinks there is a hardship not having enough room to have a couch that faces out towards the view or a dining table that cannot open all the way. To the point regarding where it ends, he thinks it states very clearly in the minutes so that if an applicant comes back through it was that DRB's opinion that it was the maximum they would ever consider on a deck expansion. He knows if the neighbor had an issue in the past, the DRB would say that is it for lot coverage or expansion on this property. He also does not think it is so far out of line as far as lot coverage. He thinks a lot of lot coverage and FAR is about not having so much of an increase in massing and did not think this extension adds to much mass and bulk to the home such that it is an impact. Therefore,he would support the proposal. Boardmember Kim asked what the strongest statement the Board could make to prevent further creep of the lot coverage. Mr. Kwon suggested the Board could ask the applicant if they would be willing to sign a deed restriction which is recorded on the property to indicate the lot coverage will not increase in the future. This way, future buyers of the property will know that the Town has set that limit when pulling the title report. Chair Chong said he would not be inclined to do that because it would be a restriction forever. Boardmember Kricensky said he still believes this is a self-imposed hardship. If this house came as new construction he thinks the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space. Chair Chong disagreed. He thinks the hardship is the nature of the steep lot and not being able to have a sufficient outdoor area. Also, this deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground. Boardmember Kim likened it to weighing common sense to where the limit is. She would be comfortable with including sornething other than a deed restriction, noting it would impair the value of the property which is not fair. She suggested a condition or language to indicate that the Board will not allow additional creep of lot coverage and she then would be supportive of approval with that condition. Mr. Kwon said he thinks the minutes would highlight and direction could be provided to staff to state this for any future proposals that come in, as a future Board could evaluate it differently. He suggested the Board go through each finding as every variance finding will need to be made in order to approve the finding. Boardmember Kim and Chair- Chong both voiced support of the variance findings staff provided in the previous staff report (Attachment 4). TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES#19 6 12/6/18 Mr. Kwon stated he will add a condition of approval that states the Board is against any future increases in,lot coverage ratio for 490 Ridge Road. ACTION: It was M/S (Kinz/Chong) to determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and approve the project subject to the attached conditions, with an additional condition that states the Board is against any future increases in lot coverage ratio for 490 Ridge Road, Vote: 2-1 (Kricensky voted no) ACTION ITEMS AI-1 5 MAIN STREET; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-151-41; File No. DR2018-113; ACV Argo Tiburon, LP, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for interior and exterior renovations of an existing commercial building for a restaurant use. The improvements include the following: 1) New trellis and retractable awning for the patio areas, 2) Updated exterior color and finish, 3) New windows and doors 4) Exterior lighting. [SK/KO] Victor Corona, Architect with VMC Architecture, provided a calor and materials board to the Board and gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding renovations for an existing commercial building, and said his client has considered renovating the building which las been neglected. He explained there are two operations going on now but disconnect with the front and back of the building, and the structure at the top was added temporarily. He described addition of cozy seating.on the exterior, landscaping, and enjoyment of views. He then presented and described the proposed design, making it one building cohesive with the front and introducing warm colors, stained wood, new wood windows, doors and trite and awnings and pergolas. He described the new windows and a stained glass featured window above the entrance, fine berm hedges on the second floor to screen mechanical equipment and shrubs along the walkway. They thought that because the building was so long, using shiplap siding would make it longer. They propose the use of board and baton which is already along .Main Street. He described the use ofp avers, second floor antique bronze finish lights, wall sconces, a bar at the top with views to the bay and an awning structure. Chair Chong opened the public comment period. Hank McWhinney, Board of the Bayside Condo development, said they are sensitive to the noise given their proximity across the street. He requested the Board to consider whether the structure of the building 1'S optimized IfuiSpinu reduction ana stressed the importance of t111S 1SSUe. Proposed are 150 speakers, HVAC for 100 people, and while they are not against the project, they are concerned with potential noise. They would not want residents to hear their music during the day, every day, year after year. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES 419 7 12/6/18 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION,AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No, 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority(e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 1 EXHIBIT 6 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee(if any)will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f)below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief(approximately 10 minute)presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty(20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty(20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty(20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s)may make a presentation of no more than twenty(20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty(20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 2 Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty(20)minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three(3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3)minute rebuttal, if desired,of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERA TION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 3 SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three(3)working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staffrp for to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. • t a:i'.re to Install the poles and ..�ater:als 1ii a MuCly iMaiuier may result 111 l ont'lllllalll C of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/1712010 4 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council,which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff- level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010,by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz J ' CHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE COPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 5 Ms.Alessandra Beraldi Cavi 1985, LLC PO Box 537 Belvedere Tiburon, CA 94920 +1 415 316 1015;480R@Lavi1985 corer February 26, 2017 Delivered Via E-Mail Only Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of DRB Decision - 490 Ridge Road (DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022) Dear Members of the Town Council: I am the owner of 480 Ridge Road in Tiburon ("480" or the "480 Property"). This briefing is submitted in conjunction with our appeal of the December 6, 2018 decision (2-1) by the Design Review Board ("DRB") conditionally approving an expansion of a large existing deck of the house next door to Mr. Schwartz ("Applicant") at 490 Ridge Road ("490" or the "490 Property"). We are not making this appeal lightly. We know that the Council gives great deference to the DRB. However, even the greatest decision making processes cannot get it right 100% of the time and the record in this case shows it. This is one of the very rare cases where we feel an appeal is warranted due to this project's objective impossibility to make the findings for an (additional) lot coverage variance, the failure to comply with the Zoning Code and Hillside Design Guidelines, and the severity of the resulting impacts on our home. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The 490 Property was recently built (2007). It is fully developed: "[Vice-Chair Cousins] has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." DRB minutes, 10/18/2018. 2. Since 2010, 490 has obtained approval four (4) times for small additions, each requiring a variance. What DRB approved in 2007 at no variance has now crept up to a mansion with variances for lot coverage and setbacks (front and side). Yet, they want more. 3. The proposed 5th "modest addition" requiring yet another variance is a 203 sq. ft. increase of a deck that at 881 sq. ft. they allege is not enough. Incredibly, they are claiming hardship for lack of usable outdoor space. But there is no hardship. 4. They are injuring our home at 480. 490's upper deck would loom massive over us. Our privacy is negatively affected, as is our ability to enjoy our rear patios. There is a noise impact. The development value of our lot is negatively affected. 5. The findings required by law for the lot coverage variance cannot be made. DRB could not make the findings or made them in error. 490 has already had more than their fair share. The Council should deny the project. EXHIBIT 7 I. A SNAPSHOT OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY r Built in 2007, 490 Ridge Road is a beautiful property. Oriented � \ towards its main view of Angel Island, it has panoramic views of the SF Bay. 490 is a fully-developed property that enjoys significant decking and outdoor entertainment areas. 2 111 WIN VON £Z tff'zi�W� 'S 1 E Key facts and features of the 490 Property relevant to the proposed project: • Lot Size: 21,424 sq. ft.; larger than the 20,000 s � sq. ft. minimum lot size for the RO-2 zone t • Floor Area: 4,159 sq. ft • Upper-floor Deck: 881 sq. ft. «,r • Length: over 74'longi y u • Width: 16'to 20'for 50%of the length; 7'6" , for the other 50%of the lengthy. ' • Sitting Area 1: 350 sq. ft. (22'x 16'); protrusion off-grade that follows the contours of the lower floor : • Sitting Area 2+Dining: 300 sq. ft. (15'xFf 20'); dining covered by trellis (+tent) / a • Lower-floor Deck: at-grade, larger than upper- W� ' floor deck; lounge chairs, table and landscaped j outdoors • Landscaped Spa and Covered Sitting: at the14 front of the house (see photographs above) j Sttog Area 7- Dining A ea,not Upper Deck hav Upper Deck ,sem f A � ee S d f j� tl7f1 �X Lower Deck > Sitting Area 1 Upper Deck Figure 1: View of the upper-floor deck(subject of expansion) and lower-floor deck; Right image shows dining area covered by trellis/tent and sitting area This beautiful property has been developed to its full potential and more, as evidenced by the fact that it is already enjoying several variances: • Variances Already Granted Before the Proposed Deck Expansion: • Lot Coverage: 17.78% where 15.0% is allowed • Reduced front-yard setback: 4'4" of the property line where 30' is required • Reduced side-yard setback: 3'6"where 15' is required As a result of the lot coverage excess, 490 has already 3,809 sq. ft. of lot coverage instead of the allowed 3,214 sq. ft., i.e., 595 sq. ft. (+ 18.5%) more than allowed. Yet, they want more. This wonderful home with expansive decking and outdoor areas proposes a 203 sq. ft. upper- floor deck expansion, 22'closer to our home, requesting an additional variance for lot coverage. Even more incredibly, they are claiming hardship. This project is the subject of this appeal. II. PROPERTY'S AND APPLICANT'S HISTORY: SEVERAL PROJECTS OF INCREMENTAL CREEP OVER TIME Although an applicant's intentions for the use of a residence post-approval are not generally relevant, at some point the drivers for a project, and an applicant's history, cannot be ignored. It appears that 490's unrelenting quest for square footage, views, and amenities has resulted in a failure to compromise or understand that, while they have the right to enjoy their property, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of their neighbors to enjoy their own. 08/16/2007 Proposed Building Plans N.M. 16.91 3,652 DRB gives continuance due to comments from neighbors 15.0% DRB approved,praises effort to reduce 10/18/2007 Building Plans-New House 16.9% No variance 3,245 to satisfyneighbors'concerns Base Line required project g 15.6% Approved,+123 sq.ft. Lot coverage variance+reduced front 06/03/2010 Detached Garage 15.0% +reduced front 3,368 yard setback Yard setback variance(4'4"of the front property line,where 30'required) New SPA and Landscape 15Reduced side Approved,with variance for reduced side 08/19/2010 Improvements '6°o yard setback yard setback,3'6"in lieu of 15'minimum 06/10/2014 New Master Bathroom addition, 16.8% 17.45% 3,776 Approved,+111 sq ft. New Master Closet,Other 02/03/2015 New Master Bathroom addition, 17.45% 17.61% 3,811 Approved,+33 sq.ft. Todav New Master Closet,Other 11/26/2018 Proposed Deck Expansion 17.78% 18.76% A.,01 g How many exceptions does one house "need"? Figure 2: 490's incremental creep since it was built in 2007 As shown in Figure 2, when the house was built in 2007, DRB directed the prior owner of 490 to reduce its lot coverage due to comments from neighbors. le., notwithstanding topography, hardship and all the other factors that may justify a request for a variance, DRB determined that this house on this lot should go from a 16.9% lot coverage that required a variance to 15.0%. The final project was approved with no variance required of any kind. However, since Mr. Schwartz purchased 490 in 2010, he started a path of several, small projects of incremental creep (requiring variances) to give himself a mansion that if presented today the DRB would not approve. "If this house came as a new construction, [l]think the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space." Board member Kricensky, DRB hearing on 12/6/2018 This approach is a strain on the Town's resources and it makes a mockery of the code and zoning law. We are at a loss to explain why the Town keeps breaking its own rules and allows the Applicant to game the system to the detriment of the neighboring properties'. ' Neighbor at 500 Ridge Road: "the value of my property is eroded every time that 490 encroaches further on it with a request for a new exception." Former owner of 480: "490 has been a nuisance for years due to all these projects asking for exceptions. I am glad I am gone." III. PROJECT HISTORY This Project's history at the DRB and (before) at Staff-level makes the ultimate approval decision even more difficult to understand and accept. A summary of the history is below. Date Levet L'rotect Features Comments June-July Gargantuan Deck reduced to 2 attempts to pass the project at Staff 2018 Staff Massive Deck notwithstanding variance requirement 480 filed opposition for both attempts Back to Gargantuan Deck 10/18/2018 DRB Hearing 315 sq.ft.addition 480 filed opposition 37'towards the 480 Property 3-0 Continuance(Chong,Cousins,Kricensky) Additional variance required Massive Deck 203 sq.ft.addition to an 881 sq.ft. upper-floor deck 480 filed opposition 12/6/2018 DRB Hearing 22'towards the 480 Property 2-1 Approved Additional variance required (Chong,Kim.Kricensky(dissenting vote)) I Lot coverage from 17.78%to 18.26%,where 15.0%allowed INITIAL_ ITERATIONS AT STAFF-LEVEL_2. They were confusing. While the project had to be heard at DRB because of the variance requirement, 490 attempted twice to obtain approval at Staff-level. Of note, as 490's attempt to get approval at Staff-level was unsuccessful, once the project was referred to DRB, 490 went backwards and presented to DRB the first, gargantuan iteration of the project ("Gargantuan Deck") instead of the most recent, reduced version ("Massive Deck") they had presented to Staff. The obvious question is: why?The answer is evident:just so it could be reduced and be seen as a compromise. The game became clear at the DRB hearings. MAIN REASONS FOR 480'S OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT. The project is injurious to our property at 480 because by moving the upper-floor deck 22 feet closer to our home: • Our privacy is negatively affected, including additional noise impact • Our ability to enjoy our rear patios, our only areas for entertainment, is negatively affected • The development value of our lot is negatively affected We do not think it is fair that our property should be injured because 490 wants yet another addition necessitating yet another variance. It is against any notion of"balance" of competing interests in a neighbor community. 