HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Res 2007-02-21 (3)
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING
FINDINGS RELATING TO THE CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION PROJECT
(FILE #10404) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 38-351-34
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006 the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon adopted
Resolution No. 2006-15 certifYing the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Congregation
Kol Shofar (CKS) expansion project.
WHEREAS, In June 2006, three appeals of the EIR certification were filed, one of which
was subsequently withdrawn. The other two appeals have been denied by the Town Council on
February 21, 2007 by adoption of Resolutions 10-2007 and 11-2007. The Town Council
subsequently and affirmatively certified the EIR through adoption of Resolution 12-2007 on
February 21, 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081 that the Town Council hereby makes findings of fact regarding each impact identified as
potentially significant in the Environmental Impact Report, which has been certified by
Resolution 12-2007. The Town Council's findings are set forth in the document labeled
"Findings of Fact for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application", which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon, State of Cali fomi a, on February 21,2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram & Smith
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 13-2007
Adopted February 21,2007
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
CEQA Findings of Fact
for the
Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit Application
Adopted 2/21/2007
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit application ("Project") analyzes the environmental impacts that
could potentially result from construction and implementation of the project. These
findings have been prepared to comply with the requirements of the CalifornIa
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21000 et seq.) and the
CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ~ 15000 et seq.). In particular, these findings
are prepared to comply with the provision of Public Resources Code section 21081,
requiring the lead agency (the Town) to make certain findings when an EIR identified
potentially significant impacts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Congregation Kol Shofar (the applicant) is seeking an amendment to its existing
Conditional Use Permit which allows the use of the site for a religious facility and a day
school to allow remodeling of portions of the existing building on its property and
construction of new additions to that building as well as various parking, access, and
landscape improvements. The specific improvements, as originally proposed, are
described below.
. A new 9,733-square foot multi-purpose building will be added to the south side of
the existing circular building. This building will be used for major life-cycle
events such as b'nai mitzvahs, weddings, and lectures. The multi-purpose room
portion is designed so that it can be divided up into three smaller, discrete spaces
which will be used as classrooms for Hebrew School and smaller gatherings and
events. The addition contains a kosher kitchen, restrooms, storage, and a lobby, as
well as the meeting space (room). The net usable space of the meeting space is
4,500 square feet which would allow (per the building code) placement of a
maximum of 642 movable chairs.
. Four new classrooms and a service room (3,662 square feet) will be added to the
existing classroom wing. The new classrooms will replace those lost due to the
construction and remodel.
. An existing unimproved parking lot, located in the northeast quadrant of the site,
and used now for overflow parking for approximately 18 cars will be improved for
40 car parking spaces in the northeast quadrant of the site.
. A new driveway will be constructed connecting the lower existing parking lot to a
drop off/turnaround circle north of the existing administration wing. The
driveway will provide access to the new parking lot.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 2
. New Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access will be constructed from the
drop off area to the front entry.
. A fire lane will be developed between the new drop off area and the new
classrooms.
. A play area will be developed to the east of the existing annex building.
. Minor improvements will be made to the small existing parking lot at the
southwest end of the site, including reduction of two parking spaces and addition
of a new trash enclosure.
. The existing courtyard to the east of the building will include new hardscape,
landscaping, and front entry.
. A new entry staircase will be constructed between the main parking lot and the
courtyard.
. New landscaping will be installed including:
o New lawns and a garden to the east of the new classrooms;
o A meditation garden north of the new classrooms and west of the existing
annex building;
o A landscaped berm northeast of the new parking lot;
o Landscaping with trees and shrubs around the new parking lot, driveway,
stair entrance, courtyard, and new multi-purpose room.
. The original application proposed a change to the existing exit from the main
parking lot to Reedland Woods Way to be both an entry and an exit.
. The original proposal provided that 139 parking spaces would be provided on-site.
. The existing circular building (the sanctuary) would be remodeled at both the
ground floor and the lower level, primarily to change seating.
. The attic of the circular building would be remodeled, and minor modifications
would be made to the existing administrative wing.
. Fire sprinklers would be added to the existing annex building.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 3
The above is the description of the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the
EIR. Throughout the lengthy public process for the project, numerous revisions were
proposed. These are discussed more thoroughly below in the discussion of impacts and
mitigation measures. To summarize, the applicant proposed placing limits on the number
of events that could be held on site and the number of people attending. Further revisions
were made by the Town. The applicant proposed a revised circulation plan that would
keep the entrance at Via Los Altos and the exit at Reedland Woods Way. The applicant
and a sub-committee of the Town Council proposed adding an enclosure for catering and
service vehicles in order to reduce the noise impacts associated with cleaning up after
events. The applicant and the sub-committee also proposed adding more parking spaces.
Several mitigation measures aimed at reducing impacts from light and glare, noise, traffic
and parking were also added. As discussed below, all of these measures serve to reduce
the impacts of the project, and none of them triggered the need for further CEQA
analysis.
Goals and Obiectives
Below are the goals and objectives of the project:
. To make site modifications, changes to existing buildings and to add new
buildings on the Kol Shofar site that permit the congregation to conduct the same
religious services that have been permitted and occurred on the property since
1985.
. To permit site modifications and building changes and additions to existing
buildings to permit the property owner to continue religious celebrations and
educational uses that have been permitted on the site generally since 1985.
. To remodel existing interior building spaces, originally designed and built for
public school use, that are generally ill-suited for permitted religious services and
elementary school pedagogy with those which are specifically sized and outfitted
to meet the requirements of a twenty-first century syn~gogue serving the sacred
and life-cycle needs of its member families, the majority of whom live in southern
Marin County.
. To construct new building additions to conveniently and comfortably house
generally the same number of congregants and school children who participate in
religious services, religious celebrations and educational activities that have been
permitted and occurred on 'the property since 1985.
. To renovate existing building facilities to dignify and make safe, convenient and
comfortable access to every indoor and outdoor place for all congregants, staff,
clergy and visitors, regardless of physical ability.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 4
. To redesign and build maj or points of vehicle access that are suitable, convenient,
safe and comfortable for drop-off and pick-up of frail elderly and young children
regardless of physical ability and in accordance with ADA requirements.
. To provide gently sloped, covered and landscaped pedestrian access that provides
visual delight and is suitable for entry into a synagogue setting.
. To make renovations to interior spaces of existing buildings for more convenient
and serviceable facilities.
. To remodel the sanctuary to enhance its aura of spirituality, provide better site
lines to the pulpit for all congregants, enhance the lighting and acoustic properties
of the space, make the space more accommodating for worship services and
improve life safety and emergency exits.
. To construct a new multi-purpose room addition, to be built on the grassy area to
the south of the existing circular building. The floor space would be divisible into
three discrete rooms or open to seat up to 300 people at dining tables for religious
based life-cycle event such as weddings and b'nai mitzvahs.
. To ensure that building construction for the multi-purpose room has acoustically-
sealed walls to avoid noise spillage and potential negative impacts on surrounding
residential use, and to design the addition to have an internal connection to the
existing building and a roof line several feet lower than the existing dome of the
sanctuary to avoid apparent additional building bulk and massing on the property.
. To construct 40 more parking spaces on-site where presently unpaved an
inefficient overflow parking exists. A new safe and direct emergency vehicle
access and turnaround and a pedestrian drop-off circle is also planned to improve
safety, convenience and ADA compliant access to existing buildings.
. To improve on-site vehicle circulation and access the new parking lot and
turnaround will be connected to the large existing lower parking lot via a new two
lane drive, which has been carefully routed to minimize grading and removal of
existing mature trees. Most of the parking spaces in the new upper lot will be
designated as handicapped spaces.
. To provide earth mounds and landscape planting between neighboring properties
to maintain privacy and screen residential use from potential views of parked
vehicles and avoid potential intrusion of headlights and noise from Kol Shofar
activities. Low level, carefully focused and shielded exterior lighting is planned to
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 5
provide security to the property without inconvenience to the surrounding
neighbors. The on-site landscape planting is also designed to bring visual delight,
spiritual orientation to congregants and students using the facilities, to minimize
grading, preserve existing topography and vegetation, and avoid extensive water
use and fire hazard.
. To achieve a balanced redevelopment of existing buildings and addition of new
buildings, parking and landscaping to serve Kol Shofar's religious facility and
educational needs and those of their school tenants.
. To continue to permit the same general number and types of educational classes
and programs for pre-schoolers, children, teens, adults and seniors that have been
permitted on the site since 1985, and to avoid potential significant adverse impacts
that may result from poorly planned building remodel, additions and expanded
use.
. To improve site facilities to accommodate existing uses and the amended
Conditional Use Permit to accommodate Kol Shofar's religious and school
programs which allow for flexibility and opportunity to grow without substantial
inconvenience to the surrounding neighbors.
BACKGROUND
The application for the project was deemed complete in April of 2004. Since that time,
extensive environmental analysis and public discussion of the project has occurred. This
CEQA process has resulted in several modifications to the project, all of which reduce
the project's impacts. As discussed below, none of these modifications trigger the need
for further environmental review of the proj ect.
Discussion of Standard for Recirculation
Only if a lead agency adds "significant new information" to an EIR subsequent to the
commencement of public review and interagency consultation but prior to Final EIR
certification, must the agency "recirculate" a revised EIR, or portions thereof, for
additional commentary and consultation. (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21092.1; CEQA
Guidelines, ~ 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v.
Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112 (Laurel Heights 11).)
The "significant new information" standard was clarified in Laurel Heights II. There the
court held that recirculation was only required when new information was added to an
EIR that changed it in such way that the public was deprived of meaningful comment on
a new adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 6
such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that project proponents have
declined to implement. (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1129; CEQA Guidelines
15162, subd. (a)(l).) The court reasoned that by codifying the "significant new
information" language, the Legislature did not intend to promote endless rounds of
revision and recirculation ofEIRs. (Laure/Heights II, supra, 6 Ca1.4th at p. 1132.)
Instead, recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule. (Ibid.)
Examples of how the "recirculation" standard should be applied are included in CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5. For example, recirculation is required when "a new
significant environmental impact would result from the project." (CEQA Guidelines, ~
15088.5, subd. (a)(I).) This section is particularly relevant here, because Alternative 7 is
a new alternative that proposes to reduce the potential impacts associated with the proj ect
as compared to the project initially proposed. Specifically, Alternative 7 is the same as
the proposed Project but with limits on the number of new events and a revised
circulation plan. (FEIR, p. 3.)
There is no basis for recirculating an EIR when changes in the proposed proj ect will only
reduce impacts. (See Remy et. aI., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act
(10th ed. 1999) pp. 304-305.) In other words, where a new alternative is similar to one
already outlined in an EIR, the time and expense associated with recirculation would not
be justified. (Ibid.)
The project in this case has undergone extensive environmental review and public
comment. As part of that process, the project has also been modified in ways that will
reduce impacts. Examples of these modifications include: areduction in the total size of
the multi-purpose room; substantial reductions in the number of new weekend evening
events and the maximum number of attendees at those events; an increase in the number
of proposed parking spaces; improvements to the proposed on-site circulation plan;
substantial and detailed mitigation measures to reduce traffic and parking impacts; and an
enclosed catering/service bay to reduce noise impacts from clean-up activities.
The Town Council finds that the modifications to the project do not trigger the need to re-
circulate the EIR. The new enclosed catering/service bay will be about the size of a four-
car garage (800 square feet). It will be one story, connected to the multi-purpose room,
and access will be via the existing service driveway. The service bay will be located
basically on grade and not resulting significant grading. The Town Council has reduced
the size of the multi-purpose room by 15% from that analyzed in the EIR. The reduced
multi-purpose room is about 1460 square feet smaller than originally proposed. Thus,
even with the addition of the enclosed catering/service bay, the overall size of the
structures is smaller than originally proposed. Impacts related to the addition of the
enclosed catering/service bay will therefore be similar or less than impacts associated
with the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 7
The original proposal for parking included a total of 139 spaces on site. The Town
Council will require a minimum of 156 spaces on site. To accomplish this, additional
grading and a retaining wall (or walls) will be necessary, but both will be minor. The
new retaining walls would be stepped and would be a maximum of four feet in height.
The addition~l parking will be in the same location as the existing parking, and will be
over 300 feet from the property lines and screened from view from neighboring
properties by landscaping. No further changes in the driveways or circulation plan will
be required.
Discussion of Existing Uses and Growth
It is important, particularly for CEQA's purposes, to put the application under
consideration in the proper context. Congregation KolShofar first occupied the site in
1984. Originally about 20 acres, the site and the facilities were originally built as
Reedland Woods Middle School. Kol Shofar has had a conditional use permit to operate
at the site since 1985. For more than 20 years, Congregation Kol Shofar has regularly
hosted a number of activities and events at the site. In 1985, the Congregation included
as members approximately 220 families. Over the years, the size of the Congregation as
grown, as has the neighborhood surrounding the property.
Over the years, portions of the original 22 acres site have been divided and developed as
single family homes. The Reed Union School District owned 22.59 acres of land. Kol
Shofar was part of a joint venture that purchased the Reed Union School site. Taldan
Investment Company, the investment partner, developed the single family homes on
Reedland W oods Way, Via Los Altos, and Vista Tiburon Drive on about 16 acres of the
original school site. The remainder of the property is now the area used by Kol Shofar.
F or years, a variety of events and activities have regularly occurred. As membership has
increased, the Planning Commission has placed additional conditions on Kol Shofar's use
permit. (See Conditions of Approval, as amended in 1997, 2001, and 2004.) With
limited exceptions the Planning Commission has found that the facility has operated in
compliance with these conditions.
As of 2004, the Congregation consisted of 598 member units. Many members come for
just the High Holy Days or for very few events throughout the year. Other members are
more active and visit the site at least once weekly. Although the Congregation saw
regular growth over the 20 years it has occupied the sit~, membership has remained
steady for about 8 years. Current activities of the site include religious services, religious
studies, library, administrative, Board meetings, social events, community outreach and
affiliated activities. Kol Shofar has submitted detailed descriptions of the current
activities and events that take place on the site. (See, for example, January 2004 letter
from Ron Brown, Table 1 of Draft EIR, and subsequent explanation from Kol Shofar.)
The reality is that the site is in use at various hours of the day for a variety of activities.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 8
These activities change from week to week and year to year. As such, ascertaining what
is an existing use as compared to a new use is not an exact science.
