• Home • Buffers • Airport Development ••  •

MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 – San Rafael, CA 94903-4157 – 415-499-6269 –
Fax 415-499-7880 http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/index.cfm

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SANTA VENETIA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

(The questions from the Association’s June 11, 2004 memorandum have been
reformatted and reorganized around the main topical issues in this document.
Individual questions are repeated and followed by the Community Development
Agency staff’s response.)

General Questions

1. Please explain the relationship between the Countywide Plan and the zoning
ordinances or other systems through which they will be implemented.

The Marin Countywide Plan (CWP) provides guidance on the conservation and
development of Marin County by setting forth the overarching policies, goals,
and programs on land use, transportation, environmental protection, and natural
resource conservation. These policies are implemented through the County’s
zoning and development laws which regulate specific development activity.

2. Is there a difference between a setback and an environmental buffer zone?

In general, a setback requires compliance with a mandated separation between two
entities, such as between a building and a property line. An environmental
buffer zone is utilized more often to identify an area which functions as a
transition or buffer between two entities and to convey a heightened sensitivity
that is associated with being in the buffer. Within an environmental buffer
zone, there may be setbacks that are required depending on the specific natural
resource that is intended to be protected.

3. In many environmentally sensitive areas, dog and cats are not allowed: dogs
have been banned from many waterfront parks; cats were banned from Marin Lagoon
when that area was developed. What does the environmental buffer zone mean to
the many property owners who have pets? Will the use of gas powered lawn mowers
be allowed? What about charcoal barbecues? The use of pesticides in our
backyards? What about use and storage of cleaning products, paints, solvents
(paint thinner etc) and other potentially toxic substances? Many of these
products are normally found in residences, however as a substantial number of
kitchens, garages, and backyard gardening sheds will be within the 50' buffer
zone, what will be allowed?

It is very unlikely that restrictions on various household activities, including
the keeping of pets, would ever be considered due to many reasons such as
inherent difficulties in enforcement and the recognition that rigid regulations
should not apply to the backyards of small already developed home sites.
However, County staff supports expanding educational efforts on best management
practices that would further the desired goals of minimizing conflicts near
environmentally sensitive areas, such as creeks. The Marin County Storm Water
Pollution Program has a number of useful educational documents which can be
assessed online at www.mcstoppp.org.

PAGE 2
Stream Conservation Area

BACKGROUND: Current CWP Stream Conservation Area Policies The current CWP
designates a Stream Conservation Area (SCA) along all perennial and intermittent
streams which are shown as solid or dashed blue lines on the most recent United
States Geological Survey quad maps and along all ephemeral watercourses
supporting riparian vegetation for a length of 100 feet or more. Ephemeral
watercourses which do not support vegetation for 100 feet or more may also be
subject to the SCA policies if it is demonstrated that the stream has value for
flood control, water quality, or habitat which supports rare, endangered, or
migratory species. In the City Centered Corridor, which includes Santa Venetia,
the SCA extends 50 feet back from the top of stream bank on both sides of the
watercourse, while a 100-foot buffer is established for larger, undeveloped
properties. The overall goal of the SCA policies is to protect the streams and
their riparian and woodland habitats from development impacts, such
as removal of riparian vegetation and establishment of uses and structures that
could interfere with the natural habitats, values, and functions of streams.
Existing structures and uses and certain water-related uses (typically water
supply, flood control, projects to improve fish and wildlife habitat) are
permitted within the SCA. Other structures or uses are permitted within the SCA
only if it can be demonstrated that the property is entirely encumbered with the
SCA or if development on any other portion of the property outside of the SCA
would result in greater water quality impacts. Although the USGS map identifies
the South Fork of Gallinas Creek and certain tributaries within the Santa
Venetia sub-planning area as “blue-line,” the County historically has not
applied the SCA to those properties that are behind the levee, including the
conventionally-zoned properties (R-1, R-1:B-2) along Vendola Drive, Mark Twain
Avenue, and parts of Meadow Drive. However, the SCA policies would
be considered with any proposed development on a limited number of properties
in Santa Venetia that are in a planned zoning district (Residential
Single-family Planned, Bayfront Conservation, Resort Commercial Recreation),
such as those properties located off Bayhills Drive and Summit Road.

Proposed CWP Update Stream Conservation Area Policies and Implications
The proposed CWP Update retains the general purpose of the Stream Conservation Area and clarifies
its applicability in the City Centered Corridor. The CWP update proposes an
exemption from the Stream Conservation Area policies for those properties in the
City Centered Corridor that are behind human-made flood control channels and
tidally influenced diked or leveed channels. If adopted, the properties off
Vendola Drive and Mark Twain Avenue that are behind the flood control levee
would not be subject to the SCA policies. The CWP update also proposes revisions
to the SCA that would apply to all ephemeral streams, regardless of
whether it supports riparian vegetation. This may affect the development of the
upland properties in Santa Venetia along San Pedro Ridge and its foothills,
which may contain ephemeral streams. Finally, the draft CWP update proposes a
distinction between small (less than 5 acres) and large (larger than 5 acres)
parcels with respect to the applicability of either the 50-foot or 100-foot
buffer. Properties less than 5 acres would be subject to the 50-foot buffer
while those larger than 5 acres would be subject to the more-restrictive
100-foot buffer. More recently, the Planning Commission has directed staff to
consider modifying these thresholds to allow for more flexible SCA standards for
lots less than ½ acre, to provide for a 50-foot buffer for lots less than 2
acres, and to provide for a 100-foot buffer for lots greater than or equal to 2
acres. Nonetheless, these distinctions would not apply to those properties that
are proposed to be exempt from the SCAs.