2 With Jainy Allsep, a contract planner and Sung Kwon. Ill. THE DRB HEARINGS THE FIRST DRB HEARING ON OCTOBER 18, 2018 DRB sent a clear message that the Gargantuan Deck expansion would loom over 480 and, very importantly, that it could not find a "hardship" that required a variance: • Board member John Kricensky said that the proximity of the deck to 480 made it appear even larger. "It actually does loom over that part of the backyard, and, yeah, you can do landscaping, but there's so much deck area now, and to ask for a variance to add even more, even though it's maybe a fraction - I can't find a hardship[requiring a variance]." • Vice-Chair Gordon Cousins said that "[he]has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." He added that "the existing raised deck ... has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space and there are other decks around the property." For these reasons, as all findings have to be made in order to grant a variance by a matter of law, the Project should have been denied right there and then simply for the impossibility of making the finding of hardship. However, after a puzzling discussion on the definition of lot coverage3, DRB gave 490 a continuance and directed 490 to work with the neighbors at 480, perhaps with the hope that a compromise could be found. Of note, there was no discussion on the impact of the project on 480's key areas of future development. Following the first hearing, 490 made no attempt to reach out to 480. 490 revised the project and presented at the DRB hearing on December 6. 2018 the Massive Deck4. Described as a"reduction", it was an artificial compromise, as it was the same deck presented to Staff in July 2018 and which 480 had objected to. Once again, 490 could not make the findings and made no attempt to address 480's legitimate privacy and noise concerns or how the Massive Deck would impact 480's future development. In fact, 490 did the opposite. 490 acknowledged that 480 was enjoying privacy in its current situation but questioned why that should continue! Further, 490 stated in the filings that the Massive Deck was proposed to give 490 "additional views, due to anticipated view loss due to the neighbors'developmenf', i.e.., a pre-emptive strike to establish views that today do not exist to limit 480's future development. 3 Chair Bryan Chong seemed not consider lot coverage as important as setbacks for privacy. He also seemed not to consider excess lot coverage a big deal because[much of this deck is extending over an existing lower deck]. Staff explained that the lower deck is at-grade or less than 3', so it did not factor into the lot coverage. However, Chong did not seem to take the Staff's explanation into consideration and repeated his incorrect position on excess lot coverage again at the final DRB hearing. 4 203 sq. ft. deck expansion that required additional variance for lot coverage, from the existing 17.78%to 18.26%, where 15.0% is allowed. THE DRB DECISION ON DECEMBER 6, 2018 At its final hearing, the DRB approved the Massive Deck 2-1. The Board composition was different than the one at the first hearing: Vice-Chair Cousins was absent; Board member Suzanne Kim - who had been absent at the first hearing - was present. Chong and Kim voted in favor; Kricensky cast the dissenting vote. Kricensky attempted to make the findings but he could not: • "Pulling the deck back has helped in regards to privacy, but does not address the concern that regardless of placement, the addition will still exceed the allowable lot coverage for this zoning district." • "There are areas down below which could be increased for gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings." • He "still believes it is a self-imposed hardship. If this house came as new construction, he thinks the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space." There were also comments about the history of 490 and its incremental creep: • Kricensky: "[They want]more space, but they are already over. Where does it stop7,. • Kim: "The law is the law. It's time for us to stop the creep. It's the incremental changes that bother me, the slow creep I find injurious." Chong did not see impact on privacy. As example of hardship, he cited "a dining table that cannot open all the way', having to move the couch or"[not having]a sufficient outdoor area"5. He appeared to ignore that this is not a 7' - 8' long deck: it is a huge 881 sq. ft. deck off the primary living spaces, 74' long with space for one dining area and 2 sitting areas. Puzzlingly, he repeated his view that a variance for lot coverage did not matter because "this deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground [the lot is already covered]."This reliance on a wrong definition of lot coverage seemed to lead him to the absurd conclusion that, since there is a lower deck at ground level, then there can be an upper-level deck 12 feet up in the air "because the lot is already covered". There was no discussion on the impact of the Project on 480's key areas of future development. As the Board members were struggling with 490's incremental creep, they discussed putting restrictions in the deed and ultimately, DRB approved (2-1) the Massive Deck with the unenforceable condition that the Board is against any future increases in lot coverage ratio for 490. Kim and Chong voiced support of the variance findings in the previous staff report, but the report could not be retrieved and read. Indeed, staff had not made the findings required for the lot coverage variance in such report and had indicated that DRB should make such findings. How the discussion went from a thorough discussion of zoning limitations and findings to a creative attempt at new definitions of lot coverage and/or setting rules DRB itself is breaking while fudging the findings is inexplicable, and the subject of this appeal. 5 This statement was in direct contrast with statements from Cousins and Kricensky. UNDERSTANDING LOT COVERAGE AND ITS PROPER APPLICATION "Lot coverage" is the percentage of a lot that is covered by structures. (TMC 16-100.020 and 16-30.120(B)(1).) Lot coverage includes decks that are more than three feet in height above the ground, though only one-half of the area of decks is counted. (TMC 16- 30.120(B)(2) and (3).) "Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(B)(1).) The essence of these principles is that decks be incorporated into the grade, instead of elevated from the second story of a home and causing the impacts seen here. This concept of maximizing the use of the landscaped living spaces, at grade, rather than additional building space and raised decks, is embodied in the Code. Indeed, these Code sections provide 490 with a solution; expand the at-grade lower deck. Instead, Mr. Schwartz goes against these principles. A lot in an RO-2 zone, like the 490 Property, is capped at 15% maximum lot coverage. (TMC 16-21.040, Table 2-2.) Their lot coverage is already 17.78%, +18.5% over the maximum. They propose to increase it even further at 18.26%, +21.7% over the maximum. Ignoring lot coverage limits here will negatively impact both spaciousness and privacy. Especially given that 490's lot size is larger than the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for RO-26. The notion that a variance for lot coverage in this case did not matter because "this[upper-floor] deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground[the lot is already coveredj' is wrong and inconsistent with the definition of lot coverage in the Code. The Code does not imply that, because there is a lower deck at ground level that covers the ground, then there can be an upper-level deck 12 feet up in the air. If that were true, then we would see massive decks protruding off-grade all throughout the Tiburon hills! Indeed, granting 490 a variance for additional lot coverage based on such faulted premises has created the absurd result that now Mr. Schwartz could even build more "house" under the Massive Deck extension without having to ask the Town for a lot coverage variance. Although 490 is well-served by significant decking and outdoor space already, there are alternatives to the Massive Deck but they were not even considered by the Applicant: • Increase the size of the deck at grade • Improve the usability of their yard through landscape design • Connect the upper deck and lower deck with stairs to facilitate access Such improvements would be more appropriate, less impactful to all neighbors for current and future owners, and not exceed the Town's stated development standards, as they would not require an additional variance. It also would stop the incremental creep of excess lot coverage. 6 Staff noted that lot coverage variances have been given, "but generally for homes that are[on lots] smaller than the minimum lot area." IV. GRANTING A VARIANCE IS A BIG DEAL- THE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FINDINGS According to state law, variances should be granted only when, "because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity." (Gov. Code § 65906.) Here, the 490 Property has a big, beautiful home, fully developed, in excess of the lot coverage maximum, and already serviced by abundant decking. The property and its owners are certainly not being deprived of privileges granted to other properties. The threshold for granting a variance under state law is quite high. (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors(1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, holding that the language of Gov. Code, § 65906 (granting of variances), emphasizes disparities between properties, not treatment of the subject property's characteristics in the abstract. It also contemplates that at best only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance.) The variance findings cannot be made here. The generic assertion that many other variances have been granted in the area not only fails because none of the cited variances were comparable, but also makes it less, not more appropriate to grant a variance for 490. The Board is required to make all the following findings before granting a variance: 1. Special circumstances applicable to the property, and the strict application of the zoning ordinance, will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. 490 is like other properties in the RO-2 zone. There are no special circumstances. The Applicant claims that the "natural downslope topography" puts the 490 Property at a disadvantage. This is not a special circumstance for the Applicant. It does not deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other properties; all the properties here are situated on a hillside. In fact, on August 16, 2007 DRB determined that 490 did not merit a variance for excess lot coverage of 16.9% when building plans for the current home were presented for approval: same house same lot same RO-2 zone. Based on comments from the neighbors, including the size and profile of the deck, DRB directed the owner to modify the plans and finally approved them at 15% lot coverage, with no variance required. Furthermore, it is clear that 490 has been fully developed. The applicants have not been deprived of building a home with expansive views and large outside deck space. The Applicant could landscape the property to solve their perceived problem of insufficient outdoor space, though he admits that as two people who travel much of the time, they do not need or use much of the outdoor space they already have. A request to expand outdoor space the Applicant does not need, certainly is not a deprivation. if the Town felt that 15.0 lot coverage were too 1MA/ they should re-Zone the entire HO-2 area with a higher lot coverage limit, not granting variances to a particular property on the basis of special circumstances that do not exist. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. Granting a variance would be a special privilege because the home already exceeds the lot coverage ratio. There are also alternatives to requesting a variance. The argument that others have received special privileges, and now the 490 Property should too, must fail. • Staff noted in their report that "... other properties... have been granted variances for excess lot coverage, but generally for homes that are located on properties that are smaller than the minimum lot area." 490's lot size of 21,424 sq. ft. is larger than the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size in the RO-2 zone. • Staff commented orally that none of the variances cited by the Applicant were given for a deck expansion. The contention that other homes have more usable outdoor space than the 490 Property is simply inaccurate. • 490 has plenty of usable outdoor space. (See I. Snapshot of the Applicant's Property.) • Vice-Chair Cousins:"[he]has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." In addition, using the available at-grade outdoor space, below the existing decks, would not be counted toward lot coverage if it is not raised. Accordingly, ample legal opportunities exist if more decking is desired. A variance is not needed to accomplish this. Granting this variance would be providing a special privilege. 3. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardship may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from action taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. The 490 Property, and the Applicant, are not facing a practical hardship because the property already contains an attractive, large home with expansive decking and outdoor spaces. (See I. Snapshot of the Applicant's Property). The Applicant argued that they do not have enough usable outdoor space. He said "they never use the downstairs deck... it is useless to them". Staff could not make the finding for hardship "[expanding the outdoor space down the hill] could result in a slight hardship for the property owner" and delegated to DRB to make this finding. While Chair Chong was receptive to the Applicant's argument, the overwhelming weight of the record of the minutes of the hearings clearly show that DRB could not make the finding for hardship and contradicted the statements of Schwartz: • Vice-Chair Cousins: "[he]has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." He added that "the existing raised deck ... has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space and there are other decks around the property." "`... Therefore, he does not think there is a hardship associated with this house if the Board voted not to increase the deck further." • Kricensky: "There are areas down below which could be increased for gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings." "[He]still believes it is a self-imposed hardship. "I want a bigger deck," is not the type of hardship contemplated by variance law. In fact, statements by the Applicant that they have areas down below that could be used for gatherings but they "do not use it", "I never sit down there" are the very definition of self- imposed hardship. There is no hardship. The analysis must start with whether there is a hardship. Here there is none, and this does not justify the grant of a variance. 4. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. The Massive Deck is injurious to 480 due to impact on: a) privacy, additional noise; b) ability to enjoy the only areas of outside entertainment 480 has; c) 480's future development value. Staff could not make this finding and the impact to 480's future development was not even discussed by either staff or by DRB at the hearings. UNDOING CAREFULLY CRAFTED COMPROMISES MADE BY DRB IN 2007. AS is explained In the Code, lot coverage restrictions are designed to promote "aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(B)(1).) On October 18, 2007 DRB approved plans that reduced the proposed lot coverage from 16.9% to 15.0% that required no variance. The current upper-deck profile follows the counters of the lower floor, so that the protrusion off- grade is limited to an area 22'wide and 50' away from the property line with 480 thereby respecting the neighboring property. Now Mr. Schwartz wants to undo those carefully crafted compromises, expanding this already large deck 22'towards the 480 Property. The proposed project is contrary to these goals of spaciousness and privacy. IMPACT ON PRIVACY, NOISE, ABILITY TO ENJOY OUTSIDE. AS judged by the Design Guidelines, discussed in detail below, acoustic impacts, and privacy impacts, this deck expansion would absolutely be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties, especially the 480 Property. These concerns have not been solved by the new iteration of the project. The deck would still become larger and closer by 22'to the 480 Property. See image in prior page (without expansion poles). "...[decks that are 5 feet off the ground rather than re-terracing...]have been approved for variances because they do not have a significant impact, but this is different because it is 12 feet in the air... possibly with umbrellas covering the added part and it will be up much higher than[480]. So[he]thinks it has a much bigger impact.]Cousins. x a Figure 2: Left, 480 outside patios overlooked by 490(image without expansion poles, expansion to reach all the way 22 feet to the beginning of dining +sitting area); Right, view of 490 from 500 Ridge Road balcony, unshielded While privacy is somewhat subjective, it is still on the only areas of outside entertainment that 480 has. There can be no question that a larger deck for larger gatherings will have a noise impact7. The Applicant's argument, that they are only two people and don't entertain much, has no bearing on the consideration here. As soon as they sell the property this could change. In addition, a larger space may cause them to justify entertaining more, and their use of the deck may increase as it is expanded. Any additional use of the deck would impact 480's privacy and the enjoyment of our home and our yard. IMPACT ON 480's FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. The proposed expansion will Injury 480 by negatively impacting its property value. The main value of 480 is its frontal Golden Gate bridge views. Such intrinsic value will be realized by developing the lot in the areas where the outside patios are, to take full advantage of the lot orientation. 490's deck extension, if approved, will loom over these key development areas: the Applicant stated in their filings that "... This proposed deck expansion hopes to provide additional views which may help to mitigate anticipated view loss due to the neighbors'development." Unfortunately, these are additional line of views borrowed from 480. We are concerned that this may create constraints to the future development of 480 that today do not exist. Indeed, 490's timing and their statements give their project the flavor of a pre-emptive strike on our future development project. We think it is not fair because we paid a premium to purchase 480 to recognize its development value. DRB did not deal with this matter. In summary, none of the required variance findings can be made and DRB has not dealt with the findings fully. In fact, the Applicants have hardly presented an argument to support variance findings. The 490 Property already exceeds the lot coverage limit, has other variances for reduced setbacks, and has a huge beautiful deck. It is not suddenly a hardship on the Applicants that they cannot impose on our privacy or put additional constraints on the 480 Property. It is also not the type of good neighbor conduct the Town should reward. The Application should be denied for the reason that the required findings cannot be made. 'This includes on the property at 500 Ridge Road, unshielded from 490. V. OTHER RED HERRING ARGUMENTS The Applicant's architect repeatedly suggested that it is a "modest addition" that does not have an impact. It is not a "modest addition" that should sneak through approval and it has a disproportionate impact on 480 (See Figure 2): • Deck surface increase of 203 sq. ft., a 23% increase vs. existing deck; • Lot coverage excess to + 21.7% over the 15.0% limit vs. today's + 18.5%; • Off-grade protrusion of the deck moved 22'towards 480. Cousins$ commented that: • "... because of the orientation[of the two properties], the fact that 480 ... is at an angle, bringing this deck forward brings it out into the view[from 480]far more." • "The projecting deck will be projecting 50 feet from the face of the building out to where it will be and he thinks it is too far. For those reasons, [he]would struggle to agree the Board should approve the variance. " • "...but this is different because it is 12 feet in the air... possibly with umbrellas covering the added part and it will be up ... much higher than[480]. So[he]thinks it has a much bigger impact." • Negative impacts on privacy, noise, ability to enjoy outside patios and property value have been discussed in prior sections. The Applicant and his architect repeatedly suggested that while they agree that the 480 Property is currently private, such privacy is not worthy of protection because they "do not think 480 Ridge Road should be entitled to more privacy than anyone else in the neighborhood."This argument fails for several reasons: • Applicant is admitting that they are injuring our property, thereby failing the 4th finding of "lack of injury"to ask for a variance. • The Applicant is suggesting that since it is hillside, then privacy should not matter. But Privacy on a hill depends on the orientation of the adjacent properties, as eloquently explained by Kricensky and Cousins at the hearings. • We paid a premium for the privacy of our home as-is, status quo between two fully- developed properties. Value should not be taken away from us to grant once again a variance to the 490 Property. 8 Board member Cousins was not present at the final DRB hearing. VI. THE RIGHT TO EXPECT SOME CONSISTENCY FROM ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES At the time we bought 480 in May 2017, we did inquire with Planning Division staff about future development potential at 480 and history/status of the neighboring properties. Staff told us: • 480 sit between two fully developed properties (460 and 490), both relatively new; • 490 had already a significant variance in lot coverage (17.78%, where 1.5.0% is allowed) and had already come to the town for several additional protects (garage, landscaped spa, etc.) requiring a variance; • It is very difficult for any new property already enjoying a variance to argue for additional variance. As a result, we believed that what we were seeing at 480 (potential and constraints) is what we were buying. These were important assumptions and considerations in our decision to buy the property at 480. Perhaps due to personnel changes and that the project was presented during the summer to temporary staff, we have not seen consistency in the approach to the 490's project with what we were told in May 2017. This includes what we have experienced with DRB, because giving a variance is a big deal. Unfortunately, we have not seen consistency from the first hearing to the final hearing. While it is true that the DRB composition changed between the two hearings9, we were puzzled by the change in approach to the matter. From a first hearing that was based on architectural considerations and discussions about findings based on the law, the second hearing was lighter on substance and findings and more "creative", as discussed earlier. In the end, not even the findings were made as DRB referenced a Staff report that did not contain such findings. In sum, we are dealing with multi-million dollar properties, significant potential monetary impacts and people's homes. As taxpayers, we feel we have the right to expect consistency from municipal bodies administering the law. We should not feel that decisions are somewhat arbitrary or depending by the chance of having one board member or another being present at a meeting. We find the process that led to a 2-1 approval of the Massive Deck inexplicable, and the subject of this appeal. s Chong, Cousins, Kricensky on 10/18/2018; Chong, Kim, Kricensky on 12/6/2018. CONCLUSION We are at a loss for explaining the approval of the Massive Deck expansion at 490 Ridge Road, especially given the request for an additional variance for lot coverage that puts 490 farther out of compliance with the Town's Code at the expense of the neighboring properties. This appeal is not made lightly. We are aware that the Town Council pays great deference to DRB and rightly so. However, people are not infallible and even the greatest decision making processes cannot get it right 100% of the time. This is indeed why the right of appeal exists: as a stopgap to catch, and remedy, a project that might slip through. 490 Ridge Road is a wonderful property with expansive decking and wonderful views. The property "has more outdoor space than any[property][Board member Cousins]has been to(in the 5 years he has been on DRB]." Reasonable and feasible solutions do exist and they do not require additional variance. Nothing is more demonstrative of this fact than the commentaries at DRB regarding other outdoor areas at-grade at the property. Utilizing those spaces appears to be the solution needed here if the Applicant wanted more outdoor space for gatherings in a way that is respectful of the neighboring properties. The required findings for this application cannot be made and the impacts on our home at 480 Ridge Road are serious. The project should be denied and a full reset ordered by the Council. Thank you for your consideration of our appeal for this difficult project. Very Truly Yours Alessandra Beraldi APPENDIX A FOLLOW THE HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES Many of the goals and principles of the Design Guidelines cannot be met here because the Massive Deck expansion impacts the living space of the 480 Property causing privacy, acoustic, and view impacts. Most notably, the impacts of extending the deck are incompatible with Goal 2, Principle 9, acoustic impacts, Goal 3, Principle 4, view quality, and Goal 3, Principle 6, privacy impacts. Goal 2, Principle 9 —Acoustic privacy is important to all residents. Goal 2, Principle 9 states that "any dwelling should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors." (Design Guidelines, page 23.) 40"tt)i iv it." VE- r j HOW , Figure: Design Guideline Goal 2, Principle 9 Nothing in the Massive Deck expansion protect the neighbors (both at 480 and 500) from noise pollution. If the impetus for expanding the deck is simply to expand the Applicants'outdoor living space, as was suggested by the Applicant and his architect at the hearings, the lower- level deck could be expanded, plants could be added at that level to screen between the 480 and the 490 Property, or the hillside could be landscaped to increase the usable space. But the Applicant makes no such effort. The noise pollution reduction goals cannot be met because the Applicant continue to propose bringing their deck 22' closer to the 480 Property, locating it above the existing critical screening trees, and ignoring the possibility of alternative solutions. APPENDIX A Goal 3, Principle 6 — Privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict. Goal 3, Principle 6 is not satisfied here because the attempt of the Applicant to capture an additional view is in direct conflict with the 480's privacy. The deck extension would hang nearly over the 480 Property and has moved 490's off-grade upper-deck protrusion 22'closer to 480. As the images below demonstrate, deck expansion is incompatible with privacy. The Application will turn the deck into a looming mass perched right above 480's yard. This is all the more true in this case as 490 and 480 are oriented at different angles, they do not "go out of the hill off- grade" in parallel, as Board member Cousins noted at the first DRB hearing. As noted in this principle, "pre-thinking solutions to this problem is important." (Design Guidelines, page 32.) Here, screen planting, one solution to protect the privacy of both parties would block the view from the deck. In addition, the deck is so close to the property line already, it is not clear the Applicants have space for additional planting of the size that would be required and would likely necessitate removal of their lower patio and stairway, outdoor space that is not counted toward the lot coverage limit. Further, planting /trees have been a matter of contention between the Applicant and the prior owner of 480 for years. In fact, as is shown in the minutes of both the DRB hearings, the Applicant and their architect acknowledge that the 480 Property is private. It is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, for the neighbors to encroach on 480's privacy. In short, this privacy goal is not met and the solution does not work. ............_.. QC2rf„...-,D Figure: Design Guideline Goal 3, Principle 6. kf RagghiantijFreitaS LLP Attorneys at Laj,a 1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100 San Rafael,CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269 jkathreinQrflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com February 27, 2019 Via E-Mail Only Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Opposition to DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022 -490 Ridge Road,Tiburon Dear Council members: Our office represents Cavi 1985, LLC, Alessandra Beraldi and her family ("Appellants"), the owners of 480 Ridge Road in Tiburon ("Beraldi Property"). The Beraldi Property shares its eastern property line with 490 Ridge Road ("Schwartz Property"), owned by Stephen and Honey Schwartz ("Applicants"). This application proposes to unnecessarily enlarge the Schwartz's deck toward the Beraldi Property. As has been identified in our previous letters, in the appeal form, in the appeal letter submitted by our client, and in the letter from our client attached here, the findings necessary to grant a variance here cannot be made. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE Pursuant to state law, variances can only be granted when "due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity." (Gov. Code § 65906.) The threshold for granting a variance is high. (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145.) The Council must make all the following findings before granting a variance. Here, as we have previously analyzed, one by one, the following findings simply cannot be made: EXHIBIT 8 Ragghianti I Fr iU1S LLP Page 2 of 2 1. Special circumstances applicable to the property, and the strict application of the zoning ordinance,will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. 3. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. 4. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Applicant's arguments that similar variances have been granted in the vicinity does not somehow permit the Town to ignore its land use regulations. (Orinda at 1163.) A home that already has more than 1,760 square feet of raised decking over two levels is hardly being deprived of a necessary property right such that a deviation from the law is required in order to make them whole. Applicants are not facing any hardship. In fact, their deck expansion causes injury to the Beraldi Property. In summary, the application should be denied because the required variance findings cannot be made. The Design Review Board made these findings in error. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan R. Kathrein CC: Client Riley F. Hurd M Tiburon Town Council March 6, 2019 PH- 1 : 480 Ridge Road Appeal Late Mail Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, Istefani@townoftiburon.org LATE MA #.