Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2009-08-14\1 Tilk-iirnn 1. Random Alphabet Drawing - November 3, 2009 Elections 2. Letter - Peggy Curran - Response to Accident in the Fountain (Letter in August 3-7 Digest) 3. Thank You - Maggie McDonogh - Assistance on A.I. Ferry Concession Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes - Design Review Board - July 16, 2009 5. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - August 6, 2009 Regional a) 2008 Annual Report - Transportation Authority of Marin b) Bay Area Monitor - Newsletter - League of Women Voters - Aug/Sept. 2009 c) Invitation - College of Marin - Groundbreaking Science/Math Complex Agendas & Minutes d) Agenda - Marin Board of Supervisors - August 11, 2009 * Council Only E1•L OF f DEBRA BQwEN I SECRETARY OF STATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS 15oo nth Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 I Tel (916) 657-21661 Fax (916) 653-32141 www•sos.ca.gov C4LIFOPµ"I August 13, 2009 N County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CCIROV) Memorandum #09137 TO: All County Clerks/Registrars of Voters FROM: Saulo Giron Program Technician II RE: November 3rd Elections: Random Alphabet Drawing In accordance with Elections Code section 13112(b)(1)(F), the Secretary of State's office on this date conducted a drawing of the letters of the alphabet to determine the randomized alphabet for use in the above election. Listed below is the official order of letters for use in determining placement of candidates' names on the ballot as determined in today's drawing. Please note that this alphabet is to be applied THROUGHOUT the candidate's entire last name, so if more than one candidate's surname begins with the same letter, the second letter of the surname determines who goes first, according to where the second letter of the name appears in the random alphabet. For example, if two candidates with the surname of Campbell and Carlson are running for the same office, their order on the ballot will depend on the order in which the letters `LM " and "R" were drawn in the randomized alphabet drawing. 1. T 7. I 13. D 19. 2. H 8. A 14. R 20. 3. C 9. P 15. Q 21. 4. Z O W K 16. 17. Y L 22. 23. G 2 F 18. N 24. 10 y ~re da.~n.cfc.,- J 25 M V 26. X E U B S -(own of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www.ci.tiburon.ca.us August 10, 2009 Marc Wallis 29 Hillcrest Court San Anselmo, CA 94960 Dear Mr. Wallis: D/G~br Alice Fredericks Mayor Miles 'Berger Vice Mayor Dick"Collins Councilmember Tom Gram Councilmember Jeff'Slavitz Councilmember Margaret A. Curran Town Manager Thank you for contacting us about your child's incident with the fountain in downtown Tiburon. I'm very glad to learn your child was not seriously harmed, but it does sound like it was a frightening incident for him. The fountain has been up and running for almost three years now with no reported injuries. In its normal operation there is no "thick layer of bubbles" as you describe, or any layer of bubbles for that matter, covering the edge of the fountain. This leads me to believe you are describing an anomaly where someone put detergent or some foaming agent into the fountain as a prank. This is not something we can control. However, it has occasionally happened in the past and our practice is to clean the fountain as quickly as possible and return it to its normal operation. Thank you for letting me know what occurred. I will discuss your experience with our Public Works staff and our Town Attorney to make sure we are doing what is necessary and appropriate should unusual circumstances, such as the vandalism you describe, arise again. I do hope you and your family continue to visit Tiburon, and thank you again for taking the time to get in touch. Best regards, Peggy Curran Town Manager cc: Town Attorney Director of Public Works 3. MARGARET I. McDONOGH ANGEL ISLAND-TIBURON FERRY, INC. 21 Main Street Tiburon, California Mail: P.O. BOX 901 TIBURON, CA 94920 August 11, 2009 Peggy Curran Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Peggy, RECEIVED AUG 13 2009 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON This is a belated note to thank you for your extraordinary efforts, and the endless hours, in coming to our assistance in a successful interim conclusion in what we now must assume was Phase I of Angel Island-Tiburon Ferry, Inc.'s ("AITF") dealings with the Department of Parks & Recreation ("DPR") over the Tiburon/Angel Island ferry concession 2008 RFP. We know that it only a matter of time before some more heavy lifting shall be required, and appreciate your continued and unswerving support. Your keen personal interest in this matter and dedicated involvement on our behalf provided much needed succor in our time of need. Thus, this letter is not the intended vehicle to outline the history, to make a further case, or to belabor all that we have been through. It is simply a sincere thank you from the heart. Very truly yours, _D VOX: 415-797-2084 maggie.mcdonogh@gmail.com MARGARET I. McDONOGH MINUTES #12 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 169 2009 40/0 kit" The meeting was opened at 7:00 P.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Vice-Chair Tollini, and Boardmembers Kricensky and Wilson Absent: Boardmember Doyle Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the application for 680 Hawthorne Drive has been withdrawn. D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 166 ROCK HILL ROAD ROBBERTS, NEW DWELLING 166 ROCK HILL ROAD WILLEM AND JULIA ROBBERTS EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED LOT SIZE 2300 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 2,195 41357 4,366 MAX LOT COVERAGE 11.6% 14.8% 15.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 12' 24' 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 15'& 27'3" 15'& 31' 15' FRONT YARD 24' 30' 30' REAR YARD 82' 75' 25' VARIANCES/EXCEPTION NONE The applicant has submitted a request for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on the property located at 166 Rock Hill Road. This application was first reviewed at the June 18, 2009 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, various neighboring property owners along Rock Hill Road raised concerns about the design theme of the proposed new home, potential water view impacts for the uphill neighboring property owner, and concerns from the downhill neighboring property owner about retaining walls and windows facing downhill. The Board requested that the amount of glass facing downhill and the size of the proposed retaining walls on the downhill side of the property be scaled back, and suggested relocation or TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 7/16/09 redesigning the swimming pool. The Board continued the project to give the applicant time to revise the proposal and to allow for additional dialogue between the neighbors. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. Michael Heckmann, architect, said this project is causing change which is difficult for the neighbors to accept. He described property line issues with the neighbors, including a fence and landscaping across the property lines. He said that with these impositions in mind, the applicant still made some significant concessions to make the project more amenable to the neighbors by eliminating the window facing the Lacey's, and moving pool location back and changing the design and location of the retaining walls. He stated that they reduced the heights of windows and with the foreground trees and dense vegetation below the wall, sunlight reflection should be less of a problem. He showed photos of other houses in the vicinity and said that the proposed house would be compatible with the neighborhood. Pete Pedersen, landscape architect, said they moved the retaining walls away from the Pelfini's, have also shorted the length of the lower wall by 25% and took 8-10 feet off the length of the upper wall. He described the varying heights of the retaining walls and noted that there would be a 5 foot separation between the walls. He stated that the alignment of the walls would be well within the property, giving some space for existing and proposed landscaping. He said that some trees would be removed and they are proposing 36-inch box sized trees, which would have a 14- 16 foot height when planted, to reestablish the privacy barrier. He also noted that they moved the swimming pool 10 feet further away from the Pelfini's. David Cincotta, attorney, reviewed the property dispute with the Robberts and the Pelfinis. He stated that the two adjacent homes properties are nonconforming structures that intrude into setbacks, yet, the Robberts are willing to set back their improvements even further to accommodate the neighbors. He said that in the last year the Pelfinis have added new landscaping in the downhill area on the Robberts' property. He said that the uphill neighbors are still not satisfied even after seeing that the Robberts had pulled back the front of their building. He believed that the Robberts have designed a project that is sensitive to the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. Jim Malott, representing the Lacey's, Pelfini's, and other members of the neighborhood, said that the proposed home would make life worse for the neighbors if it is built as designed. He said that the house would be built upon a large, flat platform that would nearly double the visual mass of the house. He spoke about the property line dispute and said that the fully mature landscaping on the lower portion of the Robberts' property area would be torn out primarily to create a lawn for the Robberts and these trees are critical for the Pelfini's privacy. He suggested moving the house and rotating it 6 feet to preserve the view corridor and reduce the reflectivity of the windows. He said that the building design needs to be massaged, which would make a big difference for the neighborhood. Jean Pelfini said her primary concern is that the proposed construction would change the look and feel of their backyard and will make them feel like they are being closed in. She said that the first retaining wall appears to be 10 feet from their house and the second wall comes to just under TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 2 7/16/09 the height of their roof. She said that the walls would be located directly in front of their master bedroom sliding glass doors and would be especially visible from the family room and master bedroom. She recognized that their house was built close to the property line 40 years ago but that was how it was when they purchased it. She said that the existing trees and shrubs are mature and provide excellent screening and she did not approve of the location of the new trees that would be only 5 feet from the property line and reduce their view of the hillside. She stated that her family suffers from allergies and has been careful about what they plan near their home. She characterized the reduction in glass as minor, stating that the south side of the house would be mostly windows and they are concerned about how this will affect them. She felt that their property would receive an unfair burden from the remodel because they would be looking directly into a high wall. She requested that story poles be put up to allow them to assess the visual impact of the retaining walls. John Kern said that although the applicants had addressed two of the three concerns the Board had at the initial meeting by relocating the pool and reduced the amount of glass, he felt that the retaining wall remained unchanged. He said that the walls would add up to a 12 foot structure that separates this property from the neighbors. He held up a pole showing the height of the retaining walls, which he said would imprison the downhill neighbors and would be unacceptable. He said that the walls would completely violate the natural topography of this parcel and that one of the goals of design review must be to insure that new projects harmonize with the natural environment and the surrounding area. He strongly recommended a redesign. Ian Pearson said he lives above the site and would look down on their house. He requested the Board ensure light spill is minimized with no lights in skylight wells and he requested a dark brown roof color. He described how other homes along Rock Hill Road have been improved over the years and said that this has required compromise. He said that this project involves a vertical two-story house and would add a deck looking down on neighbors and a high retaining wall. He said that the building materials would be out of character and the retaining wall would devastate the downhill neighbors. He said that the massive wall would break up views of the beautiful rolling hills for those who drive by this property. David Flaherty said the neighborhood is very open and he enjoys its natural character. He said that he was only concerned about the retaining wall and he felt that it would be a tremendous loss for the Pelfini's if it is 12 feet high. He suggested that the wall be designed more in keeping with the landscape and he suggested putting up story poles to show the impact to the Pelfinis. Tad Lacey said he lives uphill from the Robberts home and has been in the neighborhood for 29 years. He described joint efforts between himself and the previous property owners for a fence between the two lots. He thought that the story poles had been raised since the last meeting. He noted that the interior entryway would be 23 feet 6 inches tall and all glass and would block his views. He said that moving the house to the back would resolve a number of problems for the neighbors. He asked to see story poles delineating the roof height of the library. Dave Pelfini clarified the accusation of the area that they have used a portion of the Robberts' property, stating that they intentionally did not plant anything in the area below the fence that is the Robberts' property. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 7/16/09 Patricia Navone said she represented the Robberts in the purchase of their home, and there was no disclosure about a common fence. She said that Robberts had survey done so they were very clear about the property lines. Julia Robberts, owner, felt they have come up with a good design that takes into account the neighbors' concerns. She said that they purchased the property two years ago and love the views and family environment of the neighborhood. She said that they are very invested in the neighborhood and plan to live there for a long time. She respected the rights of neighbors to express opinions, and hoped that the neighbors will respect their right to build a home that works for their family. Mr. Heckmann said that he understood that change is difficult, but he felt that there was also a fair amount of exaggeration about the impacts of the proposed house. He said that they would provide landscaping, terrace the wall properly, preserve the main views for the Lacey's, and have responded to the Board's concerns. Mr. Pedersen noted that the existing slope comes down abruptly and currently one cannot see how steep it is because it is full of scotch broom. He proposes putting in a terraced green environment alongside the walls. Will Robberts, owner, said that the change in height is already in existence today because of the hill so it is incorrect to state that they will put in a tall wall because that would be following the contour of the hill that already exists. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Tollini said that the built up portion of the site is an existing condition of the land. He stated that nonconforming uses and fences outside the lot lines are fairly common. He said that putting this much earth in an area close to a nonconforming house is another matter. He said that retaining wall would move the high point of the lot much closer to the Pelfinis' house. He thought that some progress on the project had been made, but was concerned that the walls were perhaps still too high and too close. Boardmember Wilson stated that the issues with the pool, house design and retaining walls had been only marginally addressed. He was still concerned that the project would replace a view of trees with a permanent structure. He said that the wall was still the main issue and the sloped area between the homes had been landscaped over time. He said that when these properties were developed 30 to 40 years ago they were probably leveled out, and the downhill neighbor's house is an existing condition. He felt that it was not natural to build a tall retaining wall to create a flat lawn. He said that he could possibly support the project if the downhill area was left in its current condition and this might eliminate a lot of friction between the neighbors. Boardmember Kricensky said that he was disappointed that so few changes had been made to the wall because he had hoped to see one with a more natural appearance. He said that the wall height is also a concern. He said that the fact that a developer created these pads and then put a TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 4 7/16/09 house within two feet of the property line is unfortunate, but this was 40 years ago so the applicants need to work with the neighbors. He said that the wall would form the visual base for the house when driving up the street. He said moving the retaining wall back 5 feet or terracing the walls further would help, but he believed it is trying to create a level lawn on the slope did not feel natural. He said that the house would take only part of a larger panoramic view for the uphill neighbors. He said that moving the pool back helps, but changing the slop to put in a lawn felt wrong. Chair Chong said the lot line situation is unfortunate, but it was done a long time ago. He felt that the improvements made the project dramatically better. He said that many property owners in Tiburon have moved a lot of earth around and that flattening the lot would not be unnatural by Tiburon standards. He said that the retaining wall would have multiple tiers and be landscaped, but he thought that stone wall might look a little nicer. He said that he would like to see more done, but the wall had been moved back and the shrubs, which would be more like small trees, would supplement the existing landscaping. He said that he could support the project with a changed to the materials of the walls. Boardmember Wilson said there is not enough area to have a huge level lawn on the side. Chair Chong questioned how far would the wall would need to be moved toward the house to be acceptable. Vice-Chair Tollini said that he did not have a number, but would know better if it story poles were installed because this is a material element of the landscape. The public hearing was re-opened. Boardmember Wilson asked whether the existing landscaping could be retained and then fill be brought forward from the pool area. Mr. Pedersen said they could reduce the height of the walls by adding a third tier and give up some flat area. Planning Manager Watrous suggested that the Board could request that only a single six foot tall wall be allowed much closer to the house. Mr. Pedersen asked if the house could be approved by the Board and the redesigned site plan could be brought back to Staff for approval. Vice-Chair Tollini said he was basically happy with the house design and pool location, and Chair Chong noted that his main concern was the retaining wall. Mr. Robberts said they have been very flexible and willing to compromise but are facing a time constraint because they want to begin grading before winter. He said that they could possibly redesign the project with only a single six foot wall if that was all that was needed. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said he did not have enough information about changes to the retaining walls to make a decision for approval. Vice-Chair Tollini said the more distant of the two walls may be a starting point for giving guidelines as to the location of a six foot wall, and his preference was to see a six foot tall, one-wall solution and story poles. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 7/16/09 The consensus of the Board was that the remaining concerns were proximity of the wall to neighbors, height of the wall, and the removal of existing vegetation. They also wanted to see more detail on the landscaping plan itself, materials for the walls and story poles installed for the walls. ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Wilson) to continue the application for 166 Rock Hill Road to the August 20, 2009 meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 22 JUNO ROAD AMIR, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES 22 JUNO ROAD DANIEL AND NIRAN AMIR EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED LOT SIZE 7,356 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 1,378 2,257 25575 MAX LOT COVERAGE 23.7% 35.7% 30.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 14' 17' 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 8'& 6' 8'& 6' 8' FRONT YARD 26' 12' 15' REAR YARD 28' 28' 25' VARIANCES/EXCEPTION REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS LOT COVERAGE The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-story single-family dwelling on property located at 22 Juno Road. The project would create a new bedroom and bathroom and expand the living room at the front of the house and create a new office and expand the dining room at the rear of the dwelling. The exterior of the house would change to a contemporary design with a flat, taller roof and stucco siding and new windows would be installed around the entire house. Three new skylights would also be installed. Variances are requested for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. Daniel Amir, owner, said they are expecting their third child and their current home is too small. After talking to neighbors, he said that the general consensus was that remodeling the house on one floor would enhance and improve the neighborhood. He described the design of the project. He said that the lot size is extremely small even for the Belveron area and not granting the variance would force them to design a two-story house which could block views and impact privacy. He felt that the one-story solution with the variance requests was the best solution for his family and neighbors. He said that they consulted numerous neighbors about the plans and incorporated the neighbors' suggestions and concerns as much as possible. He said that the plans were in line with other projects that have been approved in the past in their neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 7/16/09 Eleanor Sutcliffe said that she lives across the street and had concerns with the compatibility of the design with the neighborhood. Her particular objection was to the 17-foot tall entry. She said that she would be less concerned if this were usable space, but it is not livable or usable space and would be located in the front yard setback. She said that she would lose part of the view of the hills across Trestle Glen Boulevard and the house would appear massive from the street. She appreciated that the owners are trying to keep the house to one story to minimize impacts, but the high entryway would block her view of the hills and she requested toning down the projection of the entryway. - Ellen Rony said she has lived on Juno Road for 30 years and was upset when people move into the neighborhood and want to expand their homes. She is opposed to the front yard variance request because there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood and as houses move closer to the street, pedestrians are forced into the street. She said that approving variances gives fuel to the next applicant to expect to receive a variance that can impact the neighborhood in perpetuity. She asked the Board to send the message that there are rules and regulations and the Board should not approve variances house by house. She requested that the applicants design a house that conforms to the zoning requirements. She thought that the design was massive and stark and inconsistent with the neighborhood. Danny Gallagher said that he lives next door to the proposed remodel and he felt that the new design would look better than the current house. He supported the height of the project and pointed out that 17 feet is less than a two-story house of 30 feet. Daniel Altman, designer, said that his client wanted a contemporary design and they are willing to accommodate some changes to the entry. He said if the variance for excess lot coverage was not approved, they would be forced to build another story, and the neighborhood will object much more to the design. He said that a house that would comply with the setback and lot coverage would be a much more bulky structure. Mr. Amir added that many of the homes in the neighborhood are ranch style, but there are contemporary style homes on other streets in the neighborhood. He said that the Board and neighbors have provided positive feedback on homes of different designs that add character to the neighborhood. He said that they are asking for the variances to accommodate their needs for another bedroom and bathroom and the only other way they could do that would be to create a second story, and he thought that this would create more issues with the neighborhood than just expanding on one story. Boardmember Kricensky asked for the reason for putting in the 12 x 16 foot window wall in front. Mr. Altman replied that the purpose was to let in light and he described it as a series of small windows and not one big window. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Wilson said he liked the design and found it to be similar to other homes in the neighborhood. He questioned the size of the windows and roof height, noting that a tree that partially screens the house may not always be there. He said that he had no problem with the lot TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 7/16/09 coverage variance because it is a small lot, but he had an issue with the front yard setback, as there seems to be room in the back yard and some of these elements could be placed back there. He questioned the height of the additions, the wall of glass, and the front yard setback variance. Vice-Chair Tollini agreed with Boardmember Wilson that this would be a tastefully done house. He felt that there needed to be more detail in the plans, particularly for the windows and he thought that the 9 foot tall garage door was excessive. He said that he could support the lot coverage variance, but moving the house closer to the street exacerbates the increased volume of the design. He said that the project was too tall and too close to the street, and he would have a hard time with the setback variance. Boardmember Kricensky said the lot coverage request was reasonable because this is a very small lot. He noted that variances are often approved if they do not impact the neighbors on the street very much and he thought that this project would substantially impact the street side. He said that the design felt very commercial. He said that the entry element was a dominant part of the house, sticking out further than the existing walls. He thought that the size of the 16 x 12 glass wall could be broken up and noted that the ceilings would be 14 feet high. He was not opposed to a contemporary design, but the height combined with the decreased setback did not work. He also felt that the large windows facing the public right-of-way that close to the street were unacceptable. Chair Chong agreed that the lot coverage variance was not a concern because it is a small lot. He also said that the design does not bother him, but he thinks it is too close to the street and that the same design, pushed further back, could work. He said that more work needs to be done on the design, with more detailed drawings, and he suggested using the space in the back of the house to set it back further. Vice-Chair Tollini said that he walked to the curb on the far side of the street and the main thing that would be obstructed was the view of the trees in the backyard. He would like to see to what extent the impact on the neighbors view would be diminished if the project complied with the front yard setback. ACTION: It was M/S (Wilson/Kricensky) to continue the application for 22 Juno Road to the August 20, 2009 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 3. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE MAHONEY, ADDITIONS - WITHDRAWN F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #11 OF THE 7/2/09 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Chong) to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2009 meeting as written. Vote: 4-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #12 7/16/09 s ACTION MINUTES #13 01TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ~ THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD A. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Chong, Boardmembers Doyle, Kricensky, Tollim and Wilson Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 1701-1801 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon Plaza, LLC Signs and Sign Program APPROVED E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 526 Comstock Drive Singh New Dwelling/Variances APPROVED 3. 166 Rock Hill Road Robberts New Dwelling APPROVED F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 4. 1877 Centro West Street Lamar Additions/Variance/Floor Area Exception APPROVED 5. !3 Roseville Court Van Dusen Walls/Variance APPROVED G. MINUTES #12 OF THE 7/16/09 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING - APPROVED H. ADJOURNMENT - 9:25 PM DIGEST RECEIVED AUG 10 2009 AGENDA FOR TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TOWN OF TIBURON MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Agenda items will be heard at the time specified or later, depending on the progress of the meeting. AGENDA Tuesday, August 11, 2009 Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 330, Civic Center 10:00 a.m. 1. Approval of minutes of the meeting of July 14, 2009. 2. Board of Supervisors' matters. 3. Administrator's report. 4. Open time for public expression, up to three minutes per speaker, on items not on the Board of Supervisors' agenda. 5. Consent Calendar A (Items CA-1 through CA-6) ("Consent Calendar A reflects those agenda items that have prior policy approval from the Board.) 6. Consent Calendar B (Item CB-1) ("Consent Calendar B" reflects those agenda items requiring four affirmative votes relating to budgetary matters.) 