Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2016-09-02TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST August 29 — September 2, 2016 TIBURON Correspondence, Notices and other Information 1. Letter - August 29 - Co. of Marin: 2016 Flood Control Zone 4 Advisory Board 2. Memo - August 31- Plan Bay Area 2040 Update 3. Memo - August 31- submittal of Revised Application Materials -Martha Company 4. Letter - August 18 - Marin County Gun Buyback Program 5. Email - August 31 - Resignation: Fran Wilson -Commission on Aging 6. Memo September 2016: Marin Climate & Energy Partnership Update Agenda, Minutes 1. Agenda - September 1- Tiburon Design Review Board Regular Meeting 2. Cancellation - September 7 - Town Council Regular Meeting REGIONAL, NOTICES AND AGENDA Correspondence, Notices and other Information 1. Announcement - August 25 - PG&E notification of application to request rate increase 2. Info Mailing -Marin Co. Flood Control: Reducing your Flood Risk 3. Newsletter - Fall 2016 - Marin Commission on Aging Agenda, Minutes 1. Sani 5 - September 6 - Special Meeting: Governance Committee 2. Sani 5 - September 6 - Special Meeting: Personnel Committee COUNTY OF MARIN Raul M. Rojas DIRECTOR DIGEST C-1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Town of Tiburon Department of Public Works 199 Kleinert Way Tiburon, CA 94920 Administration PO Box 4186 Attention: Patrick Barnes, P.E. San Rafael, CA 94913-4186 415 473 6528 T 415 473 3799 F 415 473 3232 TTY CRS Dial 711 www.marincounty.org/pw Accounting Airport Building Maintenance Capital Projects Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Communications Maintenance County Garage Disability Access Engineering & Survey Flood Control & Water Resources Land Development Purchasing Real Estate Reprographic Services Road Maintenance Stormwater Program Transportation & Traffic Operations Waste Management Dear Pat, Quality, Excellence, Innovation 11ECIEOWEpi AUG 2 9 2016 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TOWN OF TIBURON At the August 11, 2016 Flood Control Zone 4 Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board (AB) recommended moving forward with upgrades to the Cove Pump Station as advised by Flood Control District staff. Specifically, the proposed upgrades to the pump station will be in line with the "long term upgrades" described in the recently completed Schaaf & Wheeler Report (Cove Stormwater Pump Station and Collection System Hydrology and Hydraulic Study, 2016) and will include the following: • Backup Generator and Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) • Replacing all Pumps to increase flow capacity (future projected 100 -yr flow*) • New Electrical Service and Motor Control Center (MCC) • Replace other aging electrical and controls equipment • Modification of the Pump Bays and the Wet Well • Trash Rack Upgrades *The proposed long term improvements will be sized to accommodate potential increases in inflow due to upgrades in the storm drainage collection system described in the Town's Storm Drain Master Plan. We are currently working on a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of the pump station upgrades. Our goal is to enter the construction phase of the project by fiscal year 2018-2019. In addition to the proposed long term upgrades described above, we are pursuing short term improvements. These include minor repairs to the pump station's existing inlet piping and trash rack, and installation of back-up (mechanical) on/off float valves. Your personal input and collaboration, as well as support by others from your staff, leading up to this point have been invaluable. We will continue to coordinate closely with you and your staff as the project moves forward into design and ultimately construction. Regards, Ali ,h6ny Williams, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM D1GES7 C- TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development'' SUBJECT: Plan Bay Area 2040 Update DATE: August 31, 2016 BACKGROUND This is an update of the June 6, 2016 memo (Exhibit 1) that I sent to the Town Council on this topic. At that time, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) released several "alternative scenarios" for household and job projections related to their Plan Bay Area 2040 document, which would set forth a long-term growth strategy for the Bay Area, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and respond to other mandates of Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32 passed by the State Legislature several years ago. UPDATE Yesterday, ABAG and MTC released their "preferred scenario" projections for household and job growth (Exhibit 2). The numbers for the Town of Tiburon have changed little and represent a "splitting of the baby" compared to the earlier alternative scenarios. Jobs growth is projected at 50 for the time period 2010-2040, for a rate of less than 2 new jobs per year. Household growth is projected to be roughly 250 households, equating to about 180 dwelling units over the 30 year period. This housing unit projection is similar to estimates used by the Town based on its current General Plan and Zoning, assuming that many vacant lots, potential subdivisions, and some affordable housing projects are constructed prior to 2040. Staff finds the projections contained in the "preferred scenario" to be reasonable and within an acceptable range. During the initial preparation of Plan Bay Area some years ago, many communities (including Tiburon) expressed concern over the high projection for jobs growth and its escalation effect on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers. For Tiburon at least, this does not appear to be a matter of concern during the current Plan Bay Area update, as projected jobs growth is essentially flat. Town staff will keep the Council apprised of the Plan Bay Area 2040 update process. Attachments: Exhibits 1 and 2 Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Plan Bay Area 2040 Update Alternative Scenarios DATE: June 6, 2016 BACKGROUND The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are busily updating their Plan Bay Area 2040 document, which sets forth a Tong -term growth strategy for the Bay Area, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and responds to other mandates of Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill.32 passed by the State Legislature several years ago. The initial Plan Bay Area process circa 2012-2013 was highly controversial for a number of reasons, not least of which were the exaggerated employment and population projections built into the model as well as its combination with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) update process conducted periodically by ABAG as part of the housing element update cycle. The update process for this round appears much less controversial and problem -plagued, with more realistic growth projections and no housing element updates. CURRENT UPDATE The current update sets forth three alternative scenarios: Main Streets, Connected Neighborhoods, and Big Cities. These are described in more detail in the attached materials, but can be briefly summarized as follows: Scenario #1: Main Streets ---Targets future population and employment growth to the downtowns of every city in the Bay Area to foster a region of moderately-sized, integrated town centers. Scenario #2: Connected Neighborhoods ---Targets future population and employment growth to locally -identified PDAs along major corridors, with an emphasis on growth in medium-sized cities with access to the region's major rail services. Scenario #3: Big Cities ---Concentrates future population and employment growth in the locally - identified PDAs and TPAs within the Bay Area's three largest cities (San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland). For the Town of Tiburon, job growth projections are zero through 2040 for all the scenarios except for Main Streets, where a 100 -job increase is projected. Household growth (not equivalent to housing units) is projected to increase by 200 in the Connected Neighborhoods and Big Cities Scenarios, and by 300 in the Main Streets scenario. These household projections would roughly equate to between 144 and 216 new housing units being created in Tiburon by 2040. These housing unit numbers are similar to projections used by the Town based on its current General Plan and Zoning, assuming that many vacant lots, potential subdivisions, and some affordable housing projects are constructed. Staff finds the projections for the various scenarios to be reasonable and within acceptable ranges. Town staff will keep the Council apprised of the Plan Bay Area 2040 update process. Plan BayArea 2040 DATE: August 30, 2016 RE: Plan Bay Area 2040 DRAFT Preferred Scenario Dear Colleagues, The Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Scenario is now ready for review and MTC and ABAG are seeking the input of local jurisdictions to inform the development of the Final Preferred Scenario slated for adoption in November 2016. As outlined in the attached Introduction, the Draft Preferred Scenario builds upon the current Plan Bay Area adopted in 2013 and represents a projected pattern of household and employment growth in the Bay Area through 2040. Combined with the corresponding transportation investment scenario and incorporating additional refinements based, in part, upon local jurisdictional feedback it will form the core of Plan Bay Area 2040 slated for final adoption in Summer, 2017. For many local communities, the distribution of 2040 employment and household forecasts may be viewed as the most important output of this effort. This draft information is included in Attachment A to the introduction, organized by local jurisdiction and split into PDA and jurisdiction totals. We understand that some adjustments may be necessary as we continue to refine the Draft Preferred Scenario 's assumptions. Regional Agency Staff are currently working with county -level Planning Director organizations and Congestion Management Agencies to schedule staff -level presentations of the Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Scenario in each county. Information on the date/time and location of these meetings is available here: http://planbavarea.org/misc/county-planning-directors- meetings.htm1. Regional agency staff will also be available during the month of September to meet with local planners from individual jurisdictions at the Bay Area Metro Center in San Francisco, via teleconference, or onsite with local jurisdictions to hear feedback as to where and how the Draft Preferred Scenario allocates the region's growth. This dialogue will be informed by model output, as well as local economics, pipeline projects, proposed policies, local plans and current zoning. Requests for jurisdictional meetings should be directed to Megan Espiritu, mespiritu a)mtc.ca.aov. Any written comments on the Draft Preferred Scenario should be submitted no later than October 14, 2016. In response to this upcoming cycle of feedback, MTC and ABAG will make adjustments as appropriate during the month of September and October, with the goal of the MTC Commission and ABAG Executive Board adopting the Final Preferred Scenario on November 17, 2016. Please do not hesitate to contact Ken Kirkey kkirkev@mtc.ca.nov or Miriam Chion miriamcfct aba1..ca.aov with any questions or comments. We greatly appreciate your involvement and input in the development of Plan Bay Area 2040. Best Regards, Steve Heminger Ezra Rapport MTC, Executive Director ABAG, Executive Director Bay Area Metro Center 1 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 1 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 I Introduction to the Draft Preferred Scenario for Plan Bay Area 2040 Welcome to Plan Bay Area 2040's Draft Preferred Scenario. This vision for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area builds on the groundbreaking Plan Bay Area, adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013 after extensive analysis and outreach. Plan Bay Area 2040 continues to be guided by Senate Bill 375, requiring California's metropolitan areas to adopt an integrated long range regional transportation plan (RTP) and sustainable communities strategy (SCS) — a roadmap to reduce per -capita greenhouse gas emissions and house the region's population at all income levels. Plan Bay Area 2040's Draft Preferred Scenario largely reflects the foundation established by its predecessor. The Plan creates a blueprint for providing sufficient housing for current residents and newcomers alike, at all income levels. It focuses development toward Priority Development Areas (PDAs) — neighborhoods that are close to public transit and identified by local jurisdictions as being appropriate for smart, compact development. Lastly, it confines growth to established communities, and protects the Bay Area's legacy of vast and varied open spaces. What is the Draft Preferred Scenario? The Draft Preferred Scenario represents a projected regional pattern of household and employment growth in 2040. Together with the corresponding transportation investment strategy, it forms the core of Plan Bay Area 2040. The Preferred Scenario and transportation investment strategy are evaluated against a set of regionally -adopted performance targets to measure how well the Plan addresses regional goals including climate protection, transportation system effectiveness, economic vitality, and equitable access. Only two targets are mandatory for the region to achieve under Senate Bill 375 — Climate Protection and Adequate Housing. The remaining 11 targets are voluntary, but provide a useful reference point for policymakers and the public to consider. For many Local jurisdictions, the distribution of 2040 employment and household forecasts may be viewed as the most important output of this effort. This draft information is included in Attachment A, organized by local jurisdiction, and split into PDA totals. These numbers stem from distributing ABAG's economic and demographic forecasts through use of an advanced regional land use model. The land use model, UrbanSim, went through an iterative set of adjustments in response to expert reviews, public input, and dialogue with local officials. ABAG regional planners developed a set of targets informed by local dialogue against which the model output could be evaluated. Simply put, the most fundamental challenge faced by MTC and ABAG when developing these forecasts is to create a Plan that supports local plans while accommodating the region's total forecasted growth and meeting the state mandated sustainability goals. Thus, the Draft Preferred Scenario must assess potential opportunities for new housing and jobs while reflecting local aspirations and numerous local, regional, and state public policy decisions that affect growth and protect our natural areas. The Draft Preferred Scenario does not mandate any changes to local zoning rules, general plans or processes for reviewing projects, nor is it an enforceable direct or indirect cap on development locations or targets in the region. As is the case across California, the Bay Area's cities, towns 2 and counties maintain control of all decisions to adopt plans and permit or deny development projects. Plan Bay Area 2040 also does not establish new state -mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers for each jurisdiction. RHNA operates on an eight-year cycle, with the next iteration not due until the 2021 RTP/SCS. Because RHNA numbers are not at stake this cycle, this update to the region's long-range plan has been characterized as limited and focused. What's new and different? The Bay Area economy has exploded over the past four years, attracting thousands of new people and jobs. Regional growth forecasts have been revised upward as a result. ABAG forecasts an additional 1.3 million jobs and 2.4 million people and therefore the need for approximately 820,000 housing units between 2010 and 2040. This represents an increase of 15 percent in the projected employment growth and a 25 percent increase in projected household growth, relative to the last Plan. The economic surge has been both a blessing and a challenge, offering employment opportunities unseen since the Bay Area's dot-com boom, while also clogging freeways and public transit, and triggering an unprecedented housing squeeze, particularly for lower and moderate income workers, many of whom have been displaced or are at risk for displacement. Moving forward, some cities will welcome new residents and housing with open arms, seeing the opportunity to revitalize depressed areas, or to make better use of prime land around transit nodes. For other communities, accommodating future growth may be an acute challenge, practically and/or politically. The Draft Preferred Scenario recognizes the diversity of the region's communities, and that there is no "one size fits all" in terms of the type of future development desired by our residents. To address the challenges of planning for an increasingly complex region, MTC and ABAG have continued to evolve technical methods for creating regional scenarios. UrbanSim incorporates current zoning for 2 million individual land parcels across the Bay Area, as well as available information about current regional and local economic and real estate market trends. UrbanSim is an ambitious project which compiles a large amount of data at a very detailed geographic resolution. The detailed level of UrbanSim output is used for the analysis of performance measures. UrbanSim builds upon the methodology used by the Agencies in the prior Plan. The prior methodology combined a land use allocation process based on observed historic growth patterns with jurisdictional expectations described in local plans. This time, UrbanSim also incorporates zoning tools, the most recent PDA assessment, and household, business, and developer choice models. The agencies ran the model hundreds of times, testing the effects that different regional strategies could have on affecting the distribution of housing and employment growth. The output was measured against a set of growth targets put together by ABAG regional planners working with planners from local jurisdictions. Overall, the growth allocation results of the UrbanSim model align fairly closely with these growth targets at a summary level as well as for most localities, though, there are substantial differences for some individual localities. The extent of the differences between local plans and the UrbanSim output is a discussion for the agencies, regional stakeholders, and individual jurisdictions. 