PAGE 3
COMMUNITY QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES
1. One of the Countywide Goals listed in the draft Plan Introduction reads, “A
Preserved and Restored Natural Environment. Marin watersheds, natural habitats,
wildlife corridors and open space will be protected, restored and enhanced.” How
was it determined that the Countywide Plan update should include increased
protections for biological resources?

The goal of protecting, restoring, and enhancing the County’s biological
resources is consistent with the growing body of ecological and biological data
that recognizes the importance of wildlife and vegetative habitats and their
importance in the human and natural ecosystems. Additionally, state and federal
laws, such as the respective Endangered Species Acts, require protection of
certain listed and protected wildlife, fish and plant species from activities
that may lead to loss of their habitat and well-being. Two key background
scientific studies that were used as the basis for the CWP recommendations are:
(1) “Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A Report of Habitat Recommendations,”
prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project, 1999;
and (2) “Cartographic Analysis of Historical and Modern Bayland Boundaries for
Marin County, California,” prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute,
1998. Copies of these studies are available for public review at the
Community Development Agency and may be obtained by contacting the San
Francisco Estuary Institute or online at
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep/pdf/habitat_goals/Habitat_Goals.pdf. In
addition, there are many web sites that provide information on scientific
studies relating to wetland and stream protection that are available through an
on-line internet search using such keywords as “wetland” and “streams.”

2. I understand that the Stream Conservation Area designation does not apply to
the odd numbered R1 zoned parcels on Vendola Drive and Mark Twain due to the
following text on page 2-26 of the Draft Countywide Plan. Please confirm.
“(Human made flood control channels and tidally influenced diked or leveed
channels are not considered streams within the context of the SCA located within
the city-centered corridor).”

Yes, if adopted by the Board of Supervisors as proposed, the Stream Conservation
Area policies would not apply to those parcels along Vendola Drive and Mark
Twain Avenue that abut Gallinas Creek and that are behind a flood control levee.
(Please refer to Policy BIO-4.1.)

3. Can we get the significant ephemeral and perennial streams running off the
northwest slope of San Pedro Ridge designated on the revised Countywide Plan
maps? If not, why are similar watershed indicated on the south slope of San
Pedro Ridge, above Dominican College?

The Countywide Plan is intended as a general document which sets forth policies
that would guide land use and development. Designation of the perennial,
intermittent, and ephemeral streams is identified as a program that would
implement the CWP’s SCA policies. (Please refer to Program BIO-4.c.) The map of
streams that is included in the CWP Update reflects only the blue-line streams
that are mapped by the United States Geological Survey. The streams on the south
slope of San Pedro Ridge, above Dominican College, are shown on the CWP update
map because they are identified and mapped by the U.S.G.S., while the ephemeral
and perennial streams on the northwest slope of San Pedro Ridge are not. One of
the recommended programs is to develop a map of all streams that would be
subject to the SCA. (Please refer to Program BIO-4.c.)


PAGE 4
4. If construction was proposed within a designated area, could it still occur?
Would it require design review and permits? Could it cost more to build, due to
permit fees, additional plans, etc.?

With exception to those parcels that would be exempt from the SCA requirements,
development within the SCA on those parcels in Santa Venetia that are subject to
the SCA (which would be comprised predominantly of those parcels that are
encumbered with ephemeral streams), would likely require a discretionary permit,
such as a Design Review. Additional costs would be associated with the
application fee, plan reproductions, and potential preparation of a biological
study. Nonetheless, plan preparation costs would not increase significantly
since part of these costs would already be borne by the owner in connection with
the preparation of Building Permit plans.

5. What kind of regulatory impact could designations have on existing
structures, including sheds, docks, and decking?
As proposed, the SCA requirements would not extend to existing legal structures,
including repair and retrofit within the existing footprint. (Please refer to
policy BIO-4.2.)

6. How could designations potentially improve controls of inappropriate
expansion and activities at the airport?

Since the County’s Countywide Plan does not govern land within the incorporated
city limits, neither the SCA policies nor County zoning regulations would apply
to the Smith Ranch Airport, which is located within the city limits for San
Rafael. However, it is customary for cities to review the Countywide Plan as an
advisory document in connection with any planned activity which may affect the
nearby unincorporated areas of the County.