7. Request from Supervisor Adams for report from the Sheriffs Office of Emergency Services (OES) on the Marin County Disaster and Citizen Corps Council regarding the management of volunteers in disaster response. Recommended actions: Accept report and provide direction to staff. ONE' EMO ENRON ■ENEM Late agenda material can be. inspected in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Clerk of the Board office is located in Room 329 Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael. All County public meetings are conducted in accessible locations. If you require American Sign Language interpreters, assistive listening devices or other accommodations to participate in this meeting, these may be requested by calling (415) 499-7331 (voice) or (415) 499-6172 (TTY) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents used in this meeting are available in accessible formats upon written request. The agenda is available on the Internet at hftp:/ANww.co.marin.ca.us/efiles/BS/A-qMn/cyba-cinda.htm The Board meeting is broadcast live over the Internet at http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/BS/Archive/Meetings.cfm A copy of the agenda will be faxed upon request by dialing (415)-499-6060 and entering "181" after the brief introductory message. Ole N 8. Request from the County Administrator for Board concurrence and adoption of response to 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report "Marie's Probation Department: Too Many Lawsuits, Too Little Training" (June 1, 2009). Recommended actions: Concur in and thereby adopt the response and direct the President to submit the response to the Presiding Judge. 9. Request from the County Administrator to adopt a resolution creating a Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) for eligible County employees to help address the County's long-term budget shortfall. Recommended action: Adopt resolution: 10:30 a.m. 10. Hearing: Ordinance updating the terminology of the Marin County Code and recognizing a change in the definition of disability. Recommended actions: Conduct hearing and consider adopting ordinance. 11. Hearing: Ordinance updating disability provisions within the Marin County Code. Recommended actions: Conduct hearing and consider adopting ordinance. 11:00 a.m. 12. Hearing: Ordinance extending certain time limits for development permits and waiving-certain affordable housing impact fees for a specified period. Recommended actions: Conduct hearing and consider adopting ordinance. Recess as the Board of Supervisors 11:05 a.m. Convene as the Marin County Open Space District Board of Directors 13a. Approval of minutes of the meeting of July 14, 2009. 13b. Board of Directors' matters. 13c. Open time for public expression, up to three minutes per speaker, on items not on the Open Space District Agenda. 13d. General Manager's report. 13e. Authorize President to execute an agreement with Pacific Watershed Associates, Inc., in the amount of $47,037, to, manage implementation of the Woodacre Creek Habitat Improvement Project. Recommended action: Approve. Adjourn as the Marin County Open Space District Board of Directors Marin County BOS Agenda 2 8/11/2009 Reconvene as the Board of Supervisors 14. Closed Session: a. Instructions to labor negotiator (Acting Human Resources Director) regarding negotiations strategy involving all bargaining units, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. b. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). Name of case: No Wetlands v. County of Marin, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV 09-0198. c. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). Name of ca se: Stephen Maloney Family Trust v. County of Marin. d. Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). Number of Potential Cases: One. Reconvene in Open Session Announcement from Closed Session. 1:30 p.m. 15. Hearing: Swahn Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Swahn Initial Study, Paradise Drive, Tiburon (APN 059-231-02). Recommended actions: (a) Review the administrative record; (b) conduct public hearing; and (c) consider adopting resolution denying the Swahn appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 2:15 p.m. 16. Hearing: Karuna Land LLC Master Plan, Precise Development Plan and Land Division, 1 Sacramento Avenue, San Anselmo. (APN 177-220-10) Recommended actions: (a) Review the administrative record; (b) conduct public hearing; and (c) consider adopting resolution denying the Karuna Land LLC Master Plan, Precise Development Plan and Land Division. CONSENT CALENDAR A (Items CA-1 through CA-6) ("Consent Calendar A" reflects those agenda items that have prior policy approval from the Board.) CA-1. Assessor-Recorder: Authorize President to execute addendum to the Master Agreement with DFM Associates, to sign an add-on feature (RiiMS Extract System ID Shield) to automate redaction of social security numbers from official records document images as required by State law. Marin County BOS Agenda 3 8/11/2009 CA-2. Community Development Agency: Authorize President to execute amendment to the agreement with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, extending the contract term to December 31, 2010, to help prepare revisions to the Development Code, Local Coastal Program and similar initiatives. CA-3. County Counsel: Authorize President to execute agreement with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, in the amount of $69,000, to conduct a compliance audit of the Marin County Dental Clinic. CA-4. Human Resources: Authorize President to execute agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, in the amount of $150,000, for labor relations related legal advisory services. CA-5. Probation: Authorize President to execute FY 2009-10 agreement with Bay Area Community Resources, in the amount of $153,190, to provide drug and alcohol assessments of County jail inmates. CA-6. Public. Works: Request to declare as surplus and authorize their disposition of two fire engines and equipment as detailed in staff report dated August 11, 2009. CONSENT CALENDAR B (Item C13-1) (Four affirmative votes required) ("Consent Calendar B" reflects those agenda items requiring four affirmative votes relating to budgetary matters.) CB-1. Library: Request to accept the following donations and approve related budget actions as detailed in staff reports dated August 11, 2009: a. $2,100 from John F. Craemer; and b. $1,000 from the Hellman Family Foundation. Marin County BOS Agenda 4 8/11/2009 DRAFT REGULAR MEETING OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009, AT 9:37 A. M. Roll Call Present: Supervisor Adams; Supervisor Kinsey; Supervisor McGlashan; Supervisor Arnold; Supervisor Brown 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/s Supervisor Arnold - Supervisor Adams to approve the minutes of the meetings of June 16 and 23, 2009. AYES: ALL 2. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MATTERS In Memoriam Supervisor McGlashan requested an urgency finding to adjourn the meeting in memory of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD„) Board President Alex Forman. M/s Supervisor McGlashan - Supervisor Adams to determine that the need to take action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted and to adjourn the meeting in memory of Alex Forman. AYES: ALL Marin County Fair Supervisors Kinsey and Adams congratulated Cultural and Visitor Services Director Jim Farley and his staff on a very successful Marin County Fair. 3. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT County Administrator Matthew Hymel acknowledged Marin County employees and several bargaining groups for forgoing portions of their Cost of Living Adjustment ("COLA") to help address FY 2009-10 budget problems. Mr. Hymel additionally acknowledged the Board of Supervisors, Department Heads, and Assistant Department Heads for forgoing their entire COLA and briefly commented on on-going discussions with the Deputy Sheriffs. 4. OPEN TIME Integrated Pest Management A member of the public expressed concern regarding pesticide use in Marin County and urged the Board to phase out pesticide use through the use of benchmark reductions. Traffic and Parking Management A Stinson Beach resident expressed concerns regarding traffic and parking management in Stinson Beach especially along Highway One and commented on the need for more traffic officers. Deconstruction and Reuse Network A Deconstruction and Reuse Network representative briefly commented on the services and goals of their nonprofit organization and outlined their efforts to support green building reuse and recycling. Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 1 7/14/2009 1 Homeless A member of the public expressed concerns regarding homeless support services. Integrated Pest Management ("IPM") A few members of the public expressed concerns regarding toxic pesticides and urged the Board not to adopt the proposed, revised IPM ordinance until stronger safeguards are incorporated. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A (ITEMS CA-1 THROUGH CA-8) ("Consent Calendar A" reflects those agenda items that have prior policy approval from the Board.) M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor McGlashan to approve Consent Calendar A, as presented. CA-1. Board of Supervisors Appointments a. Child Care Commission Scheduled appointment for October 20, 2009, for one term expiration for a Community Representative appointed by the Marin County Superintendent of Schools and ratified by the Board of Supervisors. b. County Service Area ("CSX) Advisory Board #20 - Indian Valley/Dominga Canyon Scheduled appointments for August 4, 2009, for five term expirations (Lawrence Hoytt, Jonell O'Day, Gary Frugoli, Katherine Bruinsslot, Diane Gasson, incumbents). C. Housinq Authority Board of Commissioners Scheduled appointments for August 4, 2009, for two term expirations, one for a Tenant representative (Cathy Cortez, incumbent) and one for a Senior Tenant representative (Frank Hills, incumbent). d. Human Rights Commission Scheduled appointments for three term expirations as follows: One representing District 1 (George Pegelow, incumbent), one representing District 2 (Andrew Marshall, incumbent), and one representing District 3 (Marna Cohen, incumbent). e. Women's Commission Scheduled appointment for one vacancy representing District 4 due to the resignation of Kate Kain. CA-2. County Administrator Authorize President to execute agreement with Homeward Bound of Marin, in the amount of $375,000, to partially offset costs associated with providing adult and family services to homeless Marin County residents, including the New Beginnings, Family Services and Mill Street programs. CA-3. District Attorney Request to (a) adopt Resolution No. 2009-50 authorizing the District Attorney to submit a grant application to'the California Attorney General's Office for a Privacy and Piracy Fund grant; and (b) authorize the District Attorney to execute the grant award agreement, including any extensions and amendments thereof. CA-4. Health and Human Services NOTE: Agreement in item CA-4a is a renewal of an existing agreement that was included in and funded in the FY 2008-09 budget. Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 2 7/14/2009 a. Authorize President to execute multi-year agreement (#09-11131) with the California Department of Public Health, Sexually Transmitted Disease ("STD") Control Branch, in the amount of $14,198, for an STD prevention and control program. b. Authorize President to execute Amendment 03 to the FY 2007-2010 California State Office of AIDS Master Agreement (07-65060) such that the total agreement amount will not exceed $1,297,901. C. Authorize President to execute FY 2009-10 agreement with Nelson/Nyggard Consulting Associates, in the amount of $99,950, to develop a Senior Mobility Action and Implementation Plan. d. Request to (i) adopt Resolution No. 2009-51 supporting the use of $725,000 of capital funds from the Mental Health Services Act Housing Fund to have the exclusive tenancy selection rights to five apartments at the Fireside Apartments at 115 Shoreline Highway, for older adults with mental illness; and (ii) authorize President to execute corresponding agreement with the California Housing Finance Agency ("CaIHFA") and Citizens Housing Corporation. CA-5. Probation Request to adopt Resolution No. 2009-52 authorizing the Acting Chief Probation Officer to submit application to the State Corrections Standards Authority for $17,976 in Juvenile Accountability Block Grant funds for Aggression Replacement Training ("ART") technical assistance and training. CA-6. Public Works a. At the request of the California Road Club, approve- temporary closure of one lane of ' Fairfax-Bolinas Road from Highway 1 to Ridgecrest Blvd. on Saturday, September 26, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., for the annual Mount Tamalpais Hill Climb bicycle ride. b. Approve amendment to Traffic Signal Maintenance Services Agreement with Republic ITS of Novato, CA, increasing the amount by $115,080 for a total contract amount not to exceed $205,080, and expanding the scope of the contract for traffic signal maintenance services. C. Authorize President to execute agreement with Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey, in the amount of $37,685, for design services for the Marin Center Exhibit Hall Path of Travel Project. (Project No. CAP 09=013) d. Request to (i) approve plans and specifications; (ii) direct Clerk to advertise for bids for the Veterans' Memorial' Auditorium Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") Upgrades; and (iii) adopt Resolution No. 2009-53 authorizing the Department of Cultural and Visitor Services to apply for an energy efficiency loan, in the amount of $374,533, from the California Energy Commission to provide HVAC and lighting upgrades. (Engineer's Estimate: $570,000, Project No. CAP-07014) e. Request to approve plans and specifications and direct Clerk to advertise for bids for the 10 & 20 North San Pedro Road Path of Travel and Parking Upgrades. (Engineer's Estimate: $360,000, Project No. CAP-09010) f. Request to award contract to Cool Roofing Systems, Inc. of Manteca, the lowest responsible bidder, for the Juvenile Services Roof Covering Replacement, for base bid amount of $176,385 and contract contingency of $18,615 for atotal construction cost of $195,000 (Project No. 09-003). g. Authorize President to execute three year agreement with the Marin Emergency Radio Authority (,MERA in the amount of $308,200 for the first year, for administration and maintenance of Public Works Department systems operations. Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 3 7/14/2009 CA-7. Registrar of Voters a. Adopt Resolution No. 2009-54 pertaining to the County Clerk's Canvass of Election results and declaring the election of Allen Haim, Eighth Member, Retired" to the Retirement Board of the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association ("MCERA"). b. Adopt Resolution No. 2009-55 pertaining to the County Clerk's Canvass of Election results and declaring the election of Sean Webb, "Eighth Member Alternate, Retired" to the Retirement Board of the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association ("MCERA"). CA-8. Sheriff Request to authorize President to execute revised agreement with County Service Area "CS " 17 - Kent Woodlands Property Owners Association ("KWPOA"), to provide law enforcement services as detailed in staff report dated July 14,, 2009.:. AYES: ALL 6. CONSENT CALENDAR B (ITEM CB-1) ("Consent Calendar B" reflects those agenda items requiring four affirmative votes relating to budgetary matters.) M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Kinsey to approve Consent Calendar B, as presented. CB-1. County Administrator Request to (a) authorize the President to execute grant agreement (P0830403 with the California, Department of Fish and Game, to accept a $105,600 Fisheries Restoration Grtate of ant for the Fishery Network of the Central California Coastal Counties (FishNet 4C) Project; (b) adopt Resolution No. 2009-56 authorizing execution of grant agreement; and (c) approve related budget actions as detailed in staff report dated July 1.4, 2009. AYES: ALL 7. RESOLUTION COMMENDING BEVERLY WOOD FOR HER SERVICE AS MARIN COUNTY PROPOSITION 36 PROGRAM/SUBSTANCE ABUSE CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM COMMISSIONER M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Arnold to adopt a resolution commending Beverly Wood for her service as Marin County Proposition 36 Program/Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Program Commissioner. Supervisor Adams 'read and presented the resolution to Ms. Wood who thanked the Board. Thereafter, the vote on the pending motion was AYES: ALL 8. REQUEST TO SEND A LETTER SUPPORTING SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S EFFORT TO EXTEND THE DRAKE'S BAY OYSTER COMPANY'S FEDERAL LEASE WITH THE POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE By memorandum dated July 14, 2009, Supervisor Kinsey submitted his report and recommendations regarding . the above-referenced matter and briefly commented on the importance of local agriculture. (Supervisor Arnold absent at 10:13 a.m.) Marin County BOS Minutes 4 Continued 7/14/2009 Marin Agricultural Land Trust ("MALT") Co-Founder Phyllis Faber; Marin Organic Executive Director Helge Hellberg; Marin County Farm Bureau President Dominic Grossi; Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC") owner Kevin Lunny; representatives from the Marin County Agricultural Program, the West Marin Chamber of Commerce, and Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture in West Marin; a Marine Biologist; and a few West Marin residents expressed support for aquaculture and agriculture in Pt. Reyes National Seashore, advised that Drakes Bay Oyster Company does not violate the Wilderness Act, noted the support of Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, and urged endorsement of the letter to Senator Feinstein. (Supervisor Arnold present at 10:18 a.m.) (Supervisor Brown absent at 10:23 a.m.) Representatives from the Marin Conservation League, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, and National Parks Conservation Association; several Inverness residents; a few environmentalists; and a few members. of the public expressed concern regarding the limited opportunity for public discussion on the proposed amendment to extend the lease, expressed support for not extending DBOC's lease, expressed concern regarding pollution of the Pt. Reyes National Seashore, and urged the Board not to send the proposed letter to Senator Feinstein. (Supervisor Brown present at 10:36 a.m.) Supervisor Kinsey advised that the Wilderness Act and the Coastal Act clearly support the preservation of mariculture and continuation of the oyster operation in Point Reyes National Seashore. Supervisor Kinsey stated that the DBOC will become a national classroom providing an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of protecting our natural resources while serving the needs of the community. M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Arnold to authorize the President to send a letter supporting Senator Feinstein's effort to extend the Drake's Bay Oyster Company's ("DBOC") Federal lease with the Point Reyes National Seashore for an additional ten years. Supervisors Adams and McGlashan outlined their concerns. Supervisors Arnold and Brown expressed support for the letter to extend the DBOC's Federal lease with the Point Reyes National Seashore for an additional ten years. Thereafter, the. vote on the pending motion was Vote: Motion carried 3-2 AYES: Supervisor Kinsey, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown NOES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan The Board took a brief recess at 11:10 a.m. and reconvened at 11:22 a.m. All Supervisors were present. Marin County BOS Minutes . 5 .7/14/2009 9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COUNTY COUNSEL. TO COOPERATE WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ("CSAC"), OTHER COUNTIES AND CITIES IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY SEIZURE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF HIGHWAY USERS TAX ACCOUNT ("HUTA") FUNDS By letter dated July 14, 2009, Public Works Director Farhad Mansourian and County Counsel Patrick Faulkner submitted their report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. Mr. Mansourian commented briefly regarding the impacts of the State's proposed seizure of city and county gas funds on Marin County's Road Maintenance Division and advised. that he and Supervisor McGlashan are working with Assemblymember Jared Huffman to find an alternative. M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Kinsey to adopt Resolution No. 2009-57 authorizing County Counsel to cooperate with the California State Association of Counties ("CSAC"), other counties and cities in litigation challenging the constitutionality of any seizure by the State'government of Highway Users Tax Account ( HUTA,) funds. AYES: ALL 13. STATUS REPORT ON COUNTY REVIEW OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ("IPM") ALLEGATIONS By letter dated July 14, 2009, County Administrator Matthew Hymel submitted his report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. Mr. Hymel briefly summarized his report, apologized for errors made in the pesticide exemption process, and advised that staff is committed to insuring that the proper procedures are followed in the future. Mr. Hymel commented on recommended next steps, .including the adoption of a revised IPM Ordinance and the creation of an ad hoc Board subcommittee to work with staff on remaining issues. Mr. Hymel advised that staff is recommending two amendments to strengthen the proposed IPM ordinance; one to require departments performing pest management. to designate an IPM Program Manager, and one to define "pesticide free zones" for turf grass areas, playgrounds and picnic areas. Mr. Hymel responded to questions from the Board regarding information to be made available on a new IPM website, the makeup of the IPM Commission, future oversight of the exemption process, and the designation within each department of an IPM Program Manager to increase accountability. IPM Commissioners Kraemer Winslow, Pamela Reaves, Sandy Ross and Matt McCarron addressed the Board to express support for the proposed revised IPM ordinance and policy and commented on the importance of establishing new leadership of the IPM program, establishing clear guidelines for County staff, providing improved transparency, and providing adequate funding for the Program. Commissioner Reaves commented that IPM Commissioners should be interviewed as part of staff's investigation into the alleged IPM violations. Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 6 7/1.4/2009 Several members of the public disagreed with staff's assertion that pesticide applications did not threaten human health or the environment. A representative of the Marin Conservation League expressed support for the proposed ordinance, but cautioned that budgetary support and the inclusion of other County agencies such as the Open Space District, the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Housing Authority, will be necessary. Several representatives of Mothers of Marin Against the Spray ("MOMAS"), a representative of the North Coast Rivers Alliance, and members of the public spoke to request that a new IPM Coordinator be appointed from outside the Agricultural Commissioner's office, that the Board postpone acceptance of the County Administrator's report to allow a more thorough investigation, and that the merit hearing for the proposed ordinance and policy be postponed to allow additional review. Several speakers commented on various issues including the need for accountability, the need to use an independent investigator to review the County's pesticide use, the need for additional staff education, the inclusion of a creek setback in the proposed ordinance and the importance of full disclosure going forward. Supervisor McGlashan outlined reasons why he will vote against accepting the Status Report, requesting that staff correct errors raised by the public and include information from interviews of IPM Commissioners. Supervisor Kinsey advised that he is comfortable accepting or not accepting the Status Report, but expressed his opinion that interviews with the IPM Commissioners will enhance the information contained therein. Board members agreed on the importance of interviewing IPM Commissioners as part of the County's investigation into the violations of IPM policy, noted that the composition of the IPM Commission should be discussed further, and commented on the importance of providing timely information regarding pesticide use to the Commission and to the public. Board members also spoke about the position of IPM Coordinator, current budget issues and funding for the IPM Program, public education and outreach, and the County's ability to update the ordinance after adoption. Mr. Hymel advised that a change in IPM Program leadership can be addressed as part of the Board subcommittee's work, spoke briefly regarding funding for the Program, asked for Commissioners to contact him regarding interviews, and noted that the status report was not meant as a policy statement but only to provide a point-in-time report. Board members requested that the Board subcommittee address concerns regarding the role of staff in the IPM Program, the makeup of the IPM Commission, and other issues. M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Arnold to accept Report. Vote: Motion carried 3-2 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown NOES: Supervisor Kinsey, Supervisor McGlashan 14. FIRST READING: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23.19. OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, PERTAINING TO THE MARIN COUNTY INTEGRATED PEST. MANAGEMENT ("IPM") PROGRAM Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 7 7/14/2009 By letter dated July 14, 2009, County Administrator Matthew Hymel submitted his report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. Supervisor Kinsey made a motion to request the clerk to read the ordinance by title only and to schedule the merit hearing for July 21, 2009. Supervisor Arnold seconded the motion. Board members, staff and members of the ordinance re-write committee discussed language in the proposed ordinance regarding the procedure for approval of limited use exemptions for pesticide usage. Board members and staff discussed several proposed additions to the ordinance, including language to make bicycle and multi-use paths pesticide-free zones, installation of pesticide-free zone signs, the advisability of adding a 150 foot buffer around pesticide-free zones, and changes to the composition of the IPM Commission. Supervisor Adams noted that the proposed ordinance and policy contains language regarding buffer zones that provides flexibility to address different situations. After further discussion, the Board agreed that the subcommittee will discuss the issues raised and bring recommendations to the full Board regarding subsequent revisions to the IPM ordinance. Supervisor Adams recommended that the IPM Policy be amended on page 13, line 12,to read "Turf grass areas, playgrounds and picnic areas shall be designated as pesticide-free zones and posted as pesticide-free zones." The maker and seconder of the motion agreed to amend the motion as follows: M/s Supervisor Kinsey - Supervisor Arnold to (a) add language regarding pesticide-free zone signage.as recommended by Supervisor Adams; and (b) request clerk to read ordinance by title only and schedule merit hearing for July 21, 2009, at a time to be determined by the Board of Supervisors. IPM Commissioner Sandy Ross, a representative of the North Coast Rivers Alliance, a representative of MOMAS, and two members of the public individually expressed their views and concerns on various matters including the addition to the ordinance of mandatory benchmark reductions, a creek setback zone, specific criteria for granting exemptions, and updated language from the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") list of carcinogens. A member of the public urged the Board to defer the merit hearing for one month to allow further investigation into past violations and review of proposed additions to the ordinance. (Supervisor Kinsey absent at 12:52 p.m.) IPM Ordinance re-write committee member Debbie Rafael urged the Board to move forward with the process to adopt the proposed ordinance, while, continuing to review IPM policies and procedures. (Supervisor Kinsey present at 12:54 p:m.) Thereafter, the vote on the pending motion was AYES: ALL Marin County BOS Minutes 8 -7/14/2009 The Board recessed at 12:58 p.m. to meet in closed session. 21. CLOSED SESSION The Board met in closed session to discuss the following: a. Instructions to labor negotiator (Acting Human Resources Director) regarding negotiations strategy involving Deputy Sheriff's Association, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. b. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). Name of case: No Wetland Landfill Expansion, an unincorporated association et al., vs. County of Marin, et al. The Board reconvened in open session at 1:54 p.m. Supervisors Adams and Kinsey were absent. The President reported that the Board met in closed session and advised that there was no announcement at this time. 14. (CONTINUED) FIRST READING: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23.19 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, PERTAINING TO THE MARIN COUNTY INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ("IPM") PROGRAM M/s Supervisor Brown - Supervisor Arnold to schedule the merit hearing for July 21, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. Vote: Motion carried 3-0 AYES: Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor Kinsey 22. HEARING: TRAHAN APPEAL OF THE CLINE DESIGN REVIEW, 120 ATHERTON OAKS DRIVE, NOVATO By letter dated July 14, 2009, Community Development Agency Director Brian Crawford and Planner Scott Greeley submitted their report and recommendations regarding the above- captioned matter. (Supervisors Adams and Kinsey present at 1:55 p.m.) Community Development Deputy Director Tom Lai briefly commented on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Cline Design Review, with modifications, to construct a new house at 120 Atherton Oaks Drive, Novato. Mr. Greeley presented a summary of the project description and an alternate plan presented by the appellants, as well as the bases for appeal. Mr. Greeley briefly commented on the staff recommendation to deny the Trahan Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and conditionally approve the Cline Design Review. In response to questions from Supervisor Arnold, Mr. Lai advised that the Novato Fire Protection District has confirmed that the project meets their vegetation management requirements. Mr. Lai also noted that Public Works staff has recommended that a minor exception be granted for the parking area regarding the maximum slope requirement and staff is Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 9 7/14/2009 comfortable that the project will meet all County development standards for grading, parking and drainage. In response to a question from Supervisor Arnold, staff commented on attempts to reach a compromise after the Planning Commission meeting and spoke briefly about discussions regarding the appellants' proposed alternative design. The hearing was declared open to receive public testimony. Applicant Gary Cline spoke briefly regarding negotiations to secure an easement on neighboring property and the plan for tree removal to allow for construction of an emergency turnaround. Architect Stewart Summers, who reviewed the alternative design proposed by the appellants on behalf of the