F or purposes of CEQA, this distinction does matter. CEQA requires that an EIR set forth
the "environmental setting" in which the project is proposed. The purpose is to establish
a "baseline" against which environmental impacts can be measured. In this case, the
application under consideratio~ includes construction of a multi-purpose room, a remodel
of the existing sanctuary and other.modifications to the site, and replacement of four .
classrooms lost to the construction and remodeling. The appropriate scope of analysis for
the EIR, therefore, is the impacts that can directly and indirectly result from this
development.
The direct impacts of the project are more physical in nature and have to do with the
construction of the facilities and how they will occupy the site once completed. These
are impacts such as construction noise, changes in hydrology of the site, and the
aesthetics of the completed building. The EIR also considered in detail the indirect
impacts of the project which are mainly those related to additional use of the site that
could be facilitated by the new construction. In this context, it is important to understand
the distinction made in the EIR between "new events" and existing events and activities.
As explained above, a variety of events and activities have regularly occurred at the site
over the years. The existing CUP does not place any limits on the type, time or
maximum attendance at events and activities (other than to limit attendance at the private
day school, and require split services on the High Holy Days).
For environmental analysis of the project's indirect impacts, Kol Shofar provided an
estimate of the types of "new events" that likely would not have occurred at the site as it
currently exists, but could be facilitated by the new construction. These new events
mainly constitute additional use of the site on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings.
The EIR process revealed that some potentially significant impacts are associated with
these new weekend events. The public hearing process has also made clear that these
potential new events are a concern of the site's neighbors.
As such, Kol Shofar voluntarily agreed to limit the number, time of, and maximum
attendance at "new~' weekend events. The Town has determined to place additional
limits on weekend events. In doing so, however, the Town asserts and acknowledges that
distinguishing what constitutes a "new event" and what is in fact an existing event or
activity is not possible. This is so because the facility has been used for years for many
different events and activities. For example, there have been weddings and b'nai
mitzvahs held at the facility in the past. Thus, weddings and b'nai mitzvahs could be
appropriately considered as existing events, and one could argue that the limitations on
new events should not apply. For purposes of analysis, the EIR assumed that "new
events" were generally Saturday and Sunday evening events. The EIR also considered
the additional Friday evening dinners at the facility to be "new events." In order to avoid
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 9
confusion in interpretation, the Town has determined that the CUP will not just limit
"new weekend" events. Rather the Town has limited the total number of events that can
occur on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday evening, and in doing so has recognized that some
of these events already occur at the site.
Congregation Growth
Throughout the EIR process, some have commented that the EIR was required to analyze
the future growth of the size of the Congregation. The Town has determined, however,
that growth of the Congregation is not a reasonably foreseeable future part of the
proposed project. The EIR, therefore, properly declined to analyze such future growth.
Furthermore, to the extent that any growth in the size of the Congregation may occur, the
Town finds that predicting such future growth at this point would be purely speculative.
Furthermore, the evidence before the Town is that future growth is not reasonably
foreseeable. Membership grew steadily over the years from 220 member units in 1984,
to a peak of609 member units in 1998. Currently, Kol Shofar estimates it has 598
member units. Thus, over the past 8 years, the total Congregation size has leveled off.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The Recording of Proceeding ("Record") upon which the Town Council bases these
findings and its actions and determinations regarding the proposed project includes, but is
not limited to:
1 The Final EIR which consists of the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use
Permit Application Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 2005) and the
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application Final
Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Document (February
2006) plus the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied on in
preparing the Final EIR, and further appendices prepared after circulation of
the Final EIR.
2 All staff reports, T own files and records and other documents, prepared for
and/or submitted to the T own staff, Planning Commission and the Town
Council relating to the Final EIR, appendices, and/or the proposed project.
3 All materials submitted to the Town either in writing or orally either at the
several public hearings or at any other time throughout the processing of the
project application.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 10
The location and custodian of the Record is the Town of Tiburon Community
Development Director, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081,
subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental
effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a
written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such
finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(I).) The second
permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion
is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1
defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal"
considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (" Goleta If')
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.)
'''[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is
based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 CaI.App.4th 704, 715.)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The Town must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA
Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 11
which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code, ~ 21002.)
F or purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than. significant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to
reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be
mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978)
83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had
satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting
numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in
question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantially lessen[ ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question
has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened
but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these
findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would
otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where
such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with
some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the
project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable"
its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, ~~ 15093, 15043,
subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme
Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task
which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the
local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as
we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 12
These findings constitute the Town Council's best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and
policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the
requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superseded or withdrawn, the Town hereby binds itself to implement these measures.
These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a
binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Town Council adopts a
resolution approving the Project.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMP") was prepared for the project, and was
approved by the Town Council by separate resolution. (See Pub. Resources Code, ~
21081.6, subd. (a)(I); CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15097.) The Town will use the MMP to track
compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public
review during the compliance period.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Draft EIR identified several impacts from the project as potentially significant. The
Draft EIR recommended mitigation measures, and the Final EIR modified and/or added
mitigation measures. In addition, the T own Council has added further mitigation
measures and changes to the proj ect. With the incorporation of these mitigation
measures, all of the project's impacts will be reduced to less than significant.
Hvdrolo!!V'l Drainaee'l and Water Oualitv
Impact 3.t-A:
Development of the project would create new impervious
surfaces, increasing the rate and amount of stormwater runoff.
This runoff could contribute to flooding in the vicinity of the
project site. (DEIR, p. 49.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts
associated with on-site peak flow rates and attendant downstream flooding will be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.1-
A.l. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 13
Facts and Evidence
Construction of additional structures and parking facilities in the intermittent creek
watershed will increase the quantity of stormwater runoff flowing into the existing storm
drain facilities. Stormwater runoff from the project site flows into storm drains that
connect with a 48-inch RCP under the project site. The 48-inch RCP connects an
intermittent creek with the West Ditch on the south side of Via Los Altos. The proposed
project will concentrate additional storm runoff directly into the 48-inch RCP, and thus
the West Ditch, and may exacerbate flooding problems downstream. (DEIR, p. 46.)
Potential project impacts on peak flow rates and downstream flooding would be
potentially significant, due to the uncertainty associated with the extent of inundation of
downstream residential properties from any increase in the amount of stormwater runoff
reaching the West Ditch. Referring to Table 3 above, the computed increases in post-
project peak flow rates on the site relative to existing conditions for the 2-year, 25-year
and 100-year design rainstorms ranged from 8.7 to 9.7 percent. The greatest increase was
associated with the 25-year rainstorm. As listed in Table 3, the post-project peak flow for
the 25-year rainstorm was calculated as 19.2 cubic feet per second. The post-project peak
flow for the 100-year rainstorm was calculated as 25.0 cubic feet per second. (DEIR, p.
47.)
Discharge from the larger watershed, of which the project site is included, was also
calculated using the Rational Method. As cited in Table 4 above, the 25-year and 100-
year watershed discharges for both the pre- and post-construction watershed conditions
were calculated at 134 cubic feet per second and 185 cubic feet per second. Therefore,
while the computed peak flows for the smaller site watershed did indicate increases of 8-
10 percent for the designated recurrence interval rainstorms, the same methodology failed
to register a detectible increase for the larger West Drain Watershed. Since the FIRM
map for the Town of Tiburon has designated a substantial part of the Pamela Court
neighborhood as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), and the Tiburon General Plan
2020 has incorporated the provision that developments must maintain pre-project peak
flow rates for their project areas, the project's impact on local peak flow rates would still
be considered potentially significant. (DEIR, p. 47.) .
The EIR hydrologist conducted an analysis of culvert and channel capacity downstream
of the project site to Richardson Bay. The capacity of the 48-inch RCP under Reedland
Woods Way and Via Los Altos was analyzed using Manning's equation for pipe flow.
Assuming a conservative value, 1.5 percent, for the slope of the 48-inch RCP, the full
flow rate of the pipe was calculated to be 192 cubic feet per second. The 100-year storm
event on the portion of the watershed upstream of the pipe inlet would result in a
calculated flow rate of just over 169 cubic feet per second, after development of the
proposed project. The capacity of the pipe is sufficient to handle the minor increase of
additional flow from the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 47.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 14
Based on averaged channel dimensions of the West Ditch between Via Los Altos and
Cecilia Way measured in the field and a slope determined from a Marin County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District point survey, along with the application of the
Manning's equation for normal depth (i.e., a standard formula used for designing storm
channels in the absence of backwater effects), a channel capacity of 720 cubic feet per
second was computed. The 100-year storm event would result in a peak flow of 185
cubic feet per second at the outlet of the watershed. The computed capacity of the West
Ditch was significantly higher than the computed 100-year peak discharge for the creek
under post-project watershed conditions. (DEIR, p. 47.)
The unobstructed capacity of the 12-foot x 5-foot concrete box culvert under Cecilia Way
was also assessed. The calculated capacity of the culvert for the free-flow condition was
1,285 cubic feet per second. The 100-year post-project peak discharge of the watershed
above the culvert is less than 185 cubic feet per second discharge of the entire watershed.
Under most conditions, the capacity of the culvert is sufficient to pass this flow.
However, if woody debris were to be trapped at the culvert entrance, the culvert capacity
could be reduced in proportion to the extent of the obstruction. This is likely the
rationale used for oversizing the culvert to such an extent. (DEIR, p. 47.)
Tidal backwater influences can severely 'reduce the hydraulic capacity of the two 60- inch
CMPs under Tiburon Boulevard. As stated previously, an extreme storm event during a
high tide may result in flooding because the capacity of the two 60-inch culverts would
be near zero. At full capacity the culverts can pass a flow of 190 cubic feet per second
without headwater. This flow rate is greater than the 100-year flow rate of 185 cubic feet
per second, however, if the tide is above the culvert outlet elevation the capacity of the
two culverts is quickly reduced. The potential of a large storm event and a high tide
occurring together demonstrates the need for the Pamela Court Pump Station to control
flooding of the nearby residences. (DEIR, p. 48.)
The Pamela Court Pump Station consists of 3 pumps. Pump 1 is the lead, pump 2 is the
lag, and pump 3 is for power outages and extreme flow conditions. The Marin County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District believes that the need for pump 3 is
highly improbable (Jack Curley, personal communication, 3/31/05). However, since the
combined pumping station capacity is a small fraction of the West Ditch 100-year peak
discharge, it is unlikely that the pump station could fully ameliorate flooding in the
vicinity of Pamela Court during a coincident, spring high tide and 100-year flood event.
Since a good portion of the Pamela Court neighborhood has been mapped as a SFHA by
FEMA, any additional peak flow generated by the project (i.e. even at the local watershed
scale), would constitute a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 48.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1-A.l includes specific measures to maintain runoff from the site at
pre-project levels. Therefore, the project would not increase peak runoff to the West
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 15
Ditch. Implementation of this measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.1- A.l provides:
Meet the proposed Tiburon General Plan 2020 policy of maintaining the post-
development 100-year peak flow at the pre-development level. This can be accomplished
with above ground detention or by the construction of an underground stormwater
detention vault. The current site plan proposes a small detention pond near the northeast
corner of the site. Further analysis will be done at the design stage to size the detention
pond to ensure that the pond attenuates peak flows to the appropriate level. The outlet
pipe would be sized and positioned to accommodate stormwater storage at volumes
appropriate to the attenuation of site peak flows to pre-project levels. It is also necessary
for a geotechnical engineer to evaluate pond embankment stability as well as any
secondary impacts on slope stability. If the construction of a detention pond for full
attenuation is infeasible from a geotechnical standpoint, attenuation shall be achieved
with a smaller pond and/or an underground vault. (DEIR, p. 48, FEIR, p. 419.)
If it is found that an underground vault is best suited for the proposed project the vault
should be constructed of reinforced concrete or other highly durable material and be
fitted with a pipe outlet connecting the vault to the site storm drain. The outlet pipe
would be sized and positioned to accommodate stormwater storage at volumes
appropriate to the attenuation of site peak flows to pre-project levels. (DEIR, p. 48.)
The detention ponds/vault shall be properly maintained. Guidelines in the Municipal,
California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook (March 1993) shall be
followed to ensure proper function including:
. Remove silt after sufficient accumulation (and properly dispose)
. Removal of trash every six months or as neede~ to prevent clogging of
control devices .
. Vegetation growth should not be allowed to exceed 18 inches
Manage the detention ponds so as to eliminate the potential for mosquito breeding. This
will include dewatering the ponds at the end of the rainy season. (FEIR, p. 420.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 16
Impact 3.1-B:
Project development would result in the clearing of land for the
proposed site improvements. During and after project
construction exposed slopes will be at risk of eroding. (DEIR, p.
49.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on
erosion and downstream sedimentation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.1-B.l. Accordingly, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Project development would result in a large portion of the site being cleared and graded
for the proposed project. The multi-purpose building to be constructed on the south side
of the main building extends over the steep slope to the south and will expose the top of
the slope during project construction and after construction until vegetation becomes re-
established. If construction occurs during the rainy season, exposed earth would be
subject to erosion. This is a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 49.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1- B.l requires completion and implementation of an Erosion
Control Plan. The mitigation measure identifies what elements are to be included in that
plan. The recommended mitigation measure would ensure proper site drainage and
delivery to storm drains. Erosion would be controlled. The plan will be monitored for
effectiveness by the Town. Implementation of this measure will reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.1-B.l provides:
The applicant shall submit a detailed Erosion Control Plan to the Town Engineer prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Erosion Control Plan shall include the following
restrictions, guidelines, and measures: (1) grading and earthwork shall be prohibited
during the wet season (typically October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be
stopped before pending storm events; (2) erosion control/soil stabilization techniques
such as straw or wood mulching, erosion control matting, and hydroseeding, shall be
utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control Measures" manual; (3) silt fences shall be
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 17
installed downslope of all graded slopes, in accordance with the installation guidelines
presented in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's "Erosion
Control Field Handbook"; and (4) hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded
areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets. These erosion
control best management practices shall be monitored for effectiveness and shall.be
subject to inspection by the Town Engineer. After construction is completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall
be cleared of debris and sediment. Silt fences shall be left in place until the hydroseed
has become established. (DEIR, p. 49.)