7. Could such designations potentially impact the ability to dredge?

Since the proposed SCA policies would not apply to Gallinas Creek, the SCA would
not apply to dredging activity, which are regulated by other County, State, and
Federal regulations.

8. Have tidal waterways been exempted from the Stream Conservation Area setback
policies?

Proposed Policy BIO-4.1 states that tidally-influenced diked or leveed channels
are not considered streams under the proposed Stream Conservation Area policies.


9. Has the county made public the definition of a Stream to be used in the
County Wide Plan. If not, when during the Countywide Plan process will this be
made public?

We expect to release the accompanying Glossary to the Countywide Plan in late
2004 or early in 2005.


PAGE 5
10. What bayside/ waterfront/ stream areas of the county are exempted from the
buffer zone? What areas are included? Why is Santa Venetia included? What data
substantiates the need for the imposition of a 50' environmental buffer on
existing and already developed properties?

Proposed Policy BIO-4.1 states that tidally-influenced diked or leveed channels
are not considered streams under the proposed Stream Conservation Area policies.
This would apply to other parts of the County, such as the Bel Marin Keys
subdivision in Novato, and the Kay Park subdivision in Mill Valley, to name a
few. As proposed, Gallinas Creek and those abutting properties behind the levee
would not be subject to the Stream Conservation Area requirements. Regardless, a
number of environmental studies have found that 50 feet is the minimum
development buffer to maintain healthy creeks ecosystems. Nonetheless, staff
agrees that applying rigid setbacks is not effective within the fenced backyards
of small, already developed parcels.

PAGE 6
Wetlands

BACKGROUND: Current CWP Wetlands Policies The definition of “wetlands” in the
current CWP glossary is the same definition used by the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACE) as follows: “Areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances to
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soils conditions”. The definition refers to the ACE as the federal agency having
jurisdiction over wetlands. Gallinas Creek meets this definition of wetlands,
and it is likely that areas along the toe of the levee adjacent to the creek
also qualify as wetlands. The current CWP contains two policies that address
wetlands. Policy EQ.27 requires permit applicants to identify wetlands located
outside of the BFC zone (this policy pertains to historic subdivision area of
Santa Venetia due to its location outside of the BFC zone). The policy also
requires that development be situated to preserve and
protect wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. This latter objective is
implemented by applying Policy EQ-2.43 that addresses wetlands in the BFC zone.
(Note: This cross-reference of policies is an awkward approach inasmuch as it
doesn’t organize all wetlands policies in a single location in the CWP).
Basically, Policy EQ-2.43 requires that new development avoid encroaching into
sensitive wildlife habitats and causing various types of impacts to wetlands
resources. It also calls for the provision of buffers between development and
identified or potential wetland areas, although a specified setback or distance
for the buffer is not mentioned. Policy EQ-2.43 includes several implementation
programs (Programs EQ-2.43a – EQ-43d) that describe more specific measures to be
used in reviewing development proposals for compliance with the above general
policy objectives. In particular, these programs establish a tiered approach for
preserving wetlands, with avoidance being the top
priority, restoration or enhancement of on-site wetlands being the second
priority, and restoration of off-site wetlands being the third priority.
Restoration efforts should achieve a 2:1 ratio, meaning 2 acres of restored
wetlands for every 1 acre of wetlands lost. The programs also contain criteria
for evaluating and mitigating development proposals, such as ensuring no net
loss of wetland acreage, functions and values, providing adjacent upland habitat
for species requiring such habitat, relying upon restored wetlands rather than
creating new wetlands, and requiring mitigation that is commensurate with
adverse impacts. The programs further direct the CDA to establish criteria for
determining the size of adjacent upland habitat areas or buffer zones between
development and wetlands area. To date the CDA has determined wetlands buffer
zones on a project-specific basis. Proposed CWP Update Wetlands Policies The
definition of “wetlands” in the proposed Draft CWP Update glossary also
uses the Army Corps of Engineers definition, but includes examples of types of
wetlands and additional references to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
and Fish and Game Department as agencies having jurisdiction over wetlands. The
proposed Draft CWP Update does not, however, change the definition of wetlands
in the current CWP. The proposed Draft CWP Update organizes the general wetlands
policies under a single section. There are additional policies related to
wetlands resources in the proposed Baylands Corridor, which are based, in part,
upon the Bayfront Conservation Zone policies of the current CWP (please refer to
the discussion on Baylands Corridor policies).