&J. Ms.Alessandra Beraldi Cavi 1985, LLC PO Box 537 Belvedere Tiburon, CA 94920 +1 415 316 1015;480B@cavi1985 corn February 26, 2017 Delivered Via E-Mail Only Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of DRB Decision - 490 Ridge Road (DR2018-070 and VAR2018-022) Dear Members of the Town Council: I am the owner of 480 Ridge Road in Tiburon ("480" or the "480 Property"). This briefing is submitted in conjunction with our appeal of the December 6, 2018 decision (2-1) by the Design Review Board ("DRB") conditionally approving an expansion of a large existing deck of the house next door to Mr. Schwartz ("Applicant") at 490 Ridge Road ("490" or the "490 Property"). We are not making this appeal lightly. We know that the Council gives great deference to the DRB. However, even the greatest decision making processes cannot get it right 100% of the time and the record in this case shows it. This is one of the very rare cases where we feel an appeal is warranted due to this project's objective impossibility to make the findings for an (additional) lot coverage variance, the failure to comply with the Zoning Code and Hillside Design Guidelines, and the severity of the resulting impacts on our home. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The 490 Property was recently built (2007). It is fully developed: "Vice-Chair Cousins] has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." DRB minutes, 10/18/2018. 2. Since 2010, 490 has obtained approval four (4) times for small additions, each requiring a variance. What DRB approved in 2007 at no variance has now crept up to a mansion with variances for lot coverage and setbacks (front and side). Yet, they want more. 3. The proposed 5th "modest addition" requiring yet another variance is a 203 sq. ft. increase of a deck that at 881 sq. ft. they allege is not enough. Incredibly, they are claiming hardship for lack of usable outdoor space. But there is no hardship. 4. They are injuring our home at 480. 490's upper deck would loom massive over us. Our privacy is negatively affected, as is our ability to enjoy our rear patios. There is a noise impact. The development value of our lot is negatively affected. 5. The findings required by law for the lot coverage variance cannot be made. DRB could not make the findings or made them in error. 490 has already had more than their fair share. The Council should deny the project. EXHIBIT 7 I. A SNAPSHOT OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY \ Built in 2007, 490 Ridge Road is a beautiful property. Oriented towards its main view of Angel Island, it has panoramic views of the Nom. SF Bay. 490 is a fully-developed property that enjoys significant decking and outdoor entertainment areas. ,r, ILf v �y rz s by � � r S Key facts and features of the 490 Property relevant to the proposed project: ' x . Lot Size: 21,424 sq. ft.; larger than the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for the RO-2 zone r �r Floor Area: 4,159 sq. ft. ' IfYr i:: • Upper-floor Deck: 881 sq. ft. {F° 4 • Length: over 74'long • Width: 16'to 20'for 50%of the length; 7'6" for the other 50%of the length ' • Sitting Area 1: 350 sq. ft. (22'x 16'); � protrusion off-grade that follows the contours of the lower floor • Sitting Area 2+Dining: 300 sq. ft. (15'x 20'); dining covered by trellis (+tent) L z, • Lower-floor Deck: at-grade, larger than upper- floor deck; lounge chairs, table and landscaped outdoors Landscaped Spa and Covered Sitting. at the front of the house (see photographs above) j S, ng Area 2 D n ig Area.not h H` Upper Deck shown-Upper Deck a = F rb r Q 'v _ _ ra`8 :- - s. -" -�q��S�^5y�y eye` s � � •• s a".z•.k.:, -#.�..._.�� � a. .tet 2� me � S4ti ..,s: ;�_.,.< � .._:.� � .:o- � S Lower Deck ^S 3 Shing 1 Dec Upper Deck Figure 1: View of the upper-floor deck(subject of expansion) and lower-floor deck; Right image shows dining area covered by trellis/tent and sitting area This beautiful property has been developed to its full potential and more, as evidenced by the fact that it is already enjoying several variances: • Variances Already Granted Before the Proposed Deck Expansion: • Lot Coverage: 17.78% where 15.0% is allowed • Reduced front-yard setback: 4'4" of the property line where 30' is required • Reduced side-yard setback: 3'6" where 15' is required As a result of the lot coverage excess, 490 has already 3,809 sq. ft. of lot coverage instead of the allowed 3,214 sq. ft., i.e., 595 sq. ft. (+ 18.5%) more than allowed. Yet, they want more. This wonderful home with expansive decking and outdoor areas proposes a 203 sq. ft. upper- floor deck expansion, 22'closer to our home, requesting an additional variance for lot coverage. Even more incredibly, they are claiming hardship. This project is the subject of this appeal. II. PROPERTY'S AND APPLICANT'S HISTORY: SEVERAL PROJECTS OF INCREMENTAL CREEP OVER TIME Although an applicant's intentions for the use of a residence post-approval are not generally relevant, at some point the drivers for a project, and an applicant's history, cannot be ignored. It appears that 490's unrelenting quest for square footage, views, and amenities has resulted in a failure to compromise or understand that, while they have the right to enjoy their property, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of their neighbors to enjoy their own. 08/16/2007 Proposed Building Plans N.M. 16-9% 3,652 DRB gives continuance due to comments from neighbors 15.0% DRB approved,praises effort to reduce 10/18/2007 Building Plans-New House 16.9% No variance 3,245 to satisfyneighbors'concerns Base Line required project g 15.6% Approved,+123 sq.ft. Lot coverage variance+reduced front 06/03f2010 Detached Garage 15.090 +reduced front 3,368 yard setback yard setback variance(4'4"of the front - property line,where 30'required) New SPA and Landscape Reduced side Approved,with variance for reduced side 08/19/2010 Improvements 15.690 yard setback yard setback,3'6"in lieu of 15'minimum 06/10/2014 New Master Bathroom addition, 16 8% 17,451 3,776 Approved,+111 sq.ft. New Master Closet;Other 02/03/2015 New Master Bathroom addition, 17,45% 17.61% 3,811 Approved,+33 sq.ft. Today New Master Closet,Other 11/26/2018 Proposed Deck Expansion 17.78% 18.76% 4.019 How many exceptions does one house "need"? Figure 2: 490's incremental creep since it was built in 2007 As shown in Figure 2, when the house was built in 2007, DRB directed the prior owner of 490 to reduce its lot coverage due to comments from neighbors. le., notwithstanding topography, hardship and all the other factors that may justify a request for a variance, DRB determined that this house on this lot should go from a 16.9% lot coverage that required a variance to 15.0%. The final project was approved with no variance required of any kind. However, since Mr. Schwartz purchased 490 in 2010, he started a path of several, small projects of incremental creep (requiring variances) to give himself a mansion that if presented today the DRB would not approve. "If this house came as a new construction, [I]think the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space." Board member Kricensky, DRB hearing on 12/6/2018 This approach is a strain on the Town's resources and it makes a mockery of the code and zoning law. We are at a loss to explain why the Town keeps breaking its own rules and allows the Applicant to game the system to the detriment of the neighboring properties'. _.. ......... ' Neighbor at 500 Ridge Road: "the value of my property is eroded every time that 490 encroaches further on it with a request for a new exception." Former owner of 480: "490 has been a nuisance for years due to all these projects asking for exceptions. I am glad I am gone." III. PROJECT HISTORY This Project's history at the DRB and (before) at Staff-level makes the ultimate approval decision even more difficult to understand and accept. A summary of the history is below. Date Level Project Features Comments .......; 2 attempts to pass the project at Staff June July Staff Gargantuan Deck reduced to notwithstanding variance requirement 2018 Massive Deck 480 filed opposition for both attempts Back to Gargantuan Deck I 10/18/2018 DRB Hearing 315 sq' pp ft.addition 480 filed opposition ] 37'towards the 480 Property 3-0 Continuance(Chong,Cousins,Kricensky) Additional variance required Massive Deck 203 sq.ft. addition to an 881 sq.ft. upper-floor deck 480 filed opposition 12/6/2018 DRB Hearing 22'towards the 480 Property 2-1 Approved Additional variance required (Chong,Kim,Kricensky(dissenting vote)) Lot coverage from 17.78%to 18.26%,where 15.0%allowed INITIAL ITERATIONS AT STAFF-LEVEL2. They were confusing. While the project had to be heard at DRB because of the variance requirement, 490 attempted twice to obtain approval at Staff-level. Of note, as 490's attempt to get approval at Staff-level was unsuccessful, once the project was referred to DRB, 490 went backwards and presented to DRB the first, gargantuan iteration of the project ("Gargantuan Deck") instead of the most recent, reduced version ("Massive Deck") they had presented to Staff. The obvious question is: why?The answer is evident:just so it could be reduced and be seen as a compromise. The game became clear at the DRB hearings. MAIN REASONS FOR 480's OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT. The project Is Injurious to our property at 480 because by moving the upper-floor deck 22 feet closer to our home: • Our privacy is negatively affected, including additional noise impact • Our ability to enjoy our rear patios, our only areas for entertainment, is negatively affected • The development value of our lot is negatively affected We do not think it is fair that our property should be injured because 490 wants yet another addition necessitating yet another variance. It is against any notion of"balance" of competing interests in a neighbor community. 2 With Jainy Allsep, a contract planner and Sung Kwon. Ill. THE DRB HEARINGS THE FIRST DRB HEARING ON OCTOBER 18, 2018 DRB sent a clear message that the Gargantuan Deck expansion would loom over 480 and, very importantly, that it could not find a "hardship" that required a variance: • Board member John Kricensky said that the proximity of the deck to 480 made it appear even larger. "It actually does loom over that part of the backyard, and, yeah, you can do landscaping, but there's so much deck area now, and to ask for a variance to add even more, even though it's maybe a fraction - I can't find a hardship[requiring a variance]." • Vice-Chair Gordon Cousins said that "[he]has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." He added that "the existing raised deck ... has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space and there are other decks around the property." For these reasons, as all findings have to be made in order to grant a variance by a matter of law, the Project should have been denied right there and then simply for the impossibility of making the finding of hardship. However, after a puzzling discussion on the definition of lot coverage3, DRB gave 490 a continuance and directed 490 to work with the neighbors at 480, perhaps with the hope that a compromise could be found. Of note, there was no discussion on the impact of the project on 480's key areas of future development. Following the first hearing, 490 made no attempt to reach out to 480. 490 revised the project and presented at the DRB hearing on December 6. 2018 the Massive Deck4. Described as a "reduction", it was an artificial compromise, as it was the same deck presented to Staff in July 2018 and which 480 had objected to. Once again, 490 could not make the findings and made no attempt to address 480's legitimate privacy and noise concerns or how the Massive Deck would impact 480's future development. In fact, 490 did the opposite. 490 acknowledged that 480 was enjoying privacy in its current situation but questioned why that should continue! Further, 490 stated in the filings that the Massive Deck was proposed to give 490 "additional views, due to anticipated view loss due to the neighbors'development', i.e.., a pre-emptive strike to establish views that today do not exist to limit 480's future development. 3 Chair Bryan Chong seemed not consider lot coverage as important as setbacks for privacy. He also seemed not to consider excess lot coverage a big deal because [much of this deck is extending over an existing lower deck]. Staff explained that the lower deck is at-grade or less than 3', so it did not factor into the lot coverage. However, Chong did not seem to take the Staff's explanation into consideration and repeated his incorrect position on excess lot coverage again at the final DRB hearing. 4 203 sq. ft. deck expansion that required additional variance for lot coverage, from the existing 17.78% to 18.26%, where 15.0% is allowed. THE DRB DECISION ON DECEMBER 6, 2018 At its final hearing, the DRB approved the Massive Deck 2-1. The Board composition was different than the one at the first hearing: Vice-Chair Cousins was absent; Board member Suzanne Kim - who had been absent at the first hearing - was present. Chong and Kim voted in favor; Kricensky cast the dissenting vote. Kricensky attempted to make the findings but he could not: • "Pulling the deck back has helped in regards to privacy, but does not address the concern that regardless of placement, the addition will still exceed the allowable lot coverage for this zoning district." • "There are areas down below which could be increased for gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings." • He "still believes it is a self-imposed hardship. If this house came as new construction, he thinks the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space." There were also comments about the history of 490 and its incremental creep: • Kricensky: "[They want]more space, but they are already over. Where does it stop?'. • Kim: "The law is the law. It's time for us to stop the creep. It's the incremental changes that bother me, the slow creep I find injurious." Chong did not see impact on privacy. As example of hardship, he cited "a dining table that cannot open all the way', having to move the couch or"[not having]a sufficient outdoor area"-5. He appeared to ignore that this is not a 7'- 8' long deck: it is a huge 881 sq. ft. deck off the primary living spaces, 74' long with space for one dining area and 2 sitting areas. Puzzlingly, he repeated his view that a variance for lot coverage did not matter because "this deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground [the lot is already covered]."This reliance on a wrong definition of lot coverage seemed to lead him to the absurd conclusion that, since there is a lower deck at ground level, then there can be an upper-level deck 12 feet up in the air "because the lot is already covered". There was no discussion on the impact of the Project on 480's key areas of future development. As the Board members were struggling with 490's incremental creep, they discussed putting restrictions in the deed and ultimately, DRB approved (2-1) the Massive Deck with the unenforceable condition that the Board is against any future increases in lot coverage ratio for 490. Kim and Chong voiced support of the variance findings in the previous staff report, but the report could not be retrieved and read. Indeed, staff had not made the findings required for the lot coverage variance in such report and had indicated that DRB should make such findings. How the discussion went from a thorough discussion of zoning limitations and findings to a creative attempt at new definitions of lot coverage and/or setting rules DRB itself is breaking while fudging the findings is inexplicable, and the subject of this appeal. 