Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2010-03-26Q 0 P TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST March 22 - 26, 2010 Ti l,„ rnrn 1. Letter - Rolf Eiselin - Eucalyptus Trees at Hilarita 2. Email - Dennis Fisco - Compliments for Police Department 3. Letter - Scott Anderson - Adoption of Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance 4. Letter - Scott Anderson - Compliance with Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance Mandate 5. Letter - Patricia Navone - Selection of Roger Felton as 2010 Heritage Preservation Award Winner - Ceremony May 5, 2010 Aizendas & Minutes 6. Minutes -Planning Commission -February 24, 2010 7. Minutes -Design Review Board -March 4, 2010 8. Action Minutes -Planning Commission- March 24, 2010 9. Agenda - Planning Commission - March 24, 2010 10. Meeting Cancellation - Design Review Board - April 1, 2010 11. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - April 14, 2010 Regional a) Notice of Continued Public Hearing - Wind Energy Conversion Systems - Draft Neg Dec of EIR b) Invitation - Kol Shofar -12th Annual Fund Raiser c) Invitation to Attend - ABAG General Assembly and Regional Forum - SB 375 Sustainable Communities Planning Process - 4/22/10 Aizendas & Minutes d) None Council Only DIGEST I* ROLF EISELIN 1868 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE RES. LA COTE 60 RECEI V 7 Y TIBURON, CA 94920-1810 1110 MORGES USA SUISSE MAR L L tel. + 1 415 435 1198 1:e1. + 41 21 801 7077 46 i U fax + 1 415 435 1238 e-mail: rolfeiselin(c l fax 41 21 80 i 7036 TOWN MANAGERS OFFI .c,om ao CE TOWN OFTIBURON 8002 ZURICH tel. + 41 44 281 0774 ARCHITECT SIA DIPL.EPFZ REGISTERED ARCHITECT, STATE OF ILLINOIS, USA + SVVITZERI_AND Addresses: till 4.1.10: Tiburon, CA, USA; after 4.24.10 till 7.15.10: Morges, Switzerland Tiburon, 3.19.10 Mayor and Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 6 gum eucalyptus trees at Tiburon Blvd. appeal Dear Mayor and Council, according to the Deign Review Board decision of 3.4.10, these trees can now be felled and replaced with other species of trees. I herewith appeal to keep the gum eucalyptus trees and, in case they will be felled, not to replace them with other species, but to replace them with compactus eucalyptus. Reason: to mix the existing eucalyptus trees with other species will destroy the unified look, the visual impact of the whole row of trees. The closely spaced eucalyptus trees along Tiburon Boulevard form an effective shield, a wall of majestic size. They are unique; nowhere in Marin County have such trees been planted in such a compact row. Please: respect the petition of forty-two Hilarita tenants to preserve, protect and maintain the trees, respect the decision of the authorities - your colleagues from way back - to have them planted, consider that they are of no danger to the Hilarita housing: since more than half a century they withstood severest storms, numerous earthquakes, and never propagated any fire. Sincerely, Rolf Eiselin PS: regarding qualifications: Architect in design team of SOM Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chicago, for U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, and other firms in New York, Boston, Paris. Artist, represented in San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; Achenbach Foundation, Legion of Honor Palace, San Francisco; and Cabo Frio CIPB collection, Brazil. Page 1 of 1 DIGEST of Peggy Curran From: Dennis Fisco [fisco@seagateprop.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:32 PM To: Michael Cronin Cc: Peggy Curran Subject: Bike Path - Tiburon Blvd. & San Rafael Avenue Dear Chief Cronin: I have been a cyclist for many years and have had countless rides through Tiburon and Belvedere over those years. On this past Saturday at approximately 1 PM my wife, a friend and I were riding back to Mill Valley along San Rafael Avenue. At the light at Tiburon Blvd., I crossed in the cross walk, however, I did not start at one end of the crosswalk and cross after dismounting my bike. Instead, I crossed in the cross walk while coasting. It is a rather confusing situation because to get on to the bike path a biker does not actually go through the intersection. Once I got to the bike path I was met by two of your officers. The purpose of this email is to commend you and your officers for a very fine job of community police work. Instead of castigating me, as they clearly could have as I was in the wrong, they calmly explained to me how to properly cross the intersection and where I was in the wrong. I apologized as I did not know the rule/law and they sent me on my way. I have spent many years involved in community government and, in my opinion, this is a perfect example of how small town community policing should work. Again, my sincere appreciation goes out to the town and the officers for a job well done. Dennis Fisco Former Mayor of Mill Valley Dennis P. Fisco Seagate Properties, Inc. 980 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Office (415) 455-0300 Cell (415) 699-9467 Facsimile (415) 453-2892 www.seqgateproperties.com .Seagate Properties provides real estate property management, asset management and receivership services to sophisticated clients throughout California. Please consider the environment before printing this email. 3/24/2010 Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 • wwwci.tiburon.ca.us Community Development Department Mark Guthrie Marin Municipal Water District 220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera, CA 94925 RE: March 25, 2010 • Dick Collins Mayor Jeff'Slavitz • lce ~a~or r ADOPTION OF WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE ]im Frsex Councarnember Dear Mr. Guthrie: • Alice a redericks Councilmember Please find enclosed a copy of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S., which adopts by reference MMWD Ordinance No. 414's provisions regarding water- Emmett O'Donnell Councilmem'ber efficient landscaping. I have also attached a copy of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TPFD) standards regarding vegetation in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas. The TPFD is Margaret A. Curran currently preparing to adopt separate standards for vegetation in non-wUI areas; I Town Manager will forward a copy of that document following its adoption. The purpose of sending you these standards is to assist with fulfilling the intent of Section 5.C.3(h) of Ordinance No. 414 concerning compliance with local and State Fire Safe Landscape practices. Please feel free to contact me at 415-435-7392 or at sandersongci.tiburon.ca.us should you have any questions. Very truly yours, Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Enc: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N.S. on Water-efficient landscape Tiburon Fire Protection District Standard 304.1.2 on Vegetation Management s. Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www.ci.riburon.ca.us Community Development Department March 25, 2010 • s r Simon Etching Dick-Collins State of California Department of Water Resources Mayor Water Use & Efficiency Branch ~effSla i ; P.O. Box 942836 ~ v t~ V;icerMayor Sacramento, CA 94236 . , la"asl er Re: Compliance with Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Mandate Counc, e'm'ber Dear Mr. Etching: AliccTredericks CounGdmember This letter is to update you with respect to the Town of Tiburon's status with the state's Water . Efficient Landscape Ordinance mandate. Emmett O'Donnell Councilniember Please be advised that on March 17, 2010, the Tiburon Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 521 N. S. (copy enclosed) that adopts by reference the recently-enacted Marin Municipal Water District water conservation regulations regarding water-efficient landscape. The Town's ordinance goes into effect 30 days after adoption, which is on April 16, 2010. Margaret A. Curran Town'Manager We believe that this action achieves compliance with the state requirements. Should you have any questions or concerns, or if you believe that the Town has not achieved compliance through this action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 435-7392 or sanderson ci,ci.tiburon.ca.us. Very truly yours, Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Enc: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S. w/attachment (MMWD Ordinance No. 414) S: WlanninglStaff Folders lsandersonlLetterslwater conservation adoption letter to DWR.doc T I R U R O N M E R I T A C E A R T S COMMISSION I~ Roger Felton 201 Bayview Belvedere, CA 94920 Dear Roger, MAR 25 2010 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON March 25, 2010 The Heritage & Arts Commission of the Town of Tiburon is very pleased to inform you that you have been selected to receive our 2010 Heritage Preservation Award for outstanding achievement in preserving Tiburon's historic past. Jeanne Price nominated you for this award. The Heritage & Arts Commission has selected Wednesday, May 5, 2010 to present our award to you. The award consists of a plaque for you to keep, as well as a banner to display on the structure of your choice for one month. A reception to honor you will be hosted on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall in the Second Floor Community Room. Immediately following the reception, you will be presented with the award at the Town Council Meeting as the first item on the agenda. May we ask that by Wednesday, April 14, 2010, you provide us with a list of the guests to whom you would like us to extend an invitation to the reception. Please contact Joan Palmero at 435-7373 with your guest list. On behalf of the Tiburon Heritage & Arts Commission and the Town of Tiburon, heartfelt congratulations and appreciation for all you've done to preserve our local history! Sincerely, Patricia Navone, Chair Heritage & Arts Commission DIGEST RECEIVED cc: Town Council Town Manager H&A Comm. 64 PLANNING COMMISSION 40 MINUTES NO. 994 February 24, 2010:.,. Regular Meeting Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Kunzweiler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Kunzweiler, Commissioners Corcoran, Frymier, and Tollini Absent: Commissioner Doyle Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Contract Planner Diane Henderson, Environmental Consultant Bob Berman and Minutes Clerk Levison ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: Director of Community Development Anderson stated there are no items scheduled for the Commission's March 10th meeting, which will likely be cancelled. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. VICINITY OF 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE PROPOSED ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT; FILE #30701; Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, Owner and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 [SA] Contract Planner Diane Henderson presented the staff report, stating the Rabins made application to the Town for a planned development annexation and pre-zoning to develop 52 acres on Paradise Drive with 1 existing and 13 new homes. Staff reviewed the application, determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required, and retained the firm of Nichols- Berman to prepare the EIR. The completed Draft EIR (DEIR) was released for a 45-day public review period ending on October 5, 2009. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the environmental document on September 23, 2009. At the close of the public review period, staff reviewed the comments received to determine whether a recommendation could be made to the Planning Commission to proceed with the final EIR and response to comments, or if recirculation would be necessary. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE I Ms. Henderson reviewed the DEIR findings, which focused on noise related to temporary construction, view impacts when the site is viewed from middle ridge open space, and 5 cumulative impacts resulting from build-out of the Tiburon Peninsula. Ms. Henderson provided a summary of the comments received, which related to the adequacy of analyzed alternatives, access to and circulation of the site itself, biological impacts, view impacts, tree removal, the proposed public trail, and how the project conforms to Town policies. Ms. Henderson reviewed the project alternatives identified by the DEIR, noting that while the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a reasonable range of alternatives, it does not specifically state what is considered reasonable. She highlighted the project site's constraints, particularly as they pertain to access, detailed possible alternative means of access, and concluded that the proposed entry along the existing fire road is the most feasible. The applicant presented supporting information to the environmental consultant, whose traffic consultant concurred that this is the most likely point of access. Ms. Henderson explained that the Commission's role this evening is to determine whether or not, based on CEQA's thresholds, there is need to recirculate the DEIR. She outlined the 4 thresholds and provided the following response: • The EIR is inadequate in its conclusory - The DEIR was prepared by Bob Berman of Nichols-Berman, a well-known and highly regarded environmental firm with many years experience. Staff has reviewed the DEIR and feels that it meets both CEQA requirements and the Town's environmental guidelines. • A new significant impact is identified - There were no new significant impacts environmental impacts identified during the comment period. • The intensity of an impact has increased - Although information was presented in writing and at the hearing on the DEIR, staff is not aware of any increased impacts. • A new project alternative or mitigation measure which lessens impacts is identified, but the applicant has refused to adopt it - The applicant has developed a 4th alternative which reduces impacts and has adopted it as the proposed project. Ms. Henderson stated that after reviewing the comments received on the DEIR, staff met with the applicant to discuss the development of a new alternative that would address concerns raised regarding grading, tree removal, and biological impacts. She reviewed the Town's Landslide Policy, noting there was a question as to whether the significant amount of grading required for the project was a result of the development itself or a virtue of the Town's policies. The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Miller Pacific, studied the site carefully and proposed several