Impact 3.1-C
Project development would result in the construction of 0.84.
acres of additional impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff
from the upper parking lot and classroom building will
concentrate runoff into grass swales that may erode. (DEIR, p
50.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on
drainageways will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3 .1-C.l and 3 .1-C.2 . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
The construction of two swales is proposed. The first swale is in the center of the upper
parking lot. The second swale is along the east side of the upper parking lot. If not
properly constructed, the swales could erode and/or become unstable. This is a potentially
significant impact These swales, if properly vegetated, woul~ also capture pollutants and
benefit water quality. (D EIR, p. 50.)
Mitigation Measures 3.1-C.1 and 3.1-C.2 require determination of the final runoff to each
swale and construction of cross-swale sills/weirs, vegetation, rock, and energy dissipaters
that would reduce velocities and erosion potential. Implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures would ensure proper site drainage and stormwater delivery to storm
drains. Erosion would be controlled. The mitigations would also reduce the water
quality impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-C.l and 3 .1-C.2 will ensure
that impacts on drainageways will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 18
Mitigation Measure 3.1-C.l provides:
Complete an analysis on the quantity of stormwater to be conveyed in each swale.
Computations should be completed using the Rational Method. Complete an analysis to
ensure that the erosive potential of storm flow does not compromise the stability of the
swales. If it is found that either grass swale has the potential of erosion ,problems, then
geotechnical (e.g. geoweb) or natural erosion control fabrics can be incorporated into the
bed of the swale and seeded with erosion control grasses to reduce the erosion potential.
All C (runoff coefficient) factor, rainfall intensity and peak flow computations shall be
submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Consultants performing such
consultations shall pay particular attention to the low C values cited in Rantz (1971) for
natural watershed areas (0.1-0.3) and to increases in, C values appropriate for higher
intensity, higher recurrence interval rainstorms. (DEIR, p. 50; FEIR, p. 420.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1-C.2 provides:
Construct notched cross-swale sills/weirs with outlet energy dissipaters to reduce overall
flow velocities and erosion potential. Vegetation establishment via seeding and erosion
control blanket installation (as cited above) would still be required.
Properly installed (Le. embedded) rock may be used for the bed and bank material of the
swales, however, for further treatment of stormwater, grass swales designed as biofilters
are the preferred method of construction. As cited in Chow (1959), a conservative
velocity threshold for erosion in unvegetated gravelly, clay loam soils located on site is in
the range of 3 ft/sec to 4 ft/sec. With establishment of a dense grassed channel the
maximum permissible velocity increases.
Design of biofilter swales shall follow the guidelines in the Municipal, California
Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook (March 1993) including:
. 1200 sq.ft. ofbiofilter area per impervious acre'to be treated
. Minimum width sized to convey the 2-year event
. Depth size to convey the 100-year event
. For design, use Manning's n of approximately 0.20
. Longitudinal slope not to exceed 5%
. Use of a flow spreader at swale entrance
. Cover channel with biodegradable BioD-Mat (manufactured by RoLanka,
Inc.) or equivalent to limit erosion during vegetation establishment.
(DEIR, p. 50; FEIR, pp. 420-421.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 19
Impact 3.1-D:
Cumulative development could contribute to flooding in the
vicinity of the project site. (DEIR, p. 51.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the
cumulative flooding impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the
imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.1-A.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
There are two areas within or partially within the West Ditch Watershed that are included
in the Tiburon General Plan 2020 to be developed. One single family home is included
in the Plan in the upper reaches of the watershed. The second area has been slated for 10
units of high-density housing on the border of the lower watershed adjacent to Tiburon
Boulevard. Cumulative effects from development of these future projects may increase
downstream flooding along the West Ditch. This is a potentially significant cumulative
impact.
The same mitigation measure required for Impact 3.1-A is required for this impact.
(DEIR, p. 51.) As described under Impact 3.1-A, the project will be required to provide
retention of peak flows on site so there will not be any increase in peak flows leaving the
site. As such, the project would not contribute to any cumulative impact. The impact
would be less than significant given the mitigation previously required. (DEIR, p. 51.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3 .1-A is described above.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact 3.3-A:
The project adds traffic to study area intersections.
Finding
Based on the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that this impact
will be less than significant without mitigation. No further mitigation is required.
Facts and Evidence
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 20
The Draft EIR stated that "[t]he only potentially significant impact associated with study
intersections is that the 325- foot long Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection
eastbound turn lane would not have adequate queuing space to accommodate projected
vehicle queues. Project-generated traffic on a peak Saturday evening would result in
inadequate left-turn lane capacity. An additional 150 feet of lane capacity (Le., the space
needed for an additional 6 vehicles) would be needed to handle existing traffic plus peak
project-generated traffic." (DEIR, p. 62.) The Draft EIR also stated that the project
would contribute to a significant cumulative impact at this intersection.
The Draft EIR preparer proposed the following mitigation:
To address the proj ect impact the following measure is required:
1. Pending Caltrans approval, the project shall fund lengthening the
eastbound left turn lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection by adding at least 150 feet of storage to the lane.
To address the project's increment of the cumulative impact, the following
measure is required:
2. Pending Caltrans approval and determination of need, the project, in
combination with other approved development, shall fund lengthening the
eastbound left turn lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection by adding at least an additional 150 feet.of storage to the lane
(this assumes that the initial 150 feet has been added per Mitigation
Measure 1 above). The project applicant would be responsible for 75 feet
of this 150- foot extension.
3. If lengthening the lane is not acceptable to Caltrans, then the proposed
events for Saturday evening will be eliminated from the proj ect, and the
Sunday evening events shall be reduced to allow 500/0 less attendees.
The Final EIR added an additional option for mitigating this impact:
4. If Caltrans determines that adjusting the signal length and/or phasing
would not adversely affect the level of service at intersections on Tiburon
Boulevard and approves adjusting the signal timing, then the signal cycle at
the intersection will be changed to allow sufficient time for left turns to
clear the intersection on weekends between at least 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. In
this case, lane lengthening would not be required.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 21
Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning and Project Management (Harrison) prepared
the initial trip generation analysis upon which the EIR's analysis is based. Relying on
this trip generation information prepared by Harrison, Crane Transportation Group
determined that the Saturday event traffic could cause the queue length at the intersection
to be exceeded.
Since publication of the Final EIR, Harrison prepared further analysis of the intersection,
which demonstrates that project traffic will not cause the intersection queue length to be
exceeded. (March 17,2006 Memorandum from Robert L. Harrison to Scott
Hochstrasser.) The difference in results is due to the fact that the Crane Transportation
Group modeling did not account for the existing signal timing at the intersection.
As explained by Harrison:
The analysis conducted in the project traffic study was intended to
determine the impact of project generated traffic on the Level of Service
(LOS) of several intersections. LOS is the standard most commonly used
by local jurisdictions, including the Town of Tiburon, to determine project
impacts. It is relatively easy to understand and can be calculated using
readily available technical data.
The project traffic study used available data such as traffic counts,
intersection geometric design and signalization conditions to estimate the
impact of the proj ect on the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard with
Blackfield Drive. The signal timing plan used in the project traffic study
was based on field observations of the typical operation of the intersection.
The green time assigned to each traffic movement was representative of the
normal signal operations. However, because the traffic signal at this
intersection is traffic actuated, the actual timing of each phase of the signal
varies in every signal cycle. The HCS2000 software used in the project
traffic study assumes a pretimed signal that does not vary in response to
traffic flow. In other words, when the traffic from the project is added to
existing traffic volumes, the software assumes the sigrial timing as used for
the existing condition.
The signal timing plan used in the project traffic study was adequate to
provide an accQrate estimate of the project's impact on intersection LOS
but was not intended to provide engineering data sufficient to redesign the
intersection.
When the proper signal timing and software is used for the modeling, Harrison reports
the following results:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 22
INTERSECTION OF TIBURON BOULEVARD AT BLACKFIELD DRIVE
Saturday Evening Conditions
Scenario LOS 1 95th Percentile 02
Existing C 12 Vehicles
Existing + Project C 18 Vehicles
Cumulative C 17 Vehicles
Cumulative + Project C 25 Vehicles
Notes: 1 - LOS = Level of Service.
2 - Number of vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
Source: Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning
LOSl
C
C
C
C
95th Percentile 02
1 0 Vehicles
13 Vehicles
12 Vehicles
15 Vehicles
The Harrison report explains that:
The actual length of the eastbound left turn lane was measured in the field.
The storage portion of the lane is striped to a length of 329 feet. In addition
to the storage area, there is an area of bay taper and deceleration lane that is
182 feet in length. The bay taper is about 120 feet in length leaving a
deceleration lane of about 62 feet.
Assuming a standard 25 feet per vehicle, the storage capacity of the striped
portion of the eastbound left turn lane is 13 vehicles. Using the signal
optimization Erocedures of the TRAFFIX software, existing traffic volumes
result in a 95 percentile queue of 10 vehicles. The traffic that would be
added by a 300 person Saturday evening at the project results in a 95th
percentile queue of 13 vehicles. There is no need to increase the length of
the eastbound left turn lane to serve a 300 person Saturday evening event at
the proj ect.
The cumulative analysis for the project assumed the full build out of the
Tiburon Peninsula or a condition at least 20 years in the future. As shown
in the above table, the Tiburon Peninsula build out traffic volumes would
result in a Saturday evening eastbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue
of 12 vehicles. If the trips generated by a 300 person Saturday evening
event at the project were added to this 20 year plus projection, the left turn
lane 95th percentile queue is .project to reach 15 vehicles.
The existing intersection design would provide adequate pavement to serve
even a 15 vehicle queue. By using 46 feet of the available 62 feet of
deceleration lane, plus the full 329- foot existing length of the storage lane,
all 15 vehicles could be stored in this lane completely separate from the
through traffic lanes.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 23
The EIR traffic engineer (the Crane Transportation Group) reviewed this analysis.
(Crane letter, April 3, 2006.) To summarize the findings of this review:
.
Both software programs are used by the traffic engineering profession.
Assessing the intersection's operations using the different software '
programs provides divergent results. One software program is not
preferred over the other. The Town used the TRAFFIX software for
predicting future conditions when preparing its new General Plan. The
TRAFFIX software does not require as detailed input as the HCS software,
and, is, thus, easier to use.
.
Using the HCS software, there would be inadequate queuing capacity in the
left-turn lane during weekend p.m. hours of peak project trip generation
both for the "existing plus project" condition and the "cumulative base case
plus project" condition.
.
Using the TRAFFIX software, there would be adequate queuing capacity
for the "existing plus project" condition. For the "cumulative base case
plus project" condition, there would be inadequate capacity (by two vehicle
lengths) if the overall level of service at the intersection is to be maintained
at LOS C.
.
The applicant's traffic engineer has stated that the additional two vehicle
capacity that would be needed under the cumulative condition with the
level of service remaining at LOS C is met by the "bay taper" (Le., an
unstriped area that allows drivers to decelerate and enter the striped left-
turn lane). However, the EIR traffic engineers reply that Caltrans typically
does not allow this unstriped bay taper to be counted as part of the queuing
capacity for left-turn lanes.
.
The EIR traffic engineers conclude that the applicant will need to provide
all these data to Caltrans. Caltrans will need to determine which software
program queuing and level of service results they wish to utilize. Caltrans
would then determine the feasibility and need for left-turn lane lengthening
and/ or changing signal phasing and when such changes would be required.
After publication of the Final EIR, the applicant voluntarily agreed to reduce the number
of Saturday events to just 12 events per year and to limit the attendance at those events
(Alternative 7). The Harrison analysis discussed above was based on an event of 300
people.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 24
After the Planning Commission's denial of the project, the applicant performed additional
counts at the intersection. Traffic counts were conducted at several Saturday evenings at
the intersection, and the counts were then used to model the queue length at the
intersection with Kol Shofar traffic. (September 12, 2006 memorandum from Robert
Harrison. )
Traffic was counted from 5 :00 pm to 7 :00 pm on Saturday August 26, September 2, and
September 9,2006. The one hour volume from 5:00 to 6:00 pm of the two hour period
counted was the peak hour for all three Saturdays. The counts represent a Summer
season count, a Labor Day weekend count and a post-Labor Day weekend count.
The peak hour total approach volume was 2,550, 2,206, and 2,617 over the three
evenings counted. It should be noted that these total volumes were similar to those
counted for the study for the EIR. In fact, two of the counts exceed the March 2004
count of 2,369 vehicles. The total number of cars turning left on these evenings,
however, was less than on the March 2004 evening when traffic was counted. It appears,
then, that the high number of cars in the queue on the night of the March 2004 counts was
an anomaly.
The intersection LOS was then calculated using the TRAFFIC software. A summary of
the LOS and length of the eastbound left turn vehicle queue is shown below. The
accuracy of the software calculated length of the 95 percentile left turn vehicle queue was
validated by comparing it to the queues observed in the field. The 95 percentile queue
observed in the field was the same number of vehicles as estimated by the TRAFFIX
software, i.e., nine vehicles on August 26th and seven vehicles on September 2nd.
Intersection of Tiburon Boulevard at Blackfield Drive
Level of Service (LOS) and Eastbound Left Turn Queue
Kol Shofar Project Assumes 300 Person Attendance
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 25
Saturday Evening Conditions
2004 Count
March
August 26
2006 Counts
September 2
Septem ber 9
Notes: I-Number of Vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
LOS EB Left Ql LOS EB Left Ql LOS EB Left Ql LOS EB Left Ql
Existing B 10 Veh B 9Veh B 7Veh B 8 Veh
Existing + C 13 Veh B 12 Veh B 9Veh B 10 Veh
Proj ect
Cumulative C 12 Veh B 10 Veh B 8 Veh B 10 Veh
Cumulative + C 15 Veh C 13 Veh B 11 Veh C 13 Veh
Proj ect
As shown above, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under
any of the scenarios tested. While the total traffic volume was higher on August 26 and
September 9, as compared to March 2004, the distribution of the turning movements
allowed the intersection to serve the higher 2006 volumes more efficiently than it could
serve the 2004 traffic. -
F or existing conditions, this study shows that using either the 2004 or the more recent
2006 data, a 300 person event at Kol Shofar added to existing traffic would result in a
Saturday evening eastbound left turn queue no greater than 13 vehicles. As reported in
the project EIR, the capacity of the existing left turn lane is 13 vehicles. The traffic
generated by the largest Kol Shofar event tested would fit within the capacity of the
existing left turn lane and traffic signal design, while still maintaining an adequate LOS.