5 This statement was in direct contrast with statements from Cousins and Kricensky. UNDERSTANDING LOT COVERAGE AND ITS PROPER APPLICATION "Lot coverage" is the percentage of a lot that is covered by structures. (TMC 16-100.020 and 16-30.120(B)(1).) Lot coverage includes decks that are more than three feet in height above the ground, though only one-half of the area of decks is counted. (TMC 16- 30.120(B)(2) and (3).) "Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(B)(1).) The essence of these principles is that decks be incorporated into the grade, instead of elevated from the second story of a home and causing the impacts seen here. This concept of maximizing the use of the landscaped living spaces, at grade, rather than additional building space and raised decks, is embodied in the Code. Indeed, these Code sections provide 490 with a solution; expand the at-grade lower deck. Instead, Mr. Schwartz goes against these principles. A lot in an RO-2 zone, like the 490 Property, is capped at 15% maximum lot coverage. (TMC 16-21.040, Table 2-2.) Their lot coverage is already 17.78%, +18.5% over the maximum. They propose to increase it even further at 18.26%, +21.7% over the maximum. Ignoring lot coverage limits here will negatively impact both spaciousness and privacy. Especially given that 490's lot size is larger than the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for RO-26. The notion that a variance for lot coverage in this case did not matter because "this[upper-floor] deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground(the lot is already covered]' is wrong and inconsistent with the definition of lot coverage in the Code. The Code does not imply that, because there is a lower deck at ground level that covers the ground, then there can be an upper-level deck 12 feet up in the air. If that were true, then we would see massive decks protruding off-grade all throughout the Tiburon hills! Indeed, granting 490 a variance for additional lot coverage based on such faulted premises has created the absurd result that now Mr. Schwartz could even build more "house" under the Massive Deck extension without having to ask the Town for a lot coverage variance. Although 490 is well-served by significant decking and outdoor space already, there are alternatives to the Massive Deck but they were not even considered by the Applicant: • Increase the size of the deck at grade • Improve the usability of their yard through landscape design • Connect the upper deck and lower deck with stairs to facilitate access Such improvements would be more appropriate, less impactful to all neighbors for current and future owners, and not exceed the Town's stated development standards, as they would not require an additional variance. It also would stop the incremental creep of excess lot coverage. 6 Staff noted that lot coverage variances have been given, "but generally for homes that are[on lots] smaller than the minimum lot area." IV. GRANTING A VARIANCE IS A BIG DEAL- THE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FINDINGS According to state law, variances should be granted only when, "because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity." (Gov. Code § 65906.) Here, the 490 Property has a big, beautiful home, fully developed, in excess of the lot coverage maximum, and already serviced by abundant decking. The property and its owners are certainly not being deprived of privileges granted to other properties. The threshold for granting a variance under state law is quite high. (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors(1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, holding that the language of Gov. Code, § 65906 (granting of variances), emphasizes disparities between properties, not treatment of the subject property's characteristics in the abstract. It also contemplates that at best only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance.) The variance findings cannot be made here. The generic assertion that many other variances have been granted in the area not only fails because none of the cited variances were comparable, but also makes it less, not more appropriate to grant a variance for 490. The Board is required to make all the following findings before granting a variance: 1. Special circumstances applicable to the property, and the strict application of the zoning ordinance, will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. 490 is like other properties in the RO-2 zone. There are no special circumstances. The Applicant claims that the "natural downslope topography" puts the 490 Property at a disadvantage. This is not a special circumstance for the Applicant. It does not deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other properties; all the properties here are situated on a hillside. In fact, on August 16, 2007 DRB determined that 490 did not merit a variance for excess lot coverage of 16.9% when building plans for the current home were presented for approval: same house same lot same RO-2 zone. Based on comments from the neighbors, including the size and profile of the deck, DRB directed the owner to modify the plans and finally approved them at 15% lot coverage, with no variance required. Furthermore, it is clear that 490 has been fully developed. The applicants have not been deprived of building a home with expansive views and large outside deck space. The Applicant could landscape the property to solve their perceived problem of insufficient outdoor space, though he admits that as two people who travel much of the time, they do not need or use much of the outdoor space they already have. A request to expand outdoor space the Applicant does not need, certainly is not a deprivation. If the Town felt that 15.0% lot coverage were too low, they should re-zone the entire RO-2 area with a higher lot coverage limit, not granting variances to a particular property on the basis of special circumstances that do not exist. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. Granting a variance would be a special privilege because the home already exceeds the lot coverage ratio. There are also alternatives to requesting a variance. The argument that others have received special privileges, and now the 490 Property should too, must fail. • Staff noted in their report that "... other properties... have been granted variances for excess lot coverage, but generally for homes that are located on properties that are smaller than the minimum lot area." 490's lot size of 21,424 sq. ft. is larger than the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size in the RO-2 zone. • Staff commented orally that none of the variances cited by the Applicant were given for a deck expansion. The contention that other homes have more usable outdoor space than the 490 Property is simply inaccurate. • 490 has plenty of usable outdoor space. (See I. Snapshot of the Applicant's Property.) • Vice-Chair Cousins:"[he]has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." In addition, using the available at-grade outdoor space, below the existing decks, would not be counted toward lot coverage if it is not raised. Accordingly, ample legal opportunities exist if more decking is desired. A variance is not needed to accomplish this. Granting this variance would be providing a special privilege. 3. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardship may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from action taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. The 490 Property, and the Applicant, are not facing a practical hardship because the property already contains an attractive, large home with expansive decking and outdoor spaces. (See I. Snapshot of the Applicant's Property). The Applicant argued that they do not have enough usable outdoor space. He said "they never use the downstairs deck... it is useless to them". Staff could not make the finding for hardship "[expanding the outdoor space down the hill] could result in a slight hardship for the property owner" and delegated to DRB to make this finding. While Chair Chong was receptive to the Applicant's argument, the overwhelming weight of the record of the minutes of the hearings clearly show that DRB could not make the finding for hardship and contradicted the statements of Schwartz: • Vice-Chair Cousins: "[he]has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." He added that "the existing raised deck... has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space and there are other decks around the property." "`... Therefore, he does not think there is a hardship associated with this house if the Board voted not to increase the deck further." • Kricensky: "There are areas down below which could be increased for gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings." "[He]still believes it is a self-imposed hardship. "I want a bigger deck," is not the type of hardship contemplated by variance law. In fact, statements by the Applicant that they have areas down below that could be used for gatherings but they "do not use it", "I never sit down there" are the very definition of self- imposed hardship. There is no hardship. The analysis must start with whether there is a hardship. Here there is none, and this does not justify the grant of a variance. 4. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. The Massive Deck is injurious to 480 due to impact on: a) privacy, additional noise; b) ability to enjoy the only areas of outside entertainment 480 has; c) 480's future development value. Staff could not make this finding and the impact to 480's future development was not even discussed by either staff or by DRB at the hearings. UNDOING CAREFULLY CRAFTED COMPROMISES MADE BY DRB IN 2007.As is explained in the Code, lot coverage restrictions are designed to promote "aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(B)(1).) On October 18, 2007 DRB approved plans that reduced the proposed lot coverage from 16.9% to 15.0% that required no variance. The current upper-deck profile follows the counters of the lower floor, so that the protrusion off- grade is limited to an area 22'wide and 50'away from the property line with 480 thereby respecting the neighboring property. Now Mr. Schwartz wants to undo those carefully crafted compromises, expanding this already large deck 22'towards the 480 Property. The proposed project is contrary to these goals of spaciousness and privacy. IMPACT ON PRIVACY, NOISE, ABILITY TO ENJOY OUTSIDE. As judged by the Design Guidelines, discussed in detail below, acoustic impacts, and privacy impacts, this deck expansion would absolutely be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties, especially the 480 Property. These concerns have not been solved by the new iteration of the project. The deck would still become larger and closer by 22'to the 480 Property. See image in prior page (without expansion poles). "...[decks that are 5 feet off the ground rather than re-terracing...]have been approved for variances because they do not have a significant impact, but this is different because it is 12 feet in the air... possibly with umbrellas covering the added part and it will be up ... much higher than[480]. So[he]thinks it has a much bigger impact.]Cousins. a h Figure 2: Left, 480 outside patios overlooked by 490 (image without expansion poles, expansion to reach all the way 22 feet to the beginning of dining +sitting area); Right, view of 490 from 500 Ridge Road balcony, unshielded While privacy is somewhat subjective, it is still on the only areas of outside entertainment that 480 has. There can be no question that a larger deck for larger gatherings will have a noise impact7. The Applicant's argument, that they are only two people and don't entertain much, has no bearing on the consideration here. As soon as they sell the property this could change. In addition, a larger space may cause them to justify entertaining more, and their use of the deck may increase as it is expanded. Any additional use of the deck would impact 480's privacy and the enjoyment of our home and our yard. IMPACT ON 480's FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. The proposed expansion will Injury 480 by negatively impacting its property value. The main value of 480 is its frontal Golden Gate bridge views. Such intrinsic value will be realized by developing the lot in the areas where the outside patios are, to take full advantage of the lot orientation. 490's deck extension, if approved, will loom over these key development areas: the Applicant stated in their filings that "... This proposed deck expansion hopes to provide additional views which may help to mitigate anticipated view loss due to the neighbors'development." Unfortunately, these are additional line of views borrowed from 480. We are concerned that this may create constraints to the future development of 480 that today do not exist. Indeed, 490's timing and their statements give their project the flavor of a pre-emptive strike on our future development project. We think it is not fair because we paid a premium to purchase 480 to recognize its development value. DRB did not deal with this matter. In summary, none of the required variance findings can be made and DRB has not dealt with the findings fully. In fact, the Applicants have hardly presented an argument to support variance findings. The 490 Property already exceeds the lot coverage limit, has other variances for reduced setbacks, and has a huge beautiful deck. It is not suddenly a hardship on the Applicants that they cannot impose on our privacy or put additional constraints on the 480 Property. It is also not the type of good neighbor conduct the Town should reward. The Application should be denied for the reason that the required findings cannot be made. 'This includes on the property at 500 Ridge Road, unshielded from 490. V. OTHER RED HERRING ARGUMENTS The Applicant's architect repeatedly suggested that it is a "modest addition" that does not have an impact. It is not a "modest addition"that should sneak through approval and it has a disproportionate impact on 480 (See Figure 2): • Deck surface increase of 203 sq. ft., a 23% increase vs. existing deck; • Lot coverage excess to + 21.7% over the 15.0% limit vs. today's + 18.5%; • Off-grade protrusion of the deck moved 22'towards 480. Cousins$ commented that: • "... because of the orientation[of the two properties], the fact that 480 ... is at an angle, bringing this deck forward brings it out into the view[from 480]far more." • "The projecting deck will be projecting 50 feet from the face of the building out to where it will be and he thinks it is too far. For those reasons, [he]would struggle to agree the Board should approve the variance. " • "...but this is different because it is 12 feet in the air... possibly with umbrellas covering the added part and it will be up ... much higher than[480]. So[he]thinks it has a much bigger impact." • Negative impacts on privacy, noise, ability to enjoy outside patios and property value have been discussed in prior sections. The Applicant and his architect repeatedly suggested that while they agree that the 480 Property is currently private, such privacy is not worthy of protection because they "do not think 480 Ridge Road should be entitled to more privacy than anyone else in the neighborhood."This argument fails for several reasons: • Applicant is admitting that they are injuring our property, thereby failing the 4th finding of "lack of injury"to ask for a variance. • The Applicant is suggesting that since it is hillside, then privacy should not matter. But Privacy on a hill depends on the orientation of the adjacent properties, as eloquently explained by Kricensky and Cousins at the hearings. • We paid a premium for the privacy of our home as-is, status quo between two fully- developed properties. Value should not be taken away from us to grant once again a variance to the 490 Property. 8 Board member Cousins was not present at the final DRB hearing. VI. THE RIGHT TO EXPECT SOME CONSISTENCY FROM ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES At the time we bought 480 in May 2017, we did inquire with Planning Division staff about future development potential at 480 and history/status of the neighboring properties. Staff told us: • 480 sit between two fully developed properties (460 and 490), both relatively new; • 490 had already a significant variance in lot coverage (17.78%, where 15.0% is allowed) and had already come to the town for several additional projects (garage, landscaped spa, etc.) requiring a variance; • It is very difficult for any new property already enjoying a variance to argue for additional variance. As a result, we believed that what we were seeing at 480 (potential and constraints) is what we were buying. These were important assumptions and considerations in our decision to buy the property at 480. Perhaps due to personnel changes and that the project was presented during the summer to temporary staff, we have not seen consistency in the approach to the 490's project with what we were told in May 2017. This includes what we have experienced with DRB, because giving a variance is a big deal. Unfortunately, we have not seen consistency from the first hearing to the final hearing. While it is true that the DRB composition changed between the two hearings9, we were puzzled by the change in approach to the matter. From a first hearing that was based on architectural considerations and discussions about findings based on the law, the second hearing was lighter on substance and findings and more "creative", as discussed earlier. In the end, not even the findings were made as DRB referenced a Staff report that did not contain such findings. In sum, we are dealing with multi-million dollar properties, significant potential monetary impacts and people's homes. As taxpayers, we feel we have the right to expect consistency from municipal bodies administering the law. We should not feel that decisions are somewhat arbitrary or depending by the chance of having one board member or another being present at a meeting. We find the process that led to a 2-1 approval of the Massive Deck inexplicable, and the subject of this appeal. 