Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2014-05-30TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of May 26 - 30, 2014 Tiburon 1. Letter — David Lewis — Single -Use Carryout Bag Ban 2. Letter — FEMA Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Insurance Study 3. Letter — Judy Arnold — Community Development Block Grant Program Agendas & Minutes 4. Agenda —Design Review Board —June 5, 2014 Regional a) None Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only SAVEMAY May 28, 2014 Tiburon Council Chambers, Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Single -use carryout bag ban Dear Mayor Fredericks and Councilmembers: E C E o V E 0 MAY 28 ZU14 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON On behalf of Save The Bay supporters in Tiburon and 50,000 members throughout the Bay Area, we urge you to move forward with a ban on single -use bags at all retail establishments. The Bay is being threatened by plastic debris, which harms habitats, suffocates wildlife, and creates blight in our economically valuable natural recreation areas. Other Marin County jurisdictions are acting quickly, recognizing the need to address this serious litter issue and keep dangerous plastics out of our waterways. The cities of San Rafael, Novato, Sausalito, Larkspur, and Belvedere all recently moved forward with single -use bag bans. By moving forward with a ban, Tiburon can help create consistency for customers and businesses within Marin County. The City of San Rafael pledged to consider expanding their ordinance to include all retailers and restaurants one year after implementation; we urge you to do the same. The all- retailer model has become prevalent throughout the Bay Area and has shown strong results for both litter prevention and reusable bag use. The City of San Jose found an 89 percent decrease in plastic bag litter in their storm drains less than a year after their 2012 ordinance implementation. San Mateo's ordinance was implemented in April 2013, and they recently reported that 83 percent of shoppers are either bringing their own bags or not using bags at all. Now is the time to strive for a clean and healthy San Francisco bay — seven million Bay Area residents, 400 native species, our economy, and quality of life all depend on it. Tiburon can be part of the solution by passing this single -use carryout bag ban. Thank you for addressing this important Bay Area water quality issue, and we look forward to working with you. Sincerely, David Lewis Executive Director 1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 Oakland CA 94612 510.463.6850 www.save---bay.org Ok4�1F,L T J• O ND 5EGJ� Federal Emergency Management MAY 21 2014 The Honorable Alice Fredericks Mayor, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 Dear Mayor Fredericks: Washington, D.C. 20472 IN REPLY REFER TO: APPEAL START DIGEST A, -�u MAY 2 d 2U14 PLANNING DIVISION Community: Town of Tiburon, CA Community No.: 060430 On March 24, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided your community with Preliminary copies of the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Marin County, California and Incorporated Areas. FEMA has posted digital copies of these revised FIRM and FIS report materials to the following website: www. fenra .goy/preliminaryfloodhazarddata. The Preliminary FIRM and FIS report include proposed flood hazard information for certain locations in the Town of Tiburon. The proposed flood hazard information may include addition or modification of Special Flood Hazard Areas, the areas that would be inundated by the base (1- percent - annual- chance) flood; base flood elevations or depths; zone designations; or regulatory floodways. We have published a notice of the proposed flood hazard determinations in the FEDERAL. REGISTER and will publish a public notification concerning the appeal process (explained below) in the Independent Journal on or about May 28, 2014, and June 4, 2014. We will also publish a separate notice of the flood hazard determinations on the "Flood Hazard Determinations on the Web" portion of the FEMA website ( www. fema.aov /t)lap/prevent /flun/bfe). We have enclosed copies of the notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER and the newspaper notice for your information. These proposed flood hazard determinations, if finalized, will become the basis for the floodplain management measures that your community must adopt or show evidence of having in effect to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). However, before any new or modified flood hazard information is effective for floodplain management purposes, FEMA will provide community officials and citizens an opportunity to appeal the proposed flood hazard information presented on the preliminary revised FIRM and FIS report posted to the above - referenced website. Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93 -234) is intended to ensure an equitable balancing of all interests involved in the setting of flood hazard determinations. The legislation provides for an explicit process of notification and appeals for your community and for private persons prior to this office making the flood hazard determinations final. The appeal procedure is outlined below for your information and in the enclosed document titled Criteria forAppeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps. During the 90 -day appeal period following the second publication of the public notification in the above - named newspaper, any owner or lessee of real property in your community who believes his or her property rights will be adversely affected by the proposed flood hazard determinations may appeal to you, or to an agency that you publicly designate. It is important to note, however, that the sole basis for such appeals is the possession of knowledge or information indicating that the proposed flood hazard determinations are scientifically or technically incorrect. The appeal data must be submitted to FEMA during the 90 -day appeal period. Only appeals of the proposed flood hazard determinations supported by scientific or technical data can be considered before FEMA makes its final flood hazard determination at the end of the 90 -day appeal period. Note that the 90 -day appeal period is statutory and cannot be extended. However, FEMA also will consider comments and inquiries regarding data other than the proposed flood hazard determinations (e.g., incorrect street names, typographical errors, omissions) that are submitted during the appeal period, and will incorporate any appropriate changes to the revised FIRM and FIS report before they become effective. If your community cannot submit scientific or technical data before the end of the 90 -day appeal period, you may nevertheless submit data at any time. If warranted, FEMA will revise the FMM and FIS report after the effective date. This means that the revised FIRM would be issued with the flood hazard information presently indicated, and flood insurance purchase requirements would be enforced accordingly, until such time as a revision could be made. Any interested party who wishes to appeal should present the data that tend to negate or contradict our findings to you, or to an agency that you publicly delegate, in such form as you may specify. We ask that you review and consolidate any appeal data you may receive and issue a written opinion stating whether the evidence provided is sufficient to justify an official appeal by your community in its own name or on behalf of the interested parties. Whether or not your community decides to appeal, you must send copies of individual appeals and supporting data, if any, to: Kathleen Schaefer, P.E., CFM Risk Analysis Branch FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607 -4052 If we do not receive an appeal or other formal comment from your community in its own name within 90 days of the second date of public notification, we will consolidate and review on their own merits such appeal data and comments from individuals that you may forward to us, and we will make such modifications to the proposed flood hazard information presented on the revised FIRM and in the revised FIS report as may be appropriate. If your community decides to appeal in its own name, all individuals' appeal data must be consolidated into one appeal by you, becausein this event, we are required to deal only with the local government as representative of all local interests. We will send our final decision in writing to you, and we will send copies to the community floodplain administrator, each individual appellant, and the State NFIP Coordinator. All appeal submittals will be resolved by consultation with officials of the local government involved, by an administrative hearing, or by submission of the conflicting data to an independent scientific body or appropriate Federal agency for advice. Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is also available to your community in support of the appeal resolution process when conflicting scientific or technical data are submitted during the appeal period. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution, An SRP is an option after FEMA and community officials have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Please refer to the enclosed "Scientific Resolution Panels" fact sheet for additional information on this resource available to your community. FEMA will make the reports and other information used in making the final determination available for public inspection. Until the conflict of data is resolved and the revised FIRM becomes effective, flood insurance available within your community will continue to be available under the effective NFIP map, and no person shall be denied the right to purchase the applicable level of insurance at chargeable rates. The decision by your community to appeal, or a copy of its decision not to appeal, should be filed with this office no later than 90 days following the second publication of the flood hazard determination notice in the above -named newspaper. Your community may find it appropriate to call further attention to the proposed flood hazard determinations and to the appeal procedure by using a press release or other public notice. If warranted by substantive changes, during the appeal period we will send you Revised Preliminary copies of the revised FIRM and FIS report. At the end of the 90 -day appeal period and following the resolution of any appeals and comments, we will send you a Letter of Final Determination, which will finalize the flood hazard information presented on the revised FIRM and FIS report and will establish an effective date. If you have any questions regarding participation in the NFIP, we encourage you to contact the Mitigation Division Director, FEMA Region DC, in Oakland, California, either by telephone to (510) 627 -7103 or in writing to 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200, Oakland, CA 94607 -4052. If you have any questions regarding the proposed flood hazard determinations, revised FIRM panels, or revised FIS report for your community, please call our FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX), toll free, at 1- 877 -FEMA MAP (1- 877 - 336 -2627) or e-mail the FMD{ staff at FEMAMapSSpecialistAriskmapcds .com. Sincerely, Luis Rodriguez, P.E., Chief Engineering Management Branch Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration List of Enclosures: Newspaper Notice Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations FEDERAL REGISTER Notice Criteria for Appeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps "Scientific Resolution Panels" Fact Sheet cc: Community Map Repository Scott Anderson, Community Development Director, Town of Tiburon DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Marin County, California and Incorporated Areas The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency has issued a preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report, reflecting proposed flood hazard determinations within Marin County, California and Incorporated Areas. These flood hazard determinations may include the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations, base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway. Technical information or comments are solicited on the proposed flood hazard determinations shown on the preliminary FIRM and/or FIS report for Marin County, California and Incorporated Areas. These flood hazard determinations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that your community is required to either adopt or show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. However, before these determinations are effective for floodplain management purposes, you will be provided an opportunity to appeal the proposed information. For information on the statutory 90 -day period provided for appeals, as well as a complete listing of the communities affected and the locations where copies of the FIRM are available for review, please visit FEMA's website at www.feina..goy/plan/prevent/fluri/b call the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMDQ toll free at 1- 877 -FEMA MAP (1 -877- 336- 2627). 27338 Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 92 /Tuesday, May 13, 2014 /Notices Community Community map repository address Village of Hampshire ................................................. ............................... Village Hall, 234 South State Street, Hampshire, IL 60140. Van Buren, Iowa, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: httpYlWww. fema .gov /pmiiminaryfloodhazarddata City of Keosauqua ..................................................... ............................... City Hall, 804 1st Street, Keosauqua, IA 52565. Van Buren County ..................................................... ............................... Van Buren County Courthouse, 406 Dodge Street, Keosauqua, IA 52565. Leavenworth, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http. -IA w .. fema .gov /pmliminaryNoodhazarddata City of Basehor .......................................................... ............................... City Hall, 2620 North 155th Street, Basehor, KS 66007. City of Easton ............................................................ .....................I......... City Hall, 300 West Riley Street, Easton, KS 66020. City of Lansing ........................................................... ............................... City Hall Annex, 730 First Terrace, Suite 3, Lansing, KS 66043. City of Leavenworth ................................................... ............................... City Hall, 100 North 5th Street, Leavenworth, KS 66048. City of Linwood ............................................................ - ........................... City Hall, 306 Main Street, Linwood, KS 66052. City of Tonganoxie .................................................... ............................... City Hall, 321 South Delaware Street, Tonganoxie, KS 66086. Unincorporated Areas of Leavenworth County ......... ............................... County Courthouse, 300 Walnut Street, Leavenworth, KS 66048. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, "Flood Insurance. ") Dated: April 22, 2104. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Admfnistmtor for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (FR Doc. 2014 -11006 Filed 5- 12 -14; 6:45 anal BILLING CODE 9110 -12 -P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA - 2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA -B -14131 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)' and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 11, 2014. ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA -B -1413, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646 -4064, or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) Luis.Rodriguez30fema.dhs.gov; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema. gov /fhm/fmx main.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below. in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective. The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective. Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation Federal Register /Vol. 79, No. 92 /Tuesday, May 13, 2014 /Notices 27339 process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http: / /floodsrp.orglpdfslsrp_ fact sheet.pdf. The watersheds and /or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tattles. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc fema.gov for comparison. Community Community Map Repository Address Cochise County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: httpl/ wwwf ema .gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Cityof Benson .......... ............................... Unincorporated Areas of Cochise County Planning & Zoning, 120 West 6th Street, Benson, AZ 85602. Cochise County Flood Control District, 1415 Melody Lane, Building F, Bisbee, AZ 85603. Marini County, California, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: httpYlw . Tema .gov /preliminaryfloodhazarddata City of Belvedere ....................................................... ............................... Maps Available for Inspection Online at: hitp.,IA w ..fema .gov /pmiiminaryfloodhazarddata Building Department, 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920. City of Larkspur ......................................................... ............................... San Mateo County, California, and Incorporated Areas Planning Department, 400 Magnolia Avenue, Larkspur, CA 94939. City of Mill Valley ....................................................... ............................... City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, CA 94002. Public Works Department, 26 Corte Madera Avenue, Mill Valley, CA City Hall, 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404. City of Redwood City ................................................. ............................... 94941. City of Novato ............................................................ ............................... City Hall, 330 West 20th. Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403. Public Works Department, 922 Machin Avenue, Novato, CA 94945. City of San Rafael ..................................................... ............................... Public Works Department, 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael, CA 94901. City of Sausalito ........................................................ ............................... Planning Department, 420 Litho Street, Sausalito, CA 94965. Town of Corte Madera .............................................. ............................... Engineering Department, 233 Tamalpais Drive, Corte Madera, CA 94976. Town of Ross ............................................................ ............................... Public Works Department, 31 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Ross, CA 94957. Town of San Anselmo ..... . ............. ..................................... .. ................ ... Public Works Department, 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960. Town of Tiburon ........................................................ ............................... Planning Department, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. Unincorporated Areas of Main County ..................... ............................... Department of Public Works, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 304, San Rafael, CA 94903. Plumes County, California, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: hitp.,IA w ..fema .gov /pmiiminaryfloodhazarddata Unincorporated Areas of Plumes County .................. ............................... Plumes County Courthouse, 520 Main Street, Quincy, CA 95971. San Mateo County, California, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: httpllw w.fema .gov /preliminawfloodhazarddata City of Belmont .......................................................... ............................... City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, Belmont, CA 94002. City of Foster City ...................................................... ............................... City Hall, 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404. City of Redwood City ................................................. ............................... City Hall, 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA 94063. City of San Mateo ...................................................... ............................... City Hall, 330 West 20th. Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, "Flood Insurance. ") Dated: April 22, 2104. Roy E. Wright, Depu ty Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (FR Doc. 2014-31008 Filed 5- 12 -14; 6:45 am] BILLING CAGE 9110 -12 -P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA - 2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA -B -12991 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Mercer County, North Dakota and Incorporated Areas AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed Notice; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Mercer County, North Dakota and Incorporated Areas. DATES: This withdrawal is effective May 13,2014. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA -B- 1299, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646 -4064, or (email) Luis.Hodrigui fema.dhs.gov. Criteria for Appeals of Flood Insurance Rate Maps November 30, 2011 049 FEMA This document outlines the criteria for appealing proposed changes in flood hazard information on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) during the appeal period. The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) applies rigorous standards in developing and updating flood hazard information and provides communities with an opportunity to review the updated flood hazard information presented on new or revised FIRMs before they become final. 1. Background The regulatory requirements related to appeals are found in Part 67 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. Additional FEMA procedural details are provided in Procedure Memorandum No. 57, Expanded Appeals Process, dated November 30, 2011. Detailed information on appeals can also be found in Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps —A Guide for Community Officials and FEMA's Document Control Procedures Manual. All referenced documents are accessible through the "Guidance Documents and Other Published Resources" webpage, located at: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/flim/frm_docs.shtm. As outlined in these documents, an appeal period is provided for all new or modified flood hazard information shown on a FIRM, including additions or modifications of any Base (1- percent- annual- chance) Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway. SFHAs are areas subject to inundation by the base (1- percent - annual- chance) flood and include the following SFHA zone designations: A, AO, AH, Al -A30, AE, A99, AR, AR/Al -A30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, Vl -V30, VE, and V. Therefore, a statutory 90 -day appeal period is required when a flood study, Physical Map Revision (PMR), or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is proposed in which: • New BFEs or base flood depths are proposed or currently effective BFEs or base flood depths are modified; • New SFHAs are proposed or the boundaries of currently effective SFHAs are modified; • New SFHA zone designations are proposed or currently effective SFHA zone designations