F or the cumulative condition, assuming the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and adding an
event at Kol Shofar as large as 300 persons in attendance to each count, the longest
eastbound left turn queue would be 13 vehicles. Thus, under any of the 2006 traffic
based cumulative conditions, the largest Kol Shofar event tested would not cause the
storage capacity of the existing left turn lane to be exceeded.
The limits on the number of new Saturday events and attendance at those events makes it
even more certain that the queue length at this intersection is not likely to be exceeded.
The modeling discussed above was based on an event with 300 people, all arriving during
the Saturday peak hour. In approving the proj ect, the Town Council has limited new
Saturday events to a maximum attendance of 250 people, and this number of people is
allowed only once per year. Nine more new Saturday evening events will be allowed, but
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 26
the maximum attendance at those will be four events with 200 people and five events
with 150 people maximum.
Thus, the Town Council concludes that even if the modeling showed a potential for the
queue length to be exceeded, that potential would happen so rarely that the impact would
be considered insignificant on that basis as well.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.3-B:
The project will add traffic to the inadequate driveway serving
the pre-school facility and southwest end of the site. (DEIR, p.
64.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on
the driveway will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.1 through 3.3-B.4. Accordingly, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed proj ect which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
The existing safety concerns of inadequate sight lines for drivers turning left out of the
pre-school driveway and usage of a driveway of inadequate width would be exacerbated
by the addition of 50 more students (a 50 percent increase in vehicles using this
driveway). It is possible that the students would not be a part of the existing pre-school,
but, instead, could be Kol Shofar students; however, as a worst case, it is assumed that
these students would access the site by this driveway. There would also be increased use
of this driveway from people attending proposed services and events on the site.
Increased use of this driveway is a potentially significant safety impact (DEIR, p. 63.)
The applicant's engineers have examined the upper driveway that provides access to Ring
Mountain School to determine whether there would be adequate line of sight at this
intersection. (See letter from Sandis, FEIR, p. 62.) The engineers determined that
removal of the vegetation uphill of the driveway would increase the line of sight to the
north to 170 feet. The DEIR recommended (based on observed speeds of vehicles
driving on Via Los Altos) that the recommended sight line should be 195 feet. The
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 27
applicant's engineers determined that an additional 20 feet of sight line could be realized
by raising the grade of the driveway. In either case, however, the line of sight would not
meet the minimum recommendation. (FEIR, p. 40.)
With the proposed mitigation, the use of the upper driveway would be less than the
existing condition, and impacts would be reduced. Current use of the driveway for
picking up and dropping off children would be eliminated. While there would continue
to be some use of this lot, it would be used only by staff and employees who would be
more familiar with the less than recommended sight lines. The existing situation would
also be improved by removing vegetation that blocks the sight line to the north. This
would increase the line of sight from the existing 100 feet to 150 feet. The DEIR also
suggested raising the driveway to gain an additional 20 feet. The Town, however,
declines to add this additional requirement because it may result in additional impacts
and the gain of an additional 20 feet in sight line distance is minimal. Furthermore, with
the mitigation as set forth below, impacts will be less than significant, and in fact, will be
an improvement over existing conditions. Finally, adding warning signs on the Via Los
Altos approach to the driveway would further improve the existing safety hazard. (FEIR,
p.40.) The requirement for adding parking spaces was added to offset the spaces lost by
closing this lot off to the general public. Originally, only 7 spaces were required, which
corresponded to a maximum attendance at events of275 people. The mitigation measure
has been revised to increase the number of on-site parking spaces to at least 156. This
will more than make up for the lost public parking spaces from restricting access to the
upper lot, while also helping to improve parking and mitigate the impacts related to
turnarounds (see Impact 3.3-C below.)
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.l through 3.3-B.4 requiring cutting of vegetation, restricting
use of the upper driveway off of Via Los Altos, adding signs, and adding parking spaces.
With the imposition of these mitigation measures, the impact would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 64, FEIR, pp. 421-422.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.1 requires:
The existing upper driveway off Via Los Altos will be restricted to use by those needing
handicapped parking, or by CLS, school, or event staff or employees. The lot will not be
open to use by the general public. A keypad gate will be installed on the driveway. A
stop sign shall be installed where the driveway intersects Via Los Altos to ensure drivers
leaving the parking lot stop before entering Via Los Altos.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.2 requires:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 28
On Via Los Altos, vegetation within 25 feet of the sidewalk and for 80 feet uphill from
the driveway shall be cleared and replanted with low-growing groundcover.
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.3 requires:
Uphill and downhill of the driveway warning signs stating "Blind Driveway Ahead" shall
be installed. The location of these signs shall be identified and approved by the Town.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.4 requires:
The applicant shall modify the plans for the lower parking lot to optimize circulation and
provide at least 156 on-site parking spaces, including handicapped spaces.
Impact 3.3-C:
The project could create a demand for more parking spaces than
can be met by on-site parking lots which will result in drivers
who park on local streets making unsafe turnarounds in
residential neighborhoods. (DEIR, p. 64.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the traffic safety impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.3-C.l, 3.3-C-3. The impact
will be further reduced by limitations on the number of few events and the number of
people attending those events as required by the Town Council's approval of the project.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Although the Draft EIR concluded that the project would have adequate parking, it stated
that "[i]ncreased numbers of turnarounds in driveways or in front of homes and increased
frequency of event-related turnarounds on these residential streets is considered by the
EIR traffic engineer to be a potentially significant safety concern." (DEIR, p. 67.)
The Draft EIR proposed the following mitigation:
To ensure that people attending project events can park on site:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 29
1. Do not allow more than 275 people on the site for any function or
combination of functions.
OR,
2. Require valet parking for all times when there would be more than 275
people on the site up to a maximum of 360 people (this maximum assumes
a 30 percent on-site parking efficiency gain due to valet parking, while
maintaining room on-site for emergency vehicle access.) Events of more
than 360 people would require shuttle service to and from Town-approved
remote lots. To avoid secondary impacts at remote lots, a Town-approved
parking plan would be required in advance of over 360-person events.
Note: The Harrison study's assumed 80-percent parking efficiency gain due
to on-site valet parking for High Holy Days is doubtful, and raises concerns
for adequate emergency vehicle access (Le., maintaining clear drive-
through access on-site for fire and ambulance access). Therefore, the Town
should also require a demonstration of the valet parking plan.
To reduce the impact of people parking on the street turning around in
residential neighborhoods Mitigation Measure 1 or 2 above would be
required, plus the Town could consider the following measures:
3. The curb on both sides of the roadway fronting Via Los Altos and
Reedland Woods Way could be painted to red to prohibit parking.
4. The T own ~ould implement a parking permit program that allowed
residents 24-hour parking but limited others to one hour.
The Draft EIR preparer stated that Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 were likely not feasible,
and that even if implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, people would continue
to park on Via Los Altos and! or Reedland W oods Way. The EIR traffic engineers
therefore considered this impact significant and unavoidable.
In response to comments, the Final EIR proposed to replace Mitigation Measure 4 with
the following:
4. Require people attending new proposed events on weekend afternoons/evenings
and Monday through Thursday "special events" to produce a receipt that they have
parked on the site or in an approved off-site parking lot. Kol Shofar will staff the
parking lot to give people the parking receipt and staff the door to ensure that
attendees have a receipt. The Town will monitor the program. Kol Shofar will
place $1,000 (or whatever amount deemed appropriate by the Planning
Commission) on account to be drawn upon by the Town for use in random
(unannounced) monitoring of these events. Ifno violations are detected during
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 30
monitoring in the first year, only one monitoring per year will be required in
subsequent years. If one violation occurs in any year, monitoring will be
conducted 5 or 6 times per year the following year. If there are no violations
during that year, then monitoring can return to a once a year schedule. If two
violations occur during the first year or years when multiple monitoring is done,
Kol Shofar will be required to conduct patrolling and placing signs warning people
not to park on the street during new proposed events. If two or more violations
occur after the year when two violations were identified, then the Town can
revised the Conditional Use Permit to allow fewer events and/or attendees at those
events or require additional measures aimed at reducing on-street parking during
the target events.
After circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant, staff and the EIR and traffic consultants
made several recommendations to improve on the suggested mitigation for this impact.
The applicant proposed to limit the number of events and attendees, improve the
circulation plan, and increase the number of on-site parking spaces. After several
meetings with the applicant and neighbors of the project, the Town Council
recommended the following measures at the November 15, 2006 hearing:
· Lower parking lot to be modified to optimize circulation and maximize
spaces
. Lighted directional sign required at the corner of Blackfield Drive and Via
Los Altos
· New red "No Parking" curbs painted as follows:
Along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to roughly the
curve below 32 Via Los Altos
. Along northwest side of Blackfield Drive between Via Los Altos
and Reedland Woods Way
. Along east side of Reedland Woods Way to property line at 20
Reedland Woods Way
. Along west side of Reed land Woods Way to CKS property line with
35 Reedland Woods Way
. "No U-Turn" signs placed along Blackfield Drive and lower Via Los Altos
and Police authorized to ticket
. All member-sponsored events of 200+ persons require two monitors for
parking and noise control
. Three unannounced traffic and parking monitoring times per year
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 31
· The following apply to events/activities with cumulative attendance >359
(except Sunday School a,ctivity):
· "Resident Traffic Only" signs placed on Reedland Woods Way and
Via Los Altos
· "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side of
Blackfield Drive to Karen Way
· Professional traffic control provided to the satisfaction of the
Tiburon Police Department
· Shuttle service required
· Adequate off-site parking provided and verified in advance writing
· Parking spaces pre-assigned to attendees prior to event/activity with
controls to monitor compliance
· Prior notice provided to Police Department: CKS responsible for
traffic control
· Attendees issued parking passes indicating parking lot (on-site or
off-site); must display pass in windshield
· F or the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in addition to
those above:
· Courtesy mailer to Vista Tiburon Subdivision addresses at least 10
days before High Holy days services
· Carpool/shuttle /parking permit/info and map distributed to members
at least 21 days before High Holy Days
· CKS to conduct multi-part educational program concerning traffic control
and parking
· CKS to maintain up-to-date database of its members to facilitate car-
pooling
· CKS to keep a log of all events/activities of 150+ attendees, duration (start
and end), and number attending
· Log to be available to Neighborhood Advisory Committee and Town Staff
upon 24 hours notice
The Town subsequently requested that the EIR traffic consultant provide an opinion on
whether these measures would effectively reduce or avoid the significant impact
associated with turnarounds. In a letter dated January 18, 2007, Mark Crane of Crane
Transportation Group (CTG), EIR traffic consultant, provided an expert opinion as to
whether the above-stated mitigations were adequate to reduce the traffic safety impact to
a less than significant level. CTG recommended some revisions and additions to the
proposed mitigation that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 32
Following the February 7, 2007 Town Council meeting, the Town prepared further
modifications to the traffic and parking management conditions at Kol Shofar.
Specifically, the Town modified the trigger point for certain traffic management
conditions from the number of persons on site to the percentage of on-site parking
capacity that would be occupied (i.e., by counting parking spaces instead of people).
CTG reviewed these modifications and in a letter dated February 16, 2007 concluded that
the traffic safety impacts would remain less than significant after mitigation provided that
one additional stretch of Blackfield Drive (up to Corte San Fernando) have temporary
"No Parking" signs placed along it during events at which on-site parking capacity would
be exceeded. The Town has incorporated this addition in the conditions of approval and
in the mitigations set forth below. The Town finds that with this mitigation program in
place, the project's potential for unsafe turnaround impacts will actually be less
significant than the existing condition.
Mitigation measures 3.3-C.l through 3.3-C.6 provide a comprehensive plan that requires
adequate parking on-site, improves the circulation plan, limits areas where on-street
parking is allowed, and provides measures that will encourage visitors to the site to park
on-site via the appropriate access.
It should also be noted that these measures will likely reduce turnarounds from those that
happen under existing conditions. This is so because mitigation measure 3.3-C.6 requires
a parking/shuttle program for any times when cumulative attendance at the site is
expected to exceed 90% of the on-site parking capacity. It is unlikely that this condition
would be triggered by new events, because they will be occurring at a time when there is
rarely another event or activity at the site. -Additionally, mitigation measures 3.3-C.5 will
act to further reduce this already less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.l provides:
The applicant shall modify the parking lot layout to optimize circulation and provide a
minimum of 156 on-site parking spaces, including handicapped spaces. The primary
parking lot shall be designed as "enter-only" from Via Los Altos and "exit only" onto
Reedland Woods Way. Improvements to the existing service parking lot shall provide
staff parking, handicapped parking and service access and shall not otherwise be
available to the public as a parking area. Finalized parking lot design, circulation and
layout shall be provided as part of the Design Review application.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.2 provides:
Fencing or a landscape barrier shall be installed along or near the CKS frontage of
Reedland Woods Way to effectively discourage pedestrian access to the site from
Reedland Woods Way.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 33
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3 provides:
A lighted directional sign to be reviewed by the Design Review Board shall be required
at the corner of Blackfield Drive and Via Los Altos to direct vehicles to the CKS parking
lot entrance on Via Los Altos and to discourage use of Reedland Woods Way by CKS-
related inbound traffic. The sign shall be constructed of natural materials with low-
impact lighting.
Mitigation Measure 3 .3-C.4 provides:
New red "No Parking" curbs shall be painted at the following locations:
· along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to the curve below
32 Via Los Altos;
· along the northwest side of Blackfield Drive from Via Los Altos to the
property at 231 Blackfield Drive;
· along the east side of Reedland Woods Way to the property line with 20
Reedland Woods Way;
· along the west side of Reedland Woods Way to the Kol Shofar property
line with 35 Reedland Woods Way.
"No U-Turn" signs shall be placed along Blackfield Drive above the Via
Los Altos intersection and on Via Los Altos below 32 Via Los Altos, with
precise number and placement of signs to be determined by the Town
Engineer. Tiburon Police shall be authorized to ticket drivers who make
illegal U-turns in these areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.5 provides: .
