21. Resolution 2128 6 Redwood Drive Landscape Improvements to Ross Common

n T${4\ ROSS Agenda ltem No.21.

Staff Report

Date September L2,2OI9

To: Mayor Brekhus and Councilmembers

From: Joe Chinn, Town Manager Heidi Scoble, Planning and Building Director

Subject: Town Council consideration of the adoption Resolution No. 2L28 to allow modifications to landscape improvements to the Ross common to passively connect 5 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park and a Variance to allow the construction of an 8-foot tall wooden sound barrier fence that will be constructed adjacent to the common property line between 6 Redwood Drive and 8 Redwood Drive.

Recommendation Town Council consideration and adoption of Resolution No. 2728 to allow modifications to landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passively connect 5 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park and a Variance to allow the construction of an 8-foot tall wooden sound barrier fence that will be constructed adjacent to the common property line between 6 Redwood Drive and 8 Redwood Drive.

Background and Discussion On May 9, 20L9, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2102 approving a Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passively connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park. The May 2019 project was the result of the Town Council's May L0, 2018 direction to perform minor site work/cleanup and return with a site plan to be discussed/approved at a future meeting. The reasons stated by Councilmembers in support of this option included issues related to fiscal responsibility, that the Town is not in the business of building/managing housing, and that a passive park would be consistent with the original purchase of the land that was intended for park purposes.

L Since the May 9, 2019 Town Council meeting, the Town has entered into a tolting agreement with the tenant and property owner of 8 Redwood Drive. The purpose of the agreement was to see if it was possible to reach resolution between the neighbor and the Town relating to alleged noise and privacy impacts raised by 8 Redwood Drive. As part of the tolling agreement and in consultation with the tenant of 8 Redwood Drive, the Town of Ross hired Brad Eigsti, owner of lmprints Landscape Architecture, to prepare a mutually acceptable landscape plan. Accordingly, the redesigned project proposed is described and shown below:

All tree removal and site improvements per Town Council Resolution 2102, with the exception of a slightly modified fence design and length. The split rail fence would be approximately 45 lineal feet and approximately 30 lineal feet of a S-feet tall redwood fence as shown on the corresponding plan. Plant 23, 1-gallon sized Dwarf Mat Rush (Lomandra "Breeze") to be planted to front the split railfence associated with the project. Plant 3, 24-inch box Strawberry trees (Arbutus Unedo "Marina") to screen the little league field. Plant 3, 24-inch box Red Maple (Acer Rubrum "Red Sunset")trees to be planted southerly of the three redwood trees. Construction of an approximate 100 linear feet, 8 feet tall sound barrier fence (Salter Assoc. lnc. fence specification). The fence will commence at the southeast front property corner of the Ross Common parcel (AKA 6 Redwood Drive), run westerly and parallel along the property line and terminate at a point approximately 20 feet past the corner of the house at 8 Redwood Drive. Plant 19, 15-gallon Fern Pine (Podocarpus Gracillior) along the sound barrier fence as described above. The height of the Fern Pines will be no less than 8-feet tall when planted and will be maintained at a maximum height of L5 feet tall. Construction of an approximate 50 lineal feet, 6 feet tall redwood fence to be constructed approximately 30 feet from the rear property line and run northly across the property starting at the common property line between 8 Redwood and G Redwood The invasive weedy vegetation in the non-disturbance zone east of the new 6-foot-tall redwood fence at the back of the property will be removed. Remove existing rear yard fence within the non-disturbance zone.

The Revised Landscaping Plan is shown on the following page:

2 UNK FENCE PT.ANT t.tsT (&22.20r9i Tnl:ts (E) FENCETO REMAIN Sl&Ilw rrus'\\{vr rr,!r sr^srrt ar lnsix/rs'{(Lt t1 trtjs rtD uAru tj-n

sarLs r ataxNNtaLS TO REMAIN luwr\rw -*7r' ^*|{.!ulcsryrt ffiARRsonloil.4* llRstrJr '-&*mt1c t, CNLS lsr rn^\q.\r[r: .tw|\\lu' sl,' d]r\m rl lA{d\tr. NRrLlt-. tealrv^lr$ri !r :l

PATH ?3 BEREMOVED

:tf (lJ 65'.Wtfi rlq WOODFENCE ta' l(6:. \2 MI,LCH 4. '7" {i - ra\ I,I,OOOFErcE \t --a3z:*:|:: REMOVE rD\ fREEs\t I GAIES I'ENCING YE6FTAT|oII MIN 5'TALLSOIID W@D FENCE I.ION-DISIURgANCE ZONE ;e' (E) PoFTARgTUMP rl 'h REDWOOD DRIYE I

EXENN6 RE5IDENCE 9ARRIER FENCI HEOOEI?A' (1OOLF' IINE TO REMAIN Key lssues Colifornia Environmental Qudlity Act (CEQA) The proposed modifications to the previously approved Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1- Existing Facilities. Specifically, the Class 1 exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Consistent with the May 9,2OL9 Staff Report, the modified project falls under this Class 1 categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities (park property)/topographical features (park property's vegetation/ground) and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the existing (vacant land) or former (residential) use and restores the original public use as intended upon the Town's acquisition of the property for public park purposes in 19L1. The proposed modification is also consistent with the planned passive reincorporation of the site into the Ross Common park will not increase any of the existing uses of the broader park described above and does not include any parkfacilities (e.g., new paths, benches or picnic areas) or equipment (e.g., workout or child play structures) that would lead to active use of the project site.

The modified project is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4- Minor Alterations to Land as discussed in the May 9, 2019 Staff Report. The Class 4 exemption consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. The modified project falls squarely under this Class 4 categorical exemption because the May 9, 2019 approved project and the above-described project modifications are entirely consistent with the exemption's general minor alterations to land condition as well as several of the exem ption's specific examples.

Furthermore, none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the previously approved project as described in Resolution 2102 approved on May 9,2019 project and the modified project, including, but not limited to, subsection (a), which relates to impacts on locational/environmental resources; subsection (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or subsection (f), which relates to historical resources.

Lastly, because staff and the Town's consultants have not identified and staff has not been provided with any substantial evidence that the project may result in potentiallrT significant environmental impacts, and because the modified landscape plan would be consistent with the previous analysis and expert determinations as discussed in the May 9, 2019 staff report, staff suggests the project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception (CEaA Guidelines Section 15061(bX3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

4 ln sum, the previously approved project as identified in Resolution 2!02 approved on May 9, 2019 and the modified landscape improvements fall under several CEQA exemptions and none of the exceptions to those exemptions apply. The existing vacant project site was deeded to the Town of Ross in 19L1 for the purposes of a public park and the project will further the purpose and intent of the original purchase by making minor alterations and improvements to the site to facilitate its passive reconnection to Ross Common that are exempt from CEQA.

Variance A Variance is required to allow the construction of an eight-foot tall fence to be located within a side yard setback. Pursuant to Section 18.48.010, a Variance may only be permitted if:

L Variances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.

3. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to use permits.

Pursuant to Section 18.40.080 of the Ross Municipal Code, the maximum height for a side or, rear yard fence is six feet. A fence up to 7 feet tall may be permitted with a minor exception pursuant to Chapter L8.45, Minor Exception, of the Ross Municipal Code. ln order to support the proposed Variance, the Town Council would need to determine whether the requisite Variance findings can be achieved. The Variance finding that is most often difficult to support is whether there are "special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, topography, location or surroundings" that the strict application of the regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the neighborhood and under the same zoning classification. Staff suggests special circumstances associated with the project parcel does exist due to the location of the project site and its use relative to the adjacent single-family residence. The proposed eight-foot tall fence is designed to provide a barrier to reduce potential noise associated with the Ross Common as well as provide privacy between the Ross Common and the residence.

Staff also suggests the granting of the Variance to allow an eight-foot tall fence is consistent with past Town Council approvals associated with providing additional privacy screening

5 between properties. Lastly, the proposed fence is considered ancillary to the Civic District and R-1:B-10 zoning district uses. Lastly, the fence has been specifically designed to address concerns raised by the tenant and property owner at 8 Redwood Drive and will not create any adverse impacts on to that property relative to light, air, privacy, or view obstructions.

Public Comment Public Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. No public comment has been received as of the writing of the staff report.

Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts The funding source for the project is from insurance payments for the fire-damaged house. The Town has property insurance through the Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN), a Joint Powers Authority insurance program. The insurance covered the costs of the clean-up of the fire damaged house, all the studies, design, engineering, and initial construction related to rebuilding the house, and the removal of the house. After paying for all of the costs, the remaining insurance proceeds received by the Town was $126,925 which is in the Facilities and Equipment Fund. The construction cost of the proposed project, which includes the preparation of the construction bid documents, is estimated at approximately $1"40,000 with funding of 56,000 from non-Town funding sources. lf Council approves Resolution No. 2128, staff will put the construction project out to bid and will come back to Council to award the contract for construction.

Attachments L Resolution No.2128 2. Resolution No. 2102 3. May 9, 2019 Staff Report 4. Revised Landscape Plan

6 ATTACHMENT 1

l TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2L28 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL FENCE AT THE TOWN.OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5 REDWOOD DRTVE (APN O73-242-2sl

WHEREAS, June 22, !9I7, Town Council Resolution No. 57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is a 4.36-acre (L89,923 square feet) parcel (APN 073-242- 25), which includes the site known as 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, On May 9,2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2102 approving a Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passively connect 5 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park; and

WHEREAS, on July L,197L, the Ross Common was deeded to the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is zoned as Civic District (C-D) zoning district, which is applied to land areas found to be suitable for use as sites for public, quasi-public, cultural, educational and/or recreational uses and purposes; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2015, a house at 6 Redwood Drive was severely damaged by a fire; and

WHEREAS, on October 12,2OI7,Town Council approved a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing single-family residence that was damaged as a result of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on May IO,2Ot8, the reconstruction of the 6 Redwood Drive residence was found to be cost prohibitive as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements and the Town Council voted to direct staff to perform minor site work and cleanup of the 6 Redwood Drive site with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting; and

WHEREAS on February L4,2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2093 to require that Town Staff to bring back the 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvements and site plan to a future council meeting; and WHEREAS on September L2,20L9, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to Resolution 2102to allow landscape modifications to a Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passively connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park and a Variance to allow the construction of an 8-foot tall wooden sound barrier fence that will be constructed adjacent to the common property line between 6 Redwood Drive and 8 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff reports, correspondence, and other information contained in the project file, and has received public comment, and this public record is incorporated herein; and

NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Ross:

1,. The Town Council adopts the above-referenced whereas clauses as specific findings and makes the additional Variance finding set forth in Exhibit "A", and approves for the project described in Exhibit "8".

2. The Town Council approves landscape improvements to the Ross Common to visually connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park. The modified site improvements are described in Exhibit "8" and shown in Exhibits "C".

3. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class 1 -Existing Facilities. "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." (CEQf, Guideline 5 15301.) The project falls under this Class 1 categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities (park property)/topographical features (park property's vegetation/ground surface) and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the existing (vacant land) or former (residential) use and restores the original public use as intended upon the Town's acquisition of the property for public park purposes in IgLt. The project's planned passive reincorporation of the site into the Ross Common park will not increase any of the existing uses of the broader Ross Common park and does not include anyfacilities (e.9., new paths, benches or picnic areas) or equipment (e.g., workout or child play structures) that would lead to active use of the project site.

4. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section L5304, Class 4- Minor Alterations to Lond. tlass 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes." (CEQfl Guideline S 15304.) Specifically, the project falls squarely under this Class 4 categorical exemption because the project is entirely consistent with the exemption's general minor alterations to land condition as well as several of the exemption's specific examples. Specifically, while the project's

2 proposed minor alterations to the site does include some invasive vegetation removal and the removal of the four existing non-native, invasive volunteer cherry plum trees, pursuant to the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment those trees are neither healthy (their condition/health/structure is rated fair/poor due to suppressed growth, lean and ivy infestation) nor scenic, and most importantly all of the site's other trees including the three Significant redwood trees will be maintained, protected and enhanced by the project and the new trees required by the Town's Tree Ordinance standard conditions. Further, the project is consistent with several of the examples expressly included in the exemption in that it involves minor grading and filling of earth on the flat project site to rectify the slight existing depression resulting from the demolition of the former residence and removal of its foundation and restore the site to its natural flat topography as well as new water efficient landscaping through the use of weed barriers, mulch and drip irrigation and replacement of the invasive, non-native cherry plum trees. ;

5. The project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception (CEaA Guidelines 5 15061(b)(3)) because pursuant to the public record it can be seen with certaintythat there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

6. None of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. Specifically: the subsection (a) location/environmental resources exception does not apply because "there will be no impact to biological resources of hazardous or critical concern as [] no such resource has been designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted on the Project site that will be adversely affected by the proposed Project"; the subsection (b) cumulative impact exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor has the Town been informed of any similar/successive projects of the same type planned in the vicinity; the subsection (c) unusual circumstances exception does not apply because as demonstrated in the staff report's general plan consistency and zoning analysis as well as the expert biologist and arborist reports in attachments 14 (Biological Evaluation) and 15 (Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment) to the staff report the project does not involve or present any unusual circumstances and will not result in any significant adverse biological impacts, including to the three stately redwood trees on the site; and the subsection (f) historical resources exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor has the Town been informed of any listed historical resources on the project site or in the vicinitythatthe project may cause a substantial adverse change to.

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 12th of September 2O1r9, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

3 ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Elizabeth Brekhus, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

4 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS TO APPROVE 5 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

A. Findings t. ln accordance with Ross Municipal Code Section 18.48.020, a Variance is approved based on the following findings: t. That there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, building or use referred to in the application;

As supported in the September L2, 2019 staff report, the requisite special circumstance findings can be achieved for Variance to allow an eight-foot fence to be located within a side yard setback due to the location of the project site and its use relative to the adjacent single- family residence. The proposed eight-foot tall fence is designed to provide a barrier to reduce potential noise associated with the Ross Common as well as provide privacy between the Ross Common and the residence.

2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights;

The granting of the project Variances as described in the September t2, 2019 staff report would be consistent with other Variances that have been granted for similar projects in similar zoning districts within the Town.

3. That the granting of the application will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.

The project would not adversely affect health and safety of nearby residents as the project would be constructed in compliance with the building code and fire codes.

5 EXHIBIT'B' 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

The scope of the project would entail the following:

All tree removal and site improvements per Town Council Resolution 2LO2, with the exception of a slightly modified fence design and length. The split rail fence would be approximately 45 lineal feet and approximately 30 lineal feet of a S-feet tall redwood fence as shown on the corresponding plan.

Plant 23, 1-gallon sized Dwarf Mat Rush (Lomandra "Breeze") to be planted to front the split rail fence associated with the project.

i'Marina") Plant 3, 24-inch box Strawberry trees (Arbutus Unedo to screen the little league field

Plant 3, 24-inch box Red Maple (Acer Rubrum "Red Sunset")trees to be planted southerly of the three redwood trees.

Construction of an approximate 100 linear feet, 8 feet tall sound barrier fence (Salter Assoc. lnc. fence specification). The fence will commence at the southeast front property corner of the Ross Common parcel (AKA 6 Redwood Drive), run westerly and parallel along the property line and terminate at a point approximately 20 feet past the corner of the house at 8 Redwood Drive.

Plant 19, l5-gallon Fern Pine (Podocarpus Gracillior) along the sound barrier fence as described above. The height of the Fern Pines will be no less than 8-feet tall when planted and will be maintained at a maximum height of 15 feet tall.

Construction of an approximate 50 lineal feet, 6 feet tall redwood fence to be constructed approximately 30 feet from the rear property line and run northly across the property starting at the common property line between 8 Redwood and 6 Redwood.

The invasive weedy vegetation in the non-disturbance zone east of the new 6-foot-tall redwood fence at the back of the property will be removed.

Remove existing rear yard fence within the non-disturbance zone

6 EXHIBIT'C' 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

SEE NEXT SHEET

7 REMO!'E I\^/ & CHAIN LINK FENCE PI-AN'!' LLS',t' {&2:-20t9) 'lBs rN.ff$('r{vr (d*^irst sF diftrq (E) FENCETO REMAIN TANAP} ^F ^(UrUAtrN

s&uN/t|lMNl!^s TO REMAIN tu M&aaP$s^ortxa GNf,I rr rrq^leatl4zl oil*FsTrr$

N, AgPTIALTPATH 23 PLUM DE REMOVEO 'REESTO

WOODFENCE 65'

MULCH ) h l- \- .r,. -q,,t

/fi\ rREEs(t MAINTAIN DR,IVEWAY I G N E9 I F ENCING YEoETATION w/IN 5 NON-OI3lUR9ANCE 'AIItrUDWOODFENCE {qPo?rAR51UMP 1lI REDWOOD DRIVE

:i EX|5NN6 REgIDENCE AARRIERFENCE (1OO LR SCREEN HEDGE (PG) @ PROPER'Y LINE FEHCETO REMAIN

6 Redwood Drive A P:073- 2;12- 25 Ross. CA. Drtr:6/5r'!019 Scsle: llE-:l'-0- I,ANDSCAPE IMPROVFMEIYTS PI AN

REvlsgD; E/:t/:ol9 $*",, REVrS& 9151$19 ATTACHMENT 2 TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2LO2 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWN.OWNED PROPERTY AT 6 REDWOOD DRIVE AND APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, APN 073-242-25

WHEREAS, On June 22,191L, Town Council Resolution No.57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is a 4.36-acre (189,923 square feet) parcel (APN An-242- 25), which includes the site known as 5 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on July 1,1911., the Ross Common was deeded to the Town; and

WHEREAS, on February 28,2OL5, a house at 6 Redwood Drive was severely damaged by a fire; and

WHEREAS, on October t2,2OL7, Town Council approved a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing single-family residence that was damaged as a result of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on May 1O,20L8, the reconstruction of the 5 Redwood Drive residence was found to be cost prohibitive as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements and the Town Council voted to direct staff to perform minor site work and cleanup of the 6 Redwood Drive site with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting; and

WHEREAS on February L4,7AL9, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2093 to require that Town Staffto bring back the 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvements and site plan to a future council meeting; and

WHEREAS on May 9, 2OL9, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff reports, correspondence, and other information contained in the project file, and has received public comment, and this public record is incorporated herein; and

NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Ross

1. The Town Council adopts the above-referenced whereas clauses as specific findings and makes the additional findings set forth in Exhibit "A", and approves a Tree Removal Permit for the project described in Exhibit "8".

2, The Town Council approves landscape improvements to the Ross Common to visually connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park. The existing conditions and scope of the project and its site improvements are described in Exhibit "8" and shown in

Exhibits "c" and "D" .

3. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality nct (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class 1 -Existing Facilities. "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use."{CEQ6 Guideline $ 15301.} The project falls under this Class 1 categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities {park property}/topographical features (park property's vegetation/ground surface) and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the existing (vacant land) or former (residential) use and restores the original public use as intended upon the Town's acquisition of the property for public park purposes in L91.1. The project's planned passive reincorporation of the site into the Ross Common park will not increase any of the existing uses of the broader Ross Common park and does not include any facilities (e.9., new paths, benches or picnic areas) or equipment (e.g., workout or child play structures) that would lead to active use of the project site.

4. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15304, Class 4- Minor Alterations to Land. tlass 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes." {CEQfi Guideline $ 15304.) Specifically, the project falls squarely under this Class 4 categorical exemption because the project is entirely consistent with the exemption's general minor alterations to land condition as well as several of the exemption's specific examples. Specifically, while the project's proposed minor alterations to the site do include the removal of the four existing non-native, invasive volunteer cherry plum trees, pursuant to the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment those trees are neither healthy (their conditionlhealth/structure is rated fatrlpoor due to suppressed growth, lean and ivy infestation) nor scenic, and most importantly all of the site's other trees including the three Significant redwood trees will be maintained, protected and enhanced by the project and the new trees required by the Town's Tree Ordinance standard conditions. Further, the project is consistent with several of the

2 examples expressly included in the exemption in that it involves minor grading and filling of earth on the flat project site to rectify the slight existing depression resulting from the demolition of the former residence and removal of its foundation and restore the site to its natural flat topography as well as new water efficient landscaping through the use of weed barriers, mulch and drip irrigation and replacement of the invasive, non-native cherry plum trees.

5. The project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception (CEaA Guidelines $ 15061(bX3)) because pursuant to the public record it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

6. None of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 1.5300.2 apply to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. Specifically: the subsection (a) location/environmental resources exception does not apply because "there will be no impact to biological resources of hazardous or critical concern as [] no such resource has been designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted on the Project site that will be adversely affected by the proposed Project"; the subsection (b) cumulative impact exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor has the Town been informed of any similar/successive projects of the same type planned in the vicinity; the subsection (c) unusual circumstances exception does not apply because as demonstrated in the staff report's general plan consistency and zoning analysis as well as the expert biologist and arborist reports in attachments 14 (Biological Evaluation) and 15 (Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment) to the staff report the project does not involve or present any unusual circumstances and will not result in any significant adverse biological impacts, including to the three stately redwood trees on the site; and the subsection (f) historical resources exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor has the Town been informed of any listed historical resources on the project site or in the vicinity that the project may cause a substantial adverse change to.

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 9th of May 2019, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Kuhl, Brekhus, McMillan

NOES: Council Members Robbins, Russell

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

3 ,f, A^.///l',A/ P. Beach Kuhl, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

4 EXHIBIT,,A" FINDINGS TO APPROVE 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25 l. ln accordance with Ross Municipal Code Section 12.24.080, a Tree Removal permit is approved based on the following considerations and findings: t. The project, which includes the removal of the four cherry plum trees, will not adversely impact the subject property or neighboring properties because they are non-native invasive plant species that have no aesthetic or screening value due to their poor to fair health conditions, because they are currently obscured by fencing or other overgrown vegetation and because replacement trees will be planted in compliance with the Town's standard Tree Ordinance conditions.

2 The project would not result in any significant erosion or the diversion of increased flows of surface water as the limited trees and vegetation to be removed will be cut at grade level (leaving root structures and soil intact) and because the existing site is flat and the project would not result in any increases in impervious surfaces and thus will not result in any net increase in surface runoff.

3 As supported by the Biological Evaluation, the project will not impact any wildlife or creek habitat.

4 As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the project would not alter or remove any tree that is of historic value.

5 As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the cherry plum trees to be removed are in poor to fair condition and are not considered scenic as they are an invasive, non-native species and are generally obscured by the fences and overgrown ivy.

6. As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the cherry plum trees are considered to be non-native and rated as a invasive species by the California lnvasive Plant Council. An invasive species rating indicates that the species has a negative ecological impact on California wildlands and native habitat values. As such, the removal of the trees is necessary and will benefit the general welfare of the Town by removing non-native invasive species and replacing them pursuant to the Town's standard Tree Ordinance conditions.

5 EXHIBIT.B" 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-2s

The scope of the project would entail the following:

Fences B, C, E, and F shown on the Existing Site Plan (Attachment 2) will be removed. The fences will be pulled out of the ground with a compact skid-steer loader on tracks. lf any fence posts break off at ground level but are not a trip hazard, the posts will remain at ground level. Any fence post that breaks off and is considered a trip hazard, the concrete footings will be removed by hand with hand tools and if necessary, a post-puller claw will be utilized. Approximately 150 linealfeet of the ivy hedgerow that runs parallelto the southerly asphalt path adjacent to the Ross Common grassy field towards the westerly property line will be removed. The ivy will be cut back to prevent any trip hazards associated with the mature ivy vines. A Tree Removal Permit, consistent with the requirements of Chapter L2.24 of the Ross Municipal Code, for the removal of four cherry plum trees, three of which require a Tree Removal Permit as they are each greater than 6 inches in diameter. The four cherry plum trees will be removed by cutting at grade. Consistent with Section L2.24.10O of the Ross Municipal Code, project construction will adhere to the required Tree Protection Plan as recommended by the Town's Certified Arborist as described in Attachment D to the April 26, 20L9 Tree Survey and lmpact Study prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (see Attachment 15), Additionally, consistent with the requirements in Section 12.24.A80(a) of the Ross Municipal Code, the project will provide tree replacement plantings in the minimum amount of L0.3 inches as the three cherry plum trees are in fair/poor condition as described in the Tree Survey and lmpact Study (Attachment 15). The replacement trees will be planted adjacent to the common property line between the 6 Redwood Drive and 8 Redwood Drive properties and along the proposed split rail fence as shown on the site plan. As a courtesy, the Town staff will consult with the property owner of B Redwood Drive regarding the location of the tree replacernent plantings. All other existing vegetation and plantings will remain, including all existing vegetation and plantings adjacent to and up to the easternmost end of the existing planter boxes from the top of bank of Murphy Creek. This area is referenced as a "Non-disturbance 7ane" on the proposed site plan. The two existing 6 feet wide by L0 feet long by two-feet tall planter boxes will be removed by hand. The area of the site associated with the footprint of the demolished residence's foundation will leveled with approximately 47 cubicyards of fillsoilto fill in the slightly lower area of the footprint of the demolished residence's foundation, The fill soil associated with the project will be staged at the front entrance driveway, wheelbarrowed and hand shoveled to fill the void that was left by the removal of the residence's foundation. A biodegradable permeable weed barrier (i.e,, fabric cloth) will be installed by hand over approximately 6,000 square feet (60 feet wide by 100 feet long) of the fenced in area of 6

6 Redwood Drive measured from the front property line west towards the rear property line. Anchoring pins will be installed to keep the weed barrier in place. A drip irrigation system will be installed on top of the weed barrier and connect to an existing water spigot on site. The purpose of the drip irrigation is to provide water for and maintain the health of the Redwood trees. The amount of irrigation water used to water the tree will be based on a Certified Arborist's recommendation to ensure the health of the trees. The drip irrigation system will be hand laid and no trenching will be required for the drip irrigation system. Approximately 93 cubic yards of mulch will be spread over the 6,000 square feet of area covered with the weed barrier to create a five-inch buffer between the natural grade and the finished grade. A new four-foot tall split rail perimeter fence will be constructed from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site and run a span of approximately 125 feet {Attachment 4- Fence J}, The fence holes will be hand dug and will be dug to a maximum depth of two feet. One-foot round fence pcists will be placed in the holes. The existing sewer and gas lines will be capped and left in place. The temporary PG&E power pole will be abandoned and removed. The existing water spigot will be enclosed with a wooderi box covering and utilized to feed the drip irrigation system, The existing 60-inch dbh poplar tree stump located at the southeast corner of the property will be cut and ground flush at the grade level.

The project will commence construction in September 20L9 and is estimated to be completed in December 2019. The leveling of the site will be completed no later than the beginning of the "rainy season" on October L5,20L9.

7 EXHIBIT "C" 5 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-2s

EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN

8 \

151,F I I WOOD (Fence H)

ex resid en ce \t PROPERTY LTNE APN 07 3-27L-}I B REDWOOD APPROX FLOI,ILINE OF MURPi{Y CREEK \\ ,g 16' 32', \t' EXISTING SITE PLAN 6 REDWOOD \\ 0 GRAPHIC SCALE Key: \t TBR = Fence To Be Removed C.L. = chain link I EXHIBIT "D" 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

9 LEGEIID +- ti'.]) I ' 11 l'^ i::i'rTi i'l'i.lal:il {:l) \.llj.,i:.1 j.*:.:r. r -:li\:l. l'1.) rrHP.j,l.:l x- *x (irlj 'ili.i).. i:rtiir. L .l'rr i::[,]:ii:\li.I

f.l,) L:i',) l. rj'1': rr,, i-r;rii (',i :. .)I.l I TREE REPLACEMENT AREA (TYP) BE A COMBINATION OF CRAPE MYRT]-E vili:t:,: 8.,1,r,,.1 il", ,.i.1:"r !ltil,'- H DOG WOODS AND/OR TOYONS ,l'jl x .r' i,i_: i.:l t.:l lliir/ rjjl INSTALL 125 T-F '1.1.:lr, P,: ! i t\i.".ti,.{': i.rl.i illil,:i I HIGH SPLIT RAIL FENCE (FENCE J.) \ s \ APN 07 3-242-25 IMIT OF \\ Ross Common REMOVAI, 71', Ti:e'D ..\ r\\ 4 PLUM TREES \ PROJECT \ TO BE REMOVED SITE \\ X'*rr, A3N 01q-242\2s \'9 \ \\ \ \\ \ s

r -dG* * \\ \ 1' REMOVE EA.6IX1OI 2 PA 1 PLANTER BOXES \ '.- -.- ..? -. --\ 1 \\ -' NON.DISTURBANCE ZONE REDWOOD DRIVE 1 ?,.:)" \ CUT (E) POPIAR STUMP FIUSH TO GRADE I :i. T OF (E) FENCE REMOVAI, \ =rX;*'-'F't GIN (N)4'HIGH SPLIT RAIL -*Ne I \ f -Li-*"i!1-":- ex. residence \r*or"*rY L'NE APN 07 3-27t-}L \ B REDWOOD APPROX. FLOl[LINE OF MURPHY CREEK \ t ?n IO J2 : SITE PLAN.6 REDWOOD 0 \ GRAPHIC SCALE I ATTACHMENT 3 n T.gl]1,${ RQSg Agenda ltem No. 14.

Staff Report

Date May 9, 2019

To: Mayor Kuhl and Councilmembers

From Joe Chinn, Town Manager Heidi Scoble, Planning and Building Director

Subject Town Council consideration of a Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passively connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park.

Recommendation Council adopt Resolution No. 2102 approving a Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passively connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park.

Background On June 22, L9IL, adoption of Town Council Resolution No. 57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie 5.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common (see Attachment 5). On July 1, Ig7!, the Ross Common, a 4.36-acre (189,923 square feet) parcel (APN 073-242-25), was deeded to the Town (see Attachment 6). The purchase of the Ross Common included two residential structures (located on and herein referred to the area of the 6 Redwood Drive site). As part of the L911sale, at least one of residences was producing rental income under a lease which transferred to the Town with the sale. As a result of a catastrophic fire which occurred February 28,2O!5, the residence was rendered uninhabitable.

On December 8, 201.6, the Town Council conducted a public meeting and approved an option to repair the residence at 6 Redwood Drive and continue to use the residence as a rental property. On January 8,2017, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 1982 to reflect the December 8, 2016 action.

On October 12,2017, the Town Council adopted Resolution No.2025 to approve a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of the residence at 6 Redwood Drive. The project associated with that Resolution proposed to relocate the residence

L approximately four feet to the southern side property line in order to allow for the installation of a new foundation to address soil and redwood tree root constraints. The scope of the project also included raising the finished floor of the residence by approximately one foot above the base flood elevation to address FEMA floodplain requirements. The project was approved to retain its current architectural design and size due to insurance constraints. The project also included the removal of the failing and hazardous 12-foot metal chain-link fence and related vegetation attached to the fence adjacent to the northern side of Ross Common that faces the park and school. No written or verbal public comment was received objecting to the removal of the 12- foot metal chain-link fence. The existing wood fence that separates 6 Redwood Drive from Ross Common was approved to remain and be patched and repaired if necessary. Plants were approved to be planted to screen the subject wood fence from the Ross Common. No other landscape or hardscape improvements were proposed related to the fenced in area known as 5 Redwood Drive other than vegetation trimming and possible removal in places that were overSrown.

On February 8,20L8, the Town Council awarded WestCal Design and Build lnc. a contract to reconstruct the residence consistent with Resolution 2025.

On April 2,2018 portions of the exterior siding were removed and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the residence revealed the need to replace or repair most of the structural elements due to extensive dry rot. On April L3,2OL8, the contract was suspended as provided for under the general conditions to allow the Town to assess all options before moving forward. On April 25,2OI8, at a Special Town Council Meeting, the Council authorized the complete demolition of the residence which was completed shortly thereafter.

On May IO,2OL8, the Town Council conducted another public meeting to reassess, discuss and provide direction to staff regarding four options regarding the future use of the 5 Redwood Drive site as follows:

Option 1 entailed the reconstruction of a new single-family residence using the old floor plan and elevations; Option 2 entailed the new construction of a single-family residence with a modified roofline and floor plan; Option 3 entailed entering into a ground lease with a private developer for residential development; and Option 4 consisted of performing minor site work and cleanup.

The Town Council discussion at the meeting held on May 10, 2018 included various potential residential uses related to options 1 through 3, as well as and contrasted by passively reconnecting the space to the rest of the Common Park. The Town Council voted 3-2 to pursue Option 4 and directed staff to return with a site plan to be discussed/approved at a future meeting (see Attachments 9 and 10). The reasons stated by Council members in support of

2 Option 4 included issues related to fiscal responsibility, that the Town is not in the business of building/managing housing, and that a passive park would be consistent with the original purchase of the land that was intended for park purposes.

On January 10, 2OI9, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2090 approving landscape improvements to the Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive to blend the property more naturally with the rest of the Common Park consistent with Option 4 associated with the direction provided by the Town Council at the May 10, 2018 meeting (see Attachments 11 and 12).

On February 14,20L9,the Town Counciladopted Resolution 2093 to rescind Resolution No. 2090 adopted on January tO,2OI9 as a result of allegations from a property owner that the Town Council did not conduct a publicly noticed meeting consistent with the Brown Act. Resolution 2093 required that Town Staff bring back the 5 Redwood Drive landscaping improvements and site plan to a future council meeting for consideration (see Attachment 13).

Existing Conditions and Project Description The project site is known as 6 Redwood Drive, which is a subset of the Ross Common. Although mostly separated from the Ross Common by fences and dense vegetation, the address formerly having a house at 6 Redwood Drive is a part of the parcel purchased in 1911 and located on the southwest portion of the Ross Common.

The Ross Common fronts Lagunitas Road, Ross Common, and Redwood Drive, in addition to abutting the parcels at 9 Lagunitas Road (The Ross School), 19 Allen Avenue, 3 Allen Lane, 5 Allen Lane, and 8 Redwood Drive. A portion of the project site abuts Murphy Creek, an intermittent tributary defined by the National Hydrography Dataset that straddles the south west rear property line adjacent to 19 Allen Avenue, 3 Allen Lane, and 5 Allen Lane.

The Ross Common parcel is zoned as Civic District (C-D) zoning district. The C-D zoning classification is applied to land areas found to be suitable for use as sites for public, quasi-public, cultural, educational and/or recreational uses and purposes.

The Ross Common is primarily undeveloped with a grassy open area used for a variety of uses, including passive unorganized park play, programmed youth sports such as soccer, Little League baseball, lacrosse, and the Ross School physical education program, and periodic special events such as the Ross Auxiliary Easter Egg Hunt, the Town Dinner, the Fourth of July picnic, and the Ross Recreation Movie Night. Town Council Resolution No. 1353 adopted on March 8, 1995, states the grassy play area is to be closed from December L through March L, in addition to prohibiting the use of cleats for children thirteen years or older. Therefore, the programmed youth sports usage of the Ross Common occurs from March through November. The Ross School also intermittently uses the Ross Common for their Kindergarten to 8 Grade outdoor physical education curriculum five days a week within the hours of 9:00AM to 3:00PM. The Town's afterschool recreational programming of the fields occurs approximately 6 days a week for sports programming of children up to 10-years old. Non-Town related youth sport organizations, such as Little League, lacrosse clubs, and soccer clubs, also use the fields throughout the week. The

3 Little League baseball games are limited to weekends for players ages 10U and below. Lastly, the Town's recreational programming of the Ross Common includes their summer camps five days a week during the summer months.

The Ross Common also includes asphalt paths that meander and provide access around and through the park, a tree-lined informal "Dog Park" located at the northeastern corner of the Ross Common adjacent to the corner of Lagunitas Road and Ross Common Road, and the fenced in area of the previous residence known as 6 Redwood Drive. Approximately two-thirds of the park is covered in a rye fescue grass with wild bluegrass (poo annual sprouting through the hand seeded rye fescue grass, the dog park is surrounded by a variety of oak trees (Red and Valley) and bay trees, Elm trees run parallel to the Ross Common Road right-of-way, and a small leaf privet hedge runs parallel along the Ross Common and the Redwood Drive road rights-of-way (see Attachment 3). The Ross Common park use hours are from sunrise to sunset.

The 6 Redwood Drive site is enclosed on four sides with a variety of wood and chain link fencing. Although the 6 Redwood Drive site is fenced off from the Ross Common, the Ross Common encompasses the 6 Redwood Drive site. The Town records are unclear as to the date of construction of the existing fences associated with 6 Redwood Drive, however photographic evidence from the Marin History Museum shows a chain link fence was constructed circa L950's. Specifically, an aerial photograph circa 1954 from the Brady Collection shows the existing 12-foot tall chain link fence separating the 6 Redwood Drive site from the Ross Common consistent with the existing chain link fence conditions (see Attachments 5 and 6). As described and shown below, the current existing fences associated with 6 Redwood Drive are as follows:

Fence A, consists of IO7 lineal feet of six-foot tall wooden fence with a 2 foot extension attached on top, followed by L9 lineal feet of six-foot tall wooden fence along the common property line between 8 Redwood Drive and the Ross Common. Fence B is a five-foot tall wooden gate and posts that runs 12 lineal feet fronting Redwood Drive. Fence C is a six-foot tall wooden perimeter fence that runs approximately 159 lineal feet fronting 6 Redwood Drive site and continuing around the project site adjacent to the Ross Common grassy field. The portion of the fence fronting Redwood Drive is bifurcated by a 60- inches Poplar tree stump. Fence D is a six-foot tall chain link fence that runs 52 lineal feet along the westerly perimeter of the fenced in area. Fence E is a l2-foot tall chain link fence that runs 1L2 lineal feet that runs parallel to the southerly asphalt path adjacent to the Ross Common grassy field. Fence F is a 6-foot tall slatted-wood fence that runs L9 feet parallel to the asphalt pathway from the end of Fence E toward Redwood Drive. Fence G is a 6-foot tall wood fence that runs 45 lineal feet and is adjacent to fence D. Fence H is an 8-foot tall wood fence that runs 15 lineal feet and abuts Fence G. Fence I is a 6-foot tall wood fence that runs 35 lineal feet and abuts Fences A and G.

4 (see Attachments 2 and 3 showingthe existing site plan and an aerialof the entire Ross Common)

The fenced in area of the 6 Redwood Drive site has a variety of vegetation and trees including five "Significant" trees (12" or greater in diameter breast height (dbh) as defined by Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code) including three Significant redwood trees varying in size (e.9., 52.5-inch, 7l-inch, and 65-inch in dbh), five cherry plum trees ranging in size from 3-inch dbh to a Significant 13-inch dbh, two flowering pear trees measuring 3.5-inch dbh to 4-inch dbh, two apple trees measuring 3-inch dbh and 5-inch dbh, a Significant Canary lsland date palm tree measuring 32.l-inch dbh, a London plane tree measuring L0-inch dbh, bamboo, and a mature ivy hedgerow that runs approximately 150 lineal feet along and within the entire perimeter of the fenced in area of the Ross Common associated with 6 Redwood Drive. The project site also includes a 50-inch dbh poplar tree stump located at the southeast corner of the property and two man-made 6 feet wide by L0 feet long by two-feet high planter boxes that are overgrown with weeds. The Town's Public Works Department maintenance staff currently hand waters the site with a hose and an impact sprinkler for approximately 3 to 4 hours once a week during the summer months only.

Consistent with that May 10, 2018 Town Council direction, the proposed project will entail the following as shown in Attachment 4:

5 the Town staff will consult with the property owner of 8 Redwood Drive regarding the location of the tree replacement plantings. All other existing vegetation and plantings will remain, including all existing vegetation and plantings adjacent to and up to the easternmost end of the existing planter boxes from the top of bank of Murphy Creek. This area is referenced as a "Non-disturbance Zone" on the proposed site plan. The two existing 6 feet wide by 10 feet long by two-feet tall planter boxes will be removed by hand. The area of the site associated with the footprint of the demolished residence's foundation will be leveled with approximately 47 cubic yards of fillsoilto fill in the slightly lower area of the footprint of the demolished residence's foundation. The fill soil associated with the project will be staged at the front entrance driveway, wheelbarrowed and hand shoveled and leveled to fill the void that was left by the removal of the residence's foundation. A biodegradable permeable weed barrier (i.e., fabric cloth) will be installed by hand over approximately 6,000 square feet (50 feet wide by 100 feet long) of the fenced in area of 6 Redwood Drive measured from the front property line west towards the rear property line. Anchoring pins will be installed to keep the weed barier in place. A drip irrigation system will be installed on top of the weed barrier and connect to an existing water spigot on site. The purpose of the drip irrigation is to provide water for and maintain the health of the Redwood trees. The amount of irrigation water used to water the tree will be based on a Certified Arborist's recommendation to ensure the health of the trees. The drip irrigation system will be hand laid and no trenching will be required for the drip irrigation system. Approximately 93 cubic yards of mulch will be spread over the 6,000 square feet of area covered with the weed barrier to create a five-inch buffer between the natural grade and the finished grade. A new four-foot tall split rail perimeter fence will be constructed from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site and run a span of approximately 125 feet (Attachment 4- Fence J). The fence holes will be hand dug andwill bedugtoamaximumdepthoftwofeet. One-footroundfencepostswill beplaced in the holes. The existing sewer and gas lines will be capped and left in place. The temporary PG&E power pole will be abandoned and removed. The existing water spigot will be enclosed with a wooden box covering and utilized to feed the drip irrigation system. The existing 60-inch dbh poplar tree stump located at the southeast corner of the property will be cut and ground flush at the grade level.

The project will commence construction in September 20L9 and is estimated to be completed in December 20L9. The leveling of the site will be completed no later than the beginning of the "rainy season" on October 15,2019.

6 Key lssues Tree Permit

Since 1987, the Town of Ross has recognized the importance of trees to the community's health, safety, welfare, and tranquility. Accordingly, regulations were established in L987,1993, 2002, and recently amended in 2015 (Chapter 12.24, Planting, Alteration, Removal, or Maintenance of Trees, of the Ross Municipal Code). The purpose of these regulations of general applicability and their standard permit requirements are as follows:

L To maintain trees in the community in a healthy and safe condition through good arboricu ltu ra I practices; 2. To provide reasonable regulations for the maintenance and removal of trees in the public right of way; 3. To provide reasonable regulations for the alteration or removal of trees on privately owned parcels; 4. To establish and maintain appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest; 5. To promote and maintain the aesthetic values of the community in general for the benefit of those who currently reside in Ross and as a legacy to future residents.

To further the purpose of Chapte r L2.24, Planting, Alteration, Removal, or Maintenance of Trees, of the Ross Municipal Code, the regulations identify certain thresholds and requirements regarding Tree Permits (Section 12.24.0!0, 12.24.060, t2.24.O7O of the Ross Municipal Code), including mandatory application submittal requirements (section L2.24.080 of the Ross Municipal Code), tree replacement when required (Section L2.24.O80(4) of the Ross Municipal Code), criteria/findings for approval (Section L2.24.08O(2) of the Ross Municipal Code), mandatory tree protection plan measures to protect significant or protected trees during construction projects (Section 12.24.I00). ln conformance with Title 12.24, Planting, Alteration, Removal, or Maintenance of Trees, of the Ross Municipal Code, a Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, which includes the required Tree Protection Plan per Section L2.24.IOO of the Ross Municipal Code, was prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (see Attachment 15). The Report identified and documented protected and significant trees as defined by Chapter 12.24, assessed the project's potential impact to any protected and/or significant tree, especially as it relates to the three mature redwood trees on the site, and the development of the required Tree Protection Plan and replacement measures. The Report concludes that "there are no unusual circumstances associated with the site or the Project; none of the trees proposed to be removed are in good health or scenic (and will be removed pursuant to the required permits, plans, and replacement provisions of the Town's Tree Ordinance [Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code]); and there is no reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant impact on the Project site's preserved trees, including the redwood trees."