are modified; and • New regulatory floodways are proposed or the boundaries of currently effective floodways are modified. Clarification on the necessity for an appeal period is provided for certain specific circumstances outlined below: • Edge matching of effective floodulain boundaries or information. This usually occurs in first -time countywide flood mapping projects when effective BFEs, base flood depths, SFHAs, or floodways are extended to an adjacent community that previously had differing or no BFEs, base flood depths, SFHAs, or floodways shown on their effective FIRM in order to fix a map panel to map panel mismatch. In these instances, an appeal period is required because BFEs, base flood depths, SFHAs, or floodways are changing or being shown for the first time in the area. • Redelineation of effective floodplain boundaries. This occurs when an effective SFHA boundary is redrawn on the FIRM using new or updated topography to more accurately represent the risk of flooding. In these instances an appeal period is required because the SFHA boundary is changing. However, the appeal period will only apply to the updated SFHA boundary delineations, not the methodology used to originally establish BFEs /flood depths (since this will not have changed). • Revisions to SFHA zone designations. A revision to an SFHA zone designation may occur with or without a BFE and/or boundary change. For example, when a Zone VE floodplain is changed to a Zone AE designation to reflect the updated location of a Primary Frontal Dune (PFD), the BFE and SFHA boundary may not necessarily change. For any change in SFHA zone designation, including the removal of an SFHA designation from a FIRM, an appeal period is required. • Regulatory floodway boundaries. When the effective floodway boundary is redrawn on the FIRM to more accurately represent the extent of the encroachment, an appeal period is required, • MT -I cases. When the SFHA or floodway boundary is amended due to the issuance of a Letter of Map Amendment (LAMA), Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR -F), Letter of Map Revision — Floodway, or other MT -1 case, an appeal period is not required. • Annexation of effective floodplain boundaries. When a new or revised FIRM shows new community boundaries which include effective BFEs, base flood depths, SFHAs, or floodways, an appeal period is not required, provided no BFE, base flood depth, SFHA, or floodway changes apply. However, in cases where the flood hazard information in the annexed area has never received due process (for example, if the area is shown for information only on all FIRMS depicting the area), an appeal period is required. • Reissuance of effective LOMRs: When a LOMR is reissued after not being incorporated into a revised FIRM, an appeal period is not required. • Updates that do not impact flood hazard data: When flood studies, PMRs, or LOMRs result in changes to FIRMS that do not impact BFEs, base flood depths, SFHAs, or floodways, an appeal period is not required. • Datum Conversions: An appeal period is not required specifically for a datum conversion (e.g., a conversion from NGVD 29 to NAVD 88). 1.1. Additional Procedures for LOMRs Beginning with LOMRs issued on or after December 1, 2011, the following procedures will apply: In order to provide sufficient due process rights for changes due to LOMRs, any LOMR in a compliant community that requires an appeal period will become effective 120 days from the second newspaper publication date, following FEMA's current policy. This allows time to collect appeals, as well as provides for newspaper publication schedule conflicts. LOMRs in non - compliant communities or in communities that require adoption of the LOMR will become effective following the six month compliance period. Evidence of public notice or property owner notification of the changes due to a LOMR will continue to be requested during the review of the LOMR request. This will help to ensure that the affected population is aware of the flood hazard changes in the area and the resultant LOMB. However, evidence of property owner acceptance of the changes due to a LOMR will no longer be requested. Because all LOMRs that require an appeal period will become effective 120 days from the second newspaper publication date, the receipt of such acceptance will have no effect on the effective date of the LOMR; therefore, there is no need for the requester to pursue acceptance. 2. Appeal Eligibility Requirements Areas that are eligible for appeal include: • Areas showing new or revised BFEs or base flood depths • Areas showing new or revised SFHA boundaries (including both increases and decreases in the extent of the SFHA) • Areas where there is a change in SFHA zone designation • Areas showing new or revised regulatory floodway boundaries (including both increases and decreases in the extent of the regulatory floodway). The area of concern must be within the scope of the new or modified BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA boundaries, SFHA zone designations, and/or regulatory floodway boundary changes and be supported by scientific and/or technical data. The criteria for data submittals are outlined in Title 44, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 67.6(b) and in this document. The statutory 90 -day appeal period cannot be extended. FEMA may provide an additional 30 days for a community after the 90 -day appeal period has ended to submit supporting and clarifying data for an appeal received during the appeal period. No appeals will be accepted after the 90 -day appeal period. Challenges that do not relate to new or modified BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA boundaries, SFHA zone designations, or floodways are not considered appeals. Challenges received by FEMA during the appeal period that do not address these items will be considered comments. Comments include, but are not limited to the following: • The impacts of changes that have occurred in the floodplain that should have previously been submitted to FEMA in accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.3; • Corporate limit revisions; • Road name errors and revisions; • Requests that changes effected by a LOMA, LOMR -F, or LOMB be incorporated; • Base map errors; and • Other possible omissions or potential improvements to the mapping. Any significant problems identified by community officials or residents (at formal meetings or otherwise) will be addressed appropriately. 3. Supporting Data and Documentation Required for Appeals The BFEs and base flood depths presented in Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports and shown on FIRMS are typically the result of coastal, hydrologic and hydraulic engineering methodologies. Floodway configurations, generally developed as part of the hydraulic analyses, are adopted by communities as a regulatory tool for floodplain management and are delineated on FIRMS along with SFHAs. Because numerous methodologies have been developed for estimating flood discharges and flood elevations/depths, and other flood hazard information under a variety of conditions, FEMA contractors, mapping partners, and others whose data and documentation FEMA approves and uses, such as communities, regional entities and State agencies participating in the Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Program, use their professional judgment in selecting methodologies that are appropriate for the conditions along a particular segment of a particular flooding source. For FEMA contracted flood studies and PMRs the approach to be used will usually be discussed with community officials at the beginning of the flood study or PMR mapping process. Because the methodologies are the result of attempts to reduce complex physical processes to mathematical models, the methodologies include simplifying assumptions. Usually, the