At events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed ninety percent (90%) of the on-site parking capacity, calculated at 2.3 persons per vehicle
(except for Sunday School programs) will require trained traffic control monitors/controllers
provided to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Police Department, located as follows: 1) at the comer
of Blackfield DriveNia Los Altos; 2) CKS driveway at Reedland Woods Way;. and 3) at the
CKS parking lot entrance on Via Los Altos. Additional monitors may be necessary to adequately
direct traffic and parking, to be determined by CKS based upon need. CKS shall inform the
Tiburon Police Department five (5) days in advance of any such event.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.6 provides:
The following traffic and parking management measures shall be imposed for events or
combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed 90% of the on-site parking capacity (except for Sunday School programs):
· "Resident Traffic Only" temporary signs placed on Reedland Woods Way
and Via Los Altos.
· "No Parking'~ temporary signs placed on the southeast side of Black field
Drive between Corte San Fernando and Karen Way.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 34
.
Trained traffic control monitors/controllers provided to the satisfaction of
the Tiburon Police Department.
.
Total minimum event/service parking shall be calculated by dividing the expected
number of attendees by 2.3 (attendees per vehicle). Adequate off-site parking
spaces shall be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance for any event,
function, or combination thereof that is expected to exceed the on-site parking
capacity. Written verification of the off-site parking lot availability must be
presented to a CKS-designated person by contract, letter or e-mail from a remote
lot owner or operator at least five (5) days prior to an event/activity or service. If
such verification is not timely presented, or is subsequently withdrawn, the event
shall be relocated, rescheduled, or reduced in magnitude unless sufficient
substitute off-site parking can be found and verified in writing prior to the event.
Such written verification is to be kept on file at CKS and made available to the
Director of Community Development upon request. Parking lot locations shall be
pre-assigned and notification provided by mail or e-mail. CKS will issue parking
passes to attendees indicating their assigned parking lot. Attendees should display
their parking passes in the windshield during the event or service.
.
Shuttle service to and from the remote parking lot or lots shall be required. A
traffic control monitor shall be provided by CKS at the remote parking lot or lots
to facilitate parking and use of the shuttle by attendees. CKS shall develop a
detailed shuttle program for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the MPB. Shuttle runs shall begin at least thirty (30)
minutes prior to the start of an event or service and shall end no earlier than one
(1) hour after the end of the event or service. A minimum of two (2) shuttle buses
shall be in operation at all such times. Shuttles shall not be diesel powered and
shuttle engines shall not idle except when loading or unloading.
.
To the extent practicable, attendees shall be issued parking passes and maps with
directions sent by mail or e-mail two (2) weeks prior to the event indicating the
assigned parking lot (on-site or off-site) with a copy of the mailed information
(map, directions, sample parking pass) sent to the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee, Tiburon Police Department, and Director of Community
Development. Invitations to events shall include traffic, noise and circulation
reminders as well as a reminder to please limit noise in the CKS parking lot and
grounds upon arrival and upon leaving an event. CKS shall be responsible for
implementing all required traffic controls.
. For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in addition to
the measures identified in B(ii) above:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 35
(a) CKS shall provide a courtesy mailing or e-mailing to all property
addresses within 300 feet of the CKS property at least 10 days but no more
than 21 days before the start of High Holy Days services;
(b) Carpool/shuttle/parking permit/information and map shall be
distributed to members at least 21 days before the start of High Holy Days
services. This distribution shall include traffic, noise and circulation
reminders as well as a reminder to please limit noise in the parking lot and
grounds upon arrival and upon leaving an event. For the High Holy Days
services, the following above shall apply and also, carpool, shuttle, parking
permit/information and map shall be distributed to members at least 21
days before the start of the High Holy Days services.
Impact 3.3-F:
The project will add traffic t,o the driveways to the Lower Lot,
thereby causing potential safety impacts at those driveways and
within the parking lot. (DEIR, p. 69.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the circulation safety impact will be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.3-F.l and 3.3-F.2.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR reported that people will access the Lower Lot via a one-way inbound
driveway from Via Los Altos and/or a two-way (in and out) driveway from Reedland
Woods Way. Both of these driveways currently exist, but the Reedland Woods Way
driveway is currently only for outbound vehicles. This driveway would be reconstructed
to eliminate the steep grade as it approaches Reedland Woods Way as well as to
accommodate inbound and outbound traffic. The existing emergency vehicle gated
driveway on Reedland Woods Way would be eliminated. Access to the new "Upper Lot"
parking area and new drop-off area would be provided by a new driveway extending west
'from the northern end of the main parking lot (see Figure 4). (DEIR, p. 70.)
The Lower Lot layout and driveways could cause turning movement conflicts near the
driveway to Reedland Woods Way. This is because of the proximity of the driveway to
the new upper lot and to the parking aisles in the lower lot and the Reedland Woods Way
driveway. This is a potentially significant internal circulation safety concern. (DEIR, p.
70.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 36
After circulation of the Final EIR, revisions to the circulation plan were proposed. As
explained in the supplement to the Final EIR, this change would reduce traffic congestion
on Reedland Woods Way and at the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive intersection.
(See FEIR Appendix, Exhibit E to Staff Report for October 24, 2006 hearing.) While this
change is not needed to reduce any impact to a less than significant level, it would reduce
the amount of activity and congestion on Reedland Woods Way. Furthermore, mitigation
measure 3.3-C.l requires the applicant to modify the parking and circulation plan to
optimize circulation and provides for review of the plan at the Design Review Permit
stage. This will further ensure that potential safety impacts in the lower lot are
minimized.
Mitigation Measure 3 .3-F.l requires installation of stop signs at critical intersections on
the site, and Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.2 requires installation of a "no exit" sign at the
parking lot driveway intersection with Via Los Altos. These mitigations will allow for
safe circulation on the site. Implementation of these measures, along with the proposed
changes to the circulation plan, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.l provides:
Provide stop signs at the south end of the new driveway to the new Upper Lot and a stop
sign on the parking aisle approach in the Lower Lot driveway just before it reaches the
Reedland Woods Way driveway.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.2 provides:
Provide an internal "no exit" sign at the Via Los Altos ingress driveway. (DEIR, p.70.)
Noise
Impact 3.4-B:
The project would increase noise leveJs in the area surrounding
the project site. (DEIR, pp. 81-88.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that noise
impacts due to future use of the new buildings will be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.4-B.l through 3.4-B.5 and by
Alternative 7. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 37
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR reported that the noise from all various noise sources associated with the
project would be within Town standards (60 dBA Ldn) if perceptible at all. Regarding
large, night time events, the Draft EIR stated that night time events would result "in an
increase in the day-night average noise levels of about 1 dBA Ldn at nearby residences
(increasing average noise levels to 52 to 53 dBA Ldn). (Draft EIR, p. 87.) Although
these noise levels, if perceptible at all, are within the Town standards, the Draft EIR
preparer concluded that "based on the EIR preparers' experience, it is projected that this
noise could be perceived as out of context with the character of the existing nighttime
noise environment, and would likely disturb some nearby residences (primarily the
residents of20, 30, 35, 45, 65 and 80 Reedland Woods Way and possibly 10 Vista
Tiburon Drive)."
In response to comments, further noise studies were conducted and reported in the Final
EIR. Although noise measurements were only taken on the project site (not at the
surrounding residences), these studies further confirmed that noise generated by the
project would be within Town standards. (Final EIR, p. 43.) The Final EIR preparer
concluded that noise impacts from the project would be significant and unavoidable.
In response, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. submitted an analysis of the Final EIR's
conclusions (Salter Report). The Salter Report explains that the Town typically uses an
annualized Ldn as the ruling metric to gauge overall changes in the noise environment.
This is the standard the Town has applied to similar projects within the Town such as the
Tiburon Peninsula Club and the Belvedere Tennis Club. The Salter Report also explains
that applying this standard and assuming 75 events a year, the increase in"the annualized
Ldn would be less than one decibel, which would be a less- than-significant impact.
Also after the Final EIR, the applicant proposed Alternative 7, which substantially
reduced the number of weekend events and attendance at those events, which was the
main source of the noise impacts. With this reduction, any night time disturbance to the
neighbors of the project would be relatively rare. Given the infrequency of events, and
also considering the project will be within Town standards for noise, this impact would
be less than significant under Alternative 7. The Town's noise experts agreed with this
conclusion. (Appendix to Final EIR, attached as Exhibit E to the Staff Report for the
October 24, 2006 hearing; letter from Illingsworth and Rodkin.)
After circulation of the Final EIR and the Planning Commission's denial of the
application, the Town Council sub-committee suggested further measures to reduce noise
impacts from the project. In addition to the reductions in the number of events and
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 38
attendance at those events required by the project approval, the following mitigation
measures will reduce potential noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.l provides:
Doors and windows of the multi-purpose room should remain in the closed position
during large (100 or more people) or amplified indoor events (such as life-cycle events)
except for the three High Holy Day services (when they can be left open only during the
services), and those events listed in Mitigation Measure 3.4-B-7 below.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.2 provides:
Sound rated doors with a minimum of STC 35 should be used along exterior walls of the
multi-purpose room to reduce noise impacts on nearby residents during indoor amplified
events.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.3 provides:
Indoor noise build-up in the multi-purpose room should be reduced through the treatment
of room surfaces with acoustically absorptive materials. A qualified acoustical specialist
should review the final design, prior to construction.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.4 provides:
A mechanical ventilation system, suitable to the Town of Tiburon building official, must
be provided in the multi-purpose room to allow occupants the option of maintaining
windows and doors closed.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.5 provides:
All HV AC units shall be baffled to reduce noise to surrounding residents. HV AC units
shall not be operated after the facility is closed each day. The Building Permit application
specifications shall include best practices for minimizing sound from all ventilation and
air circulation equipment.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.6 provides:
No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual Sunday School opening and
closing ceremonies, at which time audio speakers shall be faced toward the CKS facility and
away from surrounding residential uses. No loud bells or buzzers associated with any use on the
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 39
site shall be allowed. Any system employed to alert students as to class times should not be
clearly audible beyond the property boundary. Landscaping shall be enhanced to reduce noise to
the surrounding neighborhood.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.7 provides:
Use of the Courtyard area for events is authorized only for High Holy Day events, opening and
closing Sunday School graduation ceremonies, Sukkot, and Saturday Kiddush lunches. Outdoor
use of the Courtyard during events, other than the High Holy Days, Sunday School opening and
closing ceremonies, Sukkot, and Saturday Kiddush lunches, shall be limited to people stepping
out for air and casual conversation. Except for Sukkot and the Kiddush lunches, no food or
drinks shall be served in the Courtyard. No organized activities, other than those listed in this
condition, will be held in the Courtyard.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.8
The applicant shall enclose an area adjacent to the multi-purpose room to be used for
vehicles and activities related to catering and clean-up efforts.
Impact 3.4-C:
Construction of project improvements would generate
construction noise over a period exceeding one year. (DEIR, p.
92.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that
construction period noise impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the
imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.4-C.l through 3.4-C.5. Accordingly, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a
less- than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The significance of construction noise impacts is a function of the type and duration of
construction activities occurring at the project site. The duration of project construction
is unknown at this time. Project construction activities would include clearing and
constructing buildings, driveways, parking facilities, and landscaping.
The highest noise levels would be generated during the grading and site preparation
phase with lower noise levels occurring during building construction. Table 11 in the
DEIR (p. 90) describes the amount of noise that typical pieces of construction equipment
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 40
produce at a distance of 50 feet from the piece of equipment. Table 12 in the DEIR (p.
91) describes average equivalent noise levels near construction sites.
Large pieces of earthmoving equipment such as graders, scrapers, and bulldozers
generate maximum noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Maximum
hourly average construction generated noise levels of about 81 dBA to 88 dBA measured
at a distance of 50 feet from the site could intermittently occur during busy construction
periods. These noise levels typically drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of
distance between the noise source and receptor.
Noise exposure at residences would depend on both distance and shielding from terrain
and/or structures. Due to the topography of the area, hilltop residences would be exposed
to unshielded noise levels. The nearest noise sensitive receptors are located 300 or more
feet from proposed building envelopes and 60 feet from the proposed parking lot. Hourly
average noise levels would be approximately 80 to 85 dBA at receptors located 60 feet
from busy construction activity and approximately 65 to 72 dBA at receptors located 300
feet from busy construction activity. Noise levels would be lower in areas further from
construction or shielded by intervening structures or terrain. Construction noise levels
would be substantially above the ambient at receptors in the vicinity of the project site,
especially during the construction of the new parking lot.
Given the potential for increases in noise at adjacent residential land uses as a result of
project construction, the construction project would cause a potentially significant noise
impact. The allowable construction hours set forth in Chapter 13-6 of the Town
Municipal Code substantially reduce the potential disturbance resulting from construction
activities. As stated in the purpose of the ordinance, the limitation on hours is intended to
balance the need to construct with the right to quiet. Additional controls are
recommended for this project to reduce the effects of construction noise at adjacent
residential land uses
The mitigation measures below will reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-
significant level by implementing the measures set forth in the Town of Tiburon's Noise
Ordinance. In addition construction equipment mufflers and maintenance and idling
prohibitions will be required. A Noise Disturbance Coordinator will be responsible for
responding and addressing construction noise complaints. Implementation of these
measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.1 provides:
Allowable construction hours shall be regulated by Chapter 13-6 of the Town Municipal
Code. There shall be no construction truck traffic on Sundays or holidays. The
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 41
allowable hours of construction shall be conspicuously posted on a sign at the project
entrance.
Mitigation Measure 3 .4-C.2 provides:
Properly muffle all internal combustion engine driven construction equipment (i.e.,
equipped with stock manufacturers' supplied mufflers or equivalent).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.3 provides:
Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
,Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.4 provides:
Select "quiet" construction equipment (i.e., equipment that is designed to operate more
quietly than typical pieces of the same equipment), particularly air-compressors, standby
engines, etc. whenever possible.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.5 provides:
Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to
any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine
the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, loud contractor
radio, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.
Conspicuously post the telephone number and name of the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site.