Clines, commented on negotiations with the appellants and spoke about the merits of the original project design. Attorney Peter Bassing, representing appellants Timothy and Catherine Trahan, spoke briefly regarding issues with the proposed emergency turnaround and tree removal on the Castenada parcel, as well as language regarding the height limit and elevation of the proposed structure. Architect Matt Guthrie, representing the appellants, described the impacts the proposed development will have to the privacy of his clients and described the alternative plan designed to address this issue by reducing the number of trees which will have to be removed. A neighbor expressed support for the applicants' original site plan- and two neighbors expressed concerns regarding drainage issues and tree removal. Seeing no one else present to speak, the hearing was closed. Staff responded to comments raised during public testimony, noting that the proposed project minimizes tree removal to the extent feasible and reasonable on a heavily forested site and briefly reviewed the drainage plan that has been reviewed and accepted by Public Works staff. Mr. Lai further responded by pointing out that the proposed resolution brings forward corrections to the description of. the building's side yard setbacks from those that were reflected in the Planning Commission's resolution. Mr. Lai also requested that the Board leave the elevation of the residence at. the 23-foot height limit, noting that this was the project the Planning Commission approved. Mr. Lai commented briefly on Condition 2d regarding tree replacement, noting that the language is consistent with County policy. Mr. Lai noted that the concerns raised regarding visual impacts could be further addressed by additional language to require the applicant to add additional landscaping along the front of the house. In response to a question from Supervisor Adams, staff advised that language can be added to require the use of permeable pavement and other stormwater management devices, where feasible, to minimize off-site run-off. Supervisor Arnold expressed disappointment that a compromise could not be reached but noted that the Clines' design meets County standards. Supervisor Arnold requested that-language be added to the proposed resolution to require additional landscaping at the front of the property, to Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 10 7/14/2009 require the use of permeable surfaces wherever possible, to clarify the 23-foot building height, and to correct the inaccurate setback as recommended by staff. M/s Director Arnold - Director McGlashan to adopt Resolution No. 2009-59 denying the Trahan Appeal, sustaining the Planning Commission decision, and conditionally approving the Cline Design Review (DR 08-36). with amended conditions; 120 Atherton Oaks Drive, Novato (APN 143-360-32). AYES: ALL 10. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO NOTICES OF ADDRESS DISCREPANCIES By letter dated July 14, 2009, Deputy County Counsel Jennifer Vuillermet submitted her report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. (Supervisor Kinsey absent at 2:43 p.m.) M/s Supervisor McGlashan - Supervisor Arnold to adopt Resolution No. 2009-58 establishing Identity Theft Prevention Program and Procedures related to notices of address discrepancies. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey The Board recessed at 2:44 p.m. to meet as the. Gateway Improvement Authority Board of Directors and the Gateway Refinancing Authority Board of Directors and reconvened as the Board of Supervisors at 2:49 p.m. Supervisor Kinsey was absent. 15. REQUEST FROM THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE MARIN COUNTY FIRE OPERATIONS BATTALION CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, FOR A TWO-YEAR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU"), EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2009 By letter dated July 14, 2009, Acting Director of Human Resources Mona Miyasato and Principal Personnel Analyst Angela Nicholson submitted their report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. M/s Supervisor McGlashan - Supervisor Arnold to approve tentative agreement with the Marin County Fire Operations Battalion Chiefs Association, for a two-year Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), effective July 1, 2009. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey. 16. REQUEST FROM THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE -GENERAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES IN THE SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS AND BARGAINING UNIT/FRINGE GROUPS IDENTIFIED IN STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 14, 2009 By letter dated July 14, 2009, Acting Director of Human Resources Mona Miyasato and Human Resources Deputy Director Terri Hampton submitted their report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 11 7/14/2009 M/s Supervisor McGlashan - Supervisor Arnold to approve (i) a 1.5% general salary adjustment for non-represented employees in bargaining unit/fringe groups (BU/FG) 24-01, 24-05, 30-01 and specific classifications from 21-01, effective July 12, 2009; (ii) a 1.5% general salary adjustment for non-represented employees in bargaining unit/fringe groups (BU/FG) 24-01, 24- 05, 30-01 and specific classifications from 21-01, effective June 6, 2010; and (iii) increase biweekly fringe benefit package to $410 + 2% for miscellaneous employees, and $440 + 3% for safety employees, effective December 13, 2009. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey County Administrator Matthew Hymel commented briefly regarding County policy for salary adjustments for non-represented employees. M/s Supervisor Arnold - Supervisor McGlashan to approve a 3% general salary adjustment for non-represented employees in fringe groups 21-02, 24-02 and 25-01 effective July 12, 2009. Vote: Motion carried 3-1 AYES: Supervisor Mc.Glashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown NOES: Supervisor Adams ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey 17. REQUEST FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICES TO ABOLISH 0.83 FTE COMMUNITY LIBRARY SPECIALIST AND TAKE SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS PURSUANT TO REDUCTION IN FORCE ("RIF") PROCEDURES AS IDENTIFIED IN STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 14, 2009 By letter dated July 14, 2009, Marin County Free Library Director Gail Haar and Acting Director of Human Resources Mona Miyasato submitted their report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Arnold to abolish 0.83 FTE Community Library Specialist and take subsequent actions pursuant to Reduction In Force ("RIF") procedures as identified in staff report dated July 14, 2009. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: -Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey 18. APPOINTMENTS a. Child Care Commission One vacancy representing Consumers due to the resignation of Elizabeth Winston. An application was received from Laurie O'Hara-Torres. M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Arnold on behalf of Supervisor Brown, to appoint Laurie O'Hara-Tones. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey b. County Service Area ("CSA") #16 Advisory Board - Greenbrae One term expiration (Michael Hillman, incumbent). An application was received from Phillip Wenger.' Continued Marin County BOS Minutes 12 7/14/2009 M/s Supervisor Arnold - Supervisor Adams on behalf of Supervisor Brown, to appoint Phillip Wenger. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey C. Disaster Council One vacancy representing the Marin Interagency Disaster Coalition ("MIDC"). A letter was received from the MIDC nominating Steven Hancock. M/s Supervisor Adams - Supervisor Arnold to appoint Steven Hancock. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey d. In-Home Supportive Services ("IHSS") Public Authority Governing Board One At-Large Consumer vacancy. Applications were received from Brian Eppes and Robert Ben Hernandez and a letter dated June 18, 2009, was received from the IHSS Board Development Committee recommending Mr. Eppes' appointment. M/s Supervisor Arnold - Supervisor Adams to appoint Brian Eppes_ . Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey e. Workforce Investment Board One vacancy representing Labor. An application was received from Jack Buckhorn. M/s Supervisor Arnold - Supervisor Adams to appoint Jack Buckhorn. Vote: Motion carried 4-0 AYES: Supervisor Adams, Supervisor McGlashan, Supervisor Arnold, Supervisor Brown ABSENT: Supervisor Kinsey 19. REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING REGARDING THE CONTINUATION OF THE RUSH CREEK LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT By letter dated July 14, 2009, Parks and Open Space Deputy Director Ron Miska submitted his report and recommendations regarding the above-captioned matter. (Supervisor Kinsey present at 2:48 p.m.) The Public Information meeting was declared open for public comment. No members of the public were present to address this item. The public protest hearing was scheduled for July 21, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. Marin County BOS Minutes 13 7/14/2009 The Board adjourned at 2:50 p.m. in memory of Alex Forman. SINE DIE PRESIDENT ATTEST: CLERK Marin County BOS Minutes 14 _ 7/14/2009 MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DE-VE-LOPME-NTAGE-NCY PRIAN C. CRAWFORD, DIRECTOR August 11, 2009 Board of Supervisors County of Marin 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, California 94903 SUBJECT: Swahn appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the Swahn Initial Study Paradise Drive, Tiburon Assessor's Parcel 059-231-02 Dear Board Members: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION On June 8t', 2009, the Marin County Planning Commission approved in part and denied in part the Swahn appeal of the findings of the Initial Study prepared by staff for the Swahn Design Review and Second Unit Permit application. The appellant had appealed the findings of the Initial Study based primarily on three mitigation measures related to visual resources that would have substantially modified the design of the proposed residence. These mitigation measures (M.1, M.2, and M.3) would have. relocated the residence 50 feet farther from the Bay, reduced grading by eliminating a portion of the lower level of the residence, and reduced the height of the residence from 31 feet to 18 feet above grade. The appellant had requested that the Planning Commission determine that the project qualify for a Categorical Exemption, or at a minimum eliminate the three mitigation measures identified above that modified the design of the project. The Planning Commission upheld a portion of the appeal, and directed staff to revise the visual impact mitigation measures to be more qualitative rather than precisely quantifying the modifications that would be required. However, the Planning Commission did not agree with the appellant that the determination regarding a significant visual impact be eliminated or that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption. This outcome was not satisfactory to the property owner, who has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to your Board. Staff recommends that your Board sustain the Planning Commission's decision and direct staff to make the changes to the Initial Study indicated by the Planning Commission for the reasons. indicated in the attached Resolution (attachment 1). PROJECT SUMMARY The owner proposes to construct a 15,482 square foot, two-story main residence with an attached garage; a 2,250 square foot, two-story guest house; and a 737 square foot single-story second unit on a vacant, 14.73 acre property in Tiburon. The owner also proposes to construct a driveway, septic system, and various utilities and appurtenant structures to improve the property. The proposed driveway would begin at the western end of the property and wind along the southern property line to provide access to the residence. The approximate area of site disturbance is estimated as 1.51 acres for the entire project. Proposed exterior materials include fieldstone veneer for the facades and metal roofing. Due to the large size of the residence, it would be required to be constructed to meet Marin County's "carbon-neutral" 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE. (BOOM 308 - SAN RAFAEL. CA 94QO3-4157 - 415-499-6?6q - F-AX 415-4QQ-7880 standards for development, including LEED certification and developing renewable sources of energy on site. APPEAL ANALYSIS A. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission inappropriately failed to deem the application categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The Planning Commission determined that the project is not Categorically Exempt from CEQA because it is excluded from the standard Categorical Exemptions listed by CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, which states: "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The unusual circumstances related to the project include the exceptionally large size of the residence and the location of the residence on a visually prominent ridgeline adjacent to the public open space of San Francisco Bay. The Initial-Study's finding that the project would result in significant impacts to the environment as a result of the exceptionally large residence on a visually prominent ridgeline by the Bay is evidence that this determination was justified. Further, the Initial Study determined that the project would result not only in significant visual impacts, but would also result in significant geophysical impacts, traffic hazard impacts, and biological impacts. B. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission's determination that the project would result. in significant impacts was not based on substantial evidence in the record and the County's environmental database. The appellant has stated that staff articulated an opinion that the size of the proposed project should be reduced. This statement is false; staff has never indicated that the overall building area proposed is inappropriate for the site, and has consistently affirmed that. Marin County does not have policies, regulations, or guidelines that place a predetermined limit on the maximum area of residential development in planned zoning districts in Tiburon. However, from the inception of the project, staff has communicated that the Environmental Assessment indicated that the Planning Commission recognized the ridge on the property as visually prominent. Further, staff always endeavors to communicate as early in the planning process as possible that a project may be inconsistent with the policies, regulations and guidelines that County decision-makers rely on for the mandatory findings of project approval. Therefore, staff indicated during the first meeting with the applicant and consistently since that time that the Planned District Development Standards and the Marin County Single-family Residential Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines) contain a standard height limit of 18 feet above grade for residences that are built on visually prominent ridgelines. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study do not place a limit on the building area of the project, but. they do ensure that the design would be consistent with the Planned District Development Standards and the Design Guidelines. With respect to the visual impacts of the project, the Initial Study Checklist question states: "Substantially reduce, obstruct, or degrade 'a scenic vista open to the public or scenic highway, or conflict with adopted aesthetic or visual policies or standards?" As indicated in the Initial Study, the project is inconsistent with the Planned District Development Standards related to development on visually prominent ridgelines. The visual simulations produced by the applicant show the same viewpoints as were originally used for the Environmental Assessment. While the Initial Study acknowledges that gauging visual impact involves an element of subjectivity, the Planning Commission confirmed that the project's inconsistency with the Development Standards would substantially degrade the scenic vistas available to the public from the Bay resulting in a significant adverse impact to aesthetics and visual resources. 2 C. The appellant asserts that it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to revise the Initial Study to contain undetermined mitigation measures designed to address an impact unlikely to exist. As noted above, the Planning Commission directed staff to revise the Initial Study to eliminate the quantified standards requiring that the residence be moved precisely 50 feet from it's proposed location, that the area of the residence to be eliminated be precisely limited to the lower level of the west wing, and that the maximum height of the residence be lowered to precisely 18 feet above grade. In so doing, the Planning Commission was acknowledging that evaluating the precise elements of project redesign would be better suited to the Design Review process than the Environmental Review process, but was not relinquishing all influence that the mitigation measures would have on the outcome of the Design Review. However, achieving conformance with the Single- family Residential Design Guidelines would still require that the residence be lowered to a maximum height of 18-feet above grade, that grading leave the ridgeline's natural vegetation and contours intact, and that the residence be relocated to the least visually prominent area on the site (Design Guideline D-1.6). Therefore, the mitigation measures, as required by the Planning Commission, would provide sufficient specificity to ensure that significant visual impacts would be avoided. D. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission unilaterally created an application of a new pseudo-zoning designation for "visually prominent ridgelines". As noted in the Initial Study, Marin Countywide Plan (CWP) policy DES-4.d states the following: DES-4.d Protect Views of Ridgelines. Implement Development Code standards that require development proposed on or near visually prominent ridgelines (including in the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Areas shown on Map 3-4) to be clustered below the ridgeline on the least visually prominent portion of the site. Expand the implementation of these standards by including in the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Area those unmapped ridgelines identified as having countywide significance and rezoning Ridge and Upland Greenbelt lands to Planned District categories and adjacent buffer area to a transitional district. (See DES-4.e.) The Planned District Development standards and the Design Guidelines contain similar standards regarding the protection of visually prominent ridgelines. The appellant is correct that there is no definition of a "visually prominent ridgeline" in any County Ordinance or policy document. Ridgelines are normally regarded as visually prominent if they are physically distinct from the surrounding area and highly visible from public viewing locations. Implementation of uniform standards on a site- specific basis is commonly practiced in the discretionary review process for projects throughout the County, and does not constitute a "new pseudo-zoning district." Rather, it is a means by which discretion is applied to the review of discretionary applications, based on relevant site-specific circumstances. E. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission inappropriately commingled the CEQA and the Design Review processes. Similar issues sometimes arise from both an environmental review and a Design Review, but there are critical differences as well. Design Review requires a fine-grain analysis of a variety of aspects of a project, including visual effects, whereas environmental review compares a project to certain thresholds of significance that are derived from the County's Environmental Review Guidelines, CWP and Community Plan policies, regulations and Design Guidelines. For example, a project may be deemed unacceptable from a Design Review standpoint if it would adversely affect the views, light or privacy enjoyed from surrounding private properties. However, an impact to views of a ridgeline only rise to a level of significance if they affect public viewpoints, such as the Bay. The ridge protection standards apply to the project because it is on a ridge that is physically distinct and highly visible from 3 the Bay. The Initial Study does not inappropriately apply a Design Review standard to the environmental review of the project, because the impacts of the project would adversely affect public viewpoints rather than private viewpoints. CONCLUSION The appellant has not demonstrated a sufficient basis to overturn the Planning Commission's decision directing staff to modify the Initial Study. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that your Board take the following actions: 1., Review the public record; 2. Conduct a public hearing; and 3. Adopt the recommended Resolution denying the Swahn appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the Swahn Initial Study. REVIEWED BY: [ ] Auditor-Controller [X] N/A [X] County Counsel [ ] N/A [ ] Human Resources [X] N/A Respectfully submitted, ewed by: J emy ejirian, AICP rian C. Crawford Agency Director Attachments: 1. Board of Supervisors Resolution denying the Swahn appeal 2. Appellant's petition for appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (The following attachments are included only in the Board of Supervisor's report packet. Copies of these documents are available at the Community Development Agency for public review during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily.) 3. Planning Commission Resolution PC09-010 4. Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of June 8, 2009 5. Planning Commission staff report, with attachments I://cur/jdswahn/swahnISBOS letter 4 MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE SWAHN_ APPEAL OF MARIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION REGARDING THE SWAHN INITIAL STUDY, AND DIRECTING THE MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO REVISE THE INITIAL STUDY FOR THE SWAHN DESIGN REVIEW AND SECOND UNIT PERMIT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 059-231-02 PARADISE DRIVE, TIBURON SECTION I: FINDINGS 1. WHEREAS, the owner, Anders Swahn, is requesting Design Review (DR 08-17) and Second Unit Permit (SU 08-14) approval for the development described below. Structural Development The owner proposes to construct a 15,482 square foot, two-story main residence with an attached garage; a 2,250 square foot, two-story. guest house; and a 737 square foot single-story second unit on a vacant, 14.73 acre property in Tiburon. The owner also proposes to construct a driveway, septic system, and various utilities and appurtenant structures to improve the property. The proposed driveway would begin at the western end of the property and wind along the southern property line to provide access to the residence. The approximate area of site disturbance is estimated as 1.51 acres for the entire project. The structures, particularly the main residence, would be constructed with fire resistant materials and sprinkler systems to meet the heightened fire safety requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Proposed exterior materials include fieldstone veneer for the facades and metal roofing. Characteristics of the proposed development of the structures are summarized below. 1. The main residence would have the following development characteristics: Building Area-15,482 square feet Maximum height-31 feet above surrounding grade (the majority of the roof does not exceed 30 feet, however a portion of the roof overhang reaches a height of 31 feet) Minimum setbacks- Northwestern front= 875 feet Southwestern side= 20 feet Northeastern side= 285 feet Southeastern rear- 300 feet Paradise Drive= 895 feet Shoreline= 260 feet BOS Attachment 1 Grading Volumes- Cut= 3,075 cubic yards Fill= 39 cubic yards 2. The guest house would have the following development characteristics: Building Area-2,250 square feet Maximum height-15 feet above surrounding grade Minimum setbacks- Northwestern front= 310 feet Southwestern side= 45 feet Northeastern side= 285 feet Southeastern rear= 890 feet Paradise Drive= 335 feet Shoreline= 260 feet Grading Volumes- Cut= 439 cubic yards Fill= 0 cubic yards 3. The second unit would have the following development characteristics: Building Area-737 square feet Maximum height-15 feet above surrounding grade Minimum setbacks- Northwestern front= 370 feet Southwestern side= 24 feet Northeastern side= 310 feet Southeastern rear= 840 feet Paradise Drive= 390 feet Shoreline= 285 feet Grading Volumes- Cut= 37 cubic yards Fill= 0 cubic yards Paradise Drive Improvements Several improvements are proposed adjacent to and within the Paradise Drive right of way. The owner proposes to widen Paradise Drive at the intersection of the new driveway and Paradise Drive to improve sight distance and vehicle safety. An existing chain link fence that follows the front property line along Paradise Drive would remain, and a new 6-foot high solid black iron fence would be constructed adjacent to'the driveway to connect with the existing fence. A 7-foot high semi-solid gate would be installed at the entrance to replace the existing chain link gate. The gate setback and entry design would provide sufficient space for vehicles to pull completely off Paradise Drive before entering the gate. The owner proposes to widen Paradise Drive along the frontage of the property to the north of the entry gate for the purposes of bicycle and pedestrian safety. A shoulder within the Paradise Drive right of way would be widened to provide five feet from the fog line to the edge of pavement for approximately 750 feet along the frontage of the property. BOS Attachment 1 2 The owner proposes to grade a portion of the embankment rising from the road grade of Paradise Drive in order to improve sight distance from the property entry. The grading would begin approximately 80 feet north of the entry and re-contour a portion of the embankment from approximately the 85 foot contour elevation to the 95 foot contour elevation. As a result of this grading and widening the road at the entrance to the property, a vehicle exiting the property would have an unobstructed sight distance exceeding 155 feet to the north and to the south along Paradise Drive. On-site Access and Parking The existing fire access road is a graded bench cut constructed on the property many years ago. The access road extends from the access point on the Paradise Drive frontage with a width ranging from 10 to 15 feet for a length of approximately 1,200 linear feet in a southeasterly direction towards the edge of .the bluff above San Francisco Bay. Approximately 300 feet from the entrance, the access road is graded in a loop around existing pine trees. The access road starts at elevation 85 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and rises to an elevation of 135 feet (NGVD), maintaining an average slope of less than 18 percent. The proposed driveway would generally follow the alignment of the existing access road. Portions of the existing access road have been temporarily enhanced to allow access for the previous construction of erosion control measures to be completed. All of the areas disturbed would be re-contoured and restored to their original topography. Sections of the existing access road would be maintained with texture matting and erosion control measures. This would allow compliance with the terms of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit previously granted for the erosion control repairs and drainage improvements, which mandates a perpetual obligation for maintenance. Six parking stalls for the guest house and second unit would be located adjacent to those structures and five parking stalls for the main residence would be located in the garage and adjacent to the main residence. The driveway would end in a 30-foot radius fire truck turnaround near the entry to the main residence. The driveway plan results in grading of 533 cubic yards of cut and 990 cubic yards of fill. Additional fill material, resulting from building cuts, would be used to lift the driveway elevations as necessary and for landscaping. The driveway surface would be paved with all weather pervious material and passable by emergency vehicles. Utilities and Wastewater Treatment Electrical, telephone, and cable utilities would be extended to the site from existing facilities near Paradise Drive. Water would be provided by constructing a new underground water line that would lead from the structures to Paradise Drive along the same alignment as the driveway. The owner would replace approximately 745 feet of the existing 6-inch water main with an 8-inch water main under Paradise Drive. The 8-inch water main would connect to a 12-inch water main at the intersection of Paradise Drive and an existing Marin Municipal Water District water tank road located across Paradise Drive from the northern property line, and then follow the road rising to an existing water tank. There is no sewer service in close proximity to the site, and Sanitary District 5 staff have indicated that they have no intention of extending service to this area for the foreseeable future. The owner has submitted designs for an on-site septic system that has been approved by the Environmental Health Services Division. The septic leach field would be located in a densely wooded area BOS Attachment 1 3 downslope of the driveway between the accessory structures and the main residence. The leachfield area would be approximately 180 feet by 150 feet in dimension and the leach lines themselves would be located between the existing trees. Grading and Drainage Improvements Subsequent to the preparation of the Environmental Assessment for the property, the owner obtained a permit from BCDC to develop drainage improvements intended to ameliorate the bluff erosion being caused by inadequate drainage on the property. Pursuant to BCDC permit number M06-28, the owner installed engineered drainage ditches and other erosion control measures such as jute netting. The majority of the drainage improvements and erosion control measures are in BCDC's permit jurisdiction within the 100-foot band along the shoreline. Additional drainage improvements are proposed near the proposed development to channel stormwater to areas of the site where it would percolate into the soil. The more substantial drainage improvements would include a concrete v-ditch running along the hillside above the proposed driveway with a series of culverts that would convey water underneath the driveway to the hillside below as well as connecting a new 18-inch storm drain to an existing 18-inch culvert that carries water under Paradise Drive from the hillsides above and conveying it to the northern portion of the property for disbursal. Components of the project that would entail substantial grading include the improvements along .Paradise Drive, the proposed driveway, turnaround and parking areas for the residence and accessory structures, the construction of the residence and accessorystructures, and the proposed landscape berm adjacent to Paradise Drive. In particular, the excavation necessary to sink the lower level of the main residence approximately 12 feet into the ground would require removal of 3,036 cubic yards of soil from the top of the ridge. 