3 The Draft Preferred Scenario accommodates 100 percent of the needed housing units, and offers a rationale that these units can be built given future market conditions and existing or expected policies to support focused growth at the local, regional or state level. How did we get here? In May 2016, MTC and ABAG released three alternative land use and transportation scenarios illustrating the effects that different housing, land use, and transportation strategies would have on the adopted goals and performance targets. The three scenarios represented a progression of plausible regional futures, from more intense housing and employment growth in the urban core — called the "Big Cities Scenario"; to more evenly apportioned development among PDAs in medium-sized cities with access to rail services — labeled the "Connected Neighborhoods Scenario"; to a more dispersed development pattern, with more relative growth occurring outside of PDAs — known as the "Main Streets Scenario." The release of the scenarios initiated a public process in May and June 2016 to garner input from the public, stakeholders, community groups, and local officials, via public open houses in each county, an online comment forum as well as an online interactive quiz (the "Build a Better Bay Area" website). By July, MTC and ABAG had received comments from more than 1,100 residents. During this time period, the agencies received direct feedback from the local jurisdictions on the scenarios. Additionally, the results of a 2015 PDA Assessment have also directly informed our confidence in the Draft Preferred Scenario. This assessment examined 65 of the nearly 200 locally identified PDAs. The analysis evaluated the likelihood of housing actually being built in each PDA, by examining local planning and permitting processes; community support for development; market forces, including the attractiveness of the area to investors, developers and builders; the capacity of water and sewer systems and other infrastructure; and the availability of financing. The PDA Assessment was a reality check. It found that under existing conditions — meaning with current zoning laws, policies and market conditions — only about 70 percent of housing allocated to PDAs in Plan Bay Area 2013 would get built with these results being boosted to nearly 90 percent with a range of fairly aggressive policy and investment strategies. The results of the Draft Preferred Scenario align with the results of the PDA Assessment, providing added confidence in the regional forecast's consideration of both market conditions and local policy. Strategies included in the Preferred Scenario Beyond built-in assumptions on Local planning and market conditions, the Draft Preferred Scenario also works to incorporate a number of regional land use strategies, which can affect land use patterns by changing a community's capacity for new development or incentivizing a particular type or location of growth. This combination of strategies is necessary to create a Draft Preferred Scenario that can achieve or move toward the region's adopted targets. The land use strategies incorporated in the Draft Preferred Scenario include the following: • Current urban growth boundaries are kept in place. • Inclusionary zoning was applied to all cities with PDAs, meaning that these jurisdictions are assumed to allow below -market -rate or subsidized multi -family housing developments. 4 • All for-profit housing developments are assumed to make at least 10 percent of the units available to low-income residents, in perpetuity (via deed restrictions). • In some cases, PDAs were assigned higher densities in the future than are currently allowed. • The cost of building in PDAs and/or Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) is assumed to be reduced by the easing of residential parking minimums and streamlining environmental clearance. • Subsidies are assumed to stimulate housing and commercial developments within PDAs. These measures are not prescriptive— again, there are many potential public policy options that could help the region attain its adopted targets. Rather, these strategies should be considered as illustrations of what it would take to keep the Bay Area an economically vibrant, diverse and sustainable region in the year 2040. Moving Forward Although the levels of new housing and jobs may appear daunting, the challenge becomes much more achievable when viewed through the long-range lens of a 25 -year plan. For instance, a medium-sized city of 50,000 residents slated to absorb 1,000 more new housing units by 2040 than previously anticipated would in actuality need to only add 40 units a year to meet the target. That yearly figure could be reached by adding two 10 -unit apartment buildings (or one 20 -unit building) per year, and creating another 20 accessory dwelling units associated with single- family homes each year. In other words, in nearly all cases, jurisdictions should be able to absorb their housing allotments while fully retaining the character of their communities. It is important to keep in mind that the process of refining the Bay Area's ideal development pattern is nearly continuous to stay synced with the four-year mandated update cycles— we will revisit all the assumptions in the adopted Preferred Scenario as we launch the next update to Plan Bay Area. We Learn more with each cycle, and are able to take those lessons and apply them to the forecasting and modeling as well as our public outreach methods for the next cycle. Such assurances aside, regional planners and policymakers understand that some adjustments may be necessary as we continue to refine the Draft Preferred Scenario's assumptions. To this end, a careful balancing act regarding future growth patterns is as much an art as a science, and we look forward to working with local planners and policymakers, stakeholders and members of the public in the coming weeks to advance our mutual understanding of the development climate and capacity in various jurisdictions, and to refine and improve this Draft Preferred Scenario. Attachment A: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts August 30, 2016 Attachment A Draft Preferred Scenario County Jurisdiction Summary Level Households 2010 Household Forecast 2040 Employment 2010 Employment Forecast 2040 Marin Belvedere Total 900 1,000 300 300 Corte Madera Total 3,900 4,350 6,650 7,450 Fairfax Total 3,400 3,550 1,550 1,700 Larkspur Total 5,850 6,300 7,450 8,800 Mill Valley Total 5,900 8,150 6,000 6,600 Novato Total 20,150 21,350 26,400 29,500 Ross Total 800 900 350 400 San Anselmo Total 5,200 5,450 3,300 3,650 San Rafael Total 22,550 25,950 43,300 49,100 PDA 1,650 2,750 9,000 10,100 Sausalito Total 4,150 4,500 5,200 5,800 Tiburon Total 3,600 3,850 2,850 2,900 / Marin County Unincorporated Total 27,450 30,600 17,500 21,350 PDA 1,500 2,050 650 750 County Total Total 103,900 115,900 120,800 137,600 PDA 3,150 4,800 9,650 10,850 Napa American Canyon Total 5,400 7,000 5,450 8,150 PDA 400 1,500 1,350 1,700 Calistoga Total 2,050 2,400 2,200 2,650 Napa Total 28,100 30,250 34,000 36,500 PDA 350 1,200 5,300 6,300 St. Helena Total 2,400 3,000 5,700 5,650 Yountville Total 1,100 1,200 2,750 2,750 Napa County Unincorporated Total 10,200 11,850 20,550 23,250 County Total Total 49,200 55,700 70,700 79,000 PDA 800 2,700 6,600 8,050 San Francisco San Francisco Total 347,100 475,500 576,900 887,800 PDA 184,000 302,300 473,800 765,000 Page 3 of 6 Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM DIGEST C-3 TO: Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Submittal of Revised Application Materials by Martha Company DATE: August 31, 2016 Pursuant to the most recent court order, the Martha Company has submitted revised application materials to the County of Marin. The revised materials address the two most significant unresolved environmental issues that have prevented the Board of Supervisors from certifying the environmental impact report (EIR) that was prepared for the project and last considered by the Board in March 2014. The two issues primarily addressed in the Martha Company re -submittal are: 1) Mitigation for impacts to special status species. 2) The location of the water tank serving much of the proposed development. Very briefly, Martha is requesting that the County allow "off-site mitigation" for impacts to special status species, something the EIR concluded was infeasible, and that the County impose a condition of approval that would allow either construction of an on-site water tank or an off- site underground water tank on the adjacent St. Hilary Open Space, provided that any such water tank will meet required domestic water pressure and fire flow requirements. Under the court order, the County of Marin has six months following the revised submittal to certify the EIR. The next court hearing, scheduled for January 30, 2017, would be a few days after the County's deadline to certify the EIR. The Martha Company's re -submittal, dated August 25, 2016, is attached. la COX CASTLE NICHOLSON August 25, 2016 VIA FEDEX John E. Roberto Contract Planner Marin Community Development Agency Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262-5199 Michael H. Zischke 415.262.5109 mzischke@coxcasde.com File No. 072973 Re: Martha Co.'s Revised Plans and Other Information for the 2008 Easton Point Residential Development Project Dear Mr. Roberto: Pursuant to the Court's August 2, 2016 Stipulation and Order re: Deadlines, the Martha Company is submitting revised plans and other information responding to the mitigation measures identified at the March 2014 Board of Supervisors' hearing on the 2008 Easton Point Residential Development project. As identified at the 2014 hearing, in follow-up correspondence, and in those papers submitted to the Court, the two mitigation issues to be addressed are: (1) the need to mitigate impacts to certain identified species; and (2) the location of a water tank sufficient to provide adequate domestic and fire flow to the proposed homes. As you know, this project is governed by a 1976 judgment and a 2007 judgment (collectively, the "Judgments") requiring the approval of 43 lots with a provision that, due to site constraints, this can only be achieved with construction within or near visually prominent ridgelines. Martha's response to the two mitigation issues is designed to implement these provisions of the Judgments while also resolving the two identified issues. This letter summarizes the approach that Martha proposes to these two issues and identifies the revised plans and other information that it is submitting pursuant to the Stipulation and Order. This submittal also includes an accompanying letter brief (the "Letter Brief') that provides the rationale and legal support for these proposals. Mitigation for Impacts to Special Status Species. The first issue is the need to mitigate impacts to certain sensitive species identified in the EIR. The County's EIR identified off-site mitigation as a possibility but concluded that such mitigation was not feasible. Martha has provided in the past and is again providing information that shows, contrary to the EIR's conclusion, off-site mitigation is feasible, with at least six locations potentially available to provide such mitigation. Consistent with the type of approval conditions and mitigation www.coxcasde.com Los Angeles 1 Orange County 1 San Francisco John Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 2 measures that courts have upheld as adequate in this type of instance, Martha asks that the County impose a condition that requires a specific amount of mitigation land to be preserved, with the specific site to be determined in the future. The information Martha is submitting in support of this approach consists of the following: • An letter from LSA Associates, Inc., authored by Steve Foreman, confirming the continued potential of six off-site mitigation lands for serpentine -dependent species; • The LSA Associates letter dated October 27, 2015, also authored by Steve Foreman, that was previously submitted to the County, identifying those potential off-site mitigation lands; and • The analysis in the Letter Brief demonstrating that the use of off-site mitigation satisfies the requirements of the Judgments, is consistent with the Countywide Plan, and is supported by CEQA case law. Water Tank Issues: The second issue is the location of a water tank that can provide sufficient domestic pressure and adequate fire flows. To resolve this issue, Martha asks the County to proceed with a condition of approval and mitigation requirement that requires Martha to provide a water tank with a base elevation of at Least 590 feet, in one of two ways. First, if Martha can obtain the approval of the Marin Municipal Water District ("MMWD") for an on-site tank at 590 feet, it can proceed on that basis. Recognizing that MMWD has not yet approved a tank and has identified several issues with such a tank, the second option is for the County to require the construction of a tank on the adjacent open space property. This would be an underground tank, which would minimize visual impacts and preserve the open space character of the area. This could be achieved by the County, in its alter ego capacity as the Board of the Marin County Open Space District ("MCOSD"), approving a land swap with Martha, preserving a like portion of the project site as open space and allowing for the construction of the underground tank within the current open space. The information Martha is submitting in support of this approach on the water tank issue consists of the following: • Updated plan sheets depicting an on-site water tank with a base elevation of 590 feet; • Exhibit 6.0-6 from the Draft EIR depicting the off-site water tank proposal, placing the tank underground on what is now MCOSD property; and • The analysis in the Letter Brief demonstrating the County has the power to allow a water tank at sufficient elevation on the adjacent MCOSD land and, alternatively, an on-site water tank with a base elevation of 590 feet is at least feasible. Based on