PAGE 7
The proposed CWP Update contains two policies intended to implement the goal of
avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands by taking all technically feasible
measures (Goal BIO-3). The first policy (Policy BIO-3.1) recommends a more
specific variation of the current CWP policy for avoiding wetlands by
establishing a minimum buffer of 50 feet for smaller infill parcels in the City
Centered Corridor (which encompasses Santa Venetia). Smaller infill parcels are
described as typically less than 5 acres). The second policy (Policy BIO-3.2)
reflects current CWP policy by indicating that when complete avoidance is not
possible, wetlands mitigation should be required on-site at 2:1 ratio if no net
loss in wetland acreage, function, and habitat values occurs. As with the
current CWP, the proposed CWP update includes a series of implementation
programs for the above policies. These programs recommend amending the County’s
Development Code (zoning ordinance) to codify the current priority
system for mitigating wetlands impacts by avoiding wetlands, restoring wetlands
on-site, and restoring wetlands off-site. A 2:1 wetlands restoration ratio has
been retained and recommended for inclusion in the Development Code. The
proposed CWP update programs also carry forward the current policy of creating
an adjacent upland habitat, or buffer zone; however, a specific recommendation
for establishing a minimum wetlands buffer of 50 feet for smaller (i.e. less
than 5 acres) has been proposed consistent with Policy BIO-3.1. (Programs
BIO-3.c(c) and BIO-3.d). Program BIO-3.d recommends, however, that flexibility
should be included in the criteria for determining wetlands buffers on parcels
within the City Centered Corridor based upon site constraints, opportunities for
avoidance of wetlands and associated resources, and the feasibility of
mitigation options. Policy Implication of Proposed CWP Update Wetlands Policies
The wetlands policies in the proposed CWP update reflect the same
overall policy objectives of the current CWP. For example, both plans are based
upon the goal of protecting wetlands and wetlands resources through avoidance
and restoration. Both plans rely upon the same mitigation priorities (avoidance
first, restoration/enhancement on-site second, and restoration/enhancement
off-site third) as well as standards for no net loss of wetlands acreage,
functions, and values, and the restoration of 2 acres of wetlands for every acre
of lost wetlands (2:1 ratio). Both plans do not prohibit development on
properties where wetlands exist, but rather establish regulations aimed at
preserving wetlands resources where feasible while allowing for development
subject to the policies and standards summarized above. The principal
distinction of the proposed CWP update, with respect to the Santa Venetia
community, is the specific reference to a 50-foot wetlands buffer for parcels in
the City Centered Corridor. As summarized above, the current CWP also recommends
applying wetlands buffers to new development and the creation of criteria for
determining the extent of buffers, although these policies do not include a
specific distance for the buffer. In reviewing the wetlands policies of the
proposed CWP update, and in response to issues raised by the public, the
Planning Commission directed staff to develop revised criteria for determining
wetlands buffers in the City Centered Corridor based upon parcel size and the
presence of levees, dikes or other similar artificial features. With respect to
parcel size, the Planning Commission agreed to consider buffer criteria in the
City Centered Corridor as follows: 100 feet for parcels of 2 acres or larger; 50
feet for parcels less that 2 acres to ½ acre; and a buffer that may be less than
50 feet for parcels less than ½ acre in size based upon site constraints and the
feasibility of mitigation options. The Planning Commission will also consider
revised criteria that would exclude from the buffer
requirement proposed development that is situated behind a levee or dike,
similar to the exception proposed for the Stream Conservation Areas (SCA)
setbacks. This exemption would be relevant to properties in Santa Venetia
located adjacent to the existing Gallinas Creek flood control levee along
Vendola Drive and Mark Twain Drive.

PAGE 8
COMMUNITY QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES cont...

1. Map 2-3 shows Wetlands and Streams of Marin County. Please provide a large
scale map so that we can see what areas are included in the Wetlands
designation.

Wetlands may include a wide variety of land conditions that share common
characteristics, such as hydrology, soils, and vegetation. In Marin County,
wetlands can be found in coastal saltmarshes, brackish marshes, freshwater
marshes, lower channel slopes of streams, vernal pool, as well as freshwater
seeps and springs. Since information on the location of wetlands is usually
obtained through wetland surveys on a site-by-site basis, a composite map of all
wetlands in the County is not available.

2. Will zoning regulations expanding the applicability of wetlands policies be
developed, and if so how and when? Is it possible to give any reassurance at
this time as to what types of things will be regulated?

The proposed CWP update recommends amendments to the County’s Development Code
(zoning ordinance) to create specific criteria for evaluating and mitigating
projects affecting wetlands resources. These amendments would be considered
after the CWP update has been adopted and the specific zoning standards would be
based on the final wetlands policies that are currently being developed. The
Development Code amendments for wetlands issues would be subject to public
review and comment as well as separate public hearings before the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.

3. What kind of regulatory impact could wetlands policies have on existing
structures in Santa Venetia, including sheds, docks and decks?

If the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors adopts an
exemption from the wetlands polices and buffer requirement for areas behind
levees and dikes, then existing homes and accessory structures, such as sheds
and decks, that are located behind the Gallinas Creek levee would not be subject
to new wetlands regulations applied by the County. Docks and other structures
located along the creek side of the levee would be allowed to remain assuming
they are legal. Consistent with current County regulations, such structures or
improvements could be replaced or modified subject to receiving a Tidelands
Permit approval or permit exemption from the County. It should be noted that
Tidelands Permits are not required for areas located behind dikes or levees.
Existing unauthorized structures may also be legalized through the Tidelands
Permit process (permit requirements for unauthorized structures are usually the
result of a code enforcement complaint made to the Community Development Agency).