solutions that would minimize the amount of grading while still addressing the issue of landslide repair. Craig Herzog, the Town's geotechnical consultant, reviewed the Miller Pacific report and has determined that it does in fact meet the intent of the Town's Landslide Policy. In addition, the applicant has redesigned the proposed roadway such that a bridge would be built to span the crevice created by the landforms, thereby eliminating the need for large retaining walls and greatly reducing view impacts, grading, and impacts to biological resources. The applicant also made a number of changes to lots and the houses on those lots. Lots 13 and 14 have been redesigned and reshaped, with the home on Lot 14 reduced by 1800 square feet. Lots 5 and 6 have been shifted to relocate them outside of sensitive areas and the area of ridgeline TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24.2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 2 impacts. Lot 4 has been reduced in size by 2500 square feet, although does still remain within the 50-foot vertical setback from the Tiburon Ridge. Lot 8 and the home on Lot 8 have also been redesigned to reduce impacts. She noted that, as the applicant has indicated in writing that this is now the proposed project, Alternative 4 can be analyzed in the response to comments without the need for recirculation. Ms. Henderson said it is her belief that no CEQA thresholds are triggered and it is therefore appropriate to direct the environmental consultant to prepare a response to comments and final EIR. She noted that the scope of both documents is limited to environmental issues and not the merits or final approval of a project. She concluded that the DEIR has covered a full range of alternatives and impacts associated with the development of 0 to 14 units on the site and the Commission has the information necessary to determine the project's environmental impacts. Commissioner Tollini confirmed with Ms. Henderson that, upon distribution of the Final EIR, there is chance for additional public review and comment. Mr. Anderson stated that the Commission would ultimately be asked to make a recommendation on certification of the Final EIR and merits of the project, which are typically considered in tandem at one or more public hearings. Commissioner Corcoran noted that Alternative 2, labeled as the "No Project" alternative, carried a somewhat thorough analysis, although was not as thorough as that for Alternative 3. Ms. Henderson explained that the "No Project" alternative assumes the applicant would make no requests to the Town, but would in fact develop the S.O.D.A. parcel as allowed by the County's zoning guidelines. Commissioner Corcoran inquired about the process going forward, should the Commission determine that no new substantial information has been identified. Bob Berman, Nichols Berman, said he would begin by preparing a response to each comment received and, if in fact those comments result in changes to the text of the EIR, he would also make those revisions. He said the primary function is to determine if any information eliminates or significantly reduces the impacts previously identified and still meets the goals of the applicant. Chair Kunzweiler asked if the comments received tonight would receive responses. Ms. Henderson said that only those comments received during the public review period that ended in October 2009 would have written responses. Chair Kunzweiler opened the item to public comments. Public Comments: Scott Hochstrasser, planning consultant for the applicant, said he was initially taken aback by the Commission's concerns expressed at the September 2009 meeting regarding a reasonable range of alternatives. He said he later realized that the Commission did not have the same range of information he had already gathered through two years of studying and planning development at TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 3 this site. When the Town adopted the General Plan EIR in 2005, it contained specific information about this property that was generated out of information that he provided to the Town. He noted that the General Plan EIR identified this property as having opportunity for 20 units and he used two additional years of study to develop a project of only 14 units. He has been in this process since before 2005, has had a complete application with the Town since early 2007, and has spent the last two years on the EIR process. He has done everything he can and asked that the Commission direct staff to move forward with the project. Chair Kunzweiler reviewed the density allowed for the entire site, noted that 14 units is actually the maximum for this parcel, and said he believed this choice was based more on the requirements and site constraints than a significant level of generosity on the part of the applicant. He thanked the applicant for Alternative 4, which tells him that changes to the original plan did in fact reduce the impacts and that these kinds of creative changes are good for the applicant, good for the hillside, and good for the surrounding area. He questioned and confirmed with Mr. Hochstrasser that it is still the intent of the applicant to construct these homes. Chair Kunzweiler asked for a general idea of the construction timeline and whether the homes would be built on spec basis or all at once. Mr. Hochstrasser said that has not yet been determined. Jack Scholl, Acacia Drive, said his property looks out on Lots 9 through 12 and the fire road ridge. He voiced concern with development on the ridge and said any development should cluster homes around the existing driveway. He acknowledged the owner's desire to develop his property but said that, as a neighbor, he has obvious objections to the size, scale, and placement of the homes. Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League, said she is concerned about the progressively increasing size of homes along Paradise Drive, the precedent set by past and future project approvals, and the changing character of the area. She is very familiar with CEQA criteria for recirculation of an EIR and that information received from new botanical surveys as well as from Alternative 4 could trigger that. She also noted that views of the site from San Francisco Bay have not been addressed well at all and that if addressed in the context of responses to comments, new significant impacts could be identified. Despite the improvements made by Alternative 4, she continues to feel that the extensive grading is due to excessively sized homes on excessively sized building envelopes. Randy Greenburg concurred with Ms. Denis and asked the Commission to take her comments to heart. In her 16 years on the Planning Commission, she found that the best decision-making happens when the public has all the information it is entitled to. She said the CEQA process is a fairly objective way of getting this information and allows for peer, agency, and public review, which is why all information should come from EIR documents and not solely from the applicant. She acknowledged the applicant's offer to update biologic surveys and asked that they be overseen by the EIR consultant, not the applicant. She said the EIR alternatives analysis continues to be inadequate and does