this information, Martha seeks a condition of approval stating that it must provide a water tank that meets domestic water pressure and fire flow requirements, whether that tank is located on Martha's property or on what is now the adjacent MCOSD property. John Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 3 The Order and Stipulation provides that the County will provide a staff -level response to Martha's submission by September 26, providing an explanation of whether staff can recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the County proceed to certify the EIR as proposed. Martha asks that the County determine to proceed with EIR certification based upon the information that has been submitted. This information, together with the rest of the administrative record supporting the EIR, provides a sufficient basis for the County to formulate and consider the specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval that, as part of a project approval pursuant to the Judgments, will resolve these two issues. Also, as explained in the Letter Brief, there is no basis for requiring any further recirculation of the EIR based on this additional information, as there is no new or substantially more severe environmental impact resulting from Martha's proposed resolution of these two issues. Martha looks forward to the County's substantivc response to this letter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 262-5109 if you have any questions. i Sincerely, Michael II. Zischke MIIZ cc: David Zaltsman, Deputy County Counsel (via Fedex and w/encl.) Attachments 1. Correspondence from LSA Associates, Inc. regarding off-site species mitigation 2. Updated plan sheets regarding on-sitc water tank 3. Letter Brief and Exhibits 07297317941554 ATTACHMENT 1 LSA LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. L 5 7 PARK PLACE PT. RICHMOND. CALIFORNIA 94801 MEMORANDUM FRESNO RIVERSIDE 510.236.6810 TEL BERKELEY IRVINE ROCKLIN 510.236 3480 FAX CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO DATES August 25, 2016 TO, Michael H. Zischke FROM: Bernhard Warzecha and Steve Foreman SUBJECT: Status Update on Potential Off-site Mitigation Sites for Marin dwarf flax for the Easton Point Development Project. Dear Mr. Zischke, Per your request, LSA reviewed the status of information about potential off-site mitigation sites for significant impacts to Marin dwarf (western) flax (Hesperolinon congestum), as provided in our letter dated October 20, 2015, addressing the Subject: Easton Point Mitigation Options for Significant Impact. No new occurrences of Marin dwarf flax have been reported in the CNDDB since preparation of above referenced letter (CNDDB August 5, 2016). Subsequent to our October 2015 Mitigation Options letter for the Easton Point project, Kent Carter, the North Bay Mitigation and Conservation Bank Manager, provided additional information for the extent of Marin dwarf flax and other serpentine grassland habitat this site. He reported the property contains: • • • 90 acres of serpentine habitat 20.56 acres of Marin dwarf flax occupied habitat 43 acres of native serpentine grassland As we understand, the bank is still under review by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on this reported information, the bank would be able to satisfy adequate mitigation for impacts to Marin dwarf flax and other serpentine associated impacts at a 3:1 preservation to impact ratio. Besides the North Bay Mitigation and Conservation Bank, the availability or suitability of other potential off-site mitigation sites has not been further investigated; however, we do not believe there have been any changes in status from what we reported in Table 2 of our October 2015 letter. 5125116 (C:\Users\windu\AppDatalLoca1\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook%.XOAZ7DIA\Western Flax Potential Off Situ Mitigation Status Update I3W 2016.08-23.docx) LSA LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 157 PARK PLACE PT. RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA .4801 October 27, 2015 Michael H. Zischke 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 510.236.6810 TEL 510.236.3480 FAX BERKELEY CARLSBAD Subject: Easton Point Mitigation Options for Significant Impact Dear Mr. Zischke: FRESNO RIVERSIDE IRVINE ROCKLIN PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO Per your request, we have reviewed the County of Marin's 2008 DEIR for Easton Point Residential Development Project with respect to identifying potential alternative measures to significant redesign of the proposed development plan (PDP) that were not considered in the DEIR for mitigating identified significant impacts to biological resources. In our analysis of the DEIR, impacts to biological resources on the site can be categorized into two main categories: serpentine -dependent and serpentine -independent resources. The DEIR identified significant impacts and designated mitigation measures for the following biological resources (Table I). Species/Community Impact Type DEJR Mitigation Measures Serpentine -Dependent Marin dwarf flax direct, habitat loss 5,6-1(a) Avoid and redesign PDP 5.6-1(b) Preserve onsite avoided habitats in perpetuity 5,6-1(c) Develop and implement Resource Management Plan for onsite open space lands Serpentine reed grass direct, habitat loss Serpentine bunchgrass direct, habitat loss offsite, indirect Carlotta Hall's Iace fern offsite, indirect Tiburon Indian paintbrush offsite, indirect Tiburon jewel flower offsite, indirect Serpentine Independent California red -legged frog direct, foraging habitat and dispersal movements 5.6-2(a) Avoid and redesign PDP within Forest Glen Area 5.6-2(b) Compensate for loss of habitat on or off-site 5.6-2(c) Preserve onsite avoided habitats in perpetuity 5.6-2(d) Develop and implement Resource Management Plan for onsite open space lands as set forth in 5.6-1(c) Coast live oak woodland Direct, habitat loss 5.6-4 (a) Preserve and manage avoided habitats in perpetuity as set forth in 5.6-1(c) 5.6-4(b) Develop and implement Resource Management Plan for onsite open space lands as set forth in 5.6-1(c) Disturbance to jurisdictional waters Direct permanent and temporary 5.6-5(a) Preserve and manage avoided wetland and drainages in perpetuity 5.6-5(b) Compensate for impacts to wetland and other jurisdictional features at a 2:1 ratio; provide minimum 100 -foot setback 8/23/16(C_\NRPortbJ\CCNDMSUMPURV1S17549696_l.doo, ) PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES, INC Species/Community Impact Type DEIR Mitigation Measures Introduction of invasive exotics Indirect 5.6-6(a) Prohibit use of highly invasive exotic species for landscaping 5,6-6(b) Include monitoring and management for invasive species in the RMP as set forth in 5.6-1(c) 5.6-7 Conduct preconstruction surveys and establish appropriate buffers between construction areas and active nests Disturbance to active bird nests Direct, temporary Loss of ordinance -size trees Direct 5.6-8 Ordinance size tree replacement (25% replanted) and remaining 75% subject to fee payment for endowment for 1on• term manal ement. In general, we concur with the DEIR authors that significant impact to serpentine -independent species and communities can be adequately mitigated onsite through the specified mitigation measures. These measures primarily involve preservation, management, replacement, and reestablishment of affected resources on designated open space lands on the Easton Point site. The only measure we question in these regards is Mitigation 5.6-2(a), which requires redesign of the PDP "within the Forest Glen area to provide in perpetuity connectivity via a minimum 100 -foot wide woodland corridor [emphasis added] between preserved woodland in the southern and northern portions of the site." The PDP provides for an approximately 1,000 -foot -wide open space corridor composed of woodland and grassland between proposed building sites. The basis or need for an additional "minimum 100 -foot -wide woodland corridor" is not clearly identified in the DEIR. The need for the corridor to be within woodland habitat is not supported by scientific literature on California red -legged frog movement and use of uplands. Brugler et al. (2003) studied terrestrial activity of California red - legged frogs in coastal forests and grasslands and concluded that most migrating frogs "moved overland in approximately straight lines to target sites without apparent regard to vegetation type or topography." Brugler et al. (2003) also noted that riparian corridors were neither essential nor preferred. Without further justification, this mitigation measure requirement requiring a 10 percent widening of the open space corridor for project redesign is unwarranted. For serpentine -dependent resources, most notably Marin dwarf flax, the DEIR states that creation of serpentine habitat at an offsite location is not feasible and only specifies redesign of the PDP to avoid the serpentine habitat. The DEIR, however, did not consider and evaluate alternative mitigation options such as offsite preservation of habitat/other populations, which is a commonly employed approach for mitigating impacts to endangered species. For offsite mitigation, the offsite mitigation parcel would require measures consistent with the onsite measure discussed in the DEIR, primarily Mitigation Measure 5.6-I(c), which requires among other elements the following elements: • Presence of the target species and suitable habitat. • Protection of the site in perpetuity. This is generally accomplished though establishment of a conservation easement. A long-term management plan (Resource Management Plan as referred to in the DEIR) designed to promote benefits/reduce stressors to benefit the target species. 8/23116(C:INRPortb11CCNDMS'JMPURVIS17549696_1.dacx) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. • Assurance for in perpetuity funding for the preservation and management of the target species and the preserve site. Such funding is typically provided through a non -wasting endowment. In order to evaluate the potential for offsite mitigation, we used USGS geologic data to identify serpentine habitats in Marin County. We used Marin dwarf flax as an umbrella species to identify and evaluate potential offsite locations for mitigation, Known Marin dwarf flax locations were identified from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and information obtained from other sources such as the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Species in the San Francisco Bay Area (USFWS 1998). Our initial scoping identified approximately 3,000 acres of serpentine -associated land, of which approximately 250 acres are mapped by the CNDDB as being occupied by Marin dwarf flax. Through this process we initially identified ten sites that could, subject to further detailed evaluation, provide offsite mitigation for impacts to Marin dwarf flax and potentially other serpentine -dependent species (Table 2, Figure 1). We further refined these ten sites with respect to the ability to accomplish standard state and federal resource agency requirements and for endangered species mitigation and performance criteria described in Mitigation Measure 5.6-1(c). These factors include: 1. Is the site protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement or on federal land? 2. Does the site have a management plan that addresses specific management actions for Marin Dwarf flax and other associated serpentine -dependent species? 3. Does the management plan have adequate, in perpetuity funding? 4. Does the site have sufficient resources/acreage to provide adequate mitigation for impacts to Marin dwarf flax? For the purposes of this initial assessment we assumed a minimum 3:1 preservation to impact ratio or in the range of 20 to 25 acres of habitat, In our initial screening of the ten sites, four sites do not appear appropriate for potential offsite mitigation: One is on federal lands; Ring Mountain Preserve is protected by a conservation easement; and two sites are in adequate size or may be extinct (Table 2). The remaining six sites do not appear to have the level of protection or management based on readily available information to be considered preserved as defined above. These sites are further summarized below: 1. Old St. Hilary's: This site is located directly adjacent to the Easton Point project site (Project site). Serpentine -dependent resources are similar to those on the Project site, and may encompass up to 30 acres in total. Although this site is designated Marin County Open Space, the serpentine - dependent resources may not be considered protected, as available information does not indicate the property is preserved by a conservation easement and we were unable to find a detailed management plan or funding mechanism for the long-term management of the site. 2. North Bay Mitigation and Species Conservation Bank: This site is part of a commercial mitigation bank containing serpentine habitat and reportable contains Marin dwarf flax (K. Cater, Bank Manager, pers. comm.). This mitigation bank has federal approvals from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for satisfying mitigation for impacts to California red -legged frog. The bank manager reports they are or will be pursuing appropriate approvals from the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for credits for Marin dwarf flax and other serpentine dependent species. This reported Marin dwarf flax population is not currently 8/23/16(C:1NRPortbl\CCNDMSUMPURVIS\7549696 1.docx) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC Table 2: Potential off-site Mitigation Sites in Marin County Containing Occurrences of Marin Dwarf Flax Comment Highest feasibility because of similarity of site conditions Commercial mitigation bank, agency approval pending Surrounded by development Private land Existing federal protection Existing conservation easement Roadside occurrence Probably extinct and/or developed UQ Fa Directly adjacent north-west of Project Area North west of Burdell Mountain North of Hilarita, Tiburon North of Alpine Lake, near junction of Fairfax-Bolinas road with Pine Mountain Truck Road. Also 0.6 mile due north and slightly west of pine mountain summit Just north of Fire Road connecting San Carlos Dr_ to San Mateo Dr. Southwest of Burdett Mountain, approximately 1.5 air miles ENE of Stafford Lake, North of Novato Valley. Above the Saddle Marsh approx. 1 mile north of Open Space entrance gate off of San Andreas Dr. Just west of Big Rock, north of Lucas Valley Road. Nicasio South ofNicasio Reservoir, about 2 miles north of -Jewell on dirt road from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Mclssac Ranch Tiburon Peninsula .Se 8 x 0to0 w 0 eg U a 0 a4 0 .a 0 b O U] 12 VI - N m O wOs O: VI N CO kn �' Os n V1 CNRDB Flax Occurrence # 1/40 Q z CO N M enM ,D N V1 N N n, a0 N Os •-• ca h Old St. Hilary's, Marin County Open Space North Bay Mitigation and Species Conservation Bank, Marin County Tiburon Middle Ridge, Tiburon Open Space Carson Ridge, Marin Municipal Water District Mt. Burdell Open Spac , Marin County Lucas Films, LTD Golden Gate National Reserve Area, National Park Service Ring Mountain, Marin County Open Space Lucas Valley Rd, Marin County 1 h Priority for Evaluation ,- N `+f el } v tO Not suitable Not suitable N O. Z +9 N Q z 41- 5-- 5 - i5 Q LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. presented in the CNDDB and the extent of the area containing Marin dwarf flax and other serpentine -dependent target species is unknown at this time. 3. Tiburon Middle Ridge: This site is located approximately one mile north-west of the Project site. In total, this site includes approximately 20 acres of Marin dwarf flax habitat as mapped by the CNDDB. The greater part of the population is located within Tiburon Open Space, but it appears that approximately 1.15 acres of the recorded Marin dwarf flax occurrence are mapped on an undeveloped adjacent private parcel to the east (APN 3924101) and approximately 4.5 acres may occur on an undeveloped private parcel to the north (APN 3902113). The site is surrounded by development, and do not appear to be protected by a conservation easement or endowment fund with the purpose to manage and preserve in perpetuity. LSA prepared an Open Space Resource Management Plan for the Town of Tiburon's open space preserves including those on the Middle Ridge in 2010. The management activities for the Middle Ridge open space preserves are focused on weed control and fire safety. Implementation of these activities depends on funding from the Town of Tiburon and is subject to the Town's priorities spread among all of their open space preserves. To adequately serve the purposes of mitigation of impacts at Easton Point, management activities would need to be expanded to encompass monitoring and management measures specifically for the rare plants present. In perpetuity funding for such management actions would also be required. 