Visual and Aesthetic Quality
Impact 3.5-A:
Proposed building additions, parking areas, and driveway would
change views from public vantage points. (DEIR, p. 102.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-A.l through 3.5-A.3.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 42
Facts and Evidence
Proposed improvements will be visible only from short sections of the three adjacent
streets and a distant street to the east. The multi-purpose room will be visible from short
sections of Blackfield Drive, Reedland Woods Way, Upper Cecilia Way, and Via Los
Altos. The new classrooms and parking lot would be visible from a short section of
Reedland Woods Way. The new driveway would be visible from short sections of
Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way. From these vantage points, the proposed
new. buildings and circulation improvements will not affect a scenic vista nor
substantially change existing public views. The following provides a more detailed
discussion of the changes to public views. (DEIR, p. 100.)
From Blackfield Drive
As shown on View 1, starting at Karen Way, a small section of the roof of the multi-
purpose room would be visible. However, this change does not affect a scenic vista nor
significantly degrade the visual character of this view. Further north, project
improvements would not be visible again until one approaches the Reedland Woods Way
intersection. Traveling north, one would look to the left (northwest) and see the new
driveway. (DEIR, p. 100.)
As shown on View 3, traveling west (downhill) on Blackfield Drive from the point where
the site is first visible, one would see the top of the multi-purpose room. One would also
see part of the new driveway from this location. The changes in view will not be
substantially noticeable, particularly given that the new buildings will not be painted
white as shown in the simulations. (DEIR, p. 100.)
From Reedland Woods Way
Starting at Blackfield Drive, one will see the new driveway traveling up the hill to the
turnaround. Further north, one will be able to see a part of the new classrooms for about
30 feet. As one passes the ex~sting cypress grove, one would see the new parking lot and
any cars parked there, at least until such time as proposed landscaping is sufficiently
mature to screen the lot and parked cars. The driveway will be landscaped along its
eastern side, so that once this landscaping is mature, views of the driveway would be
buffered or screened. However, the proposed landscaping trees at thus location are
western redbud. This is a deciduous tree which means there would be little screening
during the winter months. The new views of the driveway and the new parking lot would
be potentially significant. Heading south, one may have a view of the multi-purpose room
roof, though the new roof is not any higher than the existing main building roof and may
not be visible behind the existing roof. (DEIR, p. 101.)
From Via Los Altos
It will be possible to see the roof of the multi-purpose room as one passes the driveway to
the lower lot and the driveway to the upper lot. The views of the building walls would be
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 43
screened, so only the clerestory-windowed roof would be visible. This would be a minor
change in views from this road. Most drivers would not even see the building as their
view would be focused straight-ahead along the road. (DEIR, p. 101.)
From Upper Cecilia Way
The new multi-purpose roof and upper walls will be visible from the north end of this
street. The existing building is barely discernible in the distant landscape. Assuming the
new multi-purpose room is painted an earth-tone color (as proposed), it would not
substantially alter the view from this vantage point. (DEIR, p. 101.)
From Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve
From many vantage points on the Ring Mountain Trail, one will be able to see the roof
and some of the clerestory windows of the new multi-purpose room to the south of the
existing building. The new turnaround, parking lot area, and any cars parked in it would
be visible. The new classrooms and the driveway may be visible from a few locations.
Views of the site are from 0.25 mile to nearly 1.0 mile distant from the trail. In addition
to the distance, views of much of the site are screened or buffered by the tall trees on the
site, especially the eucalyptus grove at the north end. While the new buildings will be
visible, they would be inconspicuous additions to a landscape dominated by views of
large homes at upper elevations and established neighborhoods at lower elevations. So
long as the buildings and roofs are an earth-tone color, they will not significantly change
these distant views. What will be a more obvious change is the new turnaround and
parking area and cars parked there. These areas are more open (i.e., less buffered by
large trees) and will be visible from a number of vantage points. However, the area that
would be developed is not large and landscaping is planned along its north and east sides.
This is a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 101.)
After circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant and the Town Council sub-committee
proposed adding an enclosed catering/service bay to reduce noise impacts. The enclosure
would be about 800 square feet, or about the size of a four-car garage. Because the Town
Council has also determined to reduce the square footage of the multi-purpose room, the
project over-all will be smaller than originally proposed. The enclosed catering/service
bay will be a single story and at grade with existing buildings'. No changes in the
driveway or circulation plan will be required. The Town Council has therefore
determined that the addition of the enclosed catering/service bay will not add any new
significant visual impacts or substantially increase visual impacts.
The project would.have potentially significant impacts to public views from Ring
Mountain Open Space Preserve and Reedland Woods Way. (DEIR, p. 102.)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.l requires buildings and roofs to be constructed with earth-
tone colors. Mitigation Measures 3.5-A.2 and 3.5-A.3 require installation of landscaping
and maintenance of that landscaping around the new parking lot. The Final EIR added
the requirement that landscaping be pruned so as not to block panoramic views from
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 44
surrounding neighborhoods. (FEIR, p. 423.) The Town Council has also added a
requirement that landscaping shall be designed to minimize light and glare from the
project. These landscaping mitigations will screen the parking lot from sensitive off-site
public vantage points. The mitigation measures will reduce the visual impact to a less-
, than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.l provides:
Buildings and roofs will be earth-tone colors as approved by the Town.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.2 provides:
The east side of the driveway, the area between the turnaround and the new parking lot,
and the east and north sides of the new parking lot shall be landscaped with non-
deciduous trees. The landscaping shall include trees and shrubs that are fast-growing
and, preferably, drought-resistant. This landscaping shall be installed as part of the first
phase of site development, if the project is not all constructed at the same time. The
following lists species that could be used to provide hedge screening. They have been
selected because they make good hedges and are fast-growing. The plants marked with
an asterisk are also low water users:
. Escallonia spp. *
. Garrya elliptica (coast silktassel)*
. Grevillea robusta (silk oak)
. Grewia occidentalis (lavender starflower)
. flex spp. (holly)*
. Melaleuca spp. *
. Nerium oleander (oleander)*
. Olmediella betschleraria (Guatemalan holly)
. Osman thus fragrans (sweet olive) *
. Pittosporum spp. *
. Rhamnus alaternus (buckthorn)*
. Thevetia spp.
. Viburnum spp.*
Landscaping shall be fertilized and irrigated per the protocol established in a written
report by a landscape architect or arborist. The applicant shall be responsible for
fertilizing, irrigating, and replacing dead trees until such time as the tree screen blocks
views from neighboring residences on Reedland Woods Way. The applicant shall prune
and trim planted trees and shrubs so they are properly maintained and do not block
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 45
panoramic views from surrounding residences. Landscaping for the entire site shall be
maximized to reduce light and glare from the site.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.3 provides:
Plant the entire west side of the new parking lot with trees or shrubs.
Impact 3.5-B:
Proposed building additions, parking areas, and driveway would
change views from private vantage points. (DEIR, pp. 105-106.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-A.2 through 3.5-A.3 and
Mitigation Measure 3.5-B.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
From Blackfield Drive and Karen Way
Residents of 200, 210, and 220 Blackfield Drive (see View 2) and 251 and 254 Karen
Way (see View 1) will see part of the multi-purpose room. These views are all from a
lower elevation, so the new building will be part of the main building, but what is more
visible is the residence at 32 Via Los Altos above the main building and the lower
parking lot. The views are often buffered by intervening trees. The new building will not
block any scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing views. Residents of two or
three of these homes will also have a view of part of the new driveway. This view would
replace a view of two trees and a grassy hillside. While the change will be evident, it is
relatively minor and would not be expected to significantly degrade existing views.
(DEIR, p. 103.)
The residence at 230 Blackfield Drive would have a clear view of the new driveway,
turnaround, and classroom wing (see View 4 which would likely be similar to the view
from this home) Residents of 231 Blackfield Drive would also likely have views of the
driveway and possibly part of the new classroom wing. While there would be a change
in views, the buildings and other improvements would not block a scenic vista nor
degrade scenic resources. (DEIR, p. 103.)
From Reedland Woods Way
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 46
From 35 Reedland Woods Way (R WW), one will see the new turnaround and parking lot,
the top of the new multi-purpose room, and the new classroom wing. As one can see
from Photo 7, these additions will be quite evident from the upper windows of this home.
A similar view is expected for the upper story of the adjacent 45 RWW residence.
(DEIR, p. 103.)
From 20 and 30 RWW, one will see the new turnaround, parking lot, and the new
classroom wing and possibly the top of the new multi-purpose room from the upper
windows. As one can see from Photos 5 and 6 and View 4, all but the new multi-purpose
room will be quite visible from these two residences. (DEIR, p. 103.)
From the upper story of 65 RWW one will be able to see the new parking lot (more will
be visible than shown in Photo 4 during the winder when the trees lose their leaves) and
part of the classroom wing through the eucalyptus trees. Residents of 60 R WW will also
have views of some of the new improvements. From upper story windows, it is likely one
can also see the parking lot area. Residents of 80 R WW will also see part of the
classroom wing through the eucalyptus trees. (DEIR, p. 103.)
The change in views for 20, 30, 35, 45, 65, and 80 RWW would be substantial though
existing views would not typically be defined as scenic. (DEIR, p. 103.)
From Via Los Altos
View 5 shows that the residents of 32 Via Los Altos (VLA) will look down on the new
multi-purpose room. They likely also will look directly down onto the new classroom
wing. The residents of 31 VLA will also see the new multi-purpose room but probably
not the new classroom wing. The residents of 38 VLA will have a filtered view of the
new classroom wing, but the intervening eucalyptus trees substantively block that view.
The multi-purpose room will be quite evident to the residents of 31 and 32 VLA.
However, the building will not block a scenic vista. The existing view of the main
building on the site would not be characterized as scenic. (DEIR, p. 104.)
Some residents of homes further uphill on VLA will also have distant views of parts of
the multi-purpose room, and parking lot. These views are so distant that the impacts on
these residents would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 104.)
From Vista Tiburon Drive
A shown on Photo 10, the classroom wing would be quite visible from 10 Vista Tiburon
Drive (VTD). Though photos were not taken from other residences on this street, it is
likely that residents of 30, 40, 45, 50, and 60 VTD will have partial views of the
classroom wing, possibly the roof of the multi-purpose room, and (for the northernmost
homes) the new parking lot. Many of these views will be blocked or filtered by
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 47
intervening eucalyptus trees. The new improvements would not block scenic vistas nor
degrade scenic resources. (DEIR, p. 104.)
From Paseo Mirasol
No photos were taken from residences on this street. However, it is likely that some
residences in this area will have views of the turnaround/drop off and new parking lot.
Some may have partial views of the top of the multi-purpose room and possibly part of
the classroom wing. These visual changes would be relatively minor given the distance
from these residences and the trees on the site. None of these views of the project site
would likely be characterized as scenic. (DEIR, p. 104.)
From Other Streets
. Residents of 80 and 90 Monterey Drive and 220 Rancho Drive will look down and
see the roof of the new multi-purpose roof.
. The residents of 4, 6, and 10 Corte San Fernando will have partial, filtered views of
parts of the multi-purpose room and possibly the driveway and turnaround.
. The multi-purpose room will be visible from numerous residences in the Upper
Cecilia Way/Circle Drive neighborhood. However, the building addition would be
hard to even see from this distance. The view of the site area from these homes would
continue to be dominated by site trees and the home at 32 Via Los Altos.
. The project would also be visible from more distant homes to the east. These visual
changes would be relatively minor given the distance from these residences and the
trees on the site.
N one of these views of the proj ect site from these vantage points would likely be
characterized as scenic. The project would not block scenic vistas or degrade scenic
resources for the residents of these homes.
Summary
The project will be most noticeable to residents of up to 8 residences on Reedland Woods
Way, 3 residences on Via Los Altos, 2 on Monterey Drive, 7 residences on Vista Tiburon
Drive, 5 residences on Blackfield Drive, 3 residences on Corte San Fernando, 2
residences on Karen Way, and possibly a few residences on Paseo Mirasol. However, in
no case will project improvements block an existing scenic vista. As shown in the
accompanying photographs and photomontages, the site is an institutional development
set in eucalyptus trees surrounded by homes. While it does contain some open space
qualities (i.e., it is not subdivided and developed with homes), it would not typically be
considered to have high scenic value. From most vantage points, existing trees and
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 48
buildings would screen or filter views of new project improvements. Residents that
would be most affected are residents of20, 30, 35, and 45 Reedland Woods Way, 10
Vista Tiburon Drive, and 31 and 32 Via Los Altos. The change in views to these
residents is a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 105.)
Project improvements are required to undergo Site Plan and Architectural review.
During this review, the Town's Design Review Board will assess the visual changes
inventoried above and require changes to the design to minimize the visual changes to
protect privacy and views of surrounding neighbors. (DEIR, p. 105.)
The project will be painted in earth tone colors that would reduce the visual effects. The
project also contains landscaping to soften the appearances of buildings and screen
parking. This includes a Meditation Garden at the north end of the classroom wing.
(DEIR, p. 105.)
The additional landscaping recommended for Impact 3.5-A (e.g., 3.5-A.2 and 3.5-A.3) is
also required for this impact. In addition, mitigation measure 3.5-B.l requires the
landscape plan to included fast-growing shrubs and trees to block views of the new
driveway, and landscaping for the west side of the classroom wing. The additional
recommended landscaping should substantially reduce impacts to residents of Reedland
Woods Way homes and the northernmost Blackfield Drive homes. It is not possible to
screen buildings from homes above the site. However, the changes in views from these
homes is considered to be less than significant given recommended mitigation measures,
existing screening, and/or the existing quality of the view of the site. (DEIR, p. 105.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-B.l provides:
The landscaping plan will be expanded to include planting fast-growing shrubs or trees
that will block views of the new driveway from the east and additional fast-growing trees
on the slope below the south side of the multi-purpose room. Landscaping shall be
required for the west side of the classroom wing.
Impact 3.5-C:
Headlights on vehicles using the new driveway and parking area
could intrude on residences north of the site. (DEIR, p. 106.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-C.l and 3.5-C.2.
Accordingly, 'changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 49
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR reported that headlights on vehicles traveling west (uphill) on the new
driveway, around the drop off/turnaround, and into the new upper parking area could
intrude off the site and possibly shine into three residences on Reedland Woods Way and
one residence on Paseo Mirasol. The applicant proposes to construct a series of three
berms along the north side of the new parking area. These berms would be 1-2 feet
higher than the adjacent parking area. These berms would be planted with 9 redbuds and
8 coast live oaks. In addition, to the north of these new planted berms is an existing
landscaped berm immediately south of the wooden fence between the site and the
residence at 35 Reedland Woods Way. (DEIR, p. 106.)