not offer an alternative that feasibly obtains the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the project. She said the applicant's offer of Alternative 4 is not the same as having an EIR, without vested interests, TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 4 create one for you and gives a skewed version of what is achievable in terms of impact reduction. She also noted that the DEIR lacks a view impact analysis from the bay, the largest and most used public transit way and recreational open space in the area. CEQA intends an analysis of and mitigations for the impacts to views of these significant secondary ridgelines and that the Planning Commission deserves the benefit of this information. She said recirculation of specific aspects of the EIR are called for and include the updated biological study, an alternative that reduces the impacts in a meaningful way, and a view impact analysis from San Francisco Bay. Commissioner Corcoran asked her to comment on how she might change Alternative 2. Ms. Greenburg said it seemed careless to have studied an alternative which inaccurately represented the densities that would be allowed under the County. She said a reasonable alternative should look closely at ways to reduce grading, increase clustering, decrease home sizes, and reduce view impacts. Sandra Swanson concurred with Ms. Greenburg and said CEQA requirements clearly indicate that the EIR consultant should be directed to gather and analyze new data, and then made to re- circulate a revised DEIR. Robert Swanson, Seafirth Road, said he raised concerns regarding views from San Francisco Bay at the last meeting and asked if those would be responded to in the DEIR. He believed it is significant enough to require re-circulation of at least that portion of the DEIR. Chair Kunzweiler said those comments would be responded to but that it is too early to determine if it would trigger recirculation. To comments regarding the character of Paradise Drive, Mr. Hochstrasser noted several significant estate type developments on the Town's zoning map. He said the die has been set, that this is an estate type residential development area and that this project is consistent with that. He noted that the General Plan requires developments to retain at least 50% of the land as open space and said this proposal allows for nearly 70%. He asked the Commission to support staff s recommendation and direct the EIR consultant to prepare a response to comments. Chair Kunzweiler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Corcoran asked how recirculation of only a portion of the DEIR would work. Mr. Anderson stated that CEQA does allow the option of re-circulating portions of a DEIR, provided the changes are not of a magnitude that would warrant revision and recirculation of the entire document. He said the EIR preparer would in that case be directed to make revisions to the document and the public review and comment period would be reopened. The Planning Commission would hold another public hearing on the re-circulated portions and then resume the process taking place this evening. Commissioner Corcoran asked how it is determined whether to re-circulate all or a portion of the DEIR. Mr. Anderson said it is typically fairly clear to the Commission and staff and that significant revisions involving multiple topical sections typically warrant recirculation of the entire document. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 5 Commissioner Corcoran said the consultant has done a good job of capturing an enormous project and the comments made at the last hearing. He found the comments regarding botanical surveys and views from the bay particularly helpful and said he would like to see Mr. Berman's reply to those comments. He agreed that more information would be helpful but did not think it would be significant enough to require recirculation. He reviewed the criteria for recirculation and said he would prefer greater analysis on Alternative 2. Commissioner Tollini asked how Alternative 4 was drafted. Ms. Henderson said she, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Berman met with the applicant to review the concerns identified through the public and Commission comments. They informed the applicant that it would be wise to develop a new alternative that could be prepared by Mr. Berman or preferably, the applicant. The applicant prepared Alternative 4, returned to staff for review, and then accepted it as their proposed project. Commissioner Tollini said she read through the CEQA documents and believes there to be a high threshold for recirculation in terms of new information and project alternatives. She said the comments raised are valid and will be addressed in the Final EIR. She recommended the Commission direct the EIR preparer to move forward with the response to comments. Vice-Chair Frymier said the staff report successfully highlights the progress made on this project to date. She voiced continued concerns that the impacts on views from the bay have not been adequately addressed. She said she has a limited level of confidence that this Commission knows what this project will look like five years from now and that the environmental impacts of any project alternative have been appropriately emphasized. She said she tends to look at this project as a worst-case scenario of 14 homes built at the maximum FAR. Chair Kunzweiler said the alternatives outlined in the DEIR illustrate a variety of environmental impacts that are possible with any number of variations of the project. He said the point is not to develop as many alternatives as possible but to ensure that the studied alternatives provide a useful illustration of all possible impacts. He noted that the project is not cast in stone and that based on the findings of the EIR, the Commission will have opportunity to make alterations to the project in the merits phase. He said the merits stage cannot begin without an understanding of the environmental dimensions of this property so the Commission can make sound determinations on what is ultimately the project. Commissioner Corcoran asked if re-circulation would be necessary if the Commission was to direct additional biological surveys and analysis of view impacts from the bay. Mr. Berman said the applicant has already committed to conducting additional biological surveys, which will be subject to peer review by the EIR biologist. He said it is possible that through that process, new information will be identified which triggers the CEQA requirement for recirculation. Based on current information, however, he did not believe that would be the outcome, but conceded that it is possible. Ms. Henderson stated that re-circulation would not be required prior to obtaining that information. If, in the process of following the Commission's direction, significant new TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 6 information is identified, Mr. Berman would return to staff and the Commission for a determination. Commissioner Corcoran asked if that analysis is ongoing, even past certification of the Final EIR. Mr. Berman explained that surveys would most likely continue through June because of the blooming period of the special status plant species. He noted that a peer