9 Chong, Cousins, Kricensky on 10/18/2018; Chong, Kim, Kricensky on 12/6/2018. CONCLUSION We are at a loss for explaining the approval of the Massive Deck expansion at 490 Ridge Road, especially given the request for an additional variance for lot coverage that puts 490 farther out of compliance with the Town's Code at the expense of the neighboring properties. This appeal is not made lightly. We are aware that the Town Council pays great deference to DRB and rightly so. However, people are not infallible and even the greatest decision making processes cannot get it right 100% of the time. This is indeed why the right of appeal exists: as a stopgap to catch, and remedy, a project that might slip through. 490 Ridge Road is a wonderful property with expansive decking and wonderful views. The property "has more outdoor space than any[property][Board member Cousins]has been to[in the 5 years he has been on DRB]." Reasonable and feasible solutions do exist and they do not require additional variance. Nothing is more demonstrative of this fact than the commentaries at DRB regarding other outdoor areas at-grade at the property. Utilizing those spaces appears to be the solution needed here if the Applicant wanted more outdoor space for gatherings in a way that is respectful of the neighboring properties. The required findings for this application cannot be made and the impacts on our home at 480 Ridge Road are serious. The project should be denied and a full reset ordered by the Council. Thank you for your consideration of our appeal for this difficult project. Very Truly Yours r&b43:VA�' Alessandra Beraldi APPENDIX A FOLLOW THE HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES Many of the goals and principles of the Design Guidelines cannot be met here because the Massive Deck expansion impacts the living space of the 480 Property causing privacy, acoustic, and view impacts. Most notably, the impacts of extending the deck are incompatible with Goal 2, Principle 9, acoustic impacts, Goal 3, Principle 4, view quality, and Goal 3, Principle 6, privacy impacts. Goal 2, Principle 9—Acoustic privacy is important to all residents. Goal 2, Principle 9 states that "any dwelling should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors." (Design Guidelines, page 23.) i .. 111 _.... v , t J 1 Figure: Design Guideline Goal 2, Principle 9 Nothing in the Massive Deck expansion protect the neighbors (both at 480 and 500) from noise pollution. If the impetus for expanding the deck is simply to expand the Applicants'outdoor living space, as was suggested by the Applicant and his architect at the hearings, the lower- level deck could be expanded, plants could be added at that level to screen between the 480 and the 490 Property, or the hillside could be landscaped to increase the usable space. But the Applicant makes no such effort. The noise pollution reduction goals cannot be met because the Applicant continue to propose bringing their deck 22' closer to the 480 Property, locating it above the existing critical screening trees, and ignoring the possibility of alternative solutions. APPENDIX A Goal 3, Principle 6 — Privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict. Goal 3, Principle 6 is not satisfied here because the attempt of the Applicant to capture an additional view is in direct conflict with the 480's privacy. The deck extension would hang nearly over the 480 Property and has moved 490's off-grade upper-deck protrusion 22' closer to 480. As the images below demonstrate, deck expansion is incompatible with privacy. The Application will turn the deck into a looming mass perched right above 480's yard. This is all the more true in this case as 490 and 480 are oriented at different angles, they do not "go out of the hill off- grade" in parallel, as Board member Cousins noted at the first DRB hearing. As noted in this principle, "pre-thinking solutions to this problem is important." (Design Guidelines, page 32.) Here, screen planting, one solution to protect the privacy of both parties would block the view from the deck. In addition, the deck is so close to the property line already, it is not clear the Applicants have space for additional planting of the size that would be required and would likely necessitate removal of their lower patio and stairway, outdoor space that is not counted toward the lot coverage limit. Further, planting /trees have been a matter of contention between the Applicant and the prior owner of 480 for years. In fact, as is shown in the minutes of both the DRB hearings, the Applicant and their architect acknowledge that the 480 Property is private. It is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, for the neighbors to encroach on 480's privacy. In short, this privacy goal is not met and the solution does not work. j' or .. ' Figure: Design Guideline Goal 3, Principle 6. Opposition to a Massive Deck at 490 Ridge Road Appeal, Town Council Hearing March 2019 Oh, Come On Mr. Camel. . . It Is Just a "Modest" Addition. . . GOV'" ... What is the big problem? 2 A Story to Put Everything In Context l AM HERE BECAUSE OF WHAT I LEARNT FROM AN ELDERLY JUDGE... Traffic Court; Redwood City, CA - year 2001 If "In This Country, Stop Means Stop". . . Then • Lot Coverage has to mean Lot Coverage as defined in the Code, not something else ► "Lot coverage" is the percentage of a lot that is covered by structures. (TMC 16-100.020 and 16-30.120(6)(1).) ► Lot coverage includes decks that are more than three feet in height above the ground, though only one-half of the area of decks is counted. (TMC 16- 30.120(B)(2) and (3).) • "Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30. 120(B)(1).) ► 15.0% limit in RO-2 Zone • In order to grant a variance, the Town Council needs to make ALL the findings / ALL of them, not just one ► Overwhelming evidence; burden of proof is on the Applicant �an Behind all the legalese, lie two simple concepts.- 1) oncepts.1) The FAIR SHARE, for every resident, not more to the selected few 2) The right of residents to expect fair and consistent processes, not arbitrary ones 4 SECTION II The 490 Property : A Masterpiece of Outdoor Entertaining 5 490 is a Fully-Developed Property; They Already Got More Than Their Fair Share ¢ .� . Lot Size: 21 ,424 sq. ft. r vs. 20,000 sq. ft. average lot size for RO-2 • Floor Area: 4,159 sq. ft. • Landscaped Spa and Covered Sitting: at the q uer front of the house Upper-floor Deck: 881 sq. ft. • 74' (L) x 16' to 20' (W, 50%); 7' 6" (W, 50%) wr Tit • Sitting Area 1: 350 sq. ft. (22' x 16'); protrusion off- �> grade that follows the contours of the lower floor • Sitting Area 2 + Dining: 300 sq. ft. (15' x 20') w Lower-floor Deck: at-grade lounge chairs, table and landscaped outdoors Variances Already Granted ' • Lot Coverage: 17.78% (vs. 15.0%) • Reduced front-yard setback: 4' 4" (vs. 30') • Reduced side-yard setback: 3' 6" (vs.15') '.airtr.JGi Ec,v +z. "r? Ly 6 Entrance: Outdoor Landscaped SPA + Kitchen I Sitting Area h �m n t i 9j dZu' t � YJ'ki Mi ��tY 4 ,•.Y ,v a s ,;,e �rf.x��r, ✓t ,�ver.,:�,. "We do not have usable outdoor space" Outdoor Decks: Expansive Upper-Floor Deck + Lower Floor Deck a v i x i i v b t a n ,t Y< c ` t . w, � t 4 ,� .sy l44 Irr y. Jl j r, t 1 „ r Tq Y y n Vice-Chair Cousins: "(he] has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to. 8 Outdoor Decks: Expansive Upper-Floor Deck + Lower Floor Deck r� a fYAI Y`t r r' Cousins: "the existing raised deck ... has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space " "{Downstairs deck] is still a spectacular space with views of Angel Island vs. "We cannot open the table all the way"; "We cannot turn the couch to the view" 9 Projects of Incremental Creep - Gaming the System One "Modest" Addition at a Time 08/16/2007 Proposed Building Plans N.M. 16.9%: 3,652 DRB gives continuance due to comments from neighbors ° 15.0% DRB approved, praises effort to reduce 10/18/2007 Building Plans- New House 16.9% No variance 3,245 Base Line requiredproject to satisfy neighbors'concerns ................... ..................................................................... .............................................. ............. ......... 15.6% ,Approved, + 123 sq.ft. 06/03/2010 Detached Garage 15.0% +reduced front 3,368 Lot coverage variance + reduced front yard setback yard setback variance (4'4" of the front property line, where'30' required) 08/19/2010 New SPA and Landscape 15.6% Reduced side Approved, with variance for reduced side Improvements yard setback yard setback, 3'6" in lieu of 15'minimum 06/10/2014 New Master Bathroomaddition, 16.8% 17.456/6 3,776 Approved, +';111 sq. ft. New Master Closet,,Other; 17.45% 17.61 02J03/2015 New Master Bathroom addition, 3,811 Approved, +;33 sq. ft. Today New Master Closet, Other ..................................................... .......................................................................................................... 11/26/2018 Pro osed Deck Ex ansion' 17.78% 18.26% How many exceptions does one house p p 3,912 «need"'? "If this house came as a new construction, [I] think the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space [if so they wished]." Kricensky, DRB 12/6/2018 10 SECTION III The Large Deck Becomes the Unnecessary, Massive Deck �1 Some History: A Project That Slipped Through the System Staff Gargantuan Deck reduced to ' 2'attempts to pass the project at Staff June-Ju1y2018 notwithstanding variance requirement Two Oiterations Massive Deck • 480 filed oppositionfor both,attempts Back to Gargantuan Deck 10/18/2018 DRB Hearing - 315 sq. ft. addition - 480 filed opposition' (Chong, Cousins, Kricensky) - 37'towards the 480 Property - 3-0 Continuance -Additional variance required Massive Deck - 203 sq. ft. addition (+23%)' • 480 filed opposition �DRB�Hearing , T2/6/2018 - 22 towards the 480 Property 2-1 Approved; (Chong, Kim, Kricensky) - Lot coverage from 17.78%,to Kricensky (dissenting vote) 18.26%,where 15.0% allowed w' • Perfect Timing: Dan Watrous leaves (May 2018); Temporary summer Staff; New neighbors • Anchoring Staff / DRB to a "modest addition": Who has time to thoroughly examine a "modest addition", really? The victim (480) becomes the villain • Re-Framing down to a "compromise": "it is a 15' reduction"; "they showed compromise"... NO!!! It is a 22' expansion requiring a variance and infringing on 480 12 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade fi.......... It ITA wt 203 sq. ft. addition to a 881 sq. ft. deck (+23% increase) Lot coverage variance from 17.78% (+18.5% over limit) to 18.26% (+21.7% over limit) 13 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade ri 4 m w: c« a :y h m J e a � it yy i 1 � 2 � J;� ,� s ?�'` ✓'mss. � �,.. m; a� y i r View showing how much out of grade expansion is r} z� How can there be no impact on privacy, or noise level? 14 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade. . . but n e. e PROPOSED DECK • Uia :r • 1 n- DECKS EXPANSION IMPACT ON 480 RIDGE No worries, Mr. Camel! ... there is no impact... 15 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade. . . but �k x , h, v PHOTOGRAPH OF EXISTING DECK 00% a No worries, Mr. Camel! ... there is no noise or privacy impact... a of !,u 9 � t RENDERING SHOWING PROPOSED DECK EXPANSION 16 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade. . . but r tv _ z 44 F Sii, z ' to RENDERING SHOWING PROPOSED DECK EXPANSION # No worries, Mr. Camel! ... there is no noise or privacy impact... 17 SECTION IV The Findings CANNOT Be Made 18 The Town Council Has to Make ALL the Findings in order to Grant a Variance 1 . Special circumstances applicable to the property, and the strict application of the zoning ordinance, will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. 3. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardship may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from action taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. 4. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Granting a variance is a Big Deal The threshold for granting a variance under state law is quite high (Orinda 1986) 19 Finding 1 : There are No Special Circumstances Applicable to 490 Ridge The Applicant is not being deprived of privileges granted to other properties in the RO-2 zone. 490 is a big, beautiful home, with expansive views, large outdoor spaces, serviced by abundant decking • Applicant said that the "natural downslope topography puts 490 at a disadvantage": NOT TRUE, RO-2 is a hillside a� a / 490 is in RO-2, so it is on a hill exactly like other RO-2 properties. Some lots are flatter, some steeper, most are about the same as 490 / There are no special circumstances • On August 6, 2007 DRB directed to reduce lot coverage from 16.7% to 15.0% before approving 490 building plans / Same house, same lot, same RO-2 zone. What has changed? • Vice-Chair Cousins: "[he] has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." Staff Report (or Applicant) has not dealt with this finding with any specificity If Town felt that 15.0% lot coverage were too low, then re-zone the entire RO-2 to a higher lot coverage limit, not grant variances to a particular property for special circumstances that do not exist. 20 Finding 2: Granting 490 yet another variance is Indeed a Grant of a Special Privilege 490 already enjoys several variances. There are alternatives that do not require a variance • The 3/6/2019 Staff Report does NOT make this finding 1 "[Variances granted but for smaller lots]'. Statement supports NOT granting 490 a variance 1 "[Other homes in the area have more usable outdoor space]'... and many have less. Statement is against the record of DRB hearings*, and just out of sync with reality at 490 • Applicant's analysis of variances was self-serving, at best, or misleading, at worst ► Cherry-picking of worst-offending properties for lot coverage... all-over the place / 490 has already the highest lot coverage (17.78%) of the homes on Ridge Road (same hill side, straight portion of the road), including 510 approved in 2016 at 16.2% • Alternatives that do not require a variance exist but have not been considered Kricensky said it best: "if this house carne as new construction, he thinks the Board would cite the fact that the lot coverage is already over and they might have less square footage in the house and more deck space." DRB, 6/12/2018 Therefore, granting 490 yet another variance is a special privilege. NO MORE! * Cousins: Ihe] has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor space than any he has been to." 21 Finding 3: There is NO Hardship Applicant: Vice-Chair Cousins: • "Lack of usable outdoor space" • "[he] has visited many properties over the 5 years he • "Cannot open a table" has been on the Board and this one has more outdoor • "Cannot sit 12 people together" space than any he has been to." • "I want to turn the couch [for] the view" • "the existing raised deck ... has a huge dining table area, a big seating area and is already a very generous space • "We have space downstairs but we do and there are other decks around the property." not use it" • "`... Therefore, he does not think there is a hardship associated with this house if the Board voted not to increase the deck further." Chair Chong DRB Member Kricensky: • "Hardship is the nature of the steep lot" "but there's so much deck area now, and to ask for a • "Not being able to have a sufficient variance to add even more, even though it's maybe a outdoor area" fraction - I can't find a hardship[requiring a variance]." • "Not having room for a couch facing • There are areas down below which could be increased for the view or a dining table that cannot gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. open all the way" He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings." Staff Report: • See quotes above • "[Expanding outdoor area downhill] • 1 want a bigger deck" and ignoring alternatives is NOT would require construction of retaining the type of hardship contemplated by variance law. walls and removal of foliage... could result in slight hardship" 9xp. The overwhelming weight of the record of the DRB hearings says that there is NO hardship. DRB should have denied the project at the first hearing on this basis. Hardship contemplated by variance law is different than inconvenience, whim, or caprice. 