4. Carson Ridge: This site is located on Marin Municipal Water District land and may encompass up to 22 acres of Marin dwarf flax habitat, divided into two patches approximately 2 miles apart. As with several other public open space lands identified in this assessment, these resources may not be considered protected, as the site does not appear to be protected by a conservation easement (or other appropriate mechanism). Mechanisms and funding for species management of the population in perpetuity also do not appear to be established. 5. Mt. Burdell Open Space: This site is managed by Marin County Parks and encompasses up to 80 acres of Marin dwarf flax habitat, as mapped by CNDDB. While the Open Space is governed by general Countywide Open Space management plans, this population would not seem to meet the state and federal standards for being "protected", as the site does not appear to be protected by a conservation easement (other appropriate mechanism) and specific management actions and associated funding for species management of the population in perpetuity not appear to he established. 6. Lucasfilm: This site encompasses several thousand Marin dwarf flax plants encompassing approximately 27 acres on a serpentine slope to the west of reservoir at Big Rock Ranch. The entire occurrence plus an additional 80 acres of unoccupied serpentine habitat can be found on a private parcel owned by Lucasfilm Animation, LTD. We were not able to identify if this population is protected by a conservation easement or if there are any mechanisms and funding for species management the population in perpetuity. Of these six sites, Old St. Hilary's Open Space provides the higher priority site for offsite mitigation because of its proximity to the project site. The Tiburon Middle Ridge open space also provides a potential appropriate local mitigation site. The North Bay Mitigation and Species Conservation Bank potentially offers a viable commercial location for mitigation assuming the site has appropriate resources. While specifics on the occurrences and available habitat are limited at the present time, we have requested additional information from the Bank Manager. However, if the bank is approved for Marin dwarf flax and other the appropriate species, this site would be conserved under a conservation 8/23/16(C:\NRPortbl\CCNDMSUMPURV1S17549696 r.docx) 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. easement, with an established/agency approved management plan and endowment for the long term management. We believe these six sites and possibly others that may be discovered through additional research would be appropriate for further evaluation as mitigation options for the Easton Point Project. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Steve Foreman Principal/Wildlife Biologist Attachment: Figure 1: Potential Off-site Mitigation Sites LITERATURE CITED Bulger, J.T., N. J. Scott, R. B. Seymor. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red -legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110 (2003), 85-95. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for serpentine soil species of the San Francisco Bay Area. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. . 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: final determination of critical habitat for the California red -legged frog. Federal Register 66(49): March 13. . 2002a. Recovery plan for the California red -legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 8123/16(C:\NRPorib11CCNDMSUMPUR.V1517549696 1.docx) 6 Tyi 'x jri:``7':.��. , l t;,. North Bay Mitigation and Species Conservation Bank 1'. * Y K • -fa Y LSA LEGEND Hesperolinon congestum CNDDB Occurrences WI Serpentlnite 0 Miles SOURCE: USGS 1 CNDDB 'NBA 1401lGIS\Map,lScrpentincMitigetionLSerpcniiitc Finx wozking(L)mxd(I4121/2015) FIGURE 1 Easton Point DRAFT Potential Off -Site Mitigation Sites Attachment 2 ,aphi1a alto STILLOUId 78 NYId QVOTI S1N31Nf30a N0lionaSN00 VINHOdI1VO'ALNfIOO NIUVV 4NOafl611 lNIOd NO!SV3 0 a z era rOpna gas f1L-J .WIF4S 36 -aNrn l7.i.vw re .ga 4444 un a STrIL1071d ' Nt1J (TAM S1NWWl000 NOLLOMESNO0 VINNOJIIVO'A.N1100 NOM 'NOW1811 1NIOd NO1SV3 0 LC WU Er SILO .13AiIs a-3M'in1.77.vv1 1 r.oyuu ravr ru,rry Sly r sr. 1 S'WINV1d CI VON S1N3Wf100a NO11011aLSNOD VINi10dI1V0'AiNI100 NI?1V? 'NM/I1811 1NIOd NO.SV3 .V M _12 a JOS-J 143115Til -FRJFa1').LVW .I ST11.30tIct NVII (WOE SIN301flOCICI NOLLOMISNO0 VINHOAIWO 'AiNnoo NUM $10):111911 11110d NOI.SVA wsliraa, . , 1 ,.•>';-- -, : .. • -:`• 13.11.1iS Etas • HINILIIDIVIN se. la • c. • S li.402Id AIV 1d QVO2T S.NJWfl000 NOI1Ofl 1SN00 VINaOII1V3 A.LN1100 NIaVW'NOa(1811 1NIOd NO1SV3 weM+O !lop 1IL 11 ;r k 1 x a t_ ti 6g 5,1 • LIMO .7.331 -IS 33S aN171131VIN Attachment 3 IdCOX CASTLE NICHOLSON August 25, 2016 VIA FEDEX Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262-5199 Michael H. Zischke 415.262.5109 mxischke@coxcasde.com File No. 072973 John E. Roberto Contract Planner Marin Community Development Agency Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Martha Co.'s Submission of Revised Plans and Other Information for the 2008 Easton Point Residential Development Project Dear Mr. Roberto: Pursuant to the Court's August 2, 2016 Stipulation and Order re: Deadlines, the Martha Company is submitting revised plans and other information responding to the mitigation measures identified at the March 2014 Board of Supervisors' hearing on the 2008 Easton Point Residential Development project (the "Project"). While the accompanying cover letter summarizes the approach that Martha proposes for moving forward and identifies the revised plans and other information that it is submitting pursuant to the Stipulation and Order, this letter provides the rationale and legal support for those proposals. With this submission, Martha asks that the County determine to proceed with EIR certification based upon the information that has been submitted. This information, together with the rest of the County's administrative record for this Project, provides a sufficient basis for the County to formulate and consider the specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval that, as part of a Project approval pursuant to the 1976 and 2007 judgments (collectively, the "Judgments"), will resolve those issues identified by the Board. 1. Resolution of the Two Identified Mitiaation Issues Needs to Take Into Account the Specific Dictates of the Judgments As you know, the Project is governed by the Judgments, which require the approval of 43 lots with a provision that, due to site constraints, this can only be achieved by construction within or near visually prominent ridgelines. True and correct copies of the Judgments are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. In this regard, the Judgments expressly allow Martha to develop within 300 feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically of visually prominent ridge lines. www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles 1 Orange County 1 San Francisco John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 2 (See Ex. A, 3; Ex. B, § 2c.) Thus, the County has understood since as early as the 1970s that Martha intends to locate homes among the highest elevation areas of the property. Indeed, contemporaneous with the 1976 judgment, Martha also presented a proposed development plan to the County. A true and correct copy of this proposed development plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C. This plan, which was referenced in the 1976 judgment itself, depicts a proposal that includes development in the highest elevation areas of the property and is remarkably similar to Martha's current development plan. With respect to Martha's current submittal, both issues identified by the Board directly implicate this fundamental aspect of the two Judgments. Almost all of the areas of the property that contain Marin dwarf flax and/or serpentine reed grass, for example, are located within 300 feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically of visually prominent ridge lines. (Compare Draft EIR, p. 94 [Exhibit 4.0-1, depicting visually prominent ridge lines] with id. at p. 405 [Exhibit 5.6-2, depicting biotic habitats].) Likewise, the ultimate water tank location—whether on Martha's property or on the adjacent Marin County Open Space District ("MCOSD") property—bears directly on Martha's ability to develop within proximity of visually prominent ridge lines as envisioned by the Judgments. Given this important context, the County must consider the directives of the two Judgments in addressing Martha's position on both species and water tank issues. This is particularly relevant in the context of the water tank. Ultimately, as explained further below, if the Marin Municipal Water District ("MMWD") refuses to accept any of Martha's proposals for an on-site tank with a base elevation of 590 feet, the County's good faith compliance with the Judgments mandates that the County complete a land swap so that a water tank can be constructed at sufficient elevation. 2. Martha has Demonstrated the Feasibility of Mitigation Measures to Resolve the Two Issues Identified by the County In the County's March 14, 2014 correspondence to Martha, it identified two primary areas of concern raised by the Board of Supervisors: (1) potential impacts to listed, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species; and (2) water tank design and fire flows. With respect to species, for example, the County explained that the Board felt Martha had not demonstrated the feasibility of implementing the EIR's recommended mitigation measures. Further, with respect to water tank design and fire flows, the County explained that the Board found that there were too many unknowns regarding the final elevation of the proposed water tank. Since receipt of the County's letter, Martha has analyzed in detail each of these issues and, by submission of these updated materials, believes that it has either demonstrated the feasibility of those mitigation measures identified by the Board or otherwise shown that alternative—yet equally effective—mitigation measures exist. The EIR, for instance, identified off-site mitigation for serpentine -dependent species as a possibility yet concluded that such mitigation was not feasible. But Martha has provided in the past and is again providing John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 3 information that shows, contrary to the EIR's conclusion, off-site mitigation for these species is feasible, and at least six locations are potentially available to provide such mitigation. Martha therefore is asking that the County impose a condition that requires a specific amount of mitigation land to be preserved, with the specific site to be determined in the future. Martha also has identified two options for ensuring adequate domestic water pressure and fire flows. First, if Martha can obtain the approval of MMWD for an on-site tank with a base elevation of 590 feet, it can proceed on that basis. Recognizing that MMWD has not yet approved a tank and has identified several issues with such a tank, however, the second option is for the County to require the construction of a tank on the adjacent MCOSD property. Martha therefore is asking the County to proceed with a condition of approval and mitigation requirement that requires Martha to provide a water tank with a base elevation of at least 590 feet, in one of these two ways. 3. Off -Site Mitigation for Serpentine-De»endent Plant Species is Feasible, Consistent with the Countywide Plan, and Fully Supported by Case Law a. Off-site mitigation is feasible Based on its conclusion that the Project as proposed would result in significant impacts to on-site populations of Marin dwarf flax and serpentine reed grass, the EIR as currently drafted would require Martha, among other things, to redesign its proposed site plan to preserve these two plant species at a minimum preservation:loss ratio of 3:1 and to provide certain minimum setbacks from preserved populations. (Draft EIR, p. 435-36.) The EIR's imposition of this mitigation measure, however, appears to rely on its related finding that off-site mitigation would not be feasible. (Id at 436.) But this conclusion does not appear to be based on any factual support, and it is difficult to understand the basis for such finding. Indeed, as described in both the updated letter from Mr. Foreman as well as an earlier letter from him, both of which are being submitted concurrently herewith, the EIR's conclusion appears to be incorrect. According to Mr. Foreman, there are at least six sites—and possibly snore—that are potentially appropriate for further evaluation as off- site mitigation options, in addition to any other sites that may be discovered through further research) As of now, none of those sites appear to have the level of protection or management to be considered preserved, and therefore could have the potential to serve as off-site mitigation lands. Moreover, as further explained by Mr. Foreman, off-site mitigation could require measures consistent with those already discussed for on-site parcels in the Draft EIR, in particular with respect to Mitigation Measure 5.6-1(c). Among other things, this would include 1 These six sites are identified in Mr. Foreman's letter as the following: (1) Old St. Hilary's; (2) North Bay Mitigation and Species Conservation Bank; (3) Tiburon Middle Ridge; (4) Carson Ridge; (5) Mt. Burdell Open Space; and (6) Lucasfilm. John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 4 the following: presence of the target species and suitable habitat; protection of the site in perpetuity; a Tong -term management plan; and assurance for in perpetuity funding for the preservation and management of the target species. (See Foreman Oct. 27, 2015 letter, pp. 2-3.) Thus, not only does off-site mitigation of serpentine -dependent species appear to be feasible but also it would be equally effective at mitigating impacts. Accordingly, Martha respectfully requests that the County impose a condition that requires a specific amount of off-site mitigation land to be preserved, with the specific site to be determined in the future. This condition would reflect the fact that off-site mitigation is both feasible and an effective means of reducing impacts to serpentine -dependent species to a less than significant level. b. Off-site mitigation is consistent with the Countywide Plan Off-site mitigation also is consistent with the Marin Countywide Plan, which generally promotes a balance between competing interests in formulating policies and allows broad discretion to weigh alternatives. In fact, the Plan itself allows for off-site mitigation. The Countywide Plan contains a number of policies intended to preserve native habitat and protect sensitive resources through a variety of means, including among others land acquisition, appropriate land use practices, and mitigation. (See Exhibit D. pp. 2.4-2, 2.4-8.) Where sensitive resources—such as special status species—are present, the Countywide Plan prioritizes "adequate mitigation measures for ensuring the protection of any sensitive resources and achieving 'no net loss' of sensitive habitat acreage, values, and function." To this end, the Plan states that "[d]evelopment projects should preferably be modified to avoid impacts on sensitive resources, or to adequately mitigate impacts by providing on-site or (as a lowest priority) off-site replacement at a higher ratio." (Id. at p. 2.4-13.) In addition, the Plan explains that protection of sensitive habitat can also include "acquisition as open space in fee title, permanent preservation and management under a conservation easement, or other suitable methods." (Id. at