7 Lastly, pursuant to Section 72.24.080(2) of the Ross Municipal Code, a Tree Permit may be issued if one or more of the following considerations (findings) are met as follows:

(a) The alteration or removal is necessary due to the condition of the tree with respect to its general health, damage, disease, danger of falling, proximity or damage to existing structures, or interference with utility services; (b) The alteration or removal is necessary to allow the economic enjoyment of the property, such as construction of improvements; (c) The alteration or removal will not adversely impact the subject property or neighboring properties; nor result in significant erosion or the diversion of increased flows of surface water; (d) The alteration or removal is necessary due to fire hazards; (e) The alteration or removal represents good forestry practices such as, but not limited to, consideration of the number of healthy trees the site will support;

Pursuant to section 12.24.080(3), additional criteria will be weighed against:

(a) The number, species, age, size, and location of existing trees in the area; (b) The effect of the requested alteration or removal on shade areas or solar access; (c) The effect of the requested alteration or removal on soil retention, water retention, and diversion or increased flow of surface water; (d) The effect of the requested alteration or removal on wildlife or creek habitaq (e) The effect of the requested alteration or removal on historic value; (f) The effect of the requested alteration or removalon scenic beauty; (e) The effect of the requested alteration or removal on the general welfare of the town as a whole.

Based on the existing conditions of the site and the surrounding neighborhoods, the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study prepared by WRA, the Biological Evaluation prepared by Kelly Consulting dated May 2019 (see Attachment 14), the scope of the project, and the Tree Permit criteria for consideration, staff recommends a Tree Permit can be approved as follows:

L The project, which includes the removal of the four cherry plum trees, will not adversely impact the subject property or neighboring properties in that the removal of the cherry plum trees are non-native invasive plant species that have no aesthetic or screening value due to the poor to fair health conditions and that are obscured by fencing or other overgrown vegetation. 2. The tree removal and project would not result in any significant erosion or the diversion of increased flows of surface water as the existing site is flat and the project would not result in any increases in impervious surfaces and thus will not result in any net increase in surface runoff. 3 As supported by the Biological Evaluation, the project will not impact any wildlife or creek habitat.

8 4. As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the project would not alter or remove any tree that is of historic value. 5. As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the non-native volunteer cherry plum trees to be removed are in poor to fair condition and are not considered scenic as they are generally obscured by the fences and overgrown ivy. 6 As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the cherry plum trees are considered to be non-native and rated as a invasive species by the California lnvasive Plant Council. An invasive species rating indicates that the species has a negative ecological impact on California wildlands and native habitat values. As such, the removal of the trees will benefit the generalwelfare of the Town by removing non-native invasive species.

Generol Plon Consistency and Zoning Since incorporation in 1908, environmental advocacy and the retention of open space for a community gathering area/park was important to the community of 96 voters, hence the purchase of the Ross Common by Annie Ross Worn in 1911. The Ross Common is listed as an important place/landmark in the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is not only considered to be Public Service (PS) as shown on Figure 12 of the General Plan, and also listed on the Town's Open Space (Public Park) Plan as shown on Figure 3 of the General Plan. The General Plan also identifies the Ross Common as where the Town residents gather and participate in community celebrations. Furthermore, Policy gfrrky l&t€ €ps |! {* Sia 8.4, Downtown and Ross Common states that L.{-, the Town-owned Ross Common should be Rri.tm,. l.t{{rh. tJd.t maintained as an area that is linked to t teh. l&.ri... Clrreitr. recreational, gathering, and local shopping area A*lsi'sr. CotEt Hdr, Stortl A.@, fttdry S{El*t uses and activities. Lastly, Figure 8, Land 3d. Use/Noise Compatibility Standards, of the P! lerord. h.6n6$ed Pait OrhsOvffiRcffisid General Plan identifies noise exposure standards for interior and exterior uses. The noise *fi(€ -xl Otxq Cffitd us tmbrxd lilsdr.!ilrur9. l.rbrir, standards for exterior uses identifies acceptable, ffi l6la l&& Errdert conditionally acceptable, and unacceptable t&{rl decibel noise levels relative to a 24-hour day- night weighted daily average. As shown in Figure 8, both residential and playground/community park uses are found to have a maximum affinnry A{{tgabb - lipaa0lrd tdd d6 ia di'l-Wy, t{d Wr fx rr!6r'tdn tm! acceptable noise level up to 60 decibels, sty lx,lin+{ nlrqtord *, ol Mrnli .@wrtiddl ffilah!. ffir E* rgfd Ar* iier!ffi !{€wmteti therefore demonstrating that residential uses tgldlls8ly Agpa{t { - qan:;h. lfrd s lnry b{ p!.nff rdt ,!$r ,6!*a *Wylri I d Ss rEira drl&l r*tli|t{Bli et ilffi ffi iEdS :rtts s{rdt* !c k and playground/community park uses are d*{o CBty l.ilx€9i*sr - li* rq*idff df at4iof.n*rl far f r&r,rJ ni tE compatible in that they are identified as having t the same noise exposure standards. Figurc 8 Land lJse/Noise Compotibility Standards (GenerolPlonl

As stated previously, the Ross Common is zoned as Civic District (C-D) zoning district. The C-D zoning classification is applied to land areas found to be suitable for use as sites for public, quasi- public, cultural, educational and/or recreational uses and purposes.

9 The 6 Redwood Drive project is consistent with the General Plan and the Town's Municipal Code relative to Title 12 (Street and Sidewalks) and Title 18 (Zoning). But for the Tree Permit for the removal of three cherry plum trees, the scope of the project is considered to be a permitted use per zoning and no discretionary permits are required for such improvements. The Ross Common is considered to be a public park and is permitted to be used for public gathering purposes, and therefore, the project and the project site does not present any unusual circumstance from a planning/land use perspective.

Colifornia Environmentol Quality Act (CEQA/ The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class 1 - Existing Facilities. The Class L exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The project falls under this Class 1 categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities (park property)/topographical features (park property's vegetation/ground) and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the existing (vacant land) or former (residential) use and restores the original public use as intended upon the Town's acquisition of the property for public park purposes in 19L1. The project's planned passive reincorporation of the site into the Ross Common park will not increase any of the existing uses of the broader park described above and does not include any park facilities (e.g., new paths, benches or picnic areas) or equipment (e.g., workout or child play structures) that would lead to active use of the project site. The project is also categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15304, Class 4- Minor Alterotions to Land. The Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. This CEQA exemption includes several examples pertinent to this project, including:

Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent

New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping.

Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site.

Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored

The project falls squarely under this Class 4 categorical exemption because the above-described project components are entirely consistent with the exemption's general minor alterations to land condition as well as several of the exemption's specific examples. Specifically, while the project's proposed minor alterations to the site do include the removal of the four non-native volunteer cherry plum trees, pursuant to the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment those trees are neither healthy (their condition/health/structure is rated fair/poor due to suppressed

10 growth, lean and ivy infestation) nor scenic, and most importantly all of the site's other trees including the three Significant redwood trees will be maintained, protected and enhanced by the project and the new trees required by the Town's Tree Ordinance standard conditions. Further, the project is consistent with several of the above-referenced examples included in the exemption in that it involves minor leveling/grading and filling of earth on the flat project site to rectify the slight existing depression resulting from the demolition of the former residence and removal of its foundation and bring the site to its natural flat topography and new water efficient landscapingthrough the use of weed barriers, mulch and drip irrigation and replacement of the non-native cherry plum trees.

Lastly, none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applyto the project including, but not limited to, subsection (a), which relates to impacts on locational/environmental resources; subsection (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. Specifically: the subsection (a) location/environmental resources exception does not apply because "there will be no impact to biological resources of hazardous or critical concern as no such resource has been designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted on the Project site that will be adversely affected by the proposed Project" (see Attachment 14); the subsection (b) cumulative impact exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor been informed of any similar/successive projects of the same type planned in the vicinity; the subsection (c) unusual circumstances exception does not apply because as demonstrated in the above general plan consistency and zoning analysis as well as the expert biologist and arborist reports in Attachments 14 (Biological Evaluation) and 15 (Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment) the project does not'involve or present any unusual circumstances and will not result in any significant adverse biological impacts, including to the three stately redwood trees on the site; and the subsection (f) historical resources exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor been informed of any listed historical resources on the project site or in the vicinity that the project may cause a substantial adverse change to.

Finally, because staff and the Town's consultants have not identified and staff has not been provided with any substantial evidence that the project may result in potentially significant environmental impacts, and based on the analysis and expert determinations in this report and its attachments, staff believes the project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(bX3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. ln sum, the project falls under several CEQA exemptions and none of the exceptions to those exemptions apply. The existing vacant project site was deeded to the Town of Ross in 191L for the purposes of a public park and the project will further the purpose and intent of the original purchase by making minor alterations and improvements to the site to facilitate its passive reconnection to Ross Common that are exempt from CEQA

7t Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts The funding source for the project is from insurance payments for the fire-damaged house. The Town has property insurance through the Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN), a Joint Powers Authority insurance program. The insurance covered the costs of the clean-up of the fire damaged house, all the studies, design, engineering, and initial construction related to rebuilding the house, and the removal of the house. After paying for all of the costs, the remaining insurance proceeds received by the Town was S126,925 which is in the Facilities and Equipment Fund. The cost of the proposed project described is $70,000.

Alternatives Multiple alternatives for this site have been discussed at Town Council meetings most recently at the May L0, 2018 Council meeting. Council could suggest alternatives to the proposed project.

Attachments L. Resolution No.2102 2. Existing Site Plan 3, Aerial of Ross Common 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. Resolution 57 6. Grant Deed and Resolution from lglL purchase of property 7. Marin History Museum Brady Collection Photograph circa 1954 and Historic Photo of Project Site- Date Unknown 8. Photograph of Existing Chain Link Fence 9. May L0, 2018 Town Council Staff Report 10. May L0, 2018 Town Council Minutes LL. January 10,20L9 Town Council Staff Report 12. January tO,2OLg Town Council Minutes 1.3. February 14,2019 Town Council Minutes and Staff Report L4. Biological Evaluation prepared by Kelly Biological Consulting dated May 20L9 15. Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants dated April26,2Ot9 L6. Public Correspondence

t2 ATTACH M ENT 1 TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2IO2 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWN-OWNED PROPERTY AT 6 REDWOOD DRIVE AND APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, APN 073-242-25

WHEREAS, On June 22, Lgtt, Town Council Resolution No. 57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is a 4.36-acre (1"89,923 square feet) parcel (APN 073-242- 25), which includes the site known as 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on July L, LgL1,, the Ross Common was deeded to the Town; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 20t5, a house at 6 Redwood Drive was severely damaged by a fire; and

WHEREAS, on October 12,20L7, Town Council approved a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing single-family residence that was damaged as a result of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on May L0,20L8, the reconstruction of the 6 Redwood Drive residence was found to be cost prohibitive as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements and the Town Council voted to direct staff to perform minor site work and cleanup of the 6 Redwood Drive site with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting; and

WHEREAS on, February t4,20L9. the Town Council adopted Resolution 2093 to require thatTown Staff to bring backthe 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvements and site plan to a future council meeting; and

WHEREAS on May 9, 20t9, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff reports, correspondence, and other information contained in the project file, and has received public comment, and this public record is incorporated herein; and

NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Ross:

1'. The Town Council adopts the above-referenced whereas clauses as specific findings and makes the additional findings set forth in Exhibit "A", and approves a Tree Removal Permit for the project described in Exhibit "8".

2. The Town Council approves landscape improvements to the Ross Common to visually connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park. The existing conditions and scope of the project and its site improvements are described in Exhibit "B' and shown in Exhibits "C" and "D".

3. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class L -Existing Focilities. "Class l- consists of the operation, repair, maintenance permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use."(CEQfl Guideline $ 1530L.) The project falls under this Class L categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities (park property)/topographical features (park property's vegetation/ground surface) and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the existing (vacant land) or former (residential) use and restores the original public use as intended upon the Town's acquisition of the property for public park purposes in L9L1, The project's planned passive reincorporation of the site into the Ross Common park will not increase any of the existing uses of the broader Ross Common park and does not include anyfacilities (e.g., new paths, benches or picnic areas) or equipment (e.g., workout or child play structures) that would lead to active use of the project site.

4. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15304, Class 4- Minor Alterotions to Land. tlass 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes." (CEQfl Guideline 5 15304.) Specifically, the project falls squarely under this Class 4 categorical exemption because the project is entirely consistent with the exemption's general minor alterations to land condition as well as several of the exemption's specific examples. Specifically, while the project's proposed minor alterations to the site do include the removal of the four existing non-native, invasive volunteer cherry plum trees, pursuant to the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment those trees are neither healthy (their condition/heallh/structure is rated fair/poor due to suppressed growth, lean and ivy infestation) nor scenic, and most importantly all of the site's othertrees includingthe three Significant redwood trees will be maintained, protected and enhanced by the project and the new trees required by the Town's Tree Ordinance standard conditions. Further, the project is consistent with several of the

5. The project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception (CEQA Guidelines 5 15061(b)(3)) because pursuant to the public record it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

6. None of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. Specifically: the subsection (a) location/environmental resources exception does not apply because "there will be no impact to biological resources of hazardous or critical concern as [] no such resource has been designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted on the Project site that will be adversely affected by the proposed Project"; the subsection (b) cumulative impact exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor has the Town been informed of any similar/successive projects of the same type planned in the vicinity; the subsection (c) unusual circumstances exception does not apply because as demonstrated in the staff report's general plan consistency and zoning analysis as well as the expert biologist and arborist reports in attachments 14 (Biological Evaluation) and 15 (Tree Survey Report and lmpact Assessment) to the staff report the project does not involve or present any unusual circumstances and will not result in any significant adverse biological impacts, including to the three stately redwood trees on the site; and the subsection (f) historical resources exception does not apply because staff has not identified nor has the Town been informed of any listed historical resources on the project site or in the vicinity that the project may cause a substantial adverse change to.

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 9th of May 201-9, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

3 P. Beach Kuhl, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

4 EXHIBIT,,A" FINDINGS TO APPROVE 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

l. ln accordance with Ross Municipal Code Section t2.24.O80, a Tree Removal permit is approved based on the following considerations and findings:

T The project, which includes the removal of the four cherry plum trees, will not adversely impact the subject property or neighboring properties because they are non-native invasive plant species that have no aesthetic or screening value due to their poor to fair health conditions, because they are currently obscured by fencing or other overgrown vegetation and because replacement trees will be planted in compliance with the Town's standard Tree Ordinance conditions.

2. The project would not result in any significant erosion orthe diversion of increased flows of surface water as the limited trees and vegetation to be removed will be cut at grade level (leaving root structures and soil intact) and because the existing site is flat and the project would not result in any increases in impervious surfaces and thus will not result in any net increase in surface runoff.

3 As supported by the Biological Evaluation, the project will not impact any wildlife or creek habitat.

4 As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the project would not alter or remove any tree that is of historic value.

6 As supported by the Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, the cherry plum trees are considered to be non-native and rated as a invasive species by the California lnvasive Plant Council. An invasive species rating indicates that the species has a negative ecological impact on California wildlands and native habitat values. As such, the removal of the trees is necessary and will benefit the general welfare of the Town by removing non-native invasive species and replacing them pursuant to the Town's standard Tree Ordinance conditions.

5 EXHIBIT'8" 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

The scope of the project would entail the following

Fences B, C, E, and F shown on the Existing Site Plan (Attachment 2) will be removed. The fenceb will be pulled out of the ground with a compact skid-steer loader on tracks. lf any fence posts break off at ground level but are not a trip hazard, the posts will remain at ground level. Any fence post that breaks off and is considered a trip hazard, the concrete footings will be removed by hand with hand tools and if necessary, a post-puller claw will be utilized. Approximately 150 linealfeet of the ivy hedgerow that runs parallel to the southerly asphalt path adjacent to the Ross Common grassy field towards the westerly property line will be removed. The ivy will be cut back to prevent any trip hazards associated with the mature ivy vines. A Tree Removal Permit, consistent with the requirements of Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code, for the removal of four cherry plum trees, three of which require a Tree Removal Permit as they are each greater than 6 inches in diameter. The four cherry plum trees will be removed by cutting at grade. Consistent with Section L2.24.7O0 of the Ross Municipal Code, project construction will adhere to the required Tree Protection Plan as recommended by the Town's Certified Arborist as described in Attachment D to the April26, 2019 Tree Survey and lmpact Study prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (see Attachment 15). Additionally, consistent with the requirements in Section L2.2a.080($ of the Ross Municipal Code, the project will provide tree replacement plantings in the minimum amount of 10.3 inches as the three cherry plum trees are in fair/poor condition as described in the Tree Survey and lmpact Study (Attachment 15). The replacement trees will be planted adjacent to the common property line between the 6 Redwood Drive and 8 Redwood Drive properties and along the proposed split rail fence as shown on the site plan. As a courtesy, the Town staff will consult with the property owner of 8 Redwood Drive regarding the location of the tree replacement plantings. All other existing vegetation and plantings will remain, including all existing vegetation and plantings adjacent to and up to the easternmost end of the existing planter boxes from the top of bank of Murphy Creek. This area is referenced as a "Non-disturbance Zone" on the proposed site plan. The two existing 6 feet wide by 10 feet long by two-feet tall planter boxes will be removed by hand. The area of the site associated with the footprint of the demolished residence's foundation will leveled with approximately 47 cubic yards of fill soil to fill in the slightly lower area of the footprint of the demolished residence's foundation. The fill soil associated with the project will be staged at the front entrance driveway, wheelbarrowed and hand shoveled to fill the void that was left by the removal of the residence's foundation. A biodegradable permeable weed barrier (i.e., fabric cloth) will be installed by hand over approximately 5,000 square feet (60 feet wide by L00 feet long) of the fenced in area of 6

6 Redwood Drive measured from the front property line west towards the rear property line. Anchoring pins will be installed to keep the weed barrier in place. A drip irrigation system will be installed on top of the weed barrier and connect to an existing water spigot on site. The purpose of the drip irrigation is to provide water for and maintain the health of the Redwood trees. The amount of irrigation water used to water the tree will be based on a Certified Arborist's recommendation to ensure the health of the trees. The drip irrigation system will be hand laid and no trenching will be required for the drip irrigation system. Approximately 93 cubic yards of mulch will be spread over the 6,000 square feet of area covered with the weed barrier to create a five-inch buffer between the natural grade and the finished grade. A new four-foot tall split rail perimeter fence will be constructed from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site and run a span of approximately 125 feet (Attachment 4- Fence J). The fence holes will be hand dug and will be dug to a maximum depth of two feet. One-foot round fence posts will be placed in the holes. The existing sewer and gas lines will be capped and left in place. The temporary PG&E power pole will be abandoned and removed. The existing water spigot will be enclosed with a wooden box covering and utilized to feed the drip irrigation system. The existing 60-inch dbh poplar tree stump located at the southeast corner of the property will be cut and ground flush at the grade level.

7 EXHIBIT "C' 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN

8 ! ( \

^G I72LE L21 C.L d 4e' (Fence E TBR)

(Fence C TBR) L3" APN 07 3-242-25 o 52.5" 1?ED. Ross Common 4N PROJECT ob- . *"o.@ \Y SITE b 073-242-25 L0' 1APN o 19LF 6I SLATTED WOOD . t'n F TBR) o\ re^ \ {Fence 65" R_gD r \-e uJ\ a + f @ \ q.aeu O, <6. \ 12"-14" l-5Lr 8' *") c (Fence H) r a \}- t6' 6, 2 EA.5 ' SEWAR 'Xl0 GAS *\ PLANTER BOXES ELECTRIC ,?3"" o +' ttO' a^5--) o - RED}TOOD 3 .3" DRIVE -t =4+ #* !{ooD \ ex. residence PERTY LINE APN 07 3-27L-01 APPROX. FLOI\TLINE B REDWOOD OF MURPHY CREEK t s Ib JZ \\ EXISTING SITE PLAN 6 REDWOOD 0 GRAPl{IC SCALE Key: TBR = Fence To Be Removed C.L. = Chain Link I EXHIBIT'D" 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242-25

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

9 I.EGEND + (N) 4' SPLIT RAI]. FENCE (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN x* *x (E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN NON_DISTRUBANCE ZONE r1 TREE REPLACEMENT AREA (TYP) -) TO BE A COMBINATION OF CRAPE MYRTLE 2\) ViEED BARRIER AND MULCH DOG WOODS AND/OR TOYONS X TREE To BE REMoVED INSTALL 125 LF TREE REPLACEMENT AREA 4' HIGH SPLIT RAIL FENCE . (FENCE J)

APN 07 3-242-25 Ross Comm on

\.d^o 4 PLUM TREES . TO BE REMOVED qdt. €' / 1

NON-DISTURBANCE ZONE REDVOOD DRfVE t CUT (E) POPLAR STUMP FLUSH TO GRADE c GB,',L; OF (E) FENCE REMOVAL BEGIN (N)4'HIGH SPLIT RAII, .\\ \ --...\, ex, resldence APN 07 3-27L-0L \t 8 REDWOOD APPROX FLOWLTNE \\'" tvo OF MURPHY CREEK \\ 'L tj'. iJ] I6', 32' SITE PLAN.6 REDWOOD \\ 0 GRAPHTC SCALE \\ I ATTACHMENT 2 I ( \ \ \. \

TBR = Fence To Be Removed C.L. = Chain Link t ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4 LEGEND + (N) 4r SPLIT RAIL FENCE (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN *Me1 @,x (E) WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN

NON-DISTRUBANCE ZONE r1 TREE REPLACEMENT AREA (TYP) TO BE A COMBINATION OF CRAPE MYRTI,E ))?': WEED BARRIER AND MULCH DOG WOODS AND/OR TOYONS X TREE To BE REMoVED I INSTAI-], 125 LF TREE REPLACEMENT AREA 4' TIIGH SPL]T RAIL FENCE (FENCE J)

APN 07 3-242-25 Ross Common

4 PLUM TREES TO BE REMOVED

€- \

,4 *-&M -.?

I kuoN-orstuRBANcE zoNE REDWOOD DRIVE I CUT (E) POPLAR STUMP FI,USH GRADE \, TO t A*t'; T OF (E) FENCE REMOVAL - ---;*i-* ]N (N) 4I HIGH SPI-IT RAII ';-*;t*

ex. residence \\ Y LINE APN 07 3-27l_-01 8 REDI/f OOD APPROX. FLOI,ILINE o OF MURPI]Y CREEK \\. 2t vt L1 16' 32', \\: SITE PLAN.6 REDWOOD \\. 0 GRAPHIC SCALE \l I ATTACHMENT 5 L 0

1l'"*- Q rJn"^a (r 1o73o" ' -3 ,Y(. A'a^'^^.t {on. ? 3l'o ,ah 7,f5""

j oc', Q^.-*'"*; 3 3

*' r?

fr t n'3s'oI,ut'ror

. ilttFoarzrNc rG .pltScHASn os cmEA:N !8oPmlY '' rlr. TI& pow oI' Boss fol( A tsD;tlc ,, , ;"-,:a. lNF.. 'i* '.' ' l 'i ' !l . .*" "., ., 'd'r ': mmba,g:. At'a opcolel cldsiton hold tra thc'lonn of Sogg' bn Saturdayr'ihi 8?th dey bf ltray, 1911, thc lBsuenos of bouilr of t*lrl'for! oi Fotr tn thc @ount of Thtrty flrourand {'lSq.roOO) Dbl"lfri rcr ruthorlrad, to psy thc coat of the oaqul ittlon or a publlc f.rls oppsallglla railuay itetlon ln aald ?ornl litcJ.udlng thc purobc8t pf thp land tlrerofor, end thc laylng out and lnr* thc hrovcnant of l*", &d .,, Vn8fiBii8:' in p,,rcuenac 'of eald authorlzctl,oa, thc bondr of rald Torn, ln rrtd e'nount of, thlrty Thcusend (f5CIrooo) Dollars, havo becn duly ;old to l. H. Bsl.llnp &, Fonr, tha hlghcrt blitdar 'J.t tlr*oforr. for tfo rurount of thc fagc.yaluc,of aald bonda,

1t slcvan llu$drad, $cventy-ons (*iffr):noffafj nrent{r and eoarued lntereat, and ,f rt'\ ,..uEulIlAfli The fown of Ros6 ls thc owner and boldor of &!i option fo3 the Purch&so of the followtng proporty,. Eituate opypettc thc rall'way stai,loa l,n sal{t Town, end dsuorlbod rrs F f o:,l{}vsi

) lll ( ro ) ntnufeo weyt,.-rqro trundrod rorts_e6qs,1 ro,I,"i:Sl;ii;"*il. rorty*riu. anrl, ftvo-tenthe tiii-irl{;:i-fJ"i, **il.i*;r;tJiii{I;t*iitj_flg;""io"{i., i3ai.ri $urrrhurly r'&grrnrran iioadr r:hencs i{orth' -i'iii-aiiirca,rlns of es.td flve ($s j rnlnules "i*ij-r-,-Ii,iio'io"u**t;r*iur" *rIrty- f;;i, or* und flve ..rsnLlrs (?od. fesr aions serd rlns. ,i"ia'ril"i"io tr,o s) oontalntng four and tUiriv-if"*iiulr,un*rai*rs"f lirii'ir'ilJsrnnln6, $rlug (+.g6j-troresr End the ]6s of lend,o,oleC-TUl[-or, * oertaln pJ.ot, $an Anooruro v&tloy, iiu,r[v, of ].ots tn Iuado by Ir. Auotirr, $urveyor,_uartn- -ani'rituao*rrr"r"ii,..aIiJi iray, rees. rn trr{r o,rfros of r,rre counNy hscordsr oi ""ia-ir"iri"ir'i*.rn, foc tbo Fru[ of Twenly-66ysn Thouiend tr,lvs Huntlrad ($af rfOO; QollarE, an{ the oost of aerts,l.n *ngrovcorrnte madc upon onc or th'c rcclrienqGa upon'rald propcrty, nrno*ntt:ng to the 6um of one Hundrsd !'qrty-on; *nd zz,lf;oa (6faf .t2) Dol.Lnr!, upon whl.ch sa{d. optlon thc setr.d. town ha,t a.Lroady p4ld the El.ln of $ov6n Hundred ($Yoo) Dollarrr IIOV, fIIIIIBFOFI: Tho .loard, grurt?.c of of ths toru of Roel do rslplva an f,ollowa: sootron ri fbat thc sgld rrvn of Rosa prrrcrrege the proporty Cbove dosorlbcd. fran, tbe ownEr thsraof, Anillg S, l. y/otnr tbc sfinxe to ba hcld, owned 'and uaed by !6'{ Town aa rof e publto perk. 'nd saotr'on rr: tb.at ths lresldout of, tho Foard. of rruateerl and f,ha Ctark of s6l'd gown .be, and, tlroy arc hercbyr authorl.zcd, a''d instructad,, upon delivery to ilren, for q,rdon bohc_lf ofi sald, 'Iown, of rr good and rufflclent grant, bargaln and gslg &eod.1 oonvoyln6 laLd proporty to tald. torvn of Rotg, to pay to ss,ld 'Annla s' s' yorn the ba3-a[cs *uo on thc puroh*le prrc€ of, sautd. propcrtyl. aacordln$ to the tenns- of .rald optlon; and a.lto tho ax'to iha pto pro fate df trxot {ob t'hc ffgga.L yew 19lo'1f ; 'cn&' lftra thq tro i'ata or premlrms on th. ineurhnce pol'lolal uporr , r ' la mont lY rorldoneoc upon tcld Froptrtyt-:,--^-.& llsr'trar tho pfo rsis of th prercpt undol rcataL of blrc raaldoncc upon aald propi?ty ct ($Igo) Ieepcr &t anoatlr].y rqntal' pf Onc Eundr!{ trcrrty-flvc of Dollgrr par laonthl sbtch may be d'ue sold town *t tho date exqoutlon of, set'd, conveyanag' '

ScottbnIII|thetthciraldtugsrototcpatdtottrag.cld proccads of thc s'RLc of Anni.c $.3. Wor{', be pald 6ut 6f thc of f,rustcoa of rrrld bondg, emd tlrot bhe ?retldsnt of tho 3oa'r{ *r'e hore}ry, rrrld {own, an( the clsrk of, .Eald. Town bo, arra'irldy s&ount out autborltcd and lnntruqtgd to dqar a lg6srrent for ri{r{d b* crtdlt of the fund to ifrloti, Shc prgcecgi of r*I'd bqnrtr rtra'l'L of Jtrnal igli' ty tire Faeced 'a,nit adoptc'd'thl3 ?antt 4a'y o1l.of,in[l vote f I Ams

N0x8!

iB6B{T:

!o! of tha lovn oi' ?osll

trrtssT:

o :, ATTACHMENT 6 ;

I ?j:IS IL?3NTU33, nr&dc the lst day of July, 19f1, betweeR 5* r: AIINIS g" E, WORN! a wldolvr af the To-irrr of San /'nselna, Couniy l:. I t, of Marln, $!a;te of Caltf ornl&, tle party of the flret peft'i er:d .. c nt thi'IoliN0sRoss'.ariuntcitaf"*1!F.},Ti;;?t'frii,;$;W-'H i t.' ganlzed. and extetlng under and, hy vtrtuE tawe of'\th'e of tbe - : i .- State of California, and giruste in tbe County of Xartn, State I of Cellfornie, the party of the secand p{irtr { ; ! WIT}ITSSETI{:

{, That the sr:id pariy of the flret for and ln consid- t:; Flrrtr eration of ihe swt of Ten (ro) lotrare, Gold Colu of the Unlted

., '' $tatee of An:erlc.s., to her in hand, paid by the eald part'y of tbe

t. secsnd part, the recelpt vthereof le hersby acknowledged, has grented, bargained and eold, corrveyed an{ ccnfir.tuedr and by

i:l 'bhese p::csente d,oes grant, bargain and eeLlr conrey e1d gonfirm, unto the naid. party of the eecontl part, and to lto Bucceseo:'s that oqgtaln lot, ploce or parcel of belng ln the Torvn of Rosar County of

8,, snd Pgu!1|99 and pqqllcuL*rly S?g!

mtnutee 3 degrees, f t'hence South .f{f el6hty-e f€qt; flve {45 ens e hundr enc e fg f * o:, enee svEn

"1* :). s ff7

t .\ t t11) degrees, ten (]0) mlnutoe Vest, two hundretL forty-a rnren and slx-tentbg (241.6', feetl tbence Nort'h foft,y-feor (4{ ) deg- re6s, forty-oae (41) y-aeven a,nd ftve-tenths 1227. a,id I,a4uni tas Roadl thenc flve ( 55) mlnutec Sae 206 ) feet along sald L be the ln San nade by H. County of Marln. si ar tbe t and t ob taini and. on and

811 and eln6ular tba eald pr@lccr, together wlth thc appurtena,nco!, unto the sald pa.:rty of tbe accond part, and to lts Euccecsors and aootgno fo:ever.

''hcrr€Unto g hand cs'dl f,lrat here{n;

,.1 Jur..r 1 (scal)

:4C:: --. t_ i' t tr t

*' l. ?

-2-

jrp t;l POR. PUI{TA DE QUENTIN RANCFIO Ht llI tfl N t5t Ifl 4- I lEI Ro. l$t

Ht isl l{l tgl @ Ro" iil t3t e tEi lfl tEt tgt ui l:l \ til c. lsl tit oo@ i$l Jo @ t*t .J lsl : @ t8t Torflrv oF Ross llap of San Ansclno Vollsy, R tI th.l Pg'7 Assessor's Map Bk.tl -Pg.z+ llt NOI€-Ar6!d'r 8b.l Nur6cr S.boro il fllpor, lli p9.38 j Srrown in Counly Marin, Colif. t:J t(op ol Rayfiond Trocl:sub.3, fi.it.8h. z As*!€r' Pd.et N!Dbqr Cieior- of . ATTACHMENT 7 ROSs Ccr,nmon Brady Collection- 1954 Marin History Museum

q- ] t

- 12'Tall Chain Link Fence

,* \r

ts.;.. +

'Flrr of Foller Offt errr r R;rtdcncr ott lrdrood Drhr on F$sr rtonrhcn, Igoft&l lrr3. flotl plrtryruurrd on tfortlr rldr

/{ ATTACHMENT 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS circa 1950's L2'Tall chain Link Fence covered by Existing Vegetation

',.hi'.',:

Exi sti n g 1 12 Li n ea r Fen ci ns ci rca 1e 50 :::::j;il ::H;ff ;;::J":iff Close-Up of Chain Link Fencing with Mature lvy Growth Pushing Over the Fence Creating an Attractive Nuisance and Hazardous Condition ATTACHMENT 9 n T$ilr{ ROSS Agenda ltem No. 13.

- Staff Report

Date May 10, 2018

To: Mayor Robbins and Councilmembers

From Richard Simonitch, Public Works Director

Subject: Continuation of discussion of Town-Owned Property at 6 Redwood Drive and consideration of an amendment to Design Review 2OI7-O35

Recommendation Council to decide on the preferred course of action for the Town-owned building at 5 Redwood as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements, direct staff to provide a resolution which supports that decision.

Background and discussion The building known as 6 Redwood is located on southwest portion of Ross Commons (APN 073-242-25). Ross Commons was deeded to the Town from Annie S.E. Worn on July 1, L911. The Town Resolution to accept the purchase of the property dated iune 22, L91.1, describes 2 residences which existed on the property at the time of sale, at least one of which was producing rental income under a lease which transferred to the Town at the time of sale. Since that time, the Town has continued to rent the residence at 6 Redwood, On Februa ry 28,2OL5, the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8,20L6 meeting, the Town Council approved the option to repair the residence at 6 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit and adopted a resolution No. 1982 to that effect at the Town Council meeting held on January 8,20!7. Town Councilapproved Design Review 2Afi-O35 on October LZ,2OL7 and the project contract was awarded to WestCal Design and Build lnc. on February 8, 2018. and the contractor began work at the site on March 12,2A18.

On April 2, 2A1.8 portions of the exterior siding were removed and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the house revealed the potential need to replace or repair most of the structural elements due to dry rot repair. On April 1.3th the contract was suspended as provided for under the general conditions in order for staff to assess all options before moving forward. At a Special Town Council Meeting held on April 25, 2018 staff presented three options to Town Council for discussion. A brief description and net cost estimates for the three options discussed at the April 25th meeting are summarized as follows:

Option L - repair dry rot and continue construction: it'll,89q Option 2 - demolish remaining structure and rebuild new 52A9,754 Option 3 - demolish remaining structure and cleanup site receive SSZ,OOZ cash back

1 During the discussion at April 25th meeting, it was determined that the complete demolition of the residence would be applicable to all three options and Staff was directed to allow the contractor to demolish the remaining structure as soon as possible, however Council continued the discussion on the preferred option for the 6 Redwood site to a later date. Except for the complete demolition of the structure, the remainder of the reconstruction contract continues to be suspended pending further direction by the Town Council. To date, the Town has been invoiced for $115,965 for work done prior to contract suspension. The additional cost to demolish the remaining structure is estimated to be $26,000. The totaloriginal contract amount to repairthe structure and the basis for insurance reimbursement is S433,48s.

Based on the April 25, 2OtB decision to completely demolish of the structure at 5 Redwood, staff now presents the following options for consideration:

New Option 1 - Reconstruct the new house using current floor plan and elevations Under this option, the structure would retain its existing floorplan and roof profile and no amendment to the Design Review would be required. The reconstruction would move forward as a "design-build" change order, with reduced consultant fees compared to Option 2 and 3. The revised design should result in a more cost-effective foundation design. Similarly, modern shear-wall designs should reduce the costs of rough framing although the lean-to roof design would require a bearing wall at the living room partition limiting the opportunity to remodel at a future date, Staff believes that there is a likelihood that these cost savings should result in a negotiated credit from the current contract back to the Town. The fast- track nature of design-build construction and eliminating need for design review will also reduce the time- to-completion by an estimated 8 weeks over Option 2. lnsurance reimbursement covers the original work scope to repair the flre damage and is unchanged.

The estimated time to complete the redesign and permit the new structure under Option 1 is 8 weeks.

The costs for option l- are summarized below:

contract expense to date 5116,965 contract expense to complete s316,500 change order to complete* S153,600 additional consultant fees s15,ooo Town costs - sitework s40,000 other expenses to date ** s92,378

insurance reimburse -5539,689 net deductible S5,ooo

Total cost to Town s199,754

* Includes demolition cost ** other expenses = ATl, Archilogix, Herzog

2 New Option 2 - Construct new structure with modified roof line and floorplan - no change to footprint. Under this option, a new foundation, structure, and floorplan would be designed which retains the existing foundation footprint. The revised design should result in a more cost-effective foundation design. Similarly, modern shear-wall designs should reduce the costs of rough framing and eliminate interior bearing walls. Further, a new floorplan could be developed providing a more efficient use of the existing living space although additional architectural consulting fees would be required. Because of the proposed change in the roof line, an amendment to the October 2O17 Design Review would be required. lnsurance covers only the original work scope to repair the fire damage and is unchanged. This option would likely require termination of the current construction contract, and the preparation of a new set of architectural drawings to be developed.

The estimated time to complete the redesign, amend the design review, and permit the new structure under Option 2 is 6 months.

The costs for Option 2 are summarized below:

contract expense to date s116,965 contract expense to complete S316,500 change order to complete* 5153,600 additional consultant fees $45,000 Town costs - sitework S40,ooo other expenses to date ** S92,378

insurance reimburse -5539,689 net deductible S5,ooo

Total cost to Town s209,754

* includes demolition cost ** other expenses = ATl, Archilogix, Herzag

New Option 3 * Ground lease to private development for residentialdevelopment Under this option, the site would be cleaned up, vegetation trimmed, and fences repaired. Staff would advertise the vacant site for private development. Council would need to determine if we would be looking for a single family unit or multi-family unit on the site, Ultimately, this option would include a ground lease agreement between the Town and a third party that would be responsible for the design, development, maintenance, and ownership of the development. The third parties site development would need to be approved by Town Council including Design Review approval. For this option, staff would prepare a lease-line plat and legal description describing the area to be leased. At the tlme of this staff report, there are a nurnber of legal questions that would need to be answered related to a Town ground lease to a private development company. By the time of the Council meeting, we will look to have some of the answers that may provide constraints and possibilities for this option. ln summary, the developer would lease the land from the Town, design and build a new structure, and rent it out under a sub-lease agreement with the new tenants.

Under this option, an entirely new structure and floorplan would be designed utilizing an entirely new (as yet un-designed) house footprint. The new floor area could be increased from the current 940 SF up to

3 approximately 2,000 SF including the possible construction of a multi-family residence. The structural benefits are similar to Option 2. This option would have additional costs required to completely redesign the proposed residence and construction costs would increase with the size of the proposed structure with these additional costs being borne by the lessee. This option would require termination of the current construction contract, and the preparation of a new set of architectural drawings to be developed by the development entity.

Past experiences have shown that the Town has inadequate resources and expertise to effectively manage private residential buildings and this option would hand over the responsibilities and liability to realestateprofessionals. StaffwouldreturntoCouncilatalaterdatetodiscussthedetails and structure of finding an interested development partner, e agreement, ncing, a considerations.

Staff estimates that Option 3 would require a year before construction would begin-

The total costs for Option 3 are unknown because the construction scope is unknown. However, the town would be eligible for the S322,350 lnslrance reimbursement when the structure ls constructed.

New Option 4 - Perform minor site work/cleanup Under this option, the site would be cleaned up, vegetation trimmed, and fences repaired. Staff would return to Councilat a later date to discuss options for the future development of the site. An option to repairing the fence on the side of the Common is to remove the fence so the area is connected to the rest of the Common. Unless another residence is constructed, the insurance reimbursement is reduced from option 1, 2 and 3 because there are no reimbursements for code upgrades in Option 4.

The costs for Option 4 are summarized below:

contract expense to date 5116,965 contract expense to complete change order to complete s36,ooo additional consu ltant fees Town costs - sitework $3o,ooo other expenses to date * $92,378

insurance reimburse -$372,350 net deductible 55,ooo

Total cost {credit back) to Town -s92,007

* other expenses = ATl, Archilogix, Herzog

Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts The main funding sources is from insurance payments for the fire damaged house. The Town has property insurance through ABAG PLAN. Under the insurance coverage, the Town has a 55,000 deductible. lnsurance would pay the 5433,485 replacement cost of the house (per the current construction contract) which includes any documented code upgrade requirements, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and raising the house elevation to me€t the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) requirements. ln addition, the

4 Town would receive reimbursement for consultant fees, previous demolition activities, and a loss of rents income. lf the house is not constructed (Option 3), the reimbursement to the Town would be reduced by the cost of the code upgrades, currently estimated to be S167,300.

The net cost estimates for the new structure at this time are summarized as follows:

Option 1 - Same floorplan, same footprint: 5199,754 Option 2 - New floorplan & roofline design, same footprint: 5209,754 Option 3 - Ground lease to private developer for residential dev: unknown Option 4 - Cleanup site and revisit development options: 592,007 cash back to Town

The funding for the capital costs for the repair or reconstruction of the house would come from the Facilities and Equipment fund. ln Option 4, the net cash back to the Town would be added to the Facilities and Equipment Fund.

Theannual maintenancecostisestimatedasfollows. lnthecaseofOptionsLand2,rental incomenet revenue to the Town of S10,000 to 20,000 annually after expenses such as routine maintenance items and some repairs needed over time. ln the case of Option 3, income from the land lease would be dependent on whether or not the Town allows the developer to rent the structure at market rate or requires that the residence be treated as affordable housing. For affordable housing, the Town would likely need to subsidize the developer's rental income in order for the project to be feasible for a private developer. For market rate housing, the Town would likely generate lease income given the land value of the property.

Environmental review (if applicablel The project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15302 -Replocement or Recanstruction, because it involves the repair of an existing Single family due to extensive fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 15301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection {a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection {c}, which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection {fi, which relates to historical resources.

Attachments 1. Grant Deed and Resolution from L91L purchase of property 2. April 25, 2018 staff report

5 ATTACHMENT L ,it :

I li:Ig ItriDEllTlIRE, made the lot day of, Ju1y, L 911, betrgen ! ".A$!T1! g. E. voBN, a rl.dow, of the Town of San An seLaad, corint v l- 1. ate of Cal l* i ganlaed tlng

o tt State ifornia, snd Eltuaie ta tbe r $tete of Calil'ornia, tb.,e per?y of, tbe gccofd Dsrtr i. Trtrs$$gfs: I i ,'' ?hat th.e said party of the flrst per!, for and ln coaeld-

: eration of the suxn of Tea ilo) Dollarsu Oold Coln of the Snlte{

: Statee of imerlca, io her ln hand pald by tbe sal{ party ef tbe : sscond part, the receipt trhereof le hErsby nek*orled6:ed, bas grented, bargal4,eq mE so1d, conveyed",rC*.,aQ&(lfqeC, gn{ bf these presents does , bargain and sell unto the oaid party e second parirtand t gn3 , 'a3-1 tqpt qEfta.ip lo.tr

{ elng 1r tire loru ot Rolo, Corurty of '"*{ " :o c?4 l, , hsu**?*

46 ) degrees, v-{5rr feet; -qbence So1l* /t a\ ee Eqsti elght elgh degt'eee two ( d.egreea, f ng t.!d, c l uieS hundr ked

{

-1- .q -;, ,"d--1 * *-, *7

t (1r.) desr ten ilO mlnut ea Yest, two bundred, forty-s rrr€n and eix-t enths (z+t.a feet; tlrence L$orth fofi;y-four (44 ) aeg- g, f orty-s116 ( 41) nlnutee West, two hundred and ivent Y-geven and f ive-tenths ( 2??,5) feet, to the Souiher Ly llne of gald fagun ltas Road I thonce Sorth eev enty-Xto (12 ) degre €3r thlr ty- five ( 35) ninui;es Saet tvo hundred gtx and ive-teni;he ( 206 ) cont..al,ri ono-i1'.tadr -(4. being the sD .t oa 4 c L nPl p 1n San An qcJma al 1 tyr tc4*for made by H. n d. fl1ed County Rec of Marln. rl and ar tb.e t and tsn o ai and on and

!0 m , all. ryril etneular ths aaid prec,lses, togetb.er rlth the appurtena,nce!, unto the gald Ba;rty of tb.c geeond part, and to lts BuccegsorE and aselgns fo:ever.