It is not expected that headlights would be visible at Reedland Woods Way residences for
vehicles using the new driveway. The driveway is oriented southeast/northwest. So,
headlights on vehicles traveling west (uphill) would be aimed towards the northwest
corner of the project site and not towards residences on Reedland Woods Way.
Headlights on vehicles traveling east (downhill) would be visible at 230 Blackfield Drive,
though the angle of the headlights makes it unlikely that the headlights would directly
intrude into windows of that home. Headlights on vehicles using the driveway would not
intrude on residences on Via Los Altos as existing and proposed proj ect buildings would
screen views of vehicle headlights from Via Los Altos residences. Vehicles using the
turnaround would have headlights pointed at 20 and possibly 30 and 35 Reedland Woods
Way. (DEIR, p. 106.)
Headlights on vehicles using the new parking area could intrude into windows of homes
at 20 and 30 Reedland Woods Way and one home to the east on Paseo Mirasol. It is
likely that once proposed landscaping is mature, that the new landscaping plus the
existing landscaping to the east of the parking area would screen all or some views of
these headlights. The existing cypress grove between the eastern parking area and
Reedland Woods Way would likely screen most headlights for cars at the eastern side of
that lot. It is possible that these headlights might not intrude into all or any of the homes
cited here. Elevation sections prepared by the applicant (see Figure 8) show that the
residents of 20 and 35 Reedland Woods Way would not see headlights in the parking lot
when planned landscaping is mature. However, these elevations do not show if the
landscaping would block headlight intrusion from cars driving around the turnaround and
in the upper part of the new parking lot. Absent a headlight intrusion study based on
survey data (before and after landscaping matures), it will be assumed, as a worst case
analysis, that headlights may intrude into some windows in as many as 3 residences on
Reedland Woods Way and one residence on Blackfield Drive for a number of years until
planned landscaping matures (and possibly even after landscaping matures). Headlight
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 50
intrusion is a visual invasion of privacy and is considered a potentially significant impact.
(DEIR, p. 106.)
Subsequently, several commenters requested that the EIR include a headlight intrusion
study and assessment of a more complete lighting plan than was submitted for EIR
analysis. The applicant's architects prepared a headlight intrusion study, which was peer-
reviewed by the Town Engineer. That study along with the revised lighting plan is
attached after Master Response 8 (it also includes an analysis of the feasibility of an
underground parking garage, an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a driveway
from Blackfield Drive to the lower parking lot, and a feasibility analysis of changing the
grade of the upper driveway on Via Los Altos). (FEIR, pp. 46-47.)
To summarize the headlight intrusion study, headlights from vehicles on the site would
intrude into the second story of the home at. 220 Blackfield Drive (at a distance of 120
feet) and the second story of 20 Reedland Woods Way (at a distance of 100 feet).
Headlights from vehicles driving around the turnaround would not affect the ground floor
of 35 Reedland Woods Way because an existing fence would shield the residence from
direct headlight intrusion. The home at 220 Blackfield Drive would be affected by
vehicles in the lower lot, but this is an existing condition. In addition, Mitigation
Measure 10 for Impact 3.5-D requires planting landscaping between the parking lot and
this residence to block headlight spill off the site. (FEIR, pp. 46-47.)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l requires construction of a berm and/or fence to block
headlight intrusion of a home on Reedland Woods Way. Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.2
allows the Town to monitor the project after completion to ensure there is no additional
headlight intrusion, and to require additional improvements to address that intrusion, if it
occurs. Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l has been revised to eliminate the need for a headlight
intrusion study, as that study was completed prior to circulation of the Final EIR. The
DEIR conclusions regarding aesthetic impacts are not changed by this additional
information. The only change is to remove the need to conduct a future headlight
intrusion study and to require the specific mitigations to ensure there is no intrusion.
(FEIR, pp. 46-47.) The mitigation measures will reduce the visual impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l provides:
A berm and/or solid fence will be constructed on the east side of the new parking lot that
will prevent headlight intrusion of the residence at 20 Reedland Woods Way.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.2 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 51
The Town will have the right to monitor the project once the new circulation
improvements are completed to confirm there is no headlight intrusion into residences. If
such intrusion does occur, the Town will have the right to require remedial improvements
to eliminate such intrusion.
Impact 3.5-D:
Project lighting would change nighttime views in the area.
(DEIR, p. 109.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-D.1 through 3.5-D.11.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The following describes the lighting the applicant proposes to use for the project.
Lower Parkin~ Lot
The applicant proposes to install new lower-wattage lights on the existing poles. These
lights will have shields installed which will prevent light trespass and glare beyond the
property line. The range of light levels will be 0.05 to 2.0 fc. A photocell timer will turn
the lights on at sunset and off at 11 :00 p.m. (DEIR, p. 107.)
Upper Parking Lot
The applicant proposes to light this lot with lights on 10- foot poles. All lights will be
aimed away from Reedland Woods Way so there would be no light trespass or glare
beyond the property line. The range of light levels would be 0.05 to 2.0 fc. A photocell
timer will turn the lights on at sunset and off at 11 :00 p.m. (DEIR, p. 107.)
Stairs and Paths
The applicant proposes to use low bollard lights. No lights would be visible beyond the
property line. The range of light levels would be 0.1 to 3.0 fc. A photocell timer will
turn the lights on at sunset and most bollards off at 11 :00 p.m. A few bollards would be
left on all night. (DEIR, p. 108.)
The project application does not include a lighting plan showing the location of where
these lights are proposed or whether other exterior lights in areas other than the two
parking lots, the paths, and the stairs are proposed. (DEIR, p. 108.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 52
Much of the site (other than the eucalyptus grove) is already lit with lights. The area
where the new driveway, turnaround, and parking lot are planned is the one area where
there are not existing lights. Lights in this area could adversely affect nighttime views
from homes on Reedland Woods Way and possibly other locations. New lights on the
new multi-purpose courtyard could be visible from off the site. Lights in the new multi-
purpose room would illuminate the clerestory windows in the upper part of the building
and could be visible off the site. The clerestory windows are north-facing and could be
visible to some residents to the north. (DEIR, p. 108.)
The existing parking lot is lit; lights are turned off at 10:00 p.m. except on special
, occasions. As originally proposed, lights could be on until 11 :00 p.m. The Draft EIR
determined that the project would result in new lighting in the area during nighttime
hours. Any lights that cause glare or light trespass off the site would be considered to
have a potentially significant impact (DEIR, p. 108.)
Subsequent to circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant and the Town Council sub-
committee proposed additional changes to the proj ect that would further reduce lighting
impacts. Specifically, the sub-committee recommended changes in the hours of
operation, and black-out blinds for any skylights. Those recommendations have been
incorporated into the mitigation below.
Mitigation Measures 3.5-D.l through 3.5-D.ll require that lighting be installed and
managed to eliminate light trespass or glare off the site and to turn lighting off when not
needed for access and security purposes. The recommended mitigation measures would
reduce the lighting impacts. Implementation of these measures would ensure that there
would be no direct light trespass or glare off the property. While certain areas of the site
that are currently dark would now be illuminated for part of the night, this illumination
would be contained and would not be expected to substantially affect views from
surrounding residences. The replacement of existing lights with new lower, shielded
lights would reduce the existing light impacts from Kol Shofar floodlights and globe
lights. Requiring landscaping along the eastern edge of the existing parking lot would
eliminate existing headlight intrusion and lighting impacts to the east of the site as well as
generally mitigate visual impacts for homes on Blackfield Ddve and Corte San Fernando.
The elimination of these existing light sources is a beneficial impact of the project. The
lighting mitigations recommended above would reduce the impact to a less than
significant leveL DEIR, p. 109.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.l provides:
Lighting of all outdoor use areas and walkways shall use low-level walkway lights and
bollards.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 53
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.2 provides:
Floodlighting of walls and rooflines will be prohibited.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.3 prqvides:
Building entries would be lighted with low-level fixtures using concealed lamps.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.4 provides:
Security lighting of the new driveway, the turnaround, and the two upper parking areas
will use low-level bollards with shielded lights unless this poses a safety hazard (as
determined by the Police Department), in which case the area shall be lit using as few as
possible shielded lights at 10 foot height with lights aimed away from Reedland Woods
Way residences.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.5 provides:
The large lower parking lot will be lit using shielded lights at 10 foot height with lights
aimed away from Blackfield Drive.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.6 provides:
Parking lot lighting shall be on timers to turn off no later than 10:00 pm on weekdays.
The duration of lighting may be extended by manual override device when occasions
demand, but in no event shall be kept on later than 10:30 pm except in accordance with
permitted hours of use as identified in Table 1 and for High Holy Days, Selichot,
Shauvot, the second night of Passover, or other religious observance, at which times the
parking lot lighting shall remain on until no later than thirty minutes after event ending
time.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.7 provides:
No direct lighting or glare will be allowed to be visible from -off the property through the
multi-purpose room windows. All skylights in the multi-purpose room shall be equipped
with blackout blinds to be closed at sunset whenever the facility is in use.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.8 provides:
Existing security lights on and around the main building shall be replaced with shielded
lights.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.9 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 54
Lighting (including existing lights) shall be designed to provide needed security and
safety without escaping from the site. Lighting shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board. The Design Review Board shall retain the authority to review proj ect lighting
once it is installed and to be able to require replacement and/or additional light shielding
to minimize light escape from the site.
Mitigation Measure 3 .5-D.l 0 provides:
The area immediately east of the cyclone fence at the existing parking lot shall be
landscaped with fast-growing shrubs or trees that can quickly grow to sufficient height to
block the views of cars and car headlights.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.ll provides:
All the lighting mitigations listed above shall be installed as part of the first phase of
project construction, if the project is not all built at the same time.
Impact 3.5-E:
Mitigations recommended for Impact 3.5-D could adversely
affect views in the area. (DEIR, p. 110.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby fmds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to it less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-E.l and 3.5-E.2.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
secondary impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Screening headlights could require the construction of a berm and/or solid wood fence
along at least portions of the north and east sides of the new parking lot and possibly
along the east side of the turnaround. If the berm was not landscaped, it would provide
an unattractive view from Reedland Woods Way and some homes along that street.
Similarly, a solid wood fence could result in unattractive views from these same vantage
points if it was not aesthetically designed. These would be potentially significant
secondary impacts. (D EIR, p. 110.)
Mitigation Measures 3.5-E.1 and 3.5-E.2 require that the new berm be landscaped and the
new fence be built to mimic an adjacent fence. By ensuring that berms are landscaped
and fences designed to meet Town design requirements, the secondary impacts of
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 55
constructing the recommended mitigation measures would be reduced to a less than
significant level. (DEIR, p. 110.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-E.l provides:
Any berm will be landscaped concentrating on the use of native species. The landscaping
will be approved by the Town during Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Mitigation'Measure 3.5-E.2 provides:
Any fences required for headlight screening will undergo Site Plan and Architectural
Review. It is recommended that the fence(s) mimic the existing 6-foot solid wood fence
separating the site from 35 Reedland Woods Way. (D EIR, p. 110.)
Fire Protection and Emere:encv Medical Services
Impact 3.6-A:
The project would generate increased calls for fire response and
emergency medical aid. (DEIR, p. 112.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the fire response and emergency medical aid impact will
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.6-
A.I. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The increased usage of the site would increase the calls for service for fires and medical
emergencies. The project in and of itself would not require hiring additional staff or
purchasing additional equipment. There is adequate fireflow to the site, though
additional hydrants may be needed. Additional traffic on local streets would not
significantly interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the area (Giordano,
personal communication, 4/27/05). However, unless the project is designed to meet
SMFPD access and other requirements, there could be a potentially significant impact.
(DEIR, p. 112.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 56
Rationale
Mitigation Measure 3.6-A.l requires that the project be constructed to comply with the
requirements set forth by the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. The mitigation
measure will reduce the fire impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures .
Mitigation Measure 3.6-A.l provides:
Final design shall comply with all SMFPD requirements including but not limited to
construction materials, fire alarm system( s), access and egress within the building
enveloped and parking areas, proper "on-site" fire flow, fire sprinkler system( s), proper
vegetation management, driveway design and layout, and hydrant placement.
. The existing Ring Mountain School driveway and proposed new driveway
must be maintained open and free of parked cars at all times except in
designated parking spaces, and any valet parking plan must reflect this.
They will be red-striped. The fire district will review and approve the valet
parking plan.
. Reedland Woods Way and Via Los Altos will be kept free of parked cars
that could obstruct emergency vehicle access, per review by the Fire
Protection District.
. For the Ring Mountain School driveway, red curbing should be maintained
along this driveway, and the driveway turnaround shall comply with
County standards.
. The existing fire hydrant near the Reedland Woods Way Main Lot
driveway shall be moved approximately 20 feet north, nearer the edge of
the new access driveway to the circular drop- ff area, and a new hydrant will
be constructed along the circular drop-off area. '
. The Town shall consider requiring sky lights in the sanctuary to increase
the ease of ventilating the building in the event of a fire.
. Maximum occupancy shall be posted for all buildings, and the Fire District
shall be notified whenever attendance is anticipated to exceed the
maXImum occupancy,
. All gates shall have Knox Key Control to enable fire access.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 57
Impact 3.6-C:
Project development, combined with development of other
anticipated projects in Tiburon, could contribute to cumulative
demands for fire protection services and emergency medical
services. (DEIR, p. 113.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the cumulative impacts on fire protection services and
emergency medical services will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the
imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.6-C.l. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed proj ect which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
Additional development in the SMFPD service area would increase the demand for fire
protection and emergency medical response. The SMFPD believes the cumulative
impact would require purchase of a new ladder truck to adequately serve the project plus
other new development in the area. Unless such a truck is purchased, there would be a
potentially significant cumulative impact (DEIR, pp. 112-113.)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-C.l requires that the project pay its fair share to a vehicle
replacement fund for the Southern Marin County Fire Protection District. The mitigation
measure will reduce the fire impact to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 113.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.6-C.l provides:
The applicant shall pay a fair share contribution to a vehicle replacement fund.