p. 2.4-15.) Here, off-site mitigation is consistent with the Countywide Plan's goal of preserving native habitat and protecting sensitive resources through a variety of means and will contribute to the Plan's overall goal of achieving "no net loss." Specifically, the permanent preservation of off-site populations of Marin dwarf flax and serpentine reed grass would ensure the long-term protection and management of larger, contiguous, and therefore more robust habitat areas. Nor would off-site mitigation otherwise be in conflict with any particular policy or program described in the Countywide Plan. In fact, Policy BIO -2.2 explicitly recognizes that in certain circumstances off-site mitigation would be appropriate. (Id. at p. 2.4-13.) Moreover, the County itself has allowed off-site mitigation at least in some contexts. In 2003, for example, Waldo Point Harbor received a Master Plan/Precise Development Plan approval from the County to accommodate, among other things, 38 new house boats. Although we understand that the County initially sought to require on-site wetland mitigation, in 2009 the John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 5 County (in consultation with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers) agreed that the Almonte Marsh site in Mill Valley was an acceptable off-site mitigation alternative. (See Exhibit D). Given the need to consider the dictates of the Judgments in making mitigation decisions for this project, the same decision should be made here, and off-site mitigation should be allowed. c. Off-site mitigation is fully consistent with CEQA case law A condition for off-site mitigation is fully consistent with CEQA case law. In California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, for example, a petitioner contended that an EIR had unlawfully deferred development and adoption of mitigation measures until after project approval by failing to describe where certain off-site mitigation might occur. (See California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 614.) In rejecting this claim, the court observed that where a public agency has identified measures that will mitigate impacts, it need not commit to any particular measure (such as a specific off-site mitigation property) so long as it commits to mitigating the significant impacts of the project. (Id. at 621.) The court then found that the respondent city had satisfied this requirement by determining the impact the project would have—i.e., habitat loss—and identifying a specific measure to mitigate that impact—i.e., preservation or creation of replacement habitat off site in a specific ratio to the habitat lost. (Id at 621-22.) Likewise, in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, petitioners contended that certain mitigation measures requiring a developer to acquire off-site mitigation property violated CEQA because the record did not show that acquisition of the property was feasible. In rejecting petitioners' claims, the court first re -affirmed that an agency need not identify the exact location of off-site mitigation. (See Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 279 [citing California Native Plant Society, 172 Cal.App.4th at 621-22].) The court then concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that acquisition of mitigation property was capable of being successfully accomplished within a reasonable time period. (Id. [citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1].) There was evidence, for example, that the developer already had searched for suitable property and found a number of potential sites meeting certain search criteria. (Id. at 279-80.) Here, based on the information provided in Mr. Foreman's letters, Martha likewise has demonstrated that the location and acquisition of off-site mitigation property is capable of being successfully accomplished within a reasonable time period. Accordingly, were the EIR to provide for off-site mitigation, such measure almost certainly would survive judicial scrutiny. 4. There is no Basis for the EIR's Recommended Mitigation Measure for Impacts to California Red -Legged Frogs In addition to impacts to special status plant species, the Draft EIR identifies a potentially significant impact on foraging habitat and dispersal movements for California red -legged frogs John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 6 that breed in nearby Keil Pond.2 Given this conclusion, the EIR recommends Mitigation Measure 5.6-2(a), which would require Martha to redesign its plans "to remove, relocate, reduce or reconfigure lots within the Forest Glen area to provide in perpetuity connectivity via a minimum 100 -foot wide woodland corridor between preserved woodland habitat in the southern and northern portions of the site." (Draft EIR, p. 441.) As described in Mr. Foreman's October 27, 2015 letter, however, there is no basis for this mitigation measure. Martha's plans already provide for an approximately 1,000 -foot -wide open space corridor composed of woodland and grassland between proposed building sites, and the need for an additional "minimum 100 -foot wide woodland corridor" is not otherwise established in the Draft EIR. Nor is a requirement for the corridor to be within woodland habitat otherwise supported by scientific literature on California red -legged frog movement and use of uplands.3 Given the lack of support for this mitigation component, Martha requests that the County conclude that, without the additional 100 -foot wide woodland corridor, but with implementation of the other identified mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 5.6-2(b) through 5.6-2(e)), impacts to California red -legged frog would be reduced to a less than significant level. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2(e) [providing that an EIR's conclusion that an environmental impact is or is not significant is not necessarily binding on the lead agency]; Environmental Council v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 428, 437-39 [noting that "[a]s the ultimate decision -maker, the Board had the power to change the findings in the EIR prepared by its staff" (emphasis in original)]; see also Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v, California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1079-80 [applying same rule to Coastal Commission determinations].) In this regard, the County could impose a condition simply requiring Martha to maintain the open space corridors as currently described in the Project plans. 5. The County Has the Power to Allow a Water Tank at Sufficient Elevation on Adjacent MCOSD Land and, Alternatively, an On-site Water Tank at a Base Elevation of 590 Feet On the Project Site is Feasible a. The County Has the Power to Allow a Water Tank on Adjacent Marin County Open Space District Land The County's March 14, 2014 letter also stated that the Board found a number of unknowns with respect to the proposed water tank. Among other things, the County noted that 2 While the California red -legged frog has not been detected on site, the Draft EIR states that the frog is known to breed in Keil Pond, which is located downslope to the east of the Project site on the other side of Paradise Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 439.) 3 As explained by Mr. Foreman, for example, at least one study of the terrestrial activity of California red - legged frogs in coastal forests and grasslands has conduded that most migrating frogs "moved overland in approximately straight lines to target sites without apparent regard to vegetation type or topography." That same study also noted that riparian corridors were neither essential nor preferred. (Foreman Oct. 27, 2015 letter, p. 2.) John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 7 the mitigation to raise the water tank to an elevation of 590 feet did not include a water tank design and had not been reviewed by MMWD. The County also explained the Board's concern that fire flows might not meet the Tiburon Fire Protection District's ("TFPD") standards. The County itself, however, has the power to allow a water tank at sufficient elevation on the adjacent Old St. Hilary's Open Space Preserve, located just upslope of the currently proposed water tank location. (See Exhibit E [Exhibit 6.0-6 from the Draft EIR].) As described in the Draft EIR, such a water tank would be buried underground within an approximately 0.65 -acre site, and a 16 -foot wide paved access road would connect the water tank to the on-site water tank road. The access road and water line would need to be constructed within a MMWD easement area within the preserve. (See Draft EIR, p. 566.) Notably, this alternative water tank location would require MCOSD to transfer a portion of the Old St. Hilary's Open Space Preserve to MMWD. And according to the EIR, MCOSD has "dedicated" the preserve pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5540, which restricts MCOSD's ability to transfer the land. Notwithstanding section 5540, however, MCOSD may, with the approval by a unanimous vote of its board of directors, exchange real property dedicated and used for park and/or open space purposes for other real property that the board determines to be of equal or greater value and necessary to be acquired for park and/or open space purposes.4 (See Pub. Resources Code, § 5540.5.) Here, MCOSD is the alter ego of the County; among other things, the County and MCOSD have the same governing board and MCOSD operates as one component of the County's Parks Department. This satisfies the requirements for the application of the alter ego doctrine, where there is a unity of interest and control, and where treating the entities as separate would further an injustice. Here, that injustice would be avoiding the dictates of the Judgments. (Sec, c.g., Hollywood Cleaning & Pressing Co. v. Hollywood Laundry Service, Inc. (1921) 217 Cal. 124 [setting forth general principles of alter ego doctrine]; Tucker Land Co. v. State of California (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1191 [applying alter ego doctrine to public agencies, but finding evidence insufficient to invoke doctrine in that case]; Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (Aug. 16, 2016) 2016 WL 4045243 [applying Hollywood Cleaning criteria in evaluating whether alter ego doctrine applied to public agency.) Thus, the Board has the power to facilitate precisely this sort of land swap. The County could readily provide for a water tank at a sufficient elevation while also allowing for MCOSD's receipt of high quality open space land adjacent to the existing Old St. Hilary's Open Space Preserve. Nor would Martha's proposal otherwise be inconsistent with MCOSD's Boundary Adjustment/Dedication Program. As an initial matter, it is not altogether clear that this policy— which principally pertains to the sale of land that has not formally been dedicated under Public 4 Any transfer of land under Public Resources Code section 5540.5 is limited to no more than 10 acres of district -owned real property per calendar year. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 5540.5(b).) John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 8 Resource Code section 5540—even applies at all. But in any event, Martha's proposal would meet and implement its goals. In particular, the swap would be structured so that MMWD would own the land underlying the water tank, and Martha would in return convey to MCOSD an equal or larger area of the Martha property that borders the current open space area. Consistent with MCOSD's policy, this swap will benefit both the public and MCOSD management practices by providing an equal or greater amount of open space land and, importantly, improving fire protection to the entire area, including already -existing residences that border on wildland fire hazard areas in the MCOSD area and the Martha property.5 Accordingly, Martha therefore respectfully requests that the County work with it to develop a mutually agreeable swap of land. b. Alternatively, Construction of a Water Tank at a Base Elevation of 590 Feet is Feasible In any event, shortly after receiving the County's March 2014 letter, Martha commenced work with MMWD and TFPD to determine the engineering viability of a water tank with a base elevation of 590 feet and confirm that fire flow standards could be met at such an elevation. In August 2014, following a number of meetings, TFPD concluded that a water tank at 590 feet could comply with fire flow standards. A true and correct copy of TFPD's letter confirming permissible fire flow standards is attached hereto as Exhibit F. During this time, Martha also submitted preliminary grading plans, structural plans, and geotechnical investigation and structural calculations for a proposed water tank to MMWD. In September 2014, MMWD confirmed that "structurally adequate retaining structures could be designed and constructed" at a base elevation of 590 feet but expressed concern with visual impacts and its own long-term liability. Martha thereafter requested that MMWD formally accept the proposed design for the water tank. In November 2014, reiterating the same concerns, MMWD declined to accept the water tank design at that time. True and correct copies of this fall 2014 correspondence with MMWD are attached hereto as Exhibit G. While MMWD has not yet formally approved Martha's proposed water tank design, it has at a minimum confirmed that a water tank at an elevation of 590 feet is feasible, and Martha remains confident that it will eventually be able to propose a tank design that is acceptable to MMWD. Ultimately, therefore, Martha seeks a condition of approval stating that it must provide a water tank that meets water pressure and fire flow requirements, whether that is a water tank located on Martha's property or one located on the adjacent MCOSD property. Indeed, it is even possible that MMWD could approve a water tank with a base elevation lower than 590 feet that, through the use of a water pressure pump system, is able to satisfy water pressure and fire flow requirements. This type of design, for instance, would be entirely 5 The policy also states that boundary adjustments should not result in the creation of new buildable lots. Here, the number of lots is governed by the Judgments, so the transfer does not increase the number of buildable lots. It would, however, allow those lots to be developed consistent with the dictates of the Judgments. John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 9 consistent with the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan (in which MMWD participated), which expressly contemplates that in certain instances properties located within the Paradise Drive area could be serviced by a water pressure pump system. (See Exhibit H, p. 12.) New heading and text c. Martha's Water Tank Proposal Will Further County Goals of Improving Water Pressure and Storage for Existing Residents in the Area One of the primary goals set forth in the County's Paradise Drive Visioning Plan is to provide adequate water for domestic use and fire protection. One of the implementing actions for this goal is to use water tanks proposed for new development to improve water pressure at existing residences. (See Exhibit H, D. 14) Proceeding with Martha's proposal for a 590' elevation water tank, either on the Martha property or on the adjacent MCOSD land will help further this undoubtedly important policy. 6. There is No Basis for Recirculating the EIR In its recent arguments to the Court, the County raised the possibility that it might decide that the EIR should be recirculated. Here, however, none of the updated information being provided by Martha could serve as a basis to recirculate the Project EIR. Recirculation is required only where "significant new information" is added to an EIR prior to certification. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1.) CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 in turn clarifies that new information is not "significant" "unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect ... that the project's proponents have declined to implement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5(a).) This may include, for example, a disclosure showing that: • A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 10 Here, no such "significant new information" exists. First, with respect to impacts to serpentine -dependent species, the only change to the EIR would be to allow for off-site mitigation. This addition, however, would not result in any disclosure showing either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Rather, the revision simply would clarify that off-site mitigation is both feasible and could be implemented to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. But because impacts to these species would still be mitigated to a less than significant level, the public would not be deprived of an opportunity to comment upon a significant adverse environmental effect of the Project. Nor do Martha's updated plan sheets for a water tank at a base elevation of 590 feet present any "significant new information." Rather, given that the LIR already discusses the implications of an on-site tank at 590 feet, the only "information" presented by these updated sheets is to demonstrate that an on-site water tank at that elevation would be feasible. Thus, because none of the information presented in this letter reflects "significant new information," there is no basis to require recirculation. Martha looks forward to the County's substantive response to this letter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 262-5109 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael H. Zisc[ikc MHZ cc: David Zaltsman, Deputy County Counsel (via Fedex w/enc1.) John E. Roberto August 25, 2016 Page 11 Attachments A. 1976 Judgment B. 2007 Judgment C. 1976 Proposed Development Plan D. Off -Site Mitigation: Marin Countywide Plan excerpt and Almonte Marsh report E. Exhibit 6.0-6 from the Draft LIR F. TFPD's letter confirming permissible fire flow standards G. Fall 2014 correspondence with MMWD H. Paradise Drive Visioning Plan 07297317932735v6 Bony G. Borden ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY Rosemmy Slote CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY Dori K Alrana CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY Robert J. French CHIEF INSPECTOR Peggy M. Toth CHIEF, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA a .41 DGE°01. Prevention * Prosecution * Protection August 18, 2016 Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Marin County Gun Buyback Program Dear Councilmember O'Donnell: Edward S. Berberian District Attorney EUUG U uu AUG 3 1 2016 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIB(URON In 2013, my office coordinated a Gun Buyback Program which resulted in hundreds of firearms, ammunition and peripheral attachments being turned in. Enclosed are several photographs showing some of the firearms purchased. On September 13, 2016, a second gun buyback will be offered to Marin County residents. I am enclosing a copy of the informational bulletin on the event. Also enclosed is a partial list of the event's endorsers. I would be glad to add your names individually, or your city/town's endorsement, to our list. For additional background information, I have included a few of my personal comments explaining why this program has been rekindled. All five members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors have endorsed the program and approved last week $40,000 to meet a portion of the program's costs. I have added an equal amount from my departmental budget. I am also soliciting private contributions from members of the public in any amount that works for the individuals — no contribution is insignificant. A tax ID number will be provided for any such contribution. If a donor wishes to maintain anonymity that request would be honored. In conclusion, any endorsement will be gratefully appreciated and publicly acknowledged. A posting of our bulletin on your public websites would assist in getting the word out. If you feel you can assist at some level to defray the costs, that would be acknowledged as well. I would be glad to appear at any public meeting to answer any questions if you wish. Thank you for your time and consideration of my request. Very truly yours, EDWARD S. BERBERIAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY ESB/vpg Enclosures MAIN OFFICE: 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, ROOM 130, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-5207 TEL: (415) 473-6450 FAX: (415) 473-3719 MARIN COUNTY Buyback $200 $100 cash for an operable semi-automatic for any other operable firearms handgun or an operable assault rifle Locations California Highway Patrol—Marin 53 San Clemente Drive Corte Madera, CA 94925 Novato Police Department 909 Machin Ave. Novato, CA 94945 Mill Valley Police Department One Hamilton Drive Mill Valley, CA 94941 San Rafael Police Department 1400 Fifth Ave. San Rafael, CA 94915 Marin County Sheriff's Point Reyes Sub -station 101 4th Street Pt Reyes Station, CA 94956 Must be a resident of Marin, Sonoma, San Francisco, or Contra Costa Counties. Valid ID or a current utility bill must be presented to verify residency. Will compensate for up to (3) firearms per person. Residents can also turn in inoperable weapons, magazines, and ammunition, but will not be compensated. Requests for accommodations may be made by calling (415) 473- 4167, (415)473-3232 (TTY) or by e-mail at hhsmediateam(u.marincountv.orq. Copies of documents are available in alternative formats, upon request. Gun Buyback Program Endorsers U.S. Representative Jared Huffman Senator Mike McGuire, Marin/ Sonoma District 4 Senator Lois Wolk, Contra Costa District 3 Assembly Member Marc Levine, Marin/Sonoma District 10 Marin County Board of Supervisors: • Damon Connelly • Judy Arnold • Kate Sears • Katie Rice • Steve Kinsey DA George Gascon, SF DA Jill Ravitch, Sonoma DA Mark Peterson, Contra Costa HHS Director - Grant Colfax M.D. County Medical Health Director - Dr. Matt Willis Marin County Superintendent of Public Instruction - Mary Jane Burke Marin County Library Director - Sara Jones Public Defender Jose Varela Richmond Chief of Police - Allwyn Brown San Francisco Chief of Police - Toney Chaplin MC Prosecutors Association Marine County Chiefs Sheriffs Association Marin County Police Chiefs: • Angel Bernal MVPD • Captain Mike Norton CMPA • Christopher Morin FPD • Diana Bishop SRPD • Erik Masterson RPD • Joe Kreins NPD • John Rohrbacher SPD • Michael Cronin TPD • Patricia Seyler BPD Chief Probation Officer, Michael Daly Marin City Performing Stars, Felicia Gaston Moms Demand Action — Marin Chapter, Jen Reidy LET'S NOT PLAY OSTRICH WITH REGARD TO ACKNOWLEDGING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE REASONABLE GUN REGULATIONS EXIST Our nation is enduring an epidemic of gun violence and currently no discernible answer to this illness exists. This is a complex and highly emotionally charged subject. Individuals of all ages, genders, races and national origins are the victims. For a six-month period in 2016 we lost 66 people across the nation in mass gun violence incidents. This figure does not reflect the daily losses from gun violence due to gang -related shootings, domestic violence incidents, suicides or deaths from negligent firearms handling and storage. The venues for these shootings touch our schools, streets, homes, shopping malls, night clubs, and even racing events. In 2013, here in Marin, a Gun Buyback Program was conducted. This program was coordinated through the District Attorney's Office, partnering with the county's local law enforcement agencies, with funding support from the Marin County Board of Supervisors, local city councils, as well as generous financial support from the Marin Community Foundation and members from our community at large. Hundreds of firearms and a large volume of ammunition were collected and destroyed. On September 13, 2016, Marin is conducting another Gun Buyback Program. These programs alone will not solve or cure our gun violence epidemic. This 2016 Gun Buyback initiative, like the 2013 program, is an awareness and recognition that there are simply too many firearms sitting in our homes, garages, and closets; often not properly secured or needed. The dangers are apparent giving accessibility to . children and mentally impaired individuals. Firearms and ammunition when not properly secured are prized items stolen during burglaries. Our law enforcement officers are called upon to respond to incidents at homes more often than they are called to a street corner shoot-out, and if some reduction in the quantity and accessibility to these deadly items can be reduced that is a good thing for the protection of our first responders. Buyback programs clearly are symbolic but also are a constructive, positive messaging to our community and demonstrate things can be done, just as importantly as it demonstrates we want to do something — even if a baby step. Gun violence and reasonable gun regulation is a national problem and needs to be addressed nationally. Sadly, nothing is happening at that level. States like California, which have some of the stronger gun regulations in place, cannot escape the fact that one can go to Nevada or Utah or some other state that has almost nothing regulatory in place and get guns and ammunition which could then come back to haunt and endanger us. We need more than 30 seconds of silence in the US House of Representatives, called by the Speaker of the House, in memory of lives lost after a mass killing — for that is all that currently happens when these tragic events unfold. At the national level we have a few of our representatives (Congressman Huffman being one of them) who are trying to put in place the most modest of changes which require background checks on purchasers of firearms. Even this simple, logical step cannot get to a vote. The National Rifle Association (NRA) casts a Targe shadow in Washington and has been successful in muting Congressional action on even on the most modest, sensible and reasonable gun regulation. "Profit" before addressing our regulatory shortcomings seems to carry the day. It does not "profit" the NRA to work for reasonable, common sense regulations since they receive substantial financial support from the gun industry which banks hundreds of millions of dollars annually from selling their wares. From the NRA to our legislators, sizable political contributions flow and in the end nothing happens. It is simply a disgrace — after these mass killing events the gun industry profits soar and they do nothing to dampen that reaction. How many more sons, grandsons, daughters, granddaughters, spouses and partners, schoolmates, coworkers, friends and neighbors do we need to lose in order to address the issue? No one is saying throw out the Second Amendment; we are only pleading for reasonable restraint and common sense regulation. Diane Crane Iacopi From: Fran Wilson <fhwilfly@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:31 AM To: Diane Crane Iacopi Cc: Erin Tollini; Greg Chanis Subject: Commission on Aging c so [--,:,)Pi-,-;17----:(-{i-- 50 , .,_.., L \:::,-...-..:, -_:-.4 •:=_ -....) 10.1 I5(NIIpfr L1 ,,k' L7 lr II 11 AUG 3 I Z016 I TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I'm sorry to say I feel I should resign as the commissioner from Tiburon. I wish to give the town as much time as needed to fill the position as well as happily introduce that person to the commission and its work. My reason for resigning is because of our repurchase of our "old" condo on Sanibel Island, FL which we had reluctantly given up when we moved to Tiburon 13 years ago. We love spending time there and I find it interferes with my ability to fulfill my commission duties. Please let me know if I can help with the recruitment process. Barry and I are back in Tiburon on September 27. Please feel free to call on me if I can be of help. I loved my experience with the commission and am grateful to have had the opportunity. Fran Wilson Sent from my iPhone 1 Friday Memo for September 2016 The Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) has received a $35,160 grant from the Marin Energy Watch Partnership to develop annual community greenhouse gas inventories for all Marin jurisdictions for years 2005 through 2014 to supplement the existing 2005 and 2010 inventories. This work will provide a better picture of how emissions have changed over the years and document our most recent progress on meeting our greenhouse gas reduction goal to reduce emissions 15% below 2005 levels by the year 2020. MCEP will prepare and present a report to the Town Council later this year or early 2017. The grant also provides funding to update the Marin Sustainability Tracker, an innovate interactive map that shows Marin communities' progress on 12 metrics related to energy, waste, transportation, water use, and greenhouse gas reductions. MCEP is a partnership of all eleven cities and towns in Marin County, plus the County of Marin, the Transportation Authority of Marin, Marin Clean Energy, and the Marin Municipal Water District. MCEP's mission is to track greenhouse gas emissions and implement member jurisdictions' climate action plans. TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DIGEST Regular Meeting Design Review Board September 1, 2016 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Cousins and Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 85 EAST VIEW AVENUE: File Nos. DR2016091, VAR2016026, VAR2016027, VAR2016028, VAR2016029, VAR2016030 & FAE2016009; David and Tandy Ford, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks, excess lot coverage and excess building height, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicant proposes to construct a new four-story, 1,908 square foot house, which would result in a floor area ratio of 97.1%, which is greater than the 35.0% maximum for a lot of this size. The front yard setback would be zero feet in lieu of the minimum 15 feet. The east side setback would be 3 feet and the west side yard setback would be 3 feet, 4 inches, in lieu of the minimum 8 feet. The lot coverage of the house would be 1,227 square feet (62.3%), which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. The house would be 42 feet, 11 inches tall, in lieu of the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 060- 105-67. [DW] ACTION ITEMS 2. 173 STEWART DRIVE: File No. DR2016036; Afie Royo, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story, 2,723 square foot house with a 510 square foot garage. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-101-21. [DW] Design Review Board Agenda September 1, 2016 Page 1 3. 2225 VISTAZO EAST STREET: File No. DR2016089; Shor Capital, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story 5,375 square foot house and a 720 square foot garage. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-091-55. [DWS 4. MINUTES: Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of August 18, 2016 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board Agenda September 1, 2016 Page 2 GET NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION The regular Town Council Meeting on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 has been cancelled. 