4. What would be the effect of the proposed buffer zone on properties where the
residence is situated within the 50' buffer? Many properties on Vendola Dr. and Mark Twain have less than 50' in the backyard. What will that mean for the
homeowner when improvements/ repairs to the dwelling are needed or desired? What
about those properties where part of the dwelling is within the buffer zone and
part lies outside of it? How will these dwellings be treated when repair or
improvements are needed? In many residences, part of the living room, kitchen
etc would be within the buffer and the other part outside of it. When decks or
docks need repair or replacement what will be the procedure for permitting of
these repairs or replacements? Will permits for building of new docks/ decks by
allowed? Will design review be part of the permit process?

Please refer to the response to Wetlands Question 3 above.

5. Have small already developed properties been exempted from the County Wide
"50 foot wetlands buffer" ?

Please refer to the response to Wetlands Question 3 above.

PAGE 9
6. How could designations potentially improve controls of inappropriate
expansion and activities at the airport?

Since the County’s Countywide Plan does not govern land within the incorporated
city limits, neither the wetland policies nor County zoning regulations would
apply to the Smith Ranch Airport, which is located within the city limits for
San Rafael. However, it is customary for cities to review the Countywide Plan as
an advisory document in connection with any planned activity which may affect
the nearby unincorporated areas of the County.

7. Page 2-12 of the CWP reads “wetlands and other sensitive resources can also
be indirectly affected by development as a result of water quality degradation,
lighting, species, and increased activity of humans and pets.” Can the County’s
biologist provide specific examples of activities or development which would
harm plants and animal species and/or water quality along Gallinas Creek?

Examples of activities that could affect wildlife and/r water quality include:
(1) removal of native vegetation which provides refuge and food for various
wildlife species; and (2) deposition of fill into tidal marshlands which destroy
aquatic and riparian habitat.

8. Could such designations potentially impact the ability to dredge?

Current dredging operations for maintenance purposes would not be affected by
proposed wetlands policies in the draft CWP.

9. If construction was proposed within a designated area, could it still occur?
Would it require design review and permits? Could it cost more to build, due to
permit fees, additional plans, etc.?

Please refer to the response to Wetlands Question 3 above.

10. Which areas will be exempted from the 50-foot wetlands buffer?

The Planning Commission will consider various criteria for applying wetlands
buffers and flexibility in adjusting or exempting the buffer requirement.
Included in these criteria will be a wetlands buffer of less than 50 feet for
small parcels (less that ½ acre) in the City Centered Corridor and a possible
exemption from a wetlands buffer requirement for areas that are located behind a
levee or dike. This latter criteria has been raised in response to concerns from
Santa Venetia residents that the strict application of a 50-foot wetlands buffer
as measured from Gallinas Creek would prohibit or unreasonably restrict
improvements on their properties, including existing homes and accessory
structures or improvements.

11. What data supports the need for a 50-foot wetlands buffer on developed
properties and why is Santa Venetia subject to the wetlands buffer policies?

Wetlands buffers, as a regulatory tool in both the current CWP and the proposed
CWP update, are based upon a growing body of ecological and biological data that
recognizes wetlands as important natural resources because of their high values
to wildlife habitat, storm and floodwater control, and water quality. Wetlands
may also be sources of passive recreation. Gallinas Creek is a wetlands area
that is currently regulated under the CWP and zoning ordinance, as well as by
Federal and State regulations. It would be difficult from a regulatory
standpoint to distinguish the wetlands in Santa Venetia from other wetlands in
the unincorporated County. The 50-foot buffer referred to in the proposed CWP
update is not derived from a scientific formula per se, but rather as a general
standard recommended by the County’s biological consultant based in large part
upon the 50-foot Stream Conservation Area setback that currently applies in the
City Centered Corridor (streams are one type of wetlands) and the biologist’s professional opinion
regarding the minimum distance at which wetlands would be buffered from
development. As a general proposition, environmental buffers or setbacks applied
by public agencies attempt to balance resource protection with private property
rights. As discussed above, the Planning Commission will consider including
flexibility in the wetlands policies for small parcels that may result in a
buffer less than 50 feet and an exemption from the wetlands buffer requirement
for areas situated behind levees or dikes.

12. What bayside/waterfront/stream areas of the county are exempted from the
buffer zone? What areas are included? Why is Santa Venetia included? What data
substantiates the need for the imposition of a 50' environmental buffer on
existing and already developed properties?

Please refer to the responses to Wetlands Questions 10 and 11 above.

13. Will new construction be permitted within the wetlands buffer area, and if
so, what types of permits will be required?