Eand

,.t Ju,i.t j Seal)

:f l

$i {r .'

-z-

t_ + rcR. PUNTA OE OU€IIJ?N' RAIIICfO \tdffiAE 7t-)a l$l ' 6-0@ tgt l Ifl l6l * lil '"ld t$t I i titIil t R0' iFt C> t5t \r:_/

t5t El iil t:l Et At lfl +16 r" tFl @ @ i$l D Irl tit tit Irl tEt tlt ui l8l \ t3i lil ol @ Ii J Ifl i-{ @ i?l tit TO*N Or ROSS lfdp of Sdr Ans.lw :6lt.y,Ril Ak.t ?t,7 Assessors rAop Bk. tl -Pg.zl NOI€-arnd ! Blod NriSdi gbrr h frr;per. llt Blc Pd<.1 f*86f,c Slpwn in County a{ Morin, Calil. l:J taap of R'fi$nd lracl'Sub.3, i.il. 2 ?t.?t8 *6s" Cirda. .Ytu:* ry'4*.42 L _)

oo 'W--- Cl Cn"'"*- Cr' lal3

Yt f.Lru*,.,- t L n ? 3 lo" 3 a r a ao ,u ,a tb-p IJ J

l- { 4<..

*r7 t agsotgtlof

AlrtgoslgIr$ fM PURC}TASE OF gffiTAIs tRa?gtx -1 If,, gg$ tofu sx' Ross FoIt A Pustl c P$8r', .J r.i i, i , ,*,1. f ?. :. r t .1 ffir&ErFi tt r epcclail, clcctlon hold trl, the,tora o? Fo,sl bB Seturaayn tht 8?th daf of Sayr 1911, tb,e trrsustacc of boadr of rrtd Torn of Rogr tn the uount of fb.irty Thaucand (1501060l $ollrrr rac *utb,ortrud., to pay tb,e coat of the acqulalttsn sf a publtc patk olryrortta tha railray etatlcn in geid gorn, includlng tht prr*hrsc of tha Lend therefor, and thc l*ytr*g out and l,n- protntnt of thc tma, and tgF*tl$t In purru{rncc of sald, ar.rthorLr*'t!.on, the bond,n of

aald. to*s, ln crid maunt of, Thlrty fho*snnd {$SCIrOSO} }ollarcn

i l bavp bten duly cold to E. K. Rolltns & $onr, t}.c hig$.cst bidder l !i ! th.aref,or, f+r thc aaount of thc fagd,f*trutr of saLd bondrg ,t fi rl E].lvrlr Errndrcd, Scventy-ay1s itfftf) Do$arl prtn.t$fr and aecruod il 't :,1 ':1 lnterest, s.nd .g ,t,i \ :1 '"lfE,&EAfi: ?he Torn of Ross 1g lbc orner and holder of an opt,lon for the purchaB€ of the follorlng propcrtyt Eitus't€ opporltc tbe railrsy statLou lu cald Toun, and'degcrlbed as follor!:

ftI) dtg?oir." ten.(lO) llfuntac lad crr-tsntlas (z+i.ii Gli; -iuilJJ.roria--1";!y:ri,ii.i{4)rrotr_bro_ htndrcd, f orty_lcven rc?r; forry-onG (+r) ii.iuiil i"iii-tro d"s_ and flvo-tentb.s t11L,-oi-i;;;, -iJ'ii." huacrcd"*oJ"onty-sGyaE hgunital Road: rhcoea llortb.'suvc-fy-tro$our!,arry tlne of raid. f,lvs (58) nlnuics {?l}- acgrorrl thirty- r*r{,-i"i*r,;;,i;;;'slx end flvertenti.a (2o6.5) fcrt aJ'ons srld l!.nc. oi calc r;f io tuc pJrii'or"i"si*rog, cortalalns four anrl tarriv-sii-;;e:;uaa;o6ii,i't l.1ne tb.c lcl of 1ana ,*LeC-Ib.i-o,i i. sii.ior"s r &nd, s." ;ns€ti-v*ii"i,^181" county, c"rir:$l:1'.*ll or 1o+,i la uadc by E, ,turtfn-. Surveyor, .rr['fii*d county Rrcordrr oi rald b"uiti"Jr*ilrro,in the o]:flcc o{,ri3tu, f,or tbe cun of ?wenty-ssyon Tboueand Flve EunAred, ($eZrSOOI Dollcrrr and the so6t of oertatn lnprorcracnts a&dc upon oB? of tha rorlrioacca upon rnid properiy, aountla6 to tbc rrrm of oa€ Euadrcd ?orty-qes *n*. z2/Lqa ttl{r,zp) Dollar!, upoa rhlch sa1d, optlon tbc rald lorn b.es a.lrc&dy padd thc sl'r of S??en (*roo) Dollarr, '{undred,

g0t3, TEERB?OIIE: ?b.o Boa,rd of Truqtccc of thc !o.*a of Fosa do rclolye as foLlovr: 6cctl.on f ; Ihat the aaldt t.rnr of Roer pirr*hate the prop- ryty abovc dcrorr'bed fr@ the o,''ncr thercof, Annia s. D. ,#orn, tbc rsne to bc bold., ovncd and. uscd. by aetd ?sc'n a! an{ for * publtc park. Ssotion preetdcnt rr: ?ha't the of thr Bo*rd. of rruateecl apd' the clerk of card lora be, and tlr€y aro hereby! **thcrlzc,l and lnstrucicd., u,potr dcii"./ery to th€0[] for ard,aa bchs.lf of sal,d, 9o',vn, cf a good and suffi.clant grant, hargaln anrl aa-Lc d,aed,, conveylng cald proporty gnld ts ?own of B0EE, to pay to sald {anlc s' E. rorn the ba.}aac6 +"rre d,*e on purchaao prlee of, aai.ct I proper+"q, accordlng to the N€ros I of se1 d. optlonl aad, also il1€ I I J ye*r atla d'ae tho pro Bro r&ta cf, ?a,xtt fol thc ?iic*l I91O'11i ihq teo rata. of premiwna on tbe flro lnsurance po1-lotcs upon o? the reoatbly rElldcncsg Epon tBl4 prop€rtyt lcat thc lxro rata rratsS. of the raeldensc upon aalit propcrty r? Fte*cat.trsdsf lssrc, et I uonthly rcatal of Oau suadred ttantr-flr€ tNletl !b'e date of th€ Do}.lcrc p€r Boa?br rblch may be due asld fown at exscutloa ef sa,ld conveYance'

p&ld tha reld Bsotion III: Th'at thc rc1{ aras so te bc io of thq cala of Aaala S. E.'f,otq, bc paltl out of thc procctda of, truataor of aat.l bondr, *ad lhat lhc ?recldent of tho Soard and' taiy ari heroby' e*ld[ ionn, ana tbn C:-erk of sald ?ora be' for g8{'4 mount out *rthcrtrLcd a,n'tl Lna"ruc!6d ts dreil a tlsrant rha'l]' bc Br8dlt of th€ fund to *hicb' thc proceodt of s&l'd botilb l91Xt ty the Pelrcd and ad'opied thlc 23ad &aY of ;una' ?oi€ follo*tng I ttrs

troB$:

t8$3',lfT:

o u3 sot of tbc torn cf ?og!.

artl8t:

'l ATTACHMENT 2 TXhryNn RMS Agenda ltem No.4.

- Staff Report

Date Aoril 25.2018

To: Mavor Robbins and Councilmembers

From Richard Simonitch, Public Works Director

Subject: Discussion of Town-Owned Property at 6 Redwood Drive and consideration of an amendment to Demolition Permit #18515 and Design Review 2017-035

Recommendation Councilto discuss and decide on the preferred course of action forthe Town-owned building at 6 Redwood as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements, direct siaff to provide a resolution which supports that decision and continue the review of a Demolition Permit and Design Review Amendment to the May 10, 2018 meeting.

Background and discusslon The building known as 6 Redwood is located on southwest portion of the Ross Commons {APN 073-242- 25). Ross Commons was deeded from Annie S.E. Worn on July t, LgL!. There are Town records showing that the building at 6 Redwood has been located on the Ross Commons parcel since at least 1,9L4. The Town has historically rented the building for many years, On February 28, 2015, the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8, 2015 meeting, the Town Council approved the option to repair the residence at 5 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit and adopted a resolution No. 1982 to that effect atthe Town Council meeting held on January 8,7OL7. Town Councilapproved Design Review 2OL7-A35 on October 12,ZOL7 and the project contract was awarded to WestCal Design and Build lnc. on February 8, 2018. and the contractor began work at the site on March 12,20L8.

On April 2,2AI8 portions of the exterior siding was removed and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the house revealed the potential need to replace or repair the following structural elements due to dry rot repair:

Floor joist - 75% need dry rot repair including new floor joist and plywood subfloor. Ceiling joist - 55% need dry rot repair or new ceiling joists. Rafters - 65% need dry rot repair with new rafters and roof sheathing.

On April 13th the contract was suspended as provided for under the general conditions in order for staff to assess the options and present them to Town Council for direction before moving forward, To date, the Town has been invoiced for Stt5,955 for work done prior to contract suspension. The total contract amount is 5433,485

7 The preliminary estimate for this repair work carne in at $127,500 above the original contract amount. Because dry rot damage is not related to the fire damage and is also considered a "preventable condition", the additional costs are not covered by the Tswn's insurance poiicy. The prelinrinary estimate to demolish the remaining structure and completely rebuild a new structure using the sarne floorplan came in at $153,600 above the original contract amount and, for similar reasons, is not covered by insurance.

Based on initial conversations with the contractor, it appeared as though the cost to demolish the structure and reconstruct a new structurg would be similar. However, since the noticing of the project, new information regarding costs has been provided. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Council decide between the below three options for the 5 Redwood structure.

Option 1 - Repair the dry rot and continue reconstruction Under this option, the dry rot damage would be repaired under a change order based on actual time and materials costs to complete the work. Staff believes that there is a likelihood that additional latent damage may be uncovered during the repair process and the final change order may be higherthan the preliminary estimate of 5L27,600. The structure would retain its existing structural framing and architectural form and no amendments to the Demolition Permit or Design Review would be required. lnsurance reimbursement is unchanged and covers only the original work scope to repair the fire damage.

The costs for option 1 are summarized belowl

contract expense to date $1to,gos contract expense to complete $315,500 change order to complete * $Lasloo additional consultant fees so Town costs - sitework s40,000 other expenses to date ** s92,378

insurance reimburse -5539,689 net deductible s5,ooo

Totalcost to Town $t77,994

* 75% contingency added to contrcctor estimate of 5127,500 ** other expenses = ATl, Archiloqix, Herzoq

Option 2 - Demolish the remaining structure and rebuild new structure with modified roof line Under this option, the remaining structure would be demolished and a new foundation and structure would be designed to retain the existing floorplan. The existing structure had a "lean-to" style roof over the living room add-on which staff recommends should be replaced with a contemporary hip or gabled roof design to take advantage of modern roof truss load distribution. The revised roof design should result in a more cost-effective foundation design. Similarly, modern shear-wall designs should reduce the costs of rough framing and eliminate interior bearing walls, providing more flexibility for interior remodel in the future. Staff believes that there is a likelihood that these cost savings should result in a negotiated credit from the current contract back to the Town, such that the cost differences between Option 1. and Option 2 could be closer than the preliminary estimates suggest. Other benefits of building a completely new structure include eliminating the possibility of the recurrence of dry rot and smoke odor. Because of the

2 proposed change in the roof line and the need to demolish the entire structure, an arnendment to the Demolition permit and Design Review would be required. lnsurance reimbursement is the same as Option L.

The costs for Option 2 are summarized below:

contract expense to date s116,965 egnt!:agt elpenSq to comp.lete $315.500 change order to complete $tsg,ooo additionalconsu lta niJees $2q,nno Town costs - sitework $+o,ooo * an1 tto oiher expenses to date lalrJ I O

insurance reimburse -$539,689 net deductible 55,ooo

Total cost to Town 52a9,7s4

* other expenses = ATl, Archilogix, Herzog

Option 3 - Demolish the remaining sFucture and perform mihor site work/cleanup Under this option, the remaining structure would be demolished, the site would be cleaned up., vegetation trimmed, and fences repaired. Staff would return to Council at a later date to discuss options for the future development of the site. Because of the need to demolish the entire structure, an amendment to the Demolition Permit and Design Review would be required. The insurance reimbursement is reduced from option 1 and 2 because there are no reimbursements for code upgrades in option 3.

The costs for Option 3 are summarized below:

contract expense to date Su6,965 contract expense to complete change order to complete 53g,ooo add itional consulta nt fees Town costs - sitework $30,000 * other expenses to date S92,378

insurance reimburse -$372,350 net deductible $5,ooo

Totalcost (credit back) to Town -592,007

* other expenses = ATl, Archilagix, Herzog

3 lnsurance would pay the $433,485 replacement cost of the house (perthe current construction contract) which includes any documented code upgrade requirernents, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and raising the house elevation to meet the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) requirements. tn addition, the Tswn would receive reimbursement for consultant fees, previous demolition activities, and a loss of rents income. lf the house is not constructed (Option 3), the reimbursement to the Town would be reduced by the cost of the code upgrades, currently estimated to be 5167,300.

The net cost estimates at this time are summarized as follows

Option 1- repair dry rot and continue construction: $t7z,Bgq Option 2 - demolish remaining structure and rebuild new: S209,7s4 Option 3 - demolish remaining structure and cleanup site: receive 592,007 cash back

The funding for the capital costs for the repair or reconstruction of the house would come from the Facilities and Equipment fund. ln gption 3, the net cash back to the Town would be added to the Facilities and Equipment Fund.

The annual maintenance cost is estimated as follows. ln the case of Options I and 2, rental income net revenue to the Town of S10,000 to 20,000 annually after expenses such as routine maintenance items and some repairs needed over time.

Environmental review (if applicable) The project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEeA) under CEeA Guideline Section 15302 -Replacement or Reconstruction, because it involves the repair of an existing single family due to extensive fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 15301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. Attachments L Elevations showing sketch of new roofline proposal 2. Elevations showing old roof line 3. October 12,2OL7 staff report and minutes

4 ATTACHMENT L ATTACHfuIENT 1 - ELEVAT]ONS SHOWI.NG PROPOSED ROOF LINE

',1t :i :.r i J- I {) u 4t

t? Zp* ffi+,.,;t't. A\ o a Ff:a-F&* o ?-** Te.P4 w €re-. :

->(9 (9 {t uo < ,t 5 o !i /'@/ = a o o .i €8

SOUTH

g H

A2.0 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACH]VIENT 2 . ELEVATIONS SHOWING OLD ROOF LINE

o I u e

NORTH /A\ o o ff3)w

q>t3

9 = 4 !? €oz

o :E==::f t-;* FOR BID PURPOSES ONLY

% i6d rtot WEST 42.0 ATTACHMENT 3 m ll$Ut/Itl RO$S Agenda ltem No. 13. - Staff Report

Date: October 12,20L7

To Mayor Robbins and Council Members

From: Heidi Scoble, Planning Manager

Subject: Town of Ross Residence, 6 Redwood Drive, File No. 2017-035

Recornmendation Town Council approval of Resolution 2025 approving a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing single family residence that was damaged because of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive, APN 073-242-25.

Property lnformation: Owner: Town of Ross Applicant: Town of Ross Location: 5 Redwood Avenue A.P. Number: 073-242-25 Zoning: C-D (Civic District) GeneralPlan: Public Service (PS) Flood Zone: Zone AE Floodway {1-percent annual chance of flooding}

Project Summary: Lot Area 4.36 acres (185,561 square feet) Existin g Floor ArealRatio 925 sq. ft, O.a%(No FAR Maximum) Proposed Floor Area/Ratio 925 sq. ft, No change Existing Lot Coverage 975 sq. ft. 0.57o{ No FAR Maximurn) Proposed Lot Coverage 975 sq. ft. No change Existin g lmpervious Su rfaces 975 sq. ft. 0.5o/o Proposed lmpervious Surfaces 975 sq. ft. No change

Proiect Desciption: Town staff is requesting a Oemolition Permit and Design Review for the remodel of an existing single family residence due to extensive fire damage. To address soil and redwood tree root constraints, in addition to flood plain issues, the project includes relocating the house approximately four feet to the southern side property line in order to allow for the installation of a new foundatiqn. The scope of the project also includes raising the finished floor of the residence by approximately one foot above the base flood elevation to address FEMA floodplain requirements, Lastly, the project would retain its current architectural design and size due to insurance co nstraints.

The proposed building color would be a "Knoxville Grey" for the wood siding and an off white color for the $im to replace the existing yellow colored siding and white trim.

The project would also consist of the removal of the failing t2-foot metal backstop chain-link fence adiacent to the northern side of Ross Common that faces the park and school. The existing wood fence that separates 5 Redwood Drive from Ross Common will remain and and repa be planted to screen the subject wood fence from the Ross Common. No other landscape or hardscape improvements are proposed related to the fenced in area known as 5 Redwood Drive than vegetation trimrning and possible removal in places tliat are overgrown,

a Demolition Permit required pursuant to Ross Municipal Code {RMC) Section 18.50.06O to allow the demolition of more than 25% of the exterior walls and walt coverings. o Design Review is required pursuant to Ross Municipal Code (RMCf Section 18.41.020 because the project would require a demolition permit.

Background and Discussion The residence known as 6 Redwood is located on southwest portion of the Ross Commons (lpnt 073-242-25). The residence is currently part of the 4.35 acre (189,923 square feet| parcel that is described as "Ross Cornmon Town Park" on the zoning map. Ross Commons was deeded from Annie S.E. Worn on July t, LgtL. There are Town records showing that the residence at G Redwood has been located on the Ross Commons parcel since at least 1914. The residence is comprised of approximately 925 square feet orfloor area and is separated from the rest of the Ross Common with a fence and heavy vegetation. The fenced in area related to the house is approximately 7,2aO square feet. The Town has historically rented the residence for many years. On February 2.8, 2A15, the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December g, ZOLG, meeting the Town Council approved to repair the residence at 6 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit.

Advisory Design Group Review The project received Advisory Design Review (ADR) review on September 18, 2017. The ADR Group generally supported the mass, scale, and proportions of the project and suggested the proposed trim be an off-white color. The pioject has been designed to address the ADR Group's comrnent.

Key lssue Design Review The overall purpose of Design Review is to preserve and enhance the historical "small town,', low-density character and identity that is unique to the Town of Ross, to discourage the development of individual build.ings which dominate the iownscape or attract attention through color, mass or inappropriate architectural expression, and to upgrade the appearance, quality and condition of existing improvements in conjunction with new development or remodeling of a site. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 18.41.100 of the Ross Municipal Code, a series of Design Review criteria and standards have been developed to guide development.

ln reviewing the project, the following design review criteria and standards are most relevant to the project: '

7. Preservation of Natural Areas and €xisting Site Conditions. Specifically, sites should be kept in harmony with the general appearance of neighboring landscape.

2' Privacy. Building placement and window size and placement should be selected with consideration given to protecting the privacy of surrounding properties. Decks, balconies and other outdoor areas should be sited to minimize noise to protect the privacy and quietirde of surrounding properties. Landscaping should be provided to protect privacy between properties' Where nonconformities are proposed to be retained, the proposed structures and landscaping should not impair the primary views or privacy of adjacent properties to a greater e)fient than the impairment created by the existing nonconforming structures.

As described in the project description, Design Review being required as a result of a Demolition Permit caused by the relocation of the residence in order to address soil dnd tree root constraints to accomrnodate a new foundation consistent with the FEMA regulations. Because the rnass, bulk, scale, and size of the residence would match the existing conditions, staff suggests the project is consistent with the Design review criteria and standards as follows:

I' The appearance of the residence and relationship to neighboring properties would remain essentially the same. Although the rbsidence would be shifted closer to the property at I Redwood Drive, the resiilence would not create any new impacts to the property at 8 Redwood Drive relative to light, air, and privacy due to the existing vegetation and built environs of the neighborhood. 2, The ADR Group recommends the project is consistent with the Town's Design Review Criteria and standards pursuant to section 19.41.100 of the Ross Municipal code. 3' The project would be constructed within high quality, long lasting materials and colors. 4- The project would maintain its existing driveway access and on-site parking. 5. The pr:oject would be constructed to be consistent with the Town's Municipal Code and the Ross Valley Fire Department. 5. The project would not impact any creeks and drainage ways to ensure protection of any natural resource area of the riparian area because all on-site drainage would be designed on- site so that no net increase in runoff from the project site woutd irccur beyond its existing conditions. 7. The project would not reduce the Town's housing stock. 8- The project would be in compliance with the Town's FEMA regulations

Public Comment Public Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. No public comments were received prior to completion of the staff report.

Fiscal, resourc€ and timeline impacts The main funding sources for the horne remodel and repair is from insurance payments for the fire damaged house, The Town has property insurance through ABAG PIAN. Under the insurance coverage, the Town has a 55,000 deductible- lnsurance would fully pay for the replacement of the house (Option L) as it was including any documented code upgrade requirements, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and increasing the house elevation to meet the FEMA Base Flood Elevation {BFE} requirements. ln addition, the Town would receive a loss of rents income (estimated at approximately S13,800), The Town will be not reimbursed for the cost of moving the house away from the redwood tree, some potential upgrades inside the house, and site work and landscaping. The Fiscal Year 2AL7-18 budget includes $g0,O0O in funding from the Facilities and Equipment Fund beyond the insurance proceed amount. The actual amount funded by insurance will not be determined until we receive construction bids and reconcile colt elements with the insurance company,'

Rental income net revenue to the Town of S10,000 to 20,000 annually is estimated after expenses such as routine maint€nance items and some repairs needed over time. ln the first years following the construction, it is anticipated the net will be at the higher end of the range because the home will be new. ln the coming months, staff will be coming back to the Council related to setting the policy of parameters of who the home should be rented to and the rental rate range. lf Town Council approves the demolition permit and design review at this Council meeting, the schedule would be to have the building permit drawings approved and going out to bid in November, awarding bid in December, and beginning construction shortly thereafter with occupancy in the summer of 2018.

Alternative actions L. Continue the project for modifications; or Z. Make findings to deny the application.

Environmental review (if applicable! The project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental docurnents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section L5302 -Replocement or Reconstruction, because it involves the repair of an existing single family due to extensive fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 15301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection {a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; {b}, which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. Attachments L. Resolution 2025 2. Project Plans ATTACHMENT 1. TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2O2S A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING DEMOLITION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW TOR T},IE REP.AI& ANS R€€ONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTIN€ SINGTE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6 REDWOOD DRIVE, APN 073.242.25

WHEREAS, the Town Council approves a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an exisiing singie family resicjence that was damaged as a result of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive, APN 073-242-25 {the "project"}; and

WHEREAS, on October L2,2A77, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff reports, correspondence, and other information contained in the project file, and has received public comment; and

WHEREAS, the project was determined to be categorically exernpt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act {CEAA} under CEQA Guideline Section L5302 -Replacement or Reconstruction, because it involves the repair of an existing single family dud to extensive fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 15301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection {a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection {c}, which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection {f), which relates to historical resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED the Town Council of the Town of Ross hereby incorporates the recitals above; makes the findings s€t forth in Exhibit "A.

The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of October 2At7,by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES

AESENT:

ABSTAIN:

1 Elizabeth Robbins, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

2 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS 6 REDWOOO DRIVE APil 073-242-25

A, Findings !, D-e-nrclition Pennit Ross Municip-al Code Sectlon 18,50.0-6O - Approvai of a Dem,ofition Permit for removal of existing single family residence is based on the findings outlined in Ross Munlclpal Code $ection 18.50.050 as describcd below: a| The demolition would not remove from the neighborhood or town, nor adversely affect, a building of historical, architectural, cultural or aesthetic ualue. The demolition will not adversely affect nor diminish the character or qualitles of the site, the neighborhood orthe community

The existing residence is not considered by the Town of Ross as having any historical, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic value due to the age, constructlon, and architectural style of the residence. Additionally, the project would result in the replication of the existing residence, thus not negatively impacting the character of the site. ll. ln accordance with Ross Municipal Code Section L8.41.O7O, Design Review is approved based on the following findings: a| The project is consistent with the purpose of the Design Review chapter as outlined in Ross Municipal Code Section 18.41.010:

The project would meet the purpose of the Design Review chapter through its high quality design and materials, The pr{ect is designed with a similar architectural style and materials of the existing residence. As the project is not readily seen from public vantage ptilnts, the project would not impact the "small town" character of the Town because the project is designed to maintain the overall mass, bulk, and style of the existing development pattern of the property and because the project site is not readily visible from any public vantage point. Additionally; the project would not impact any unique environmental resources due to the locatioriof the project site relative to any sensitive wildlife habitat, species, and/or creeks. Lastly, the project would be designed to address drainage and stormwater and would be required to construct those improvements as part of the building permit process.

bf The proJect is in substantial compliance with the deslgn riteria of Ross Municipal Code Section 18.41.100"

As supported in the Staff Report dated October LZ,2O!7, the project would be consistent with the design review criteria and standards relative to having a nominal impact on the existing site conditions by providing an architectural design that is consistent and compatible with the architecture, materials, and colors of the existing residence. Lastly, the project would address health and safety through the issuance of a building permit to ensure compliance

3 with the building public works, and,fire code regulations. cl The prolect is conslstent with the Ross General Plan and zoning ordinance. As prevlously stated, the entire scope of the project ls consistent wlth the Town's General Plan and C-D zoning district, in additlon to the allowed structures and uses that may be permitted, therefore the project is found to be consistent with the Ross General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

4 ATTACHMENT 2 I6 L, STTE PI.AT{ REDWOOD lu Sca le: l/ 116":l' trl

(- \y d. d. OLD .STR t tCTl,tRg Ot(TLINE & ffi\v' 6,,,fl:

.6, NEW -STR[ tCTl,tRE L '*?' LOCATI2N (+.S .St-ttFT) I I

rii .

/, t ,// Y LINE \b /i b R.EDWOOD AVI

0a U. lsLdewne -t /, h) o73-zfl_-AL g R,EDWOOD {, lir i rll ill I l: til il I li I i,

I I

i I

I I

I i

I I I i

I I I l'- l* CIC{EO

i ' I j' {): z f,\ iri z o

l.': I (I {') e oooCIoooooo tJ1 ! q$i t fi + f ! ), s { ! z I t i { I trt o Gll I I o r{ n t;!lr i I i a i'nr I I i z I I

TOWN Ot RO55 it rrv' ti 6 RFI]WOOD DBIVE ,^"r'lto 'Ji,'\ h) FlSb All! FIOO0 ifA'\4AGE REPAIR e3 1.I @ October 12, 2Ot.7 Mlnutes

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl felt it is important to govern their community. He opposed excessive regulations on individual's behavlor on sidewalk. Council Member Brekhus agreed with Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl's thoughts, but supported adding definitions for e-cigarettes and including marijuana cigarettes as well.

The Council dlrected staff to amend the smoklng regulatlons as discussed.

t2. Town Council consideration of lntroduction of Ordlnance No. 684, an Ordinance of the Town of Ross amending Ross Municlpal Code Title 18 "Zoning," Sectlon 18.40,210 "Commerclal marijuana activltv and personal marfluana cultivation", and addtng Chapter 9.65 "Cannabis Prohlbltlons and Regulatlonr" to Roes Munlclpal Code Title 9 "P€ace, Safbty, and Morals" to clarify its regulations pertaining to commercial cannahis activltles and the personal cultivation of cannabis conslstent with SB 94.

Planning Manager HeidiScoble summarized the staff report and recommended thatthe Council waive the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 684 amending Ross Municipal Code Section 18.40.210 (Commercial Marijuana Activity and Personal Marljuono Cultivotion) and establishing a new Chapter 9.65 (Cannabis Prohibtttons and Regulations) to address commercial cannabls use and cultivation.

Mayor Robbins opened the publlc hearing on this item, and seeing no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for action.

Mayor Robbins asked for a motion.

Council Member Hoertkom moved and Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl seconded, to waive further readlng and introduce Ordlnance No. 684. Motion carrled unanimously.

End of Administrative Agenda.

Public Hearlngs on Planning Projects - Part ll. ,K 13. 6 Redwood Drive, Demolition Permit and Deslgn Review Permit No. 2017-035, and Town Councll conslderatlon of adoptlon of Resolution No.2025. Town of Ross, 6 Redwood Drive, A.P. No. 073-242-25, C-D (Clvic District), Publlc Service (PS), Zone AE Floodway (l-percent annual chance of floodingl. Town staff is requesting a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the remodel and repair of an existing single-family residence that was damaged as a result of a fire. A Demolition Permit and Design Review is being requested tp allow the slight relocation of the residence in order to accommodate a code compliant foundation that will not adversely interfere with existing rnature redwood tree roots.

Project Summary: Lot Area 4.36 ares (185,551 square feet| Exlstlng Floor Area/Ratio 925 sq. ft. 0.4% (No FAR Maxlmuml Proposed Floor Area/Ratlo 925 sq. ft. No change Exlsting Lot Coverage 975 sq. ft. 0.5% (No FAR Maxlmumf

5 October L2, 20tl Minutes Proposed Lot Coverage 975 sq. ft" No change Exlstlng lmpervious Surfaces 975 sq. ft. 0.s% Proposed lmpervlous Surfaces 973 rq"ft" No cfiange

Planning Manager Heidi Scoble summarized the staff report and recommended that the Council approve Resolution 2025, approving a Dernolltlon Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, rernodel, and repair of an exlsting slngle-family residence that was damaged because of a fire at 5 Redwood Drlve. founcil Member HoCrtkoin expresied condein for bids and th€ deficit with the'ihSuiilnce company, Town Manager Joe Chinn explained that the actual amount funded by insurance will not be deterrnined until we receive construction bids and reconcile cost elements with the insurance cornpany. Staff further noted the Council awards the blds, not staff.

Council Member Russell suggested raising the property another six inches, if possible. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl wanted to know if they would be covered by insurance lf they raise another slx inches. He agreed to receive bids to see if they are covered by insurance.

Council Member Brekhus wanted to ask the tenant if the water did flood the property or just the crawlspace. Councll Member Hoertkorn pointed outthatthe insurance only covers damage from the fire, not the flood. Town Manager Chinn responded that the insurance covers llftlng the house above the floodplain. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl added that insurance covers construction to current code. Town Manager Chinn responded in the affirmative. Council Member Brekhus would support a conversation with the insurance company.

Planning Manager Scoble noted that staff has been wo*ing with the lnsurance adjuster, and that the insurance may not cover a modified design beyond the existing configuration of the residence. Town Manager Chinn stated insurance would cover replacing fire damaged material which is much of the house. lf they modify orphange beyond that then it could change the cost of what is covered.

Planning Manager Scoble is working with Arborist Janelle Hobart to establish a plan to provide sufficient screening sf Torrm property. Town Manager Chinn explained once the backstop is removed they will have a better ldea in terms of screening.

Mayor Robbins opened the public hearing on this item

Barbara Call, Redwood Drive resident, pointed out that what flooded was under the house. The actual house did not flood. The flood was in the crawlspace where the furnace was located. She thanked the Councilfor considering the redwood trees on this site. She asked the Councilto keep in mind that thE redwood tree roots are underneath the driveway as well. Also, she views the roof and hopes the color is sornewhat consistent wlth what is present now" She hopes the house can get fixed up because she currently lives near the Town dump. She opposed removing the screening until construction is cornplete. She hoped the council approves the project in order to move.forward to have a nice property for the Town to rent and for the neighborhood.

6 October 72,zOLl Mlnder Peter Nelson, Circle Drive resident, stated that it was an active discussion at the Advisory Design Revlew fADRl Group meeting about how bad this property is designed. They should spend the rnoney to make this house more functional and useable ln terms of the floor plan, What is present now is unusable. Also, if there is no change in the floor plan, at least provide for the possibility to add-on in the future to make the space more functional.

There being no further public testimony on this item, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and action.

Council Member Russell wanted staff to find out what is the true flood elevation. lf in fact it did not flood, then there is no need to raise the property another six inches.

Council Member Brekhus asked if the landscaping plan would come back to the Council. Town Manager Chinn stated that staff would come back to the Council for any landscaping that would be viewed from the Common. The main change is the removal of the large leaning chain link fence between the Common and house and allthe vegetation attached to that fence. There is another wooden fence behind the chain link fence that will remain. The current plan in to plant the screening plants along the fence llne on the Common side which staff wlll come back to Councilfor approval.

Council Member Hoertkorn pointed out that current property taxes do not coverthe operating cost. Their blggest expense is the fire department. Every single penny of additional property taxes paid for the fire department. They will get hit repeatedly wlth CaIPERS cost. They need to harbor every penny the Town receives. To authorize changes that could cost the Town addltional funds they need to be very careful.

Mayor Robbins asked for a rnotion.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl moved and Council Member Brekhus seconde{ to approve 6 Redwood Drlvg Demolition Permit and Design Review Permit No. 2017-035 and adopt Resolution No. 2025. Motlon carried unanimously.

End of Publlc Hearlngs on Planning ProJects - Part il.

L4. No Action ltems: a. Council correspondence r Parking regulations for RVs/boats

b. Future Counctlitems r Parklng regulations in front yards r Publlc Works signs r Regulations for shrubs/hedges r Ross Valley Fire Department Chief recruitment r Parking at Natalie Coffin Greene Park

15. Adjournment, Mayor Robbins moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m.

7 ATTACHMENT 10 May 10, 2018 Minutes

REGULAR MEETING Of thE ROSS TOWN COUNCIL THURSDAY, MAY TO,2OL8 *** 6 Redwood Excerpt ***

1. 6:00 p.m. Commencement. Mayor Elizabeth Robbins; Mayor Pro Tempore Beach Kuhl; Council Member Elizabeth Brekhus; Council Member Julie McMillan, Council Member Rupert Russell; and Town Attorney Greg Stepanicich.

13. Discussion/action on Town-Owned Property at 6 Redwood Drive Design Review No. 20L7-035. Public Works Director Simonitch summarized the staff report and recommended that the Council decide on the preferred course of action for the town-owned building at 6 Redwood as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structuralelements, and direct staff to provide a resolution which supports that decision. Staff then outlined the following options: o New Option l- -Reconstruct the new house using current floor plan and elevations. r New Option 2 - Construct new structure with modified roofline and floor plan - no change to footprint. o New Option 3 - Ground lease to private development for residential development o New Option 4 - Perform minor site work/cleanupi'lli

Staff summarized the pros and cons of the four options. After discussions with contractors in recent days, staff was more comfortable with net costs of $300,000 to 5400,000 versus the 5210,000 in the staff report. Related to Option 3, Town Manager Chinn stated there are some legal constraints against doing market rate housing that they learned about in the last 24 hours. The Town needs a public purpose for the housing which affordable housing meets but market rate housing likely does not. lf they enter into a ground lease with another entity that entity could subsidize the affordable housing. Branson is looking for faculty housing and if they are willing to do a ground lease there could be some interest. lt is not likely feasible to do one unit and not being subsidized. Market rate has value, but they are precluded from going there due to legal constraints.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl did not understand why Option 3 is not an option in regard to private development and desired an explanation from the Town Attorney. Town Attorney Greg Stepanicich responded that the authority to lease public property is governed by the government code and there are two provisions. Specifically that the Town can lease public property for housing, but lease to a non-profit developer in terms of affordable housing. There's a more general provision that city can lease for municipal purpose and do not believe private development is a public purpose.

Council Member McMillan asked staff the fee to manage this property and what kind of rental stream is anticipated. Town Manager Chinn believed it would be around 52,000 per month range to be affordable to the typical worker. The management company was charging Sg,O0O to S5,OOO per year. They need to keep the rent affordable. Mayor Robbins asked are we calling this sufficiently affordable housing or just Town owned housing that we could do whatever we want with it. Town Attorney Stepanicich stated the Town has owned a home since lgLL and leased it. May 10, 2018 Minutes Given the Town owned the home could be leased for whatever we could get. The concern is with a lease to a private party based on government code that they will need to find a municipal purpose for that. Affordable housing is justified. Finding it justified for private development is more difficult.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl disclosed that he received an email from Katie Hoertkorn, a former council member, in chair of the Town's financing committee. He outlined on Monday for RPOA that this would be on the agenda and what the options would be. At that meeting, head of Branson School Chris Mazzola was present, and the next day he received an emailfrom Branson looking to provide additional housing for faculty and it occurred to her this might be a way to find an additional housing unit through a ground lease option.

Council Member Brekhus felt it would make sense to refer this matter to a fire insurance specialist to further review since it is so complex. Town Manager Chinn stated the insurance company was originally giving $170,000, staff had to go through the process of design, code upgrades and bids, so the insurance company is now up to 5530,000. After talking to the insurance specialist, the Town would have to prove the dry rot was due to water intrusion from fighting the fire to get a higher amount of insurance money.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl is not clear that it was spelled out specifically in the memorandum that Katie Hoertkorn sent. lt is her strong opinion that they do not have enough information to make a decision for accepting either Options 1- or 2. She thinks they have not adequately considered the long-term financial effects of those options. The longer-term implications could be significant.

Mayor Robbins asked in the quarter three finance report the Town is underbudget by 5208,000 and could that be a source of money for the house or use some of the money going to three bear hut for rebuilding the 6 Redwood house. Town Manager Chinn stated the Town is short of money to do what we ultimately need to do. Money is needed to build a police and fire station and other facilities, which aged out 20 to 30 years ago, have a huge cost. The Council has been excellent directing money to help with pension issues but more costs remain. lf they do all facilities it is SL5m plus. Related to 3 Bear Hut, money comes from recreation which could not be used for house rehabilitation. Mayor Robbins stated that given the millions needed for other projects, she didn't think that 5200,000 was an excessive amount to spend for our Town's workforce housing.

Council Member: Russell asked how they would create affordable housing in this Town. Town Manager Chinn stated the private sector is better at doing it. Government does not generally do a good job of operating housing particularly only one or two units. Houses need to be taken care of by public works and maintenance workers. They do a great job running roads, drainage ways, parks, etc. But one unit of house is less than t% of anyone's job. Staff is not good at maintaining houses.Thetownwentfromfourtozerohousesduetoneglect. StaffsupportsOption3tocreate affordable housing and not having staff involved in regard to managing the property.

2 May 10, 2018 Minutes that the public benefit would be the Town would get credit for affordable housing. Branson has been putting aside funds to do this sort of thing. lf they could find somewhere else economically able to do it is open to question. Council Member Brekhus envisioned a Town employee, police or fire, not a Branson faculty member. Option 3 in her mind takes away the reason she voted for workforce housing.

Mayor Robbins opened the public hearing on this item

Barbara Call, Redwood resident, stated that her main concern is that the Town maintains affordable housing. Put aside the fiscal situation, morally it makes sense to provide this kind of housing to someone to move into Ross. She did not understand why the Town believes they are not able to manage this one house. lt's been rented for 15 years. To tear it down would be a travesty. The redwood trees would be impacted. The vacant land must be maintained as well. There is no point to have a vacant lot and lose this very valuable income-producing piece of property that could be an enhancement for the entire community.

Craig McCarty, Poplar Avenue resident, discussed construction cost and recommended considering modular construction to keep cost down. ln regards to ground lease, he is in favor and did not believe it is that complex. There are people that are experts in that area and it is not that difficult from a legal perspective. He agreed to have it go to Town employee, but if the school wants to contribute that would be a wonderful idea. Branson is a significant part of the community, it is not as if they are renting to Google or Oracle, so he had no objection renting to Branson. lf they will pay SZOO,OOO to 5300,000 to build housing then the Town would be ahead of the game.

There being no further public testimony on this item, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and action.

Public Works Director Simonitch stated if Council wants to select Option L need to know soon since the existing contract is currently suspended. Staff needs to know if the Council wants to go with the old plan, revisit a new floor plan, or go with another option.

Mayor Robbins stated workforce housing is a holy grail to cities. The 5200,000 is not too much to pay to keep this. This is more of an ongoing process. The Town has been in the property management business for many years. Owning a house is a real asset. She would hate to lose what they have and would like to see more, so she supports Option L.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl will not support Option L because it is rebuilding a house that the layout and design is terrible. lt does not make economic sense.

Council Member McMillan will not support Option 1 or Option 2. There are too many unknown costs. They are not in the business of providing housing. The vote was taken in 2016 to preclude a playground fortoddlers. The circumstances have changed. This one unit is pretty superficial. A much better way would be to inventory all property in Town and determine better areas for workforce housing such as an area where there is six units. 6 Redwood is not an appropriate place for a ground lease. They should expand the common and allow the entire Town to enjoy the space. Go back to the original purpose of why the park was purchased in the first place back in

3 May 10, 2018 Minutes L9I1,. She voted for Option 4. Council Member Brekhus concurred with Council Member McMillan.

Council Member Russell felt Option 2 would not work. The ground lease idea is interesting potentially, but need someone who will do something for the community as a whole and he is skeptical that it will be feasible. He originally voted for Option 1 at the time when this was cost neutral or at least not a significant cost to the Town. Really bothered that have huge potential outlays Town needs to make in the coming years and have to find that money some way and somehow. He would be happy to continue this item for further discussion. His inclination is to go along with Option 4 because it saves money for the Town and is the most fiscal prudent thing to do at the moment and with staff not being comfortable being in the rental business. He would support Option 4 if a decision must be made tonight. They should be looking at how important it is for us to provide workforce housing and, if yes, find the best location.

Mayor Robbins discussed Option 4 in regard to the increase in park area, which will have to be maintained, but the Town already has a huge increase in park area with the creek plan. Mayor Pro Tempore wondered if they could make a partial decision to reject Option 1- or reject Option 1 and Option 2.

Council Member Brekhus wanted the Councilto make a decision tonight. She was very persuaded by Katie Hoertkorn comments. The idea of a ground lease, she would never support. Going back to passive parkland is an attractive option.

Public Works Director Simonitch felt Option 4 is the closest to a continuance and they can reevaluate the use of the parcel and revisit later, which does not preclude staff from coming back with some sort of housing element.

Mayor Robbins asked for a motion.

Council Member Brekhus moved and Council Member McMillan seconded, to direct staff to pursue Option 4 with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting. Motion carried 3-2. (Robbins/Kuhl opposed)

A ATTACHMENT 11 n ffisN R$,Sq Agenda Item No. 13.