0 THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING is scheduled for WEDNESDAY, September 21, 2016, at 7:30 PM in the Town Council Chambers located at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. sl DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Posted at Town Hall cc: The Ark and Marin Independent Journal August 25, 2016 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS 174 DIGES NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION REQUESTING TO INCREASE RATES FOR THE RETIREMENT OF DIABLO CANYON (A.16-08-006) Background On August 11, 2016, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval of a Joint Proposal that would phase out PG&E's production of nuclear power at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) at the end of its current operating license period in 2024 and 2025. This request will also allow PG&E to increase its investment in energy efficiency, renewables and storage beyond the current state 2030 mandates. The parties to the Joint Proposal include: PG&E, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. The proposal recognizes that California's recently implemented energy policies, along with several other factors, will significantly reduce the need for Diablo Canyon's electricity output by 2025. The Joint Proposal would replace power produced by two nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant with a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage. This proposal will also include a PG&E commitment to a 55 percent renewable energy target in 2031, which is five percentage points higher than the state's 2030 mandate. The Joint Proposal would increase total system rates by 1.6 percent in the near term. However, PG&E does not anticipate a long-term increase in customer rates as a result of the proposal. PG&E believes relicensing and operating DCPP through 2044 would have a higher overall cost than the Joint Proposal. Additional factors affecting this rate projection include lower demand, declining costs for renewable power and the potential for higher renewable integration costs if DCPP is relicensed. If approved, the costs would be $1.766 billion and would be collected over an eight year time period. Included in this application is an increase to annual nuclear decommissioning revenue requirements of $59 million, an increase in annual generation revenue requirements of $7 million over the period 2018-2025, and an annual energy efficiency revenue requirement of $187 million over the period 2019-2025. ,. The increased revenue requested in this filing will support the following activities: • Energy efficiency projects to reduce 2,000 gigawatt hours in electricity demand across PG&E's service territory by 2024. • The Diablo Canyon Employee Retention and Employee Retraining Programs to ensure the continued safe and reliable operation of the plant through the end of its licensed life. • The Community Impacts Mitigation Payments to San Luis Obispo County to offset the loss of property tax revenue over the remaining nine years of plant operation. • PG&E's formal termination of its license renewal application allowing the recovery of paid costs associated with previous license renewal activities. How will PG&E's application affect me? Most of PG&E's customers are bundled customers which receive electricity (generation), transmission and distribution service from PG&E. For the year 2021, the year with the greatest revenue requirement impact as a result of this application, the forecasted electric revenue requirement increase is $253 million. PG&E estimates that the requested increase in electric revenues would be distributed as shown in the table included in a bill insert announcing this filing that was sent directly to customers in the September 2016 billing cycle. If approved, PG&E's request would increase electric rates for customers who receive electric generation and distribution services from PG&E. For a typical residential Non -CARE customer using 500 kWh per month the rate would increase from $96.94 to $98.48 or 1.6 percent. Individual customer bills may vary. How will PG&E's application affect non -bundled customers? Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers purchase electricity from another provider and receive electric transmission and distribution services from PG&E. The net impact of PG&E's application on DA and CCA customers would be $37.8 million, or an average decrease of 3.2 percent. 1 Departing Lo austi s d not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, theyikeltpkyire5IM pa certain charges as required by law or CPUC decision. The net impact on DL customers would be $5 million, oran average increase of 15.5 percent. How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDD/TTY (speech -hearing impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. Para mos detalles (lame al 1-800-660-6789 • n fm * ttc 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Retirement (A.16-08-006) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits are also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by appointment only. For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov/pao. CPUC process This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting. The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov. Stay informed If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, if you have informal comments about the application, or questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mail: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 If you are writing or emailing the Public Advisor's Office, please include the proceeding number (Diablo Canyon, A.16-08- 006). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff, and will become public record. 2 , L CE c Hooding Help Reduce Your Flood Risk With Proper Waste Management I I ' eft. trosmesigil Lassa.. k Localized flooding in Bel Aire and Strawberry Circle (Flood Control Zone 4) can occur when waste such as yard debris and trash block or become stuck within stormdrains. These items may also be damaging to our environment when they wash through the storm drains and into our creeks, wetlands, and Richardson Bay. Thank you for taking the time to help protect your community by considering the following: ,?- and landscaping material . eroding away during storms (see: http: • www.townofsanansel mo.org/Archive/ViewFi le/Item/2836 Be observant during heavy rains for otential problems and report oncerns to the Marin County Flow .onto! & Water Cons. - t : • 4011.WW101 Visit rn a rimmatersheds.org for more information about the Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District and Flood Control Zone 4. Request materials in alternative formats by dialing 415-473-4381 (voice) or CRS 711, or by emailing disabilityaccess@marincounty.org. Get to Know Your Mari The District's mission is to redu sustainable practices. We aim t planning, design, construction, detention basins, bypass drains areas with specific flooding con improvements to creeks and dr n County Flood Control & Water Conservation District ce the risk of flooding for the protection of life and property while utilizing D meet this mission through effective, transparent, and responsive operation, and maintenance of facilities such as stormwater pump stations, , creeks, ditches, and levees. Within the District ten zones were created in :erns. These zones can fund many functions, including the construction of ainage facilities. Zone 4 was established in the 1960s and consists of the Bel Aire neighborhood and a small portion of Strawberry. Houses which were built within the low Tying floodplain experienced frequent flooding until improvements were made, including the construction of the Cove, Pamela Court, and Strawberry Circle stormwater pump stations. Bel Aire was annexed by the Town of Tiburon in the 1980s and the Town now owns and maintains much of the neighborhood's storm drain system. Zone 4 still operates and maintains the pump stations and receives annual revenues from property taxes collected within Zone 4. An Advisory Board of 5 residents is appointed by the District's Board of Supervisors to review and advise it on matters including the budget, as well as neighborhood concerns and project priorities. poogiogq2p it -to 11! )Ism poou a3npa1 dtaH sd!1 JoJ aNsuj aaS MOJJOI/\J3l/v 41O3S :NllV 98117-£16176 VD `laeJeb ues 98.117)(09 'Cid uopEnJasuo' Ja}eAA �$ lonuoD pooh A1unop u!Jew Fall 2016 In this issue of Grcat,lti Aging Well 1 Chair's Message 2 Meet Marilyn W 2 Storing Medications 3 AgeSong Marin 3 Older Americans Act4 Senior Info Fair 4 Veterans Services 5 Nutrition. and Falling6 Walking Poles 7 Meeting Schedule 8 Editor Amy Dietz, MPH Editorial Board Marge Belknap, M.D. Allan Bortel Jim Monson Sylvia Landman Published By Marin. County Area Agency on Aging Lee Pullen, Director s._ ewsl.etter:,of.t: a Mari Gount. Commissionon. ;ging Aging Well: Justice, Dignity, and Beauty By carol Hovis When I consider the reasons aging well is paramount to a healthy society, three words come to mind: justice, dignity, and beauty. As we grow older, we become cognizant that aging is a significant cause that requires a strong commitment to justice and compassion. When I reflect on my own life, I realize that the first justice issue of which I was conscious was the issue of age. As a child, I heard some adults say "children should be seen and not heard" and I observed a general lack of appreciation by many adults for the unique gifts and value of children and young people. Thus was my first indignity of prejudice. Fast forward 45 years, and now I see and witness how our culture "sees" and often treats people as they grow old. All of us were young once and can recall our individual feelings of being discounted because of our youth. And all of us are growing older each day and share the human bond regarding the inevitability of our demise. Therefore, when we talk about aging, justice and compassion (Buddhism teaches that compassion is an important lens to talk about justice) seem essential to meaningful relationships within our families, within our communities, and within society as a whole. A second word that comes to mind is dignity. This word comes from the Latin root meaning "worth." Interconnected with justice and compassion is the belief that all people deserve to be treated as worthy of respect and love. Finally, the third word that comes to mind is beauty. Because our culture equates beauty with youthfulness, it feels so important that we reclaim the essence, the real meaning of beauty, as we talk about aging. To that end, I share with you a reading from the book, Anam Cam, by John O'Donohue: "Modern society is based on an ideology of strength and image. Consequently, old people are often sidelined. In former times, old people were seen as those who had the greatest wisdom. There was always reverence and respect for the elders. Old people still have the fires of longing burning brightly and beautifully within their hearts. Real beauty is a light that comes from the soul. Sometimes in an old face, you see that light coming from behind the lines; it is a vision of the most poignant beauty." I leave with you these three words: justice, dignity, and beauty when we consider our own aging bodies and those with whom we live, work, and serve. The Reverend Carol How it the former Executive Director of the Marin Interfaith Council. sa e g from the Commission Chair By Teri Dowling I hope you enjoyed your summer and are ready for the beautiful Fall weather in Marin. Fall is my favorite time of year. It brings back childhood memories of walking on back country roads with my parents and sisters in up- state New York, our pockets full of red delicious apples, the air crisp and the maple trees covered with bright red leaves. Now that California is my home, I still love walks during this season with my family and friends, our pockets full of gravenstein apples, along paths of oaks and redwood trees (in a far more temperate climate). This Fall there are many exciting events happening in Marin. Be sure to check out the Marin Senior Information Fair on October 26 (see page 4) and come visit us at the Commission on Aging booth. Hopefully, most of you know by now that the Marin Commission on Aging holds a public meeting the first Thursday of every month (except for the month of August) at different locations throughout the County. The public is most welcomed and encouraged to attend. These meetings always start at 10 am and, for the first hour, there is a guest speaker(s) who presents on a topic of interest and of importance to older adults in Marin County. From 11 am - 12:30 pm there is a formal Commission on Aging meeting, where the public has an opportunity to make comments and learn more about the work of the Commission on Aging and the County of Marin's Office of Aging and Adult Services. Take a look at the last page of this issue for the topics and locations of meetings for September - December and make a commitment to bring yourself and a friend to at least one of these meetings. I look forward to seeing you there. Meet Marilyn Maddalena Withrow By Sylvia Landman What does a vibrant, beautiful senior citizen do when she finds herself living in a residence home because she can no longer drive? Marilyn busies herself appraising quilts for others. She continues to write, sharing her quilting expertise, which she began in 1958, as a professional quitter, instructor, judge and appraiser throughout the United States. "I never thought that my love for quilting would take me from my family's Iowa farm to South Africa, South and Central America, the British Virgin Islands, Russia, Florida, New York City and back to a cattle ranch with my husband in Oklahoma," she relates. Losing an eye five years ago slowed but did not stop her. "If I need to see things in detail, I close my blind eye to study with my good eye, which has 20/20 vision," she explains. To make the best of her life, she continues to make quilts, write, teach, and appraise quilts. One client has had Marilyn appraise every quilt she has made for 25 years and says, "Marilyn sees things in quilts that other judges and appraisers miss. She sees more with one eye than most others do with two," she explains. "Her educated, experienced fingers tell her all she needs to know about a quilt." Quilters wanting Marilyn's advice either bring their quilts to her new home at her Senior Living Residence Home or mail them to her. When quilters exhibit quilts in a nearby show, Marilyn travels to appraise them there. She also studies good, dose -up quilt photos to appraise from a distance. There is no stopping Marilyn. Sylvia Landman is a retired teacher and author laving in Novato. 2 Tips for Managing and AgeSong Marin Turns 10 Safely Storing Your By Ann Coffey, PhD Medications By Maureen Denieva Keep Track of Your Medicines and Know What You're Taking • Make a master list of all your medicines. Note your medicine names, doctors' names, doses, side effects, and other important information. Include all prescription and over-the-counter medicines, vitamins, and herbal supplements. Take it with you to every doctor visit, and be sure to update it whenever your medicines change. Make sure family members have copies in case of an emergency. • Know what to do if you miss a dose. Talk to your doctor about each medicine you take. What you do about a missed dose could be different for each medicine. • Certain medications taken together or combined with alcohol can have serious side effects. Read labels carefully and follow your doctor's advice. Have a Routine • Make a schedule for taking your medicines, and follow it every day. If you have a hard time remembering when you took a dose, keep a notepad with your medications, and write down what time you took each dose. • Set your watch alarm or a kitchen timer to remind you when to take your medicines. Or ask a family member to help you remember to take your medicines. Keep All Medications Out of Reach of Children and Pets • The best way to ensure your medications don't end up in the wrong hands is to store them in a locked drawer or cabinet. Pick up any dropped pills. immediately. For more information, visit: www.rxsafemarin.org Maureen Denieva is a Senior Project Coordinator with Marin County Health and Human Services and the Coordinator of RX Safe Marin. Are you someone who wants to live your life with purpose and meaning, develop new interests, discover what gives you joy, and make new friends? If so, you are just the kind of person who joins AgeSong Marin. We all know that life at this stage can be challenging with respect to health, loss, and family. The shared wisdom and humor that arises in an AgeSong group provides support and understanding to its members. Over the past decade more than 500 Marin seniors have participated in AgeSong Marin. One of our participants explained it like this, "AgeSong touches my heart; I feel heard and -understood with a sense of belonging to a `tribe.' We laugh frequently and make new connections. This is one of the few places where I can talk about what's important to me." Men and women 65 and older meet together in small groups to share their stories, concerns, wishes, and plans. Each group consists of 6-8 participants and two trained volunteer facilitators that meet once a week for 8 weeks. AgeSong Marin is a place to calk, listen, laugh, and learn. Confidentiality is respected. Prior to each meeting, the facilitators provide reading material that focuses and stimulates the discussion and encourages personal reflection. The groups meet at the Family Service Agency in Terra Linda, Mill Valley Community Center, and Margaret