New construction, including replacement or enlargement of existing structures,
on the Gallinas Creek side of the levee is currently allowed subject to the
approval of a Tidelands Permit. The County has granted Tidelands Permits for new
docks and other structures along Gallinas Creek. County staff typically works
with applicants to limit the size of docks and piers in accordance with
Tidelands Permit findings and current CWP policies that require encroachments
into tidelands and wetlands areas to be minimized. Repair and maintenance of
existing authorized docks and other accessory structures are exempt from
Tidelands Permit requirements and allowed under current CWP policies. Although
the current CWP policies include a general wetlands buffer requirement, the
County has not required a wetlands buffer or setback for new docks along
Gallinas Creek or elsewhere in the County since their design and function are
dependent upon access to the water (although as mentioned above, the size of
docks is limited to minimize their encroachment into tidelands/wetlands areas).
Non-water dependent structures (e.g. accessory buildings) may be subject to a
wetlands buffer that is determined on the basis of project-specific factors,
such as the size of and type of structure or improvements, their location in
relation to wetlands, the presence of sensitive wildlife habitat and other
wetlands resources, the size of the project site and the constraints and
opportunities for distancing proposed structures from wetlands resources, and
options for alternative mitigation. Because new dock construction unavoidably
results in fill of wetlands (support pilings or piers and shadow fill from the
dock itself), the County has in some cases required the planting of wetlands
vegetation along the shoreline portion of the project site as habitat
enhancement and mitigation consistent with the current policy objective of
achieving no net loss of wetlands. It is anticipated that the wetlands policies
proposed in the CWP update would not substantially alter the current regulatory
process for new construction in Santa Venetia insofar as wetlands protection is
concerned. Tidelands Permits would be required for new docks and other
structures along the Creek side of the levee, while new development behind the
levee would be exempt from Tidelands Permits requirements (other zoning district
and development standards and permits would still apply). Exemptions for repair
and maintenance of existing authorized structures would likely remain in effect
for Tidelands Permits. New construction located behind the levee would also be
permitted by regulations that are essentially the same as the current policies
and standards if the final adopted CWP Update wetlands policies and criteria
include an exemption for this area. Non-water related improvements on the Creek
side of the levee would be restricted consistent with the Tidelands Permits
findings that require encroachments into tidelands
areas to be minimized.


PAGE 11
14. Is it possible to give assurances at this time regarding which types of land
uses or structures will be regulated under wetlands policies?

In general, based upon the current CWP policies and the proposed CWP update to
date, it is anticipated that land uses and structures located behind the levee
along Gallinas Creek would be exempt from wetlands policies, including buffer
requirements, although other existing zoning regulations (e.g. setbacks,
building height, floor area ratio) would remain in effect. County staff also
expects that docks and other accessory structures and improvements on the Creek
side of the levee will be continue to be subject to Tidelands Permits and
wetlands policies of the CWP. Because the proposed CWP update is still a work in
progress, and revisions to the wetlands policies have not bee prepared or
considered by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, it would be
inappropriate for County staff to offer assurances at this time regarding the
specific scope of wetlands regulations.

PAGE 12
Baylands Corridor

BACKGROUND: Current CWP Baylands Policies Baylands are defined in the current
CWP as: “Areas along a bay that are permanently wet or periodically covered with
shallow water, such as saltwater and freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish
marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fans.” The current CWP policies designate
preservation and enhancement of wetland habitats in bayfront areas that include
tidelands, diked bay marshlands, and shoreline areas. These areas have been
designated with a Bayfront Conservation Zone (BFC) overlay which was based on
the original bay shoreline as mapped by Nichols-Wright in 1971. Most of the
properties that are designated with the BFC overlay are also zoned with a
Bayfront Conservation zoning district overlay. There are several parcels in
Santa Venetia that are currently in the BFC zone, including Santa Margarita
Island and the waterside properties between China Camp State Park and the Santa
Venetia Marsh Preserve. Proposed CWP update Baylands Policies and
Implications The County is currently divided into three environmental
corridors. The proposed CWP update would establish a fourth corridor that would
occupy a portion of the City-Centered Corridor. This new Baylands Corridor is
proposed to recognize the unique qualities of baylands as an environmental
resource. If approved, the existing BFC overlay would be modified where
necessary to reflect this new corridor and related regulatory policies. The
definition of “baylands” in the proposed Countywide Plan is being evaluated as
part of the update process and will be available for public review as part of
the re-release of the CWP. The difference between the current BFC overlay and
the proposed Baylands Corridor is that the Nichols-Wright line basis of the BFC
is being superseded by the historic bay shoreline boundary developed by the San
Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), which further refines the Nichols-Wright
line. Application of the Baylands Corridor is currently being refined to
achieve a more consistent and measured approach. Application of the Baylands
Corridor is not intended to add duplicative permits or rigid requirements, and
will be clarified to exempt or add flexibility to small already developed yard
area. The following and other similar modifications are currently being
considered:

1. Publicly-Owned Open Space Parcels (e.g. China Camp State Park): Entire parcel
will be included in the Baylands Corridor

2. Large Parcels (greater than five acres): The bay side of the SFEI line, plus
a habitat zone of up to 300’ landward of the SFEI line or to the nearest major
physical barrier such as a roadway, whichever is closer to the water, is already
proposed to be in the Baylands Corridor.


