Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2014-08-20 (2)To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting August 20, 2014 Agenda Item: toy I Subject: General Plan Housing Element Update: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Updated Housing Element and Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town is nearing completion of its housing element update process for the fifth cycle of state - mandated housing element updates, with this cycle spanning the years 2015 -2023. The State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) began mandating scheduled housing element updates in 1980. Progress with the Town's current update is summarized below: July 2013: Town retains Christine O'Rourke Community Planning as consultant. August 2013: Town qualifies for "streamlined review" of the element by HCD. 8/2013- 1/2014: Data tables and other components of the element are updated. February 2014: Housing Needs Assessment document is released for public review. February 2014: Public Workshop is held on housing element update. March 2014: Planning Commission reviews the Preliminary Draft Element. April 2014: Town Council reviews the Preliminary Draft Element. May 2014: Draft Housing Element is forwarded to HCD for initial review with revisions directed by Commission and Council. June 2014: Town receives comments /revision list from HCD; Town makes necessary revisions and returns revised document to HCD; HCD preliminarily accepts element as meeting statutory requirements of state law (Exhibit 2). July 2014: Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration released for public review and comment; Planning Commission public hearing scheduled to review Draft Housing Element with HCD - required revisions incorporated and to recommend action to Town Council. Planning Commission recommends adoption of the updated element to the Town Council. August 2014: Town Council public hearing scheduled to consider adoption. The purpose of this meeting is for the Town Council to hold a public hearing on the Draft Housing Element and, if found acceptable, adopt it along with a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. A draft resolution of adoption is attached as Exhibit 1. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 Town Council Meeting August 20, 2014 ANALYSIS The Draft Housing Element is little changed from the Preliminary Housing Element reviewed by the Town Council in April. The Town Council made no substantive revisions to the Preliminary Draft Element prior to directing staff to submit it to HCD at that time. Therefore, this report focuses on revisions made to the Draft Element in response to HCD comments received in June. In May and June 2014, HCD performed an initial review of the Element and required several text revisions and the addition of a few new programs to the Element, all of which appear to be of a minor nature. All such revisions (except to the Appendix) are shown in "redlined" format in the Draft Housing Element Update 2015 -2023 document dated July 2014, attached as Exhibit 5. The HCD - required revisions are summarized below: pp. 7 -8: Add a listing of the organizations provided prior notice of the housing element workshop that was held in February, 2014. p. 22: Minor deletion of text. p. 31: Address "disadvantaged unincorporated communities" (there are none on the Tiburon Peninsula) in accordance with Senate Bill 244 (2011). P. 91: Address "transitional and supportive housing" requirements of state law. P. 121: Add two programs 1) a program regarding outreach for Developmentally Disabled Housing and Services in coordination with the Golden Gate Regional Center; and 2) a program to provide copies of the adopted element to sewer and water agencies serving Tiburon that includes a summary and quantification of Tiburon's regional housing needs allocation. p. 122: Modify Program H j (Apply for State Funds for Affordable Housing) to add a reference to projects targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, and to projects targeted to extremely low income households, and specify the number of times such applications will be made during the housing element cycle. p. 123: Specify a number of application attempts for Policy H -k (Apply for and Utilize Local Funds for Affordable Housing). Add references to Program H -1 regarding supportive housing for projects containing units for persons with disabilities and extremely -low income households, and specify how often outreach will be made. p. 126: Add references to persons with developmental disabilities to Program H -p and specify a number of units to be constructed for them as an objective. p. 127: In Program H -r, specify a percentage of employees as an objective for Housing Assistance. Add Program H -s regarding transitional and supportive housing uses in commercial districts to more clearly reflect state law. pp. 135 -136: Add Program H -ff to review and consider adoption of standards for "junior second units ". Staff notes that this was also a recommendation of the Town Council during its April meeting. pp. 139 -141: Revise the Implementation Summary Table to reflect the above- listed revisions. Appendix: The Parcel Listing of Potential Housing Sites was updated to reflect current conditions and affordable housing overlay designations (revisions not redlined). Town Staff considers the cumulative effect of the HCD revisions to be minor and has no serious objections to them. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 Town Council Meeting August 20, 2014 REVIEW BY THE PLANNING The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft updated Housing Element on July 23, 2014. There was no public comment. The Commission made no changes to the document and recommended adoption to the Town Council. Draft minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration (IS/DND) was prepared for this project, released for public comment on July 1, 2014, and is attached to this report as Exhibit 4. The public review period ended on July 23, 2014. As of the date of this report no letters or communications have been received regarding the initial study /draft negative declaration. The initial study indicates that the updated housing element would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. Firstly, the potential for environmental impacts is limited by the "policy- oriented" nature of the housing element. Secondly, given the limited changes being made from the 2012 Housing Element, and the fact that new housing contemplated in the draft element is already reflected in the existing General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (both of which received environmental review prior to adoption), and is being reduced from that contemplated in the 2012 Element, the potential for impacts on the physical environment is quite limited. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the updates to the Housing Element would result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. NEXT STEPS If the Town Council adopts the Element, it will be forwarded to HCD for a final review. HCD will have 90 days to review and certify the Element, but is likely to act more quickly given the streamlined review process for this update, and the minor nature of the revisions that HCD requested upon initial review. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the writing of this report, one letter (Exhibit 6) has been received urging support for "junior second units ", which are addressed in Program H -ff at p. 135 -136 of the Element. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1) Receive the oral staff report and ask questions of staff; 2) Hold a public hearing and take testimony from interested persons; 3) Discuss and make comments on the document; TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Town Council Meeting August 20, 2014 4) Adopt the Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and the updated Housing Element. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution. 2. Letter from HCD dated June 16, 2014. 3. Planning Commission minutes (draft) of July 23, 2014. 4. Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration document dated July 2014. 5. Redlined version of Draft Housing Element Update 2015 -2023, dated July 2014. 6. Letter from Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative dated June 23, 2014. NOTE: The Draft Housing Element (Exhibit 5) is also available on -line at www.townoftiburon.org from a link in the Resident News portion of the website Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 10 *91 F111 0 ($]Mi [M bdiTV A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN UPDATE OF THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to state law requirements, the Town of Tiburon has undertaken a comprehensive update of the Housing Element of the Tiburon General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon conducted a public participation program including a workshop and a newsletter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Town Council have held public meetings to solicit public input on the Housing Element update; and WHEREAS, a Final Draft of the Housing Element, dated July 2014, has been prepared and released; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on July 23, 2014, at which it considered any testimony received from the public and recommended adoption of the updated Element to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Planning Commission considered said document in making its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings on the Housing Element Update was published in The ARK newspaper and other noticing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on August 20, 2014, at which it considered any testimony received from the public as well as the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that an initial study of environmental impact was prepared for the housing element update and a draft negative declaration released for public comment on July 1, 2014. The comment period closed on July 23, 2014. The Town Council finds that, based on the record, no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a significant adverse impact would result from the housing element update has been presented; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the updated housing element would be consistent with and would further the objectives of the other elements of the Tiburon General Plan; and Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX -2014 Adopted —1- -12014 E"1—=IIsI' INTO. I WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the updated Housing Element complies with California Government Code sections pertaining to housing elements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for the Housing Element update. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt an updated Housing Element, based on the Housing Element Update 2015 -2023, dated July 2014, directing staff to incorporate any revisions made by the Town Council at the August 20, 2014 hearing, and prepare and publish a final Town of Tiburon Housing Element 2015 -2023, adopted and dated August 20, 2014, based on that document and any revisions made thereto at the hearing. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on , 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX -2014 Adopted - -1-12014 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263 -2911 / FAX (916) 263 -7453 �- - - -- - www.hcd.ca.gov Lmll� it , civ!s� June 16, 2014 Mr. Scott Anderson, Director Community Development Department Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Anderson: RE: Town of Tiburon's 5th Cycle (2015 -2023) Draft Housing Element ppfiNONLTY 9 CAL(FORtRP• Thank you for submitting the Town of Tiburon's draft housing element update received for review on May 14, 2014 along with additional revisions received on June 10, 2014. Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65585(b), the Department is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation with you on May 15, 2014, and other communications. The Department conducted a streamlined review of the draft housing element based on the Town meeting all eligibility criteria detailed in the Department's Housing Element Update Guidance. The revised draft element meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law. The element will comply with State housing element law (GC, Article 10.6) when adopted and submitted to the Department, in accordance with GC Section 65585(g). To remain on an eight year planning cycle, pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) the Town of Tiburon must adopt its housing element within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of January 31, 2015 for ABAG localities. If adopted after this date, GC Section 65588(e)(4) requires the housing element be revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit our website at: http: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /hpd /hrc /plan /he /he review adoptionsteps110812.pdf. Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the Town must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower- income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. The Department appreciates your hard work and dedication in preparation of the housing element and looks forward to receiving Tiburon's adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Robin Huntley, of our staff, at (916) 263 -7422. ce G Paul McDougall Housing Policy N EY>HIBIT NO. %I PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1047 July 23, 2014 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Weller called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Welner, Commissioners Corcoran and Williams Absent: Chair Weller and Commissioner Kulik Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson Ka"Imefo TitU111►1CtrlYt1)`►(.�I None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director of Community Development Anderson reported that there are no items scheduled for the August 13th meeting which will likely be canceled, but there are a few items for the August 27th meeting. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Williams) to nominate and elect Vice Chair Welner as Chair. Motion carried: 3 -0. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Williams) to nominate and elect Commissioner Kulik as Vice Chair. Motion carried: 3 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE: PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT UPDATED HOUSING ELEMENT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING ADOPTION Director of Community Development Anderson stated that the Town is nearing completion of its Housing Element Update process for the fifth cycle of mandated Housing Element updates. This covers the year 2015 through 2023, an 8 year cycle. He said that the Housing Element has TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —.JULY 23, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1047 DRAFT PAGE I EXHIBIT NO.-, changed very little from what the Commission reviewed in March and that the Council did not make substantive changes before they directed staff to forward the element to HCD in April. HCD reviewed the draft, sent comments via a telephone call and the comments have been incorporated into the revised draft document. Director Anderson summarized the changes, many of which focused on particular types of special needs housing which HCD suggested needed additional references, including transitional and supportive housing and developmentally disabled person housing, and a program to consider junior second units. Staff considers all the HCD revisions to be minor and has no objections to any of them. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the guidelines on the junior second units came from an external source and whether this has become standard in other Housing Elements. Mr. Anderson said that the parameters for junior second units are fairly common among other communities. He noted that the Town already has a 500 square foot maximum size for detached secondary dwelling units, as well as standards for wet bars and other limitations. Commissioner Williams asked how progress is monitored and recorded for the annual reviews of the Housing Element. Mr. Anderson stated that every year by April 151, counties and cities in California are required to send a general plan implementation program report to the state. He said that this normally comes to the Commission as an agenda item in February or March and then goes to the Town Council. This review examines all policies and programs in the General Plan and monitors progress. Commissioner Williams stated that the Housing Element is fascinating and asked if the in lieu and impact fee account balances are published on the Town website. Mr. Anderson said most of this information is located in the Town's municipal budget and the types of programs and incentives the Town offers are contained in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Williams asked and confirmed that the annual reports sent to HCD are available as public documents. Commissioner Williams asked whether condominium conversions are encouraged or discouraged by the Town. Mr. Anderson said that such conversions are strongly discouraged and virtually prohibited for multi - family buildings, but duplexes are a different subject and such conversions are not discouraged. He noted that junior second units and second units stand to be among the Town's major sources for creation of new affordable housing units. Chair Welner opened the public comment hearing. As there were no public comments, the public hearing was closed. ACTION: It was M/S (Williams/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the Housing Element to the Town Council. Motion carried: 3 -0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 23, 2014 -MINUTES NO. 1047 DRAFT PAGE 2 Initial Study For the The Town of Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update Town of Tiburon JULY 2014 NSA Town of Tiburon Community Development Department EXHIBIT NO. L� TABLE OF CONTENTS NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT) ....................... A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... B. REFERENCES..... .................2 ............................ 4 ................................... .............................10 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................... .............................11 Aesthetics................................................................................................. ..............................1 l Agriculture................................................................................................ .............................12 AirQuality ................................................................................................. .............................13 BiologicalResources ................................................................................. .............................15 CulturalResources .................................................................................... .............................16 Geologyand Soils ...................................................................................... .............................17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... .............................19 Hazards.......................................... ............................... Hydrology and Water Quality ... ............................... Land Use and Planning ............ .............................., Mineral Resources ................... ............................... Noise....................................... ............................... Population and Housing .......... ............................... Public Services ........................ ............................... Recreation ................................ ............................... Transportation/ Traffic ............. ............................... Utilities and Service Systems .. ............................... Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................... LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map ...................... ............... ............................... 21 ............... ............................... 23 ................. .............................25 ................. .............................26 .................................. .............................27 ................................ ............................... 28 .................................. .............................29 ................................. .............................30 ................................ ............................... 31 ................................ ............................... 33 ................................ ............................... 35 ................... ............................... 8 Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT) TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, Marin County FROM: Town of Tiburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Project Title: Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update Proponent: Town of Tiburon Project Location: Tiburon, CA 94920 Project Description: The project is a proposed update of the 2012 Town of Tiburon General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element establishes housing objectives, policies and programs in response to community housing conditions and needs. The Housing Element Update is a comprehensive statement by the Town of Tiburon of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs. The proposed Housing Element is a policy level document. It provides policy direction for the implementation of various programs to accommodate the housing needs of projected population growth, and to encourage the production of housing units in a range of prices affordable to all income groups. The proposed Housing Element is consistent with the adopted Town of Tiburon General Plan. No development is being permitted under the proposed Housing Element where it is not permitted now, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. The Town's housing goal is to promote the social and economic diversity of the Town by encouraging safe and affordable housing for all social and economic segments of the community. The proposed Housing Element contains policies and programs organized under the following topics: H -A Town Leadership and Outreach. Establish a Town leadership role in providing a mix of housing types that matches the needs of people of all ages and income levels. H -B Special Needs Housing. Provide housing for special needs populations in coordination with support services. H -C Protecting and Conserving Existing Housing. Protect and conserve the existing housing stock and mix of unit types. H -D (1) Infill, Higher Density Housing Opportunities. Facilitate the development of new infill housing in Downtown Tiburon and on identified underutilized sites throughout the Town that have existing infrastructure and few physical constraints. (2) Lower Density Housing. Focus development of lower density housing on vacant legal lots incapable of further subdivision and on undeveloped parcels where infrastructure constraints, physical constraints, and other non- Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 governmental constraints prevent their development with more affordable housing. (3) Second Units and In -Lieu Fees. Continue to encourage and legalize secondary dwelling units in appropriate locations and use affordable housing in -lieu fees or impact fees on less constrained sites. Finding: Based on the attached Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant, adverse environmental effect. Signature: Daniel M. Watrous Date Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Title: Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update (Fifth Cycle; Planning Timeframe 2015 -2023) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager (415) 435 -7393 4. Project Location: Tiburon, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 6. Person Preparing the Submission/Initial Study Checklist Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager — Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone: (415) 435 -7393 Fax: (415)435 -2438 Email: dwatrousO.townoftiburon.ora 7. Project Number: GPA 2013 -02 8. Assessor Parcel No. Town -wide project. 9. Type of Approval Sought: Adoption of updated General Plan Housing Element for the Town of Tiburon. 10. Size of Subject Property: Town -wide project. 11. Present and Previous Use of Site or Structures: Vacant, mixed use and residentially developed parcels throughout Tiburon. 12. General Plan Designation: Various Town -wide land use categories that allow residential uses. This is a proposed update of the Town of Tiburon General Plan that would supersede and replace the Housing Element adopted in 2012. 13. Zoning: Various mixed use and residential Zoning designations. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 14. Description of Project: The Town of Tiburon is a community of approximately 9,000 residents located on a relatively narrow four square mile peninsula extending into San Francisco Bay. The peninsula rises quickly from the Bay reaching a central spine known as the Tiburon Ridge. This ridge is prominent from widespread locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Most of the peninsula is sloping land. Neighborhoods vary in age from the 1890's to the present. Over 95 percent of the Town's land area is comprised of residential neighborhoods, public parks, and secured open space. All California cities and counties are required to have a Housing Element included in their General Plan that establishes housing objectives, policies and programs in response to community housing conditions and needs. The proposed Housing Element Update is a comprehensive statement by the Town of Tiburon of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs. The proposed Housing Element is a policy level document. It provides policy direction for the implementation of various programs to accommodate the housing needs of projected population growth, and to encourage the production of housing units in a range of prices affordable to all income groups. The public outreach component of the Housing Element update process began with a community workshop held on February 25, 2014 to solicit comments from the community on directions for the Housing Element. This input helped identify key issues and strategic directions to pursue in the Housing Element update. The Town's 2012 Housing Element was adopted by the Town Council in February 2012 and was later certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Due to the certified status of the current Housing Element, and the minor revisions required for this update, the proposed Element qualified for the "streamlined" review process through the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The adopted 2012 Housing Element, as amended to the preparation of this Initial Study, the current Tiburon General Plan and the current Tiburon Zoning Ordinance serve as the "baseline" for environmental review purposes. A negative declaration was adopted for the 2012 Housing Element. Key changes proposed in the 2014 update (project) from the adopted 2012 Housing Element include the following: (A) Review of the Previous Element. The Town has been effective in implementing many of the key programs contained in the 2012 Housing Element. In 2012, the Town adopted an ordinance which implemented all of the zoning code amendments identified in the 2012 Housing Element. These amendments included procedures to review and approve requests for reasonable accommodation from zoning requirements. More flexible parking standards and higher densities for smaller studio and one - bedroom units were established for the Affordable Housing Overlay zone. In addition, the Town modified the inclusionary zoning requirements to include a minimum of 25% affordable housing units for market -rate housing projects. Housing development during the 2007 -2014 was slower than anticipated, due in part to poor economic conditions and a weak real estate market. Eight new single- family homes and five second units were approved. According to the results of a second unit survey staff distributed in 2013, second units have been determined to provide affordable housing for lower income and moderate income households. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 (B) Updated Data on Employment, Housing and Population Projections, Housing Needs, Affordability, Land Availability, Potential Governmental and Non- Governmental Constraints. The proposed Housing Element contains updated statistics and analysis of housing issues per State law. The projections in the Housing Element are consistent with ABAG's recent projections for Plan Bay Area. (C) Identification of New Sites for the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. State law allows the Town to accommodate its RHNA requirement for very low and low income housing on sites designated at a default density of 20 or more units per acre. Under the Town's Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zone this density can be achieved. The RHNA for the Town of Tiburon decreased to 78 units for the current cycle from 117 in the previous cycle. The 2012 Housing Element identified three AHO sites with capacity and realistic development potential to accommodate the Town's lower- income requirement of 57 units. One of these sites, the Reed School site, had specific programmatic requirements attached to it, including a requirement for the Town to identify an additional site or sites if the Reed School site became unavailable for use as housing during the planning period. At the end of 2012, the School District informed the Town in writing that the site is not available to be developed with affordable housing due to continually increasing school enrollments. As a result, the Town needed to identify site(s) to accommodate its unmet lower- income need of 22 units before the current planning period ends in 2014. Staff reviewed the list of potential affordable housing sites contained in the 2005 General Plan and determined that two sites were the most viable sites for the AHO zone: the parking lot at 2 Beach Road, adjacent to the Bank of America site, and the Shark's Deli site at 1600 Tiburon Boulevard. The Town Council rezoned these two sites effective June 6, 2014. A negative declaration was adopted for that rezoning project and no additional CEQA review is required at this time. Rezoning these two sites met the Town's existing unmet lower income need, as the sites have a realistic development capacity of 21 units at the Beach Road parking lot site and 8 units at the Shark's Deli site. The sites also ensure that the Town has capacity to meet its lower income RHNA for the 2015 -2023 planning period. After rezoning, the Town now has capacity for 61 units on the identified AHO sites. (D) Revised Policies and Programs. The updated Housing Element includes many of the programs that were included in the Housing Element adopted in 2012. Several programs were either deleted or modified because the Town had accomplished the program actions. New programs to be added include. Program H -e: Conduct Outreach for Developmentally Disabled Housing and Services. The Town will work with the Golden Gate Regional Center to implement an outreach program that informs families within Tiburon on housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. Information on services will be provided on the Town's website and the Town will distribute brochures supplied by the service providers. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 Program H -f. Coordinate with Water and Sewer Providers. As required by State law, the Town will provide a copy of the adopted housing element update to water and sewer providers, including the Marin Municipal Water District, Sanitary District Number 5 of Marin County, Richardson Bay Sanitary District, and Sanitary District Number 2 of Marin County. The Town will also provide a summary and quantification of Tiburon's regional housing need allocation. Program H -s: Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing in Commercial Zones. Pursuant to State law, the Town will revise the Zoning Ordinance to specifically identify transitional and supportive housing as conditionally permitted uses in the neighborhood commercial (NC) and 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. Program H -ff: Adopt Standards for Junior Second Units. The Town will review and consider adopting standards to allow the creation of junior second units. 15. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Uses in the unincorporated areas surrounding the Town of Tiburon town boundaries, including lower density residential. 16. Other agencies or utility providers whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Review by the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), although the project does not require HCD approval or the approval of any other state or local agency. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for this project pursuant to CEQA. Project Location and Vicinity Map - Figure 1 Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources' ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION: ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, p , Daniel M. Watrous Date Planning Manager Town of Tiburon Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 g B. REFERENCES The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Each of the topics addressed in Section C, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, includes a list of references by number. The numbers for the reference sources correspond with the sources that are listed below by number. 1. Town of Tiburon General Plan 2. Town of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 3. Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element 4. Marin Housing Workbook 5. Hazardous waste list website: httn• / /wvm,.dtsc.caeov /database /Calsites /Cortese Listcfrn. 6. State Planning and Zoning Law 7. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 8. Composite Flood Hazard Areas - HUD National Flood Insurance Program 9. Field Inspection 10. Experience with other projects of this size and nature 11. Aerial Photography 12. Marin Countywide Plan 13. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District 14. California Natural Areas Coordinating Council Maps 15. U.S. Census 16. ABAG Projections 17. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans 18. Department of Fish & Game 19. US Army Corps of Engineers 20. USGS Data Contribution 21. Town of Tiburon Climate Action Plan 22. California Natural Diversity Database 23. State /Federal Environmental Standards (a) Ambient Air Quality Standards (b) Noise Levels for Construction Equipment 24. Federal Environmental Standards (a) Water Quality Standards - 40 CFR 120 (b) Low -Noise Emission Standards - 40 CFR 203 (c) General Effluent Guidelines & Standards - 40 CFR 401 (d) National Primary & Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards - 40 CFR 50 Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EWFACTS Note: For each topic listed below, a reference source was used to complete the Environmental Checklist. The reference sources are listed by number in Section B of this document. 1. Aesthetics Would the project have: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vista? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ® ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10,11) Discussion: A substantial adverse effect to visual resources could result in situations where a project introduces physical features that are not characteristic of current development; obstructs an identified public scenic vista, or has a substantial change to the natural landscape. All new development under the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the Town's General Plan and current zoning. The revisions to the current 2012 Housing Element that are proposed in this project (the 2014 Housing Element) will not result in a significant increase in visual impacts over those identified in the negative declaration for the 2012 Housing Element, or more recently adopted CEQA documents. The proposed Housing Element will Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update— Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 10 not affect scenic vistas or damage scenic resources because any new development, including possible homeless facilities, would be subject to the Town's zoning and design review requirements intended to protect the visual character and quality of areas and to limit light sources on any property to avoid any new sources of substantial light or glare. The Town's current development standards are consistent with the proposed Housing Element in the regulation of building height, setbacks, massing, and overall design in Tiburon. These general guidelines are to provide property owners and project designers certain basic development and design criteria in order to reinforce the desired building and character. Policies in the General Plan also cover conservation lands, circulation, downtown development, hillside development, etc. to protect open hillsides, open space, and environmentally sensitive land areas. No rezoning that would permit new or increased construction in areas near scenic vistas or State scenic highways is proposed in the 2014 Housing Element. Based on the above, the project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources. 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, El or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural E use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 12) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause El ❑ E rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? (Sources: 1, 2, 10, 12) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion Would the project: Potentially Less Than of forestland to non - forest use? (Sources: 1, 2, ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant 10,12) Impact Impact with Mitigation e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Incorporated environment that, due to their location or nature, a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, ❑ ❑ agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12) 10,12,13,17) Discussion: There is no land within the Town of Tiburon that is shown as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Marin County Important Farmland map produced by the State Department of Conversation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. There would be no impact The proposed Housing Element does not change any boundaries or the potential for agricultural activities. There are no proposals contained in the proposed Housing Element to convert Prime Farmland or any farmland of unique or State -wide importance. In addition, there is no rezoning or development proposed on forest land or land or timber property zoned Timberland Production. There are also no proposals that would conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, or result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agricultural use, or conversion or loss of forest land. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impacts to agricultural or forest resources. 3. Air Quality Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, ❑ ❑ ❑ 10,12,13,17) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 17) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon. CA July 2014 12 project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 17) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 17) Discussion: The project (updated Housing Element) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2000). The project site (Town of Tiburon) is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. Three pollutants are known to exceed the state and federal standards in the Town: ozone, particulates (PM10), and carbon monoxide. Both ozone and PM10 are considered regional pollutants, because their concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Carbon monoxide is considered a local pollutant, because elevated concentrations are usually only found near the source (e.g., congested intersections). The proposed Housing Element will not generate more vehicle trips as compared with the 2012 Housing Element or create more vehicle trips than permitted under the Town's current zoning or general plan. The number of dwelling units accommodated by the proposed Housing Element is less than that accommodated by the 2012 Housing Element. In addition, there are several Town policies intended to address air pollutants and /or odors in the Town. The number of dwelling units that could be developed under the proposed Housing Element would not result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality as growth and land use intensity are consistent with the Town's current General Plan and current zoning. Development under the proposed Housing Element is also consistent with ABAG's projections for Tiburon. Since the proposed Housing Element is consistent with ABAG projections and the Town's current General Plan and zoning, development under the proposed Housing Element will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. Because they generate few vehicle trips traffic and few air pollutants, homeless facilities, transitional and supportive housing uses will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor would they result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in "non- attainment" under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The proposed Housing Element contains policies to encourage housing near transit. These policies are in line with current Town policies as they relate to the identification of potential sites for housing. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update— Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 13 impact or less than significant impact to air quality. 4. Biological Resources Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18,22) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18,22) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18,22) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: I, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 14 Discussion: Depending on the location, any future urban development in the Town has the potential to affect important biological resources by disturbing or eliminating areas of remaining natural communities. This could include (a) a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (b) a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service, (c) a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or (d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However, the proposed Housing Element would not modify the location or amount of residentially- designated land allowed in the Town's current General Plan and zoning. Development of possible homeless facilities, transitional and supportive housing would be allowed in current zoned residential and commercial areas. All new development under the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the General Plan and current zoning, and would be consistent with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Biological impacts would not be intensified over those analyzed in the 2012 Housing Element negative declaration. Based on the above, the proposed project (2014 Housing Element update) would result in no impact or less than significant impact to biological resources. 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 20] 4 15 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) Discussion Depending on the location, any future urban development in the Town has the potential to (a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, (b) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Guidelines Section 15064, (c) directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, or (d) disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemetery. The current General Plan and zoning, Town development standards, and project review are intended to protect any impact to cultural resources. All new development identified in the Housing Element and the changes from the 2012 Housing Element would be consistent with the General Plan and current zoning. Development of possible homeless facilities, transitional and supportive housing would be allowed in currently zoned residential and commercial areas. No development is being permitted where it is not currently permitted under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact to cultural resources as compared to the impacts analyzed in the 2012 Housing Element negative declaration. 6. Geology And Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact I with Mitigation Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 16 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 20) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ topsoil? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) Discussion: There are no Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the Town of Tiburon and the town is not near any known active faults. The nearest known active faults are the San Andreas fault, about 8 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward fault, about 8 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the potential for fault surface rupture (as opposed to ground shaking) within the Town limits is low. There would be no impact. Most lowland areas with relatively level ground surface are not prone to landslides. Other forms of slope instability, such as the formation of slumps, translational slides, or earth flows, are also unlikely to occur except along stream banks and terrace margins. The highland areas are more susceptible to slope instability. The strong ground motion that occurs during earthquakes is capable of inducing landslides and Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update -Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 17 debris flow (mudslides). These types of failure generally occur where unstable slope conditions already exist. The Town has in place hillside development regulations and geologic review procedures to address these hazards. Hillside areas with landslide potential are of particular concern, and slope stability requires appropriate treatment of vegetative cover during and after residential development. The Town's General Plan and zoning do not prohibit new development on areas of geologic hazard, however many precautionary recommendations and restrictions are established in the policies and Town requirements in order to minimize potential impacts from developing on geologically hazardous land. Town regulations and policies cover slope stability, landslides, earthquake faults, seismic shaking requirements, requirements for sewerage, and expansive soils. All new development would be consistent with the General Plan and current zoning and development regulations. Depending on the location, any future urban development in the Town has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. This could include (a) rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction, (b) result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, (c) be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, (d) be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code (CBC), creating substantial risks to life or property, or (e) have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. No development is being permitted where it is not currently permitted in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and 2012 Housing Element, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element would be in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. Any new construction would be required to meet CBC requirements and all development regulations of the Town of Tiburon. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact on geology and soils as compared to the 2012 Housing Element. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the roject: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Sources: 1, 2, 10, 12, 17, 21) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Sources: 1, 2, 10, 12, 17, 21) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon; CA July 2014 18 Discussion: On June 2, 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Board of Directors unanimously adopted new CEQA thresholds of significance. The thresholds of significance are included in the Air District's updated CEQA Guidelines. The updated CEQA Guidelines address recent changes in air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM) from the State of California and the U.S. EPA. The new health - protective air quality standards are in response to growing scientific evidence that exposure to ozone, fine particles and air toxics have greater health effects than previously estimated. In addition, the Air District's new greenhouse gas thresholds were developed to ensure that the Bay Area meets the State's plan to address climate change. The CEQA Guidelines also address exposure to toxic air contaminants, which is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, asthma, reduced birth weight and mortality. Although air quality in the Bay Area has improved over the last thirty years, fine PM and other air toxic contaminants released by transportation and industrial activities threaten the health of local residents. The updated CEQA Guidelines seek to better protect the health and well -being of Bay Area residents. Development under the proposed Housing Element is consistent with ABAG projections, the Town's General Plan, and current zoning and, therefore, will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment over current projections. It will also not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No BAAQMD threshold of significance would be reached. The Town has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes strategies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions known to contribute to climate change, to conserve energy and other natural resources, and to prepare the community for the expected effects of global warming. The CAP includes specific goals and objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including policies, programs, and actions that facilitate the efforts of residents and businesses to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the CAP address uses that (a) generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The CAP establishes priorities in four key GHG emissions categories for adapting to the local physical changes in the environment that are already being felt as a result of global climate change, and that are expected to intensify in the coming years. Specific strategies address ways to reduce trips and vehicular travel (local shopping, support for safe routes to schools, etc.). Changes in the 2014 Housing Element accommodate and envision fewer housing units than the 2012 Housing Element and would this constitute a reduction in greenhouse gas emission over the baseline conditions set forth in the 2012 Housing Element. Since the project would not result in the creation of more dwelling units, or dwelling units in locations different than those allowed in the current General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and 2012 Housing Element; the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 19 S. Hazards And Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ IK environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment9 (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ❑ ❑ ❑ of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update — Town of Tiburon. CA July 2014 20 e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12) Discussion: The proposed Housing Element will not result in potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material that may endanger residents or the environment. No hazards are associated with the policies or programs contained in the updated Housing Element. Implementation of the updated Housing Element will also not generate significant quantities of hazardous materials, significantly affect the mitigation of hazardous materials manufacture, storage, transport or use within the Town, or expose residences to hazardous materials. All new development under the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the General Plan and current Zoning. This includes the Town's emergency response plan and any impacts related to air safety or risk from fire. There is no public airport within two miles of the Town of Tiburon. The nearest public airport is Gnoss Field, which is approximately 12 miles north of Tiburon. There would be no impact. No airstrips are located in the Town of Tiburon. The nearest private airstrip is located at Smith Ranch, which is approximately eight (8) miles north of Tiburon. There would be no impact. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 21 Development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed -use development. Areas designated for possible homeless facilities are already developed areas and many areas are already built upon. Any new construction, such as homeless facilities, transitional and supportive housing, would also be required to meet CBC requirements. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact on hazards or hazardous materials. 9. Hydrology And Water Quality Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11,12) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 22 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11) g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) Discussion: Development under the proposed Housing Element will have no impact or less than significant impact in (a) violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, (b) substantially depleting groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, (c) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, (d) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update -Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 23 result in flooding on- or off -site, (e) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm -water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, (f) substantially degrade water quality, or (g) expose people to risks from flooding. The proposed Housing Element is consistent with ABAG projections, the Town's General Plan, and current zoning, and any new development would require consistency with other Town regulations and development standards related to flood control and drainage, including Chapter 13D of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The proposed Housing Element will not generate a significant impact on hydrology and water quality over current projections for population and housing units. No development is being permitted where it is not currently permitted, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas and at densities already designated for residential or mixed use development. Areas of development will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Housing location within the 100 -year flood hazard area would be covered under current Town policies and regulations protecting future development (floor elevations and mitigation). The amount of development under the proposed Housing Element is the same or less than amount allowed under the General Plan, current zoning and 2012 Housing Element These policies and regulations adopted with the 2012 General Plan update would continue to be implemented for future housing projects. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact on or from hydrology and water quality. 10. Land Use And Planning Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 24 Discussion: No development is being permitted under the proposed Housing Element where it is not permitted now, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element will not (a) physically divide an established community, (b) conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, or (c) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed Housing Element is consistent with current Town policy documents, including the General Plan and zoning. It is also consistent with ABAG projections for Tiburon. The Tiburon General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance include measures to reduce potential incompatibilities between neighboring land uses, such as buffers to mitigate incompatibilities between residential, commercial and industrial uses. The updated Housing Element carries forward many of the programs contained in the 2012 Housing Element related to potential housing sites. No changes are made in the updated Housing Element as they relate to the density or development potential on housing sites. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact on land use and planning as compared to the 2012 Housing Element that serves as the baseline for CEQA analysis. 11. Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a (mown ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Sources: 1) Discussion: Ring Mountain, which is considered by the State as a Scientific Resource Zone, is the only mineral resource located near the Town of Tiburon. Ring Mountain is preserved as open space owned by the Marin County Open Space District. Therefore no impact would occur. There are no known mineral resources of Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update— Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 25 significant value in the Tiburon planning area, or categorized as locally important within the Town that would be lost due to residential development under the current General Plan and the proposed Housing Element. As a result, there would be no impact to mineral resources associated with adoption of the proposed Housing Element. 12. Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ IK plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 12) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update— Town of Tiburon; CA July 2014 26 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private Potentially Less Than Less Than airstrip, would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant or working in the project area to excessive noise Impact Mitigation Impact levels? (Sources: 1, 12) Incorporated Discussion: The proposed Housing Element carries forward many of the programs contained in the 2012 Housing Element related to potential housing sites, which are consistent with the Town's General Plan and zoning, as well as other Town regulations and requirements pertaining to noise impacts and impacts on residents who might live in housing that could be constructed. The proposed Housing Element will not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies because all land use designations are consistent with current plans. The same is true regarding the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels, and for the same reasons. The proposed Housing Element contains policies to encourage housing near transit. These policies are in line with current Town policies as they relate to the identification of potential sites for housing. The proposed Housing Element will not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in Tiburon above levels existing levels as high density and mixed use sites are located along Tiburon Boulevard where transit is available. Certain changes from the 2012 Housing Element relate to special needs housing (disabled, seniors, homeless, transitional and supportive housing, etc.), which is primarily non auto - generating. The location of homeless facilities (required under S132) requires a facility to be located within one - quarter mile of a transit stop. These facilities generate minimal traffic and potential noise impacts. When construction occurs, Town practices are in place to reduce to a less than significant level any substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Town. The Town is not affected by noise levels from air traffic. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact to the noise environment in Tiburon or on future residents of the housing that may be constructed as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. 13. Population And Housing Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 16) Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 27 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing Potentially Less Than Less Than housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, Impact Mitigation Impact 3,4) Incorporated c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ ® necessitating the construction of replacement physical impacts associated with the provision of housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) new or physically altered governmental facilities, Discussion: The updated Housing Element utilizes Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections to determine the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for an 8 -year planning period. Minimal population growth is projected either in the Tiburon General Plan or the Marin Countywide Plan. Since the proposed Housing Element is consistent with the current General Plan and zoning, as well as ABAG projections, it will not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). The proposed Housing Element proposes various housing programs to assist in providing housing for low and moderate income households. Therefore the project would likely not displace any existing residents, but would facilitate adequate housing for Town residents. Implementation of the updated Housing Element will create a positive impact by addressing population and housing needs. The proposed Housing Element carries forward many of the programs contained in the 2012 Housing Element related to potential housing sites, but must accommodate a smaller number of housing units to meet regional needs. No changes are made in the updated Housing Element as they relate to the density or development potential on housing sites. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact to the population and housing environment in Tiburon, or on future residents of the housing that it contemplates, as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. 14. Public Services Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project result in substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ® ❑ physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 28 significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) ❑ ❑ ® 1 ❑ Discussion: All potential impacts to public services, including fire and police protection, medical aid, schools, parks, maintenance of public facilities and other governmental services are considered in the proposed Housing Element in determining whether a housing site is available for and appropriate for development. The proposed Housing Element evaluates the zoning, the slope and topography, whether the site is sufficiently served by public facilities, such as sewer and water, and whether there are environmental barriers to development. The estimated unit capacity is based on all applicable land -use controls and site improvement requirements, including standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, and parking. Since all housing sites are consistent with the current General Plan and zoning, the proposed Housing Element will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services listed above (fire, police, parks, schools and others). For sites identified as being underdeveloped, the projected development considers existing development trends and site redevelopment potential. All new development projected under the updated Housing Element and special needs housing policies and programs are consistent with the service levels established in the General Plan, current zoning, and ABAG projections. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact to public services as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 29 15. Recreation Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10) b) Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10) Discussion: No development is being permitted under the proposed Housing Element where it is not permitted now, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed Housing Element will not result in recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The availability, maintenance, and management of park and recreation facilities are covered under the General Plan, the Town's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and the Town's budget, No specific recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment is included in the updated Housing Element. Development under the proposed Housing Element is consistent with ABAG projections, the Town's General Plan, and current zoning and, therefore, will not generate a significant impact on the environment over current projections for recreation needs. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact on recreation in Tiburon as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon; CA July 2014 30 16. Transportation /Traffic Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ ❑ policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4,5) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10,12) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ ID including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 12) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 12) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update— Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 31 (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 12) Would the project: Potentially Less Than f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant with programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or Impact Impact Mitigation pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the Incorporated performance or safety of such facilities? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 12) the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Discussion: Development under the proposed Housing Element will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections), as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. No development is being permitted under the proposed Housing Element where it is not currently permitted, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. Traffic levels and improvements are identified as part of the Town's General Plan. Project specific impacts that could result from residential development under the Housing Element will be evaluated on case -by -case basis through an appropriate level of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act as new projects come forward. All new development under the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the General Plan and current zoning. The proposed Housing Element will not increase hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access, result in inadequate parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed Housing Element contains policies to encourage housing near transit. The proposed Housing Element supports current Town policies as they relate to the Downtown and the identification of potential sites for housing. High density and mixed use sites are located near Tiburon Boulevard where transit is available. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact on transportation /traffic in Tiburon as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. 17. Utilities And Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1, 16) b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update— Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 32 water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 12) c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1, 12) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1, 12) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project =s solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1, 12) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ ED and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1,12) Discussion: No changes are made in the proposed Housing Element, as compared to the 2012 Housing Element, as they relate to the density or development potential on housing sites. No development is being permitted under the proposed Housing Element where it is not currently permitted, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. All new development under the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the General Plan and current zoning. Development under the proposed Housing Element is also consistent with ABAG projections, which provide the basis for planning for water, solid waste, and wastewater treatment. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element will not (a) exceed wastewater treatment Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 33 requirements, (b) require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, or (c) require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. With the above policies associated with land use, impacts to the community as a result of implementing the proposed Housing Element are less than significant. The proposed Housing Element would not alter the intensity or density of development allowed within the broader zoning land use category. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact on utilities and service systems in Tiburon, including compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. Mandatory Findings Of Significance Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon; CA July 2014 34 Discussion: No development is being permitted under the proposed Housing Element where it is not currently permitted, and all new development under the proposed Housing Element is proposed in areas already designated for residential or mixed use development. All new development under the proposed Housing Element would be consistent with the General Plan and current Zoning, and development would occur consistent with current Town regulations and development review practices. Development under the proposed Housing Element is also consistent with ABAG projections, which provide the basis for planning for future needs. Thus, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The updated Housing Element carries forward many of the programs contained in the 2012 Housing Element related to potential housing sites. Key changes from the Housing Element adopted in 2012 include new programs and refinements in support of affordable housing development on sites already identified in the 2012 Housing Element as potential affordable housing sites. No new housing sites are being added, neither is the density increased on any sites from that shown in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Housing Element also better addresses special needs populations. The limited modifications contained in the proposed Housing Element will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable because the proposed Housing Element is consistent with the Town's current General Plan and zoning. No changes are made in the updated Housing Element as they relate to the density or development potential on housing sites. The proposed Housing Element carries forward many of the programs contained in the 2012 Housing Element and would be consistent with other Town policies related to environmental protection. The proposed Housing Element will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly related to potential housing sites, which are consistent with current Zoning. The proposed Housing Element is also consistent with and the California Department of Finance and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections for Tiburon. The updated Housing Element contains updated statistics and analysis of housing issues per State law, which provides a more up -to -date foundation for future planning. Impacts to all of the Town's resources are therefore considered less than significant. There are no new impacts anticipated. Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact or a less than significant impact as compared to the 2012 Housing Element baseline. Tiburon General Plan Housing Element Update —Town of Tiburon, CA July 2014 35 Merin Environmental Housing Collaborative June 23, 2014 Scott Anderson, Planning Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Scott, Mann Ennroimenlal Housing Calbbmtw Po Boa 7033 San Rabd,CA94912 415 -686 -5204 L C L JUN 2 4 200 PLAN':!: .._.., .� The Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative is a partnership of affordable housing, environmental, and social justice advocates. MEHC works to promote public support for projects that advance affordable housing, environmental integrity, and social justice. We have reviewed the attached white paper on "Junior Second Units" (JSU's) prepared by the City of Novato. We are endorsing the JSU concept for inclusion in the Housing Elements that are currently being drafted in Marin's cities, towns, and the County. Junior Second Units are smaller versions of the "second dwelling units" or "granny flats" that are allowed in all California municipalities. JSU's are created by repurposing a bedroom in an existing single - family, owner - occupied home. They have wet bars and microwave ovens rather than kitchens, and an exterior entrance. They are typically limited to 500 square feet. Utility connections are sized to preclude future expansion. JSU's offer the following advantages over conventional granny flats: • For all practical purposes, JSU's do not increase the occupancy on a property since use existing bedroom space. JSU's have no off -site impacts. Accordingly, JSU's can be regulated with less strenuous zoning regulations than conventional second dwelling units. For example, there would be no need to require additional on -site parking. • Fee reductions are appropriate for JSU's. A home that has converted the third bedroom to a JSU would not generate more trips than the three - bedroom home next door. The JSU could be exempt from traffic fees. • Local surveys have shown that in the Marin market, second dwelling units are affordable housing. Due to their very compact size, JSU's would be even more affordable. • HCD has indicated that JSU's can be counted towards meeting a jurisdiction's RHNA numbers. • JSU's would not increase the density in an area and would be more readily accepted by neighbors. We believe that Junior Second Units can be an attractive and affordable housing option for low- income people, and for households with space to spare, or for senior homeowners who need a live -in caretaker. We are encouraging all of the Marin jurisdictions to include policies that encourage JSU's in their Housing Elements. Sincerely % ;Z Robert J. Pendoley Chair of the Board Merin Environmental Housing Collaborative EXHIBIT NO. 4 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting August 20, 2014 Agenda Item: Ply it Subject: Consider Amendments to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for the Purpose of Prohibiting Marijuana Dispensaries in All Zones (Continued without discussion from July 16, 2014) Reviewed By: 11�� BACKGROUND This item proposes amendments to zoning regulations contained in the Tiburon Municipal Code, specifically Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning), to create regulations regarding marijuana dispensaries. Acting on the direction of the Town Council, staff has prepared text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to define "marijuana dispensaries" and prohibit their establishment in all zones. ANALYSIS Marijuana dispensaries have been established in several locations in California, and as a consequence, some local agencies have reported increases in illegal drug activity, illegal drug sales, robbery of persons leaving dispensaries, loitering around dispensaries, falsely obtaining 'identification cards' to qualify for medical marijuana, and other increases in criminal activity. As a result, such dispensaries would be inconsistent with the residential and village character of the Town. Further, several municipalities in Marin County have already banned medical marijuana dispensaries and the Town does not wish to find itself in a position to be one of the few or the only cities in the area where such dispensaries are not prohibited. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on June 11, 2014. The staff report for that meeting (Exhibit A) contains descriptions of the various amendments and their intended purposes. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit B. The staff report for that meeting including the following definition: Marijuana Dispensary. Any establishment, activity or use that involves making marijuana available for any purpose, including, without limitation, medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215). TOWN OF TffiuRON PAGE 1 OF 4 ToNrn Coundl Meeting Augusc20,2014 At that meeting, it was the consensus of the Commission that the definition of marijuana dispensaries was too broad and could unintentionally be interpreted to include uses or activities other than actual marijuana dispensary uses. The Commission also had concerns about extending this prohibition beyond "medical' marijuana dispensaries (which are allowable under state law) to include any other forms of marijuana dispensary (currently not allowable under state law, but that situation could change). The Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to the June 25, 2014 meeting. The Commission also requested that the Town Attorney be present at the continued hearing to answer questions about the proposed ordinance. At the June 25, 2014 meeting, staff presented a revised definition for marijuana dispensary which eliminated the term "establishment, activity or" from the proposed amendment. The Town Attorney answered questions from the Commission regarding the intent, definition origins and potential legal ramifications of the proposed ordinance. After substantial discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the revised text amendments to the Town Council. The motion failed on a 2 -3 vote (Kulik and Weller voting yes, Corcoran, Welner and Williams voting no) due to concerns that the ordinance was still too broad. The majority of the Commission believed that the prohibition should only apply to medical marijuana dispensaries and that it was premature and inappropriate to prohibit other marijuana dispensaries that are currently illegal. A subsequent motion was made to recommend approval of the text amendments, limiting the prohibition to medical marijuana dispensaries and using the definition of such dispensaries from a recent California Supreme Court case. The definition of "medical marijuana dispensaries" would be established by adding the following definition to Section 16- 100.020 (M): Medical Marijuana Dispensary. A facility where marijuana is made available for medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215). In order to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones, Section 16- 20.030 (4[a]) would be added to read as follows: 4. Prohibited uses. a. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones. The Commission then adopted Resolution No. 2014 -09 (Exhibit C) recommending approval of the amendments to the Town Council. Minutes of the June 25, 2014 meeting are attached as Exhibit D. OPTIONS The Town Council has several options available for an ordinance that addresses the issue of prohibiting marijuana dispensaries. The Council may follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt an ordinance that prohibits only medical marijuana dispensaries. If the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 Town Council Meeting. AUgLlSt Lt:. 2014 would include a definition of "marijuana dispensary" instead of "medical marijuana dispensary." In order to address the Planning Commission's concern that the originally proposed definition would be too broad, staff recommends that the term "establishment, activity or" be deleted so that the definition would read as follows: Marijuana Dispensary. Any use that involves making marijuana available for any purpose, including, without limitation, medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215). The term "use" is currently defined in the zoning ordinance as "the purpose for which a site or structure is arranged, designed, intended, constructed, erected, moved, or enlarged, or for which either a site or structure is or may be occupied or maintained." The terms "establishment" and "activity" are not currently defined in the zoning ordinance and were part of the Commission's concerns about overly -broad regulation. In addition, the new Section 16- 20.030 (4N) would be modified to read as follows: 4. Prohibited uses. a. Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones. Staff has prepared two ordinances for possible Town Council approval. The draft ordinance following the Planning Commission recommendation to prohibit only medical marijuana dispensaries is attached as Exhibit E. The draft ordinance that would prohibit all marijuana dispensaries is attached as Exhibit F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA under Section 15305 and on the basis that they have no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment by prohibiting a use from being established in Tiburon. No further environmental review is required. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, The Town has received letters from three residents supporting the proposed prohibition on marijuana dispensaries. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the proposed amendments; 2. Give direction regarding which version of the proposed ordinance should be adopted; and 3. Introduce the draft ordinance regarding the Zoning Ordinance amendments (Exhibit E or Exhibit F). The procedure would be to move to read by title only, TOWN OF TIBuRON PAGE 3 OF 4 Town Council Meeting August 20, 2014 waiving any additional reading, and introduce the ordinance amending Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. Pass the reading by roll call vote. If the first reading is passed, the ordinance will return for final adoption on a future consent calendar. I*►x:11o3_1M A. Planning Commission staff report dated June 11, 2014 B. Minutes of the June 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014 -09 D. Minutes of the June 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting E. Draft Ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries F. Draft Ordinance prohibiting marijuana dispensaries G. Letter from Fran Wilson, dated June 8, 2014 H. Letters from Lynn Fox, dated July 16 & 21, 2014 I. Letter from Roger Morgan, dated August 5, 2014 Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager S: MministrationlTmvn CounciMtaf%ReportsUO14L4ugust 2O DmftsWairjuana Dispensaries Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 2014 Agenda Item: 3 Subject: Consider Recommendation to the Town Council Regarding Amendments to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for the Purpose of Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in All Zones Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance does not currently contain any regulations regarding medical marijuana dispensaries. Acting on the direction of the Town Council, staff has prepared text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to define "medical marijuana dispensaries" and prohibit their establishment in all zones. F.WIF141613 6I Medical marijuana dispensaries have been established in several locations in California, and as a consequence, some local agencies have reported increases in illegal drug activity, illegal drug sales, robbery of persons leaving dispensaries, loitering around dispensaries, falsely obtaining 'identification cards' to qualify for medical marijuana, and other increases in criminal activity. Ac a result, such dispensaries would be inconsistent with the residential and village character of the Town. In order to prohibit the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in Tiburon, the following amendments are proposed to the text of the Zoning Ordinance: ARTICLE H (ZONES AND ALLOWABLE LAND USES) Section 16- 20.030 of the Zoning Ordinance (Allowable Land Uses and Zoning Permit Requirements) explains how to determine if a use is allowable in a particular zone, with references to ordinance sections that list allowable uses in different zones. This section also addresses the establishment of allowable uses and allowances for similar and compatible uses and states that uses not listed in the Zoning Ordinance are not allowed within the Town. This section does not contain any lists of uses that are specifically prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. In order to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones, Section 16- 20.030 (4[a]) would be added to read as follows: TOWN OF TrBURON EXHIBIT No. A PAGE 1 OF 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 14, 2014 4. Prohibited uses. a. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones. ARTICLE X (DEFINITIONS) 16 -100 Definitions The definition of "medical marijuana dispensaries" would be established by adding the following definition to Section 16- 100.020 (Mi): Medical Marijuana Dispensary. A facility where marijuana is made available for medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215). I Kim 1: 1 ►lu1 _.__ 1 ` The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA under Section 15305 and on the basis that they have no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment by prohibiting a use from being established in Tiburon. No further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Hold a public hearing and discuss the proposed text amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution (Exhibit 2) recommending approval of the text amendments to the Town Council. 1W4111.39V Draft Resolution Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager S:IPlanninglPlanning Commission LStaf %Reporrs120/4VLfay 14 meenngVdedical MarYuana Zoning Ordinance TW Amendmevmdoc TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO.= PAGE 2 OF 2 Commissioner Williams said after hearing these comments she thought that a two year review was not necessary. She confirmed with Mr. Watrous that if staff gets more than just one or two complaints that go unresolved, staff has the ability to schedule a review of the CUP. ACTION: It was WS (Kulik/Corcoran) to determine that the TPC is operating in substantial compliance with the requirements of their conditional use permit and to discontinue the current two -year review cycle. Motion carried: 4 -0. 2. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES Planning Manager Watrous stated the Tiburon zoning ordinance does not currently contain any regulations regarding marijuana dispensaries and at the direction of the Town Council from the Town Council /staff Retreat earlier this year, staff prepared text amendments to the zoning ordinance that would address this. The amendments would specifically prohibit marijuana dispensaries in all zones and add a definition of marijuana dispensaries to the zoning ordinance. Staff recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing, discuss the proposed text amendments and adopt the resolution recommending approval of the amendments to the Town Council. Vice Chair Welner asked staff to describe in more detail the genesis of this item. Mr. Watrous explained that the Town Council and staff hold an annual retreat where there is discussion about different topics that may be considered for staff direction for future actions. At the most recent retreat this was listed on the agenda and after some discussion, the Council felt it was appropriate to take it up as a potential municipal code amendment. Staff reviewed the direction and felt that the most appropriate approach was to deal with amendments in the zoning ordinance. Director of Community Development Anderson added that there were other reasons that this has been moved forward at this time. He cited a recent court case which clarified that municipalities can prohibit marijuana dispensaries. He noted that the Council observed that most other communities in Marin have already banned such dispensaries, and when people start looking where it is still possible, the Town would become more attractive for that purpose. The Town Council did not want this as a possibility. He stated that although it would seem simple to say that because the zoning ordinance does not "authorize" a use in a particular zone it is therefore not allowed; this approach had not stopped dispensaries from popping up in other parts of Marin County. He said that it is always safer to explicitly prohibit a particular use that the Town does not want, rather than remain silent on the issue, and therefore the Council wanted to take a more preemptive approach to dealing with the issue and avoid the possibility of having to go to court to defend its ability to keep such uses out of the Town. Commissioner Williams said it is her understanding that the retreat was open to the public and she asked for a sense of the public's or business's sentiments on the issue. Mr. Watrous said that the avenue for public comment was intended for these hearings and not at the retreat, although the retreat was open to the public. EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1045 PAGE 4 Vice Chair Welner opened the public comment period. Fran Wilson cited a Marin IJ article that she and her husband Barry agreed was the best explanation of why they did not want a dispensary in Tiburon. She said that she was happy that the issue was brought up at the retreat and hoped that the Commission will recommend its approval of the amendments. Vice Chair Welner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Corcoran thought that the narrow issue before the Commission was that if all other communities in Marin have banned the dispensaries, was it reasonable that Tiburon should ban them as well? Commissioner Williams said that dispensaries are not consistent with the General Plan policies regarding the Town's village character or vision. She said since other towns have banned this particular use, Tiburon is susceptible to these types of requests and she appreciated the need to preempt that possibility. She had concerns about access because medical marijuana is legal and if every town is banning it, she asked how people who need it get access to it, but there is online access for those who legitimately need it. She stated that these uses were not consistent with the vision for the Town and supported the proposed ban. Commissioner Kulik agreed about the narrow scope of what was before the Commission. In addition to the points in the Marin IJ article and the extension of what is happening in other communities that could happen in Tiburon, he noted that the disconnect between the state and federal laws leads this to this being a cash business and the confluence of large amounts of cash and drugs would be inconsistent with the village character of Tiburon. He said that the Commission would be carrying out the will of the elected officials of this town which can be extended to residents of the Town and he supported the ordinance as drafted. Vice Chair Welner said that he supported the ordinance on narrow grounds. He thought that it was consistent with the General Plan and would preserve the character of the community. He characterized the state of regulating cannabis as complex and confusing. He noted that every other medicine is available through pharmacies, yet cannabis is only available through these special dispensaries that have associated problems, so he thought that this was an appropriate ordinance to recommend to the Council. Commissioner Corcoran suggested revising the definition section as he believed that it was too broad and could unintentionally encompass something someone does in their own private home. Vice Chair Welner asked staff if the term "commercial" might be used and confirmed with Mr. Anderson that the Town Attorney drafted the wording after reviewing several sources. Mr. Watrous suggested that the Commission could recommend that the Town Council consider adding "to the public" after the word "available" or possibly add the term "commercial EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1045 PAGE 5 establishment" and the Town Council and Town Attorney could weigh in on this revision prior to Town Council action. Vice Chair Weiner said this is actually a significant enough issue where the Commission may wish to have the Town Attorney arrive at the suggested language for the Commission to consider before making the recommendation. Mr. Watrous said that the Commission could also identify its concerns, make the suggested amendments, and the Town Attorney can weigh in on this before going to the Council. Commissioner Corcoran voiced support with this direction, as the Town Attorney had likely researched what other towns have used. Vice Chair Weiner commented that nothing in this language would in any way criminalize any activity that is already either criminal or not criminal, as this was merely a zoning amendment that had to do with a use. Commissioner Corcoran suggested adding "to the public" to the definition, but was concerned about how some dispensaries operate as private clubs. Mr. Watrous recommending approval of the ordinance to the Town Council with direction to make sure that the definition language was not over broad and to avoid covering individual use in private residences. Commissioner Williams asked if this would encompass online distribution for medical marijuana. Mr. Anderson said that the Town's zoning only applies to territory within their corporate limits. He noted that if the Commission's motion would lock the Council into specific language and they decide to change it, it must be referred back to the Planning Commission before it goes back to the Council, but if the Commission follows the path laid out by Mr. Watrous, it would not have to be referred back to the Commission in case the Council decides on different wording not previously considered by the Commission. Vice Chair Weiner said that one of the meanings of this definition of "any activity that involves making marijuana available for any purpose" could potentially include walking into a house with marijuana, so he felt that the language was over broad. Mr. Watrous said that staff could pass along this concern as part of the recommendation to the Council. Vice Chair Weiner stated that marijuana dispensaries are defined in state statute. Mr. Anderson indicated that medical marijuana dispensaries are defined, but marijuana dispensaries in general for purposes other than medical are not defined in state law. Vice Chair Weiner said that the one legal way to distribute marijuana in the state is through a medical marijuana dispensary and he did not think that there was a need for a zoning ban on something that already violates state law. Mr. Anderson said that the agenda item originally advertised to be heard by the Commission was limited to medical marijuana dispensaries, but was pulled off the agenda upon closer examination of direction from the Council stemming from the Council -Staff retreat, He said that the Council discussed banning all dispensary functions in case there are changes to the law that would legalize broader use of marijuana than currently exists. He noted again that this was a pre- emptive step by the Town that might retain its validity unless future state law changes completely pre -empt local regulations, which may or may not occur. EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.- JUNE 11, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1045 PAGE 6 Vice Chair Weiner said that any number of future changes could happen but he felt that a Town ordinance should only plug holes that may exist in existing law. He said that he would be open to broadening the definition to match any new legislation that might be passed in Sacramento. Mr. Watrous said that the Commission could recommend that the Town Council limit the ordinance to medical marijuana facilities. Vice Chair Weiner said that unless there was a specific time constraint the item should be continued for further explanation of the definition and he asked if the Town Attorney could be invited to attend the meeting. Mr. Watrous said that staff would have to check on her availability. Commissioner Kulik asked if the Town Attorney worked on this ordinance using language from other towns. Mr. Anderson said that he was unsure about the precise origin or sources of the definition that the Town Attorney had crafted. Vice Chair Weiner asked for a comparison between the language in the draft ordinance and the previous version relating to medical marijuana dispensaries. Mr. Anderson said that medical marijuana dispensary is defined in the Health and Safety Code Section and by Proposition 215 and the Town Attorney lifted the definition right out of state law. He said that the definition before the Commission tonight was an attempt to cover all marijuana dispensaries and not just the medical dispensaries. Vice Chair Weiner recommended an option to recommend that the Town Council approve an ordinance covering medical marijuana dispensaries only. He added that the Town Council can decide what they want to do regardless of what the Planning Commission recommends. Commissioner Corcoran said that if the Commission continues this to another meeting, he would request that the Town Attorney either be at the meeting or provide a memorandum that provides more rationale behind the definition language. He did not feel comfortable recommending this to the Town Council because there were too many open questions. Commissioner Kulik acknowledged that the Town Council directed that the language be modified to what is before the Commission and given other Commissioners' preference, he would be fine in continuing the hearing. Commissioner Williams said that the Commission might be able to come up with language that is not ambiguous and then prepare a recommendation. Mr. Watrous said that due to the technical legal nature of this issue staff would be comfortable explaining the Commission's concerns and then relying on the Town Attorney to craft the language that addresses those concerns rather than having a definition cobbled together through discussion. Commissioner Corcoran reiterated that the concern was that this definition was too broad and would encompass activity beyond what it is aiming to do away with, which is a dispensary. Vice Chair Weiner added that he does not think it makes any sense for the Town to define a prohibited use that violates state law. EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1045 PAGE 7 Commissioner Corcoran added that he would want to have the Town Attorney explain where the language came from and whether it has been used in other municipalities. W. Anderson recommended that the Commission continue this item to June 25, 2014 and if this does not work because of the Town Attorney's schedule, the item will automatically be continued to the first regular meeting in July. ACTION: It was WS (Corcoran/Williams) to continue the item to the June 25, 2014 meeting. Motion carried: 4 -0 NEW BUSINESS 3. REVIEW OF PROPOSED REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; PORTION OF 2 -98 NED'S WAY FOR FEE ACQUISITION; PORTION OF 35 LYFORD DRIVE FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT PURPOSES; Assessor Parcel Nos. 058- 460 -26 and 058- 301 -38 Mr. Anderson referred to the staff report and said the Town is currently in the process of acquiring two "real property" interests, one a fee title interest and the other an easement interest, on land located within the Town's corporate limits. This item is the Planning Commission's "general plan consistency" review of the proposed acquisition of these two real property interests. The first proposed acquisition would be a fee title acquisition a 200 square foot triangle of land that is part of the Chandlers Gate condominium development "common area ", located at 2 -98 Ned's Way, for purposes of constructing a public pedestrian pathway that would connect from Reed Elementary School to the Dairy Knoll Recreation Facility. The second would be the acquisition of an approximately 250 foot long non- exclusive easement for public drainage purposes over residential property located at 35 Lyford Drive. Staff believes that these acquisitions are consistent with the General Plan and recommended taking public comment and finding the proposed acquisitions to be consistent with the General Plan. Vice Chair Welner opened the public comment period. Fran Wilson asked and staff confirmed that the Chandlers Gate condominium development owners approved the sale of the parcel to the Town by a vote of 22 -1. Vice Chair Welner closed the public comment period. Commissioner Kulik expressed his support for both acquisitions in that they appeared consistent with the General Plan. The Chandlers Gate acquisition would provide the most direct route to Dairy Knoll. He thought that this would be a safe path with stairs, pavement and improved areas and, given the vote of the homeowners association to endorse this, he fully supported it. Commissioner Williams said that the Ned's Way parcel acquisition seems consistent with the General Plan. She said that safe passage of children and the need for connectivity of trails makes a lot of sense. She voiced support of both acquisitions. EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1045 PAGE 8' RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was published in the Ark newspaper on May 28, 2014 and other noticing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold duly noticed and advertised public hearings on June 11, 2014 and June 25, 2014 and considered any testimony received during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the "general rule ", pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and are consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendments as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A", entitled "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) to Ban Marijuana Dispensaries." PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on June 25, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT NO. G TIEURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 JUNE 25, 2014 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corcoran, Kulik, Weller, Welner, Williams NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None LOU WELLER, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING) Attachment: Exhibit "A" EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 JUNE 25, 2014 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1046 June 25, 2014 Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Weller called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: Chair Lou Weller; Vice Chair Jon Welner (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Commissioners John Corcoran, David Kulik, & Erica Williams Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Community Development Scott Anderson and Town Attorney Ann Danforth ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director of Community Development Anderson reported that the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by Commission in July. The Town has received a letter from HCD stating that if the Element is adopted in its current form, HCD will certify it as being in compliance with state law. Anderson also noted stated that at a recent meeting, the Planning Commission - recommended approval of Precise Plan Amendments regarding the Kahn subdivision and the Parente Vista subdivision were considered and approved by the Town Council. I-Wrraprej : L c_ ,_ IQ M'� 1. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES (Continued From June 11, 2014) Director of Community Development Anderson gave the verbal staff report, stating that at the Commission's last meeting, it held a public hearing on this matter and expressed concerns that the definition of marijuana dispensaries as put forth in the draft ordinance was perhaps too broad and could unintentionally be interpreted to include issues or activities other than actual marijuana dispensary type uses. The Commission also had concerns about a possible preventive action on the part of the Town to expand the prohibition beyond medical marijuana dispensaries to all EXHIBIT NO.. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 1 forms of marijuana dispensaries. He said that the Commission voted to continue the item and requested the Town Attorney be present to answer any questions. Mr. Anderson indicated that in an attempt to address the over - broadness issue that had been raised at the last meeting, staff proposed a revision to the definition of marijuana dispensary that removed the words "establishment" and "activity" and simply left "use," which is what zoning ordinances traditionally regulate. However, he said that staff was unable to address the issue of whether the ordinance was a bit of an overreach in essentially assuming that the state might someday adopt laws that would legalize more than "medical" marijuana use. He recommended that the Commission seek any appropriate clarifications from the Town Attorney, hold the public hearing, and then adopt the attached resolution, making whatever revisions or amendments the Commission deemed appropriate. Chair Weller noted that Commissioner Welner had arrived and was noted present at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Corcoran said the Commission had a question as to whether the draft ordinance language was modeled on ordinances from other towns or cities that have banned either medical marijuana dispensaries or marijuana dispensaries. Town Attorney Ann Danforth stated that originally the language came from the City of Riverside ordinance, which had been recently validated by the state Supreme Court, but that ordinance only addressed medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that to the best of her knowledge there are no ordinances in California that ban all marijuana dispensaries. She stated her understanding that the Council directed staff to broaden the definition because of the strong possibility that marijuana will become a legalized substance in California in the not too distant future. Commissioner Corcoran questioned the inclusion of the term "use" in the ordinance and felt that this seemed even broader than the way the previously proposed ordinance would have read. Ms. Danforth understood this concern but believed that the revised definition was more focused. She asked the Commission to bear in mind that this would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance and would not regulate individual activity, as the zoning ordinance regulates what sorts of uses that may be allowed in particular zones. She stated that just as the Town could forbid a saloon without forbidding people from offering drinks in their private home, she thought that there has to be some way to forbid regular, routine, non - social distribution of marijuana. She said that staff has not seen another model ordinance that would strictly and specifically separate out social use and sharing of these substances from more commercial, regular business - oriented uses, but she said that it is perfectly pemussible for a town to adopt an ordinance like this and then interpret it in such a way that it is limited in its scope. Commissioner Corcoran asked what ordinances the other towns and cities in Marin passed as far as banning marijuana or medical marijuana dispensaries. Ms. Danforth said that Fairfax currently allows medical marijuana dispensaries but the cities of Larkspur, Mill Valley, San Rafael and Sausalito, at a minimum, have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that she was not aware of any city that has banned all marijuana dispensaries, but, unlike a year or two ago, it might be plausible that the State of California will in fact legalize distribution and sale of marijuana. She said that the question would then become whether the Town was interested in banning those uses as well. KXHIBIT NO.__ - TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25; 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 2 Commissioner Williams said that she understands that the zoning ordinance would be applied rationally and also appreciated the desire to use terms from the definitions found in the zoning ordinance. She suggested a definition that included the words, "any business, industry or commercial use that involves making marijuana available" to refer to commercial use as opposed to the broader use that seems to be problematic to Commissioners. She said that medical marijuana facilities are not always for profit, but she does not know enough about how they operate and thought that this could be built into the definition. She agreed with Commissioner Corcoran that there still seems to be some ambiguity in the ordinance language. Ms. Danforth said in the nature of zoning ordinances, if someone happens to be weaving in their home, a municipality would not characterize the use of their home as a textile plant. She said that the use would still be defined as residential and if they are weaving for their own private enjoyment, there is nothing to be said. However, if someone is weaving and selling or carrying on some kind of operation, they might need a home occupation permit to the extent the activity is allowed at all. She did not think that the proposed ordinance would involve the person who is in some sort of non - commercial situation using and sharing marijuana with friends. She noted again that "use" implies that something that is a very significant component of what the property is being devoted to and not something incidental to the primary use. Commissioner Williams stated that it appears that the ordinance would not be applied to criminalize use in a person's home. Ms. Danforth clarified that right now if someone is in a house that is designated for residential use, the person is not supposed to be buying or selling anything without some kind of permit or providing services for revenue. She said that the primary use of the house is residential and if a business activity occurs, the person needs to apply for a permit for that. These types of use restrictions pertain to the primary allowed or conditional use of the property. She said that if a use is not explicitly allowed in the zoning ordinance but is not prohibited either, someone may request a conditional use permit, but this ordinance would let people know not to bother applying for a CUP because the use is not allowed in Tiburon. Director Anderson added that many of the dispensaries that were established in Marin County came in under the banner of "selling herbs or spices" and failed to mention the fact that they sold marijuana when they filed for whatever permits they needed. Based on those types of representations, the local agency often issued a business license and then had to go to court to have the dispensaries shut down after the fact. He said that this was the type of situation the Town would try to avoid with a broader ordinance. Commissioner Williams said that regarding the broader ban on all marijuana dispensaries, she did not find a definition in the Health and Safety Code for medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that she was initially troubled at the first hearing because the ordinance seemed to overreach because non - medical dispensaries are already illegal. She understood that the Town Council was trying to be ahead of the curve and anticipate changes and to be ahead of people who may be poised to file an application. Ms. Danforth agreed and said that if state law were changed to legalize an activity that his currently illegal and then the next day someone submits an application, municipalities frequently find themselves having to justify an urgency ordinance that adopts a moratorium. She said that it is more defensible for the Town to have something on the books via a conventional ordinance before any applications are filed. EXIIIBIT NO TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 3 Commissioner Welner said that Ms. Danforth has done an excellent job of fixing the definition to achieve the stated goals of the Town Council as conveyed to the Planning Commission by staff. However, he thought that it was inappropriate to extend the ordinance beyond what is currently legal. He stated that when the Commission previously discussed this item, one of the stated rationales for passing this ordinance was that the Commission was told that many of the other municipalities in Marin had passed bans and Tiburon did not want to be one of the few places with availability. He thinks that it was significant that all the other municipalities have banned medical marijuana dispensaries that are currently legal in California and he was willing to support that, but said that he would vote against a broader zoning ordinance that speculates about possible future state regulations. He thought that the Town would have plenty of time to adapt its zoning ordinance if there is a change at the state level. He said that he would be willing to support an amended version that uses the medical marijuana definition but opposed a broader ordinance. Commissioner Kulik asked if the broader ordinance would lessen the Town's exposure to litigation. Ms. Danforth said that she would never say the Town would totally avoid exposure to litigation by adopting this sort of regulation because litigation can be filed by anyone for a relatively small fee. She stated that the Council, at its retreat, directed staff to propose this broader ban because they were concerned that the Town might get an application more quickly than they could get an ordinance adopted and into effect through the normal process. She said that a legal vulnerability would be created if the Town has to conduct an urgency process for a ban in order to head off an application that has already been filed. She said that the Town could still be subject to a lawsuit, but its defensive posture would not be as strong without a prohibition already in place. Commissioner Kulik asked the Town Attorney how she viewed the Town Council's intent with the original language and this subsequent language. Ms. Danforth said that during the Council retreat she prepared a presentation on medical marijuana dispensaries. She said that the ability of cities to regulate and ban medical marijuana dispensaries has finally become clear and she put that option before the Council. When the Council started discussing her presentation and talking through what they actually wanted to do, the Council expressed interest in a broader ban because by the time of the retreat, Colorado had already legalized marijuana and recent polls suggested that California voters would also support a lifting of the criminal ban, and the trend is growing to legalize more types of marijuana use. She said that the Council did not want any kind of marijuana shop opening up in Town. She said that staff began with the definition of medical marijuana dispensaries considered by the California Supreme Court and then when they spoke with the Mayor, staff developed the broader definition. Commissioner Kulik asked Ms. Danforth to speak about the pre - emption for something not currently legal to do. Ms. Danforth said that from her point of view, pre - emption was the wrong term, as pre- emption in the law means that a higher body of law basically invalidates or shoves aside a lower body of law. For example, if the state enacted a law that said municipalities must allow marijuana dispensaries everywhere, that law would override any ban the Town might have and would be a true pre - emption. She said that it is legal for the Town to ban something currently illegal but that might become legal down the line. She stated that the Town has broad police power. Commissioner Kulik asked if this more or less came down to a local government EXHIBIT NO.� TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 4 decision like banning a brothel. Ms. Danforth concurred, but noted that she has not seen any move to legalize brothels, while there has been a considerable amount of advocacy to legalize cannabis use. She emphasized that the proposed ordinance takes no position on the actual use of cannabis but would prevent an enterprise for the buying, selling or exchanging marijuana from opening up in Tiburon's small village -like community. Commissioner Kulik asked Ms. Danforth why no other municipality has adopted a ban this broad. Ms. Danforth said that most bans were adopted a couple of years ago and the landscape has changed. She noted that since then Colorado has legalized marijuana, there was a state -wide proposition to legalize recreational use of marijuana that failed, and in the last year the poll numbers supporting changes to marijuana laws have shifted. She reiterated that it was the Council's direction to staff that this ban be broadened. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke and Chair Weller closed the public hearing. Chair Weller stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Welner and had initially shared Commissioner Corcoran's concern with regard to the scope of the ordinance. He did not think that there was much question about the appropriateness of adopting a medical marijuana dispensary ban. He believed that the point Council made about what the Town will face if marijuana is legalized was exactly the reason to adopt a broader ban and he would much rather be in a position of having the ability to say "no" to any kind of commercial sale that may become legal. He felt that this seemed to be the more appropriate approach to dealing with an activity which is currently illegal where the consequences of making it legal are unknown. He said that if the Town only banned what is currently legal and did not deal with what is currently illegal it could face having to use extraordinary measures and not be able to appropriately deal with the issue when and if marijuana becomes legal. He said that he would rather be in the position of having this kind of ordinance on the books with the possibility that they would consider modification if the appropriate case was made at that time. He was satisfied that having been a lawyer for 35 years that this approach was appropriate for this community and he favored the ordinance as modified. Commissioner Corcoran said that he agreed with Commissioner Welner. He said that the Town is not going to ban meth or cocaine dispensaries as these drugs are illegal as well. He noted that state law changes all the time and when it does, the Town can make changes to its laws. He said that if the state or a ballot measure was to legalize marijuana he was sure that there would be a period of time built in when local municipalities can make decisions on their regulations. He felt that the use language is subject to interpretation or is at least ambiguous and that the revised ordinance language reads as a broader ban than just of marijuana dispensaries. He believed that the much simpler thing to do would be to just ban medical marijuana dispensaries which are defined in the state code. Commissioner Williams said that she found the Commissioners' comments very persuasive and she was a bit undecided. She wished that the Commission could find a more clear and simple definition and she has looked at other definitions from other towns that seem to be much shorter and clearer. She did not feel that she had what she needed to make an informed decision. Her instinct would be to have the Town deal with the issue in the future if state law is changed, as EXHIBIT NO.� TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 5 that would be the more appropriate time to deal with the issue. She said that she was inclined to support the broader ban but was still troubled by the definition as she finds it problematic. Chair Weller said that although it is instructive to hear what the Town Council might have indicated at the retreat, the Commission's role is independent and it should decide what it believes is in the Town's best interest as far as the zoning ordinance, and make that recommendation to the Town Council. He concluded that it is not all unlikely that the Town would face a need to deal with this issue in the future and that persuaded him that being somewhat pre - emptive on the topic is a better approach than having to face it later. Commissioner Welner thought that it was not very plausible that the state would pass this legislation and there would be an emergency situation with people opening dispensaries and the Town would not have time to deal with it. He said that both the Planning Commission and the Council have the opportunity to decide what is in character with the General Plan and zoning. He felt that this was more of a political statement opposing cannabis and he did not feel that this is the Commission's purpose and he did not support that kind of change to the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kulik said that his concern was trying to derive the intent of the Town Council as the representatives for the Town in terms of setting policies and determining village character and compliance with the General Plan. He said that he would take the advice of the Town Attorney to adopt this as a measure of limiting exposure to litigation. He can easily see that there might be a rush to request these uses in the Town if personal or non - medical marijuana use was legalized. He agreed with Chair Weller and the Town Attorney that it is preferable to have a zoning position in place. MOTION: It was M/S (Kulik/Weller) to adopt the resolution recommending approval of the ordinance to the Town Council. The motion failed by a vote of 2 -3: (Ayes: Kulik and Weller; Noes: Corcoran, Welner and Williams). Commissioner Welner suggested revising all references to marijuana dispensary to medical marijuana dispensary. Chair Weller suggested a motion to prohibit marijuana dispensaries in all zones, and revise the definition to include a reference to the definition of medical marijuana under the Health and Safety Code. He asked if medical marijuana dispensary was a defined term under state law. Ms. Danforth said that making marijuana available for medical purposes is defined more narrowly in the Health and Safety Code and was referenced in the original ordinance definition. She said that if it was the Commission's intent to recommend of adoption of the ban solely as it applies to medical marijuana, she would recommend going back to the definition previously presented to the Commission in full, because this is the California Supreme Court's language. Commissioner Welner said the rest of the resolution should be changed so that wherever it states "marijuana dispensary" should read "medical marijuana dispensary." EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 6 Commissioner Kulik asked if the Commission were to vote in favor of this new proposal if it was possible to qualify it with a position that the broader definition was not supported. Director Anderson confirmed that Town Council will be reading the minutes closely and will learn that the recommendation for a "broader ban" ordinance was rejected on a 2 to 3 vote. Commissioner Kulik said that he was in favor of the broader ban but would like to do something that insulates the Town from litigation and is in compliance with the General Plan and consistent with the nature of the Town's village character. ACTION: It was M/S /C (Welner /Corcoran) to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the ordinance, using the definition of medical marijuana dispensary upheld by the state Supreme Court, and making all necessary associated changes to reflect the narrower scope of the ordinance. The motion carried by a 5 -0 vote. Director Anderson suggested moving the minutes up on the agenda and the Chairman consented. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 11, 2014 Commissioner Corcoran requested the following amendment: Page 5, 4a' paragraph: "Commissioner Corcoran thought that the narrow issue before the Commission was that if all other communities in Marin have banned the dispensaries, was it it was reasonable that Tiburon should ban them as well ?" ACTION: It was M/S (Williams /Corcoran) to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting, as amended. Motion carried: 5 -0. NEW BUSINESS 2. CONTINUING EDUCATION: PLANNING COMMISSIONER OVERVIEW PRESENTATION: The Commission Will Receive a Slide Presentation from Staff Covering Various Aspects of Planning Commissioner Duties and Responsibilities At 8:25 p.m., Director Anderson gave a Power Point presentation for continuing education purposes for the Planning Commission. EXHIBIT NO.� TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2014 - MINUTES NO. 1046 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION - RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. _ N. S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) TO BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A. Medical Marijuana dispensaries as allowed by Proposition 215 have been established in several locations in California, and as a consequence, some local agencies have reported increases in illegal drug activity, illegal drug sales, robbery of persons leaving dispensaries, loitering around dispensaries, falsely obtaining 'identification cards' to qualify for medical marijuana, and other increases in criminal activity. B. On June 25, 2014, following public hearings held on that date and on June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014 -09 recommending to the Town Council that the Council adopt an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries in the Town of Tiburon as being inconsistent with the residential and village character of the Town. B. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2014 and has heard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. D. The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. F. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the "general rule ", pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE. Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall be amended as follows: (A) Section 16- 20.030(4)(a) is hereby added as follows: I XHIBIT NQ. Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. N.S. Effective —/—/2014 1 4. Prohibited uses. a. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones. (B) The following definition is hereby added to Section 16- 100.020(M): Medical Marijuana Dispensary. A facility where marijuana is made available for medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215). SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the Town shall publish a copy of the ordinance, with the names of the members voting for and against it, at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on the 20th day of August, 2014, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on the 3rd day of September, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT N0._r....- Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. N.S. Effective —/—/2014 ALTERNATE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. N. S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) TO BAN MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A. Medical Marijuana dispensaries as allowed by Proposition 215 have been established in several locations in California, and as a consequence, some local agencies have reported increases in illegal drug activity, illegal drug sales, robbery of persons leaving dispensaries, loitering around dispensaries, falsely obtaining 'identification cards' to qualify for medical marijuana, and other increases in criminal activity. B. On June 25, 2014, following public hearings held on that date and on June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014 -09 recommending to the Town Council that the Council adopt an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries in the Town of Tiburon as being inconsistent with the residential and village character of the Town. B. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2014 and has heard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. D. The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. F. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the "general rule ", pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE. Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall be amended as follows: (A) Section 16- 20.030(4)(a) is hereby added as follows: EXHIBIT N0. Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. N.S. Effective —/—/2014 1 4. Prohibited uses. a. Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones. (B) The following definition is hereby added to Section 16- 100.020(M): Marijuana Dispensary. Any use that involves making marijuana available for any purpose, including, without limitation, medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215). SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the Town shall publish a copy of the ordinance, with the names of the members voting for and against it, at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on the 20"' day of August, 2014, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on the 3d day of September, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. i- Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. N. S. Effective —/—/2014 Dan Watrous From: Fran Wilson [fhwilfly @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 12:38 PM To: Erica Williams; David /Katie Kulik Cc: Dan Watrous Subject: Prohibition of marijuana dispensaries Just wanted to let you know I am in complete agreement with the proposed amendment regarding the definition and prohibition of marijuana dispensaries in Tiburon. I am happy that someone realized we should be ahead of the curve on these before they rent space - -or perhaps they already tried! Thanks to both of you for being there! Fran Wilson 1990 Centro West EXHIBIT NO.� Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:52 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: Re: Marijuana dependence alters the brain's response to drug paraphernalia Let's have lunch soon. Lynn Sent from my Tad On Jul 16, 2014, at 9:45 AK Peggy Curran <ncurran(@townoftiburon.ore> wrote: Thanks, Limn. I'll send that to Council for their information. The marijuana ordinance is now expected to be on the .August 20 agenda rather than August 6 due to the absence of a councilmember. Best Peggy Margaret A. (Peggy) Curran Town Manager, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon CA 94920 1 415.435.7383 From: Lynn Fox rmailto:foxlynnCulmac.conn Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:25 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: Fwd: Marijuana dependence alters the brain's response to drug paraphernalia FYI This is an interesting new study which shows that marijuana users exposed to drug - related clues have an intense desire to seek out drugs. Although the primary object of the study was drug paraphernalia, it can be safely assumed that the proliferation of pot stores, pot advertisements, and exposure to others using marijuana will have the same impact. EXHIBIT N0. When we create a society that is awash in drug - related messages, it attracts new users, encourages current users, and promotes additional use by triggering a desire to use drugs. For those people trying to avoid drugs, this is a tremendous burden and impediment to healthy living. Monte Marijuana dependence alters the brain's response to drug paraphernalia New research from The University of Texas at Dallas demonstrates that drug paraphernalia triggers the reward areas of the brain differently in dependent and non - dependent marijuana users. The study, published July 1 in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, demonstrated that different areas of the brain activated when dependent and non - dependent users were exposed to drug - related cues. The 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. According to a 2013 survey from the Pew Research Center, 48 percent of Americans ages 18 and older have tried marijuana. The National Institute on Drug Abuse states that 9 percent of daily users will become dependent on marijuana. "We know that people have a hard time staying abstinent because seeing cues for the drug use triggers this intense desire to seek out the drugs," said Dr. Francesca Filbey, lead author of the study and professor at the Center for BrainHealth in the School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. "That's a clinically validated phenomenon and behavioral studies have also shown this to be the case. What we didn't know was what was driving those effects in the brain." To find this effect, Filbey and colleagues conducted brain - imaging scans, called functional magnetic resonance imaging (DARI), on 71 participants who regularly used marijuana. Just more than half of those were classified as dependent users. While being scanned, the participants were given either a used marijuana pipe or a pencil of approximately the same size that they could see and feel. A comparison of the images revealed that the nucleus accumbens, the reward region in the brain, was activated in all users in response to the pipe. However, the strengths of the connections with other areas differed between dependent and non- dependent users. z EXHIBIT NO.® {P_ 2 vi =� "We found that the reward network is actually being driven by other areas unrelated to reward, like the areas in memory and attention or emotion," Filbey said. Non - dependent users showed greater activations in the orbital frontal cortex and hippocampus, suggesting that memory and attention were connected to the activation of the reward network. Dependent users had greater activations in the amygdala and anterior cingulate gyrus, suggesting a more emotional connection. Additionally, the areas of the brain activated resemble areas activated for other addictions, such as nicotine or cocaine, lending greater support to the addictiveness of marijuana. These findings suggest that marijuana abuse intervention needs to cater more specifically to a user's level of addiction. "Clinicians treating people with problems with marijuana dependence should consider the different processes that trigger the reward response when determining possible pharmacological or behavioral interventions," Filbey said. http: / /www.bio- medicine.or2 /medicine- news -1 /Marijuana- dependence - alters -the- brains - response -to- drug - paraphernalia- 128008 -1/ EXHIBIT NO. H P. 3 op- Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:02 PM To: Peggy Curran Subject: Fwd: Brain abnormalities in marijuana users Peggy, You may wish to look at Dr. Daniel Amen's work of 30 years. He has done over 80,000 brain scans. You can go to my website: www.powerfulparentine.com (front page) and click on Myths about MJ and see Amen's photo of an adolescent brain MJ user. My best, Lynn Just what we need - less brain power, poor decision making skills, and a lack of motivation - a foolproof recipe for a healthy society. Please note this phrase: "the toxic effect of THC at a critical period of brain maturation" Monte Magnetic Resonance Imaging study finds brain abnormalities in regular marijuana users People who regularly use marijuana show significant abnormalities in areas of the brain associated with motivation and emotion, a team of Swiss researchers has found. The scientists discovered changes in the volume of gray matter — the tissue containing brain cells — in regular marijuana users compared with occasional ones. Marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, is associated with various cognitive impairments. Animal studies have uncovered structural changes in brain regions rich in EXMI BIT NO.� cannabinoid CB 1 receptors, but little is known about how the drug affects the structure of the human brain. In their study of 47 marijuana users, which was published in Neuropsychopharmacology, the researchers used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology to compare the brains of regular and occasional users. Regular users smoked a joint at least 10 times a month, ,vhile occasional users smoked at least one joint per month but not more than one joint per week. "Brain structure changes were investigated in a group of regular cannabis smokers and compared with a group of occasional smokers enrolled in our previous functional study," the researchers wrote. `'The subjects in the two groups did not use any drug other than cannabis and were free from psychiatric disorders. We then stratified the two groups according to the age of first cannabis use in order to assess the effect of cannabis on the developing brain." In some brain regions, the regular users showed decreased gray matter compared to occasional users, while in other regions the regular users showed increased gray matter. The researchers found lower gray matter volume in regular marijuana users in the medial temporal cortex, temporal pole, parahippocampal gyrus, left insula, and orbitofrontal cortex. These brain regions are associated with decision making, emotion, and motivation. Changes to the insula "have also been confirmed in alcohol addiction where the decrease in insular activation seems to reflect an inability to switch from interoceptive cravings to cognitive control for suppressing internal needs," the researchers explained. The researchers found higher gray matter volume in regular marijuana users in the cerebellum — the brain's motor control center.The finding suggests that marijuana use could impair the normal "pruning back" of nerve cells in the cerebellum during adolescence and early adulthood. "One possible reason for abnormal pruning could be the toxic effect of THC at a critical period of brain maturation," the researchers explained. "Exogenous cannabinoids might disturb this system by competing for the receptors, thus inhibiting the pruning particularly in receptor -rich areas like the cerebellum or the prefrontal cortex." EXHIBIT NO. I f P, Or'/ A similar brain imaging study, published in The Journal of Neuroscience, found the nucleus accumbens of marijuana users was abnormally large compared to non - users. Some studies have found the brain abnormalities associated with marijuana use return to normal after periods of abstinence. The Swiss scientists called for longitudinal studies to better understand these brain changes. "The design of our study cannot address whether the structural alterations observed are permanent or reversible," they wrote. http: / /www.psypost.orz /2014 /07lmasnetic- resonance - imagine study -fmds- brain- abnormalities- re ar- marijuana- users -26679 EXHIBIT Nib. Nf P, G C) P 7 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:58 PM Subject: Bad Science: The Marijuana Experiment Has Failed FYI: eye opening. Craziness all around us. From: Monte Stiles <monte(almontestiles.com> In the wake of the $26.3 billion dollar tobacco lawsuit, John Walters and David Murray have presented another insightful article on the marijuana "experiment." Monte Bad Science: The Marijuana Experiment Has Failed John P. Walters & David W. Murray A jury in Florida has awarded the staggering sum of $26.3 billion dollars in punitive damages to plaintiffs in a case against cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds. The holding in the case was that plaintiffs needed no more than to show that the substance was known by the sellers to be addictive and to cause damage to health. Sort of like marijuana, which is similarly known to medical science to be addictive, and to cause damage to health. It seems paradoxical that in states such as Colorado and Washington, under suspensions of federal law facilitated by the Obama Administration, marijuana production and sales are being encouraged, at the same time that tobacco products are being, quite properly, suppressed. Apparently, voters were convinced to do so by the lure of potential tax revenue from distributing a known dangerous and addictive smoked substance. Recent research shows that high - school kids are more likely today to smoke marijuana than to initiate tobacco use. The world turned upside down. E -HIBIT NQ. H P. `7 or 5 Legalization advocates routinely misread this fact of less tobacco use. They hold that kids use more marijuana because it's illegal, while tobacco, being regulated, can be controlled. (We'll see how "controlled" in a moment.) Their conclusion is that marijuana should be regulated like tobacco. But tobacco was already regulated back when teen -age cigarette use was high. That can't be the variable that explains its decline. Rather, we raised perceptions of health risks and norms of social disapproval against tobacco. It became unfashionable. We increasingly criminalized use in public areas. That, and we hammered the industry involved in the business of dealing toxins. This is the take -away lesson. Ali, but we are told, the marijuana project is an "experiment." Based on the results to date, showing undeniable and accelerating damage, it is time to end this sham experiment and acknowledge the mistake. We should do so before even more citizens, especially youth, are hurt. Besides the promise of tax revenue for the state (a promise, by the way, that appears oversold — revenues in Colorado are short of expectations, and heavy users are turning back to the "medical marijuana" dispensaries, which are not subject to the `recreational" tax rate, to sustain their habit), voters in these states bit on what increasingly is revealed as a fraud. Moreover, the state of Colorado has yet to come to grips with the costs being imposed by expanding marijuana use, costs to public safety and public health, to addiction treatment services, and to school and workplace performance. (We can be thankful no one is distributing untaxed tobacco through "medical" dispensaries, as an "experiment.") There was one other rationale for legal marijuana advocates; that it would somehow reduce criminal involvement because the prohibition on the drug would cease. Youth, it was said, were already getting and using marijuana, by virtue of a black market controlled by cartels. Let's use the tobacco model. Because prohibition increases the price for the drug and attracts violence, we should make it make it accessible and regulated. That should drive out criminals and make marijuana cheaper, safer, and did we mention provide funding for the state? All in all, legalization would be a contribution towards the philosophy of "harm reduction" whereby one doesn't seek to prohibit a dangerous behavior but rather, tries to manage its consequences. This maneuver also has been revealed as a fraud. In Colorado, the black market thrives, and the state has even become the source of large - scale interstate smuggling. What advocates neglected is that the taxation penalty is also a form of prohibition. This fact is well known to researchers and can be demonstrated by tobacco. Remember the argument that it was `regulated "? Cigarettes are the most widely smuggled legal substance in the world. That smuggling is controlled by criminal cartels, is based on