Miller Creek after a Rainstorm

Miller Creek, one of Marin County's pristine watersheds is under threat of a 4400 square foot development in Marinwood Park. The proposed Maintenance Facility is excessive for the tiny park.  It is three times the size of the maintenance facility McInnis Park despite the fact that McInnis is employs double the staff and is 450 acres.  Marinwood Park is a mere 14 acres of which only about 7 acres is improved property and the excess. The rest is open space.  The Maintenance facility is gobbling up the open space and prime recreation area to fullfill the ambitions of the architect and former CSD board member Bill Hansell.  Despite the violation of the 2007 Marin County general plan that prohibits development within 100' of the stream bank, the Marinwood CSD is seeking approval of its design.  Neighbors are upset and the Marinwood CSD has kept its plans and budget secret.  They have violated numerous government contracting rules, political practices, transparency laws, in addition to numerous environmental laws.  This is quite unfortunate because there is unanimous agreement to approve a smaller structure outside the prohibited zone.  A 1200 sf structure identical to McInnis Park Maintenance Facility will be easily approved by a grateful public.

Stream Conservation Area FAQ- (Rules that Marinwood CSD must follow)

Stream Conservation Ordinance as presented in 2013

Marin Community Development Department lawyer, Tom Lai explains the difficulty of mapping streams for the Stream conservation ordinance. Stream beds are dynamic and the county maps are dated. It creates liability for the property owner. Setbacks are determined by the top of stream bank which changes constantly.




Marinwood Park has 120 foot setback from the top of stream bank of Miller Creek as seen in the Marinmap below.  Note that almost the entire maintenance shed is covered but it does not include the ephemeral stream, drainage canal between the horseshoe pits and the tennis courts.

.

The Marinwood CSD Maintenance Compound violates the Stream Conservation Setback

The Marinwood CSD "White Elephant" Maintenance Compound violates the Stream Conservation setback as seen above in
the white overlay. Yellow lines are the boundary of the park. The White Elephant is 40' x 150' and is double the size of neighboring homes on Quietwood. It stretchs across 575 and 565 Quietwood Drive lots and is 14' tall

Image without Maintenance Shed overlay.

Option 3, conceived by Marinwood CSD Director Irv Schwartz in 2017 is almost 100% outside the stream conservation area and does not block access to the nature path.  It fits directly behind 575 Quietwood Drive in the green area.  This is clearly the "Environmentally Superior" Option.  Why has Marinwood CSD rejected this without public explanation?  

Marin County Planning Commission receives staff report about he Stream Conservation Ordinance on May 13, 2013.  It was adopted shortly thereafter by the Board of Supervisors

An illegal 20' setback is presented to Marinwood CSD

Marinwood CSD is presented a  20' setback from Miller Creek that uses a dated topographical map.  The top of stream bank is considerable different in the field and the presenter claims a 20' setback which is actually 120' for Marinwood Park since the 2007 Marin General Plan.  This subjects Marinwood CSD to legal consequences .

The Stream Conservation Ordinance in 2013 prohibits Marinwood CSD from building its Maintenance Compound in current location

Marin County creek ordinance approved after debate

By

By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal

POSTED: 05/13/13, 12:01 AM PDT |

0 COMMENTS

Regulations over property near streams in Marin's unincorporated neighborhoods were approved by county planners Monday following debate from a disparate crowd.

The county Planning Commission acted on a 6-0 vote in late afternoon after making minor changes to a staff proposal that earlier drew criticism from both critics and advocates when a parade of speakers split along familiar lines. Commissioner Ericka Erickson was absent.

The controversial program passes to county supervisors for review on June 18.

The proposal aimed at protecting creekside habitat, wildlife and fisheries involves "stream conservation area" regulations applying to more than 3,000 parcels near streams. It spells out rules for building, or altering the landscape, near creek banks and establishes exemption, site review and special permit procedures.

The commission, after hearing almost two dozen speakers debate the plan pro and con during a morning session, returned in the afternoon to tweak a variety of details.

"It is so complicated," Commissioner Wade Holland observed of various setback requirements and rules. "Is there a way to simplify this some way?" There appeared no easy answer amid restrictions involving issues including creek banks, vegetation growth and city or rural locale.