Staff Report

Date January LA,20L9

Mayor Kuhl and Councilmembers

From: Joe Chinn, Town Manager

Subject: Town Council consideration of making improvements to the Town-Owned property at 6 Redwood Drive connecting it to rest of the Common Park

Recommendation Council adopt Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements to the Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive to blend the property more naturally with the rest of the Common Park.

Background and discussion On June 22,191.1, Town Council Resolution No. 57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common. On july 1, 1911, th€ Ross Common, a 4.36-acre (189,923 square feet) parcel (APN 073- 242-251, was deeded to the Town {see Attachment 3). The parcel is zoned as Civic District {C-D) zoning district. The C-D zoning classification is applied to land areas found to be suitable for use as sites for public, quasi-public, cultural, educational and/or recreational uses and purposes. Although visually separated from the Ross Common by fences and dense vegetation, the address formerly having a house at 6 Redwood Drive is a part of the parcel purchased in L911 and located on southwest portion of the Ross Common. As part of the l"9Ll" sale, two residences existed on the property at the time of sale, at least one of which was producing rental income under a lease which transferred to the Town with the sale.

Since that time, the Town continued to rent the former residence at 6 Redwood Drive until February 28, 20L5, when the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8,2A1"6 meeting, the Town Councilapproved the option to repairthe residence at 6 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit and adopted Resolution No. 1"982 to that effect at the Town Council meeting held on January 8,2At7. Town Council approved Design Review 2017-035 on October 1"2, 2At7 and the project contract was awarded to WestCal Design and Build lnc, on February 8,2A78, and the contractor began work at the site on March 12,2A'J.8.

On April 2, 2At8 portions of the exterior siding were removed and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the house revealed the potential need to replace or repair most of the structural elements due to dry rot repair. On April 13th the contract was

1 suspended as provided for under the general conditions in order for staff to assess all options before moving forward. At a Special Town Council Meeting held on April 25, 2o18th the Council authorized the complete demolition of the residence which was completed shortly thereafter.

At the May 10, 2018, Council meeting four options were presented and discussed related to the 6 Redwood Drive property including: Option L reconstructing a new house using the old floor plan and elevations; Option 2 constructing a new structure with a modified roofline and floor plan; Option 3 entering into a ground lease to private development for residential development; and Option 4 performing minor site work and cleanup, The Council discussion included various potential housing options related to options 1 through 3, and turning the space into passive park space by connecting it to the rest of the Common Park. The Council voted 3-2 to pursue Option 4 with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting (the May 10, 2018 staff report and minutes are attached).

Project Description Consistent with Town Council direction, the proposed project is to remove the chain link and 6-foot tall wood fence and the overgrown vegetation (e.g., ivy, wild plums, privets, and associated weed trees that produce suckers) that separates the Ross Common from the 5 Redwood Drive site to open the property up to and incorporate it into the Park. The overgrown vegetation to be removed are not considered to be specialstatus species listed on the California Natural Diversity Database. Additionally, the removalof the vegetation would not disrupt any sensitive natural communities on site as the vegetation is considered to be invasive and has grown over and enveloped a chain link and wooden perimeter fence. Furthermore, none of the vegetation to be removed is considered to be a "significant tree" as defined by Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code. The vines along the west side of the 6 Redwood Drive site would also be cleaned up by cutting them back. Mulch and a weed barrierwould be placed on the ground over much ofthe6RedwoodDrivesiteand irrigationwouldbeinstalledtowater/maintainthethreelargeredwood trees on the parcel as recommended by the Town Arborist. A four-foot tall split rail fence is proposed going from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site. ln addition, a three-foot tall split rail fence is included in the plan around the three protect redwoods to the trees. A design plan is attached. ,

Once the 6 Redwood Drive project is complete and the site is incorporated into the Ross Common Park itwouldbeconsideredpublicparkspace. ParkspaceisprotectedunderprovisionsoftheCalifornia Government Code. ln order to convert any space from park to non-park related space requires either a special election of the Town residents or conveyance of a portion of such a park in exchange for an equal or greater area or value of privately-owned land contiguous to the park.

Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts The funding source for the project is from insurance payments for the fire-damaged house. The Town has property insurance through a Joint Powers Authority Pooled Liability Assurance Network {PLAN} insurance program. The insurance covered the costs of all the studies, design, and engineering related to re-building thehouse,theclean-upofthefiredamagedhouse,andtheremovalofthehouse. Afterpayingforallof these costs there is an estimated 5125,000 remaining in insurance proceeds. The cost of the proposed project described is 560,000. Thus, it is estimated that Town will receive 565,000 in insurance payments above the project costs that will be added to the Facilities and Equipment Fund.

Town staff has already received bids and cost estimates for the components of the proposed project. The project would begin following Council approval.

2 Environmental review The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class 1 -Existing Focilities. Class L consists of the operation, repair, maintenance... or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The project falls under this Class L categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilitiesltopographical features and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the original public use deeded to the Town in 1"911.

The project is also categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15304, Class 4- Minar Alterotions to Land. Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:

Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent. The grading is a result of providing fill material to previously excavated land in order to bring the site to its natural topography resulting from the demolition of the 6 Redwood Drive structure.

New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resista nt la ndsca ping.

Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site.

Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored

The project falls under this Class 4 categorical exemption because it entails the minor alterations to the 6 Redwood Drive site and incorporation of it into the Ross Common, because it does not involve the removal of any healthy, mature, scenic trees and because the project is consistent with several of the examples included in the exemption. Also, the project site would not be used for any temporary uses, such as sporting events, carnivals, or Christmas Tree Lots.

Lastly, none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. The existing vacant project site was deeded to the Town of Ross in 1911 for the purposes of a public park and the project will further the purpose and intent of the original purchase. lndeed, because staff has not identified or been provided with any evidence that the project may result in potentially significant environmental impacts, staff believes the project is also exempt from CEQA under the common sense exception {CEQA Guidelines Section 15061{b}(3}) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Alternatives Multiple alternatives for this site have been discussed at Town Council meetings most recently at the May 10, 2018 Council meeting. Council could suggest alternatives to the proposed project.

3 Attachments L. Resolution No. 2090 2. Site Plan 3. Grant Deed and Resolution from 1.9L1 purchase of property 4. May 10, 2018 minutes 5, May 10, 2018 staff report

4 ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2O9O A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWN-OWNED PROPERTY AT 6 REDWOOD DRIVE, APN 073.242-25

WHEREAS, On June 22, IgtL, Town Council Resolution No.57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is a 4.36-acre (L89,923 square feet) parcel {APN A73-242- 25), which includes the site known as 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on July L,191J., the Ross Common was deeded to the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is zoned as Civic District {C-D) zoning district, which is applied to land areas found to be suitable for use as sites for public, quasi-public, cultural, educational and/or recreational uses and purposes; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2015, a house at 6 Redwood Drive was severely damaged by a fire; and

WHEREAS, on May 1.A,2A1.8, the reconstruction of the 6 Redwood Drive residence was found to be cost prohibitive as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements and the Town Council voted to direct staff to perform minor site work and cleanup of the 6 Redwood Drive site with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting; and

WHEREAS on January 1"0,20L9, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project; and

NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Ross 1. The Town Council approves minor landscape improvements and site cleanup, including removing the fences and vegetation between at the north and east side of the 6 Redwood Drive site to blend more naturally with the rest of the Ross Common Park. The project will remove the chain link and 6-foot tall wood fence and the overgrown vegetation {e.9., ivy, wild plums, privets, and associated weed trees that produce suckers) that separates the Ross Common from the 6 Redwood Drive site to open the property up to and incorporate it into the Park. The vines along the west side of the 6 Redwood Drive site will also be cleaned up by cuttingthemback. Mulchandaweedbarrierwill beplacedonthegroundovermuchofthe 6 Redwood Drive site, and irrigation will be installed to water/maintain the three existing redwood trees on the site. A split rail fence will be installed on the east side of the site adjacent to Redwood Drive from the palm tree across the existing drive entry. ln addition, a split rail fence will be installed around the three redwoods to protect the trees.

2. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class L -Existing Facilities. "Class L consists of the operation, repair, maintenance... or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination,..."(CEQA Guideline 5 15301.) The project falls under this Class L categorical exemption because, as evidenced in the public record, the project involves the minor alteration of public facilitiesltopographical features and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the original public use deeded to the Town in 1911,

3. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15304, Class 4- Minor Alterations to Land. "Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/ar vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes." (CEQfl Guideline 5 15304.) Specifically, the project would entail grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent. The grading is a result of providing fill material to previously excavated land in order to bring the site to its natural topography resulting from the demolition of the 6 Redwood Drive structure. The project would also include new landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping in order to blend existing landscaping between the Ross Common and 6 Redwood Drive. Furthermore, the project would include the filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site. The project would also include minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. The project does not entail the removal of any healthy, mature, scenic trees.

4, The project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception (CEQA Guidelines 5 15061(b}(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

2 5. Lastly, none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section L5300.2 applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. The existing vacant project site was deeded to the Town of Ross in 1911. for the purposes of a public park and the project will further the purpose and intent of the original purchase, and the landscaping improvements proposed are minor in nature, will not lead to any loss of any "Significant tree" as defined by Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code, and will simply combine 6 Redwood Drive site with the Ross Common.

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 10th of January 20L9, by the following vote:

AYES

NOES

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

P. Beach Kuhl, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

3 ATTACHMENT 2 :,, ir

ROSS COMMON teNclFl€' NORTH l\: srL\TR-A\L PLAYING FIELD

l\ Ac I Af -rRsl! ENsr- PL ./'" +

r:!- tFr(" ,* -!- ** $ a * I rr t'* ?'. r Y- ,g i'. r *tfS + t'"' 'Jr-iocu Rf t. t- J. /r f FAttri\ X xv*

SITE PLAN ''ROSS COMMON GROVE" NO SCALE 6

oi ^**o* '&/ +oe- '7-

-- *- .'--'-*----gi^ o o o n

\ I i I. I iL \ /_. ,;' *

I 1

I I ,?,, i. *d

I I ! Y t i. I i I -i 4s '1 I I I !i I I I t -t'*. '- 1., ',,: 5 I :, : I I rl- iii Common - Playing F d i !: ,l l :j : ' .i: i r tl lirl i .it "i;':;';" li IZ I I 'li, l: i .l te l1 t; .ri 5 TE \

I j l I ii 1 I 6 rcTE: '0'/ -*. r . eWATlOt€ sf,'&ii ARf t! fler ND BSfD ON CRGS ON R -. & 3, rL.- 2A 19 {6VO.

2 TOPO6Rfry 3rRvffi ft ruGU5T, zffi FOR 6 R.EDWOOD 0R rGI trfICf P&NG 6T, rcS @MMON *RffD Id 1934 CRAPHIC SCALE

TCn/r'N OF 6 REOWOOD DR ROsS, CAL]FCIRNIA RO53 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP // , I BYiox ffi0vm: su €ssyN coNTaAcT { oAr€ CN // o€$tlP I BY J c}foteol DAla sEPr. 2005 SEET tr &6. M, ATTACHMENT 3 u'@&@v €F- L'*.f^t-""'"t* j

/') A 'W.- l( d,t'*^n- la13o"

9f" }uolr*,*.,, V 6n ?3j" U .u ,a -(, 7f,5"" o" 8.o.,& "i 3 3.t

0 t!--"a- ,t--,vu"- .(rt-t 0 t ;tr-.tzc-*.oG-oLz /vv E',* Ltr'w. ,{ {

*{7 t nEsoturrolr

AUT}IOXIUI}TO TI8 PUASHASP O}'. CSRTAIH 03' n0s8 r*0lr A prsrrc 'ROPM$paBKr , rlt tffi tovti . i ,i . j ,,li i ' r F,'l t ! i Unngepl' lt a opootait alistton hald't$.th$, tarn oi Bo'sl 6n Seturdeg, tba E?th day'of Uqyr 19111 tbe lssuesce of borda of ial{ tora qf Rogg in the mount of thirty Thousand (fforoOol Dollpr rs6 alrthorked, to pay thc ooEt of tho acqutaltlon of e publlo perk oppoaltc tho rallway sbatlon ln ss,ld !orn, lnclud.lng lhc purobtoG of the l,and tbereforp and tho leylng out and Lm- provcncnt af tbc arrue, end YlBffgitS! fn purauarrsc 'of seld auihorlaettou, tlre bonde of sajd Torn, ln said msr,rnt of Thlrty Thousand ($fO,OOOl Dollarr, have bcen duly sal.d to B. H. Bel.LLnn & Sona, the blghost bldder tharetor, em,ount gnld bonda, f,or thc of thc tagc.r*lwrt\,. of 1. Eltvau Eund.rad Seventy-one ($frfr)',nr$ql prq{rgr' an

(tt1 4r*r"ia- ten.{lO) mlnutos o.nd stx*rsnths (ali.e j r-Ji; -ii,JiJe'ryortn--il;i;:f;il.WFsLr..twg. hundrad, f,orty_s6ss4 rses; rorty-ons (*+) ce,, and tlve-+.u'rha (azi.si--;;ui,{11j i,inui;i i;;;;"ii"ii" r,ro h ,nd,rod,"uij*i""nty-ce.,r $'rrrhcrly Ltns laguntbae .lioadl ihtn"*' i{orLh'uuiu*ty_t,no (,I2) of eatd flvc (;59) mtnutee.I{aet, t,.,i*i,"",ii6d d.ogroo feot *1ons eal,i slx *rrd ftvelrr_ii"tl};il oontBlqlns rrne.ii porni'or"ilsir,nrng, f our and. trrir[i-sfx-lie_iruncroti]r?"-iic''i;Ie"i" "io (+-,liOt bclng r,he q.crss, {r, lc: or leni *"r[uiTn]fi"qo- ccrtaxn p10L $un Anaeluto r/al1oy,.1L1gn--ci-rr[y, iu.rrr"r;ri","oliJil of lots t ra"rdo by it. Austln, Surveyor, *ni,fi.tua lnay, tsee corrtluy iiecorder of i"ra-b"l:,iri"Ir'io"tn, ln thc ot.flJ$ of Liie for the ste of Twenty_s6yen lhouaand ylye Eundrcd ($afrSOOl Dorlaro' and thc cost of 00rta1n tuprovcnrent' ead.e upon one o: tbc rerlcionccs upon aald property, alaountlng to the sun of On( Eundrcd tr'orty-qnq *nd Zz/tOo (tfef.2p) DollarB, upon rhlch eaj optlon the sald Torn hal alroady peld the gr.nc sf seven Eundrec (lrool DsLtarBr

nn*Yr, Ti{SRE}OF'E: ?he Board. of trustccc of tho Town qf Fos ds reaolve ee fol"Lorgl $sctton f : That the ae,1d T,wn of Eqgr prrrch*ac the prop_ grty *bove d€Eorlbed from ths owner tlrcrcof, Annre s. *. worn, tbe eqne to be bc1d, owncd .and used by sel4 town as and fqr a publte perk. Ecoti'on rr: preerdcnt ?het the of tlic Board of trurteer, *nd tho crerk of s,.rd lowa be, and. they arl herebyr authorlzed^ rnd lnetruc!6d., upon dellqery to theo, for ard.on beha-lf oi salc Tourn, of a good and sufflci.ant grant, ha.rgcl.n and oele 4eed,, oonvoyln6 oald property t.e eald Torn of no.sgf to pay to gald I'na10 s' E. Forn the belanco d,rre on thc purcbass prlce of seld. propertg, accord.lng to the t€rse of ss.!d optlopl and alqo thc pro rate of taxct fo! the flCsal $em L9)-o-Lli end' also the pro i r&t& of premlt*ne on the f1're lnsurance pol-loicc upon tha tro rcaldances upon gaiel propcrty, lsEl thc pro rata of thc montbly rcntaL of tb€ reeldonoc upon oalil propcrty at prescnt ulldcr (t126) Leagcr at 4 nonthly rentat of QnE Htr.ndrsd twonty-flvc Dollars pat aonth.f whlch mey be due seld' Town at the date of tbe executlon of eal.d conveYance.

pald retd Soot,lon III: Thst the rald' rr.8e Bo to be to ihc of Annlo S. E' l{or{', be pald oqt of lhe procccda of thc sala of g*!d. bondcr il1d th*t the Prealdent of the Soard' of Truetcaa saldTovm,and'ihcClorkofsd'ldTownba'aJ3dthoyar'eboreby' out euthorlrsd an4 lns'-ruatsd to druw a talgraRt f sr seld 'amount be ercdl of the fund to whiqh thc procecd! of sald bondo rhall ].911' }y the F.esced anel adopted thle ZSpd doy of Iuno, nBteg fol.Lo$1ng I arflg

N0&$:

!3SSNI:

cnt 6 rrd eal of tho To*rn of ?ostt.

Alts8ri

*ij I :' i I

TI'IIS I$DXNIURE, mad.e the let, d.ay of July, l9it, tut*g"r. .1 - AITNIS g. 3. IIOBN, a wldo$, of the Town of San Ansqlmii, Sounty f, of l(lf{nr tstateb. bf l* **dlf,tffifr-tr'ffi;'r- .t ga,rLtad snd arlsttng unller and by F State of'C*l1forn1a, end elius.te 1l tha Oqrmiy of llarlu, Etatc { of Ca"lifornlar psfty bf the occoni p&rtr I ]11e, t rrlts$BErrtr: { . 1-l +. T?Bt the eaid. party of the flret Fsrtr for and ln coneld,-. tf, L eration of the sur of Eea (1o) Iol}arg, 0o1d Gotn of the Untte$ il^ peld party tha ;:i\' Statee of Amerlcs,, to her ln hand by the rcXd of second part, the recelpt whereof le heraby actaoslod.geil, hal :t*, granted, qrr,{ .F,+-' bargalned oold, conveyod. sr}4 -Eqefl$qdr and by theee pre8sn!a does Sfart, !a;rgaLn and sell,,, oonr.ey*1** Oel{lrn. dil 1 i''4 '1 :, r '. unto dhe aald. party ofi.th€ second fartrland t$ tts cusooasorg aoslgna f er, ;a11 tnst cgt&t1l :stt pleoe or parcel of tretng ln tbe fowu of, Ro gsr County of r' T0 !!,,u*4?g qg* ls{!

? *

) mlnuter -s ) degr ee a elsh thence -t1$) g Erct, elght s) drslcses ty two ( ds s1 €eg (45 t.- { 48. ,!i ltr ens g

q{qs

,. -t- *. i iQ ''':' t t "/

\ (Ll) degrees, te and slx-tenths ( r8€s, forty-one n end flve-tenths IaStrn Itas 8oad,; flve ( 55) nlnute f,cet a,loag eald, contel*l

I lCal4fot t made ty IL n, ftLod tnl County R of of Matln. wl end ar tbe t

IB and ten o al and on

t0 IfIVT i"\D l0 I{OIO, e1I and slngular the aatd pt@lE€sl together wlth the appurtenanos!, unto the sald pa;ty of thc reoond part, and to lts suooeggorg and, aeaLgne fo:ever. wEffiffiSffl$s.ir i'iic hereunto sei'ber hand and ssa,l tbe f,oy and" yuar ?lrrt hero{N ,ut.4 .:ir*.'

..t .tuA.v ) ( 8ce1 l ?

ril'-d+r{l

F-, ; i', .$ "ii f" io i.. - i''

{.. .. .-5b '-.{". ",sf, t*{s *

^t'

-z-

fr t.r POR. PUNIA OE QUEIi'TIN RAI/CK) \':sj* 73-24 I

nl.dI &, I il{ I -fir fi0.

I l

@' @ eYil r" @ o

rn %_ <[ q4

> Jo @ J 1I @

rowr{ or 805s ttlop ol Sa fusalcro lbllcy, Rl *.1 P9'7 Assessor's Mop 8&. zl-Pg,el Notf -ArarE'rtlo.il&a6dr sroFni! !4pnr- llaq al Aaynr/oa Trocl-Sub.t. R'lS' 8t.2 Fc-38 r.cs rtorqrN{darllJn*h(ldrr, Counly of Marin, Colil. , ATTACHMENT 4 May 10, 2018 Minutes

REGULAR MEETING of the ROSS TOWN COUNCIL THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2O].8 *'I'* 6t Redwood ExcerPt ***

1. 5:00 p.m. Commencement. Mayor Elizabeth Robbins; Mayor Pro Tempore Beach Kuhl; Council Member Elizabeth Brekhus; Council Member Julie McMillan, Council Member Rupert Russell; and Town Attorney Greg Stepanicich

13. Discussionlaction on Town-Owned Property at 5 Redwood Drive Design Review No. 2017-035. Public Works Director Simonitch summarized the staff report and recommended that the Council decide on the preferred course of action for the town-owned building at 6 Redwood as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements, and direct staff to provide a resolution which supports that decision. Staff then outlined the following options: r New Option l- -Reconstruct the new house using current floor plan and elevations. r New Option 2 - Construct new structure with modified roofline and floor plan - no change to footprint. r New Option 3 - Ground lease to private development for residential development r New Option 4 - Perform minor site worklcleanup

Council Member McMillan asked staff the fee to manage this property and what kind of rental stream is anticipated. Town Manager Chinn believed it would be around 5Z,O0O per month range to be affordable to the typical worker. The managernent company was charging 53,000 to 55,000 per year. They need to keep the rent affordable. Mayor Robbins asked are we calling this sufficiently affordable housing or just Town owned housing that we could do whatever we want with it. Town Attornev Stenanicich stated the Town has owned a home since '1911 and leased it. May 10, 2018 Minutes Given the Town owned the home could be leased for whatever we could get. The concern is with a lease to a private party based on government code that they will need to find a municipal purpose for that. Affordable housing is justified. Finding it justified for private development is more difficult.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl disclosed that he received an email from Katie Hoertkorn, a former council member, in chair of the Town's financing committee, He outlined on Monday for RPOA that this would be on the agenda and what the options would be. At that meeting, head of Branson School Chris Mazzola was present, and the next day he received an emailfrom Branson looking to provide additional housing for faculty and it occurred to her this might be a way to find an additional housing unit through a ground lease option.

Council Member Brekhus felt it would make sense to refer this matter to a fire insurance specialist to further review since it is so complex. Town Manager Chinn stated the insurance company was originally giving 5L70,000, staff had to go through the process of design, code upgrades and bids, so the insurance company is now up to $S3O,0OO. After talking to the insurance specialist, the Town would have to prove the dry rot was due to water intrusion from fighting the fire to get a higher amount of insurance money.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl is not clear that it was spelled out specifically in the memorandum that Katie Hoertkorn sent. lt is her strong opinion that they do not have enough information to make a decision for accepting either Options L or 2. She thinks they have not adequately considered the long-term financial effects of those options. The longer-term implications could be sign ificant.

Mayor Robbins asked in the quarter three finance report the Town is underbudget by 5208,000 and could that be a source of money for the house or use some of the money going to three bear hut for rebuilding the 6 Redwood house. Town Manager Chinn stated the Town is short of money to do what we ultimately need to do. Money is needed to build a police and fire station and other facilities, which aged out 20 to 30 years ago, have a huge cost. The Council has been excellent directing money to help with pension issues but more costs remain. lf they do all facilities it is 515m plus. Related to 3 Bear Hut, money comes from recreation which could not be used for house rehabilitation. Mayor Robbins stated that given the millions needed for other projects, she didn't think that 5200,000 was an excessive amount to spend for our Town's workforce housing.

Council Member Russell asked how they would create affordable housing in this Town. Town Manager Chinn stated the private sector is better at doing it. Government does not generally do a good job of operating housing particularly only one or two units. Houses need to be taken care of by public works and maintenance workers. They do a great job running roads, drainage ways, parks, etc. But one unit of house is less than t% of anyone's job. Staff is not good at maintaining houses. The town went from four to zero houses due to neglect. Staff supports Option 3 to create affordable housing and not having staff involved in regard to managing the property.

Mayor Robbins felt Option 3 is legally too complicated. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl stated Option 3 is the one option he favors. Council Member Brekhus pointed out that Branson has plenty of their own property and did not see the public benefit with Branson. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl noted May 10,2018 Mlnutes that the public benefit would be the Town would get credit for affordable housing. Branson has been putting aside funds to do this sort of thing. lf they could find somewhere else economically able to do it is open to question. Council Member Brekhus envisioned a Town employee, police or fire, not a Branson faculty member. Option 3 in her mind takes awaythe reason she voted for workforce housing.

Mayor Robbins opened the public hearing on this item

Barbara Call, Redwood resident, stated that her main concern is that the Town maintains affordable housing. Put aside the fiscal situation, morally it makes sense to provide this kind of housing to someone to move into Ross. She did not understand why the Town believes they are not able to manage this one house. lt's been rented for L5 years. To tear it down would be a travesty. The redwood trees would be impacted. The vacant land must be maintained as well. There is no point to have a vacant lot and lose this very valuable income-producing piece of property that could be an enhancement for the entire community.

Craig McCarty, Poplar Avenue resident, discussed construction cost and recommended considering modular construction to keep cost down. ln regards to ground lease, he is in favor and did not believe it is that complex. There are people that are experts in that area and it is not that difficult from a legalperspective. He agreed to have it go to Town employee, but if the school wants to contribute that would be a wonderful idea. Branson is a significant part of the community, it is not as if they are rentingto Google or Oracle, so he had no objection rentingto Branson. lf they will pay $200,000 to 5300,000 to build housing then the Town would be ahead of the game.

There being no further public testimony on this item, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and action.

Mayor Robbins stated workforce housing is a holy grail to cities. The $200,000 is not too much to pay to keep this. This is more of an ongoing process. The Town has been in the property management business for many years. Owning a house is a real asset. She would hate to lose what they have and would like to see more, so she supports Option 1.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl will not support Option L because it is rebuilding a house that the layout and design is terrible. lt does not make economic sense.

Council Member McMillan will not support Option L or Option 2. There are too many unknown costs. They are not in the business of pr,oviding housing. The vote was taken in 2016 to preclude a playground fortoddlers. The circumstances have changed. This one unit is pretty superficial. A much better way would be to inventory all property in Town and determine better areas for workforce housing such as an area where there is six units. 6 Redwood is not an appropriate place for a ground lease. They should expand the common and allow the entire Town to enjoy the space. Go back to the original purpose of why the park was purchased in the first place back in

3 May 10,2018 Minutes 1911. She voted for Option 4. Council Member Brekhus concurred with Council Member McMillan,

Council Member Russell felt Option 2 would not work. The ground lease idea is interesting potentially, but need sorneone who will do something for the community as a whole and he is skeptical that it will be feasible. He originally voted for Option 1 at the time when this was cost neutral or at least not a significant cost to the Town, Really bothered that have huge potential outlays Town needs to make in the coming years and have to find that money some way and somehow. He would be happy to continue this item for further discussion. His inclination is to go along with Option 4 because it saves money for the Town and is the most fiscal prudent thing to do at the moment and with staff not being comfortable being in the rental business. He would support Option 4 if a decision must be made tonight. They should be looking at how important it is for us to provide workforce housing and, if yes, find the best location.

Council Member Brekhus wanted the Council to make a decision tonight, She was very persuaded by Katie Hoertkorn comments. The idea of a ground lease, she would never support. 6oing back to passive parkland is an attractive option,

Public Works Director Simonitch felt Option 4 is the closest to a continuance and they can reevaluate the use of the parceland revisit later, which does not preclude staff from coming back with some sort of housing element.

Mayor Robbins asked for a motion

4 ATTACHMENT 5 75A 'txl$\N [{)S$ Agenda ltem No. 13.

Staff Report

Date: May L0, 201.8

To: Mayor Robbins and Councilmembers

From: Richard Simonitch, Public Works Director

Subject: Continuation of discussion of Town-Owned Property at 6 Redwood Drive and consideration of an amendment to Design Review 2AL7-O35

Background and discussion The building known as 6 Redwood is located on southwest portlon of Ross Commons (APN 073-242-251. Ross Commons was deeded to the Town from Annie S.E. Worn on July 1, 1911. The Town Resolution to accept the purchase of the property dated )une 22, 1911 describes 2 residences which existed on the property at the time of sale, at least one of which was producing rental income under a lease which transferred to the Town at the time of sale. Since that time, the Town has continued to rent the residence at 5 Redwood, On February 28,2015, the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8, 2016 meeting, the Town Council approved the option to repair the residence at 6 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit and adopted a resolution No. 1982 to that effect at the Town Council meeting held on January 8,20L7. Town Councilapproved Design Review 2017-035 on October 12,2077 and the project contract was awarded to WestCal Design and Build lnc. on February 8,2OL8. and the contractor began work at the site on March L2,2078.

On April 2, 2AL8 portions of the exterior siding were removed and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the house revealed the potential need to replace or repair most of the structural elements due to dry rot repair. On April 13th the contract was suspended as provided for under the general conditions in order for staff to assess all options before moving forward. At a Special Town Council Meeting held on April 25, 2018 staff presented three options to Town €ouncil for discussion. A brief description and net cost estimates for the three options discussed at the April 25th meeting are summarized as follows:

Option 1 - repair dry rot and continue construction: 5177,894 Option 2 - demolish remaining structure and rebuild new: 5209,754 Option 3 - demolish remaining structure and cleanup site; receive 592,007 cash back t During the discussion at April 25th meeting, it was determined that the complete demolition of the residence would be applicable to all three options and Staff was directed to allow the contractor to demolish the remaining structure as soon as possible, however Council continued the discussion on the preferred option for the 6 Redwood site to a later date. Except for the complete demolition of the structure, the remainder of the reconstruction contract continues to be suspended pending further direction by the Town Council. To date, the Town has been invoiced for $115,965 for work done prior to contract suspension. The additional cost to demolish the remaining structure is estimated to be $26,000. The total original contract amount to repair the structure and the basis for insurance reimbursement is $433,a95.

Based on the April 25, 2018 decision to completely demolish of the structure at 6 Redwood, staff now presents the following options for consideration:

New Option I - Reconstruct the new house using current floor plan and elevatlons Under this option, the structure would retain its existing floorplan and roof profile and no amendment to the Design Review would be required. The reconstruction would move forward as a "design-build" change order, with reduced consultant fees compared to Option 2 and 3, The revised design should result in a more cost-effective foundation design, Similarly, modern shear-wall designs should reduce the costs of rough framing although the lean-to roof design would require a bearing wall at the living room partition limiting the opportunity to remodel at a future date. Staff believes that there is a likelihood that these cost savings should result in a negotiated credit from the current contract back to the Town. The fast- track nature of design-build construction and eliminating need for design review will also reduce the time- to'completion by an estimated 8 weeks over Option 2. lnsurance reimbursement covers the original work scope to repair the fire damage and is unchanged.

The estimated time to complete the redesign and permit the new structure under Option I is I weeks.

The costs for option L are summarized below:

contract expense to date s116,965 contract nse to complete 53to,soo change order to com te* $153,600 additional consultant fees S15,ooo Town costs - sitework $ao,ooo ** other expenses to date S92,378

insurance reimburse -s539,689 net deductible S5,ooo

Total cost to Town $tgg,zsq

* lncludes demalition cost ** other expenses = ATl, Archilogix, Herzog

2 New Option 2 - Construct new structure with modified roof line and floorplan - no change to footprlnt, Under this option, a new foundation, structure, and floorplan would be designed which retains the existing foundation footprint. The revised design should result in a more cost-effective foundation design. Similarly, modern shear.wall designs should reduce the costs of rough framing and eliminate interior bearing walls. Further, a new floorplan could be developed providing a more efficient use of the existing living space although additional architectural consulting fees would be required. Because of the proposed change in the roof line, an amendment to the October 2017 Design Review would be required. lnsurance covers only the original work scope to repair the fire damage and is unchanged. This option would likely require termination of the current construction contract, and the preparation of a new set of architectural drawings to be developed.

The estimated time to cbmplete the redesign, amend the design review, and permit the new structure under Option 2 is 6 months.

The costs for Option 2 are summarized below

contract expense to date $1.16,965 contract expense to complete $315,500 change order to complete* $153,600 additional consultant fees s45,000 Town costs - sitework S40,ooo ** other expenses to date Sgz,378

insurance reimburse -$539,689 net deductible s5,o0o

Total cost to Town $209,754

* includes demolition cost * * - -ofr?a "Ipqntgt !ILArq_h!!9:QuL!191199-*__ **.-

New Option 3 - Ground lease to private development for residential development Under this option, the site would be cleaned up, vegetation trimmed, and fences repaired. Staff would advertise the vacant site for private development. Council would need to determine if we would be looking for a single family unit or multi-family unit on the site. Ultimately, this option would include a ground lease agreement between the Town and a third party that would be responsible for the design, development, maintenance, and ownership of the development. The third parties site development would need to be approved by Town Council including Design Review approval, For this option, staff would prepare a lease-line plat and legal description describing the area to be leased. At the time of this staff report, there are a number of legal questions that would need to be answered related to a Town ground lease to a private development company. By the time of the Council meeting, we will look to have some of the answers that may provide constraints and possibilities for this option. ln summary, the developer would lease the land from the Town, design and build a new structure, and rent it out under a sub-lease agreement with the new tenants.

Under this option, an entirely new structure and floorplan would be designed utilizing an entirely new {as yet un-designed) house footprint, The new floor area could be increased from the current 940 5F up to

Past experiences have shown that the Town has inadequate resources and expertise to effectively manage private residential buildings and this option would hand over the responsibilities and liability to experienced real estate professionals. Staff would return to Council at a later date to discuss the details and structure of finding an interested development partner, the lease agreement, financing, and legal considerations.

Staff estimates that Option 3 would require a year before construction would begin,

The totalcosts for Option 3 are unknown because the construction scope is unknown. However, the town would be eligible for the $372,350 Insurance reimbursement when the structure is constructed,

New Option 4 - Perform minor site work/cleanup Under this option, the site would be cleaned up, vegetation trimmed, and fences repaired, Staff would return to Council at a later date to discuss options for the future development of the site. An option to repairing the fence on the side of the Common is to remove the fence so the area is connected to the rest of the Common. Unless another residence is constructed, the insurance reimbursement is reduced from option 1, 2 and 3 because there are no reimbursements for code upgrades in Option 4.

The costs for Option 4 are summarized below:

contract nse to date s 116,965 cont e order to complete $36,ooo additiona I consultant fees Town costs - sitework S3o,ooo other expenses to date * $92,378

insurance reimburse -5gzz,lso net deductible $5,ooo

Totalcost (credlt backf to Town -$92,007

* other expenses = AT| Archilogix, Herzog

Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts The main funding sources is from insurance payments for the fire damaged house. The Town has property insurance through ABAG PLAN. Under the insurance coverage, the Town has a 55,000 deductible. lnsurance would pay the $433,485 replacement cost of the house (per the current construction contract) which includes any documented code upgrade requirements, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and raising the house elevation to meet the FEMA Base Flood Elevation {BFE) requirements. ln addition, the

4 Town would receive reimbursement for consultant fees, previous demolition activltles, and a loss of rents income. lf the house is not constructed (Option 3), the reimbursement to the Town would be reduced by the cost of the code upgrades, currently estimated to be 5167,300.

The net cost estimates for the new structure at this time are summarized as follows:

Option 1-Same floorplan, same footprint: $tgg,ZS+ Option 2 - New floorplan & roofline design, same footprint: S2Ogllq Option 3 - Ground lease to private developer for residential dev: unknown Option 4 - Cleanup site and revisit development options: $92,007 cash back to Town

The annual maintenance cost is estimated as follows. ln the case of Options 1 and 2, rental income net revenue to the Town of $10,000 to 20,000 annually after expenses such as routine maintenance items and some repairs needed over time. ln the case of Option 3, income from the land lease would be dependent on whether or not the Town allows the developer to rent the structure at market rate or requires that the residence be treated as affordable housing. For affordable housing, the Town would likely need to subsidize the developer's rental income in order for the project to be feasible for a private developer. For market rate housing, the Town would likely generate lease income given the land value of the property.

Environmental review (if applicable) The project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEeA Guideline Section 15302 -Replacement ar Reconstruction, because it involves the repair of an existing single family due to extensive fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 1.5301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c!, which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources.

Attachments l. Grant Deed and Resolution from L911 purchase of property 2. April 25, 2018 staff report

5 ATTACHMENT ]- 3 THIS IITDXNTUB.E, made the Ist day of July, 1-g]1, betwsen 'A$NII S, I. W0RN, a wld.orv, of the Tolrn of San An6elno, Coqnt $: t. t. 'igtat e of, Ca! 1* *.' gar:1a ed attng I r State o Celifornia, a,nd slNu.L?e in 't of Calilognia, the party of tbe'td.gogd I '\ F&rtr t /' f;t if wrrsssggiul ,.3 :j-1 Ir that the said par ;r of the fLrat partr for and ln conel {} 'r $ eration of the swn of Ten (1O) Dalla.re, dold Coln of the Un1 . tlr^ I \yj. Statea of Arnerlca, tq her in ha,sd pald. by tbe sal& party of i{" tf second part, the recelpt whereof 1e hgraby a.ckeswledg:ed,, has + Ft* granted, bargaiq.€e'"A11s'" sold, sonveye{ erfd-3g8*te?d.r -*n{ }f these presenta 4oee bergatn artd s Ji, i.' unt o {ae paia party Bscond. part, I g3g03 Iir aeeigns ever , 'all that cggtain le cel- o : ierng tn the T arw: of RoBBl.Cotmty o ",.::i-" ,,, a$dl Xgqfi*a* |": '

; 1 i;,^*.1 f.fi d' '" minut es ," degrees, fo 1,. . v Ith*rnce t -6rr I S0 i: (15 ) t, l6ht de es chty iwo ( grees e (41 ,. - (48 5) €nC tt r11 {i'- ". .... lnute s bundr. d ene e

!hb $lrr s '{t_

'\ I (tl) aegree 3, ten (10 ) mlnutes Fest, two hundred. fort n-s 6rven and. eix-tenthe (24't.6 ) feet; thenee lTorth fofly-four (+* ) aeg- reeg, f orty- oae 4r) alnuteg Weet, two hundred end tuenty-sever and. f1ve-tentbs 22'1.5 ) gee s aid. Lagun Itas Ro adl thence Nort thirty- flve 55) mlnutes Eaet two ( eoo feet along sald aa]. eonf atrrrL belng th San Anse al1 .CaL*for nade by H. d ftled 1 County Rac Marln.

a,nd a.r the t and * ob talni and on and |'..' EillT,S alL and, slngular the eald preatre.es, togetb.er wlth the appurtenanceg, unto the sald pasty of the seeond. partr and to lts sucsegeors and aostgns fotever.

-trer-ri'*nto "f,lrst .IIJ ii ;d-il"{'id'*'bf 'an{ yerir b,e::eIn-

.lXr

..t 1't A.\, I ) ( Seat {

4- ",

-2*

f' POR. PUIVTA DE AUENTIN RAITCTO \tolff* 73-24

ltl Irl -l{l 80. @

E| @ dl8r. @ o

lrl \ 94

Jo @ tJ @

TOI{N OF ROSS Map of Son Ansalmo Vollcy, Bh.l Pg,7 Assersors Mop Bk.lt -Pg.z4 < NOlf,-lrssra'r 8lo<* Nurlbns Stovn la t tipF . llag ol R.ymond Trocl'Su!.3, R.il. 81.2 fu.3e Arorsor'r Porol NsnSt t thovo'a Cizcla<. Counly of Morin, Colif. . ew&@v.€F- L'*rr*,-,& . J

6) 'W; (P,Jz"*n- lut n ntJ OC)

t..r",r1,a..*. , t to n. ?3J"o 3 ,t o "1 ( { oo ,,,b .a iJ]'.t,lf,,, Ie

,l q.1 {oo I t,t JJJ . [' . (-,^, i- !f)''r' "1t-' tr t., !)

,irl't u r ..r'1tr-.'ft: t.tl dt ')r.,,' q I o:. ,: - n,,1" , ; *:6' ii: : 'I 'J., ^ ':?;i,; * -!t'#: ; ^ ^*# ril:!t d

'* {i nEsotrJtloir

AutfiofiIgrlra tls FIIncHAgs oF ffinrarr !tsoPEBry l:..:i:': I[. fS ?O'f/]f 05' R0SS TOn A Pg3f,IC ?i\RK. t .., ,\i. i'.,'it : 't'\ WflsRErtg;' At c spoo'tail GLcslton held'ls, thc; tars of Ro'sl'bn S*turday, ttra 3?th day'of lteyr I91t; tbe llsuencc of bondt of cF{{ loru of Boso in the mount' of lhiriy fborlsand (lCOro0Ol bol.l*rr *es a.utb,orLrcd, to pey thc cogt of the acqul.alilon of a publ,lc ps.rk oppoattc tho rallray stEtlon ln ss,1d forn, lncLudlng lhr pusahns€ of, the ].gnd thrrsfor, and thc Laylng out an& lm* provrurnt af thc aano, and 'of . mfFltlgAfj: fn Brrrauanco sald authorlaetloa, tho bonde of ss.ld To*n, 1a oald gaount of thirty fhousand (S5OI0O0) Dollarr, .b.svc bccn duly cold ts E. E. Xoll.lns & Sonr, tho trlghao? blddor thareforr for the enount of thc fagc v*,luc af taJ.{ bon(s, 'El 1p* qqsruad rvcn lIundrt d, s av an l y* o n e ( lrrtr )'notr* i, uolt,tn-o anct '$ r o ., Lntarcat, and. ;; \ "'WS.,RllA9: Tbc lewn of Rosg lE thc awnar and bolal€r or 8.n opttdn for the purcha8a of ihe fo11owlng proporty, sttuata op'p*stte the rqllsay atetion ln sald. Town, and deacrlo'ed ag follovsi BEOISUll'G *t tha l,ntdrscctton of the sautlttrly llne of LagUn Itas &ori{t w{uh bire lloulor-lY Il.ne of ths D$por grnundtr *i ths No }tlrwgut*rrt f,*cl.:'t e ile!lroad Oou'pa"nyI bhenc ra $oulh th r r I on* {3}l rlugr ooa , ti: t rtY ( 30 ) nrlnutar llaui, tvo hrtnGro(t t'r*r:l thr"on srrd stx-ieirihu (zes.o; fsuti tbsncs 80 uth f,or:ty*one t4J d*grase, tiltrtY 30 rni*rrtes .Sa*t, et$lr&y-ont t$1' fselt ti'rsr 45 lE&trt, {ioulh fort I^ct IC 46 dogr ca$, forcy-f,lve 1 nlnuter ,, tt

(lI) clogy.rsdr, t'*,{.}Ol ruLnrrtsu 1,/siitr-_r.d$. clirrl ttlx-rur:ths ( -[lurr"u- lrrr'dr,.*ti fort}*birvsn l'.'cs; 4a.! :si t*oi; lr+;_15 f oJ.ry..f our. torrv-Dre (at) a1t,ul-- iiii"il r,rro rruncre,i"*ni-io*"N7^sc{++) *e 'i.nd rlvo-!ei'Lho (ie:?.i) r-si, iJ-ir,u s,riilir*iiv Lrrr!n'rr,ird *ord; r?rsnr:,' {ori'i'oiu,,,iiy*t,ro'(i}i".r;;i;"",iile oc eur.'r f 1vs (3t) unlnuLes,'uer, thlrt. t,nu',,Li.irjod ,r.r rd ii,v,i-ilorri.," (eO,; f ir€[ *;.o*g a*t* J.Ln!r-"i ,ini,r',:Ioi*r,,'1y: 'ilorni:ur,,i*grnnrng, oonr'olntns f,ouf ilnd uii" bctrrs ritr"[v-"rx-Jiu-Lurn,rr-;;;;;-t+lsii rrerBB,, rrtre loc of I&*(i *"rl[oi^itr"ii"o,r_ e e,rrr;nin plou Iirrrr.{rl:rc*'o r/alley,..U"r-r"--di..,rfy, C*t,.J.o'irl.r, n' lot' i rrr,rJ,r IJJ/ ia. AugLi.rr, lirr:,,,r.:7ot", .rrriJ't';Iud ,ri.lci i,,l&y, ltJrl( r.:ounry riEcLlrd(,r oi,r"io'6,';ir;";,_":,{*r"r.r,, rn tir,i ,r..,.rjr"cc oi, Lrid for tha sle. of ?wenly-s6r1en Thousand Slve Eundrsd {$afrfOOl rlorlaror and th€ oost of certals, laoprovanonts nade upoa onc 0 tha rerlrienoe8 upon aeld properly, amountlng to the Bum of on Hundrad tr,Qrty-ons snd aA/LOA (6r+f.E?) Dollar!, upon whlch ae optlon tho eatrd rown h&c alrcady pald the su'. sf gav€n Hundre (l?00) no}lars, N0Ur, TIIIREFOfiB: ?be Xoar* of TruEtass of tho Town of For dp rosolye ae foLLowe! $octton f l Tha.t thc sald ?,,Fryl of Ros6 prrlchene thE prsp" or|y c,boys de gorlbsd from the oK.ncy thareof , Annlo B " $. Uorn, tho aame lo bg hcld, swncd.and uc.ed by aa1d, Totvn as and for a publio park. Boqtlon rr: Thet preerdent ths of the Borrrd of ?ruatees, E"nd tho Clerk o/ ss"ld Tonn bo, and. tlroy a.ro herebyr authorlasd and lnElruelcd'r upon delivery to tliw, for adoa bshd-lf ofi s'.t lown, of a gogd and sufflciont grant, her,r4*ln a.ad ss_la deed,, convsyln8 oatd propcrty aeld. to Torn of E*aa, io pay to sald r[nnlc s' a' vorn the belaacq d*e on the pursbare i prlce of $41d. proport{7 _accordl.ng to ihe tsrms of ,}al11 optlo4l and : elqo ihe i tho pro pro rs"ta 0f taxo6 fo! thc flCcal ycer 13Lo'L1i antl'd'oe t|4t&ofpremlunoonthcfifalneurArrcepo}{oloauponihqtro rnoldtnc€g qpon cald irropsrtyr loss thc pro rata of the montbly rcat*3- of the reslclanec uPan tal'L proparty at prero*t und6r (i126) Laqso, *t * nonthly rantnl of Qnu Etlndrod tncnty-flvc gown d8'te of tbe DolLors pcr uonthl *blsh rney be due geld et the executlon of Ea,ld ccaveyarloBr

pald to lho oeid Bootlon III: fhnt tho oeld alsg Eo to bc thc ralc of Annia F, I. Wor{', bc pajd out of the proooidl of of Trustaas of srrld bon{l, end tbat the Prantdent of lhe Bsard lii beroty' s*ld Torm, and. iho CLark of sald Town be' a'a*'tfiy gald'aneurlt aut eutb.srlsed. an(l !nn"ruotg'l to dter a ra'prbnt for bo crsdl{: sf ihe tund to shistr tho procecdl of satd bosd's rb'a-ll of Junc' 19111 by t}.o PesEad anel ad'optod thts ?Pgd dsf vot o$: fotLorlng l A]GS

}{oEs:

aSglNt:

en? the u,? of tr$ €GA of thn ?o'rrn of Ross"

a[lDSr:

or sf

ii il ATTACHMTNT 2 n 1li!|svN lt()sti Agenda ltem No.4.