review of the applicant's proposed surveys did recommend some additional clarification and surveys and said the Commission would have an opportunity to review that information before making a final certification. Commissioner Corcoran said he was reassured that surveys will be ongoing. Based on that premise and the direction regarding further analysis of views from the bay, he supported moving forward with the response to comments. Chair Kunzweiler said he found this to be a very complete DEIR on an extraordinarily complicated and important piece of property. He said the current document identifies significant visual impacts which, per earlier comments and the Commission's direction, will be addressed and also identifies significant noise impacts associated with construction that are unavoidable and will have to be dealt with. He asked staff what the Commission could expect in terms of concerns raised about views from the bay. Ms. Henderson said the issue was raised during circulation of the DEIR and will be analyzed and responded to by the EIR preparer. She said that if the analysis should determine that significant impacts would result, that portion of the document would require re-circulation. Chair Kunzweiler noted that significant view impacts are already identified. Ms. Henderson clarified that no significant impacts on views from the bay have yet been identified; only impacts to views from the Middle Ridge open space area. Chair Kunzweiler said that while he appreciates the identification of cumulative unavoidable impacts, it is not fair to penalize an -applicant for the impacts created by others. Ms. Henderson explained that because of the identified significant impacts, the Commission would likely need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it wishes to approve the project. She said the same pertains to the project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts. Mr. Anderson noted that the General Plan EIR identified those same cumulative impacts and determined that, at build-out of the peninsula, those impacts would be unavoidable. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to find that no significant new information requiring re- circulation of the DEIR has arisen and, therefore, direct the EIR consultant to prepare the response to comments and Final EIR. Motion carried: 4-0 MINUTES: 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 10, 2010 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24. 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 7 Chair Kunzweiler requested the following amendments to the minutes: • Page 3 - Move "Chair Kunzweiler closed the public hearing." to after the comments of Mr. Elias-Berg. • Page 4, last paragraph - "Mr. Anderson said he be heN that a stop bar is white painted..." • Page 6, 5th paragraph - "He said it is important to do so in a way that minimizes visual impact but that it is not neeessar4y appropriate..." ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Frymier) to approve the minutes of February 10, 2010, as amended. Motion carried: 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 24, 2010 MINUTES NO. 994 PAGE 8 7 d MINUTES Q TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2010` e ,~yayF 'M The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Vice-Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Kricensky and Wilson Absent: None Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Tyler, Director of Community Development Anderson, and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Associate Planner Tyler noted that the 280 Loma Avenue item has been continued to March 18, 2010, and the appeal regarding 2051 Vistazo East has been withdrawn. She noted that a new DRB member was recently appointed by the Town Council and will likely be present at the March 18, 2010 meeting. D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 100 NED'S WAY: File No. T09-31; Hilarita-Tiburon Ecumenical Association, Owner; Community Development Director's Referral of a Tree Permit application requesting the removal of six (6) blue gum eucalyptus trees along the Tiburon Boulevard frontage of the Hilarita Apartments; APN 058-151-39. Linda Tilton, Director, John Stewart Company, said the plan is to replace the blue gum eucalyptus trees with a tree that will reach an appropriate height. Each tree will be replaced at a 3 to 1 ratio, including shrubs and screening at the lower level. As requested at the January meeting, they have put together a landscape plan for the property including a long-term plan for replacement of any other trees lost in that row along Tiburon Boulevard. The public hearing was opened. Public Comments: Chris Darling questioned the property line and pointed out the plan shows accent plants south of the eucalyptus trees, which is property owned by Cal Trans. He submitted a document from Cal Trans purportedly showing the eucalyptus trees straddle the property line. He also addressed the sustainability and viability for the replacement trees after the removal of the blue gums. The prognosis for those trees is extremely poor due to the pre-existing root development that will remain, which will cause obstruction of normal root development of the replacement trees. He said the trees will survive for a short time in a stunted state and then die out. The proposed replacement trees will only reach half the size of the proposed 40-50 feet. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/4/10 Rolf Eiselin said the trees should remain because they represent a unique design that creates an effective shield from Tiburon Boulevard. Since the trees over half a century old they are worth saving for historical reasons and are majestic in appearance. He said these trees were already in existence when the railroad passed through the area and housing is in no danger. Forty-two Hilarita residents have petitioned to preserve these trees; he feels their opinions should be respected and any changes approved by the DRB would contradict what their predecessors planned. He suggested removing the three pine trees at the corner of Ned's Way because they are not attractive and suggested planting Eucalyptus trees to create a uniform look all the way to Ned's Way. James Hardy reminded the Board that the Hilarita is a HUD-supported complex, and as such, residents have a right to be involved in all matters affecting their home, but have often been ignored and marginalized. There are currently 282 healthy trees at the Hilarita and the eucalyptus trees are part of those. They are healthy and all that needs to be done is maintain them. Management has not been scheduling or managing proper maintenance and the trees have suffered. He said there is no rush to make a decision on the removal of any trees from the Hilarita. He thinks it is important for the DRB to narrow their focus on the problem at hand, which is the height reduction of the trees. The three diseased pines at the entrance to Hilarita need to be removed and Crape myrtle trees should be planted in their place and reviewed after five years as a "demonstration project" to allow the residents of Hilarita and the citizens of Tiburon to see if those trees would be an asset to the community and are successful replacements. Jim Mallot said he lives adjacent