Todd Senior Center (Novato). There is an $80 administrative fee paid to Family Service Agency. Scholarships are available. For further information visit www.agesongmarin.org or call 415-491-5726. Ann Coffey,PhD is the cofounder ofAgeSong Marin. AgeSong Marin Group Older Americans Act Reauthorization By James Monson After the White House Conference on Aging in 2015, President Obama pledged to work with Congress to reauthorize the Older Americans Act (OAA) to pro- vide critical support to families and communities. This work culminated with the President's signing of Senate Bill 192 in April, 2016. The new OAA contin- ues and strengthens vital programs for older Ameri- cans through 2019. The Bill provides $2 billion to fund home and community based services, elder jus- tice, information and referral networks, employment services, Native American grants, and other activities. Streamlining and improving program administration are key elements of the new legislation. Data analysis and evaluation will aid development of best practices for programs like disease prevention, fall prevention, and chronic condition management. The structure for implementing OAA programs is through state agencies on aging to local area agencies on aging (AAA). Most of California's AAAs are orga- nized by county, and Marin County is one of these. Marin County Aging and Adult Services acts as the AAA under the Department of Human Services and Board of Supervisors. The Marin County Commission on Aging is a citizens' advisory council to the Board of Supervisors and works closely with the AAA. Last spring, the AAA completed an Area Plan for years 2016-2020 to guide program development and resource allocation to services under the OAA. It can be found at: www.livelonglivewellmarin.org. Marin County receives about $1 million of OAA fund- ing to support programs for older residents of Marin County. These vital programs include: • Home and Community Based Services Nutritional assis- tance, both congregate and home delivered meals, caregiver support with respite, education, training and counseling; support services, including trans- portation, legal aid, case management; disease pre- vention and health promotion. • Elder Justice Long-term care ombudsman program to assist elders in nursing homes and assisted living residences. Responders to elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. • Information, Assistance, and Referral Both national and local websites and call centers to identify and con- nect older adults and caregivers to community re- sources. In Marin County, call (415) 457 -INFO. James Monson is a Commissioner _from District 4. Don't Miss the Senior Information Fair! Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 9:00 am - 3:00 pm FREE ADMISSION Marin Exhibit Hall 10 Avenue of the Flags, San Rafael SENIOR ` INFORMATION FAIR 4 Free Shuttle Service by Whistlestop Call 415-454-0964 4 Marin County Veterans Services By Amy Diet Many people who are eligible for veterans services may not realize that they qualify. Sean Stephens, an Army Veteran, has been the Marin County Veterans Services' Officer for the past six years. "Some people with an honorable discharge do not think they are a veteran because they only served for two years, did not serve in combat, or were not injured in the service. Women and people who served honorably in the National Guard and Reserves are often unsure of their status." Eligibility for Veterans Administration (VA) benefits entails various opportunities and entitlements. These include VA health care, disability compensation due to injuries sustained while on active duty or not, free burial in a national cemetery with an honor guard, and college fee waivers for children. "When vets call, I figure out what's going on with them right now and how and if I can relate it to their military service. An example: a vet served during time of war but never saw combat. She's having financial issues because of increased medical expenses and she may be eligible for help with reimbursement through the VA." Under federal law, a veteran is any person who served honorably on active duty in the armed forces of the United States. Discharges marked "General and under honorable conditions" also qualify. Other qualifying events include: persons who served in the active military, naval, or air service of the United States and were discharged due to a service - connected disability or who filed a claim for a service -connected disability sustained while in the service. For example, a person could go into the service and injure themselves while in basic training and receive a service -connected disability rating from the Veterans Administration. They would be considered a veteran regardless of how long they served. Members of the National Guard and Reserves may be considered veterans if they were deployed under title 5 10 (Federal t+, Orders) and complete that deployment and are issued a DD- F. 214 (discharge) under honorable conditions. Veterans should never take it for granted that their discharge, if not honorable, would preclude them from VA . "The wise thing to do is to apply, unless the character is bad conduct or dishonorable," Sean says. "There is also a process apply to have the discharge upgraded. Our office can work with you." Mort Tallen, Former Alarin County Veterans Service Officer to Upon hearing about the Marin County VA Office, Novato resident and Great Age columnist Sylvia Landman referred her "... eighty-five year old friend, John, (who) did not know he qualified as a veteran. He served in the Navy for three years during the Korean Conflict but since he had not been wounded, he never requested nor received benefits. I suggested that he contact Sean Stephens for a brief meeting. In only a few weeks he returned to visit to proudly show me his brand new Veteran's ID card together with an appointment card for his first medical visit to San Francisco's Veteran's Medical Clinic at Fort Miley. Sean, thank you for helping John, a worthy person who spends all his time helping others in Novato." If you are in doubt and have served in uniform, please call Marin County Veteran's Services at 415- 473-6193. Veterans Day is November 11. If you know a Veteran, thank them for their service. Any Dietl is a Senior Project Coordinator with Marin Coun y Health and Hunan Services. ".r 7 Pickleweed Multicultural Picnic; Photo by Marianne Gontarz York Using Nutrition to Reduce Your Risk of Falling By Mary Louise Zernicke, RD, MPH Although one in three older adults falls every year, it is not considered "normal". The greatest risk for a fall is having had a previous fall. There are many reasons people fall, including the type and amount of medications taken, poor vision, poor hearing, being frail, and having a cluttered home. But there is a significant role for using nutrition to reduce your risk of falling. What are the nutritional issues related to falling? Overall good nutrition is important. But there are four key nutritional practices on which you can focus to reduce your risk for falling. These are: • Drink enough fluids; • Get enough protein; • Take in enough Vitamin D; • Get enough calcium. Why is water important to reduce my risk of falling? Medications for high blood pressure are commonly prescribed by doctors. Did you know that diuretics, or "water pills', can lead to dehydration? Although it may sound counter -intuitive, if you are taking a diuretic, it is particularly important to monitor you fluid intake. Symptoms of dehydration include dizziness and 6 feeling woozy when you go from sitting to standing. This can cause you to fall. Some medications can also cause dehydration. Even though it is common to hear that you should get 6-8 glasses a day, your needs are very individual. Whether or not the weather is hot, how much exercise you get, and medications you take will impact your fluid needs. The key to knowing if you are drinking enough fluids is to self - monitor your urine output. Although most older adults are taking medications and/or vitamins that will color the urine, there should be times in the day when your urine is clear and has no smell. Are you urinating at least 6 times in 24 -hours? You should be. Juice, teas, soups, coffee, and even juicy fruits count as part of your fluid intake. Why is protein important to reduce the risk of falling? You cannot maintain or build muscle without protein. In order to keep from getting frail, you will need to get enough protein. Unfortunately, many older adults are eating less protein as they get older. You need MORE protein than you did when you were younger—about 20% more. Don't eat a meal without a good protein source, either meat, fish, poultry, eggs, nuts or beans. Dairy products also have quality protein. Calcium and Vitamin D are important to reduce the risk of falling? Vitamin D and calcium are key to reducing the risk of osteoporosis, or bone loss. While this may not prevent a fall, it may prevent a broken bone. Do you eat dairy products a couple of times a day? Do you go out into the sun? Contact your nutritionist and get your blood levels checked by your health care provider to make sure your levels are optimal. Mary Louise Zernicke, RD, MPH is the former Senior Nutritionist for the Area Agency on Aging (AAA). Walking Poles: Personal Experience by Allan Bortel In "marvey" Marin it seems that every senior has discovered walking, the one exercise that takes the least effort and does not require a gym membership. In fact, exercise such as walking is the one activity that most researchers accept for deferring dementia and Alzheimer's Disease. At the Marin Senior Information Fair in 2013 my wife, Sydne, discovered an exhibit promoting the use of walking/hiking poles. She purchased a pair of poles, had them sized and signed up for a half-day course. The next year she bought me a pair—and I was wise to also do the half-day course. I had seen Europeans hiking in the Sierra some 20 years ago using, what I thought, were ski poles...in the middle of the summer! But little did I suspect that I'd ever be caught dead using poles to hike the flat Old Rail Trail, usually called the "bike path," a former railroad right-of-way deeded to my home town of Tiburon some 45 years ago. So, what do poles do for me? For one, I believe that they take pressure off hips and knees, two parts of the body that often suffer with, of all things, aging. Both joints as well as the spine are helped with poles by -reducing weight-bearing. As someone who has always had some problems with balance (broken hip at age 42 stumbling on a curb) the use of poles keeps me upright and reduces the risk of falling. The use of poles, however, takes some training and practice. Here are a few tips: • Optimal pole length: take a look at the accompanying photo and notice how the poles are no higher than the top of the hips. Thus, as you push gently from behind, you swing your arms as if you were walking without poles. • Use them often to get yourself and others (who might believe you have a serious disability) used to them. In fact, people will make way for you and give you some extra attention in a store or give up their seat on a public vehicle, a tongue in cheek side benefit! 7 • Try poles instead of a cane. The Latter gives you an uneven gait, but poles provide a more natural fluid way of walking for cane users. Also, canes may require you to bend over and can change your spinal alignment. Poles allow you to stand up straight and still feel comfortable walking. Check out the website www.polesformobility.com for more information about classes, which I highly recommend to get the most out of this new experience. Allan and Sydne Bortel Allan Bortel is the Senior Senator in the California Senior Legislature front Marin County. Marin County Commission on aging 10 North San Pedro Road, San Rafael, CA 94903 457 -INFO (4636) Website: www.marinhhs.org/ boards/commission-aging Featured in This Issue: Aging Well Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon CA 94920-1550 ■U••■ First Class U.S. Postage PAID Cou,tyorM i. Request for an alternative format of this publication may be requested by calling 473- 4381 (voice)/473-3232 (TTY) or by e-mail at disabilityaccess@marincounty.org. 514S20S$SS` COii '1,11111111111'ti,11110111111,i11,1,11111'Iiii11111i11"1"11 8 i I L �Ltj IIED Trial) iO J ups Troll o.Tpad urs gaioN OI 1U saprlrDEJ saa!nLIas alnpy pug Su!Sy Jo uo!s!n!Q Dip it Die s&Uuo.DIN aa»lwwO AelleA II!W `011`d ou!we3 0P :spooMpa�l ayl :aoeld iegwewAlgwessy e;e4S elwolgep `Quin-! oae!'1 :aajeads alepdn eA!leI -s!681 Ll -OZ :o!dol iegwaoaa Iaele?� ueS `aa ale6ylaoN 9,L9 !e!A ewiv :eoeld aoloa.na SHH `Xelloa IMO •aa :Jaleeds ueld opelea1S (SHH) seo!naas uewnH pue U1IeeH uueNl :o!dol E aagweAoN ol!IesneS 'any aNeaa 0179 !Jalue° ao!ues uosuyor elpen6ae!N :aoeld a!ey0 yo33W '6U!IMOa uai :aoleaapoW lol a ao 0111!1 a eney nol; aaylaym :sial -leW i(euoN! :o!dol 9 aagolaQ 'alleA II!W `o11t1 ou!wea 086 :Jeluaa lil!unwwoa fallen MIN :e3eld IIPPS e!olal :eiee s ens :sieleeds sa6ellln ayl :oldoi legwejdag :sMollol se en suollelueseid pue selep 6ullaa!N -are gI,:61, le 6u!leew sseu!snq eql iCq paMollol "w'e 00:01le bels Alleo!d/(1 s6ullaaw uo!ss!wwoa ayl le suolleluesead •giuow ayl to Aepsanyl;sa!I eq uo play ale s6ullaaw uo!ss!wwoo Ieaeueo •seell!wwoa sl! pue uo!ss!wwoa au' Ag pleu s6ullaaw Ile u! eled!o!}aed oI pal!nu! s! ollgnd aq ThllM )s ElpRJ 9TOb IN r t tib 7 6 6 3fes - A- j �.'! il1c� +e. `ix4 -'5i.i,,yL' naK-: r` Fi frt r " uno3 uUew noge snau pief, oeoonpes;uauadoeAeuswe4691dsy611461 0yea1in eni oi,s}npefiepoajgeuI _non e pue uoi}Ew iolraIA0.1 o j ssl o f:011 ()lbw'.:±aia � bvatepueubSiitaapu . a'1J uo;uolss o o�� u eope„ (9917-LS17-S Lj7) OdN II-LS.b-SIt7 �e QUIT aaUMSISSV pue uorl"euzzoJuI alp freD Ind 1o1 sJ"fl mum au pug DIGEST -• I SANITARY DISTRICT NO. 5 OF MARIN COUNTY 2001 Paradise Drive Tiburon, California 94920 AGENDA Governance Committee Special Meeting Tuesday, September 6, 2016, 10:00 a.m. I. Roll Call II. Public Comments III. New Business 1. Review of Commercial Sewer Service Charge Strength Factors 2. Provide Verbal Update of Code Publishing Status and Recommend Staff to Work with Legal for Final Review IV. Adjournment This Committee may be attended by Board Members who do not serve on this committee_ In the event that a quorum of the entire Board is present, this Committee shall act as a Committee of the Whole. In either case, any item acted upon by the Committee or the Committee of the Whole will require consideration and action by the full Board of Directors as a prerequisite to its legal enactment. Accessible public meeting : Upon request, the District will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternate formats, or disability -related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services. to enable individual with disabilities 10 participate in public meetings. Requests are to be submitted in writing to the Administrative Assistant at Post Office Box 227, Tiburon, CA 94920 or rdohrmann'usani.i. org at least two days prior to the meeting. T:\Board\Committees\Governance CommiueelAgendas12016 09 06 Governance Comm Mitt Agenda RD TR.doc DIGEST SANITARY DISTRICT NO. 5 OF MARIN COUNTY 2001 Paradise Drive Tiburon, California 94920 AGENDA Personnel Committee Special Meeting Tuesday, September 6, 2016, 11:30 a.m. I. Roll CaII II. Public Comments III. New Business 1. Review Current M.O.U. Negotiations IV. Adjournment This Connnittee may be attended by Board Members who do not serve on this committee. In the event that a quorum of the entire Board is present, this Committee shall act as a Committee of the Whole. In either case, any item acted upon by the Committee or the Committee of the Whole will require consideration and action by the fill Board of Directors as a prerequisite to its legal enactment. Accessible public meetings: Upon request, the District 1r'ill provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternate formats, or disability -related modification or accommodation, including cmxiliari aids or services, to enable individual with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Requests are to be submitted in writing to Post Office Box 227, Tiburon CA 94920 or rdohrntrmn(r�sani.i.org al least two tars prior to the meeting. T:1Board\Committees\Personnel CommitreelAgendas12016 09 06 Personnel Comm Mtg Agenda RLD TR.doc