Staff Report

Date: April25,2018

To Mayor Robblns and Councilmembers

From: Richard Simonitch, Public Works Director

Subject: Discussion of Town-Owned Property at 6 Redwood Drive and consideration of an amendment to Demolition Permit #18516 and Deslgn Revlew 2017-035

Recommendation Council to discuss and decide on the preferred course of action for the Town-oWned bullding at 6 Redwood as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements, direct staff to provide a resolution which supports that decision and continue the revlew of a Demolition Permit and Design Review Amendment to the May 10, 2018 meeting.

Background and discusslon The building known as 6 Redwood is located on southwest portion of the Ross Commons (epru On-242- 25). Ross Commons was deeded from Annle S.E. Worn on July 1, 1911, There are Town records showing that the building at 5 Redwood has been located on the Ross Commons parcel since at least 1914. The Town has historically rented the building for many years, On February 28,2AL5, the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8,?ALG meeting, the Town Council approved the option to repalr the residence at 5 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit and adopted a resolutlon No, 1982 to that effect at the Town Council meeting held on January 8,2OL7.Town Council approved Deslgn Review 20L7-A35 on October L2,2017 and the project contract was awarded to WestCal Deslgn and Build lnc. on February 8, 2018. and the contractor began work at the site on March L2,2At8.

On April 2,2Ot8 portions of the exterior siding was rernoved and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the house revealed the potential need to replace or repair the following structural elernents due to dry rot repair:

Floor Joist - 7|Yo need dry rot repair including new floor Joist and plywood subfloor. Ceiling joist - 65% need dry rot repair or new ceiling joists. Rafters - 65% need dry rot repair wlth new rafters and roof sheathing,

On April 13th the contract was suspended as provided for under the general conditions in order for staff to assess the options and present them to Town Councilfor direction before moving forward. To date, the Town has been invoiced for S115,965 for work done prior to contract suspension. The total contract amount ls 5433,485

t The preliminary estlmate for this repair work came in at $127,600 above the orlginal contract amount. Because dry rot damage is not related to the fire damage and ls also considered a "preventable condition", the additionalcosts are not covered by the Town's insurance policy. The prelimlnary estimate to dernollsh the remaining structure and completely rebuild a new structure using the same floorplan came in at S153,600 above the original contract arnount and, for similar reasons, is not covered by insurance.

Based on initial conversations with the contractor, it appeared as though the cost to demolish the structure and reconstruct a new structure would be simllar. However, since the noticing of the project, new information regarding costs has been provided. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Councildecide between the below three options for the 5 Redwood structure.

Option 1- Repalr the dry rot and contlnue reconstruction Under this.option, the dry rot damage would be repaired under a change order based on actual time and materials costs to complete the work. Staff believes that there ls a likelihood that additional latent damage may be uncovered during the repair process and the final change order may be higherthan the preliminary estimate of 5127,600, The structure would retain its existing structural framing and architectural form and no amendments to the Demolition Permit or Design Review would be required. lnsurance reimbursement ls unchanged and covers only the origlnal work scope to repair the fire damage.

The costs for option 1 are summarized below:

contract expense to date $1to,g6s cont ract expense to complete s3 500 * ch a order to complete $1ao,zoo additiona I consultant fees $o Town costs - sitework So-,990 otherexpenses to date *t S92,378

insurance reirnburse -5599,689 net deductible S5,ooo

Totalcost to Town 5tr7,gga

* 75% contingency ddded to controctar estimate of $127,600 .ii"e$_ef q-ypl$9!":lr-l:,4lch|9g.8,Ugrz,a:s

Option 2 - Demolish the remalning structure and rebulld new structure wlth modified roof llne Under this option, the remaining structure would be demolished and a new foundation and structure would be designed to retain the existing floorplan. The existing structure had a "lean-to" style roof over the living room add-on which staff recommends should be replaced with a contemporary hlp or gabled roof design to take advantage of modern roof truss load distributlon. The revised roof design should result in a more cost-effective foundation design. Similarly, modern shear-wall deslgns should reduce the costs of rough framlng and eliminate interior bearing walls, providlng more flexibility for interior remodel in the future. Staff believes that there is a likelihood that these cost savings should result in a negotlated credit from the current contract back to the Town; such that the cost differences between Option 1 and Opilon 2 could be closer than the preliminary estimates suggest. Other benefits of building a completely new structure include ellmlnating the possibility of the recurrence of dry rot and smoke odor. Because of the

2 proposed change in the roof line and the need to demolish the entire structure, an amendment to the Demolition permlt and Design Revlew would be required. lnsurance reimbursement is the same as Option 1.

The costs for Option 2 are summarized below:

contract expense to date s116,965 contract expense to complete s316,500 change order to Iete $153,600 additional consultant fees s25,000 Town costs - sltework $qo,ooo * other to date 592,379

insurance reimburse net deductible s5,0oo

Total cost to Town $209,754

I ather expenses = ATl, Archiloglx, Herzog

Optlon 3 - Demollsh the remainlng structure and perform mlhor slte work/cleanup Under this option, the remaining structure would be demolished, the site would be cleaned up, vegetatlon trimmed, and fences repaired. Staff would return to Councll at a later date to discuss options for the future development of the site. Because of the need to demolish the entire structure, an amendment to the Demolition Permit and Design Review would be requlred. The insurance reimbursement is reduced from optlon 1 and 2 because there are no reimbursements for code upgrades in Optlon 3.

The costs for Optlon 3 are summarized below:

contract nse to date S116,965 contract expense to com change order to complete Slo,ooo additional consultant fees Town costs - sitework $go,ooo * other expense s to date S9z,37g

insurance reimburse -$372,350 net deductible $5,ooo

Totalcost (credlt backl to Town -$gz,ooz

* other = ATl, Archilogix, Herzog

Fiscal, resource and timeline lmpacts The main funding sources is from lnsurance payments for the fire damaged house. The Town has property insurance through ABAG PL/{N. Under the insurance coverage, the Town has a 55,000 deductible.

3 lnsurance would pay the $433,485 replacement cost of the house {per the current construction contract} which includes any documented code upgrade requirements, such as the installation of flre sprinklers and raising the house elevation to meet the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) requirements. ln addition, the Town would receive reimbursement for consultant fees, previous demolition activities, and a loss of rents income. lf the house is not constructed {Option 3}, the reimbursement to the Town would be reduced by the cost of the code upgrades, currently estimated to be S157,300.

The net cost estlmates at this time are summarized as follows:

Option 1- repair dry rot and continue construction: ittt,ggq Optlon 2 - demolish remaining structure and rebuild new: $209,2s4 Option 3 - demolish remaining structure and cleanup site: receive 592,007 cash back

The annual maintenance cost i3 estlmated as follows. ln the case of Options 1 and 2, rental lncome net revenue to the Town of $1O,OO0 to 20,000 annually after expenses such as routine maintenance items and some repairs needed over time,

Environmental review (if applicablel The project is categorically exernpt from the requirement for the preparatlon of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15302 -Replacement or Reconstruction, because it involves the repair of an exlstlng single family due to extensive fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 75301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limlted to, Subsectlon {a}, which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulatlve impacts; Subsectlon (c), whlch relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection {f), which relates to historlcal resources, Attachments 1. Elevations showing sketch of new roofline proposal 2. Elevations showing old roof llne 3. October L2,2Ot7 staff report and minutes

4 ATTACHMENT ]. fil m H ol n a,1 -{l -{ 4 :rl :f,

i i ,! .i tl 1, ii il i ii ii :if'li" t: !; I t,i i I li .: I, ii I ii I il ll t {{ l{r .,i.. it: ,i ii ilt ri 'l li :! .l i II I iit { iii ,ji tiil "l llr it t 't t1: lit () il I I ll A rl .t 1 I ? I i I lrj ,l lr r1i j z ,t *l I I i:; ti t + : I i I ! ! .ri I r r{ ,:'t ,- ) ;> ril -l .,...: \'r; n . !: (Az l.! ln #{H i o l^ w .F;X1X:) z { i .lr i l ? , i t' 1 :L', I \!tt I i,!r cFi :,HI t i ;'11 ltit { I :j I tt rb? ;i' f :i w I ;ii;l FJ 4t ilr H :,d fi 1 I I ..;i "lf ' li -1t a il { t ;Jt irl t I [-.- fl rl ; o i .D,L.' '.]1 t{ H rd fl' : il it, a. 'l ;it) 6 ir { z d,.lrstl il ',t w rn tx -ltr>I{\i llr i) t... !!rt.{tic!{ il !,, I f rlIi!.i li" '! ,i i &rg lljrj!'i n:l I { r i;,i i: l,: J t 1)t I it T 'rl ! 1! \: tl o ,11 i st I .,) o ,rl ft I 1 I :i(1 , tlr, i i i 1i 5 I .,r!,il i z CI drit { I

I I

il lr iii i: IOWN OF ROSS ,RCHI ]* ii 6 RTDWCIOD DRIVI ocrx h> rj II FIRE ANO FTOOD bAMAGE REPAIR I' .r ll l{ ;: rt\rrc[0itl ril 't 61lq t@ cil{! ,-l rrl : ATTACHMENT 2 inl >r il ql "rJ,.j .ll I

I i

i.'] j

I ! I I ;

: : i:, iL I , 1lt I rlri I !1i llt :1 i, i.!l ii !li1 Ir, :i :t t,l. r,t , 'l i , I ,! I li ri '| I l.:, I i! i I' I fr t; i il , ;ili:,rll I ;"j t it t ii ,ri;lii l :: l,r:,.ill i *l i I Fl i { {:} i !.;t ;l H Fr< at): I .l ! .:-] ii I L ti , J i z i FJ t N,)

I I ts : trl : L I

I t -i

I i (A o i a

o'n 7 liN'rlir' Ff tt Fi! l:; z 0 t i T i'i,t il'r b.. c jli. I o .It7 1'ti il.r li .:l.l st i;{ l{,1 I r o 'l l\t r/ U a ,'l om o ilr U z z t j[: :r, o tl ! t'.i I e tttr q -il ,:i ir) tlr 6'jj 1'rt . z ln

i 1t t '.,,w i ? ir , i g q i, 1e f t i i fd {i I 't ]i l,:. i t a .j) c (:{ v T 'lt i1 p I (i ii - ;.r. f o | i I 1l o .,.1 i \tit t ir T {r z i CI 1 L'!\-- 'j.-. 1 t .t

IOWN OF ROSS 6 REDWOOD DRIV! ,RCHI LOCIX FIRE AND TLOOO DAMAGE REPAIR * dtiDwoq)D[* xr*d or ndl! .lroit |''li I f] ATTACHMENT 3 m '$r*YN lr()ftfi Agenda ltem No.13.

Staff Report

Date: October !2,2AL7

To: Mayor Robblns and Couniil Members

From: HeidiScoble,PlannlngManager

Subject: Town of Ross Residence, 6 Redwood Drive, File No. 2017-035

Recornmendation Town Council approval of Resolution 2025 approvin6 a Demolition Permit and Design Revlew to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing slngle famlly residence that was damaged because of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive, APN 073-242-25.

Property lnformation: Owner: Town of Ross Applicant: Town of Ross Location: 6 Redwood Avenue A.P. Number: 073-242-25 Zonlng: C-D (Civlc Dlstrlct) GeneralPlan: Public Service (PS) Flood Zane: Zone AE Floodway (l,-percent annual chance of floodlng)

Project Summary: Lot Area 4.35 acres (185,561 square feet| Existin g Floor ArealRatio 925 sq. ft. O.a%{No FAR Maximuml Proposed Floor Area/Ratio 925 sq. ft. No change Existing Lot Coverage 975 sq. ft. A,So/a(No FAR Maximum| Proposed Lot Coverage 975 sq, ft, No change Existin g lmpervious Surfaces 975 sq. ft. A5% Proposed lmpervious Surfaces 975 sq. ft. No change

Project Description: Town staff is requesting a Demolition Permit and Design Review for the remodel of an existing single family residence due to extensive fire damage, To address soil and redwood tree root constraints, in addition to flood plain issues, the project includes relocating the house approxirnately four feet to the southern side property line ln order to allow for the installation of a new foundatiqn, The scope of the project also includes ralsing the finished floor of the residence by approximately one foot above the base flood elevation to address FEMA floodplaln requirements, Lastly, the project would retain its current architeetural design and slre due to lnsurance constralnts.

The proposed building color would be a "Knoxvllle Grey" for the wood siding and an off whlte color for the trlm to replace the exlsting yellow colored siding and white trim,

The proJect would also consist of the removal of the failing L2-foot metal backstop chain-llnk fence adiacent to the northern side of Ross Common that faces the park and school. The exlsting wood fence that separates 6 Redwood Drlve from Ross Common wlll rernain and patched and repaired if necessary. Plants would also be planted to screen the subject wood fence from the Ross Common. No other landscape or hardscape lmprovements are proposed related to the fenced in area known as 5 Redwood Drive than vegetatlon trlmmlng and possible removal ln places that are overgrown.

{ Demolitlon Permlt regulred pursuant to Ross Municipal Code {RMC| Sectlon 18.50.060 to allow the demolition of rnore than 25% of the exterior walls and wallcoverings. a Design Review is required pursuant to Ross Munlcipal Code (RMC| Section 18.41.020 because the project would require a demolition Permit.

Background and Discussion The residence known as 6 Redwood is located on southwest portion of the Ross Commons {APN A73-242-25). The residence ls currently part of the 4.36 acre (189,923 square feet| parcelthat is described as "Ross Common Town Park" on the zoning map. Ross Comrnons was deeded from Annie S.E. Worn on July L, L9LL. There are Town records showing that the resldence at 6 Redwood has been located on the Ross Commons parcel slnce at least 1914, The residence is cornprised of approximately.g25 square feet or floor area and is separated from the rest of the Ross Common with a fence and heavy vegetation. The fenced in area related to the house is approximately 7,200 sguare feet. The Town has hlstorically rented the residence for many years. On Febrqary 28,2015, the hous+! was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8, 20L6, meeting, the Town Council approved to repair the residence at 5 Redwood Dtive and continue to use it as a rental unit.

Advisory Design Group Review The project received Advisory Design Review (ADR) review on September 18, 2Afi. The ADR Group generally supported the mass, scale, and proportions of the project and suggested the proposed trlm be an off-white coloi. The pioject has been designed to address the ADR Group's comment.

Key lssue Dcslgn Revlew The overall purpose of Design Review is to preserve and enhance the historlcal "small town," low-density character and identity that is unlque to the Town of Ross, to discourage the development of individual build.ings which domlnate the townscape or attract attention through color, mass or inappropriate architectural expression, and to upgrade the appearance, quality and condltlon of existing improvements in conjunction wlth new development or remodellng of a site. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 18.41.100 of the Ross Municipal Code, a series of Design Review crlteria and standards have been developed to guide development.

ln reviewing the project, the following design review criteria and standards are most relevant to the proJect: '

L. Preservation of Natural Areas and Exlstlng Slte Condltlons. Speciflcally, sites should be kept in harmony with the general appearance of neighboring landscape,

Z. Privacy. Building placement and window size and placement should be selected with consideration given to protecting the privacy of surrounding propenies. Decks, balconies and other outdoor areas should be sited to minimize noise to protect the privacy and quletude of surrounding properties. Landscaping should be provlded to protect prlvacy between properties, Where nonconformities are proposed to be retalned, the proposed structures and landscaplng should not impair the primary views or privacy of adjacent propertles to a greater extent than the impairment *eated by the existing nonconformlng structures,

As described in the project descrlption, Design Review being required as a result of a Demolition Permit caused by the relocation of the residence in order to address soil dnd tree root constraints to accommodate a new foundation consistent with the FEMA regulatlons. Because the rnass, bulk, scale, and size of the residence would match the existing conditlons, staff suggests the project is conslstent with the Design review criteria and standards as follows:

L. The appearance of the residence and relationship to neighboring properties would remain essentially the same. Although the rbsidence would be shifted closer to the property at 8 Redwood Drive, the resldence would not create any new impacts to the property at 8 Redwood Drive relative to light, air, and privacy due to the existing vegetation and built environs of the neighborhood. 2, The ADR Group recommends the proJect is conslstent with the Town's Design Revlew Crlteria and Standards pursuant to Sectlon 18.41,100 of the Ross Municipal Code. 3, The proJect would be constructed within high quality, long lastlng materials and colors, 4. The project would maintain its existing driveway access and on-site parking. 5. The ploject would be constructed to be conslstent with the Town's Municipal'Code and the Ross Valley Flre Department. 6. The project would not impact any creeks and dralnage ways to ensure protection of any natural resource area of the riparian area because allon-slte drainage would be designed on- slte so that no net increase in runoff from the project site would occur beyond its exlsting condltions. 7. The project would not reduce the Town's housing stock, 8. The project would be in compliance wlth the Town's FEMA regulatlons

Publlc Comment Public Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. No public comments were received prior to completion of the staff report.

Flscal, resource and tlrneline impacts The main funding sources for the home remodel and repalr ls from lnsurance payments for the fire damaged house, The Town has property insurance through ABAG PLAN. Under the insurance coverage, the Town has a $5,000 deductible. lnsurance would fully pay for the replacement of the house (Option 1l as it was including any documented code upgrade requirements, such as the installation of fire sprinklers and increasing the house elevation to meet the FEMA Base Flood Elevatlon {BFE} requirements. ln addltlon, the Town would receive a loss of rents income {estlmated at approxlmately S13,900}, The Town will be not reimbursed for the cost of moving the house away from the redwood tree, some potential upgrades inside the house, and slte work and landscaping. The Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget includes 530,000 ln funding from the Facilities and Equipment Fund beyond the insurance proceed arnount. The actual amount funded by lnsurance wlll not be determlned until we recelve construction bids and reconclle colt elements wlth the insurance company.'

Rental income net revenue to the Town of S10,000 to 20,000 annually is estimated after expenses such as routine malntdnance items and some repalrs needed over time. ln the first years following the construction, it is anticlpated the net will be at the higher end of the range because the home will be new. ln the coming months, staff will be coming back to the Councll related to settlng the policy of parameters of who the home should be rented to and the rental rate range, lf Town Council approves the demolition permit and deslgn revlew at thls Councll meetlng, the schedule would be to have the buildlng permit drawlngs approved and golng out to bid in Novernber, awarding bid in December, and beginning construction shortly thereafter with occupancy in the summer of 2018.

Alternative actions L, Continue the project for modifications; or 2. Make findlngs to deny the application.

Environmental review (lf applicablef The project is categorically exempt from the requirernent for the preparation of envlronmental documents under the California Environrnental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15302 -Replacement or Reconstruction, because it involves the repair of an existing single family due to extensive flre damage. No exception set forth ln Section f 5301.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project lncludlng, but not limited to, Subsection (al, which relates to impacts on environmental resources; {b}, which relates to curnulative lmpacts; Subsection (c}, which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection {f}, which relates to historlcal resources, Attachments L. Resolution 2025 2. Project Plans ATTACFIMENT 1 TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTTON NO.2A25 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING DEMOLITION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING SINGTE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6 REDWOOD DRIVE, APIV 073.242.25

WHEREAS, the Town Council approves a Demolition Permit and Design Revlew to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing single family residence that was damaged as a result of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive, APN 073-242-25 (the "project"); and

WHEREAS, on October L2,2AL7, the Town Council held a duly noticed publlc hearingto consider the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, the Town Councll has carefully reviewed and considered the staff reports, correspondence, and other lnformatlon contained in the project file, and has recelved public comment; and

WHEREAS, the project was determined to be categorically exernpt from the requlrement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEAA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15302 *Replacement or Reconstrucf/on, because lt involves the repalr of an exlsting slngle family dud to extenslve fire damage. No exception set forth in Section 15301,2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project includlng, but not llmlted to, Subsection (a|, which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (h), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), whlch relates to unusual circumstancesi or Subsection (f), which relates to historlcal resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, 8E lT RESOLVED the Town Councll of the Town of Ross hereby incorporates the recltals above; makes the findings set forth in Exhibit "A.

The foregolng resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of October 2QL7,by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

AESTAIN:

1 Ellzabeth Robblns, M ayor

AfiEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerl<

2 EXHIBIT.,A" FINDIN6S 6 REDWOOD DRIVE APN 073-242.25

A, Findlngs l. Demolltlon Permlt Ross Munlclpal Code Section 18.50.060 - Approval of a Demolitlon Permlt for removal of exlsting single famlly residence ir based on the flndlngs outllned ln Ross Munlclpal Code Section f8.50.050 as descrlbed below:

al The demolition would not remove from the neighborhood or town, nor aduersely affect, a buildlng of historical, archltectural, cultural or aesthetlc value. The dernolitlon wlll not advcrsely affect nor diminish the charicter or qualitles of the site, the neighborhood or the communlty.

The exlstlng resldence is not considered by the Town of Ross as having any historlcal, archltectural, cultural, or aesthetic value due to the age, constructlon, and archltectural style of the residence. . Additionally, the project would result in the repllcation of the exlstlng residence, thus not negatively impactlng the character of the slte. ll. ln accordance wlth Ross Municipal Code Sectlon t8.41,07O, Deslgn Revlew ls approved based on the following findings: al The project is consistent with the purpose of the Deslgn Raview chapter as outlined in Ross Municipal Code Section 18.41.010:

The project would meet the purpose of the Design Review chapter through its high quality design and materials. The project ls designed with a slmllar archltectural style and materials of the existing residence. As the project is not readily seen from publlc vantage p6lnts, the project would not impact the "small town" character of the Town because the project is designed to maintain the overall mass, bulk, and style of the existing development pattern of the property and because the proJect site is not readily visible from any public vantage point. Additionally; the project would not impact any unlque environmental resources due to the locatiori of the project site relative to any sensitive wildlife habltat, specles, and/or creeks. Lastly, the project would be designed to address dralnage and stormwater and would be required to construct those lmprovements as part of the bulldlng permit process.

bf The profect is ln substantial compliance with the deslgn crlteria of Ross Munlclpal0ode Section 18.41,100.

As sgpported in the Staff Report dated October L2,2Ot7, the project would be consistent with the design review criteria and standards relative to havlng a nominal impact on the exlstlng site conditions by providing an architectural design that is conslstent and compatible with the architecture, materials, and colors of the exlsting residence. Lastly, the project would address health and safety through the issuance of a building permit to ensure compliance

3 wlth the bulldlng, publlc works, and,ffre code regulations.

c! The profect ls conslstent wlth the Ross Generel Plan and ronlng ordlnance. As prwlously stated, the entire scope of the project ls consistent wlth the Town's General Plan and C-D zonlng distrlct, in addltlon to the allowed structures and uses that may be permltted, therefore the prolect is fosnd to be consistent rrlth the Ross General Plan and Zonlng Ordinance,

1 ATTACHMENT 2 : L) $ITE PLAT{ 6 REDWOOD rtl Scale: l/ 1,6":l' tu

*"'rr"** -" - *-' - "--l('*'-:" ' '"*Y; *'- *" " " -.-.-"---"x.-*' -***'-'Y.l*- V "7'* Jr'- d-c OLD.STR,I/ICT1,tRF t. .a L r:l 4--.:ii" OtITLINE ..tFs. tt ':.:.# id

,' : i NEW STl"ttCTl,tRE ,.1 LocATtoN (+.,r sFttFT)

x il t\ !ri

I J *,'i i* l* !

t /,,'.// , LINE I ri \ t

a , l >

Y ' -F" R.EDWOOD AVI

t ,/i 1 N t t, 1! o73-27L-At 1i ;l i\ 1, 8 R.EDWOOD it l1r 4 c:i,") ll r i'a I t .l j u :' - l- e. I \

,,ri{' i ,. 'l )

;1 .'.n 'il v'

':"i.. t I

i.,,':;:tt-" "' .:), I t',Jt

I I I I I I t; -l '. :' (...L I I :" :: T .l .t..? 1".. {j ( , '' I il rL n \ll tt It ll ssIt' '"-t r' u

a:,:ai|. ;.1.n..i'i w ^-wI

..t'';,r.li. r. $ , i! rj.-i ! ii.,.)l ;l' ., 'i:i'a t.! ).:: Octobcr 12, 2Al7 Mlnutes

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl felt it is important to govern thelr communlty. He opposed excessive regulatlons on lndlvidual's behavlor on sidewalks. Council Member Brekhus agreed with Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl's thoughts, but supported addlng deflnitions for e.clgarettes and lncludlng marljuana clgarettes as well.

The Councll dlrected staff to qmend the smaklng regulotlons as dlscussed.

12. Town Councll consideration of lntroduction of Ordlnancc No. 684, an Ordlnance of the Town of Rors amending Ross Munlclpal Code Tltle 18 "Zanlng" Sectlon 18.40.210 "Commerclal mariluana actlvlty and personal marlfuana cultivatlono, and addlng Cheptcr 9.65 "Cannabis Prohlbltlons and Regulatlonr" to Ross Munlclpal Code Tltle 9 "Peace, Safbty, and Morals" to clarify lts regulations pertainin5 to commerclal crnnabls actlvltles and the perconal cultivatlon of cannabis conslstent with SB 94.

Plannlng Manager Heldl Scoble summarlzed the staff report and recommended that the Councll waive the first reading and lntroduce Ordlnance No. 684 amending Ross MunlclpalCode Sectlon 18.40.210 (Commerclal MariJuana Activlty qnd Personol Morluano Cultivotion/ and establlshlng a new Chapter 9.65 (Cannahls Prohlbltlons and Regulotions) to address commerclalcannabls use and cultivation.

Mayor Robbins opened the publlc hearlng on thls ltem, and seeing no one wlshlng to speak, the Mayor closed the publlc portion and brought the matter back to the Council for action.

Mayor Robblns asked for a motion,

Councll Member Hoertkorn moved and Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl secondcd, to walve further readlng and lntroduce Ordlnancs No. 684. Motlon carrled unanlmously.

End of Admlnlstratlve Agenda.

Publlc Hearlngs on Plannlng ProJectr - Part ll, ,K X3. 6 Redwood Drlve, Demolltlon Permit and Deslgn Review Permlt No. 2017-035, and Town Councll consldcratlon of adoptlon of Rcsolution No' zAZt. Town of Ross, 5 Redwood Drive, A.P. No, A73-242-25, C-D {Clvic District}, Publlc Servlce (P5|, Zone AE Floodway (l.percent annual chance of floodlng|. Town staff ls requestlng a Demolltlon Permlt and Deslgn Revlew to allow for the remodel and repair of an exlstlng single-famlly residence that was damaged as a result of a flre. A Demolltlon Permlt and Deslgn Revlew is belng requested tg allow the slight relocatlon of the residence ln order to accomrnodate a code compllant foundation that wlll not adversely lnterfere with exlsting mature redwood tree roots.

ProJect Summary: Lot Aree 4,36 rcres (185,561 square feet| Exlstlng Floor Area/tatlo 925 rq. ft. 0.a% (No FAR Maxlmuml Proposed Floor Area/Rrtlo 925 sq. ft. No change Exlstlng Lot Coverage 975 sq. ft" 0.5% (No FAR Maxlmumf

5 Octobcr L2, 2Al7 Mlnutcs Proposcd lot Coverage 975 sq. ft, No change Exlrtlng lmperulous Surfacss 975 sq. ft. 0.596 Propored lmprrvlour Surfaces 975 rq. ft. No changc

Planning Manager Heidl Scoble summarlzed the staff report and recommended that the Councll approve Resolutlon 2025, approvlng a Dernolltlon Permlt and Design Review to allow for the relocatlon, remodel, and repalr of an existing slngle-famlly resldence that was damaged because of a flre at 6 Redwood Drlve.

Council Member Hoertkorn expressed concern for blds and the deficlt wlth the'lnsurance company. Town Manager Joe Chlnn explalned that the actual amount funded by lnsurance wlll not be determined untll we recelve constructlon bids and reconclle cost elements with the lnsurance company. Staff further noted the Councll awards the blds, not staff.

Council Member Russell suggested ralslng the property another slx lnches. if posslble. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl wanted to know lf they would be covered by lnsurance lf they ralse another slx lnches. He agreed to recelve blds to see lf they are covered by insurance.

Councll Member Brekhus wanted to ask the tenant if the water did flood the property or just the crawlspace. Councll Member Hoertkorn pointed outthatthe insurance only covers damage from the flre, not the flood. Town Manager Chlnn responded that the lnsurance covers llftlng the house above the floodplaln. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl added that insurance covers constructlon to current code. Town Manager Chlnn responded ln the affirmative. Councll Member Brekhus would support a conversatlon wlth the insurance company.

Planning Manager Scoble noted that staff has been working wlth the lnsurance adJuster, and that the lnsurance may not cover a modlfied deslgn beyond the existlng conflguration of the resldence. Town Manager Chinn stated lnsurance would cover replaclng fire damaged material which ls much of the house. lf they modlfy or,change beyond that then it could change the cost of what ls covered.

Plannlng Manager Scoble ls worklng wlth Arborist Janelle Hobart to establish a plan to provlde sufflclent screening of Town property. Town Manager Chlnn explalned once the backstop is removed they will have a better ldea ln terms of screenlng.

Mayor Robbins opened the publlc hearing on thls ltem,

Barbara Call, Redwood Drlve resident, polnted out that what flooded was under the house. The actual house did not flood. The flood was in the mawlspace where the furnace was located. She thanked the Council for consldering the redwood trees on this slte. 5he asked the Councll to keep ln mind that the redwood tree roots are underneath the drlveway as well, Also, she vlews the roof and hopes the color ls sornewhat conslstent wlth what ls present now, She hopes the house can get flxed up because she currently llves near the Town dump. She opposed removing the screening untll constructlon is complete. She hoped the councll approves the project in order to move.forward to have a nlce property for the Town to rent and for the nelghborhood.

6 Oclober L2, zOLl M lnutst Peter Nelson, Circle Drlve resldent, stated that it was an actlve dlscusslon at the Advlsory Design Revlew (ADR) Group m€eting about how bad this property ls deslgned. They should spend the rnoney to make thls house more functlonal and useable ln terms of the floor plan. What ls present now ls unusable. Also, lf there is no change ln the floor plan, at least provlde for the posslbllity to add-on ln the future to make the space more functlonal,

There belng no further publlc testlmony on thls ltem, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and actlon.

Council Member Russell wanted staff to find out what ls the true flood elevatlon. lf in fact it did not flood, then there ls no need to raise the property another six inches.

Council Member Brekhus asked if the landscaping plan would come back to the Council. Town Manager Chinn stated that staff would come bach to the Councllfor any landscaping that would be viewed from the Common. The main change ls the removal of the large leaning chaln link fence between the Comrnon and house and all the vegetatlon attached to that fence. There is another wooden fence behlnd the chain llnk fence that will remaln. The current plan ln to plant the screening plants along the fence llne on the Common slde whlch staff wlll come back to Councilfor approval.

Councll Member Hoertkorn pointed out that current property taxes do not cover the operating cost. Their blggest expense ls the flre department. Every slngle penny of addltional property taxes paid for the flre department. They wlll get hlt repeatedly wlth CaIPERS cost. They need to harbor every penly the Town recelves. To authorlze changes that could cost the Town addltlonal funds they need to be very careful.

Mayor Robblns asked for a motion.

Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhl moved and Councll Member Brekhus seconded, to approvc 6 Rcdwood Drlvq Demolltlon Permit and Deslgn Revlew Psrmlt No. 2017-035 and adopt Resolutlon No. 2025. Motlon carrled unanlmourly.

End of Publlc Hearlngs on Plannlng Prof ects - Part ll.

L4. No Actlon ltems: a. Councll correlpondence " Parking regulatlons for RVs/boats

b. Future Councll items r Parklng regulatlons ln front yards ' Publlc Works signs * Regulations for shrubs/hedges + Ross Valley Fire Department Chlef recrultment r Farklng at Natalie Coffln Greene Park

15, Adfournment, Mayor Robblns moved to adJourn the meetlng at 7:46 p.m.

7 ATTACHMENT 1.2 ianuary 10, 20L9 Minutes

REGULAR MEETING of the ROSS TOWN COUNCIL THURSDAY, JANUARY ].0, zOLg 'F**5, Redwood Drive Excerpt***

1. 6:00 p.m. Commencement. Mayor Beach Kuhl; Mayor Pro Tempore Elizabeth Brekhus; Council Member Julie McMillan; Council Member Elizabeth Robbins; Council Member Rupert Russell; and Town Attorney Benjamin Stock.

13. Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements to the Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive Town Manager Joe Chinn summarized the staff report and recommended that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements to the Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive to blend the property more naturally with the rest of the Common Park.

Planning Manger Heidi Scoble explained that consistent with Council direction on May 'J"0,20L8, the proposed project is to remove the chain link and 6-foot tall wood fence and the over-grown vegetation that separates the Ross Common from the 6 Redwood Drive site, to open the property up to and incorporate it into the park. The vegetation is considered to be invasive and has grown over and enveloped the chain link and wooden perimeter fence. Mulch and a weed barrier would be placed on the ground over much of the 6 Redwood Drive site and irrigation would be installed to water and maintain the three large redwood trees as recommended by the Town Arborist. A 4-foot tall split rail fence is proposed to extend from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site. Staff presented several photographs for the Council's consideration showing the current site and the resulted project. Staff then provided some background on the parcel and explained that on June 22, 191,L, the Town Council authorized the Town to purchase the 4.36 acre property known as Ross Common, which includes the 6 Redwood site from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park. Two houses existed on the property and were transferred to the Town with the purchase of the Ross Common property. One residence was destroyed many years ago and never reconstructed, and the remaining house that produced rental income was severely damaged by fire in February 2015. Turning the 6 Redwood space into passive park space by connecting it to the rest of the Common Park is in keeping with the original intent and purpose of the Town Council 191L Resolution.

Planning Manager Scoble responded to a letter received from a Redwood resident and indicated that this project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 - Existing Facilities. Class L consists of the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alternation of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The project falls under this Class L categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities/topographical features and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the original public use deeded to the Town in 191L. Also, this project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4 - Minor Alterations to Land. Class 4 consists ,January l^0, 2019 Minutes of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation, which do not involve removal of healthy mature, scenic trees exempt for forestry or agricultural purposes.

Town Manager Chinn discussed the financials and noted that the project cost as shown is fully funded through insurance proceeds. Once it is connected to the rest of the Common it is considered public park space and gives it a more protected status. ln order to take it out of the park space, requiring either a special election or conveyance of park space of equal or greater value.

Mayor Kuhl asked when the letter was received from the attorney representing the owner at 8 Redwood Drive. Town Manager Chinn said he was in meetings and did not see the email until around 3 pm and then transferred it to others. The email came in at 11:45 am today. Also, there is an email dated December 3rd from the neighbor next door to the attorney indicating that they had more than one month notice on this issue.

Council Member Robbins asked if they should be discussing more than just this one option based on the wording from the May 2018 meeting and the wording from the minutes. There were several Council members in favor of making the property a park. She wanted to know if there should be more options presented tonight. Also, she felt the agenda was very misleading and felt it should be continued in order to provide better transparency in government. She wondered if more options for the site should be considered since any transfer of land to the park is permanent. lt might be feasible to build on this site in the future and if making these park-like improvements is the direction of the Council is there a way to do that without it becoming legally a park to have future options.

Mayor Kuhl stated that they made a decision about which four options to pursue and at the moment it would be inappropriate to go back and discuss other options. Town Manager Chinn pointed out that the site plan is consistent with the direction from Council at the May L0th, 2018 meeting. They had a thorough discussion of all three housing options that were rejected by the Council.

Council Member Robbins believed the vote should be postponed due to the lack of transparency on the agenda. Town Manger Chinn stated that postponement is up to the Council. There was a courtesy notice that was not required which was sent to the neighbors that described the project. The staff report states it very clearly. lt is up to the Council to make that determination.

Mayor Kuhl asked the Town Attorney if the agenda was appropriately noticed to follow the action that was taken in May of 2018. Town Attorney Benjamin Stock felt the agenda accurately describes what is before the Council today. lf the Council wanted to continue this item, the Council has the option in regard to more comment or notification, but what is before the Council tonight is consistent with the past actions.

Council Member Russell asked the Town Attorney if he supports the position from staff in regard to the CEQA issue. Town Attorney Stock responded in the affirmative. He reviewed the letter, given the late delivery, and he is confident in the categorical exemptions.

2 January 10, 2019 Minutes Council Member McMillan pointed out that it is not being transferred just putting it back with the rest of the Common, which was the original intent. Town Attorney Stock agreed that is a fair point.

Council Member Russell asked the Town Arborist to confirm the tree roots in regard to the staff report. Town Arborist Ed Gurka confirmed with staff's comments that there would be no impacts to the redwood tree or palm tree. He stated that he would be able to put together a report and be onsite during work to make sure everything is done properly.

Council Member McMillan asked the Town Arborist if the work being done would enhance the trees. Town Arborist Gurka said as proposed yes. There are aspects that would be a change such as the addition of soil to the grading area, adding drip irrigation and mulch which would benefit the trees. Council Member McMillan asked the Town Arborist if the spilt railfencing is proposed for aesthetics or protection. Town Arborist Gurka explained that the fencing could act as a barrier to prevent people from getting too close to the tree and protect the trunks.

Mayor Kuhl clarified that the material received proposes to install split rail fences around the outer edges paralleling the path in a few areas. Planning Manager Scoble responded in the affirmative.

Mayor Pro Tempore Brekhus asked if the property was surveyed. Public Works Director Rich Simonitch noted that the property itself has not been surveyed in quite a long time, but the adjacent parcels were recently surveyed. To establish the right-of-way line at Redwood Drive could easily be determined by a tape measure. The fence is located on the property line or very close to it, so there is no cause for noting any discrepancy in regard to where the fence is located.

Mayor Kuhl opened the public hearing on this item

Charlie Goodman, Ross resident, discussed the late letter received by the Council and sympathizes with the Council receiving information at the last minute, but those comments must be considered. For over 50 years this was a Town-owned residence for Town employees and now to take this away is a problem. Also, giving this to the Ross Common in perpetuity with never having the option of putting a unit of some kind back in is an issue. They have never given away land. He cautioned the Council to not proceed in this manner. They have insurance money and he would rather the Council move slower and develop some other ideas. He felt it should remain housing stock for the Town. Mayor Kuhl reiterated that option is not before the Counciltonight. Mr. Goodman felt the agenda is very vague and should have been clearer and recommended continuing for fu rther discussion.

Barbara Call, 8 Redwood Drive resident, stated she first became involved in saving the redwood trees back in 2005. She felt tearing down the house is a huge mistake along with allthe greenery. She objects based on aesthetics. The presentation is ugly and this area does not need to be part of the Common. Her home will be opened up entirely to public view. Removing the greenery is taking away her privacy and security. lf there are no buffer zones she will no longer feel safe. She believed the redwood trees are in danger and desired an arborist report from an arborist that does not work for the Town. She expressed concern for fly balls from the baseball field. The bulk of that greenery should remain.

3 January 10, 2019 Minutes

Jonathan Kathrein, Attorney, Ragghianti/Freitas, stated that they are considering a change in use and they must considerthe impacts of that change. Environmental review is necessary because this project impacts the environment. CEQA review must consider a whole project that has the potential for either direct or indirect physical change in the environment. This project does trigger a CEQA review. The staff report sites exemptions that will not work. This project will impact the neighbors in the very least in the form of traffic, congestion, parking and noise. lt will impact the Town in terms of public services and it will impact a home next door that lists as historic. Property boundary must be determined. The fence is not an accurate property boundary. This project should be planned carefully and that plan should be in writing and all neighbors should be involved in that planning, including his client.

Peter Nelson, Circle Drive resident, attended most of the nine public hearings on this matter and the notice tonight is deceptive and not transparent. This should be re-noticed to be further discussed next meeting. Housing and workforce housing is very important. The recommendation before the Council does not address the housing issue. ln regard to the additional 560,000 coming from the general fund, money could be put into a fund for possible housing study or housing elements.