22 Finding 3a: There Cannot Be A Clearer Case of Self-Imposed Hardship Applicant: Vice-Chair Cousins: • "We never use the downstairs deck" • "[Downstairs deck]is still a spectacular space with views of Angel Island" • "The deck below is unusable and [he] never sat down there" • "[he] hesitates to give any further variance given it is already over the area and there is already a lot of deck" • "The only thing we use in front is the • "`[He} did not feel... owners would suffer from not hot tub" having additional ... decking Staff Report: DRB Member Kricensky: • "There is no self-imposed hardship" • "There are areas down below which could be increased for gatherings, but the owners have stated they do not use it. He questioned the hardship and said this is where he has trouble making the findings." • "This is a self-imposed hardship" aa� 3z This project is the very definition of self-imposed hardship. 23 Finding 4: Of course There Is an Impact on 4801 . . . As a Massive Deck for large gatherings moves 22' closer, towering 12'in the air over 480's only outdoors • Chong did not think lot coverage matters for privacy: "There is lot coverage and setbacks... extend into side yard setback... easy case [for not approving variance]" / But the code says differently. "Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic qualities of spaciousness and privacy." (TMC 16-30.120(8)(1).) • Chong did not think much of granting more variance for lot coverage because "this deck is also over the lower deck which does not count as lot coverage. Essentially, it is covering existing ground [the lot is already covered]." 1 Contrary and inconsistent with the definition of lot coverage in the Code 1 The Code does not imply that, because there is a lower deck at ground level that covers the ground, then there can be an upper-level deck 12 feet up in the air! • Chong: "[1 lived] hillside over time... one will see neighbors in their homes." "No increase in noise, light... did not see any privacy issues." / Are all the hills and properties the same in Tiburon? / Today 480 is private. Why should that change? This finding is supposed to protect 480 Definitions in the Code should be adhered to. Subjective opinions cause inconsistency. Other DRB members eloquently explained why the expansion is indeed impactful on 480 24 Finding 4: Of course There Is an Impact on 480 (cont'd) • Cousins - an architect - eloquently discussed the impact with great specificity ► "because of the orientation of the two adjoining buildings... [480] is at an angle, bringing this deck forward brings it out into the view[of 480] far more. It is different to looking [at buildings] several hundred feet away... the projecting deck will be projecting 50 feet from the face of the building out to where it will be... [he] thinks it is too fay'' ► "it is one thing where people are stacked... but all have a space out the front where they are not overlooked, but this deck pushed out starts to be looking into the front of[480's] area which one would expect to be private" ► "...[decks that are 5 feet off the ground rather than re-terracing...] have been approved for variances because they do not have a significant impact, but this is different because it is 12 feet in the air... possibly with umbrellas covering the added part and it will be up ... much higher than [480]. So [he] thinks it has a much bigger impact.]" • Kricensky - also an architect - concurred with Cousins ► "[1 have neighbors behind me uphill, they look right down]... but they are a long ways and this makes a lot of difference. The deck is full length 7 or 8 feet[not 74 feet like 490]... hears people but never a big group of people... not an area large enough to have a fire pit and entertain, which makes a big difference... also they have no variances for coverage" The comments from the technical members of DRB are very specific to how 490 and 480 sit together on the hill. The orientation at an angle and different elevation magnify the impact. 25 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade. . . but �PI a til a 3a ?ae c.� qr RENDERING SHOWING PROPOSED DECK EXPANSION No worries, Mr Camel! ... That there is an impact is just common sense 26 . . . Or Is the True Objective of the Expansion Something Else? The elephant in the room. The never-ending quest for views (at the expense of others) • "... This proposed deck expansion hopes to provide additional views which may help to mitigate anticipated view loss due to the neighbors'development." Applicant's filings • These are additional line of views borrowed from 480, over its key areas of future development. What is the impact on 480? 1 The timing of the 490's project is suspicious. It was presented right after the Applicant learnt that 480's new owners had the intention to develop their under-developed property Is the project about not-needed, additional outdoor space OR, instead, a pre-emptive strike against 480's future development? 27 m n 0 z C7 N co The Right to Expect Consistency from Administrative Bodies A house (or a community) cannot be built on shifting sand. • "The law is the law. It's time for us to stop the creep. It's the incremental changes that bother me, the slow creep I find injurious." Kim, DRB 12/6/2018 ► But then voted in favor of the project ► Are we disciplining children OR deciding the fate of multi-million dollar(and people's) homes? • We made certain assumptions and considerations when we bought 480 in May 2017 ► We believed that what we were seeing (potential and constraints) is what we were buying ► Staff (now gone) told us that 480 sat between two new and fully-developed properties. That it was very difficult for any new property with a variance to argue for more ► We paid a premium for 480 as-is, with its privacy and development potential Trust in government institutions falls apart when the public feels that decisions are somewhat arbitrary Taxpayers have the right to expect consistency from municipal bodies administering the law This is why granting a variance is a BIG DEAL. 29 The Town Council Should Grant the Appeal 490 has already had MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE 1 . Vice-Chair Cousins said that "[he] has visited many properties over the 5 years he has been on the Board and [490] has more outdoor space than any he has been to." 2. The proposed 5th "modest addition" requiring yet another variance is a +23% deck expansion of an already large deck (881 sq. ft.) they allege is not enough. Incredibly, they are claiming hardship for lack of usable outdoor space. But there is no hardship. 3. They are injuring our home at 480. 490's upper deck, 22 feet closer to us, would loom massive over us. Our privacy is negatively affected, as is our ability to enjoy our rear patios. There is a noise impact. The development value of our lot is negatively affected. 4. The findings required by law for the lot coverage variance cannot be made. DRB could not make the findings or made them in error. The Town Council Should Grant the Appeal 30 APPENDIXES Additional Slides on Selected Topics 31 ATop Valued Property, Not Deprived of Anything 490 Ridge Rd 00_FF MARKET Zestimate', Tiburon, CA 94920 $7,063 ,370 Rent Zestimate':$21,664/mo ---------------- 4 beds • 6 baths • 4,382 sqft EST.REFI PAYMENT Note: This property is not currently for sale or for rent. $27,669/mo The description below may be from a previous listing. 0 See current rates With sweeping, unobstructed views that stretch from the Oakland hills and Angel Island, beyond the San Francisco downtown skyline to the Golden Gate Bridge, 490 Ridge Road offers approximately 4111 square feet of luxury living space spread across roughly 1/2 acre of grounds.This two level state of the art residence has four bedrooms, and five full baths, a gourmet kitchen, formal dining room, and a spacious family room and entertainment center. The kitchen features a woodfired Munagnini pizza oven, dramatic Brazilian granite counters,Subzero refrigerator, and a 6-burner Blue Star laser range and grill. Entertaining is enhanced by a barbeque chef's outdoor kitchen and trellised veranda, a pool with pool house, a sauna and numerous spacious decks surveying the world class view.. The master suite has a jacuzzi tub, steam shower, walk-in closet and a San Francisco view. Environmentally kind green features include on demand water heating systems, wire ready thermal panel plumbing, and h At $7 million of estimated value, 490 is among the top properties in Tiburon, far from being "deprived" of anything 32 Granting a Variance Under State Law - Sig Deal, Very High Threshold • According to state law, variances should be granted only when, "because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity." (Gov. Code § 65906.) ► The 490 Property has a big, beautiful home, fully developed, in excess of the lot coverage maximum, and already serviced by abundant decking. The property and its owners are certainly not being deprived of privileges granted to other properties. • The threshold for granting a variance under state law is quite high. (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, holding that the language of Gov. Code, § 65906 (granting of variances), emphasizes disparities between properties, not treatment of the subject property's characteristics in the abstract. It also contemplates that at best only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance.) ► The variance findings cannot be made here. The generic assertion that many other variances have been granted in the area not only fails because none of the cited variances were comparable, but also makes it less, not more appropriate to grant a variance for 490 33 Tiburon Zoning Map I t r m f r t f r r J ra/ f / r�� / 5r } 5 f ? f> L / "I C / ✓ !' �Tis�GY�C�4:.�4:. MarinB. J i 111,,..,,11 iY r r RPt3i �' x rr,• r No. 70NE NOM DATE JORD.NO 1 Add AHO E _04.192006 493 N_S. E 07.012009516 N.S a MenneIG�ItESC3�l F � r 3 Tidleelock 104162010 519N5 --F12.02.2011`534 - 4 R 12.02 2011 534 N S e, Str2 0lr t S Rezone 01 12.02.20111535NS Lf: V s I k k f 6 P o g i 02.152012538NS 6 } ! 7 Rezone 06.0620141549NS__ 'rezoning-07.182014 i550N5 DK, 1 � ✓f Legend 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 ZONING DISTRICT ;'R62 Residential Open(20.000 Sq.FL) RMPfAHO Residential Multiple Planned/Affordable Housing Overlay VC Milage Commercial NOTE:Angel Island(not shovm)is I I I I R-1 Single Family Residential a W No the Park&Recreation Zoning 9 Y R-2 Two-Family Residential MMarin . PPublidOuasi-Public OrstdeL R-1 B A Bel Aire Single Family Residential R-3 M.ft-Fam ly Residential O OfficeIM OS Open Space Miles R-1-8-2 Modified Single Family Residential RPD Residential Planned Development NC Neighborhood Commercial P and R Parks&Recreation RO-1 Residential Open(40,000 Sq.FL) RMP Residential Multiple Planned W&�NC/AHO Neighborhood CommerciallAffordable Housing Overlay 34 Applicant's Self-serving, at best, Misleading, at worst, Analysis d 430 Ridge Road 22% 2000 465 Ridge Road 21% 2001 ' 1925 Straights!View, 20,4%° 2005 � 440 Ridge Road 19.7% 2012 1896 Mountain View 19.2% 2007 ` � a 1885 Mountain View 18.4% 2006 fl ® 490"Ridge Road' 18.2% 2010 P ' 1860 Mountain View 16.9% 2014 " 510 Ridge Road 16% 2013 1910 Straights View 15.6% 2015 Via. rc 490 Ridge Road ® Properties with lower lot coverage Properties with higher lot coverage The properties with higher lot coverage have been cherry-picked. Analysis is not a representative sample of RO-2 homes. Analysis demonstrates nothing. 430 and 440 Ridge are on very steep (and odd) lots, "falling off the hill". 490 is not. 35 490 Has the Highest Lot Coverage of the Homes on the Relevant Portion of Ridge Rd. Straight Portion of Ridge Road e - d 490 Ridge Road (Post) 18.3% 2007 490 Ridge Road (Pre) 17.8% 2007 cY ,5T0 Ridge Road 16.2% 2016 �e 450 Ridge Road 15.0% 1990 460 Ridge Road 14.8% 2012 ; , e 500 Ridge Road 13.1% 1999* 480 Ridge Road Less than 10%: 1950s * Date of last addition , Before the Straight Portion of Ridge Road � 430 Ridge Road 22% 2000 440 Ridge Road 19.7% 2012 490 Ridge Road Properties with lower lot coverage 420 Ridge Road 15.5% 2007 Properties with higher lot coverage 490 is THE EXCEPTION ALREADY 490 has already the highest lot coverage of all the properties on the relevant portion of Ridge Road - same south-facing side of the road, same flank of the hill, no significant differences among the lots 36 Impact of Massive Deck Expansion on the 480 Property :.z / > n t � r a,c yea � z c t-0110 �-(E)DRIVEWAY \v, .r ae` s� , (F41'8QIIEGREEVIFWS MAXOE4ISLAND AND vMU CITY SKYLINE EE)TE ALEX : 480 RIDGE pIREGT Sl TINIEST PROPOSED DECK s DECKS EXPANSION IMPACT ON 480 RIDGE Encroaching on the only (and key) outdoor areas of 480 37 There are Alternatives That ®o NOT Require Additional Variance 1 . Increase the size of the deck at grade 2. Improve the usability of the yard through landscape design 3. Connect the upper deck and lower deck / patio with stairs to facilitate access 4. Potential to make some interior space of the large living room into deck to make the upper-floor deck larger but maintaining the same profile 5. Move the furniture around. The bump of the upper deck is 22' wide ... but none has been even considered 38 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade. . . but � . , . . . NO worries, Mr. Camel! ... there % no noise orprivacy impac .. 39 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property and Out of Grade. . . but OMAN t x d y �1 ... K= •+ R year .,k ' RENDERING SHOWING PROPOSED DECK EXPANSION No worries, Mr. Camel! ... there is no noise or privacy impact... 40 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property 5 17 r r s YYY I � �jr 7 1 S " 7 n �yi y ' tip 41 Outdoor Decks: Expansive Upper-Floor Deck and Lower Floor Deck v "bre a V i w j S ° T { � 4 C h i. a v' "We cannot open the table all the way" 42 APPENDIXES OTHER SLI®ES 1 Deck Expansion: 22 Feet towards the 480 Property vs t 1 4 1 �x `Yr � 2 Outdoor Decks: Expansive Upper-Floor Deck and Lower Floor Deck v._ ur. � w { E Et P 5 aY' ,W "We cannot open the table all the way" Outdoor Decks: Expansive Upper-Floor Deck and Lower Floor Deck ©m' , , . . . \y4 e . . . . : : yy . We cannot open the table alt e way" 4 DRB Minutes at the Time 4.90 Presented Building Plans (2006-2007) bIIUW UIC 5Ky11g'1ll iVk;UUUI15 OIJU d15V U5KCU iV1 1111V111121i1V11 VII UIV IVVi 11G1V1L aIIU whether the pizza oven would have a tall chimney, She asked,that any new trees not be too tall, as the trees could also grow into her views. Leann Baker stated that she is a downhill neighbor and her only potential issue was regarding potential privacy impacts from the new deck. Mr. Hartley stated that the roofline is not being raised at the r dgeline but rather would be raised from the edges. He said that he did not think that the skylights would be visible from;uphill. Dan Dunphy, owner, stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He said that the new trees would be olive trees, as he is in the process of making olive oil. Olive trees grow to about twelve feet at maturity. He said that the downhill neighbors would be looking up at the trees, not the;deck. He described the history of the previous property owner and the trees,and stated that he would be willing to trim the trees. Boardmember Frymier stated that the Golden Gate Bridge view impact from Mr. Dwyer's house is a concern She said that she would need a better feel for the possible impacts from the skylights. She felt that the project was a beautiful concept, and acknowledged that the applicant had made efforts to work with the neighbors. Leann Baker was the then 480 owner (w/J Bernhisel) and lived at the property 490 existing deck was discussed for its impact and ultimately compromise achieved. Why undoing it? 5 Ar,¢ i 7,1,7 r r Vk { ",a�;�. C. .