The ordinance establishes development setbacks in "city-centered" urban areas that vary from 20 feet to 100 feet from the creek bank, with larger lots requiring bigger setbacks. [Editor's Note:Marnwood Park has 120' setback according to county data]. But in rural areas, setbacks of 100 feet are required regardless of lot size. Other issues involve setbacks near what staffers said was a limited number of "ephemeral streams" or wet weather drainages lined by stretches of riparian growth.

Commissioner Don Dickenson noted that setback requirements do not forbid activity, but rather establish the area in which special site review or permits are required in conventional district zones. In some areas, including Kent Woodlands, creekside development already is strictly regulated through design review procedures that are part of planned district zones.

The Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, San Geronimo Valley Planning Group and Marin Audubon Society indicated the latest version of the program was too weak, but the Marin Association of Realtors, San Geronimo Valley Stewards and Sleepy Hollow Homeowners Association called it too tough.

All things considered, "the ordinance doesn't do much for the creek," said Gordon Bennett of the salmon network, citing loopholes in the measure. Legislation intended to benefit stream habitat has generated "lots of angst in the public" but efforts to preserve endangered coho are not intended to target property owners, he added.

But Bob Figari of Woodacre said homeowners face a "fantasy" program based on imagined "ephemeral streams" that exist only after it rains, or streams that appear on maps but don't exist at all. "It's kind of like walking into a loony bin and trying to convince a guy who says he is Napoleon that he is not," Figari said of the county program. "Take our street out of the stream conservation plan."

Barbara Salzman, head of Marin Audubon, had a different vision. "We really support this ordinance and urge you to move ahead," she said. "We all have restrictions on our property," she said. "Nobody has free range to do what they want on their property."

Dan Stein, president of the Sleepy Hollow Homeowners Association, noted the program affects what people can do in their backyards. With the Sleepy Hollow neighborhood flanked by streams, site inspections would mean "there would be a biologist running up and down Butterfield Road daily," even though the streams there do not host spawning fish.

Stein urged a delay allowing more public reflection, and joined the salmon network in calling for a neighborhood by neighborhood "roll out" of the program, starting with San Geronimo where endangered salmon are at issue.

Jack Wilkinson, president of the Marin Association of Realtors, called the plan "deeply flawed," saying it is ambiguous, arbitrary and subject to interpretation. "The measure will have a negative impact on property values, property rights, underwriting, the marketability of properties and the local economy," he warned.

"You've taken a huge wide net and cast it over the county," said Curtis Kruger of Novato. "It's way too large and you're handling it way too fast."

Requirements for improvements in conservation areas include obtaining a county site review report from a consultant, and either an exemption or a "tier one" ministerial permit for minor work — or a more rigorous "tier two" permit that might involve a public hearing for projects deemed intrusive. In situations involving public safety, no review is necessary.

Permit fees, while still under review, could cost from $300 to $1,500, depending on what is at issue.

The ordinance is the result of years of effort focused in San Geronimo Valley, home of one of the state's most important runs of endangered coho salmon, and a region where building bans have blocked creekside development amid legal moves by the salmon protection network.

Despite months of work by planning staff and a series of public hearings on a tough creekside tree and brush ordinance that won the blessing of the Planning Commission, county supervisors balked and asked for revisions to accommodate creekside homeowners.

The salmon network filed suit, prompting Superior Court Judge Lynn Duryee last year to prohibit building outside existing structure footprints until new creekside habitat rules are in place. County officials have pledged to adopt a countywide program by June.

Freaked Out About New Flood Insurance Rules

Potential Home Buyers Are Legitimately Freaked Out About New Flood Insurance Rules

• [Editor's Note: The new stream conservation ordinance and the new flood maps will affect homes within the creek watersheds and coastlines in Marin, costing homeowners much more in flood insurance and restricting their property rights.  We especially advise homeowners to monitor these developments.  The Marin Board of Supervisors is close to approving a new ordinance.  More can be found on the planning department page on the Marin County website.]

REUTERS

As recent headlines have made plain, potential home buyers across the country are freaking out over new higher flood insurance premiums triggered by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, passed last year and starting to take effect this month. In Florida, "the once-minor line item of flood insurance...has become one of the only things buyers seem to care about," the Tampa Bay Times reports. 