Lindsey, Allen Ave resident, is on the FinancialAdvisory Committee for Ross School and has been tasked to help with housing for teachers in order to attract and retain teachers. Once this property becomes a park, it will never become housing in the future. She recommended that the Council continue this matter for further discussion on housing for teachers.

There being no further public testimony on this item, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and action.

Mayor Pro Tempore Brekhus stated this has been a really difficult issue and pointed out that the May 10th, 201.8 agenda item was for discussion and action on Town property. They started out with an open mind and desire to have workforce housing, but it was cost prohibitive. The May 10th, 2018 meeting was publically noticed. She is still of the mindset to have this become park land is a benefit to the community. lf they adopt this plan, and it looks like there is need for additional greenery, they are not precluded from adding more. She supported the plan before the Council and recommended moving forward.

Council Member Robbins did not agree with the wording of the resolution, it was cost neutral until there was $200,000 of dry-rot damage. She pointed out that it was not cost prohibitive. They just didn't want to spend the money and Town staff was not in favor of workforce housing and it did not go through in May.

Council Member Russell did not want to take action where people feel they are doing it behind closed doors or anyway trying to get around the sense of the community. They need to have a fair process. He recommended deferring the decision to the next Council meeting.

Council Member McMillan felt they should proceed, given the fact they've had several meetings on this matter. They are not here to revisit the workforce housing issue. They have severalADU's (accessory dwelling units) providing many more opportunities for teachers and staff, which is a

4 January 10, 2019 Minutes much more viable option. The intent from 19L1 in approving $30,000 worth of bonds in order to pay for the Common was for all of this to be used by the pubic, not for one person or to protect one house, but for the use of everyone in Town. This property belongs to everyone and that was the intent in 19L1. They have a fabulous opportunity to open up the Common and allow everyone in Town to enjoy it. They should move forward.

Council Member Robbins recommended continuing for one month because they are hearing from the public that they didn't know what this was about. Transparency is really important.

Mayor Kuhl added that the property is now locked up and it is in awful shape. Those trees are magnificent trees and they should do everything to protect them and what is proposed he is satisfied that it will not damage them. They are not transferring any property. The Town owns this property, just changing the use to a much better situation than they currently have and much better situation then trying to put housing in the area.

Council Member Russell did not want to do something where others in the Town feel they didn't have an opportunity or misunderstood what is proposed. lt is always better to get the views of the community heard. He is supportive of turning this into a park, however he didn't want to vote on it tonight, if possible.

Council Member Robbins discussed "The Moring After" newsletter from May 2018 when the majority of the Council decided to make this property at 6 Redwood a park. The newsletter did not cover that, so people haven't heard formally that this should not be housing and should become a park. People deserve to know and recommended postponing the vote. The agenda item indicates landscaping improvements. Mayor Pro Tempore Brekhus did not believe it is fair to say that the public is charged with only reading the title, which does accurately describe that they are making landscaping improvements and not scroll down and see the site plan. She felt this process has been fair. lt reminds her of an email they received early on when a resident had a project near them in the summer and they were upset because they felt all planning approvals should not be heard in the summer since residents take vacations, which is not realistic.

Council Member Russell asked the Town Attorney if the advice given tonight is definitive and he would not prefer to have more time to think about it. Town Attorney Stock stated, as a lawyer, he would always appreciate more time, but more time would not make his answer any less definitive than it is tonight.

Council Member McMillan moved and Mayor Pro Tempore Brekhus seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements to the Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive. Motion carried 3-2. (Robbins/Russell opposed.)

5 ATTACHMENT 13 ' February L4, 20L9 Minutes

REGULAR MEETING Of thc ROSS TOWN COUNCIL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY L4, 2OI9 *'t'r'6t Redwood Drive Excerpt***

L. 6:00 p.m. Commencement. Mayor Beach Kuhl; Mayor Pro Tempore Elizabeth Brekhus; Council Member Julie McMillan; and Town Attorney Benjamin Stock. (Robbins/Russell absent)

Administrative Aeenda. 10. Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2093 to rescind Resolution No. 2090, and direct staff to bring back 6 Redwood Drive landscape improvement site plan to a future Council meeting. Town Manager Joe Chinn summarized the staff report and recommended that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2093 to rescind Resolution No. 2090, and direct staff to bring back the 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvement site plan to a future Council meeting.

Council Member McMillan pointed out that the language included in the courtesy notice was much broader than the language included on the January L0 agenda title. Responding to a question Town Manager Chinn indicated that the courtesy notice was sent out to residents within 300 feet, so the owner at 8 Redwood Drive received such notice.

Mayor Kuhl opened the public hearing on this item.

Jonathan Kathrein, Ragghianti Freitas, Attorney, representing 8 Redwood Drive resident, pointed out that the public testimony at the January 10th, 201"9 Town Council meeting indicated that the public was not aware of the extent of the proposed decision. Those who spoke expressed opposition to the project and frustration with the process and transparency. The Town's action on January L0th would be better described as the culmination of a series of events that included tearing down a fire damaged residence, cashing out its insured value, and turning the lot into a park instead. The Town sold a home in Ross for 5380,000 and called it a landscape improvement. Over the past 24 hours he reviewed thousands of documents produced by the Town and the overwhelming theme is that citizen after citizen sent letters to the Town asking for the house to be rebuilt. The public wants to be heard and they were not heard. The Brown Act begins by stating that "the people insist on remaining informed." Tonight's staff report defends the Town's communication with his client, which misses the point. The goal of the Brown Act is to keep everyone informed and calling a permanent change a landscape improvement, the Town hid the planning for 6 Redwood Drive from meaningful public participation. One Council member sent a recent letter to the Dixie School District explaining the Brown Act. Yet, on at least two occasions between May 2018 and January 20L9 Council meetings, the future of 6 Redwood Drive was discussed. ln addition to the agenda deficiencies, this appearance of serial meetings is the same scenario your Council member's letter asked the Dixie District to avoid. The Town must better inform its residents and include its residents. Take this opportunity to pause and engage the community and plan for the future of this important property. Restore faith in the process. He encouraged the Council to approve this resolution rescinding prior action and err on the side of good government and transparency. February !4, 2019 Minutes There being no further public testimony on this item, the Mayor closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion and action.

Mayor Pro Tempore Brel

Mayor Kuhl asked for a motion.

Mayor Pro Tempore Brekhus moved and Council Member McMillan seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2093, rescinding Resolution No. 2090 for 6 Redwood Drive and direct staff to bring back 6 Redwood Drive landscape improvement site plan to a future Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (Robbins/Russell absent)

2 m IIRVN RlOS.S trH Agenda ltem No, 10.

Staff Report

Date: February 74,z0tg

Mayor Kuhl and Councilmembers

From: Joe Chinn, Town Manager

Subject: Consideration of Rescinding Resolution 2090 Regarding 6 Redwood Landscape lmprovements and Direct Staff to Bring Back to a Future Council Meeting

Recommendation Town Council consideration of adoption of Resolution No. 2093 to rescind Resolution No. 2090, and direct staff to bring back the 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvement site pfan to a future Council meeting.

Background and discussion On January 10, 2019, the Town Council voted 3-2 to approve Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements to the 6 Redwood site consistent with Council direction from the May 10, 20L8 meeting. The project presented at the January 10 Council meeting consisted of the removal of an existing chain link and 6-foot tall wood fence, in addition to the removal of overgrown vegetation (e.g., ivy, wild plums, privets, and associated weed trees that produce suckers) that separates the Ross Common from the 6 Redwood Drive site. The removal of the fencing and vegetation along that fencing will passively open the property up to and incorporate it into the Ross Common Park. Mulch and weed barrier would be placed on the ground over much of the 6 Redwood site and irrigation would be installed to water the three large redwood trees on the parcel consistent with arborist recommendations. Other improvements proposed included the construction of a four-foot tall split rail fence that would go from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site.

Related to noticing the January 1"0, 2019, Council item, Town staff mailed a Courtesy Notice to property owners within 300-feet of the project site even though the scope of the work did not trigger a discretionary permit thus this notice was not required {Notice attached). Additionally, the project was properly agendized and noticed under the Brown Act requirements. Furthermore, the Town Manager had multiple conversations with Barbara Call who resides at 8 Redwood Drive about the scope and timing of the Councilconsideration regarding the project. The purpose of those conversations was to discuss the proposed site improvements associated with the May 10 Council direction related to landscape improvements at 6 Redwood Drive and connecting the site to the rest of the Ross Common Park. ln November, the Town Manager spoke with Ms. Call to inform her that the site plan for 6 Redwood Drive would be scheduled for the December 13, 20L8, Council meeting, and the Town Manager met with Ms. Callon November 1"5 at the 6 Redwood Drive site to discuss the scope of the landscaping improvements

t that would be considered by the Council at the December meeting, Specifically, the Town Manager explained the various landscape related improvements to the site that would result in the site being connected to the rest of the Ross Common Park. As evidenced by the emailthe Town received from Ms. Call, she understood the scope of the project contemplated for the January 10 meeting from those conversations with the Town Manager, Ms, Call confirmed this knowledge by an email she provided the Town that was a correspondence she sent her attorney on December 3, 2018. ln that email, she admits that the Town's improvements would be heard by the Council on January 10th, and that the meeting would include a discussion about installing landscaping to make the property part of the Ross Common. A copy of this email is attached. At the November site visit, Ms. Call requested the Council consideration of the project be moved to the January 2019 meeting agenda since she was not able to attend the December 1.3, 20L8 meeting. The Town Manager agreed to delay the meeting untilJanuary 10, 2019, in order to accommodate Ms. Call.

Following the January 10, 201,9 Council meeting, the attorney representing the property owner of 8 Redwood Drive sent the Town a 'Demand to Cure' letter under the Brown Act, claiming that the Agenda violated Government Code section 5a95a.2{a}(1), by failing to state on the agenda that the improvements subject to approval would also have the effect of combining 5 Redwood Road to the Ross Common. Her attorney requested that the Town rescind Resolution No. 2090 and provide additional notice on any further action. The Town believes the claims are unfounded because proper noticing was provided pursuant to the Brown Act, and Ms. Call had actual notice of the actions being requested bythe Council at the January 10 meeting which defeats any Brown Act alleged violation. However, staff supports providing additional opportunities for public input to avoid a potential lawsuit that would subject the Town to litigation fees even assuming it prevailed especially when curing is straightforward, Thus, the Town would conduct a further hearing to allow the Town Council to determine the most appropriate site improvements for the property. Therefore, staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution No. 2093 to rescind Resolution No. 2090, and direct staff to bring the 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvement site plan to a future Council meeting.

Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts There are no costs of this action other than staff time associated with this report and preparing the staff report when the item returns to the Town Council.

Environmental review - CEQA exempt This proposed/recommended action - to rescind Resolution No. 2090 (approving the 6 Redwood Drive project) and direct staff to bring the project back to the Council to reconsider whether it should be approved - is not a project subject to CEQA as there is no potential for the project to result in either a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines 5 15378(a)) and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines $ 15061(b)3) and {b)(+)')

Alternatives None recommended

Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2093 2. January 1.0, 2018 Staff Report and Resolution No' 2090 3. January 10, 2018 Courtesy Notice 4. January 9, ZOI9 Email from Ms. Call

2 ATTACHMENT L TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTTON NO. 2093 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2O9O AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK TO A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING FOR CoNSTDERATION THE 6 REDWOOD DR|VE (ApN 07?-242-25) LANDSCAPTNG IMPROVEMENT SITE PLAN

WHEREAS, On June 22, L9L3", Town Council Resolution No. 57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is a 4.36-acre {189,923 square feet} parcel {APN 073-242- 25), which includes the site known as 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on July L, tgtL, the Ross Common was deeded to the Town; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2OI5, a house at 6 Redwood Drive was severely damaged by a fire; and

WHEREAS, on October L2,20t7, Town Council approved a Demolition Permit and Design Review to allow for the relocation, remodel, and repair of an existing single-family residence that was damaged as a result of a fire at 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on May L0, 2018, the reconstruction of the 6 Redwood Drive residence was found to be cost prohibitive as a result of the discovery of extensive dry rot damage to the wooden structural elements and the Town Council voted to direct staff to perform minor site work and cleanup of the 6 Redwood Drive site with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting; and

WHEREAS on January t0,2019, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, on January LO, 20t9, the majority of the Town Council, after carefully reviewing and considering the staff reports, correspondence, and other information contained in the project file adopted Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements and site cleanup, including removing the fences and vegetation between at the north and east side of the 6 Redwood Drive site to blend more naturally with the rest of the Ross Common Park; and

WHEREAS, on January L5, 2AL9, an attorney representing the owner of 8 Redwood Drive sent a letter to the Town claiming that the Town failed to properly follow the Ralph M. Brown Act ("Brown Act") by not properly describing on the agenda the substance of Resolution No 2090, and demanding that the Town rescind the resolution; and

WHEREAS, although the Town of Ross believes the project has been properly noticed per the Brown Act, and that the owner of 8 Redwood Drive had actual notice of the agenda item, in order to avoid litigation fees, the Town supports providing additional opportunities for public input from the Town residents and allowing the Town Council to determine the most appropriate site improvements for the 5 Redwood Drive site.

NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Ross, that the Town Council rescinds Resolution No. 2090 and directs staff to bring back the 6 Redwood Drive landscaping improvement site plan to a future Council meeting.

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the 14th of February 2AL9, by the following vote:

AYES

NOES:

ABSENT

ABSTAIN:

P. Beach Kuhl, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town Clerk

2 ATTACHMENT 2 m TffiVl.{ ROSS Agenda ltem No. 13.

Staff Report

Date January 70,z0tg

To: Mayor Kuhl and Councilmembers

From: Joe Chinn, Town Manager

Subject: Town Council consideration of making improvements to the Town-Owned property at 6 Redwood Drive connecting it to rest of the Common Park

Recommendation Council adopt Resolution No. 2090 approving landscape improvements to the Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive to blend the property more naturally with the rest of the Common Park.

Background and discussion On June 22,Ig!t, Town Council Resolution No. 57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common. On July 1., L9L1, the Ross Common, a 4.36-acre (189,923 square feet) parcel (APN 073- 242-25'), was deeded to the Town (see Attachment 3). The parcel is zoned as Civic District (C-D) zoning district. The C-D zoning classification is applied to land areas ftiund to be suitable for use as sites for public, quasi-public, cultural, educational and/or recreational uses and purposes. Although visually separated from the Ross Common by fences and dense vegetation, the address formerly having a house at 6 Redwood Drive is a part of the parcel purchased in 1911 and located on southwest portion of the Ross Common. As part of the 1911 sale, two residences existed on the property at the time of sale, at least one of which was producing rental income under a lease which transferred to the Town with the sale.

Since that time, the Town continued to rent the former residence at 6 Redwood Drive until February 28, 2015, when the house was severely damaged by a fire. At the December 8, 2076 meeting, the Town Council approved the option to repair the residence at 6 Redwood Drive and continue to use it as a rental unit and adopted Resolution No. L982 to that effect at the Town Council meeting held on January 8,ZAt7. Town Council approved Design Review 2017-035 on October L2, 2A77 and the project contract was awarded to WestCal Design and Build lnc. on February 8, 2018, and the contractor began work at the site on March 12,201,8.

On April 2, 2a78 portions of the exterior siding were removed and the house was lifted from the foundation at which time extensive dry rot and termite damage was discovered on previously unexposed portions of the exterior wall framing. Further investigation of the house revealed the potential need to replace or repair most of the structural elements due to dry rot repair. On April l.3th the contract was

7 suspended as provided for under the general conditions in order for staff to assess all options before moving forward, At a Special Town Council Meeting held on April 25, 2018th the Council authorized the complete demolition of the residence which was completed shortly thereafter,

At the May 10, 2018, Council meeting four options were presented and discussed related to the 6 Redwood Drive property including: Option 1 reconstructing a new house using the old floor plan and elevations; Option 2 constructing a new structure with a modified roofline and floor plan; Option 3 entering into a ground lease to private development for residential developmen| and Option 4 performing minor site work and cleanup. The Council discussion included various potential housing options related to options 1 through 3, and turning the space into passive park space by connecting it to the rest of the Common Park. The Councilvoted 3-2 to pursue Option 4 with the site plan to be discussed at a future meeting (the Vtay 10, 2018 staff report and minutes are attached).

Project Description Consistent with Town Council direction, the proposed project is to remove the chain link and 6-foot tall wood fence and the overgrown vegetation (e,g., ivy, wild plums, privets, and associated weed trees that produce suckers) that separates the Ross Common from the 6 Redwood Drive site to open the property up to and incorporate it into the Park. The overgrown vegetation to be removed are not considered to be specialstatus species listed on the California Natural Diversity Database. Additionally, the removalof the vegetation would not disrupt any sensitive natural communities on site as the vegetation is considered to be invasive and has grown over and enveloped a chain link and wooden perimeter fence. Furthermore, none of the vegetation to be removed is considered to be a "Significant tree" as defined by Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code. The vines along the west side of the 6 Redwood Drive site would also be cleaned up by cutting them back. Mulch and a weed barrier would be placed on the ground over much of the 6 Redwood Drive site and irrigation would be installed to water/maintain the three large redwood trees on the parcel as recommended by the Town Arborist. A four-foot tall split rail fence is proposed going from the palm tree adjacent to Redwood Drive across the existing drive entry and along the east side of the site. ln addition, a three-foot tall split rail fence is included in the plan around the three redwoods to protect the trees. A design plan is attached.

Once the 6 Redwood Drive project is complete and the site is incorporated into the Ross Common Park it would be considered public park space. Park space is protected under provisions of the California Government Code. ln order to convert any space from park to non-park related space requires either a special election of the Town residents or conveyance of a portion of such a park in exchange for an equal or greater area or value of privately-owned land contiguous to the park.

Fiscal, resource and timeline impacts The funding source for the project is from insurance payments for the fire-damaged house. The Town has property insurance through a Joint Powers Authority Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN) insurance program. The insurance covered the costs of all the studies, design, and engineering related to re-building thehouse,theclean-upofthefiredamagedhouse,andtheremovalofthehouse. Afterpayingforallof these costs there is an estimated $125,000 remaining in insurance proceeds. The cost of the proposed project described is 560.000. Thus, it is estimated that Town will receive 565,000 in insurance payments above the project costs that will be added to the Facilities and Equipment Fund.

Town staff has already received bids and cost estimates for the components of the proposed project The project would begin following Council approval.

2 Environmental review The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15301, Class 1 -Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance... or minor alteration of existing pubtic structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The project falls under this Class 1 categorical exemption because it involves the minor alteration of public facilities/topographical features and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the original public use deeded to the Town in 1911.

The project is also categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15304, Class 4- Minor Alterations to Land. Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:

New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping.

Filling of earth into previously excavated land with materialcompatible with the natural features of the site.

Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored

Lastly, none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. The existing vacant project site was deeded to the Town of Ross in 1.911 for the purposes of a public park and the project will further the purpose and intent of the original purchase. lndeed, because staff has not identified or been provided with any evidence that the project may result in potentially significant environmental impacts, staff believes the project is also exempt from CEQA under the common sense exception (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

3 Attachments 1. Resolution No. 2090 2. Site Plan 3. Grant Deed and Resolution from L911 purchase of property 4. May L0, 201.8 minutes 5, May 10, 2018 staff report

4 TOWN OF ROSS

RESOLUTION NO. 2O9O A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ROSS APPROVING LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWN-OWNED PROPERTY AT 6 REDWOOD DRIVE, APN 073-242.25

WHEREAS, On June 22,lgLL, Town Council Resolution No.57 authorized the Town to purchase the property from Annie S.E. Worn to be held, owned, and used by the Town as and for a public park to be known as the Ross Common; and

WHEREAS, the Ross Common is a 4.36-acre {1.89,923 square feet} parcel {APN Q73-242- 25), which includes the site known as 6 Redwood Drive; and

WHEREAS, on July 1-,IgLt, the Ross Common was deeded to the Town; and

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2015, a house at 5 Redwood Drive was severely damaged by a fire; and

WHEREAS on January IO,2019, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project; and

NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Ross 1, The Town Council approves minor landscape improvements and site cleanup, including ' removing the fences and vegetation between at the north and east side of the 6 Redwood Drive site to btend more naturally with the rest of the Ross Common Park. The project will remove the chain link and 6-foot tall wood fence and the overgrown vegetation (e.g., ivy, wild plums, privets, and associated weed trees that produce suckers) that separates the Ross Common from the 6 Redwood Drive site to open the property up to and incorporate it into the Park. The vines along the west side of the 6 Redwood Drive site will also be cleaned up by cuttingthem back. Mulch and a weed barrierwill be placed on the ground over mgch of the 6 Redwood Drive site, and irrigation will be installed to waterfmaintain the thrJe existing redwood trees on the site. A split rail fence will be installed on the east side of the site adjacent to Redwood Drive from the palm tree across the existing drive entry. ln addition, a split rail fence will be installed around the three redwoods to protect the trees,

2. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 1.5301, Class L -Existing Facilities. "Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance... or minor alteration of existing public or privatg structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination...."(CEQA Guideline $ 15301,) The project falls under this Class L categorical exemption because, as evidenced in the public record, the project involves the minor alteration of public facilities/topographical features and because the project involves negligible or no expansion of the original public use deeded to the Town in 191-1.

3. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section L53O4, Class 4- Minor Alterotions to Land. tlass 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes." (CEQA Guideline S 15304.) Specifically, the project would entail grading on land with a slope of less than L0 percent. The grading is a result of providing fill material to previously excavated land in order to bring the site to its natural topography resulting from the demolition of the 6 Redwood Drive structure. The project would also include new landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping in order to blend existing landscaping between the Ross Common and 6 Redwood Drive. Furthermore, the project would include the filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site. The project would also include minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. The project does not entail the removal of any healthy, mature, scenic trees.

!. The project is also exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exception {CEQA Guidelines S 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

2 5. Lastly, none of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to impacts on environmental resources; (b), which relates to cumulative impacts; Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances; or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources. The existing vacant project site was deeded to the Town of Ross in L9LL for the purposes of a public park and the project will furtherthe purpose and intent of the original purchase, and the landscaping improvements proposed are minor in nature, will not lead to any loss of any "Significant tree" as defined by Chapter 12.24 of the Ross Municipal Code, and will simply combine 6 Redwood Drive site with the Ross Common,

The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Ross Town Council at its regular meeting held on the LOth of January 20L9, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Kuhl, Brekhus, McMillan

NOES: Council Member Robbins, Russell

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

P. Beach Kuhl, Mayor

ATTEST:

Linda Lopez, Town k

3 ATTACHMTNT 3 COURTESY NOTICT NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Town Council, Town of Ross Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 5:00PM

Owner: Town of Ross Location: Ross Common A.P. Number: 073-242-25 Zoning: C-D (Civic District-Public, quasi-public, cultural, educational, andlor recreational uses and purposes) General Plan: O-S {Open Space- Public Park} Flood Zone: Zone AE {1.-Percent Annual Chance of Flooding}

Project Description: Town staff is requesting to integrate the Town-owned site at 6 Redwood to the rest of the Ross Common by making minor landscape improvements and site cleanup, such as removing the fences and vegetation between at the north and east side of the parcelto the 5 Redwood site to blend more naturally with the Ross Common park. The Ross Common, which includes the 6 Redwood site, was deeded to the Town as one parcel on July L, tgIL. The 6 Redwood site is located on the southwest portion of the Ross Common and was previously occupied with a single- family residential structure that was severly damaged by fire in 2015.

The public hearing will be held at Ross Town Hall, 31 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, at the corner of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Lagunitas Road. Plans are available for review during regular office hours in the Development Services building, adjacent to Town Hall. The Town Council invites interested parties to submit written comments in advance of the hearing. Written comments received by the Planning Department by 5:00 p.m. the Thursday (7 days) prior to the Town Council meeting will be included in the Council agenda packet, Other written conr'ments should be submitted at least 48 hours prior to the Council meeting so the Council has ample time to review the comments. A staff report will be available at the town web site at townofross.org. For further information, please contact Joe Chinn, Town Manager, at (415) 453-1453, extension !A7, or jch in n @townofross.org. ATTACHMENT 4 Joe Chinn - Town Manager

From: Joe Chinn - Town Manager Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 8:35 PM To: Linda Lopez Subject: FW:#6 Redwood Lot

From: Barbara Call Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:40 PM To: Beach Kuhl ; Elizabeth Robbins ; Elizabeth Brekhus ; Julie McMillan ; Rupert Russell ; Joe Chinn - Town Manager Subject: Fwd: #5 Redwood Lot

Begin forwarded message

F rom : Barbara Call Date: December 3,2018 at12:34:16 PM PST To: Riley Hurd Subject: #6 Redwood Lot

Dear Riley, I want to let you know that the meeting to discuss the future of this properfy has been postponed until January 10. This gives more time to ruminatelresearch. I think about the issues daily and sometimes in the middle of the night@.

My interest is to keep the Commons a beautiful space. I want to preserve the heritage trees and additional greenery thus protecting the neighborhood and my house from excessive noise, lack of privacy, and more traffic and parking problems.

Since I have lived in Ross, the various Councils have made several mistakes that have had a negative eifect on the Commons. Mistakes have been made due to lack of forethought for the future. There seems to be a pattern of ripping stuff out or tearing it down without a plan going forward or a consideration of the environment.

The first mistake was made when they voted to rip out the maze that was next to the Post Office. It was really quite charming but the hedge needed care and the Town preferred to destroy rather than refurbish. As a result, the maze was destroyed and lawn was planted and the beautiful heritage Redwood trees were compromised to the extent that they look like telephone poles with a f'ew scraggly branches. There is very little new growth on the old trees and the branches and leaves are sparse.

I will mention that I have hired 3 arborists over the years and have learned about how to preserve Redwood trees and how they can be killed or compromised. Since they are shallow rooted trees and since the feeder root system by which they live is only inches below the surface, any digging, excavating, ripping, rotor tilling, etc., will lead to their destruction. They won't die overnight, but they will begin to lose their branches and leaves and slowly die. The second mistake was when the Town gave land so that the school could build that useless and unsightly stage. Perhaps the idea sounded nice, but the reality is that the stage is so high, you can't see what's going on if you are sitting down on the grass or even on a chair as the audience would. The idea was to use it for graduation and performances. Well, they only had one graduation outside & it was a disaster. Now the graduations are held in the gym. MAGC was a much nicer venue! In terms of performances, there have been very few. I believe they use the space behind the curtain as a very expensive storage facility. This plan was executed without true investigation of what the ramifications would be of having a stage that high off the ground.

The third rnistake was when a Council member decided he did not like the historic school house so he used his power to have it surreptitiously removed while the school was being remodeled. This was not only an abuse of power, but also a very sad lack of respect for the heritage of Ross. The schoolhouse was charming, and in places like Boston, it would have been preserved and maintained for its historical significance. In Ross, it was torn down and they store soccer nets where the schoolhouse used to sit! How is this an improvement! Makes me sick.

The fourth mistake was when the portable school rooms were placed on the feeding roots of the heritage Redwood trees. I witnessed the backhoes digging away at the root systems. I called the Town, but was too late. As a result of no thought being given to the environment and how to pl'eserve it, the Redwoods have been impacted. If you actually look at them as I do every day, you can see the first tree has lost over 50olo of its branches and leaves. The die back will continue if these trees are not protected. There is a tree ordinance in the Town, but perhaps the Town is exempt from abiding by it!

The fifth mistake was when the Town voted to remove the house at #6 Redwood. Yes, they voted to preserve it at a very heavily attended meeting. But, then they decided to tear it down at a meeting where my voice was the only one there requesting they save it. [t's was a mistake to tear it down fbr many rsasons, but now they are considering further damaging the Redwood trees and the neighborhood and the appearance of Ross Commons and greatly impacting my house, and why? I guess because they can. They had no plan for the use of that space which reinforces the pattem of behavior every Council has had since I have been aware.,.Just destroy and make a plan later.

The reasons cited for ripping out the greenery which stands 9-10 feet tall and 6 feet deep include: rats, and a broken fence, and the thought that the area should be part of the park even though a hsuse has been there for 100 or so years.

With regards to rats,..I have never seen any rats on that property. I have seen them at the garbage cans and over by the corner store. Should all greenery be eliminated because of fear of rats? And what about squirrels which are just tree rats with a better PR department! Speaking of rats...people who mise them say they are as smart as dogs and clean themselves like cats do. Yes, they hide in shrubs and creeks and sewers, but I guess they have to as everyone is out to kill them. With regards to the disease issue, the ASPCA says rats don't carry rabies. Rabies is carried and transmitted by dogs, cats, raccoons, bats, foxes.

Back to #6...the fence could be repaired or an entrance to the "park" area could be established there without tearing out ALL the greenery.

2 If you actually go look at the space where the house used to sit, you will see it is a mess. Ripping out the screening and opening this area up to public viewing would be a huge mistake. The ground is dangerously rutted and much of it is solid gravel. Tearing it out and leveling it and making it even slightly attractive would be very costly and labor intensive unless earth moving machines were used. This would kill the Redwoods.

Is there a landscape plan available? Is there a cost projection for removing all the greenery which serves as privacy and sound protection? Has any thought been given to what this area will look like once the greenery which serves as an aftractive backdrop to the Southwest corner of the Commons has been removed? I do not believe having my house as the focal point for the park will be an approvement. And WHY? Who will come to this area to hang out? Redwood trees are not conducive to lounging around under. Go to Muir Woods. If it really bothers the Town that this space is underutilized, store the soccer nets there. With regards to liability, there are more liability issues if this area is opened up to children than if it remains a closed space. The Redwood trees can be admired from the grassy area of the Commons.

I do not believe risking the health of the Redwoods is worth the risk.

That's enough (too much!) for now.

Thank you very much! Best regards, Barbara

Sent from rny iPhone

3 ATTACHMENT 14 Biological Evaluation 6 Redwood Dr. Town of Ross, CA

Prepared for: Heidi Scoble, AICP, Planning and Building Director Town of Ross P.O. Box 320 (31Sir Francis Drake Blvd.) Ross, CA 94957-0320 415.453.L453 x121 V

Prepared by: Micki Kelly Kelly Biological Consulting San Anselmo, CA 94960 415-482-9703

Mayl20L9 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Table of Contents

2. 1 WETLAND, WntrRs, nruo SrREAMS..,..,...... 3 .3 2.1.2 Colifornio Porter-Cologne Woter Quality Control Act ...... 4 2.1.3 Colifornio Deportment of Fish and Wildlife Loke and Streom Protection ...... 4 2.2 PRorEcrED SpEcrES AND HABtrATs...... 8 I 8 2.2.3 Other Sensitive Biological Communities 8 2.3 LocAL PoLrcrES AND ORDTNANcES 8

3. BtOIOGtCAt RESOURCES 9

...... 9

TABLE 1: IISTED, PROPOSED SPECIES, AND CRITICAT HABITAT POTENTIATTY OCCURRING OR KNOWN TO OCCUR IN

TABTE 2. PTANT SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE 6 REDWOOD DR. FIETDWORK ON FEBRUARY 5, 2019...... 45 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

The project site is located at 6 Redwood Drive in the Town of Ross, California, within APN 073- 242-25 at latitude 37.96038 and longitude -L22.555667. The project site is part of the larger 4.36 public park known as the Ross Common and encompasses approximately O.3-acres of the fenced in area that is located to the south of the Ross Common. The site previously contained two residential units, which have both been demolished, and as such, it currently consists of an undeveloped landscape with perimeter fencing overgrown with English ivy (Hedera helixl, and other ruderal vegetation. ln addition, there are several small volunteer fruit trees, as well as one large Canary lsland date palm (Phoenixconariensisl, and three large mature redwood trees (sequoia sempervirens). The Study Area consists of the fenced portion of the lot. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the potential for the project to impact sensitive or protected biological resou rces.

Project Description

The Project proposes to establish a passive park, joining the site to the rest of Ross Common. Work will include removing a failing chain link fence and other fencing, overgrown ivy, and four volunteer cherry plum trees. Minor landscaping improvements will consist of backfilling a shallow depression left from the removal of a former residence foundation, installation of a weed barrier, drip irrigation,-mulch, planting replacement trees, as well as removal of a large, dead poplar (Populus sp.) stump directly adjacent to a mature Canary lsland date palm. Additional improvements include installing a 4-foot tall split rail fence adjacent to Redwood Drive and portions of Ross Common. The project would commence construction in September 2019 and is estimated to be completed in November 2019. The grading of the site would be completed no later than the beginning of the "rainy season" on October L5,2019. Additional details can be found in the Town's project description and existing and proposed site plans.

2. REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1Wetland, Waters, and Streams

2.1.1 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Section 404 identifies the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)jurisdiction over fill materials in essentially all water bodies, including wetlands. Section 404 established a permit program administered by USACE regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the US (including wetlands).

3 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Section 401of the CWA requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit, which allows activities resulting in a discharge to Waters of the U.S., obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water euality Boards (RWeCB) administers the certification program in California.

2.L.2 California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Act governs water quality regulation in California. lt was established in1969 as a program to protect water quality as well as the beneficial uses of water. This act applies to surface water, groundwater, wetlands, and point and non-point pollution. There are nine regional water boards and one state water board. This regulatory law is becoming more prominent on projects involving impacts to isolated Waters of the State (non-4O4/4OL waters). The RWQCB is increasingly requiring Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permits for impacts to Waters of the State.

2.1.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Stream Protection

Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code. Alterations to, or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes, generally require a 1600 series Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term "stream", which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1,.721.|n addition, the term "stream" can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG L994l. "Riparian" is defined as "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream." Riparian vegetation is defined as "vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself" (CDFG L994).

4 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Prolect $ te

Figure 1. Project Site (Source: Town of Ross'January I0,2019 presentation)

5 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

.f.** 112L8 12' C-L E TB} "1.t

l35LF 6r mD {Fence c TBR) APN 073-242^25 Ross Common 'uXt* rno.tEcl ob- z'eep.A, 'igl atrr ' ...tPf, 6 \-iYl . - o?3-2r?-2s 19IE 6I SUTTED W@D ,"uooul, (Fsnc€ E mR) o\ 6etu- . @ 15rr 0 \ lrence B) ASFFIALT PAVE. *. 2 8.6'Xl0' i:: P|MR BOXES I

3.5 REDWOOD DRIVE

I' LINE I APPROX. FLOI{LTNE OF MURPHY CREEK a 16' 32' EXISTING SITE PLAN .6 REDWOOD i GRAPHIC SCALE Key: BR - Ferce To a€ Rqovsd C.L. - Chatn Ltnk Figure 2. Existing Site Plan (Source: Town of Ross)

6 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

r,&@!tD (x) 1' Se:;T &1Ji EENCa t {e) CS:il:iINK ENC' TC TVAIts { alj i!oc) sllci tc lts!;'rl

' NOli-)tSlRUtANCE ZCS ITYP) @PE MIRTiE . i€[c 8AR&ilt AN; wiaF X irls lc st tluclED INSTML 125 F j r:34 {tr?!Ac{€N1 SJtl SPIIT RIL Ef,CE (AENCE J) APN 073-242-25 ' Ross Contmon RW& 5".F egD. I'RED. 4 PLW TMES !80irEcT TO gE SMOWD a5'eb. srtE '/ altt o7t-212-25 .\ .&' ,'/ ./ -.,. -*.r;,1*^ y' /Etu **.*//sstumr rz.-r." srldl t { E:6N\-:\l ''-' PNSR FOSS \ -t --" \ f,**-or"r**", ' lLo' I "o"" 3-f REDI{OOD DRIVE (E) POPM SMP FLUS! 10 \ ! GWE I5 OE ruuov& *i'^*'fl (N) RIL \ I -'*-^*- i': \-*** ex. residence \pnopenrv LrNn LPN 073-277-0L I 8 REDIIOOD :! APPRox. FLolrLfNE OF MURPIIY CREXK I e 32' SITEPLAN-6REDWOOD : I GRAPHIC SCALE I

Figure 3. Proposed Modifications (Source: Town of Ross)

7 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

2.2 Protected Species and Habitats

2.2.1 Special-Status Species

Special-status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act. These acts afford protection to both listed and proposed species. ln addition, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern are considered special-status species. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant lnventory with California Rare Plant Rank of l- or 2 are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are afforded little or no protection under CEQA.

2.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

This treaty with Canada, Mexico and Japan that makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law applies to the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season. California Fish and Game Code (Sec 3500) also prohibits the destruction of any nest, egg, or nestling.

2.2.3 Other Sensitive Biological Communities

Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have specialvalues. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2018a). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW. CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1- through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S)as l through 3 considered sensitive. lmpacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or USFWS must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title L4, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances.

2.3 Local Policies and Ordinances

The Town of Ross has a tree protection ordinance, which is discussed together with an analysis of the Project's potential to impact trees regulated under that ordinance in the separate Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study provided by |SA-Certified Arborist Scott Yarger.

8 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

3. BIOTOGICAL RESOURCES

3.l Methods

Potential occurrence of special status species in the Study Area was evaluated by first determining which special status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Study Area through a literature and database search. The following sources were reviewed:

o Aerial base map and topo maps documenting the existing conditions (Google Earth 2019) r California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 20L91, which lists and maps recorded occurrences of special-status species for the San Rafael USGS quadrangle and the 8 adjacent quadrangles

The information was used to determine the potential occurrence of sensitive plant communities and habitats in or near the Study Area. Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species and CDFW Species of Special Concern, areas that have high biological diversity or provide important wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types. From the above sources, a target list of special-status species, plant communities, and habitats with potential to occur in the region of the Study.Area was developed (Table 1). Once field work was conducted, information on the potential for a given species to occur in the Study Area was noted in Table 1.

The Study Area consists of the lot and areas immediately adjacent to it. Kelly Biological Consulting queried state and federal databases, then conducted a site visit, traversing the Study Area on foot on February 5,201-:9 evaluating the potential habitat and preparing a list of plant species observed in the Study Area (Table 2). Ms. Kelly also examined the site for wetlands or drainages that would be protected by state or federal regulations. lnformation on potential wildlife was provided by J. Yakich, WRA wildlife biologist who has experience in the Ross area. He conducted a site visit on April 9,2OL9.

3.2 Results

The site is within a developed part of the Town of Ross. To the north and east are Ross School and the remainder of Ross Common Park. To the south are single family homes. To the west is an intermittent creek (Murphy Creek) and residences. ln 2OL5, a house on the site was damaged by fire. The residual structure was recently removed (2018).

3.2.1Vegetation

The habitat in the Study Area is Ruderal Disturbed/Developed. Ms. Kelly observed that the majority of the site is covered with weedy herbaceous species including Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-carpel, Venus needle (Scandix pectin-veneris), goose grass (Golium aporinel, panic 9 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

veldtgrass (Ehrharta erectal and various residual cultivar species, as well as bare dirt and duff. Portions of a failing chain link fence are overgrown with English ivy (Hedera hetix). There are patches of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) mixed with the English ivy near the western fence. ln addition, there are severaltrees including redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Canary lsland date palm (Phoenix canariensis), cherry plum (Prunus cerasiferal and fruit trees. The trees are discussed in more detail in the separate Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study (WRA 2019).

3.2.2 Sensitive Plant Species and Habitats

There are no CNDDB sensitive habitats in the Study Area. No sensitive plant species were observed. Given the high level of disturbance, none would be expected to occur within the Study Area. There are no state or federally protected wetlands. A small intermittent creek (Murphy Creek)is outside the western fence, nearthe western edge of the parcel, in the no disturbance setback. lt flows from north to south as it passes the site. The creek is culverted downstream in various locations, eventually flowing to the south/southeast towards Corte Madera Creek (Marin Maps 2019)

This creek would potentially be within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (pursuant to section 4o4 of the federal clean water Act), the Regional water euality control Board (Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and California Porter Cologne Act), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 series). The project will avoid impacts to the creek, its bed, or banks, by maintaining a non-disturbance setback. No sensitive plants or protected habitats would be impacted by the project.

3.2.3 Wildlife

Based on the habitat observed on the site, the wildlife expected to occur within the vicinity of the site would primarily be common species with at least some adaptations to developed/suburban environments. This type of habitat typically provides foraging and nesting habitat for variety of locally common bird species such as Anna's hummingbird (Calypte annol, mourning dove (Zenoida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migrotorius), bushtit (Psoltriporus minimusl, and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemotisl. Common, development-adapted mammal species such as Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), raccoon (Procyon lotorl, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitisl, and non-native eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) are typically present in similar sites in the region. Reptile species capable of persisting in disturbed/urban environments, including northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coeruleal and gopher snake (Pituophis cateniferl, are common in much of Marin County and likely present near the site. Amphibians are less likely to inhabit the Studl Area due to the lack of sufficient aquatic habitat, though the common Pacific chorus frog(Pseudacris regilla) spends much of its life in uplands and may be present.

Common resident and migratory bird species could utilize the trees or the dense ivy in the Study Area for foraging, shelter, and breeding. Active nests (including eggs or young) of most native birds in california are protected by the california Fish and Game code (GFGC 53503) and the

10 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Because fence and vegetation removal will occur outside the nesting season, which is February 1- - September L, there will be no impacts to active nests.

3.2.4 Spotted Owls and Raptors

The nearest documented activity center/nesting territory for the federal and state listed northern spotted owl (NSO; Strix occidentalis caurino) is located approximately 0.8 mile to the northeast, and the second-nearest such occurrence is located approximately 0.9 mile to the west (CDFW 2019l'. Through present in the greater vicinity of the Study Area, NSO is dependent on stands of old-growth or otherwise mature coniferous or mixed (coniferous-hardwood)forest. Occupied habitats must contain sufficient large trees and a complex, multi-tiered canopy along with other associated characteristics of such forest stands. The Study Area is essentially developed or otherwise substantially modified and does not provide any suitable NSO habitaq even movement through the area is unlikely. The nearest location in which the species has the potential to be present is the tract of undeveloped, forested land located approximately 0.3 miles to the southwest. The Study Area is located outside of the typical USFWS-recommended work exclusion buffer for nesting NSO (500 feet in most contexts). Given this and that no NSO habitat will be impacted by the proposed project, no impacts to the species are anticipated.

Some raptors (birds of prey)adapted to urban/suburban environments have a small potentialto forage within the Study Area, and nesting by some common species may occur within larger trees in the vicinity. However, the trees that may be impacted by the proposed project are too small to support nesting raptors; and the project will occur outside of the general nesting season. As such, no impacts to raptors are anticipated as a result of the project.

Summary

The Study Area has previously been heavily disturbed. From a biological perspective, the site does not present any unusualcircumstances. The habitat and biological conditions are typicalof similarly disrupted sites in the region.

No special status species or other sensitive biological communities/habitats occur within the Study Area. Work will be conducted outside the bird nesting season, therefore avoiding active nests. As demonstrated by the proposed site plan's non-disturbance zone, Murphy Creek, its bed, and banks will be avoided. The project will not impact any biological resources that are protected by federal, state, or local agencies because, as discussed in this report, given the level of past disturbance and poor quality of current habitat, the site does not provide potential habitat for sensitive species. There will be no impact to biological resources of hazardous or critical concern because as demonstrated herein no such resource has been designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted on the Project site that will be adversely affected by the proposed Project.

11 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

TABLE 1: LISTED, PROPOSED AND CRITICAL HABITAT POTENTIALLY OCCURRING OR KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE REGION. Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site Birds

Old-growth forests or mixed stands of old-growth and mature trees. The site and immediately surrounding area is low- Occasionally in younger forests with density residential developed; however, redwood northern spotted Strix occidentolis patches of big trees. Prefers high, forest community is in the region. This species has FT, ST, SSC A owl courino multistory canopy dominated by big been documented to nest in dense forest trees, trees with cavities or broken approximately 0.8 miles from the site (CDFW tops, woody debris and space under 2019). No nesting habitat is present in the site, canopy.