� E�„ I lha� �:1".i � » '� F`.:�' �' '';Yrs,.•: °�- ;��. ,��s -,.�� i( ��� �Y't 11 t-� ..��;. , � 1;��,"1 �,��'� �� }• � d�..� � ;a 'Int a� s �' i n' u a RUM eta���r���ar�;� *`ao-y � d . �,Y .. "` /f '.1"1'.,Y �.�� � c• *' ��� ...xis: � �s.M���a` � -t PI �, � �• � r`;;. �.�' J.j.I 1�`�1%'�r1� -k � �,�":-a.'� r»,�" s., :�.. ��` su f.�v,�i v •ins � a ,, �� tO .,- it�� y, r' �k� + :! ,'. � ,.: � .,°.� ., l I }f.:> .`h � a`a a'� � s r'" � �,� �` g 4, `•M.t`e w .,,�'9r,� ,� L.,;m. "° 1 1 1 ! ,,'^t" :7...^?k R®-2 Lots - 430 Ridge (L), 420 Ridge (R), falling off the cliff y s��P✓ 2 ✓tz i G'✓ -� �r s rs �.�1 F✓ ,�..-;?�sa «, „fir� ✓ t x., '` � S Kl� y�i '�h�J�� ! .cam �.,. S }�4 V,. 7 00 Fri v f t� � a e 4, F, <„r r R x,%a r : !rte a f 1 a ,q e Lot Coverage Variances dd ess I of Year B iit overage 430 Ridge Rd' 22% 2000 465 Ridge RD 21 % , 2001 1925 Straights View 20.4% ' 2005 440 Ridge Rd 19.7% 2012 1890 Mountain View 19.2% 2007 1885 Mountain View 13.4% 2006 490 Ridge Rd 18.2% 2010 1860 Mountain View 16.9% 2014 510 Ridge Rd 16% 2013 1910 Straights View 15.6% 2015 1 Boardmember Beales stated that the sign was attractive,but is excessively high. He said that if the sign was lower trucks could not get through and it would block neighbors' views. He stated that signs are meant to attract the public to a specific place,and that this would be a vanity sign for a private clubhouse where the members all know where it is. He said that he cannot support the sign application as presented. Boardmember Teiser stated that he also cannot support this application. He said that if the purpose of the sign is to let people know where the club is, it does not serve that purpose. He hoped that the club can work with the neighbors to come up with a more appropriate sign design. Boardmember Frymier states that she also did not understand the purpose of this sign. She said that a smaller sign that would be more consistent with others on Main Street would be better. Chair Bird states that she thought that this was an attractive sign. She understood the need for the sign, stating that she had previously attended an event at the Corinthian Yacht Club and she could not find it. She expressed a desire to have the club work with the neighbors on an appropriate sign design,but did not want to cloud the issue with other concerns about the club. M/S,Beales/Teiser(passed 4-0)to continue this item to the October S,2006 meeting. E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 490 RIDGE ROAD DUNPHY,ADDITIONS/VARIANCE The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct additions to an existing two-story single-family dwelling located at 490 Ridge Road. Additions to the upper level of the house would include an expanded entry to the front, expanded master bedroom and study to the rear,a new family room and an expanded kitchen. The lower level of the house would be expanded to the rear to add a play room and expand two bedrooms. A trellis would be placed above much of the upper level deck. An existing garage would be removed and replaced with a cabana with an open trellis roof and an adjacent bathroom. A variance is requested for reduced side yard setback. Roger Hartley,project designer and engineer,described the proposed project. He said that this is an extensive remodeling of the existing house,due to the condition of the house having at least four years of deferred maintenance. He described changes made to the project design in response to concerns from the neighbor regarding possible view impacts. He said that the master bedroom addition was scaled back to essentially a bay window projection. He stated that a metal roof would be installed and distributed a color sample of the material. TIBURON D.R.B. 3 813/06 Boardinember Teiser noted that the staff report contained a question about whether skylights shown on the plans were existing or proposed. Mr. Hartley responded that six new skylights are proposed to lie installed. Pamela Peterson stated that she was representing both herself and Richard Dwyer,who lives next door to the project and could not attend the meeting. She said that Mr. Dwyer had viewed the revised story poles and unl'brtunatcly lie is still not satisfied. She said that lie would like to preserve his view exactly the way it is. She distributed a photo showing the view of the story poles fron) Mr. Dwyer's deck off the living room and dining room. She was concerned that once a small encroachment into the view is approved, there is no going back. As for herself, she was concerned about viewing skylights, as she has a view across the roof the house which could be affected. She asked for markings on the roof to show the skylight locations. She also asked for information on the roof height and whether the pizza oven would havea tall chimney. She asked thatany new trees not be too tall,as the trees could also grow into her views. Leann Baker stated that she is a downhill neighbor and her only potential issue, was regarding potential privacy impacts iconi the new deck. Mr. Hartley stated that the roolline is not being raised at the ridgeline but rather would N, raised from the edges. He said that he did not think that the skylights would be visible frorn uphill. Dan Dunphy,owner, stated that lie wants to be a good neighbor. I le said that the new trees would be olive trees, as lie is in the process of making olive oil. Olive trees grow to about twelve feet at maturity. He said that the downhill neighbors would be looking lip at the trees, not the deck, lie described the history ofthe previous property owner and the trees,and stated that he would be willing to trim the trees. Boardinember Fryrnier stated that the Golden Gate Bridge view impact from Mr. Dwyer's house is as concern. She said that she would need a better feel for the possible impacts from the skylights. She felt that the proeel was a beautiful Concept, and J p , acknowledged that the applicant had made efforts to work with the neighbors. BoarchnernberTeiser stated that the view blockage would not be from an interior living area,but from one spot on (in exterior deck. He said that lie was unsure whether the Board has enough information on the skylights, but perhaps Staff could review those later. Boardmember Beales agreed that the view impacts would only be from a comer of a deck. He stated that there is a misconception about skylights, as the requirement.,;about tinting the glass and eliminating lights in the wells often make skylights no different from windows as far as light pollution. Hesaid that cutting back the addition to bay window was very considerate of the architect and the owner, and that lie supports the projectas it is. TIBURON DAM. 4 813106 Chair Bird agreed that pulling back the bedroom addition was very considerate, and that the view blockage from a deck is not the same as from an interior living area. She said that she thought that the skylights would not be as bad as the neighbors fear. She expressed surprise that there were no objJections about the red roof, as this will be a very large roof. She said that she supports the proj1ect as it is, but would like to see Staff review the skylights from the livis, Peterson*s house. M/S, Beales/Teiser(passed 3-1,FtNmier dissenting) to determine that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA and approve tile application subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff report,with the additional condition of approval that Staff review the phicement of skylights from the home at 510 Ridge Road. F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 4. 15 VENUS COURT BRECK,ADDITIONS The applicant has submitted as request for Site Planand Architectural Review for additions to the single;-family dwelling located at. 15 Venus Court. Additions include an entry foyer,two bay windows and as second floor master bedroom rand bathroom, totaling 755 square feet. Also proposed are an entry trellis, three skylights and a new garage door. The proposal to expand the existing dwelling unit will add approximately 113 square feet of floor area at the front of the house (cast) to create an entry foyer and a bay window, 10 square feet to the rear(west)of the structure J'or an additional bay window, and as 632 square foot second story, which will contain a master bedroom and bathroom. Laura Conte,architect, described the proposed project. She described different options for expanding the house that were explored. She said that the owners had rnet with the neighboring property owner, who had concernsabout impacts from tile possible construction, including noise and vibration. She said that the owners had also held an open house for the neighbors to review the addition, and had received positive cornments on the design. In response to a question from the Board, she stated that the existing house foundation would not be removed. Rebecca Els Hokin stated that she and her husbandloshua have lived in the neighborhood for fifteen years. She supported the project, noting that the first remodel of this house was done beautifully and think that this one will go well too. Boardmember Beales stated that fie was initially concerned about the second floor, but noted that there are other two-story homes in the area, Boardmember*rciserstated that this is a wonderful neighborhood and complimented the owners on working with the neighbors. Boardmember Frymier stated that this would be an enormous upgrade to the house and would add lot of appeal to the ]ionic, TIBURON D.R.B. 5 813/06 DRB Minutes at the Time 490 Presented Building Plans (2006-2007) J11uW u1G J1SY11�,'llt iVQiILJQmi. oilu c11JV U5&rU iVt 1111V1111G111v11 Vii 111c 1Vvi 11c1611i a11u whether the pizza oven would have a tall chimney. She asked that any new trees not be too tall, as the trees could also grow into her views. Leann Baker stated that she is a downhill neighbor and her only potential issue was I regarding potential privacy impacts from the new deck. Mr. Hartley stated that the roofline is not being raised at the ridgeline but rather would be raised from the edges. He said that he did not think that the skylights would be visible from uphill. Dan Dunphy, owner, stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He said that the new trees would be olive trees, as he is in the process of making olive oil. Olive trees grow to about twelve feet at maturity. He said that the downhill neighbors would be looking up at the trees, not the deck. He described the history of the previous property owner and the trees, and stated that he would be willing to trim the trees. Boardmember Frymier stated that the Golden Gate Bridge view impact from Mr. Dwyer's house is a concern. She said that she would need a better feel for the possible impacts from the skylights. She felt that the project was a beautiful concept, and acknowledged that the applicant had made efforts to work with the neighbors. Leann Baker was the there 480 owner (w/J Bernhisel) and lived at the property 490 existing deck was discussed for its impact and ultimately compromise achieved. Why undoing it? DRB Minutes at the Time 490 Presented Building Plans (2006-2007) J11Uw Ulu JiSyllgiu IMUL1U115. 3110 UIW U5&UU lUi 1111U1111G111U11 U11 111Q 1vUl 11c16111 u11U whether the pizza oven would have a tall chimney. She asked that any new trees not be too tall, as the trees could also grow into her views. Leann Baker stated that she is a downhill neighbor and her only potential issue was regarding potential privacy impacts from the new deck. Mr. Hartley stated that the roofline is not being raised at the ridgeline but rather would be raised from the edges. He said that he did not think that the skylights would be visible from uphill. Dan Dunphy, owner, stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He said that the new trees would be olive trees, as he is in the process of making olive oil. Olive trees grow to about twelve feet at maturity. He said that the downhill neighbors would be looking up at the trees, not the deck. He described the history of the previous property owner and the trees, and stated that he would be willing to trim the trees. Boardmember Frymier stated that the Golden Gate Bridge view impact from Mr. Dwyer's house is a concern. She said that she would need a better feel for the possible impacts from the skylights. She felt that the project was a beautiful concept, and acknowledged that the applicant had made efforts to work with the neighbors. Leann Baker was the there 480 owner (w/J Bernhisel) and lived at the property 490 existing deck was discussed for its impact and ultimately compromise achieved. Why undoing it? DRB Minutes at the Time 490 Presented Building Plans (2006®2007) JS1UW U1G Ji&Y11r,11L IMUL1Un5. 3110 UIW U5KGU IUi I111UlttiaLlult v11 lt1G ivvi 11t..1611L atlu whether the pizza oven would have a tall chimney. She asked that any new trees not be too tall, as the trees could also grow into her views. Leann Baker stated that she is a downhill neighbor and her only potential issue was regarding potential privacy impacts from the new deck. Mr. Hartley stated that the roofline is not being raised at the ridgeline but rather would be raised from the edges. He said that he did not think that the skylights would be visible from uphill. Dan Dunphy, owner, stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He said that the new trees would be olive trees, as he is in the process of making olive oil. Olive trees grow to about twelve feet at maturity. He said that the downhill neighbors would be looking up at the trees, not the deck. He described the history of the previous property owner and the trees, and stated that he would be willing to trim the trees. Boardmember Frymier stated that the Golden Gate Bridge view impact from Mr. Dwyer's house is a concern. She said that she would need a better feel for the possible impacts from the skylights. She felt that the project was a beautiful concept, and acknowledged that the applicant had made efforts to work with the neighbors. Leann Baker was the then 480 owner (w/J Bernhisel) and lived at the property 490 existing deck was discussed for its impact and ultimately compromise achieved. Why undoing it? DRB Minutes at the Time 490 Presented Building Plans (2006-2007) WIUW UIU JKyilgllt IVL;dL1Ui15. 311C dl-,,v u5&uu IUI 111311nnauun un mr, IVui 11Gtrlll Qllu whether the pizza oven would have a tall chimney. She asked that any new trees not be too tall, as the trees could also grow into her views. Leann Baker stated that she is a downhill neighbor and her only potential issue was regarding potential privacy impacts from the new deck. Mr. Hartley stated that the roofline is not being raised at the ridgeline but rather would be raised from the edges. He said that he did not think that the skylights would be visible from uphill. Dan Dunphy, owner, stated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He said that the new trees would be olive trees, as he is in the process of making olive oil. Olive trees grow to about twelve feet at maturity. He said that the downhill neighbors would be looking up at the trees, not the deck. He described the history of the previous property owner and the trees, and stated that he would be willing to trim the trees. Boardmember Frymier stated that the Golden Gate Bridge view impact from Mr. Dwyer's house is a concern. She said that she would need a better feel for the possible impacts from the skylights. She felt that the project was a beautiful concept, and acknowledged that the applicant had made efforts to work with the neighbors. Leann Baker was the then 400 owner (w/J Bernhisel) and lived at the property 490 existing deck was discussed for its impact and ultimately compromise achieved. Why undoing it? r