3. Small Parcels: Those partially or fully submerged portions of parcels on the
waterside of an existing levee are proposed to be included in the Baylands
Corridor (this may include the parcels on Vendola Drive facing Santa Margarita
Island). Parcels in water-oriented developments with access to the bay may also
be included in the Corridor, such as Bel Marin Keys, Paradise Cay, and
Strawberry Spit. However, if these parcels are included, language will be added
to clarify exemptions applicable to yard areas within small already developed
parcels. The proposed CWP update carries forward and strengthens the existing
Bayfront Conservation Zone policies with greater emphasis on the protection and
enhancement of bayland areas. Most of the existing BFC policies remain, but in
addition, other policies have been added regarding acquiring baylands for open
space, inclusion of an uplands habitat zone on larger parcels (larger than 5
acres), and promotion of biodiversity. The Planning Commission
conducted their initial review of the Baylands Corridor policies and directed
staff to return in the fall with specific changes to clarify the intent of the policy differences
between large, undeveloped properties in North Marin and small, already
developed properties in South Marin. Also included in this review will be other
properties like Santa Venetia, which are in north Marin, but are small and
already developed. A baylands designation does not preclude development. It
does, however, require more detailed environmental assessment of impacts caused
by a proposal.

COMMUNITY QUESTIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES cont...
1. I understand that areas to be included in the Baylands Corridor are shown on
map 2-5 and that we will be provided with a large scale copy for the workshop. I
also understand that the only properties along Gallinas Creek which are included
are those which extend into the water including parcels opposite Santa Margarita
Island. Is this correct?

The Baylands Corridor map has been displayed at the July 8th community meeting
and copies were given to the Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association. There are
areas in Santa Venetia which are currently designated with the BFC overlay under
the existing CWP. These include Santa Margarita island, portions of Gallinas
creek, Santa Venetia marsh, and parcels below Upper Road, and at the end of
Bucks Landing Road. The properties affected by the new SFEI line include
properties abutting Gallinas Creek and between Bucks Landing Road and the marsh.
The original staff recommendation was to apply the new SFEI to all properties
north of Point San Pedro. However, the Planning Commission directed staff to
refine the Baylands Corridor policies to better define the corridor to take into
account physical features, and where reasonable, to exclude small, developed
properties. The revised Baylands Corridor policies will be further discussed by
the Planning Commission in the fall in conjunction with the
re-release of the CWP.

2. What would be the effect of the proposed buffer zone on properties where the
residence is situated within the 50' buffer? Many properties on Vendola Dr. and
Mark Twain have less than 50' in the backyard. What will that mean for the
homeowner when improvements/ repairs to the dwelling are needed or desired? What
about those properties where part of the dwelling is within the buffer zone and
part lies outside of it? How will these dwellings be treated when repair or
improvements are needed? In many residences, part of the living room, kitchen
etc would be within the buffer and the other part outside of it. When decks or
docks need repair or replacement what will be the procedure for permitting of
these repairs or replacements? Will permits for building of new docks/ decks by
allowed? Will design review be part of the permit process?

Based on input from the Planning Commission and consistent with the Stream
Conservation Area policies, it is likely that revisions will be made to the
Baylands policies to exclude areas behind levees and dikes on developed infill
properties in Santa Venetia.

3. I understand there will be different levels of regulation for properties
located within the Baylands Corridor with most flexibility for properties under
.5 acres, some flexibility for properties between .5 and 2 acres? There are
properties in Santa Venetia (past McPhail’s School) that are over .5 acres.
Please explain how policies will be different for properties of this size.

It is unclear whether the Planning Commission wishes to apply the varying lot
size concept specified above to the Baylands Corridor. However, the general
principle that environmental regulations need to reflect the differences between
large primarily undeveloped parcels, and the yard areas of small, already
developed home sites, clearly is applicable.

PAGE 14
4. Will odd numbered R1 zoned parcels on Vendola Drive be placed within the
Baylands Corridor ?

Please refer to Baylands Response 2 above.

5. Is it true that those under 1/2 acres were originally exempt?

The existing Plan does not exempt any parcel within the Bayfront Conservation
Zone. The proposed Plan currently includes all parcels in the Bayfront
Conservation Zone and additional lands encompassed by the SFEI line north of San
Pedro Road north to the Marin-Sonoma County line with an additional 300’ buffer.
However, this approach is being re-evaluated.

6. Is it true that southern Marin County is exempt?

No they are not exempt. Many of the existing properties have the Baylands Zone
on their property, but additional properties will be affected by the application
of the SFEI line. The Planning Commission has directed staff to generally
exclude small, already developed properties and to add clarifying language about
the intent of the policy. The properties that are in Southern Marin are still
held to the same standard in terms of environmental review and tidelands permit,
if applicable.

7. Will odd numbered R1 zoned parcels on Mark Twain be placed within the
Baylands Corridor ?

Please refer to Baylands Response 2 above.

8. Will the County provide a map showing which already developed R1 zoned
parcels will be newly added to the Baylands Corridor ?

Please refer to Baylands Response 2 above.