Found in swamp lands, both fresh and The site and immediately surrounding area is low- salt; lowland meadows; irrigated alfalfa density residential developed, which does not fields. Tule patches/tall grass needed provide nesting habitat for the species. Lowland short-eared owl Asio flammeus ssc A for nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests marsheg tule patches ortall grasslands that on dry ground in depression concealed typically support nesting by the species do not in vegetation. occur in the site.

Primarily a year-round resident. lnhabits riparian bottomlands to tall This species is a very rare breeder in Marin County willows and cottonwoods; also, belts of (Shuford 1993). The only recorded nesting live oak paralleling stream courses. occurrences of the species are near Bolinas and long-eared owl Asio otus ssc Requires dense foliage cover within A Drake's Bay. Both locations are greater than 5 occupied tree stands, adjacent open miles from the site. Areas within the site and land productive of mice for foraging, immediately surrounding it do not contain suitable and the presence of old nests of other riparian communities for nesting by this species. birds for nesting.

tz 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands The site and immediately surrounding area is low- characterized by low-growing density residential developed. The site does not burrowing owl Athene cuniculorio SSC, BCC vegetation. Subterranean nester, A contain suitable short grasslands or other open dependent upon burrowing mammals, areas for nesting or foraging by this species. most notably, the California ground squirrel

Resident in rolling foothills, mountain The site and immediately surrounding area is low- areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. density residential developed, which does not EPA, CFP, golden eagle Aquilo chrysoetos Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting A provide suitable nesting habitat for the species. BCC habitat in most parts of range; also The site also does not support habitat for the nests in largetrees in open areas. preferred prey species of golden eagle.

Primarily a wintervisitor in the region; small numbers are present year-round and breed. Favors areas near larger Although the site is within this species' historic FD, SE, bodies of water with abundant fish: breeding range, bald eagles are no longer known Haliaeetus bald eagle EPA, CFP, lakes and reservoirs, rivers, and the A to breed in Marin County (Shuford 1993). The site leucocepholus BCC ocean. Nests in large, old-growth, or and the vicinity do not provide larger open bodies dominant live tree with open of water to support foraging or nesting. branchwork. Often roosts communally in winter.

(Nesting) Nests and forages in grassland The site and immediately surrounding area is low- habitats, usually in association with density residential developed, which does not coastal salt and freshwater marshes. northern harrier Circus cyoneus ssc A provide nesting habitat for the species. Suitable Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, mesic grasslands or marsh habitat are absent from usually at marsh edge; nest built of a the site and the immediate surrounding areas. large mound of sticks in wet areas.

13 6 Redwood Dr., Town of 2019 Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site The site and immediately surrounding area is low- (Nesting) YearJong resident of open density residential developed, which does not grasslands and agricultural areas. Preys provide nesting habitat forthe species. The site white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP on small diurnal mammals and A does not contain open agricultural fields, occasional birds, insects, reptiles, and grasslands, or marsh lands that are typically used amphibians. Nests in tree-tops. by this species.

Year-round resident and winter visitor in the region, Habitat variable, though High cliffs and tall buildings typically used for usually associated with coasts, bays, nesting by this species are absent from the site and American Falco peregrinus FD, SD,CFP marshes and other bodies of water. A immediate surrounding area. Large water-bodies peregrine falcon onotum BCC Nests on sheer, protected cliffs and also which provide foraging habitat are absent from the on manmade structures including site and vicinity. buildings and bridges. Preys on birds, especially waterbirds. Forages widely.

Year-round resident in areas of Although this species winters in Marin County, it California and winter visitor. lnhabits does not nest there (Shuford 1993). This species prairie falcon Folco mexiconus BCC dry, open terrains, including foothills A could occasionally be observed flying over the site and valleys. Breeding sites located on during migration. steep cliffs. Forages widely. Winter visitor to open habitats, Although this species winters in Marin County, it including grasslands, sagebrush flats, does not nest there (Shuford 1993). This species ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BCC scrub, and low foothills surrounding A could occasionally be observed flying over the site valleys. Preys on mammals. Does not during migration. breed in California.

Colonial nester on large interior lakes. American white pelican does not nest in Marin Nests on large lakes, providing safe American white Pelecanus County (Shuford 1993). Additionally, suitable ssc roosting and breedlng places in the A pelican erythrorhynchos foraging habitat does not occur within the vicinity form of well-sequestered islets. Winter of the site. visitor to the San Francisco Bay Area.

t4 6 Redwood Dr., Town of 20L9 Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site colonial nester on coastal islands just California brown pelican does not nest in Marin Peleconus outside the surf line. Nests on coastal California brown County (Shuford 1993). Additionally, suitable occidentolis FD, SD, CFP islands of small to moderate size which A pelican foraging habitat does not occur within the vicinity coliJornicus afford immunity from attack by ground- of the site. dwelling predators.

Feeds near shore; nests inland along the Pacific coast, from Eureka to The site and immediately surrounding area is low- Oregon border, and from Half Moon density residential developed, which is not habitat Erochyromphus Bay to Santa Cruz. Nests in old-growth marbled murrelet FT, SE A for this species. ln addition, marbled murrelet is momorotus redwood-dominated forests, up to six not known to breed within Marin County (Shuford miles inland. Nests often built in 1993, McShane et al. 2004, USFWS 2009). Douglas-fir or redwood stands containing platform-like branches.

Highly pelagic; comes to land only Short-tailed albatross does not nest in Marin short-tailed when breeding. Nests on remote Phoebastrio albatus FE, SSC A Cou nty. Additionally, suitable marine foraging albatross Pacific islands. A rare non-breeding habitat does not occur within 5 miles of the site. visitor to the eastern Pacific.

Resident on rocky shores of marine The site is not within the known breeding habitats along almost the entire dlstribution of this species. Rocky shoreline black Hoemotopus and BCC California coast and adjacent islands. A marine habitats which support nesting and oystercatcher bochmdni Breeds on undisturbed, rocky, open foraging by the species are absent from the site shores and cliffs. and vicinity. Nests in small colonies inland and along The site is not within the known breeding the coast on sandy estuarine shores, distribution of this species. lslands, shores, levees levees, and salt ponds. Found in inland Caspian tern Hydroprogne cospia BCC A or salt ponds that support nesting by this species fresh-water lakes and marshes; also, are absent, The site does not occur near marine brackish or salt waters of estuaries and environments to support foraging. bays.

15 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 2019 Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site Colonial breeder on barren or sparsely The site is not within the known breeding vegetated, flat substrates near water. distribution of this species. lslands, California least Sternulo ontillorum shores, levees FE, SE, CFP Breeding colonies in San Francisco Bay A ponds tern browni or salt that support nesting by this species along estuarine shores and in are absent. The site does not occur near marine abandoned salt ponds. environments to support foraging.

Found primarily in southern California; The site is not within the known breeding South San Francisco Bay has a small distribution ofthis species. lslands, shores, levees black skimmer Rynchops niger ssc, Bcc resident population. Nests colonially on A or salt ponds that support nesting by this species gravel bars, low islets, and sandy are absent. The site does not occur near marine beaches environments to support foraging. Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population. Found on sandy Sandy beaches, salt flats or alkali lake flats that this we5tern snowy Charadrius FT, SSC, beaches, salt pond levees and shores of A species inhabits are absent from the site and plover olexondrinus nivosus BCC large alkali lakes. Requires sandy, vicinity. gravelly or friable soi,ls for nesting.

Resident in tidal marshes of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Requires tidal The site is not within the known breeding sloughs and mud flats for foraging, and California Rollus obsoletus distribution of this species. The site lacks any salt FE, SE, CFP dense vegetation for nesting. A Ridgway's rail obsoletus marsh habitat which this species requires for Associated with abundant growth of nesting and foraging. cordgrass and pickleweed. Largest populations in south San Francisco Bay. Resident in marshes (saline to The site is not within the known breeding freshwater) with dense vegetation California black Lote rdll us ja mo ice nsis ST, CFP, distribution of this species. The site lacks any below four inches in height. Prefers A rail coturniculus BCC marsh habitat that this species requires for nesting larger, undisturbed marshes close to a and foraging. major water source.

76 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 20L9

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status Gene.al Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site (Rookeries tracked by CDFW) Colonial nester in large trees. Rookery sites Suitable rookery trees are absent from the site and great egret Ardeo albo None located near marshes, tide-flats, A vicinityi however, this species may occasionally fly irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers over or forage within the site. and lakes.

(Rookeries tracked by CDFW) Colonial nester, with nest sites situated in Suitable rookery trees are absent from the site and protected beds of dense tules. Rookery snowy egret Egretta thula None A vicinity; however, this species may occaslonally fly sites situated close to foraging areas; over or forage within the site. marshes, tidal-f lats, streams, wet meadows, and borders of lakes,

(Rookeries tracked by CDFW) Colonial nester in tall trees, cliffs, and sequestered spots on marshes. Suitable rookery trees are absent from the site and great blue heron Adeo herodias None Rookery sites in close proximity to A vicinity; however, this species may occasionally fly foraging areas: marshes, lake margins, over or forage within the site. tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows.

(Rookeries tracked by CDFW) Colonial nester, usually in trees, occasionally in Suitable rookery trees are absent from the site and black-crowned tule patches. Rookerysites located Nycticorox nycticorox None A vicinity; however, this species may occasionally fly night heron adjacent to foraging areas: lake over or forage within the site. rnargins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots.

\7 6 Redwood Dr,, Town of Ross, 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site (Rookeries tracked by CDFW) Colonial nester on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of Suitable rookery cliffs or other structures are double-crested 'lrlests Phalocrocorox duritus None the state. along coast on A absent from the site and vicinity; however, cormorant this sequestered islets, usually on ground species may occasionally fly over the site. wilh sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins,

Summer resident with a fragmented breeding distribution; most occupied Marin County is not within the documented areas in California either montane or breeding range of this species (Shuford 1993). black swift Cypseloides niget ssc, Bcc coastal. Ereeds in small colonies on A Additionally, the site does not contain cliffs or cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls, deep canyons capable of providing nesting habitat in deep.canyons, and sea-bluffs above for this species. surf. Forages aerially over wide areas,

Summer resident, primarily in forested areas. Nests in tree cavities, favoring Trees within the site did not contain cavities typical those with a large vertical extent. Also ofthis species, and no snags are present. This Vaux's swift Choeturo vouxi ssc uses chimneys and other manmade A species is documented as an infrequent nester in substrates. Forages widely for aerial Marin County (Shuford 1993). insects, often over or near rivers and lakes.

Summer resident. ln northwestern California, typically breeds in coniferous forest and woodlands. Nest in tree Typically nests in conifer snags, near perennial purple martin Progne subis 55C cavities, usually high off the ground, A waterbodies. These conditions do not occur on the and in the cavities of manmade site. structures (e.g. bridges, utility poles). Forages for aerial insects.

18 5 Redwood Dr., Town of 2019 Habitat Pr€sent/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on thd Site Migrant in riparian and other lowland habitats in western California. Colonial Bank swallow does not nest in Marin County, The nester in riparian areas with vertical site lacks any cliff habitat which this species bank swallow Riporio riporid ST A cliffs and bands with fine-textured or requires for nesting. The species may pass through fine-textured sandy soils near streams, the site during migration. rivers, lakes or the ocean.

Summer resident. Typical breeding habitat is montane coniferous forests. At lower elevations, also occurs in The site is with a residential part of Ross. lt does olive-sided Contopus cooperi ssc, Bcc wooded canyons and mixed forests A not contain suitable nesting habitat for the flycatcher and woodlands. Often associated with species, forest edges. Arboreal nest sites located well off the ground. Resident in lowland woodlands Nuttall's throughout much of California west of Oak woodland typical habitat of this species is not Picoides nuttallii BCC A woodpecker the Sierra Nevada. Typical habitat is present within the site. dominated by oaks.

Oak woodland and savannah, open broad-leaved evergreen forests Oak woodland typical of this species is not present containing oaks, and riparian oak titmouse Bdeolophus inornotus BCC A within the site. Redwood trees within the site don't woodlands. Associated with oak and provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. pine-oak woodland and arborescent chaparral

19 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site Breeds along the California coastline in habitats including mixed evergreen, Douglas fir, redwood and Bishop pine The site has trees that may be used for nesting by forests, riparian woodlands, nonnative Allen's this species, However, because the work will be Selophorus sasin BCC eucalyptus and planted cypress groves, HP hummingbird performed outside of the nesting bird season, and occasionally live oak woodlands there would be no impacts. and coastal scrub with at least a scattering of trees, such as on north- facing slopes

Spring migrant; does not breed in California. Favors habitats rich in The site is outside of the known breeding range for rufous nectar-producinB flowers. Nests in Selasphorus rufus BCC A this species, but may pass through during hunimingbird berry tangles, shrubs, deciduous forests migration seasons. and conifers, Favors habitats rich in nectar-producing flowers.

Primarily a year-round resident In open ha bitats including woodland, grassland, The site and immediately surrounding area is low- savannah and agricultural areas. density residential developed, which does not Prefers areas with sparse shrubs, trees, provide nesting habitat forthe species. The site loggerhead shrike Lonius Iudovicianus ssc, Bcc posts, and other suitable perches for A does not contain open areas such as agricultural foraging. Preys upon large insects and fields, grasslands (not school lawn), or marsh that small vertebrates. Nests are well- are typically used by this species. concealed in a densely-foliaged shrub or tree.

20 5 Redwood Town of Ross, May 2019

Habhat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site Summer resident throughout much of California. Breeds in riparian Setophago vegetation close to water, including The site lacks the dense riparian understory that yellow warbler (Dendroica) petechio ssc, Bcc streams and wet meadows. A this species requires for nesting. This species may brewsteri Microhabitat used for nesting variable, occur within the site during migration. but dense willow growth is typical. Occurs widely on migration.

Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water marshes. The site is not within the known breeding saltmarsh Geothlypis trichas Requires thicK continuous cover down distribution ofthis species. Suitable salt marsh common ssc, Bcc A stnuosa to water surface for yellowthroat foraging; tall habitat which is required for nesting and foraging grasses, tule patches, willows for is absent from the site and vicinity. nesting.

Summer resident, utilizing riparian areas with an open canopy, very dense yellow-breasted The site lacks the dense riparian understory that lcterio virens ssc understory, and trees for song perches, A chat this species requires for nesting. Nests in thickets of willow, blackberry, and wild grape.

Summer resident. Nests in open grassland habitats, generally with low- grasshopper Ammodromus to moderate-height grasses and The site does not contain annual grassland that ssc A sparrow sovonnotum scattered shrubs. Nest typically placed could support nesting or foraging by the species. on the ground and welFhidden. Secretive.

Year-round resident of salt marshes bordering the south arm of San The site is not within the known breeding Alameda song Melospizo melodid Francisco Bay. lnhabits primarily distribution of this species. The site lacks any ssc, Bcc A sparrow pusillulo pickleweed marshes; nests placed in marsh habitat that this subspecies requires for marsh vegetation, typically shrubs such nesting and foraging. as gumplant.

27 6 Redwood Dr Town of Ross, May 2019 Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status Gene,al Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site Resident of salt marshes along the The site is not within the known breeding Samuel's (San north side of San Francisco and San Melospizo melodio distribution of this species. The site lacks any Pablo) song ssc, Bcc Pablo 8ays. lnhabits tidal sloughs in the A somuelis marsh habitat that this subspecies requires for sparrow Solicornio marshes; nesls in Grindelio nesting and foraging. bordering slough channels.

Year-round resident subspecies, associated with the coastal fog belt. Posserculus Occupies upper tida lly-influenced Bryant's savannah The site lacks the tidally influenced habitats and sondwichensis ssc habitats and moist grasslands, oftin A sparrow grasslands that this subspecies requires. oloudinus occurring where wetland communities merge into grassland. Nests in vegetation on or near the ground.

The site is within low-density residential Resident to nomadic; inhabits oak development. This species is a very rare breeder in woodlands, chaparral, riparian Lawrence's Marin County and typically inhabits the dry Corduelis lowrencei BCC woodlands and other areas, often near A goldfinch southern portions of the county, and the site does water. Not known to breed in the not contain chaparral or other xeric landscapes to vicinity of San Francisco Bay. support this species (Shuford 1993).

(Nesting colony) highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and The site does not contain any open waters such as vicinity. Largely endemic to California. ponds, lakes or marsh habitat that supports tricolored ST, BCC, Ageloius tricolor Requires open water, protected nesting A foraging or nesting by the colony. No tall emergent blackbird ssc substrate, and foraging area with insect vegetation is present to support nesting by this prey within a few kilometers of the species. colony.

22 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site Mammals

Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, forages along The site and immediately surrounding area is low- river channels. Roost sites include old density residential developed land, with no rock ssc, pallid bat Antrozous pallidus ranch buildings, rocky outcrops and A outeroppings or old ranch type buildings to provide WBWG caves within sandstone outcroppings. roosting sites. ln addition, work will be conducted Roosts must protect bats from high outside the typical maternity roosting season. temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

This species is associated with a wide The site and immediately surrounding area is low- variety of habitats from deserts to mid- density residential developed land. Buildings in the elevation mixed coniferous-deciduous area are maintained and do not provlde suitable forest. Females form maternity Townsend's big- Corynorhinus ssc, roosting habitat. Additionally, there are no caves, colonies in buildings, caves and mines A eared bat townsendii WBWG mines or suitable structures to support roosting by and males roost singly or in small the species within the site. Also, work will be groups. Foraging occurs in open forest conducted outside the typical maternity roosting habitats where they glean moths from season, vegetation.

This species is typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of broadleaf trees or shrubs. Day roosts The site does not contain broadleaf tree species of are commonly in edge habitats ssc, the typically used for roosting by this species. The western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii adjacent to streams or open fields, in A WBWG habitat quality is poor Also, work will be conducted orchards, and sometimes in urban outside the typical maternity roosting season. areas. There may be an association with intact riparian habitat (willows, cottonwoods, and syca more).

23 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover The site does not contain broadleaf tree species of and open areas or habitat edges for the typically used for roosting by this species. The hoary bat Losiurus cinereus WBWG A feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of habitat quality is poor Also, work will be conducted medium to large trees. Feeds primarily outside the typical maternity roosting season. on moths. Requires water nearby.

Associated with a wide variety of habitats including mixed coniferous- On-site trees lack cavities of the type and extent deciduous forest and suitable for roosting by this species. The habitat fringed myotis Myotis thysonodes WBWG A redwoods/sequoia groves. Buildings, quality is poorAlso, work will be conducted mines, and large snags are important outside the typical maternity roosting season. day and night roosts.

Occurs in semiarid shrublands, sage, chaparral, and agricultural areas, but is usually associated with coniferous On-site trees lack cavities/hollows of the type and forests from seal level to 9000 feet. extent suitable for roosting by this species. Caves, long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG lndividuals roost under exfoliating tree A mines and similar structures are absent. The bark, and in hollow trees, caves, mines, habitat quality is poor Also, work will be conducted cliff crevices, and rocky outcrops on the outside the typical maternity roosting season. ground. They also sometimes roost in buildings and under bridges.

Typically occupies mountainous or relatively rugged areas, dry coniferous On-site trees lack cavities/hollows of the type and forests, and sometimes oak or extent typically used for roosting by this species. long-legged streamside woodlands, and deserts. Myotis volons WBWG A Caves, mines and similar structures are absent. The myotis Large hollow trees, rock crevices and habitat quality is poor Also, work will be conducted buildings are important day roosts. outside the typical maternity roosting season. Other roosts include caves, mines and buildings.

24 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status Genelat Habitat Descriptlon Ratlonale Absent on the Slte Summer habitats include coastal and montane conif erous forests, valley foothill woodlands, pinyon-juniper On-site trees lack cavities/hollows of the type and woodlands, and valley foothlll and extent suitable for roosting by this species. Caves, Losionycteris montane riparian habitats, This species silver-haired bat WBWG A mines and similar structures are absent. The noctivogons, is primarily a forest dweller, feeding habitat quality is poor Also, work will be conducted over streams, ponds, and open brushy outside the typical maternity roosting season. areas. lt roosts in hollow trees, snags, buildings, rock crevices, caves, and under bark.

Found only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and its Marshes and tidal marine environments that are salt-marsh harvest Reithrodontomys tributaries. Pickleweed is primary FE, SE, CFP A required to support this species do not occur mouse roviventris habitat. Do not burrow, build loosely within or near the site. organized nests. Require higher areas for flood escape. Tidal marshes of the northern shores of San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Require Marshes and tidal marine environments that are Sorex ornotus Suisun shrew ssc dense low-lying cover and driftweed A required to support this species do not occur sinuosus and other litter above the mean high wlthin or nearthe site. tide line for nesting and foraging. Confined to small remnant stands of salt marsh found around the southern arm of the San Francisco Bay in San Marshes and tidal marine environments that are salt-marsh Sorex vogrons ssc Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and A required to support this species do not occur wandering shrew halicoetes Contra Costa counties. lnhabits salt within or near the site. marshes that provide dense cover with driftwood and other debris.

25 5 Redwood Dr,, Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site Saltmarshes of San Pablo Creek, on the south shore of San Pablo Bay. Marshes and tidal marine environments that are Microtus californicus Constructs burrow in soft soil. Feeds San Pablo vole ssc A required to support this species do not occur sanpabloensis on grasses, sedges and herbs, Forms a within or near the site. network of runways leading from the burrow

Most abundant in drier open stages of l most shrub, forest, and herbaceous Open areas with friable soils which support the I American badger Toxideo toxus ssc habitats, with friable soils. Requires A preferred prey for badgers and badger dens do not i friable soils and open, uncultivated occur within the site. ground. Preys on burrowing rodents.

Bunch grass marshes on the uplands of The site lacks marsh or grasslands that this Point Reyes in areas safe from Point Reyes Zapus tilnototus subspecies requires for nesting and foraging; and ssc continuous inundation. Builds grassy A jumping mouse ororius the site is outside the known range of this nests on ground under vegetation, subspecies. burrows in winter.

The Point Reyes mountain beaver is only known to occur in western Marin County, almost entirely within Point Point Reyes The site is not within the known distribution of this Aplodontio rufo Reyes National Seashore. lt occurs on mountain beaver ssc A species. The site does not contain any coastal scrub phaeo cool, moist, north-facing slopes in habitat which is required by the species. moderately dense coastal scrub. Eurrows are typically constructed in dense thickets or in forest openings.

I 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 20L9 Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site ls widely distributed throughout most of California, but absent from some portions of the Central Valley and The site and immediately surrounding area is low- northeastern California. The is ringtail (ring-tailed species density residential developed land. Anthropogenic Bassoriscus dstutus CFP nocturnal, primarily carnivorous and is A disturbances in the area and an absence cat) of suitable associated with a mixture of dry forest trees to provide cavities make the species unlikely and shrubland in close association with to occur. rocky areas and riparian habitat, using hollow trees and cavities for shelter.

The site is not within the known oreeding Nearshore marine environments from FT, MMPA: distribution of this species. Additionally, The site southern sea otter Enhydro lutils nereis about Afio Nuevo, San Mateo County to A ssc, cFP lacks any marine habitat which is required by this Point Sal, Santa Barbara County. species. Amphibians and Reptiles

Associated with permanent or nearly The site is over 1 mile from the nearest permanent water in a wide variety of western pond Actinemys documented occurrence (CDFW 2019a). The site 55C habitats. Requires basking sites. Nests A turtle mormoroto does not provide suitable open water area and sites may be found up to 0.5 kilometers basking areas to support the species. from water.

Occurs in the north-central Coast Ranges. Moist coniferous and mixed forests are typical habitaq also uses The site and adjacent areas do not provide suitable California giant woodland and chaparral. Adults are Dicomptodon ensotus ssc A cold, permanent or semi-permanent streams salamander terrestrial and fossorial, breeding in breeding habitat. cold, permanent or semi-permanent streams. Larvae usually remain aquatic for over a year.

27 5 Redwood Dr,, Town of Ross, 2019

Habftat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site Found in or near rocky streams ln a variety of habitats. Prefers partly- shaded, willow streams and riffles with foothillyellow- a rocky substrate; requires at least The site does not provide suitable willow stream Rono boylii ssc A legged frog some cobble-sized substrate for egg- and riffle with a rocky substrate habitat. laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis, Feeds on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.

Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with There are a no ponds or lakes close by that could California red- dense, shrubby or emergent riparian Rona druytonii Fr, ssc A provide adequate still water habitat to support legged frog vegetation. Requires 11 to 20 weeks of breeding by this species. inundation for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat, Fishes

Spawn between March and July in gravel bottomed streams in riffle Entosphenus habitat. Larvae drift downstream to pacific lamprey (=Lompetra) ssc A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. areas of low velocity and fine tridentotus substrates and are relatively immobile in the stream substrates.

Lower Sacramento River, San Joaquin River and Russian River. May occur in coastal streams north of San Francisco river lamprey Lampetro oyresi ssc Bay. Adults need clean, gravelly riffles, A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. Ammocoetes need sandy backwaters or stream edges, good water quality and temps < 25 degrees C,

28 5 Redwood D Town of 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site Found in most estuaries along the Pacific coast. Adults in the San Francisco Bay Estuary system spawn in Acipenser white sturgeon ssc the Sacramento River and are not A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. transmontonus known to enter freshwater or non-tidal reaches of Estuary streams. Spawn May through June.

Spawn in the Sacramento River and the Klamath River. Spawn at temperatures green sturgeon Acipenset medircstris FT, SSC between 8-14 degrees C. Preferred A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. spawning substrate is large cobble, but can range from clean sand to bedrock.

Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth Eucyclogobius The site lacks any lagoon habitat which is required tidewater goby FE, SSC of the Smith River. Found in willow A newberryi by this species. lagoons and lower stream reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels.

Lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary in areas where salt and Hypomesus The site lacks any brackish water habitat which is delta smelt FT, SE, RP freshwater systems meet. occu rs A transpocilicus required by this species. seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Habitat generalists. Tolerant of relatively high temperatures and low Lovinio symmetricus The site lacks suitable habitat and is not within the Tomales roach ssc oxygen levels, however unable to A ssp. symmetricus known distribution of this species (UC Davis 2018). tolerate very saline water. Tributaries to Tomales Bay.

29 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 20L9

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site State listing is limited to Coho south of San Francisco Bay. Federal listing is limited to naturally spawning Coho salmon - populations in streams between central California Oncorhynchus kisutch FE, SE A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. Humboldt County and Santa Cruz coast County. Spawn in coastal streams 4- 14C. Prefer beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel and cover nearby.

Occurs from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San Pablo 8ay Basins. steelhead - central Adults migrate upstream to spawn in California coast Oncorhynchus mykiss FT A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. cool, clear, welFoxygenated streams. DPS Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean.

Populations spawning in the Central Valley, Napa and Petaluma Rivers and chinook salmon - their tributaries. Adults migrate Central Valley Oncorhynchus upstream to spawn in cool, clear, well- ssc A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. s. fallllate fall-run tshowytscho oxygenated streams. Juveniles remain ESU in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean

30 6 Redwood Dr., Town of zo19

Habftat Present/ Common Name Sclentlfic Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site California Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from chinook salmon - rivers and streams south of the Oncorhynchus California coastal FT, RP Klamath River (exclusive) to the Russian A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site, tshdwytschd ESU River (inclusive). Adult numbers depend on pool depth and volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel.

Endemic to California's Central Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Primarily freshwater fish. but are Sacramento Pogonichthys 5SC tolerant of moderate salinity, Spawn A There ls no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. splittail mocrolepidotus on submerged vegetation in temporarily flooded upland and riparian habitat,

Euryhaline, nektonic and anadromous. Found in open waters of estuaries, Spirlnchus mostly in middle or bottom of water longfin smelt FC, ST, SSC A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. tholeichthys column. Prefer salinities of 15 to 30 ppt, but can be found in completely freshwater to almost pure seawater.

Occur in nearshore ocean waters and to 1,000 feet (300 m) in depth. except for the briefspawning runs into their natal eulachon Tho I e ichthys pac ili c us Fr, ssc A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site, (birth) streams, Ranges from northern California to southwest Alaska and southeastern Bering Sea.

31 6 Redwood Dr Town of 2079

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site lnvertebrates

lnhabits localized fresh-water ponds or Coecidoted streams with still or near-still water in Tomales isopod none A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site. tomalensis several San Francisco Bay Area counties,

Known only from the type locality. Taken under serpentine on a grassland hillside on San Marin Drive, Novato, Marin County. They occur in mesic Marin blind habitats, but are absent from situations Colicind diminud A There is no suitable habitat on the site. harvestman where soils are saturated or periodically inundated. Most species occur under medium to large undisturbed rocks that are in contact with the soil.

Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Plantago The site is not within the known distribution of this Bay checkerspot Euphydryas editho FT erecta is the primary host plant; A species. lt contains no serpentine soils that may butterfly boyensis Orthocarpus densiflorus and O. support the host plants required by the species. purpurscens are the secondary host plants.

lnhabits coastal mountainous areas with grassy ground cover, mainly in the The site is not within the known distribution of this San Bruno elfin vicinity of San Bruno Mountaln, San Collophrys mossii species. The site and the area immediately butterfly FE Mateo County. Colonies are located on A boyensis surrounding it are low-density residential steep, north-facing slopes within the developed land without suitable habitat. fog belt. Larval host plant is Sedum spothulifolium.

32 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Sita Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja Roost sites for monarchs in the region are primarily California, Mexico. Roosts located in in groves along the coast. No groves used as roost monarch butterfly Donous plexippus n one wind-protected tree groves A sites have been recorded within several miles of (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey the site. The species may migrate through the cypress), with nectar and water sources area. nearby. Aquatic; known only from pond Ricksecker's water Hydrochoro The site does not provide pond habitat, which is none habitats scattered around the San A scavenger beetle rickseckeri required to support the species. Francisco Bay area.

lnhabits grasslands of the San Francisco mission blue peninsula. Three larval host plants: The site is not within the known distribution of this lcoticia icarioides butterfly FE, RP Lupinus olbifrons, L. vdriicolor, and L. A species. The site does not contain grassland missionensis formosus, of which L. olbifrons is required to su pport the host plants of the species. favored.

Restricted to the northern coastal scrub of the San Francisco peninsula. Host The site is not within the known distribution of this Callippe silverspot plant is Viola pedunculata. Most adults species. The site is in low-density residential Speyeria collippe FE A butterfly found on east-facing slopes; males habitat which does not contain scrub required to congregate on hilltops in search of support the host plants of the species. females.

Restricted to the foggy, coastal The site is not within the known distribution of this dunes/hills ofthe Point Reyes species. The site is in a low-density residential Myrtle's silverspot Speyeria zerene FE, RP peninsula; extirpated from coastal San A developed area. No dune or grassland habitat is butterfly myrtleoe Mateo County. Larval food plant present to support the host plants or foraging by thought to be Viola adunca. the species.

33 6 Redwood Dr Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Ratlonale Abs€nt on the site Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma counties. Found in low elevation, low gradient streams where riparian cover California is moderate to heavy, willow pools Syncoris pacifico FE, SE, RP A There is no suitable aquatic habitat on the site, freshwater shrimp away from main stream flow. Winter: undercut banks with exposed roots, Summer: leafy branches touching water.

Plants and Sensitive Natural Communitles

Sensitive Natural Communities

Coastal Brackish Marsh, Coastal Terrace Prairie, The site does not contain any ofthese habitats. Northern Coastal NA NA NA A No further actions are recommended for these Salt Marsh, Sensitive Natural Communities. Serpentine Burrrlrgr ass

Sensitive Plants

All known occurrences of this species in the Freshwater marsh and swamp, and Sonoma Alopecurus aequalis FE, CNPS vicinity of the site are associated with coastal riparian scrub. 5-360 m. Flowers May- A alopecurus vaf. sonomensE 18.1 freshwater marsh, swamp, or riparian scrub. The July. site lacks suitable habitat.

Broadleaf u pland forest, chaparral, This woody perennial was not observed duringthe Amorpha californica cismontane woodland; openings in Napa false indigo CNPS 18,2 A field survey, which was conducted. when this vat, napensis forest, woodland, and chaparral. 120- species would be identifiable. 2.000 m. Flowers Aoril-lulv.

34 5 Redwood Dr Town of 20L9

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site

Cismontane woodland, valley and Bent-flowered The site is heavily disturbed and does not provide Amsinckio lunoris CNPS 18.2 foothill grassland. 5-500 m. Flowers A fiddleneck suitable habitat for this species. MarchJune.

The site lacks suitable serpentine soils and Franciscan Arctostaphylos FE, CNPS Serpentinite outcrops in chaparral. 50- A chaparral habitat. No manzanitas (a woody manzanita fronciscono 18.1 300 m. Flowers January-April. perenniall were observed on the site.

Arctostophylos Generally, serpentinite soil, valley and The site lacks suitable serpentine soils; and no Mt. Tamalpais montano ssp. CNPS 18.3 foothill grassland. 150-750 m. Flowers A manzanitas (a woody perennial) were observed on manzanita montono Februarv-Aoril. the site. .

Serpentinite soil, chaparral, coastal The site lacks suitable serpentine soils and Presidio Arctostophylos FE,SE, prairie, coastal scrub. 20-215 m. A chaparral habitat. No manzanitas (a woody ma nzanita montono ssp. rovenii CNPS 18.1 Flowers Februarv-Aoril. oerennial) were observed on the site.

Broad-leaved upland forest, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral, Arctostaphylos No manzanitas (a woody perennial) were Marin manzanita cNPS 18.2 north coast coniferous forest, A virgata observed. generally on sandstone or granitic soil. 150-750 m. Flowers December-March.

FE, SE, Freshwater marsh. 10-170 m. Flowers Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola A No suitable habitat. cNPS 18.1 Mav-August.

Astrogolus Coastal salt marshes, coastal dunes, Coastal marsh No suitable Coastal salt marshes, coastal dunes, pycnostochyus vat CNPS 18.2 coastal scrub, streamsides. 0-30 m. A milk-vetch coastal scrub, streamside habitat. pycnostochyus Flowers April-October.

Alkali playa, valley and foothill Astragolus tener var No suitable Alkali playa, valley and foothill Alkali milk-vetch cNPS 18.2 grassland, vernal pools. 1-170 m tener grassland, vernal pool habitat, Flowers March-June.

Serpentinite soil, valley and foothill Tiburon mariposa Calochortus FT, ST, grassland. Open rocky, serpentine. 50- A No suitable habitat. lily tiburonensis cNPS 1B.1 150 m. Flowers March-June,

35 6 Redwood Town of May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site

Coastal salt marshes, coastal dunes, coastal bluff Calystegia purpurato coastal scrub, north coast coniferous CNPS 2B.1 A No suitable habitat. morning-glory ssp. soxicolo forest. 4-155m. Flowers (March) Aprll- sep.

The closest known occurrence of this species was North coast coniferous forest, lower Seaside a 1915 observation near the Town of Lagunitas, Cordamine anguloto cNPS 28.1 montane coniferous forest, wet places. A bittercress over 5 miles away. The site does not provide 65-951 m. Flowers April-June. suitable mesic habitat.

Marshes and swamps, lake margins, Closest known occurrence was in 1866 in the Bristly sedge Corex comoso cNPS 28.2 wet places.5-1,005 m. Flowers July- A Delta. No suitable habitat. September.

Brackish or freshwater marshes. 0-10 Lyngbye's sedge Corex lyngbyei cNPS 18.1 A No suitable habitat. m. Flowers Mav-Aueust,

Northern Meadows and seeps (mesic). -5-1620 Corex proticolo cNPS 2B.2 A The site is heavily disturbed. No suitable habitat. meadow sedse m. Flowers MaV-August.

Rocky serpentinite soil, valley and Tiburon lndian Ca sti I I ej o ofli n i s ssp. FE,5T, foothill grassland. 75-400 m. Flowers A No suitable habitat. paintbrush neglecta cNPS 18.2 April-june.

Maritime chaparral; serpentinite, Nicasio Ceonothus cNPS 18.2 rocky, sometimes clay. 235-290 m. m. A No suitable habitat, ceanothus decornutus Flowers March-Mav.

Mason's Dry rocky areas, chaparral, 230-500 m. Ceonothus mosonii cNPS 18.2 A No suitable habitat. ceanothus Flowers March-April.

Chloropyron Point Reyes bird's Coastalsalt marsh. 0-10 m. Flowers maritimum ssp. cNPS 18.2 A No suitable habitat. beak Ju ne-October. palustre

Chorizonthe Sandy soil, coastal bluff scrub, coastal San Francisco Bay cuspidoto var cNPS 1B.2 dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. 3- A No suitable habitat. spineflower cuspidata 250 m. Flowers Aoril-Ausust.

35 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site

Sonoma FE, SE, Sandy coastal prairie. 10-305 m. The site lacks suitable sandy coastal prairie Chorizonthe vdlida A soineflower Rank 18.1 Flowers June-August. habitat.

Moist places in broadleafed upland forest on the coast, coastal bluff scrub, The site is heavily disturbed and lacks suitable Franciscan thistle Cirsium andrewsii cNPS 1B.2 A coastal prairie, and coastal scrub. 0- habitat. 150 m. Flowers MarchJuly.

Moist places in broadleafed upland Mt. Tamalpais Cirsium hydrophilum forest, chaparral, meadows and seeps. The site is heavily disturbed and there is no cNPS 18.2 A thistle var. voseyi Serpentine streams. 240-620 m suitable serpentine habitat. Flowers May-August.

FE, SE, Serpentinite soil, valley and foothill Presidio clarkia Clorkio fronciscono A No suitable serpentine or grassland habitat. CNPS 18.1 grassland. 25-335 m. Flowers MayJulv.

Round-headed Coastal dunes.0-20 m. Flowers April- Collinsia corymboso cNPS 18.2 A No suitable dune habitat. Chinese houses June.

Closed-cone coniferous forest, coasta I San Francisco No suitable closed-cone coniferous forest or Collinsia multicolor CNPS 18.2 scrub, on decomposed shale in humus. A collinsia coastal scrub habitat. . 30-250m. Flowers March-May.

Broadleafed upland forest, closed- cone conifer forest, chaparral, This perennial woody shrub species was not Western cismontane woodland, north coast observed during the field survey, which was Dirca occidentolis cNPS 18.2 A leatherwood coniferous forest, riparian forest, conducted when this species would be riparian woodland, mesic sites. 25-425 identifiable. . m. Flowers Januarv- Aoril.

Cismontane woodland and valley foothill grassland. Know from Plumas Koch's cord moss Entosthodon kochii CNPS 18.3 A No suitable serpentine habitat. NF on serpentine river bank. 500-1,000 m. Flowers N/A.

37 6 Redwood Dr,, Town of M 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Sclentific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site

Serpentinlte soil, chaparral, coastal Tiburon Eilogonum luteolum cNPS 18.2 prairie, valley and foothill grassland.0- A No suitable habitat. buckwheat uar, caninum 700 m. Flowers June-September.

North coast coniferous forest. On damp soil on the coast and in dry There is no north coast coniferous forest or Minute pocket Fissidens streambeds and banks on soil in CNPS 18.2 A suitable dry streambeds with heavily decayed moss pauperculus humus comprised of heavily decayed wood within the Study Area. wood. 10-100 m. Flowers N/A (best observed during the wet season).

Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, F r iti I lo rio I o n ce o lata coastal scrub. Canyons and riparian The site is heavily disturbed and lacks suitable Marin checker lily cNPS 18.1 A vat. tristulis areas and rocky outcrops, 15-150 m. habitat. Flowers February-April.

Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, coastal prairie. Usually on Fragrant fritillary Fritillario lilioceo cNPS 18.2 clay soils, often on serpentine in A The site lacks suitable habitat. grassland.3-410 m. Flowers February- April.

Gilio copitoto ssp. Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. 2-180 m. Blue coast gilia CNPS 18.1 A The site lacks suitable habitat. chdmissonis Flowers ADril-Julv.

Rocky serpentine outcrops in coastal All known occurrences of this species in the Woolly-headed Gilio copitdta ssp. bluff scrub and valley and foothill vicinity of the site are associated with serpentine CNPS 18.1 A gilia tomentoso grassland. 10-220 m. Flowers May- soils in coastal bluff scrub and valley and foothill July, srassland. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Coastal dunes. 2-30 m. Flowers April- Dark-eyed gilia Gilio millelolioto CNPS 18.2 A The site lacks suitable coastal dune habitat. July.

38 6 Redwood Dr., Town of May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site

Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, Diablo Helionthella The site is too heavily disturbed to support this cNPS 18.2 riparian woodland, valley and foothill A helianthella castoneo species. grassland. 25-1150 m. Flowers April to June,

Coastal scrub, valley and foothill All known occurrences of this species Congested in the Hemizonio congesto grassland; located in grassy valleys, vicinity ofthe site are associated with coastal headed hayfield cNPS 18.2 A ssp, congesto hills, and fallow fields. 20-550 m. scrub and valley and foothill grassland. tarplant The site Flowers April-November. lacks suitable habitat.

Serpentinite soil, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Known only from Marin western Hesperolinon rr, sT, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo The site is too heavily disturbed to support this A flax congestum cNPS 1B.1 counties. ln serpentine barrens and in species. serpentine grassland chaparral. 5-370 m. Flowers April-Julv.

Requires a pH of 7 or higher, usually in slightly eutrophic waters. Marshes and Water star-grass Hetetanthera dubia CNPS 28.2 swamps (alkaline, still or slow-moving A No suitable habitat. water). 30-1495 m. Flowers July- October.

Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Valley Santa Cruz Holocorpha FT, CE, The site is too heavily disturbed to support this and foothill grassland, often clay. 10- A tarplant macrodenio cNPS 18.1 species. 20 m. Flowers June-October.

Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral (maritime), coastal dunes, Horkelio cuneoto vat. Kellogg's horkelia cNPS 18.2 coastal scrub, openings, A No suitable habitat. sericea sandy/gravelly. 10-200 m. Flowers April-Sept.

Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, sandy flats & dunes near coastj Pt. Reyes horkelia Horkelia marinensis cNPS 18.2 A No suitable habitat. in grassland or s$ub. 2-775 m. 10-200 m. Flowers May-Sept.

39 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site

Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, The site is heavily disturbed with a few areas that Thin-lobed valley and foothill grassland/mesic Horkelio tenuilobo CNPS 18.2 A are densely vegetated with ivy and blackberry. No horkelia openings, sandy. 50-500 m. Flowers suitable habitat. April-July.

North coast coniferous forest, generally on salal (Goultherio shollonl The site lacks suitable habitat for this species. No Small groundcone Kopsiopsis hookeri cNPS 2.3 A and Vo ccinium. 90-885 m. Flowers salal present. April-Ausust.

Cismontane woodland, playas Contra costa FE, CNPS (alkaline), valley and foothill grassland, Losthenio conjugens A The site does not provide suitable habitat. goldfields LS.2 vernal pools.0-470 m. Flowers March- April.

All known occurrences of this species in the FE, SE, Sandy soil, coastal dunes, coastal Beach layia Layia carnoso A vicinity of the site are associated with coastal cNPS 18.1 scrub.0-60 m. Flowers March-July. scrub and dunes. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Coast yellow Coastal bluff scrub and prairie. 10-100 Leptosiphon croceus cNPS 18.1 A The site lacks suitable habitat. leptosiphon m. Flowers Aoril-June.