3,055 cubic yards of fill would be used to re-contour an area extending approximately 200 feet to the north of the proposed driveway near the entrance to the property to create a new landscaped berm. The proposed berm would reach a height of approximately 15 feet above existing grade but would not exceed the elevation of Paradise Drive adjacent to the property. Tree Removal, Defensible Space, and Landscaping Calculations of tree removal are based on an Arborist's report, prepared by Ed Brennan, consulting Arborist, which assumes that tree protection measures recommended in the report are properly implemented. With these measures implemented, the applicant. proposes to remove a total of 22 trees for the development and to meet the defensible space requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Of these 22 trees, nine are mature, healthy, native trees that are protected by the provisions of the Marin County Development Code Chapter 22.27. The applicant proposes to replace the trees removed with 22 new native trees that would be planted on-site. While it is assumed that the owner proposes to follow the recommendations of the project arborist, these recommendations are discussed separately in the impacts section related to biological resources. A vegetation management plan, which has received preliminary approval from the Tiburon Fire Protection District was submitted by the owner. The vegetation management plan is based upon a fire hazard matrix, which establishes required defensible space zones surrounding structures, which are 50 feet upslope and sideslope from the structures and 100 feet downslope of the structures. Within these defensible space zones, a protocol for planting and maintenance is established which requires regular pruning, drip irrigation and biannual inspection by an Arborist for evidence of Sudden Oak Death syndrome. No native grasses would be allowed within the BOS Attachment 1 4 defensible space zone, and non-pyrophytic plant materials would be planted within these zones. Further, pyrophytic shrubs, such as French broom, will be entirely removed from within the defensible space zones. Landscaping on the site would comply with and implement the tree replacement and defensible space standards that are proposed. II. WHEREAS, prior to filing an application for undeveloped, agricultural, or redevelopment lands located within the combining Bayfront Conservation zoning district, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required to be prepared pursuant to Marin County Code Chapter 22.14.060.C and processed pursuant to the provisions of the Marin County Environmental Review Guidelines. III. WHEREAS, an EA was prepared for the Swahn property by an independently selected environmental consultant in 2006, and on April 24, 2006 the Marin County Planning Commission approved and adopted the Salvatore-Swahn Property Final Environmental Assessment as adequate in compliance with the requirements of the County Code, Title 22, Section 22.14.060.C and the Marin County Environmental Review Guidelines for preparation and processing of Environmental Assessments. IV. WHEREAS, following the adoption of the EA, a development application was submitted. The project application was determined to be complete on July 15, 2008- V. WHEREAS, the Swahn application represents a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Public Resources Code Sections 21000-211178.1). VI. WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA regulations, the Marin County Planning Division prepared a draft Initial Study, which identifies several significant impacts that would result from the project and mitigation measures that could be imposed that would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15070.b, the project would be eligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration if: "Revisions to the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before, a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur". On April 10, 2009, Planning staff sent the Initial Study to the applicant requesting that he sign it, committing to incorporate all the identified mitigation measures into the project. VII. WHEREAS, on April 24, 2009, Riley F. Hurd, III, on behalf of Anders Swahn, submitted a timely . appeal of the findings and mitigation measures identified by Planning staff in the Initial Study to the Planning Commission. VIII. WHEREAS, on June 8, 2009, the Marin County Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the appeal and the Initial Study, and hear testimony regarding the project. IX. WHEREAS, on June 8, 2008 the Marin County Planning Commission determined by a four to three vote that the bases for the appeal were not sufficient to determine that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption, but were sufficient to modify some of the analysis, findings, and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study for the reasons discussed in Planning Commission Resolution Number P0009-010. The Planning Commission found that mitigation measures M.1.1, M.1.2, and M.1.3 as drafted by staff may not be proportional to the visual impacts of the project. Therefore, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal, in part, and directed staff to revise the mitigation measures to eliminate the quantified standards requiring that the residence be moved precisely 50 feet from it's proposed location, that the area of the residence to be eliminated be precisely limited to the lower level of the west wing, and that the maximum height of the residence be lowered to precisely 18 feet above grade. The Planning Commission determined that the BOS Attachment 1 5 mitigation measures need to be rewritten to indicate that the design of the residence shall be modified to conform to the Marin County Single-family Residential Design Guidelines and to site the residence in a less visually sensitive location, reduce the amount of grading for the residence, and lower the maximum height of the residence. Other portions of the analysis in the Initial Study shall be rewritten as necessary to support these modifications. X. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2009, Riley F. Hurd, III, on behalf of Anders Swahn, submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve in part and deny in part the appeal regarding the Initial Study. XI. WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Marin County Board of Supervisors held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the appeal and the Initial Study, and hear testimony regarding the project. XI1. WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Marin County Board of Supervisors determined that the bases of the appeal are not sufficient to overturn the Planning Commission's decision, for the reasons identified below. A. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission inappropriately failed to deem the application categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The Planning Commission determined that the project is not Categorically Exempt from CEQA because it is excluded from the standard Categorical Exemptions listed by CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, which states: "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." The unusual circumstances related to the project include the exceptionally large size of the residence and the location of the residence on a visually prominent ridgeline adjacent to the public open space of San Francisco Bay. The Initial Study's finding that the project would result in significant impacts to the environment as a result of the exceptionally large residence on a visually prominent ridgeline by the Bay is evidence that this determination was justified. Further, the Initial Study determined that the project would result not only in significant visual impacts, but would also result in significant geophysical impacts, traffic hazard impacts, and biological impacts. B. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission's determination that the project would result in significant impacts was not based on substantial evidence in the record and the County's environmental database. The appellant has stated that staff articulated an opinion that the size of the proposed project should be reduced. This statement is false; staff has never indicated that the overall building area proposed is inappropriate for the site, and. has consistently affirmed that Marin County does not have policies, regulations, or guidelines that place a predetermined limit on the maximum area of residential development in planned zoning districts in Tiburon. However, from the inception of the project, staff has communicated that the Environmental Assessment indicated that the Planning Commission recognized the ridge on the property as visually prominent. Further, staff always endeavors to communicate as early in the planning process as possible that a project may be inconsistent with the policies, regulations and guidelines that County decision-makers rely on for the mandatory findings of project approval. Therefore, staff indicated during the first meeting with the applicant and consistently since that time that the Planned District Development Standards and the Marin County Single-family Residential Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines) contain a standard height limit of 18 feet above grade for residences that are built on visually prominent ridgelines. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study do not place a limit on the building area of the project, but BOS Attachment 1 6 they do ensure that the design would be consistent with the Planned District Development Standards and the Design Guidelines. With respect to the visual impacts of the project, the Initial Study Checklist question states: "Substantially reduce, obstruct, or degrade a scenic vista open to the public or scenic highway, or conflict with adopted aesthetic or visual policies or standards?" As indicated in the Initial Study, the project is inconsistent with the Planned District Development Standards related to development on visually prominent ridgelines. The visual simulations produced by the applicant show the same viewpoints as were originally used for the Environmental Assessment. While the Initial Study acknowledges that gauging visual impact involves an element of subjectivity, the Planning Commission confirmed that the project's inconsistency with the Development Standards would substantially degrade the scenic vistas available to the public from the Bay resulting in a significant adverse impact to aesthetics and visual resources. C. The appellant asserts that it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to revise the Initial Study to contain undetermined mitigation measures designed to address an impact unlikely to exist. As noted above, the Planning Commission directed staff to revise the Initial Study to eliminate the quantified standards requiring that the residence be moved precisely 50 feet from it's proposed location, that the area of the residence to be eliminated be precisely limited to the lower level of the west wing, and that the maximum height of the residence be lowered to precisely 18 feet above grade. In so doing, the Planning Commission was acknowledging that evaluating the precise elements of project redesign would be better suited to the Design Review process than the Environmental Review process, but was not relinquishing all influence that the mitigation measures would have on the outcome of the Design Review. However, achieving conformance with the Single-family Residential Design Guidelines would still require that the residence be lowered to a maximum height of 18-feet above grade, that grading leave the ridgeline's natural vegetation and contours intact, and that the residence be relocated to the least visually prominent area on the site (Design Guideline D-1.6). Therefore, the mitigation measures, as required by the Planning Commission, would provide sufficient specificity to ensure that significant visual impacts would be avoided. D. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission unilaterally created an application of a new pseudo-zoning designation for "visually prominent ridgelines". As noted in the Initial Study, Marin Countywide Plan (CWP) policy DES-4.d states the following: DES-4.d Protect Views of Ridgelines. Implement Development Code standards that require development proposed on or near visually prominent ridgelines (including in the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Areas shown on Map 3-4) to be clustered below the ridgeline on the least visually prominent portion of the site. Expand the implementation of these standards 'by including in the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Area those unmapped ridgelines identified as having countywide significance and rezoning Ridge and Upland Greenbelt lands to Planned District categories and adjacent buffer area to a transitional district. (See DES-4.e.) The Planned District Development standards and the Design Guidelines contain similar standards regarding the protection of visually prominent ridgelines. The appellant is correct that there is no definition of a "visually prominent ridgeline" in any County Ordinance or policy document. Ridgelines are normally regarded as visually prominent if they are physically distinct from the surrounding area BOS Attachment 1 7 and highly visible from public viewing locations. Implementation of uniform standards on a site- specific basis is commonly practiced in the discretionary review process for projects throughout the County, and does not constitute a "new pseudo-zoning district." Rather, it is a means by which discretion is applied to the review of discretionary applications, based on relevant site-specific circumstances. E. The appellant asserts that the Planning Commission inappropriately commingled the CEQA and the Design Review processes. Similar issues sometimes arise from both an environmental review and a Design Review, but there are critical differences as well. Design Review requires a fine-grain analysis of a variety of aspects of a project, including visual effects, whereas environmental review compares a project to certain thresholds of significance that are derived from the County's Environmental Review Guidelines, CWP and Community Plan policies, regulations and Design Guidelines. For example, a project may be deemed unacceptable from a Design Review standpoint if it would adversely affect the views, light or privacy enjoyed from surrounding private properties. However, an impact to views of a ridgeline only rise to a level of significance if they affect public viewpoints, such as the Bay. The ridge protection standards apply to the project because it is on a ridge that is physically distinct and highly visible from the Bay. The Initial Study does not inappropriately apply a Design Review standard to the environmental review of the project, because the impacts of the project would adversely affect public viewpoints rather than private viewpoints. XIII. WHEREAS, the Marin County Board of Supervisors sustains the decision of the Marin County Planning Commission regarding mitigation measures M.1.1, M.1.2, and M.1.3 of the Swahn Initial Study. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors directs staff to revise the mitigation measures to eliminate the quantified standards requiring that the residence be moved precisely 50 feet from it's proposed location, that the area of the residence to be eliminated be precisely limited to the lower level of the west wing, and that the maximum height of the residence be lowered to precisely 18 feet above grade. The mitigation measures shall be rewritten to indicate that the design of the residence shall be modified to conform to the Marin County Single-family Residential Design Guidelines and to site the residence in a less visually sensitive location, reduce the amount of grading for the residence, and lower the maximum height of the residence. Other portions of the analysis in the Initial Study shall be rewritten as necessary to support these modifications. SECTION II: ACTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Marin County Board of Supervisors hereby denies the Swahn appeal and directs the Marin County Community Development Agency to revise the Swahn Initial Study for the property owner's signature and acceptance of the Mitigation Measures. SECTION III: VOTE PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin, State of California, on the 11 to day of August 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BOS Attachment 1 8 Attest: Matthew H. Hymel Clerk of the Board of Supervisors HAROLD C. BROWN JR., PRESIDENT MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOS Attachment 1 MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR PETITION FOR APPEAL TO: THE MARIN COUNTY L306Lr d O~ S"P er v i S o r S (Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors) 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903-4157 The undersigned,Q%*%-Aei %-kr~ &t Ar, oer, Swu~n being the aggrieved party, hereby files an (Appellant/Petitioner) appeal from the decision of the Pia nn t /r , COmfn i SS i o (Community Development Director or Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission) which ~S~rti5~;s~t~ CoAA.1i6AS for a: (granted, denied, established conditions) ❑ Master Plan ❑ Design Review ❑ Development Plan ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Rezoning ❑ Tentative Map ❑ Use Permit ❑ Variance Other relating to property described and located as follows: a) Assessor's Parcel Number Q's 9 r Z.3 D Z, b) Street Address Z R 0,p et r Ck S e Ori Ve j i -L u i do C) File Name of Applicant An-jar S S Q a 4,n 2. The basis of this appeal is: Oea5e SPe 6J r CA C let f er (The pertinent facts and the basis for the appeal shall be provided to the Agency at the time the appeal is filed, but no later than the last date established for the appeal period - usually 10 days following the date of the decision. If more space is needed, please attach additional pages setting forth the bases for appeal.) FROM: le al (Pr* Name) ST 1y y r~, ~trP~ f < ~ (Signature) 9. ft d reA C CA 9Y 96I (Business Telephone) Sun (A (City/State/Zip Code) 1 (Residence Telephone) (For Office Use Only) Received by: Receipt No: Tentative Hearing Date: JUN 2 2 2009 ;Ity of Mary, A.:.:.; u ~r~pmer, tat., r w ws. 3 5 01 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 - San Rafael, _ BOS ATTACHMENT #2 415-499-6269 - Fax 415-499-7880 http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/index.cfm Ragghianti lFreitaS LLr ATTORNEYS AT LAW 874 FOURTH STREET, SUITE D, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901-3246 TELEPHONE 415.453.9433 FACSIMILE 415.453.8269 WWW.RFLAWLLP.COM June 22, 2009 Marin County Board of Supervisors County of Marin 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #329 San Rafael, California 94903 Re: Appeal, APN 059-231-02, Swahn Design Review Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: k I' 'TV JUN 2 2 2009 The purpose of this letter is to set forth the bases for Mr. Anders Swahn's appeal of the June 8, 2009 decision of the Marin County Planning Commission regarding the above-referenced application. This appeal is brought pursuant to Marin County Code, Section 22.114 et seq. The specific elements of the Planning Commission decision being appealed are the following: 1. The failure of the Commission to deem this project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, 2. The Commission's requirement that Mr. Swahn sign a mitigated negative declaration containing an alleged "significant environmental effect," which is not based on "substantial evidence contained in the administrative record and County's environmental database," 3. The Commission's requirement that Mr. Swahn sign a mitigated negative declaration containing undetermined mitigation measures designed to address an impact unlikely to exist, 4. The Commission s inappropriate unilateral creation and application of an entirely new pseudo-zoning designation for "visually prominent ridgelines," and, 5. The Commission's inappropriate commingling of the CEQA and design review processes. RODRIGO D. DIAS DAVID F. FEINGOLO RILEY F. HURD III ROBERT F. FPSTEIN SARAH N. LEGER PATRICK M. MACIAS OF COUNSEL: ERIC STERNBERGER HERBERT M. ROWLAND )OHN RALPH THOMAS, )R. RICHARD T. FRANCESCHINI GARY T. RAGGHIANTI, INC. DAVID P. FREITAS (RET.) Ragghianti lFreitas LLr Marin County Board of Supervisors June 22, 2009 Page 2 of 6 History The pending application is for construction of one single family dwelling and a guest house and low-income caretaker's unit on a 14.73 acre parcel. The zoning of the parcel permits development well in excess of what is being proposed. The processing of this application has repeatedly violated both the Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, resulting in costly delays to the applicant. For example, a completeness determination was not made within the Government Code mandated 30-day timeframe, thereby causing the application to be deemed complete automatically. The County then had 30 days pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15102 in which to determine the nature and the scope of any CEQA review. Despite being repeatedly made aware of this deadline, the County did not make a determination of the level of CEQA until 237 days after the mandated deadline. The carrying cost of this large undeveloped parcel throughout these illegal delays has been tremendous. The County continues to reap the benefit of the significant amount of property taxes paid on the property (currently $2,000/ week and to date Mr. Swahn has paid over $1,000,000 in property taxes on this parcel), while continuously failing to timely process Mr. Swahn's application. After this eight-month delay, Planning staff determined that despite the clear exemption for single family dwellings set forth in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study would be required for this project. This Initial Study was in addition to the costly and comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) that staff had previously required, and which the Planning Commission had already approved. At the time of the public hearing regarding EA approval, the Planning Commission stated that this particular EA was one of the best they had ever seen and should be a model for how future EA's are done in the County. The project was consequently designed by the applicant and his team of consultants with the specific objective of minimizing impacts according to the constraints in the EA. Most significantly, to minimize view impacts the project was developed as a single main house as opposed to the two homes -and subdivision that has originally been envisioned in the pre-application presented to the MCCDA in late 2003. This was a substantial concession by the applicant given the very large size of this parcel. Ragghianti IFreitas LLn Marin County Board of Supervisors June 22, 2009 Page 3 of 6 The proposed mitigated negative declaration On April 10, 2009, in a letter from Marin County Principal Planner, Jeremy Tejirian, it was asserted that pursuant to the Initial Study for the project, it had been determined that the project might qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Neg Dec), but only if Mr. Swahn committed to implement the mitigation measures contained therein. An alleged potentially significant impact contained in the proposed Neg Dec was on "Aesthetics/ Visual Resources." (Impact M.1.) This finding was particularly surprising because at the outset of the project, the applicant worked closely with the County to determine not only the manner, but the precise location and views, by which to analyze the visual impact of the proposed project. Incredibly detailed and costly computer modeling, directed by the county staff, was commissioned by the applicant to display the view of the finished project from precise points selected by the assigned planner. In fact, the project planner was specifically involved in the view points selection process (which are also consistent with the EA definition of important view angles) to prevent any later suggestions that the project was not analyzed from appropriate viewing angles. For this reason, it was particularly disappointing when the photo analysis was discounted in the proposed Initial Study and it was stated that, "the photosimulations are not intended to exhibit the views of the property from all public locations, which introduces an element of subjectivity to using them as a basis of visual analysis." Importantly, the detailed computer analyses from the staff-selected locations showed no visual impact. Furthermore, nowhere in the study is there any additional evidence or visual analysis presented to show that the project has any potential significant adverse impact on private or public views from locations other than those already studied. Misapplication of the County Code Staff has, since the inception of the project, articulated an opinion that the size of the proposed project should be reduced. When the visual simulations failed to show any impact, those simulations were discounted and instead a new theory of impact was asserted based on a previously unmentioned County Code section. Ragghianti lFreitas LLr Marin County Board of Supervisors June 22, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Impact M.1, on "Aesthetic/ Visual Resources," states that this project would conflict with Section 22.16.030(f)(2) of the County's Development Code. The Section states that there shall be no construction within 300 horizontal feet or 100 vertical feet of a "visually prominent ridgeline." This term, "visually prominent ridgeline," is undefined in the County Code. However, as part of the General Plan, the County undertook an extensive mapping of its lands in order to identify visually prominent ridges on a Ridge and Upland Greenbelt (RUG) map. One could reasonably assume that a visually prominent ridgeline is a ridgeline appearing on the RUG map. The EA for this project, as approved by the Planning Commission, contained a section entitled "significant ridgelines." This section simply stated that no part of the Swahn property had been designated as Ridge and Upland Greenbelt, and the analysis ended there as ridges were clearly not an issue. The area proposed for the Swahn residence is identified nowhere in any County document as a "visually prominent ridgeline." The EA states that the area is only identified as a "secondary ridge," in.the Town of Tiburon's documentation. In fact, the Tiburon map cited by the EA does not identify any portion of the Swahn property as a ridge. That is because the Tiburon map only identifies "significant" ridges.. The quantum leap from an insignificant Tiburon secondary ridge to a "visually prominent" County ridge simply cannot be supported. Inappropriate mitigation measures Three mitigation measures, M.1.1, M.1.2, and M.1.3, were initially proposed to address the "impact" on visual resources and required the following: 1. M.1.1 required that the main residence be relocated to the northwest by 50 feet. 2. M.1.2 required the west wing of the lower portion of the main residence be completely eliminated (a reduction of 2,208 square feet). 3. M.1.3 required that the height of the main residence essentially be halved to a maximum of 18 feet. RagghiantilFreitas LLr Marin County Board of Supervisors June 22, 2009 Page 5 of 6 At the Planning Commission appeal hearing, evidence was submitted to demonstrate that these three suggested mitigation measures would actually have no effect on the project's "'Aesthetics/ Visual Resources," principally because the project is barely visible as currently designed. Furthermore, engineering calculations were presented that showed that the proposed changes would actually make the project more visible, result in additional tree removal, higher retaining walls, and additional grading. The Planning Commission agreed that the three mitigation measures, as written, were inappropriate. Accordingly, the Commission directed staff to re-write the mitigation measures in a more general fashion to state the following: 1. The house should be relocated, 2. Grading should be reduced, and, 3. The house should be lower. After the motion was made for the three altered mitigation measures, Mr. Tejerian stated to the Commission, I would recommend indicating that you found the ridgeline was visually prominent." The Commission said OK and then voted to uphold the appeal on the condition that the mitigation measures bee re-written and apparently also finding that the ridge was "visually prominent." This condition, and this finding, must be overturned for two reasons. First, the mitigation measures proposed are out of proportion to the impact alleged, wholly subjective, and there is no analysis whatsoever that demonstrates how the mitigation measures would in fact reduce the alleged potential environmental impacts to less than significant. Second, the application of the "visually prominent" standards to this property was an arbitrary, capricious, and conclusory action that cannot be supported from the facts in the record or any rational interpretation of the County Code and essentially constitutes a re-zoning of the property "on the fly" outside the County's standard procedure for such actions and contrary to the conclusions of the EA. 'F Ragghianti IFreitas LLr Marin County Board of Supervisors June 22, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion The Board of Supervisors is urged to grant this appeal and apply CEQA exemption 15303 to this single family dwelling. In the alternative, the Board of Supervisors is asked to confirm that Section 22.16.030(f)(2) is inapplicable to this project and remove the unfounded mitigation measures from the proposed Neg Dec. Very truly yours, I Riley F. Hurd III MARIN COUNTY `~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLANNING DIVISION 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308, San Rafael, CA 94903-4157 Telephone (415) 499-6269 Fax (415) 499-7880 Receipt Date: 06/22/2009 RECEIPT 2009-0475 Received by: HAVEL Payments and/or Transfers Applicant: SWAHN ANDERS TR & 193 GILMARTIN DR TIBURON, CA 94920 USA Check Submitted by: Raggahianti Freitas, LLP Assessor's Parcel: 059-231-02 Appeal to Board of Supervisors Payment on :06/22/2009 02:04:36 PM Check number: 2208 Amount: 770.00 Address: Raggahianti Freitas, LLP 874 4th Street Suite D San Rafael, CA 94901 Phone: 415.453.9433 770.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS Payment Historv 770.00 CE-08-68 CEQA Categorical Exemption 360.00 DR-08-17 Design Review (Single Family) 35510.00 SU-08-14 Second Unit Permit 567.50 AA-09-21 Appeal to Planning Commission 600.00 AA-09-24 Appeal to Board of Supervisors 770.00 SALES TAX 0.00 REFUNDS 0.00 PENALTY FEE 0.00 CHARGES TO DATE 5,807.50 PAYMENTS TO DATE 5,807.50 BALANCE TO DATE 0.00 I: V n fosys\Rece i p t. frx (3) FILE COPY