While homes that don't need flood insurance have become a hot commodity, homes that do need it are seeing their values plummet. "Louisiana property assessments on homes in flood zones have already dropped by as much as 30 percent because of the new flood rules," reports Bloomberg News.
On Friday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg weighed in on the issue, declaring that "for thousands of New Yorkers, the difference in the cost of insurance as a result of federal policy changes is the difference between being able to stay in their neighborhoods and having to move.”
So here's what's going on: The National Flood Insurance Program, which insures more than 5 million at-risk homes against flooding, is in debt to the tune of around $20 billion, due mostly to huge payouts over the last decade following natural disasters. Last year, Congress took a crack at reforming the program by passing the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act. The point of the act isn't just to keep the NFIP solvent, but also to reduce incentives for living and building in areas at high risk of flooding.

Two components of this act are now actively driving up what some property owners pay annually for flood insurance. One driver of premiums is the requirement that FEMA update its flood maps, a time-consuming process that has already led to some homes being considered at high risk for flooding that previously were not.

Let's take New York City as an example. A report from the RAND Center for Catastrophic Risk Management and Compensation on Biggert-Waters' impact anticipates that tens of thousands of New York City homeowners are likely to experience pretty major flood insurance rate increases:

Particularly hard hit are structures that are outside the high-risk areas of the 2007 map but will be inside the high-risk areas of the updated [FEMA] map. Approximately 28,800 1- to 4-family structures fall into this category. A $429 annual premium on a structure previously outside the high-risk zones could well rise to $5,000 to $10,000 for the same amount of coverage if it is inside the high-risk area. 

As you can see from the chart below, the number of 1-to-4 family dwellings in New York considered high-risk by FEMA will increase from 25,000 to 53,000 in the new map:

RAND anticipates that the resulting premium increases could be downright devastating for some homeowners. What can be done? While raising buildings is a common way to reduce flood premiums, that's much less feasible in New York, where "39 percent of buildings (approximately 26,300) in the high-risk zones of the new floodplain...are on narrow lots or are attached or semi-attached buildings." RAND recommends NYC work with FEMA to develop risk mitigation strategies that work in an urban environment, and consider subsidizing homeowners based on financial need.

The other driver of premium costs is the gradual end to subsidies for properties that were grandfathered into the National Flood Insurance Program. Under Biggert-Waters, that changes. For owners of subsidized vacation homes, second homes, and business properties, as well as primary residences that have received two flood claim payouts within any 10 year period (called "repetitive loss properties"), flood insurance premiums will increase 20 percent a year over five years, until they are at the "actuarial" level.

On the flip side, if someone has a grandfathered rate for their primary residence and hasn't been flooded twice in any ten-year period, they get to keep that rate. The problem with this aspect of the law is that if I have a grandfathered rate for my home, and I sell it, the rate immediately jumps to the higher level for the new owner, instead of gradually increasing over five years. This aspect of the law is what's putting downward pressure on real estate prices and scaring away buyers in hurricane states and floodplains. Here's an editorial from one woman in Pennsylvania who says she wants to buy a new home but can't afford the "new" annual flood insurance premium of $4,927.

While homeowners and legislators are right to be worried about the impact of premium increases on the poor and middle class, it's difficult to argue that we shouldn't be thinking more longterm about the impacts of building and living in areas prone to flooding. The Smarter Safer Coalition—which includes the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club, as well as free market groups, members of the insurance industry, and affordable housing advocates—argues in its statement of principles that the NFIP "has not adequately accounted for the increased frequency and severity of major storms and hurricanes, due in part to land development, changing climates and rising sea-levels." The coalition also believes that the federal government should do more to elucidate the risks of building in flood-prone areas, and discourage the development of "environmentally sensitive areas" that are most often part of floodplains.

In essence, Biggert-Waters is bringing us face to face with the financial consequences of building where nature, at this point in global history, doesn't want us.

Top image: Troy Revis paddles to his flooded home on County Road 137 in Wellborn, Florida after Tropical Storm Debby in June 2012. REUTERS/Phil Sears.

If you live in Santa Venetia, maybe you should be building one of these.