to the Hilarita on the uphill side. He commended the Board for taking a long look at this because it is a serious issue. The Hilarita is a large building and screening is important because of scale, cars, and light. The trees provide shade and have an aesthetic beauty along Tiburon Boulevard. He said they do not need an area of "fancy" non-native trees in this quiet area. This area has an elementary school, day care center, police station, and the Hilarita all in that area. Oak trees would be the native tree of choice, as well as madrones and toyons. These have the advantage of putting on their growth at a lower level and they are easy to prune. The Hilarita has selectively cut down almost every cluster of trees around the building. There are no shady areas left around the Hilarita because they have not planted the trees in clusters. He thinks Cal Trans would be happy to allow them to plant trees in the area. The cutting that is being done to the eucalyptus trees is turning them into a hedge. He suggested that an aesthetically-minded tree company could take advantage of certain eucalyptus tree growth characteristics to create a more interesting screen through future pruning. If native trees are planted now, those trees would be more than adequate to provide a screen within 20 years. Victoria Tuorto said she is here to save the Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees. A certified master arborist from Bartlett's Tree Service said the [heavily pruned and topped] trees would grow back. These trees were identified as healthy before their alteration. Although they are non-native, they are drought tolerant requiring no water, and they have a life span of 150 years. She questioned whether the project is exempt from CEQA. This project is not a minor project because it is part of a larger plan to replace all of the eucalyptus trees at the Hilarita. If the trees were properly maintained they would provide a beautiful screen. She said CEQA prohibits piecemeal projects and that is exactly what is happening by removing the trees in this project. The CEQA checklist helps to determine whether there are environmental impacts to consider and the project will affect minority, low income, elderly and disabled, which is one of the items on the checklist. Already, because of the severe pruning, the cars on Tiburon Boulevard are louder, lights are brighter, and they are breathing more carbon dioxide. The removal of these trees will affect the health and peace of mind of the residents and may be seen as neglect. The cost associated with the maintenance of these trees is reasonable. The more screening that is removed, the more the poor quality of the buildings will be exposed to the Town of Tiburon. There must be an obligation to respect the rights of low income, minorities, and elderly residents. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/4/10 Chair Chong asked if it has been determined whether this project is exempt from CEQA. Director Anderson responded that staff has preliminarily determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, and stands by that determination. D.J. Johns, Landscape Architect, said the plan was designed to address the comments of the Board at the January meeting. He reminded everyone the plan shows the removal and replacement of each of the six trees with three new trees. The Board had asked them to develop a plan for the future that is flexible enough to account for the health of the eucalyptus row. Ms. Tilton said the trees ended up looking like they were a hedge, but they did in fact address each tree individually. The re-growth of the trees is weak, and they question whether it is a good idea to continue to try to control the height of the trees through extensive pruning. Tony Goard, maintenance supervisor, said his view has been improved. They have never removed a tree from the Hilarita that was not damaged or required to be removed by the fire department. All of the residents had the ability to go to the meetings of the board and grounds committee they did not attend those meetings. They have chosen to use the Design Review Board venue to voice their concerns instead. Vice-Chair Tollini asked about the selection of replacement trees. Mr. Johns said the replacement trees were chosen based on how well they would grow in the area given the constraints. The replanting will include soil amendment, and after one year if a tree is not healthy, it will be replaced. There are some natives included in the plan, but since there were very specific requirements for these plants they chose those that would grow best in the conditions. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Kricensky said this is a very difficult situation. He thought it would be better to have something more native, but that also provided the screening. It takes a long period of time for the trees to grow. He wondered if there was a way to start some trees now before removing all of the eucalyptus trees. He is concerned about the blue gum trees weakening and falling. Some way of phasing in the new trees over a long period of time would be his preference, so the newer trees could become more mature before removing the older ones. Vice-Chair Tollini said the biggest concern at the last meeting was coming up with a detailed plan. He appreciates these are mature trees, but in his opinion these eucalyptus trees do not provide adequate screening. His view continues to be one of deference to the applicant to the extent they think this would be a better solution. He would like to see larger size boxed trees planted [as opposed to 15 gallon trees], as it would make a difference over the next five years. Boardmember Wilson said he appreciated the work the applicant has done on the plan. The applicant has clearly indicated that they are not planning to remove any of the other eucalyptus trees, so he not concerned that other trees will be removed. Any time there is change it is difficult for people, but he also thinks there needs to be a mechanism within the management of the complex rather than having it come to the Design Review Board. He does not believe the trees are a hazard, but the applicant has worked hard to address the Board's concerns. He does not see how removing six trees and replacing them with a buffer will have as much of an effect. Chair Chong agreed and said the applicant has provided them with a long term plan. This application is not to replace 40 trees, only six trees, and it provides a plan for replacement when the other eucalyptus trees come to the end of their life. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 3/4/10 Boardmember Kricensky said the question is when they will replace the other trees. There would be a requirement to trim and maintain those trees. He talked to an arborist and the arborist felt the soil could be replaced and replacement trees would do quite well. In order for that to happen, the other trees need to be trimmed well and the droppings and leaves need to be kept off the ground. He thinks the new plan will be better than what exists currently there. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Anderson said the purpose of the tree ordinance is to regulate and require permits when people want to alter or remove trees. It is not geared toward making people keep trees that are not otherwise the subject of an application. It would be a benefit if the Board communicated as a condition of approval that the intent is to not have the other [compactus] trees removed unless necessary. Chair Chong asked if future permits could be sent to the Design Review Board for action. Anderson responded that this could be a condition of approval. Vice-Chair Tollini suggested that the Town also review whether the new trees have been successful before approving any new tree permits for the row. Boardmember Kricensky supported the removal of the six Blue Gum Eucalyptus [globulus] trees and using them as a test to see how the replacements grow. He wants to be sure the compactus trees are not ignored and are maintained and pruned appropriately. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) that the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines, and that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the resolution, and that additional conditions regarding: 1) confirmation of replacement trees being located on Hilarita property or Caltrans approval for replacements in state right-of-way, and 2) staff shall evaluate the success of replacement trees when reviewing any future tree permit applications for this row of trees. Motion carried 4-0. E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 280 LOMA AVENUE: File No. 709140; John & Kathleen Goodhart, Owner; Additions with a Variance for Reduced Side Yard Setback and a Floor Area Exception; The applicant proposes to construct a 500 sq. ft addition, and a 408 sq. ft. basement addition to the existing single-family dwelling. A portion of the addition would encroach 6 feet 1 inch into the required 8 foot side yard setback. As the existing dwelling currently exceeds the maximum gross floor area, a Floor Area Exception has been requested. APN 059-132-03. CONTINUED TO 3/18/10 3. 949 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 710008; 949 Tiburon Boulevard Development LLC, Owner; Modifications to a previously approved single-family dwelling. The applicant is proposing several modifications including but not limited to: rotating and shifting the home, and modifying the exterior colors/materials from Mediterranean to a California Craftsman architectural style. APN: 058-121-29. The applicant has submitted a request for modifications to a previously approved single-family dwelling. Currently, the property is vacant. A single-family dwelling that once existed on the site has been demolished for some time. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 4 3/4/10 The single-family dwelling as proposed would remain a two-story structure. The main level of the home would include a two-car garage, three bedrooms and three bathrooms, a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen and laundry room. The upper level of the home would include the master bedroom suite and an additional bedroom and bathroom. A small deck would extend off the master bedroom at the rear of the dwelling. Both levels of the home would be serviced by an interior stairwell. The proposed structure would result in a gross floor area of 3,980 square feet, which is near the maximum permitted floor area for a parcel of this size (3,990 sq. ft.). The proposed structure would result in a lot coverage of 3,388 square feet (17.0%) which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-I zoning district (30.0%). Colors and materials for the dwelling would be modified from the previously approved Mediterranean theme (beige stucco/red terra cotta roof tiles) to an updated California Craftsman style. The color palette would be natural with cedar shingle siding, a neutral colored cultured stone base, black window and fascia trim and a dark grey composition shingle roof. A color/materials board will be available at the meeting for review. Jan Werner, owner, said he has lived in southern Marin for 17 years. He purchased the property on December 24, 2009 and before purchasing it, spoke with staff and all of the neighbors, including six of the parcels that surround Owlswood Lane. He expressed that he was not pleased with the design of the house and learned that his neighbors and staff were also not pleased. They have made an effort to stay within the parameters of the original approval regarding height, size, shape, and location of the house. They have changed the fagade from Mediterranean stucco to contemporary craftsman, including a gentle, sloping roof, shingle siding, and base of stone. The movement of the house is now horizontal rather than vertical. They stepped the second story back away from Owlswood Lane and re-oriented the family room from north/south to east/west, which shielded the patio area and part of the backyard from the noise of Tiburon Boulevard. They have also asked to raise the house up one foot in its presentation on the land, allowing them to excavate less. Everything that is excavated in the upper side of the property will be used for fill on the lower part of the property. They have rotated the house slightly to gain a better view of the City and bring the garage further away from Owlswood Lane. The public comment period was opened. Public Comments: - Martin Perlmutter said they are the closest neighbor to this property and have lived in Tiburon for 35 years. He said this design is a vast improvement to what they have had to live near for the last 35 years. It was a concrete block with no amenities. They are very happy and grateful to Mr. Werner for the design he has proposed. Mr. Werner has also engaged the services of Pete Peterson, who has done some wonderful work and they are very pleased with that decision. Mr. Werner said he showed his drawings to every neighbor and all neighbors have signed them indicating their approval. The public comment period was closed. Boarmdember Wilson said he thinks the project is wonderful. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 5 3/4/10 Vice-Chair Toillini voiced support for the new construction, noted no variances or floor area exceptions, and said he thinks it is an improvement from the previously approved project. He visited the property and sees no adverse effects on neighbors. The only possible concern he had is the darkness of the roof because that can produce heat. Boardmember Kricensky said he thinks the Town and the neighborhood will benefit from this change and he is happy with it. Chair Chong agreed with the other Boardmembers and said he definitely supports the new project, stating it is refreshing when an applicant comes in who has already spoken with neighbors. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) to find that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, and to approve the application subject to the attached conditions of approval set forth in the staff report. Motion carried 4-0. 4. 2051 VISTAZO EAST STREET: File No. 709147; Lowell & Jacqueline Strauss, Owner; Mark & Lynn Garay, Appellant; Appeal of Planning Division decision to approve an application for construction of a six foot (6') high wood and wire deer fence. APN 059-082- 28. WITHDRAWN F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #2 OF THE 2/4/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Kricenksy requested the following change: Bottom of page 3: "They have used over 52% of the building envelope." should be changed to "The view setback restricts use of 52% of the building envelope." ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2010 meeting as amended. Motion carried 4-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 6 3/4/10 8• TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 24, 2010 - 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 ACTION MINUTES TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:33 PM Present: Chairman Kunzweiler, Vice Chairman Frymier, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Tollini Absent: Commissioner Doyle ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARING 1. VICINITY OF 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE PROPOSED ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT; FILE #30701; Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, Owner and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 [SA] Directed EIR Consultant to Respond to Comments; No Recirculation Required 4-0 MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 10, 2010 Approved as Amended Tiburon Planning Commission February 24, 2010 Page 1 Action Minutes ADJOURNMENT At 9:10 PM Tiburon Planning Commission February 24, 2010 Page 2 Action Minutes TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 24, 2010 - 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:33 PM Chairman Kunzweiler, Vice Chair Frymier, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARING 1. 145 ROCK HILL ROAD: AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY THE HOURS OF OPERATION AT A NURSERY SCHOOL; FILE #11001; Community Congregational Church, Owner; Hawthorne Nursery School, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 039-111-21 [DW] Approved (4-0) 2. 5 STEVENS COURT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE FRAIGE PRECISE PLAN (PD #31) TO EXTEND THE EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE AND CREATE A NEW LANDSCAPE ENVELOPE; FILE #31002; Thomas and Susan Gallagher, Owners; Jeff Gustafson, Applicant Assessor's Parcel No. 058-111-26 [DW] Recommended Approval to Town Council (5-0) Tiburon Planning Commission March 24, 2010 Page 1 Action Minutes DISCUSSION ITEM 3. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009 Recommended that Town Council Accept Report (5-0) MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of February 24, 2010 Approved as Submitted (5-0) ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 PM Tiburon Planning Commission March 24, 2010 Page 2 Action Minutes 104 NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010 DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY ll• NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY MARIN COUNTY R COMMUNITY D~VQLOPMQNTA-7E-NCY f : BRIAN C . CRAw;:orzD. DIRT;=R NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 22) TEXT AMENDMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Marin County Planning Commission will hold a continued public hearing to consider the County-initiated Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and text amendments that would modify the following corresponding WECS regulations contained in the current Marin County Development Code (Title 22): Section 22.32.180 - Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS); Sections 22.08.030, 22.10.030, 22.12.030 and 22.14.030 - Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements; Section 22.20.060 - Height Measurement and Height limit Exceptions; and Section 22.130.030 W. Definitions "W" WECS. The text amendments constitute substantive revisions to the current WECS regulations by proposing modifications to the permit requirements and design standards. The proposed WECS text amendments establish standards for the development and operations of WECS in compliance with Marin County policies and State and Federal laws to allow and encourage the safe, effective and efficient use of WECS, while reducing consumption of utility-supplied electricity. They establish development standards for "Small" and "Large" WECS as defined in the revised text amendments (Section 22.130.030). The amendments establish appearance, visibility, and operational standards for all WECS, including, but not limited to: siting criteria, safety measures, avian protection and noise standards. The amendments establish application submittal requirements including: wind measurement studies, bird and bat studies, visual simulations and acoustical analyses. A Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 20-day public review and comment period for the Negative Declaration commenced on October 24, 2009 and ended on November 12, 2009. Accordingly, the public review process for the Negative Declaration has been completed. A copy of the Negative Declaration and comments received during the review period are available at and may be obtained from, the Marin County Community Development Agency, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308, San Rafael, California, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The scope of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact focuses primarily on the proposed text amendments that differ from the current code regulations and assesses at the program level of review the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed text amendments. Project-specific environmental effects will be considered through subsequent environmental review conducted prior to approval of individual development projects, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The public review and comment period for the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has closed. Before making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the merits of the project, the Planning Commission will consider a recommendation of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for this project. The public hearing will be held at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, April 26, 2010, in the Planning Commission Chambers (Room 328 - Administration Building) Civic Center, San Rafael, California, at which time any and all persons interested in this matter may appear and be heard. Please call the Community Development Agency - Planning Division at (415) 499-6269 on or after 7 Days prior to hearing date, to ascertain the agenda and approximate time of the hearing or to obtain a copy of the staff report, or visit our website at: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/SysApps/Calendar/pub/Meetingindex cfm?SDonsorSid=2. Written material should not be mailed or delivered directly to the Planning Commission because it will not be accepted or considered as part of the administrative record for the project. If you challenge the decision on the merits of the project or the adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Agency - Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2).) If you have any questions or concerns regarding the proposed project, or want to be notified of the decision, please cone e r Omar Pena, Project Planner at (415) 507-2797. Omar Pena, Project Planner 6j~Fsr 3501 CIVIC CZ-NTI-R DRNQ. ROOM 308- SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-4157 - 415-4QQ-626q --[:AX 415-4QQ-7880