Leptosiphon Coastal bluffscrub. 0-100 m. Flowers Rose leptosiphon CNPS 18.1 A The site lacks suitable coastal bluff scrub habitat. rosoceus April-July.

San Francisco Lessingio FE, SE, Coastal scrub (remnant dunes) 25-110 The site lacks suitable coastal scrub remnant A lessinsia oermonorum cNPS 18.1 m. Flowers June-November. dunes habitat. .

Chaparral, valley and foothill Ta malpais Lessingio microdenio grassland; usually located on The site lacks serpentine and suitable habitat. cNPS 18.2 A lessingia vot. micrddenid serpentine substrate, often roadsides. Chaparral is not present and it's heavily disturbed. 10-500 m. Flowers lune-October.

Moist places, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal Moist areas near the creek are densely covered Marsh microseris Microseris paludoso CNPS 18.2 scrub, valley and foothill grassland, A with blackberry and iW. The site is heavily (Moist grassland or open woodland). disturbed and lacks suitable habitat. 5-300 m. Flowers April-June.

40 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, M 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site

Cismonta ne woodland/ meta morphic, This species is typically found along road cuts in Elongate copper Mielichhoferia rock typically with high levels of heavy cNPS 28.2 A the foothills. lt was not observed during the field moss elongato metals, usually vernally. mesic. 500- surveys. 1300 m.

Rocky serpentinite soil, closed-cone Marin County Navorretio rosuloto CNPS 18.2 coniferous forest chaparral. 200-535 A The site lacks suitable habitat. navarretia m. Flowers MayJuly.

Valley and foothill grassland, coastal White-rayed Pentachoeta FE, SE, scrub, coastal prairie, open dry rocky The site lacks suitable open dry rocky habit, and A pentachaeta bellidifloro CNPS 18.1 areas, often serpentine. 35-620 m. it's is too heavily disturbed. Flowers March-Mav.

Moist places, coastal prairie, coastal Plogiobothrys scrub, chaparral, seasonal marsh. Choris'popcorn- The site lacks suitable habit and lacks suitable chorisionus var. CNPS 18.1 Known only from San Francisco A flower habitat. chorisianus southward. 50-485 m. Flowers March- June

Seasonally moist places, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. San Francisco Plogiobothrys SE, CNPS The site lacks suitable habit and lacks suitable Known only from San Francisco A popcorn-flower difiusus 1B habitat. southward.0-100 m. Flowers April- June.

Alkaline meadows and seeps, coastal Hairless popcorn- Historically occurred on grassy slopes with marine Plogiobothrys glober CNPS 14 salt marshes.0-100 m. Flowers March A flower influence. The site lacks suitable habit. Mav

Moist, open to shaded areas, broadleafed upland forest, meadows The site lacks suitable undisturbed, open to North coast Pleuropogon ST, CNPS and seeps, north coast coniferous A shaded areas, broadleafed upland forest, semaphore grass hooverianus 18.1 forest. Marshy areas.10-1,L50 m. meadows and seeps, north coast coniferous habit. Flowers Mav-August.

Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, lower Oregon Polemonium The site is heavily disturbed and lacks suitable cNPS ZB.2 montane coniferous forest. 0-1,830m A polemonium corneum habitat. Flowers April-September. 4t 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Site

The site is heavily disturbed and lacks suitable Quercus porvulo var Lower montane coniferous forest. 100- habitat. This species is a woody shrub, which if Tamalpais oak cNPS 18.3 A tomolpoisensis 750 m, Flowers March-April. present, would have been observed during the field survey.

Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows Suitable clay and serpentine habitat for this SR, CNPS and seeps, valley and foothill species is not present in the site. The closest Adobe sanicle Soniculo maritimo A 18.1 grassland, often clay and serpentine. known occurrence was a population south of San 30-240 m. Flowers February-May. Francisco, believed to be extinct.

Freshwater marshes and swamps near All known occurrences of this species in the Point Reyes Sidolcea colycoso cNPS 18.2 the coast. 3-75 m. Flowers April- A vicinity of the site are associated with marsh checkerbloom ssp. rhizomoto September. habitat. The site lacks suitable habitat.

Chaparral; located on serpentine or Marin Sidolceo hickmonii volcanic substrate; often observed The site lacks suitable serpentine, or chaparral CNPS 18.1 A checkerbloom ssp. viridis following burns. 50-425 m. Flowers habitat. Mav-June.

Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal All known occurrences of this species in the prairie, coastal scrub, valley and vicinity of the site are associated with mudstone San Francisco Silene verecundo ssp. cNPS 18.2 foothill grassland, often mudstone, A or serpentine in coastal scrub or bluff scrub, campion verecunda one on serpentine.30-545 m. Flowers chaparral, coastal prairie or valley and foothill March-Ausust. grassland. The site lacks suitable habitat. .

Spergularia Meadows and seeps, Marshes and Long-styled sand- macrotheco var cNPS 18.2 swamps. Alkaline. Flowers February- A The site lacks suitable habitat. spurrey lonaistvlo Mav. 0-255 m.

Open areas in broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, Santa Cruz Stebbinsoseris The upland areas in the site are too heavily cNPS 18.2 chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal A microseris decipiens disturbed to support this species. scrub, valley and foothill grassland. 30- 545 m. Flowers April-May.

Serpentinite soil, chaparral, closed- Tamalpais jewel- Streptonthus CNPS 1B.3 cone coniferous forest. 305-550 m. A The site lacks suitable habitat. flower botrochopus Flowers April-lune.

42 5 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, 2019

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the site

Streptdnthus Serpentinite soil, valley and foothill All known occurrences of this species in the region Tiburon jewel- glondulosus ssp. FE, SE, grassland. 30-150 m. Flowers May- A are associated with rocky serpentine soil. The site flower niger (previously cNPS 18,1 lune. lacks suitable habitat. . Streotonthus niaer)

Mt. Tamalpais Streptonthus Serpentinite soil/talus, chaparral, All known occurrences of this species in the region bristly jewel- glondulosus ssp. cNPS 18.2 valley and foothill grassland. 150-800 A are associated with rocky serpentine soil. The site flower pulchellus m. Flowers MavJulv. lacks suitable habitat. .

Brackish and freshwater marshes and All known occurrences of this species in the region Suisun Marsh Symphyotrichum cNPS 18.2 swamps.0-3 m. Flowers May- A are found along seasonally wet sloughs and aster lentum November. marshes. The site lacks suitable habitat. .

Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill All known occurrences of this species in the region FE, CNPS grassland (sometimes serpentinite), Two fork clover Trifolium omoenum A are found in open sunny sites in chaparral and 18.1 open sunny sites.5-415 m. Flowers grassland. The site does not have suitable habitat. April-June.

Trifolium Marshes and swamps, valley and hydrophilum (syn. All known occurrences of this species in the foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), Saline clover Trifolium CNPS 18.2 A vicinity of the site are associated with alkaline or vernal pools. 0-300 m. Flowers April- depouperotum vor. saline wetlands. The site lacks suitable habitat. June. hydrophilum)

Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley San Francisco Triphysorio and foothill grassland, generally The site does not provide suitable habitat or cNPS 18.2 A owl's-clover floribunda serpentinite soil.10-150 m. Flowers serpentinite soil. Aoril-Ju ne.

Coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Grows Coastal Triquetrello within 30 meters of the coast on The site is not within 30 meters of the coasu and it cNPS 18.2 A triquetrella colifornico gravelly rocky soil. 30-150 m. Flowers does not provide suitable habitat. MayJune.

43 5 Redwood Dr Town of 2079

Habitat Present/ Common Name Scientific Name Status General Habitat Description Rationale Absent on the Slte

* K€y to status codes: FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FD Federal Delisted FC Federal candidate BCC USFWS Birds of Conseruation Concern MMPA Sp€cies protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act SE State Endangered 5T StateThreatened SR State Rare sSC CDFW Species ofspecial Concern CtP CDFW Fully Protected Animal WBWG Western Bat Working croup (High or Medium) Priority species CNPSlA CNPSRarePlantRanklA: PlantspresumedextirpatedinCaliforniaandeitherrareorextinctelsewhere CNPS 18 CNPS Rare Plant Rank 18: Plants rarq threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CNPS2A CNPSRarePlantRank2A: PlantspresumedextlrpatedinCalifornia,butmorecommonelsewhere CNPS 2B CNPS Rare Plant Rank 2B: Plants rarg threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CNPS 3 CNPS are Plant Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed - a review list CNPS 4 CNPS Rare Plant Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list CNPS Rare Plant Threat Ranks 0,l-Seriously threaten€d in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2-Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened f moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3-Not very thr€aten€d in california (<20% ofoccurrences threstened / low degree and immediacy ofthreat or no current threats known)

*Presence:

Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present IHP] -habitat is, or may be present. The species may be present" Present IP] - the species is present. Critical Habitat [CH] - proposed project footprint is located within a designated critical habitat unit, but does not necessarily m€an that appropriate habitat is presenf.

44 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

TABLE 2. PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED DURING THE 5 REDWOOD DR. FIETDWORK ON FEBRUARY 5,2OL9

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Other Cupressaceae Sequoia sempervirens redwood Magnoliids

Lauraceae U m be I I u I ari o co liforn ico California bay Eudicots

Apiaceae Sca n d ix pe cti n-ve n e ri s Venus'needle Araliaceae Hedera helix English ivy

Asteraceae H el m i nth oth eca echi oi d es bristly ox-tongue Asteraceae Lactuco serriolo sow thistle Asteraceae Silybum morionum milk thistle Brassicaceae Cardamine hirsuta hairy bittercress Caryophyllaceae Stellario media common chickweed Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia peplus petty spurge Fabaceae Genista monspessulono French broom Fabaceae Lupinus sp. lupine Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha bur clover Fabaceae Trifolium (dubium?) little hop clover

Fabaceae Vicia sativa ssp. nigra narrow leaved vetch Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia vor. agrifolio coast live oak Geraniaceae Erodium botrys storks bill Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium storks bill Geraniaceae Geranium molle woodland geranium Lamiaceae Stachys rigida vat. querectorum hedge-nettle Montiaceae Cloytonia perfoliota miners lettuce Lysimochia arvensis Myrsinaceae scarlet pimpernel /prev. Anaqallis o.) Oleaceae lasminum sp. jasmine Oleaceae Ligustrum (lucidum) privet Oxalidaceae Oxalis pes-carpe Bermuda buttercup Platanus racemosa Platanaceae sycamore (P. x hisponica?)

45 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Ru m ex ( o btusifoli us?)(sti I I Polygonaceae bitterdock voung) Ranunculaceae Clematis sp. clematis Rosaceae Prunus cerasifera cherry plum Rosaceae Rubus armeniocus Himalayan blackberry Rubiaceae Golium aparine goosegrass Monocots Alliaceae Allium triquetrum Three-cornered leek Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Poaceae Cynosurus echinatus hedgehog dogtail Poaceae Ehrharto erecta panic veldtgrass

Poaceae Poo annua annual bluegrass

46 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

REFERENCES

Altman, B,, and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperil. ln The Birds of North America, No. 502 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, lnc., Philadelphia, PA.

Baldwin,8.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J Keil, R. Patterson, T.J, Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. TheJepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Brown, L. R., and P. B. Moyle. 1991. Status of Coho Salmon in California. Report to National Marine Fisheries. UC Davis, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology: 131 p.

CDFG. 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA.

CDFW. 2019a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA.

CDFW 2019b. Spotted Owl Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento

CDFW 2019c. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System online database. Online at http ://www.dfg.ca. gov/biogeodata/cwh r/

CDFW 2019d. California Passage Assessment Database. Online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/PAD/

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2019. lnventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. CNPS, Sacramento, California. Onli ne at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Chow, N. 2001. Distribution and Habitat Associations of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University.

Cicero, C. 2000. OakTitmouse (Boeolophusinornatus), The Birdsof NorthAmerica Online (A. Poole, Ed.). lthaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/485a eBird. 2019. Audubon and Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Online at: http://ebird.orglebird/map.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631.

Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department ofthe Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 412t7

Google Earth.2019. Aerial lmagerV 1993-2077. Accessed various dates in 2019

Guti6rrez,R,J.,A.B.FranklinandW.S.Lahaye. 1995. SpottedOwl (Strxoccidentolisl,TheBirdsof NorthAmerica Online (A. Poole, Ed.). lthaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/179

Jennings, M.R. 2004. An Annotated Check List of Amphibians and Reptile Species of California and Adjacent Waters, third revised edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

47 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

Leidy,R.A,G.S.Becker,andB.N.Harvey.2005. Historical distributionandcurrentstatusofsteelhead/rainbowtrout (Oncorhynchus mykissl in streams ofthe San Francisco Bay Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.

Lowther, Peter E. 2000. Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttolliil, The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornel Ledu/bna/species/555

Marin Maps. 2Q!9. hltp: / / www.marin map.org.

McShane, C., T. Hamer, H. Carter, G. Swartzman, V. Friesen, D. Ainley, R. Tressler, K. Nelson, A. Burger, L. Spear, T. Mohagen, R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle, C.Strong, andJ. Keany.2004. Evaluation reportfortheS-yearstatus review of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Unpublished report. EDAW, lnc. Seattle, Washington. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, Oregon.

Mitchell, D.E. 2000. Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sosrn), The Birds of North America Online (A Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/501.

Moyle, P.B.2002. lnland Fishesof California Revised and Expanded. Universityof California Press, Berkeley

National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS). 2012. Final Recovery Plan for Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Santa Rosa, California.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. lntersection of USGS Topographic Quadrangles with NOAA Fisheries ESA Listed Species, Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and MMPA Species Data. California Species List, West Coast Region. Online: http;//www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/california_species_list_tools.html; accessed February 2019.

Sawyer,J.,T.Keeler-Wolf andJ.Evens.2009. AManual ofCaliforniaVegetation,SecondEdition. CaliforniaNative Plant Society, Berkeley, CA.

Shuford,W. D. 1993. TheMarinCountyBreedingBirdAtlas: ADistributional andNatural Historyof Coastal California Birds. California Avifauna Series 1. Bushtit Books, Bolinas, CA.

Shuford,W.D.,andT.Gardali (eds).2008. CaliforniaBirdSpeciesofSpecial Concern:Arankedassessmentof species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and CDFG, Sacramento.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, NY.

Thomson,R.C.,A.N.Wright,andH.B.Shaffer.2016. CaliforniaAmphibianandReptileSpeciesofSpecial Concern. Co-published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press. Oakland, California.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Transmittal of Guidance: Estimating the Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California. July. 12 pp.

48 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, xii + 142 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Marbled Murrelet (Brochyramphus mormorotus) 5-Year Review. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA. June 12. lNovato, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Bolinas, Petaluma Point, Point Bonita, San Francisco North, San Geronimo, San Rafael, San Quentin U.S. Geological Service 7.5' Quadrangles. 7.5 minute topographic maps.

University of California at Davis. 2019. Center for Watershed Sciences. Pisces: California Fish Data and Management Software. Available online at: http://pisces.ucdavis.edu/

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2019. Western bat species accounts. Available; http://wbwg.org/western- bat-species/.

WRA. 2019. Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, prepared by |SA-Certified Arborist Scott Yarger

Zeiner, D.C., W,F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume l-lll: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

49 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS

5 Redwood Dr. (taken 2-5-2010, facing northwest), shows redwood trees and ivy covered fence

6 Redwood Dr. (taken 2-5-2OLO, facing southwest)

50 6 Redwood Dr., Town of Ross, May 2019

5 Redwood Dr. 2-5-2010, faci eastl

,t: I A view of 6 Redwood Dr. from the street (taken 2-5-20L0, facing west)

51 ATTACHMENT 15 Dwro ENVIRONMENTAT CONSULTANTS

April26,2019

Heidi Scoble Town of Ross P.O. Box 320 31 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Ross, CA 94957-0320

Re: Tree Survey Report and lmpact Study, Ross Common lmprovement Project, Town of Ross, Marin County, CA.

Dear Ms. Scoble

This letter summarizes the methods and results of an arborist survey performed on February 5, 2019 atthe site of the Ross Common lmprovement Project (Project), located in downtown Ross, Marin County, California. The survey was conducted by lSA-Certified Arborist, Scott Yarger (lSA #WE-9300A) for the purpose of: (1) identifying and documenting the presence of "protected" and/or "significant" trees, as defined Chapter 12.24, "Planting, Alteration, Removal, or Maintenance of Trees" (Tree Ordinance) of the Town of Ross Municipal Code within the Study Area; and (2) assessing the Project's potential impacts to any such protected/significant trees, especially the three existing mature redwood (Seguora semperuirens) trees on the site. As discussed and demonstrated below, based on my site visiUsurvey, review of the Project description and plans, and my professional experience: there are no unusual circumstances associated with the site or the Project; none of the trees proposed to be removed are in good health or scenic (and will be removed pursuant to the required permits, plans, and replacement provisions of the Town's Tree Ordinance); and there is no reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant impact on the Project site's preserved trees, including the redwood trees.

Site Description

The project site is located at 6 Redwood Drive in the Town of Ross, California, within APN 073- 242-25 at latitude 37.96038 and longitud e -122.555667. The project site is part of the larger 4.36 public paik known as the Ross Common and encompasses approximately 0.3-acres of the fenced in area that is located to the south of the Ross Common. The site previously contained two residential units, which have both been demolished, and as such, it currently consists of an undeveloped landscape with perimeter fencing overgrown with English ivy (Hedera helix), and other ruderal vegetation. ln addition, there are several small volunteer fruit trees, as well as one large Canary lsland date palm (Phoenix canariensis) and three large mature redwood trees (Sequora semperuirens). The Study Area consists of the fenced portion of the lot. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the potential for the project to impact sensitive or protected tree resources.

2169-G Eost Froncisco Blvd, Son Rofoel. CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 tel (415) 454-0129 tox [email protected] www.wro-c0.com Project Description

The Project proposes to establish a passive park, joining the site to the rest of Ross Common. Work will include removing a failing chain link fence and other fencing, overgrown ivy, and four volunteer cherry plum trees. Minor landscaping improvements will consist of backfilling a shallow depression left from the removal of a former residence foundation, installation of a weed barrier, drip irrigation, mulch, planting replacement trees, as well as removal of a large, dead poplar (Populus sp.) stump directly adjacent to a mature Canary lsland date palm. Additional improvements include installing a 4-foot tall split rail fence adjacent to Redwood Drive and portions of Ross Common. The project would commence construction in September 2019 and is estimated to be completed in November 2019. The grading of the site would be completed no later than the beginning of the "rainy season" on October 15,2019. Additional details can be found in the Town's project description and existing and proposed site plans.

Regulatory Background

Chapter 12.24, "Planting, Alteration, Removal, or Maintenance of Trees" (Tree Ordinance) of the Town of Ross Municipal Code regulates the protection of certain significant and/or protected trees in order to preserve and prolect the economic, aesthetic, and environmental values mature trees provide to the citizens of Ross. A "tree" is defined by the Tree Ordinance as: "perennial plant having a permanent, woody, self-supporting main stem or trunk ordinarily growing to a considerable height."

The Tree Ordinance defines a "protected tree" as: "any tree located within twenty-five feet (25') of the front or side yard property line or within forty feet (40') of the rear yard property line of any parcel, with such tree having a diameter greater than eight inches (8"); and any tree planted as a replacement tree for a tree removed pursuant to this chapter or planted within a required yard setback area pursuant to a landscape plan approved by the town council."

"Significant trees" are defined as: "any tree having a single trunk diameter greater than twelve inches (12"), or any tree designated to be preserved on plans approved by the town council, or as a condition of approval of a project approved by the town council."

A tree alteration or removal permit is typically required to alter or remove protected or significant trees. ln addition, all trees gr.eater than or equal to six inches (6") diameter on unimproved parcels or within the Town rightof-way typically require a tree alteration or removal permit.

Tree removal permit conditions of approval typically require replacement plantings at a ratio of up to one to one total diameter in inches removed to total diameter in inches replaced for trees in good to excellent condition. For instance, a 12-inch significant or protected tree removed would require replacement trees totaling 12 inches in diameter. For the purpose of replacement trees, a standard 24-inch box tree shall equal 2 inches of replacement diameter, a 36-inch box replacement tree shall equal three inches of replacement trunk diameter, and a 48-inch box replacement tree shall equal 4 inches of replacement trunk diameter. Trees in fair to poor condition require replacement at a lesser ratio.

Methods

On February 5,2019, WRA's ISA-Certified Arborist traversed the Study Area on foot to evaluate, identify and inventory all trees as defined per the Tree Ordinance. Locations of surveyed trees

2 within to the Study Area were recorded using a handheld GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. Each tree was given a unique identification number. lnformation including species, DBH, approximate height, health, structure, and overall condition ratings were recorded. ln cases where an irregular bulge or one or more scaffold branches were located at breast height, the diameter was measured below the irregular feature in order to best represented the size of the tree.

General notes on the condition of the protected trees were taken, including health, structure, and overall condition. Assessment of the health, structure, and overall condition of each tree was conducted according to the narratives listed in Table 1.

Table 1 narratives for tree assessment Health

Good Tree is free from symptoms of disease and stress

Fair Tree shows some symptoms of disease or stress including twig and small branch dieback, evidence of fungal / parasitic infection, thinning of crown, or poor leaf color

Poor Tree shows symptoms of severe decline Structure

Good Tree is free from major structural defects

Fair Tree shows some structural defects in branches but overall structure is stable

Poor Tree shows structural failure of a major branch or co-dominant trunk General Gondition Good Tree shows condition of foliage, bark, and overall structure characteristic of the species and lacking obvious defect, or disease

Fair Tree shows condition of foliage, bark, and overall structure characteristic of the species with some evidence of stress, defect, or disease

Poor Tree shows condition of foliage, bark, and overall structure uncharacteristic of the species with obvious evidence of stress, defect, or disease

Results

A total of 14 trees were identified within the Study Area, five of which (trees #1 , 2, 3, 5, and 12) are large enough to be considered "significant" trees per the Tree Ordinance. An additional three trees (tree #7,13, and 14), are larger than 6 inches diameter and located on an unimproved parcel, and therefore may require a tree removal permit to remove. Six of the surveyed trees, including trees #4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 1 1 measured less than six inches in diameter and are too small to be considered protected or significant trees per the Tree Ordinance.

A complete list of all trees surveyed is presented in Attachment A. A map showing the location of each tree is provided in Atttachment B. Significant trees within the Study Area were composed of three species, including redwood (Seguora sempervirens), Canary lsland date palm (Phoenix canariensis), and cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera). Protected tree species within the Study Area 3 include redwood, Canary lsland date palm, and London plane (Platanus x acerifoln). Tree sizes ranged from 3 to 71 inches. The largest surveyed tree was tree #3, a 71 inch-DBH redwood tree located in the central portion of the Study Area.

The overall condition, health and structure of trees inventoried during this assessment ranged from fair to good, with most trees ranking fair. The only tree ranking poor in structure was tree #14, a volunteer cherry plum tree located between two existing fences in the southeast corner of the Study Area. Tree #14 exhibited a poor, suppressed growth form/lean due to overcrowding and competition from adjacent overgrown vegetation. Many of the pear, plum, and apple trees expressed thin growns and relatively low vigor, but ranked fair overall. Two of the three mature redwood trees in the Study Area (tree #2, and 3) ranked good in condition, health and structure, while tree #1, ranked fair in health and condition as it expressed slightly lower vigor than the other two redwoods, and the bole of this tree had grown over a concrete portion of an old remnant house foundation. Redwood trees #2 and 3 exhibited high vigor, and full, healthy crowns, despite a few recent limb failures which likely were related to a recent storm event.

The observed maladies and considerations of severity, along with species characteristics guided the assignment of the structural condition, health, and overall condition score for each tree. The overall condition, structural condition, health of inventoried trees was found to be generally fair. Fable 2 below summarizes the assessment results of all inventoried trees in the Study Area.

Table 2.Tree Assessment Results Summa Criteria Condition Health Structure Assessed/Ratinq Good 3 Q1%\ 3 e1%\ 4 e8%\ Fair 11 (79%) 11 (79%) 10 (71%\ Poor 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%l lmpact Assessment

The Study Area contains eight trees which are considered significant or protected trees per the Town of Ross Tree Ordinannce. The Project has been designed to preserve the majority of significant or protected trees within the Study Area, with the exception of three non-native volunteer cherry plum trees (trees #12,13, and 14) which will be removed. One additional non- significant, non-protected cherry plum tree (tree #4) will also be removed. Cherry plum is an escaped ornamental tree that is rated as an invasive species by the California lnvasive Plant Council (Cal-lPC) indicating that it has a negative ecological impact on California wildlands and native habitat values. The trees to be removed are situated in between two fences to be removed, and none of the trees are in good condition nor are they considered scenic, as they are generally obscured by the fences and overgworn ivy.

As part of the project a tree alteration or removal permit will be obtained for the removal of any tree greater than 6 inches in diameter. As described above, replacement trees could be required as a condition of approval for the tree permit. All trees to be removed requiring replacement are rated in fair condition. As per the Tree Ordinance, a tree in fair or marginal condition or structure shall be replaced on a three-to-one ratio of diameter in inches removed, to diameter in inches replaced. Following this guideline, the total diameter of protected trees to be removed is 31 inches, which would require 10.3 inches of replacement diameter, or approximately five 24-inch box replacement trees.

4 ln order to compensate for the removal of the three non-native protected plum trees, the Project will plant five replacement trees within the two tree replacement areas identified on the Project's site plan (Attachment E). Tree replacement species will be a combination of Crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), dogwood (Cornus sp.) and toyon (Heferomeles arbutifolia). Tree replacement locations are sited along the southern boundary of the site along the fenceline with 8 Redwood Drive, and along the eastern boundary where the existing plum trees are to be removed. The replacement locations were selected in order to maximize aesthetic benefits such as visual screening, and to minimize or eliminate any potential adverse impacts to the existing significant redwood trees. As designed, the Project's tree replacement component is not anticipated to result in any adverse or significant impacts to the redwood trees.

Based on review of the existing condition of the large, mature, significant redwood trees, review of Project plans, and proximity to ground disturbance associated with the Project, no significant or protected trees selected for preservation, including the redwood trees are likely to be adversely impacted by the Project. There are no unusual circumstances associated with the site or the Project, and potential impacts to trees within the Project Area are minor and routine. Furthermore, removal of adjacent overgrown ruderal vegetation, and non-native, invasive plum trees, backfilling additional topsoil in the depressional area of the old removed foundation, mulching, and installation of drip irrigation, is anticipated to improve growing conditions compared to existing conditions, by reducing competition for water and nutrients from surrounding vegetation, and reducing future soil compaction via mulching. A tree alteration or removal permit will be obtained for the removal of all protected or significant trees to be removed.

A complete list of all trees surveyed within the Study Area is presented in Attachment A. A figure displaying the locations of all protected trees is presented in Attachment B. Site photographs that I took during my February 5, 2019 site visit are provided in Attachment C. ln addition, a tree protection plan is provided in Attachment D in compliance with the Town's regulations of general applicability and the standard requirement of the Town of Ross Tree Ordinance. Lastly, the Project site plan is provided as Attachment E.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Scott Yarger

I SA-Certified Arborist WE-9300A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAO) [email protected]

Enclosures: Attachment A - Tree Survey Table Attachment B - Tree Survey Map Attachment C - Site Photographs 5 Attachment D - Tree Protection Plan AttachmentE-SitePlan

b Attachment A - Tree Survey Table This Page Left Blank lntentionally qttachment A. Ross Common Arbodst SuNey, Ross. Californla. February 2019, (o)wro

KOpEC€m€nl Approx. Requlcd per Sigf,ifi@nt Prcteot€d Oriptine Appox. free to be TGe TE€ fr* OBH Radius H€ight lemov€d? Ordlnan@ Tao lD Common Name Sogcles ff6s/No) lYes/No) {lnch6s) (feet) (f@0 londitiof {ealth Sbucturo 1".,..

N/A lcood vloor and heallh. Redwood Yos No 65 35 110 Good Good Good No N/A 't rw DIum N/A lc@d vloor and heallh. No No 4 5 10 Fair Fak Fait No lThin crown. 7 -ondon Dlane {o

Fair No N/A lThln crown. 10 qoole M'€l6 sp. No 5 5 I

Yes I lw lnfroslatlon. :h€fr olum No fe9 10 10 15 Fair Fak Falr Yes llw infeslallon. efl olum This Page Left Blank lntentionally Attachment B - Tree Survey Map This Page Left Blank lntentionally Attachment B. Tree Survey

F__ll s.uay er"a (0.2e ac.) Surveyed Trees

O Protected/Significant

O Protected

a Significant

(D Non-significant

N A 0 25 50

Feet $)wro

Sourqes: 2016 Digitalclobe Aerial, wRA I Prepared By: czumwalt This Page Left Blank lntentionally Attachment C - Site Photographs This Page Left Blank lntentionally Photograph 1 Photograph depicting significant redwood trees #1 ,2, and 3, which will be preserved and protected by the Project.

Photograph 2. Photograph depicting failing chain-link fence and overgrown ivy vegetation.

Attachment Dwro C. Site Photographs 1 Photograph 3. Photograph depcting dead stump to be removed next to significant Canary lsland palm tree.

Photograph 4. Photograph depicting approximate area of old foundation to be backfilled with soil to raise to existing grade.

,(Dwro Attachment C. Site Photographs 2 €NVtRONM!NIAt CONSUL'AN'S Attachment D -

Tree Protection Plan This Page Left Blank lntentionally. TREE PROTECTION PLAN ln order to minimize indirect damage to and maximize the chances of the survival of existing significant or protected trees proposed to be retained by the Project as required by the standard, generally-applicable provisions in the Town's Tree Ordinance, I recommend that the tree protection plan required by the Tree Ordinance include the following components:

. All ground disturbing project construction activities shall respect the root protection zone (RPZ) around all significant and/or protected trees within the vicinity of the project area selected for preservation, including redwood trees #1 ,2, and 3, and the Canary lsland palm tree (tree #5). The RPZ should be a distance of 1.0 times the dripline radius measured from the trunk of the tree. . Exceptions to this standard may be considered on a case-by-case basis, provided that it is demonstrated that an encroachment into the RPZ will not affect the root system or the health of the tree, and is authorized by an |SA-Certified Arborist or comparable specialist. For instance, minor grading/backfilling with soil will be required in the depressional area where the old foundation was. This will require minor grading within the RPZ of the redwood trees. This minor grading is not expected to adversely impact the redwoods, as long as grading is limited to this area, and respects the RPZ to the maximum extent feasible, . Temporary protective barriers shall be installed around the RPZ of un-fenced portions of existing significant or protected trees selected for preservation prior to commencement of any grading activity conducted within 25' of the tree canopy. Temporary protective barriers can include perimeter fencing (e.9. high visibility construction fencing or chain link) and/or straw wattles fastened around trunks of trees when fence demolition is required in the RPZ. Protective barriers shall be clearly marked to prevent inadvertent encroachment by heavy machinery. . Although not anticipated, significant roots (greater than 1 inch diameter) exposed as a result of grading or fence demolition activities shall be covered with wet burlap to avoid desiccation, and should be buried with topsoil as soon as practicable. r Fence and vegetation removal within the RPZ of significant trees shall limit ground disturbance to the maximum extent feasible. . Any subgrade depressions resulting from fence removal should be backfilled as soon as feasible with topsoil. . Fences being removed shall be felled away from significant trees in order to avoid incidental damage to tree trunks. . When removing the existing dead poplar stump adjacent to the significant Canary lsland palm tree, extreme caution shall be usedto avoid cutting the palm. The stump shall be cut as flush to grade as possible without damaging the palm. The stump should not be ground to avoid damaging the palm. . Drainage will not be allowed to pond around the base of any tree. . An |SA-Certified Arborist or tree specialist shall be retained to perform any necessary pruning of trees during construction activity. . Construction materials or heavy equipment shall not be stored within the root protection zone. o Trenching shall not be allowed within the RPZ of existing significant trees. lf trenching is required in the RPZ it shall be dqne under the field supervision of an ISA-Certified Arborist and shall be hand dug as much as possible in addition to using auger or drill.

1 . Construction materials shall be properly stored away from existing trees to avoid spillage or damage to trees.

2 Attachment E -

Site Plan This Page Left Blank lntentionally I;EGEND

TREE ruPLACEMENT AREA (TYP) BE A COMBINATION OF CRAPE MYRTLE DOG WOODS AND/OR TOYONS x INSTALT 125 LF .--.: HIGH SPTIT MIL FENCE :/ (FENCE J)

.\. APN 073-242-25 or .i:,....: Ross Common REMOVAL .it: -'r1: p \ 51 -,;:---). : 'Dnbuscd 4 PIUM TREES \f \ ,,, TO 3E REMOVED ' . Srss' \ Fi'.t i,a,n. ot{-zqz-23' \.\ v9 .'::\ \..\ \ .\ \ RdMovE 2 EA.6'xlo' 1 J-l PLANTER BoxEs \ \ NON-DTSTURBANCE ZONE . -.t- it. REDWOOD DRTVE (E) POPLAR STUMP FIUSH TO GMDE I. i. t\ I :J@ ?-) T OF (E) FENCE REMOVAL . \ (N)4'HIGA SPLIT RAII i . - + -- \ ' -u:..:*' 'ii \ .. l-;e- -.":-/u':- \ - 'ex, residence \PRopEntY t,tur, APN 073-271-01 t B REDV OOD APPROX, FLOI{LTNE OF MURPHY CREEK .\ t il 'r', L6', 32' :i SITEPLAN-6REDWOOD ,\ 0 1l GR APHIC SCALE I ATTACHMENT 16 IF

Ragghianti I Freiras LLP Attorneys at Law

1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA94901 Jonathan R. Kathrein telephone 415.453.9433 jkathrein@rfl awllp.com facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawllp.com

May 2,2019 Via E-Mail Only

( i chinn@ toz o no {'r o s s. o r q\

Ross Town Council Town of Ross P.O. Box 320 Ross, CA94957

. Re: Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive Dear Members of the Town Council:

Our office continues to represent the owners of 8 Redwood Drive in connection with the adjacent Town-owned property at 6 Redwood Drive. We received notice of the Town's consideration of yet another project at the 6 Redwood Drive property. Again, we feel that the Town's actions, and planned consideration, fall short of what is required both by the law and as a neighbor.

In the past, our office has encouraged the Town to repair the house on the property and continue renting it as a single-family residence, which the Towry in fact, voted to do. Then, the Town demolished the house, planning to rebuild it. Next, the Town proposed, and approved, changing the use of the property to a park, but couched this approval as mere landscape improvements. It is unclear why, in a housing climate like this, the Town would ever decide to eliminate the perfect place for continued workforce housing. This decision is even more perplexing in light of our client's repeated offers to either pay the delta between the insurance money received and the rebuild costs, or to lease the land and pay to rebuild the entire home and handle the rentals on the town's behalf. However, the Town apparently values a few additional square feet of park over housing an employee.

After being called out on its inadequate notice and lack of CEQA compliance, The Town rescinded its action taken on January 10, 2019, to finalize the park conversion. Now, the Town is again considering completely converting the use of the property from a residential use to a park, without acknowledging such conversion. The Town continues to ignore that it's actions constitute a Project under CEQA, and has failed to give the project full consideration under its own land use ordinances. IT Ragghianti IFreiras nn Page 2 of 5

Our client, a neighbor to the Town-owned property, continues to request a conversation with the Town about how to use the property and.reduce impacts. Instead, the Town continues to charge down a path of changing the use of this property. This time, in the Notice of Public Meeting sent to neighbors, the project description is that the Town is requesting a "Tree Permit and landscape improvements to the Ross Common to passiztely connect 6 Redwood Drive with the remainder of the Ross Common Park." (Emphasis added,) We are at a loss in explaining how an improvement can be passive. In addition, the Town has said repeatedly, both in public and in private, that it plans to turn the property into a park. It needs address this project as such, as this is the obvious outcome.

The second sentence in the Notice states, "The project would entail minor landscape improvements and site cleanup, such as removing the fences and vegetation between the 6 Redwood site and the rest of the Ross Common . . . ." In other words, the project is not passive, but instead is an active and deliberate changejn_qge. As such, the currently proposed activities, combined with the actions the Town has taken to date, constitute a "project" pursuant to California Public Resources Code S 21065. Further, the Categorical Exemptions previously replied upon by the Town, and challenged by our office, still do not apply. Thus, the Town must prepare an Initial Study checklist to determine the necessary scope of environmental analysis required here.

Finally, the "plans" up f.or consideration at the upcoming meeting are wholly inadequate. Plans of this opacity would ne,ver be accepted by the Town were a resident to propose them. The single black and white sheet is incredibly lacking in detail, does not screen all of our client's property, and should never serve as the basis for a decision of this magnitude.

1.. IgnorinLthe Town Cqde As elected leaders, for the Town Council to ignore its own code is bad public policy. The Town is changing the use of a property not only without obtaining proper land use approvals, but also while ignoring the policies behind such land use controls.

Use Permit The Town s property is zoned as a Civic District, in which a park or recreational use is permitted. (RMC $ 18.24.030.) Yet, the change from a single-family residential use, which is a conditionally permitted use, to a permitted use, a park, is clearly a change in use as defined by the code. (RMC S 10.24.035.) We are unaware of the Town processing a land use permit application for the property, though one would normally be required. If a permit were processed more than two years in the past, it would have expired by now. (RMC S 18.60.050.) The May 6th Council meeting has not been noticed for consideration of a land use application. IF Ragghianti lFre itas LLP Page 3 of 5

Design Review The Town's own municipal code requires design review for any site work done within twenty-

five feet of a creek, waterway or drainage, whether or not a building permit is required. (RMC S 18.41.020(d).) There is a creek running along the back of the property, therefore, design review is required.

While it is the Town Council that may decide design review applications, this meeting has not been noticed as including design review and the materials are insufficient to make a design

review determination. (RMC S 18.41.060.) The Council must make required findings. (RMC S 18.41".070(b).) The Town clerk must mail written notice to all owners of property within three hundred feed at least ten days prior to the hearing. (RMC S 18.41.060.) It is too late to provide notice for design review at the May 6th Council meeting now.

Furthermore, the Council should deny any application that fails to maintain a harmonious relationship between the site and neighboring properties. (RMC S 18.41.100(b).) Reducing the number of housing units in the Town is also discouraged and is a reason to deny an application during design review. (RMC S 18.41.100(q).) For all these reasons, the Town needs to properly consider permitting this change in use, and there are valid reasons for the Town to reasonably deny such a change in use, at least due to its design flaws which have not been properly considered under design review requirements.

2. California Environmental Quality Act The policy behind the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is to "not only protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected." (CEQA Guidelines 15003(b).) It is to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its actions." (CEQA Guidelines 15003(d).) The situation today, namely a skeptical citizenry, is a direct result of the Town's failure to meet the above referenced policies.

To implement these principles, public agencies must not undertake actions that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before completion of CEQA compliance. (CEQA Guidelines 1500a@)(2).) As has been stressed time and again by California courts, environmental analysis of a decision must be done "at the earliest possible stage." (Bozunga. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura County (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263). Further/ pursuant to CEQA, a Project is to be given a broad interpretation. (McQueena. Board of Directors,202 Cal.App.3d1136,11,44.) A narrow view of a project could result in overlooking cumulative impacts by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. (Id.) Lastly, CEQA also mandates an accurate, stable, and finite project description. (County of lnyo a City of Los Angeles 'l.4Cal (97n71Cal.3d 185; Code Regs, S 15124.) IF

Ragghianti I Freitas LLP Page 4 of 5

Here, the Town has ignored each of these fundamental CEQA principles. The house has been demolished and the Town has already improperly deferred environmental review for its change in use, construction, and demolition, thus ignoring the rule to comply with CEQA at the earliest possible opportunity. Further, the Town's description of the proposed activities on the site has continuously shifted, making it impossible for the public to understand the true scope of the project and its potential environmental impacts. The Notice now states that the Town proposes "removing fences and vegetation between the 6 Redwood site and the rest of the Ross Common." The Town's proposed action, combined with its previous actions concerning this project, will result in a change in use from a single-family home to an active recreational site. Nowhere has the County analyzed this change in use, and instead has obfuscated this change by illegally piecemealing various steps necessary to implement the project. Instead, the Town has moved one step at a time toward its goal of creating a park, without considering the entire project as a whole. This is not permitted under CEQA.

Exemptions Do Not Apply All of the points described above demonstrate that this is a Project under CEQA that requires environmental review unless the project is exempt from CEQA. However, none of the Categorical Exemptions claimed to date apply to the properly defined, non-piecemealed project. Specifically:

Class 1 is for "existing facilities". (CEQA Guidelines $ 15301.) This exemption does not apply here because the existing facility has been removed, and the Council is considering not replacing it but instead changing its use from a single-family home to a park.

Class 4 is for minor alterations in the condition of land, water andf or vegetation. (CEQA Guidelines $ 1530a.) This exemption does not apply here because the alteration is more than just physical but is a change in the type of use. While this exemption covers minor physical impacts, the change here is more than to the land, water, and vegetation but also to the use of the property that will occur in the future, the coming and going of the property users, the noise impacts, and the ability to change course in the future.

The common sense exemption is the inverse of the general rule that "CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines S 15061(b)(3).) Removing the fence at this property wili invite uses that do not currently take place at the property. Whether they are better or worse uses, in the eyes of the community, cannot be assessed yet because they have not been considered or studied.

3. Conclusion The Town should hold itself to the same standards as it would hold any other applicant. If a private party were to propose a change of use to the property, the Town would certainly inquire into the change of use and demand mitigation. IF Ragghianti F reitas LLP J Page 5 of 5

We ask the Town to study the impacts of the proposed project before taking action. Engage the neighbors and find ways to minimize the impacts. Determine the true property boundary; create noise and visual barriers; and create setbacks, instead of putting a park all the way up to the neighbors'property. The Town is simply ignoring these obvious impacts.

We continue to reiterate all the points we have made in the past, and incorporate said letters herein by reference.

The Town should hit pause, do the right thing, and analyze and mitigate the impacts on neighbors of building a park next to their homes. This is exactly what the Town would expect and require of any of its residents.

Very truly yours,

Jonathan R. Kathrein cc: Clients ATTACHMENT 4 I\'/&C}IAIN LINKFENCE Pt-ANl' LIST {&!:}-!019) TR6 (E) FENCElO REMAIN i[ icururti]v aF@lr ilrnY'

YEGETATION SUNIMN[L\ TO REMAIN l- --- ar' ,{' GISE .im l'r\r\{E*,* rw|si^w sp d^{m ^ 13 LD*{H\'$@- va!r.v$n!sH

EXISTING ASPHAIT PATH 23 PLUM TREE9 REMOVED

WOODFENCE

MUg;H ) ?

{. I l-* -

FENCE 'ATI rREEse MAINTAIN DRIV€WAY/ GATE9 / FENCING .YEGETATON gOI"ID W,4N 5'TALL $/@D FENCE NON.DIS|URAANCE F)PO?TARgTUMP ', zoNE -d REDWOOD DR.IVE

EXISTING REs'DENCE FARRIERFENCI (1OO Ltl SCREEN HEDGE (PG) @ LINE FENCETOREMAIN

6 Redwood Drive AP:$73-242-25 noss, CA. Dsle:6/5r'2019 Scslc: tlE"=l'-0' I ANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PI AN ru\]Sm:8/:I/Il9 REYTSED 6/.1)/:$19 €!b*,*,, RSVTSED 9r's1r0r9