methodologies are used with data developed specifically for the flood study, PMR, or LOMR. Therefore, the results of the methodologies are affected by the amount of data collected and the precision of any measurements made. Because of the judgments and assumptions that must be made and the limits imposed by cost considerations, the correctness of the BFEs, base flood depths and other flood hazard information is often a matter of degree, rather than absolute. For that reason, appellants who contend that the BFEs, base flood depths, or other flood hazard information is incorrect because better methodologies could have been used, better assumptions could have been made, or better data could have been used, must provide alternative analyses that incorporate such methodologies, assumptions, or data and that quantify their effect on the BFEs, base flood depths or other flood hazard information. FEMA will review the alternative analyses and determine whether they are superior to those used for the flood study, PMR, or LOMR and whether changes to the FIS report and/or FIRM, or LOMR are warranted as a result. Unless appeals are based on indisputable mathematical or measurement errors or the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain, they must be accompanied by all data that FEMA needs to revise the preliminary version of the FIS report and FIRMS. Therefore, appellants should be prepared to perform coastal, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, to plot new and/or revised Flood Profiles, and to delineate revised SFHA zone and regulatory floodway boundaries as necessary. An appeal must be based on data that show the new or modified BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA boundaries, SFHA zone designations, or floodways to be scientifically or technically incorrect. All analyses and data submitted by appellants must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, as appropriate. The data and documentation that must be submitted in support of the various types of appeals are discussed in the subsections that follow. 3.1. Appealing BFEs, Base Flood Depths, SFHA Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodways Scientifically incorrect BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways: Proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways are said to be scientifically incorrect if the methodology used in the determination of the BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways is inappropriate or incorrect, or if the assumptions made as part of the methodology are inappropriate or incorrect. An appeal that is based on the proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways being scientifically incorrect would, therefore, contend that the use of a different methodology or different assumptions would produce more accurate results. A list of National Flood Insurance Program- accepted hydrologic, hydraulic and coastal models is available on FEMA's website at http: / /www.feina.2ov /plan/prevent /fhm/en modl.shtm. To show that an inappropriate or incorrect coastal, hydraulic or hydrologic methodology has been used, an appellant must submit the following data, as applicable: • New hydrologic analysis based on alternative methodology and if applicable, updated hydraulic /floodway or coastal analyses based on the updated discharge values; • New hydraulic /floodway analysis based on alternative methodology and original flood discharge values (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis); • New coastal analyses based on alternative methodology and original stillwater elevations (if the appeal does not involve the hydrologic analysis); • Explanation for superiority of alternative methodology; • As applicable, revised Summary of Discharges Table, Flood Profiles, Transect Data Table, Summary of Stillwater Elevations Table, and Floodway Data Table (FDT); and • Revised SFHA zone boundaries and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. Technically Incorrect BFEs, Base Flood Depths, SMA Zone Designations, or Regulatory Floodways: The proposed BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designation or regulatory floodways are said to be technically incorrect if at least one of the following is true. • The methodology was not applied correctly. o To show that a hydrologic methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following: ■ New hydrologic analysis in which the original methodology has been applied differently; ■ Explanation for superiority of new application; ■ New hydraulic /floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values from new hydrologic analysis; • Revised Summary of Discharges Table and/or Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and ■ Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. o To show that a hydraulic methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following information. (Please note that an appeal to a floodway configuration cannot be solely based on surcharge values.) • New hydraulic /floodway analysis, based on original flood discharge values, in which the original methodology has been applied differently; ■ As applicable, revised Flood Profiles, FDT and other FIS report tables as needed;and • Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. o To show that a coastal methodology was not applied correctly, an appellant must submit the following: ■ New coastal analysis, based on the original stillwater elevations, in which the original methodology has been applied differently; ■ Revised SFHA zone boundary and, all applicable FIS report tables, including the Transect Data Table. • The methodology was based on insufficient or poor - quality data. o To show that insufficient or poor - quality hydrologic data were used, an appellant must submit the following: • Data believed to be better than those used in original hydrologic analysis; • Documentation for source of data; • Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; • New hydrologic analysis based on better data; • New hydraulic /floodway or coastal analysis based on flood discharge values resulting from new hydrologic analysis; • Revised Summary of Discharges Table, Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and ■ Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. o To show that insufficient or poor - quality hydraulic data were used, an appellant must submit the following: • Data believed to be better than those used in original hydraulic analysis; • Documentation for source of new data; • Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; • New hydraulic analysis based on better data and original flood discharge values; • Revised Flood Profiles and, if applicable, FDT; and • Revised SFHA zone boundary and, if applicable, regulatory floodway boundary delineations. o To show that insufficient or poor - quality coastal analysis data were used, an appellant must submit the following: • Data believed to be better than those used in original coastal analysis; • Documentation for source of new data; • Explanation for improvement resulting from use of new data; • New coastal analysis based on better data and original stillwater elevation values; and • Revised SFHA zone boundary and, all applicable FIS report tables, including the Transect Data Table. • The application of the methodology included indisputable mathematical or measurement errors. o To show that a mathematical error was made, an appellant must identify the error. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS report and FIRM. o To show that a measurement error (e.g., an incorrect surveyed elevation used in the flood study, PMR, or LOMB) was made, appellants must identify the error and provide the correct measurement. Any new survey data provided must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. FEMA will perform any required calculations and make the necessary changes to the FIS report and FIRM. • The methodology did not account for the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the floodplain. o For appeals based on the effects of natural physical changes that have occurred in the base floodplain, appellants must identify the changes that have occurred and provide the data FEMA needs to perform a revised analysis. The data may include new stream channel and floodplain cross sections or coastal transects. 3.2. Appeals to SFHA Boundaries The supporting data required for changes to SFHA zone boundaries will vary, depending on whether the boundaries are for flooding sources studied by detailed methods or flooding sources studied by approximate methods, as discussed below. Flooding sources studied by detailed methods Usually, detailed SFHA zone boundaries are delineated using topographic data and the BFEs and base flood depths resulting from the hydraulic analysis performed for the flood study, PMR, or LOMR. If topographic data are more detailed than those used by FEMA or show more recent topographic conditions, appellants should submit that data and the revised SFHA zone boundaries for FEMA to incorporate into the affected map panels. All maps and other supporting data submitted must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor and must reflect existing conditions. Maps or data prepared by an authoritative source, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, or a State department of highways and transportation, are acceptable without certification as long as the sources and dates of the maps are identified. For further information on submittals involving topographic data, please refer to the section below Additional Guidance on Appeal Submittals Involving Topographic Data. Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods Usually, where BFEs or base flood depths are not available, flood zone boundaries are delineated with the best available data, including flood maps published by other Federal agencies, information on past floods, and simplified hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. If more detailed data or analyses are submitted, FEMA will use them to update the flood hazard information shown on the affected map panels. Such data and analyses may include the following: • Published flood maps that are more recent or more detailed than those used by FEMA; • Analyses that are more detailed than those performed by FEMA or that are based on more detailed data than those used by FEMA; • Topographic data and resulting updated SFHA boundaries. For further information on submittals involving topographic data, please refer to the section below Additional Guidance on Appeal Submittals Involving Topographic Data. Please note that, when applicable, appeals related to the methodology used to develop an approximate flood zone boundary must follow the guidelines established for appeals to BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA zone designations, or regulatory floodways under Section 3.1 above. However, since flood profiles, FDTs, Summary of Discharges Tables, Transect 10 Data Tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevations Tables are not developed in support of approximate floodplain boundaries, these data will not need to be submitted for appeals to flooding sources studied by approximate methods. All submitted data and analyses must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor. Maps prepared by an authoritative source, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, or a State department of highways and transportation, are acceptable without certification as long as the sources and dates of the maps are identified. Additional Guidance on Appeal Submittals Involving Topographic Data For appeal submittals that involve topographic data, the following additional guidelines must be followed: • The data must be more detailed/accurate, and/or reflect more recent topographic conditions, and be in a digital Geographic Information System (GIS) format preferably; • The appeal submittal must clearly state which flooding sources are being appealed based on the updated topographic data; • Updated SFHA boundary delineations that reflect the submitted topographic data for each appealed flooding source must also be provided, preferably in digital GIS format; • All topographic data submitted must adhere to FEMA's current data capture standards for such data; • If necessary, a data sharing agreement must be provided. 4. Appeal Period Procedures Appeals and comments must be resolved by following the procedures below: • Acknowledgement by FEMA of the receipt of an appeal in writing, ensuring that acknowledged appeals include ALL of the criteria discussed above. • Acknowledge the receipt of comments. This can be done either in writing, by FEMA, or through a documented phone conversation between the mapping partner and the community that submitted the comments. At a minimum FEMA must notify the community in writing that it did not receive any appeals. This can be done by separate correspondence or by the inclusion of language in the Letter of Final Determination (LFD). 11 • FEMA or the mapping partner will evaluate any scientific or technical data submitted for compliance with existing mapping statues, regulations, or Guidelines and Standards. • FEMA or the mapping partner will request any additional scientific or technical data required to properly review the appeal or comment. • FEMA or the mapping partner will make a recommendation to FEMA on the resolution of the appeal or comment. • FEMA or the mapping partner will prepare a draft appeal resolution letter (if all the criteria for an appeal are met). • The assigned mapping partner shall dispatch the signed FEMA appeal resolution letter and if warranted, Revised Preliminary copies of the FIRM and FIS report to the community CEO and floodplain administrator and all appellants. All correspondence must be prepared and issued on FEMA Headquarters or FEMA Regional letterhead. • FEMA provides a comment period of 30 days following the date the appeal or comment resolution letter is issued. Any comments received during the 30 day comment period must be addressed and resolved before proceeding with the LFD. Extensions to this 30 day period can only be granted with FEMA Headquarters approval. 5. General Technical Guidance Detailed guidance on the supporting documentation that must be submitted in support of an appeal can be found in Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Mops —A Guide for Community Officials. Unless appeals are based on the use of alternative models or methodologies, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that appellants submit must be performed with the models used for the flood study, PMR, or LOMR. Generally, when appellants are required to submit hydrologic or hydraulic analyses, those analyses must be performed for the same recurrence interval floods as those performed for the flood study, PMR, or LOMR. The vertical datum used in any data submitted must match the datum used in the preliminary FIS report and FIRM. Further, SFHA boundaries are to be shown on a topographic map (preferably, in digital form) whose scale and contour interval are sufficient to provide reasonable accuracy. New flooding information cannot be added to a FIRM in such a way as to create mismatches with the flooding information shown for unrevised areas. Therefore, in performing new analyses and developing revised flooding information, appellants must tie the new BFEs, base flood 12 depths, SFHA boundaries, SFHA zone designations, and/or regulatory floodway boundaries into those shown on the maps for areas not affected by the appeal. All analyses and data submitted by appellants, including those that show mathematical or measurement errors must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, as appropriate. 6. Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) FEMA's Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) process reinforces FEMA's commitment to work with communities to ensure the flood hazard data depicted on FIRMS is built collaboratively using the best science available. When changes to the FIRMs are met with conflicting technical and scientific data, an independent third party review of the information may be needed to ensure the FIRMS are updated correctly. The SRP serves as the independent third party. To be eligible for an SRP, an appeal must include supporting information or data to substantiate that the BFEs, base flood depths, SFHA boundaries, SFHA zone designations, or floodways proposed by FEMA are scientifically or technically incorrect. An SRP request is an option only after FEMA and a local community have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually- acceptable resolution of an appeal. 13 FEMA's new Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) process reinforces FEMA's commitment to work with communities to ensure the flood hazard data depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps ( FIRMs) is built collaboratively using the best science available Flood hazards are constantly changing, and as such, FEMA regularly updates FIRMs through several methods to reflect those changes. When changes to the FIRMS are met with conflicting technical and scientific data, an independent third party review of the information may be needed to ensure the FIRMS are updated correctly. The Scientific Resolution Panel will serve as the independent third parry. Who can request an SRP? A community, Tribe or political entity that has the authority to adopt and enforce floodplain ordinances for the area under its jurisdiction can request FEMA use the SRP when conflicting data are presented. Chief Executive Officers or authorized community representatives must make or endorse the SRP request if they did not develop or propose the conflicting technical data. When can communities request an SRP? A community can request an SRP if it has: • Not received a Letter of Final Determination (LFD); • Submitted an appeal or protest during the 90 -day appeal period with scientific or technical data resulting in different flood hazards than those proposed by FEMA; • Allowed at least 60 days of community consultation with FEMA (but no more than 120 days) Additionally, a community that has received a FEMA- issued resolution letter and has not exercised the SRP process will have 30 days from the issuance of the letter to request an SRP. Communities that have submitted appeals or protests, but as of November 1, 2010 have not received an LFD, will have until January 15, 2011, to request an SRP. Independent Panel Sponsor The SRP process is managed by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), a non -profit organization independent from FEMA. NIBS will act as the Panel Sponsor, coordinating the SRPs, ensuring that proper regulations and procedures are employed and maintaining a cadre of experts from which Panel members are selected. Panel Member Selection For each appeal or protest, an SRP (or Panel) of three or five members will be convened. Panel members are technical experts in surface water hydrology, hydraulics, coastal engineering, and other engineering and scientific fields that relate to the creation of Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Insurance Studies throughout the United States. "FEAM's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a notion roe work together to Guild. sustain, and improve our eapaGility to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, aad mitigate all hazards. " Based on the technical specifications of the appeal or protest, NIBS will develop a list of potential panel members with relevant expertise from its cadre of experts. NIBS will ensure that there is no conflict of interest amongst the panel members. NIBS will confirm that members do not reside in the state from which the appeal or protest is taken and have no personal or professional interest in its findings of the appeal or protest. NIBS will provide the list of eligible panel members to the community and FEMA. The community selects the majority (in the case of a five - member Panel, the community selects three), and FEMA selects the minority (in the case of a five - member Panel, FEMA selects two). The Process To request an SRP, the Chief Executive Officer of a community or authorized representative completes an SRP Request Form and submits it to FEMA during the time periods outlined above. Once FEMA confirms the appeal or protest is eligible for an SRP, FEMA will forward the SRP Request form to NIBS to initiate the Panel selection process and develop a list of potential members. Once the Panel is convened, Panel members will be provided with a summary of the issue, FEMA's data, and the data the community submitted during the 90 -day appeal period. Panel member will review the data and, on a point -by -point basis, deliberate and make a decision based on the scientific and technical challenges of the appeal or protest. If the community feels it is necessary to make an oral presentation in support of its appeal or protest, it must include a justification on the SRP Request Form. Resolution The Panel will render a written recommendation to FEMA, based on the scientific and technical data submitted by the community and FEMA, The recommendation may either deny the community's data or incorporate it in part or in whole into the FIRM. For an appeal or protest to be incorporated, the community's data must satisfy the NFIP standards for flood hazard mapping. The Panel will present a written report with its decision and rationale to FEMA and the community no later than 150 days after being convened. The SRP's decision will become the recommendation provided to the FEMA Administrator. Once a final determination has been made, FEMA will issue a resolution letter. If changes to the maps are made, FEMA will incorporate the changes into revised preliminary FIRMs and Flood Insurance Studies. These changes will be made available to the community with a resolution letter for review prior to the issuance of an LFD. Once a determination is made and a resolution letter is issued, the community will not be able to re- submit an appeal or protest of the proposed flood elevations nor request an SRP again. "FEMA's mission is to .support our citizens mid first responders to ensure that as u nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capabitior to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover front, and mitigate all hazards." For a regulatory appeal, if the community is not satisfied with the recommendation of the Panel or the determination of the FEMA Administrator, it may appeal to the appropriate United States District Court. 2-News publication of proposed BFE's Resalwi¢n Letter issuetl 90-day Appeal Period Community Cc Mapping Process continues Community submits scl¢ntilirJttthn ical tlala 'Community can submit an SRP Request to FEMA at a minimum of 60 days and no more than 120 days after the start of the community consultation phase OR � ...............♦ �.....� Community submits SRP request- FEMA forwards eligible SRP request to NIBS for Panel selection process Community3FEMA select Panel within 30tlaysaHer receiving the Resolution Letter Illaa i50 oaysi For Additional Information Panel presents written recommendation Resolution Letterlssued Mapping Process For more information on appeals, seethe FEMA document: Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: A Guide for Cmnnnmity Officials. Part 67 of the NFIP regulations, which pertains to appeals, is available on the "Forms and Publications" section of FEMA's Flood Hazard Mapping website at www.fema.Rov /thm. Other Important Links: www.floodSRP.ore www.fema.gov /clan /prevent/flim/st hot.shtm #2 Risk MAP: www.fema.gov /plan /prevent/flim /rm main.shtm Flood Hazard Mapping: www.floodmaps.feina.gov Flood Insurance: www.floodsmart.eov "FENIA's mission is to support our citizens andfnr:st responders to ensure that as a nation Ive Ivor* together to brrild, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards." COUNTY OF MARIN Morin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive Suite 329 San Rafael, CA 94903 415 473 7331 T 415 473 2990 F 415 473 6172 TTY JArnold@marincounty.org www.marincounty.org/bos May 15, 2014 Mayor Alice Fredericks Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mayor Fredericks: DIGEST 3. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .............................. J U..D..Y.. A Rl...O.L..D. Fihh District MAY 1 9 2014 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBu RoN Since 1975, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program has provided over $66 million to Marin County communities for housing, community facility, and public service projects benefiting lower income people. In the 2013 funding cycle, CDBG provided $1.3 million for housing, community facility, and public service activities, and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) provided an additional $600,000 for affordable housing projects. These programs have been uniquely effective in Marin because they combine a steady stream of federal funding with local control over funding criteria and project selection. In short, CDBG and HOME give us federal funds for important projects selected by the people of Marin. Marin County qualifies for CDBG formula funding because cities and the county have, through cooperation agreements, joined together to receive funding as an "urban county." These agreements must be renewed every three years. The CDBG cooperation agreements will expire this year, and in order for us to continue receiving maximum funds for fiscal years 2015- 2017, it is necessary for each city and the county to renew their joint participation by formally executing a new cooperation agreement by June 30, 2014. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the county to inform each city that it may elect to be excluded from the urban county, and any city which chooses to be excluded must notify both the county and HUD in writing by June 20, 2014. An election to be excluded will be effective for the entire three -year period for which the urban county qualifies, unless the excluded city specifically elects to be included in a subsequent year for the remainder of the urban county's three -year qualification period. Any future change in election must be done in a manner and by a date to be specified by HUD. If a city excludes itself from the urban county, programs within its borders will no longer qualify for the CDBG funding which the urban county receives automatically on a formula basis each year from the federal government. Unless it has central city designation, a city must have at least 50,000 population to qualify independently for a CDBG entitlement formula allocation directly from HUD. While a city remains part of an urban county, it is ineligible to apply for grants under the State - administered CDBG program. The State - administered CDBG program requires a competitive application process that does not automatically provide funds on a formula basis. If a city remains with the urban county, it is automatically also a participant in the HOME and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) programs if the urban county receives HOME and ESG funding, respectively, and may receive HOME and ESG formula allocations only as part of the urban county. HUD will permit urban counties and cities that are part of the urban county to apply to the State for HOME and ESG funds, if the State allows. To continue to receive maximum CDBG and HOME funding, it is crucial that all the cities in Marin renew their commitment to the CDBG program. We will send the new CDBG cooperation agreements to city managers shortly. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me or Roy Bateman, Community Development Manager, at 473 -6698. With your participation, the cities and the county can continue their impressive 40 -year record of cooperation and achievement in the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Sincerely, J y old, Chair P on Setting Committee Community Development Block Grant Program cc: Councilmember Frank Doyle, CDBG Priority Setting Committee Representative Margaret Curran, Tiburon Town Manager COUNTY OF MARIN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3501 Civic Center Drive - Suite 329 - San Rafael, CA 94903 TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 5, 2014 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson, Kricensky and Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 1. 3 PALMER COURT: File No. 713109; Tracey Turner, Owner; Interpretation of condition of approval for Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicant has requested an interpretation of compliance with a condition of approval regarding the maximum allowable floor area for this previously approved application. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 201-01. [DWI PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 118 LELAND WAY: File No. 714024; Charles and Suzanne Fuerry, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a detached guest cottage for an existing single - family dwelling. The proposed 636 square foot guest cottage would include a bedroom, bathroom, and sitting area with a wet bar. The proposal would result in a floor area of 1,558 square feet and lot coverage of 1,928 square feet (24.1 %). Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 175 -04. [KO] CONTINUED TO NNE 19, 2014 Design Review Board June 5, 2014 Page 1 9• 3. 6 SOUTHRIDGE EAST: File No. 21409; Mo and Parvaneh Nobari, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The proposal would expand the upper level entry, add a new powder room to the upper level and create a new interior stairway between the two levels. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 3,226 square feet. The additions would extend to within 24 feet, 6 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback for this property. The additions would cover 19.3% of the site in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 243 -04. [DWI 4. 3 SEAFIRTH LANE: File No. 21413; David and Sydney Joyner, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess building height and a Floor Area Exception. The proposed three -level home would include a family room/guest room, bathroom, and crawlspace on the lower level; two bedrooms, two bathrooms, formal entry, laundry room, wine cellar and a garage on the ground level; and a living room, TV room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, master bedroom suite, and office on the upper level. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,106 square feet (12.0 %) and a gross floor area of 3,854 square feet, which is greater than the 3,753 square foot floor area ratio for this lot. The proposed house would have a maximum height of 34 feet, 2 inches in lieu of the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 039 - 092 -14. [KO] 5. 47 UPPER NORTH TERRACE: File No. 21412; John Harrington and Ida Baugh, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct 176 square feet of additions to expand the existing living room, dining room, entry and storage area of the house. The additions would extend to within 15 feet, 6 inches of the front property line in lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard setback for this property. The additions would cover 30.0% of the site in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 304-01 [DWI MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 15, 2014 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board June 5, 2014 Page 2