9. For any of the above R1 zoned parcels that are placed in the Baylands
Corridor by the new CWP policies, what existing property rights will property
owners lose? Will there be any monetary compensation for loss of property
rights?

As proposed by staff, the Baylands Corridor would not extend beyond the existing
levee for the R1 zoned properties in Santa Venetia. Furthermore, as previously
noted the proposed Baylands Corridor does not preclude development.

10. Will we still have the same properties development rights as properties
directly across the street from us who are also zoned R1?

The same R1 setbacks and lot coverage applies to both sides of the street. Those
properties abutting the creek, and having the Baylands designation, are held to
a higher environmental standard due to the potential impacts to the
environmentally sensitive area.

11. What other R1 zoned residential parcels in Marin will also lose existing
property rights under this Baylands policy change?

Please refer to Baylands Response 1 above.


PAGE 15
12. What kind of regulatory impact could designations have on existing
structures, including sheds, docks, decking and dredging?

Existing legal structures upland from the levee would not be affected by the
Baylands Corridor policies. Existing legal dock and other structures along the
creek side of the levee would be allowed to remain but would likely require
County permits if they are proposed to be replaced or modified.

13. Could such designations potentially impact the ability to dredge?

Current dredging operations for maintenance purposes will not be affected by
proposed Baylands Corridor policies in the draft CWP.

14. How could designations potentially improve controls of inappropriate
expansion and activities at the airport?

Baylands designation does not in itself prohibit development; it simply requires
environmental review and targets properties for restoration or open space
purchase. Since the County’s Countywide Plan does not govern land within the
incorporated city limits, neither the Baylands Corridor policies nor County
zoning regulations would apply to the Smith Ranch Airport, which is located
within the city limits for San Rafael. However, it is customary for cities to
review the Countywide Plan as an advisory document in connection with any
planned activity which may affect the nearby unincorporated areas of the County.


15. If construction was proposed within a designated area, could it still occur?
Would it require design review and permits? Could it cost more to build, due to
permit fees, additional plans, etc.?

New construction on the Gallinas Creek side of the levee is currently allowed
subject to the approval of a Tidelands Permit will likely be permitted even
under the Baylands Corridor policies. The County has historically granted
Tidelands Permits for new docks and other structures along Gallinas Creek.
County staff typically works with applicants to limit the size of docks and
piers in accordance with Tidelands Permit findings and CWP policies that require
encroachments into tidelands and wetlands areas to be minimized.

PAGE 16
Miscellaneous Questions: Weed Abatement and Herbicides, Insecticide Questions

1. Page 2-14 reads “Control Spread of Invasive Exotics. Work with landowners and
multi-agency Weed Management Area to remove and prevent spread of highly
invasive and noxious weeds.” What is an example of an invasive exotic that
might grow along Gallinas Creek and the impacts it would have? What would the
process and any cost be to an owner with weeds needing removal? Is this a policy
that is also covered by regulations for fire protection?

Lepidium (pepperweed) and non-native Spartina species are two invasive exotic
species that might grow along Gallinas Creek. Exotic species out-compete and
crowd out more desirable native species. No permits are involved in connection
with the manual removal of non-native plants. Please refer to the Marin County
Storm Water Pollution Program’s website (www.mcstoppp.org) for more information.
The policy would overlap with fire protection policies if a non-native weed
species also creates fire hazards.

2. Page 2-15 reads “Control use of Herbicides, Insecticides…Restrict use of
insecticides, herbicides or any toxic chemical substances in sensitive habitats.
“ Can you provide examples of chemicals that might be used if these protections
are not in place and what their impacts might be? What guidelines if any would
be provided to the homeowner explaining regulations and their implementation?
How would these be enforced?

Information on less toxic herbicides and insecticides is available from the
Marin County Storm Water Pollution Program’s website (www.mcstoppp.org) or
(www.ourwaterourworld.org). Enforcement could occur if the MCSTOPPP staff
observes a resident dumping chemicals into the street and gutter or if someone
uses an excess amount of chemicals that then gets washed into the street or
gutter (i.e. visible stream of herbicide next to a storm drain or gutter.)

3. Could regulations impact activities at McGinnis Park, such as the use of
fertilizers and pesticides, and freshwater runoff?

Clean water regulations and pollutant discharge requirements may require the use
of best management practices by County Parks staff to reduce the runoff of
pesticides and fertilizers.


4. What if a resident spilled chemicals within the designated areas?

Depending on the type of chemicals that were spilled, notification should be
provided to any of the following agencies: (1) Fire Department; (2) Department
of Fish and Game; and (3) Marin County Storm Pollution Prevention Program staff.


Levee Reconstruction Questions
1. Does the Gallinas Creek Levee reconstruction policy in the Countywide Plan
impact the same area on Vendola waterside properties as the Baylands Corridor
upland buffer policies. Will the County have to buy the land or an easement on
the land in order to reconstruct the Levee with Federal funding?

For questions relating to the levee reconstruction, please contact the
Department of Public Works at (415) 499-6549.