violence, and is enormously profitable. Academic studies have repeatedly argued that the more one imposes penalties (such as taxes) on a substance, particularly an addictive one, the higher the prices, the greater the efforts to evade, and the greater willingness of criminals to meet that demand, including the willingness to commit violence to protect their monopoly. A recent Washington Post story on how cigarette smuggling was being used to fund terrorist organizations noted that a single truck full of contraband cigarettes can yield $2 million in profits. Why is a legal but addictive substance; tobacco, being smuggled, both interstate, domestically, as well as internationally, by organized crime? To avoid the penalty of taxes. The experiment in Colorado is perverse: because of legalized access, abetted by blatant advertising and loss of risk, the number of users is increased, including the percentage who are dependent, heavy users. As more of the drug is smoked, more profit will be generated, for an industry that will reinvest those profits to protect and expand its market. EXHIBIT N0. Ll 0, �bo-7 But because of the taxes, which will likely increase to meet the costs imposed by use of the drug, the heaviest users resort to cheaper, untaxed sources, such as medical dispensaries. And to the reliable black market, which is also reaping enormous profits, and is willing to ensure its grasp on addiction and money by whatever means necessary. As we have learned before. Some experiment. The outcome is foreseeable, tragic, and avoidable. In genuine medical trials or indeed any experiment involving human subjects, there is an overwhelming ethical obligation entailed by the research. When it becomes undeniable that the experimental intervention is actively harming subjects, the trial must be stopped. The distribution of marijuana, addictive and harmful, meets these criteria, and the costs vastly outweigh whatever benefit was supposed to accrue to society or the individual. It is time for responsible public officials to stop playing along, and shut this failed experiment down. b=: / /www.hudson.orWresearch/10457- bad - science- the- marijuana- experiment- has- failed E�;zIIEIT N®. T q OF9 Dan Watrous From: Lynn Fox [foxlynn @mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 7:23 AM To: Peggy Curran; Dan Watrous; Councilmember Jim Fraser Subject: Fwd: Mobile Marijuana Outlet in Paso Robles Attachments: DoYouKnow_614.pdf; ATf00001.htm; Marijuana- Legalization Is Wrong ForAmerica.pdf; ATT00002.htm _ Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Roger Morgan <roigermor¢an339(a.pnail.com> Date: August 5, 2014 at 7:10:45 AM PDT To: Council-CM(a) ,priority.com Subject: Mobile Marijuana Outlet in Paso Robles Dear City Manager and Council Members I understand you have an issue before you to approve or reject a mobile "medical marijuana" outlet. I urge you to vote no. Attached are two documents that may be helpful to you. After 18 years dealing with the ruse that marijuana is medicine, unfortunately the burden of protecting citizens has fallen entirely on local governments. For the 2 % of chronically ill people for whom Prop 215 was intended, Marinol, a legal medicine from a derivative (THC) of marijuana is available. The other 98% just want to get high, and/or are drug dealers who sell it just for the money with no regard for the consequences on those who use it, the majority of whom are young people. The brain isn't fully developed until age 25. The age groups with the biggest consumption are 18 -25 followed by 12 -17, when their brains are most vulnerable to permanent harm and addiction. Marijuana use peaks at age 20. We cannot survive as a nation if we continue to destroy the brains of our youth. The potency of today's marijuana runs normally from 20 to 37% in smoked form, and as high as 90% in wax (honey oil) form. There is no medicine in the world with that level of potency, nor is there any medicine that is smoked as a delivery vehicle. While CBD, a component of the plant, may have medicinal value, the "medical marijuana" being distributed today is more of a lethal weapon than a medicine per se, when one considers the brain damage, psychosis, death or impacts on a fetus, addiction, suicidal depression, traffic fatalities, et al. I urge you to stand with the 93% of Americans and over 200 local communities in California that have said no to any further marijuana outlets in your community. Roger Morgan Take Back America Campaign (916) 434 5629 EXHIBIT NO. P ( op S- DO YOU KNOW MARIJUANAIIIIIIIIIIII CITIZENS AGAINST LEGALIZING MARIJUANA (CALM) www.CALMca.org TAKE BACK AMERICA CAMPAIGN JTBAC) www.tbac.us COALITION FOR A DRUG FREE CALIFORNIA (CDFC) www.drugfreecalifornia.org THE INTERNATIONAL FAITH BASED COALITION www.IFBC.us MARIJUANA IS NOT MEDICINE. The FDA, which must approve all medicines, has rev scientific studies of marijuana for over 50 years and concludes it is not a safe or effecti cine, has the potential for harm and is addictive. It cannot be legally prescribed by any National medical associations for cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and others oppo marijuana as a medicine, other than synthetic marijuana called Marinol, which is FDA zII. __ and available in pill form. CAN CAUSE PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE by disrupting development of the brain. It reduces the amount of white matter by as much as 80 %, and shrinks the hippocampus, the learning, cognition and memory center of the brain. This can create a loss of B points of IQ by age 38.1 Marijuana is a major factor in the one -third high school dropout rate in America, and why America is 26th in the world academically. The brain isn't fully developed until the mid - twenties, so adolescent use is particularly damaging. CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS INCLUDING CANCER of the head, nose and throat, and is a major cause of testicular cancer in young males,2 It causes chronic bronchitis and respiratory problems, and elevates the risk of heart attack 4 times 1 hour after smoking? CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE. Marijuana use exacerbates mental illness. In addition to observed links between marijuana use and mental illness` marijuana af- fects brain systems that are still maturing through young adulthood, its use by teens has been associated with schizophrenia, paranoia and other psychosis leading to depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts .5 Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter, is one of many examples. ONDCP's ADAM II report indicates 52-87% of male arrestees test positive for drugs. 33% of prisoners are mentally ills Research in Canada showed 72.2% of all individuals who used cannabis and 81.8% of those with 72.2 %of all individuals who used cannabis and 81.8% of those with Cannabis Use Disorders (CUDs) had a mental illness:' Young people are 6 times more likely to develop psychosis, 3 times more likely to have hallucinations, and 4 times more likely to have delu- sions. Side effects can CUDs (Cannabis Use Disorders) had a mental illness.' Young people are 6 times more likely to develop appear years after psychosis, 3 times more likely to have hallucinations, and 4 times more likely to have delusions. smokers quit. EXHIBIT NO. z 'P. 7- OF.SS Teens who smoke marijuana at least once a month are three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts than are non- users.a Side effects can appear years after smokers quit' To prevent crime, one must prevent the onset of alcohol and drug use before it begins, on average at age 12 or 13. CAN KILL OR PERMANENTLY HARM A FETUS. Today's high potency pot (2D% plus) can cause fatal brain damage to a fetus only 2 weeks after conception, before the mother even knows she is pregnant. She can quit using pat, but it's too late for the baby. Research from forty years ago showed that marijuana with 1/2 to 2 %THC caused a rise in still births from 12% normal to 44 7.. Many babies that survived child birth had physical deformities and brain damage that altered their behavior well into the teens.10 Babies of mothers who smoked pot during pregnancy had an 11 fold increase in nonlumphobiastic leukemia. Behavioral problems exist in babies who were exposed to THC, including deficits in attention." CAUSES DNA DAMAGE. Marijuana causes more cellular damage than even heroin 1z It also causes mutations to sperm and chromosomal abnormalities that can carry forward and affect future generations. It affects the pituitary gland, a pea size structure at the base of the brain, that is the Control center for sex and reproductive hormones and in turn, sexual dysfunction.13 15 ADDICTIVE. Research tells us that 1 in 6 people who start using it (marijuana) as adolescents become addicted .14 Currently about 24% of high school seniors smoke pot regularly, impervious to the harms. According to ONDCP,17 %of those under 18 will become addicted to it, 9% who start after 18 will become addicted, and many will move an to the hard drugs that kill 3,200 Americans monthly by overdose (SAMHSA). 68-90% of those started their drug journey with marijuana. Teen "Heavy" marijuana use is up 80° % since 2008.15 DOUBLES THE RISK OF TRAFFIC DEATHS. Of drivers in a Maryland Trauma Center, 27° %of injured drivers tested positive for marijuana, second only to alcohol at 33 %. 50% of drivers under 21 tested positive for pot, compared to 33 %for alcohol.16 Fat soluble THC marijuana will "...accumulate and persist in the brain, at its receptors, at higher levels" than can be predicted from blood levels." In California, driving deaths from marijuana impairment have doubled since 2004.18 SO WHY LEGALI E MARIJUANA FOR ANY USE? ENDNOTES 1. Sea], Dr. Marc, Melbourne University, APP article Marijuana Causes Brain Damage August 2012. 2. Marijuana Cocaine and Testicular Tumors /Lacsson, et.al. 12012) 3. The Health Effects of Marijuana. About.mm. September 30, 2002. 4. NIDA Research Report Madjauna Abuse (2012) http://www.dmgabuse.gov/sites/detault/files/rrmadjuana.pdf S. Madras, Bertha M.D., Harvard Medical School 6. Behind Bars ll research project. The National Center of substance Abuse and Addiction. lwww.casamlumbia.org) 7. Cowen, Mark. Sr Report medwirenews, 4/ 12 /2013,Compt Psychiatry 2013 Advance Online Publi cation. B. ONDCP, 2009 Marijuana Sourcebook — July 2008 as reported by Dr. Robert DuPont 9. Pickett Dr. Mary, Harvard Medical School. March 2010 10. Mann, Peggy. MARIJUANA. The Myth of Harmlessness goes up in smoke, 11987) 11. Sassenrath, Dr. Ehtel, U of Davis Primate Research Center. Reported by Peggy Mann (1987). 12 Mireshima Dr. Akira. The Myth of Harmlessness Goes Up In Smoke. (1987) 13. Mann, Peggy. MARIJUANA. The Myth of Harmlessness Goes Up In Smoke. Pg 1211987) 14. National Institution of Drug Abuse. The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction.www.drugabuse.gov and /or NIDA Dr. Nora Volkow referencing 2010 Monitoring the Future Study http: / /www.drugabuse.gov /news - events/ news - releases /2010/12 /teen- marlivana- use- increases - especially- among- eighth - graders 15. Institute of Behavior and Health. Robert DuPont, M.D. Stopdruggeddriving.com. 16. MetUfs Foundation 17. Madras, Dr. Bertha K, Professor of Psychobiology, Dept of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School postulating. 18. Crancer, Alan. Calif MI study. (2012) 19. National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (2002) FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT: CALM CARLA LOWE (916) 564 4825 SCOTT CHIPMAN (619) 990 7480 TBAC ROGER MORGAN (916) 434 5629 CDFC DR. PAUL CHABOT (909) 457 4229 IFBC BISHOP RON ALLEN (916) 8071210 FOR BULK ORDERS AND /OR SUBSTITUTING YOUR GROUP NAME(S) AND CONTACTS: info@exit74designs.com EXHIBIT N0. s 6/14/13 ?. 3 6F�5 110 I!1 Mal 1P1!10rim IS WRONG FOR AMERICA MARIJUANA IS A DANGEROUS DRUG. It can cause permanent brain damage and loss of IQ by up to 8 points by age 38,1 birth defects and death to babies in the womb,2mental illness including schizophrenia3 and paranoia, and addiction ° Marijuana causes health problems including cancer of the head, nose and throat and is a major cause of testicular cancer in young males .5 It can cause chronic bronchitis and respiratory problems, and elevates the risk of heart attack 4 times 1 hour after smoking.6 Because of these and other harms, smoked and edible marijuana remains a FDA Schedule 1 Controlled Substance that cannot be legally prescribed by any licensed physician. TAX REVENUES WILL PALE IN RELATION TO THE ADDED SOCIAL COSTS. As with alcohol and tobacco, for every dollar collected in taxes, the economic impact on Americans is 10 to 12 times greater. It is no different with marijuana. Legalization will vastly increase its use, and in turn will increase the social and economic impact of virtually every aspect of life in America. Alcohol consumption tripled after prohibition was repealed. Predictions are the same for marijuana if legalized. THE COST OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE. The annual cost of substance abuse to the U.S. was reported to be $510.8 BILLION (Alcohol: $191.6, Tobacco: $167.8, and Drugs $151.4) according to the 2009 U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse Prevention Dollars and Cents: A Cost Benefit Analysis. (Harwood, 200). These figures were based on the year 1999, so are conservative. California collects $318 million in taxes on alcohol vs economic costs of $38.4 billion. Average costs for ambulatory addiction treatment are $4,000 per episode, with 4 to 5 relapses before it "sticks," and $18,000 for residential treatment if successful.? MARIJUANA DOES KILL, JUST NOT BY OVERDOSE. Almost all of the 105 Americans who die daily started their drug journey with pot, and Marijuana Use Disorder is associated with higher mortality. Those treated for addiction to marijuana had a higher mortality rate (3.85 times higher than controls), higher if compared to death rate risk of Cocaine Use Disorder (2.95) and Alcohol Use Disorder (3.83) , but lower than Opiod Use Disorder (5.71) or Methamphetamine Use Disorder (4.67),0 MARIJUANA LEADS TO ADDICTION AND OTHER ILLICIT DRUGS. 'The risk for other illicit drug initiation appeared 21 times higher among cannabis experimenters and 124 times higher among daily cannabis users than among non - users. "' 17% of those who initiate marijuana use under 16 and 9% of those who do so after 18 will become addicted. Addiction ruins lives. MARIJUANA USE IMPEDES GOOD JUDGMENT AND INCREASES CRIME AND TRAFFIC FATALITIES. 52-87% of people arrested in America test positive for drugs and the majority (35 -53%) test positive for marijuana t0They are not arrested for simple possession, but because mental impairment and addiction lead to crimes. 66% of prisoners are addicted to alcohol or drugs, and 33% are mentally ill.t1 Marijuana impairment doubles the risk of traffic accidents and death. (Crancer, 2009) MARIJUANA USE WILL NOT REDUCE OUR PRISON POPULATION. Less than .03 %of federal prisoners are there for simple possession. Those arrested averaged 115 pounds of marijuana in their possession. Simple possession of one ounce of marijuana is now an infraction with a non - escalating fine of $100 in California and several states. Legalization won't save money. 5Z -87% of people arrested in America test positive for drugs 667. of prisoners are addicted to alcohol or drugs, and one -third are mentally ill. EXHIBIT N0. -L- ?. 4 of S' TO SAY MARIJUANA WILL ONLY BE LEGAL FOR THOSE OVER 21 IS RIDICULOUS. Alcohol is the most abused drug by kids because it's readily available at home. What will you say to your kid? "Don't touch my stash." Get serious! In addition, because of the ruse of "medical marijuana," 18 year old kids can get a doctors recommendation for any purported cause and buy all the pot they want. Are you going to change "medical marijuana" laws to minimum age 21 ?A recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health revealed a staggering 50% increase in daily marijuana use among those 12 years and up. The perceived risk of smoking once a month has fallen almost 30% since 2007. AMERICA IS BOUND BY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES since 1961 and 1971 to enforce anti -drug activities that threaten citizens of all countries. If our agreements among nations are no good, how can we expect other countries to honor or trust the US, As President Calderon of Mexico stated, America has no "moral authority" to ask other countries to enforce anti -drug activities if our own states legalize marijuana. AMERICA HAS DECLINED TO 26TH IN THE WORLD ACADEMICALLY WITH 1.2 MILLION HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUTS ANNUALLY. Accordingto a UC Santa Barbara Stud V12 the lifetime cost of a high school dropout is $392,000. That equates to an annual cost to the US of $470 billion. Marijuana is a major causal factor in the dropout problem, as well as diminished academic achievement. 60% of the prison population are high school dropouts. (UC Santa Barbara Research) LEGALIZATION WILL NOT GET RID OF THE BLACK MARKET. According to SAMHSA statistics, marijuana use peaks at age 19. The two age groups with the highest consumption of marijuana are 18 -25 followed by 12 -17. All those under 21 will comprise a black market. They will be served not only by Mexican cartels, but by the enormous domestic production. The absurd California ballot13 initiative to legalize marijuana would allow individuals to possess 12 Ibs (14,400joints) or99 plants 1. R L March, MelWUrne UnNemhy, APP a de Manluana U.. Bran Damage(AUgAl2) 2 Pwhoyos, D,. ffl %U afTeus Putm. Medical @nterNugust Alt) a HIM Rem Repoli Manjuana Abuse120121 vnKV.dluga .Ipw /omes1,10.V9.1, njuurmpdf 4 NMAThe Rreme of O,ug Mum and Addition. v dmpWmgw. Or. Rom Volk i Manju.CoraircaW TestkularTUmars /Cxsson,etat (20121 G The Health Effects N Marijuana pboutcom 15ept W..3 2) 7. Dr. Bertha Madras, Harvard Medial Rhool. Framer Dimctar afD d Reduftom ONOCP. a DC B itm Mafms,Harvard Medina Rhool,Fd Dire rd X.m Rttluttbn, pVDm. a year. That equates to 118,000 to 594,000 joints based on 1 to 5 1 b of produce per plant. Turf wars will erupt as they have in Mexico, with all of the bloodshed and corruption we have already witnessed with "medical marijuana." By necessity, to get rid of the vast increase in supply, marijuana will be diverted to every state, and beyond. After 40 years and trillions of dollars spent to eradicate Narco states, America is well on its way already to become one, to the dismay of most Americans and all of our international partners. IMPACT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT. Taking absurdity to an even higher threshold, the proposed lack Herer legalization effort in California would make it illegal for law enforcement personnel or public funds to be used to aid and abet in the enforcement of federal cannabis laws that are contrary to the laws in California. It would also make it a misdemeanor for any state official to not follow this provision. Could that be any more confusing, since most crime is committed by people under the influence of drugs? Would law officers have to decide which set of laws to follow? FEDERAL REMEDIES. Federal CSA laws pertaining to marijuana are based on scientific evidence and are not wrong. Marijuana use is detrimental to the health, safety and economic well being of all Americans. Certainly there is no justification for rewarding states like Colorado or Washington with federal subsidies when they openly violate federal laws. In so doing, they inflict death, destruction, diminished academic achievement and productivity, increased mental illness, more addiction, more welfare, more traffic accidents, more death and huge economic impacts on all US taxpayers. Economic sanctions must be imposed against any state that openly violates federal laws. We punish criminals for breaking the law, Why should states be treated differently? PROTECT OUR CHILDREN PROTECT OUR NATION JUST SAY NO TO LEGALIZATION A MaKl0.tegkye S, Failissak &aau N. Cannabis use sates as pr etlttmrsofzuhsryuent initiaionedNocherillicitdmgsAmong FrenchadWe cenmuseofamulti- smtemod L Additt Befay. Al2ie6:3i1241tWi1 10.Adamsll Reportl mof Had WDmg E"m 11, Belind Bars II.M Pu9imtan.r Iumm Unwr¢ y. 12 UCBanta Barbara High RhpolDmpout RezeardlPmletG lAVaDGean line) 13 Uftmia MarijuanaUgWh mnlnidatae- MkHererinidat tn4)(AV aE onlirxt FOR BULK ORDERS AND /OR SUBSTITUTING YOUR GROUP NAME(S) AND CONTACTS: info@exit74designs.com 9/13/13 EXHIBIT NO. - 4) Z:- Dc e-