Water
Impact 3.7-A:
The project would generate demand for water service. (DEIR, p.
115.)
Finding
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 58
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that water
service impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3.7-A.1 and 3.7-A.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
MMWD can supply water to the project assuming that the applicant extends water mains
per all MMWD requirements (McGuire, personal communication, 4/07/04). The
applicant currently is using more than its water entitlement. The site has an entitlement
of 1.47 acre-feet of water per year, and last year used 2.59 acre-feet. The applicant will
need to purchase the additional entitlement needed to serve proposed uses on the site
(currently at a cost of $26,900 per annual acre-foot required). The applicant will also
need to provide a separate water meter for the new classroom building. If these MMWD
requirements are not met, there would be a potentially significant impact (DEIR, pp.
112-113.)
Mitigation Measures 3.7-A.1 and 3.7-A.2 require that the project comply with all Marin
Municipal Water District requirements for on-site facilities and to purchase the required
water entitlement. These measures will reduce the impact to the water provider to a less-
than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 115.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.7-A.l provides:
The applicant shall comply with all MMWD requirements, including completion of a
High Pressure Water Service Application; compliance with the District's Landscape
requirements, payment of appropriate fees; and compliance with all District rules and
regulations in force at the time service is requested.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-A.2 provides:
The applicant shall request that MMWD calculate the water entitlement required to serve
the project. The applicant shall purchase the additional entitlement.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 59
Wastewater Collection" Treatment" and Disposal
Impact 3.8-A:
The project would generate demand for wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal service. (DEIR, p. 117.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that wastewater
impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation
Measures 3.8-A.l and 3.8-A.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required
. in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
RBSD states that there is adequate capacity in trunk collection lines to serve the project.
There is adequate treatment and disposal capacity. The only concerns that RB SD
mentioned were that the project applicant would need to have the number of fixture units
inside building additions review by RBSD. The applicant would be responsible for
paying required fees for those fixture units. Secondly, RBSD would need to review the
Utility Plan to determine the size needed for sewer laterals and to ensure they are
constructed per all District requirements (Dittle, personal communication, 4/12/05).
Unless these laterals are adequately sized and constructed, there would be a potentially
significant impact on wastewater collection. (DEIR, pp. 114-115.)
Mitigation Measures 3.8-A.l and 3.8-A.2 require that the project comply with all
Richardson Bay Sanitary District requirements for on-site facilities. These measures will
reduce the impact to the wastewater provider to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p.
117.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.8-A.l provides:
The collection system shall be designed and constructed per all requirements of the
Richardson Bay Sanitary District. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees required
by the appropriate district.
Mitigation Measure 3 .8-A.2 provides:
The building plans shall be reviewed by the Richardson Bay Sanitary District. The
applicant shall be responsible for District-required fees for all new fixture units, as
calculated by the District.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 60
Police Services
Impact 3.9-A:
The project would generate calls for police response. (DEIR, p.
119.) Facts and Evidence
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that police
response impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3.9-A.l and 3.9-A.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed proj ect which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
The Police Department believes, based on complaints received this year, that increased
use of the site will generate additional requests for assistance. However, with a minimum
staffing level of one sergeant and two officers per shift, the Department could adequately
handle these increased calls, including the larger High Holy Day events (Hutton, Memo
to Leonard Charles, 4/21/05). However, the Department recommends that the applicant
consider reinstating the practice of hiring off-duty officers or a private security firm to
assist them with security at large events to address security and liability concerns. Large
events could have a potentially significant impact (DEIR, p. 119.)
Mitigation Measures 3.9-A.l requires the applicant to hire one or more off-duty police
officers ora private security firm to be present during large social events and High Holy
Day events. Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.2 requires that the applicant notify the Police
Department of events when more than 275 people are expected on the site so that the
Police Department can determine whether traffic control is needed. These measures will
reduce the impact to the Police Department to a less-than-sigtJ.ificant level.
Mitigation Measures
At events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed ninety percent (900/0) of the on-site parking capacity, calculated at 2.3 persons per vehicle
(except for Sunday School programs) will require trained traffic control monitors/controllers
provided to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Police Department, located as follows: 1) at the comer
of Blackfield DriveNia Los Altos; 2) CKS driveway at Reedland Woods Way; and 3) at the
CKS parking lot entrance on Via Los Altos. Additional monitors may be necessary to adequately
direct traffic and parking, to be determined by CKS based upon need. CKS shall inform the
Tiburon Police Department five (5) days in advance of any such event.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 61
Note: Mitigation Measure . 3.9...A.1and3.9-A.2 have been replaced with the above measure .
Other Resources
Impact 3.10-A:
Project construction will generate dust which may drift off the
site and adversely affect the air quality in nearby residential
neighborhoods. (DEIR, p. 122.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that
construction period impacts due to dust will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.10-A.l through 3.10-A.I0. Accordingly,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed proj ect
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Project construction will generate dust which may drift off the site and adversely affect
the air quality in nearby residential neighborhoods. This would be a potentially
significant air quality impact, (DEIR, p. 121.)
The mitigation measures will reduce dust emissions from grading and other construction
activities to a less-than-significant level by implementing dust control measures. These
dust control measures include preventing visible dust clouds from extending beyond
construction sites, watering all active construction areas at lest twice daily and more often
during windy period and covering all hauling truck or maintaining two feet of freeboard.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.1 provides:
Construction contracts shall specify dust mitigation requirements.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-A.2 provides:
Contractors shall provide equipment and personnel for watering all exposed or disturbed
soil surfaces on the project site at a frequency sufficient to avoid visible dust plumes. All
dry active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.3 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 62
Unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas shall be paved, watered three
times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-A.4 provides:
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas shall be swept daily (with water
sweepers ).
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-A.5 provides:
Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.6 provides:
Earth moving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high
winds when dust control efforts are unable to prevent visible dust plumes which cannot
be controlled by watering.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-A. 7 provides:
Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be
watered or covered.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-A.8 provides:
The speed of all construction vehicles shall be limited to 15 miles per hour while on
unpaved surfaces.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.9 provides:
All materials transported by truck will be covered or wetted .down as needed to suppress
visible dust.
Mitigation Measure 3.10- A.l 0 provides:
Disturbed areas will be revegetated or covered as soon as possible.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 63
Impact 3.10-B:
It is unlikely that there are any cultural resources on the site;
however, it is always possible that unknown cultural resources
could be uncovered during site grading and preparation. (DEIR,
p. 123.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that potential
impacts on subsurface cultural resources will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.10-B.1 and 3.10-B.2. Accordingly, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The site has been previously disturbed, and it is unlikely that there are any cultural
resources on the site. However, it is always possible that unknown cultural resources
could be uncovered during site grading and preparation. If such resources were present,
project grading and construction could damage or destroy these resources, and this would
be a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 122.)
Mitigation Measures 3.10-B.l and 3.10-B.2 require that the applicant shall implement
specific measures in the event that archaeological artifacts or cultural resources deposits
are encountered during future grading, excavation, or other land alterations or in the
event that human skeletal remains are discovered anywhere on the site. Implementation
of these measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.10-B.l provides:
If cultural resources are discovered on the site during constru~tion activities, all
earthmoving activity in the area of impact shall be halted until the applicant retains the
services of a qualified archaeological consultant who shall examine the findings, assess
their significance, and develop proposals for any procedures deemed appropriate to
further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those resources. The applicant
shall abide by the recommended proposals.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-B.2 provides:
In the event that human skeletal remains are discovered, work shall be discontinued in the
area of the discovery and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If skeletal remains are
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 64
found to be prehistoric Native American remains, the Coroner shall call the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission will identify the
person(s) it believes to be the "Most Likely Descendant" of the deceased Native
American. The Most Likely Descendant would be responsible for recommending the
disposition and treatment of the remains. The Most Likely Descendant may make
recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation! grading
work for means of treating or disposing of the human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
(DEIR, p. 122.)
Impact 3.10-C
While the project site does not contain any unusual geologic or
soil constraints, the geotechnical report describes several
potential geological and soil impacts including: potential
damage to buildings due to seismic activity; potential damage to
improvements due to landsliding; and damage to improvements
due to expansive soils. (DEIR, p. 123.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that potential
geological impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-C .1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
A geotechnical study of the site and project was prepared for the applicant. The Town
considers the report to be professionally prepared and did not require a separate
geotechnical analysis for the EIR. The report is presented in Appendix A of the EIR.
While the project site does not contain any unusual geologic or soil constraints, the
geotechnical report describes several potential geological and soil impacts including:
potential damage to buildings due to seismic activity; potential damage to improvements
due to landsliding; and damage to improvements due to expansive soils. The Initial
Study concluded that all these potentially significant geotechnical and soil impacts could
be addressed by the mitigation measure provided below. (DEIR, p. 123.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-C-." requires that all improvements be designed and constructed
per the geotechnical report that has been prepared for the project. Implementation of this
measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 123.)
Mitigation Measures
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 65
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-C provides:
All recommendations contained on pages 8 through 15 of the Geotechnical Investigation
for Congregation Kol Shofar (Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, February 11,
2004) shall be implemented during site preparation and project construction.
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
During the CEQA scoping process applied to the project, some environmental impacts
were dismissed with a "Less- Than-Significant Impact" response on the Initial Study, on
the ground that there was no fair argument that such impacts would occur. The Planning
Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the decisions
made in the Initial Study (included in the EIR appendix) to dismiss such theoretical
impacts was erroneous, nor is there substantial evidence that any impact that might occur
has not been adequately examined in the EIR.
Additionally, the Town Council finds, based on the EIR and the record that the following
impacts identified in the EIR are le'ss-than-significant and do not require mitigation.
Impact 3.2-A Tree Loss
Impact 3.3-D Traffic Impacts on the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive Intersection
Impact 3.3-E Traffic Impacts on the Karen Way/Blackfield Drive Intersection
Impact 3 .3-G Traffic Impacts associated with High Holy Day Services
Impact 3.4-A Exposure of People on the Project Site to Excessive Noise
Impact 3.6-B Exposure to Wildfire
Impact 3.7- B Cumulative Water Demand .
Impact 3.8-B Cumulative Wastewater Demand
Impact 3.9- B Cumulative Police Demand
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (Le., mitigated to an "acceptable
level") solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its
findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that
impact, even if the alternative would mitigate that impact to a greater degree than the
proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association
v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City ofHanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692,730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,400-403.)
The preceding discussion reveals that every potentially significant impact associated with
the project identified in the EIR has been substantially lessened, if not fully avoided, by
the adoption of feasible mitigation measures and changes to the project. Thus, as a legal
matter, the Town Council, in considering alternatives in these findings has no obligation'
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 66
to consider whether the alternatives are environmentally superior. Nevertheless, the
Town Council evaluates the project alternatives to assess whether there are other feasible
ways to further reduce the project's significant adverse environmental impacts.
Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the EIR at pages 143 to 159 of the
Draft EIR and pages 3 to 6 of the Final EIR. The following alternatives were examined
in the Draft EIR and Final EIR
.
Alternative 1 - No Project -No Future Development
Alternative 2 - Remodeling Only
Alternative 3 - Remodeling and Classrooms Only
Alternative 4 - Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Alternative 5 - Restricted Use
Alternative 6 - Reduced Events
.
.
.
.
.
In response to comments on the June 2005 Draft EIR, the applicant proposed the sixth
alternative (Reduced Events), and this alternative was assessed in the Final EIR. After
circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant proposed an additional alternative: Alternative
7 - Further Reduced Events. That alternative was analyzed in an appendix to the Final
EIR, labeled as "Final EIR for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Application: Alternative 7 Analysis," included as Exhibit E to the Staff Report for the
October 24, 2006 Town Council meeting.
Alternative 1 No Development Alternative
Facts
The No Development Alternative assumes the continuation of existing environmental
conditions with no development at this time at any location on the site. This means that
the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would not be approved and implemented. It illustrates
the effects of maintaining the status quo (should existing conditions continue).
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the No Development Alternative are discussed on
pages 144 through 145 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town
Council finds that the No Development Alternative is less desirable than the proposed
project and rejects this alternative for the reasons discussed below.
The No Development Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. This alternative, however, would not
foreclose development of the project site; as it would be available for development some
time in the future. Furthermore, the No Development Alternative would not fulfill (but
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 67
also would not foreclose) the applicant's objectives to develop the site for religious-
related use, thus postponing realization of the applicant's objectives indefinitely.
Alternative 2 Remodeling Only
Facts
This alternative would allow all proposed remodeling of the existing facility but not
construction of new buildings or circulation improvements. All proposed non-school
functions would be included to the degree that the remodeled facility and available
parking can handle the number of people who would attend. High Holy Day services
would continue to be divided services. The proposed functions would be limited to those
listed in Table 1 with the exception that no new event (other than the three High Holy
Day services) can have more than 275 people present (including staff); if there is more
than one event occurring on site at the same time, the total number of people allowed on
the site would be limited to 275 people.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Remodeling Only Alternative are discussed on
pages 146 through 147 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town
Council finds that the Remodeling Only Alternative is less desirable than the proposed
project and rejects this alternative for the reasons discussed below.
Based on all environmental factors analyzed, the EIR concluded that the Remodeling
Only was the environmentally superior alternative (except for the N 0- Proj ect
Alternative). This alternative will avoid or lessen each significant environmental impact
identified in the EIR to a less-than-significant level. The Town Council finds that the
Remodeling Only Alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this
alternative for the reasons discussed below. This alternative is also not environmentally
superior to the project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
The alternative only meets 2 of the 12 project objectives and thus is not consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) that states that an alternative should".. . feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
Alternative 3 - Remodeling and Classrooms Only
Facts
This alternative includes remodeling of the existing building and construction of the new
classroom wing in the area where it is proposed. The play areas would either remain
where they are or be relocated to the east of the classroom wing. Landscaping associated
with the classroom wing would also be constructed. No new parking lot, driveway, or
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 68
turnaround would be constructed. Uses of the main building would be restricted as
described under Alternative 2.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Alternative 3 are discussed on pages 147 through
150 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. Based on all environmental
factors analyzed, the EIR concluded that the Remodeling and Classrooms Only
alternative was environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative will
avoid or lessen each significant environmental impact identified in the EIR to a less-than-
significant level. The Town Council finds that the Remodeling and Classrooms Only
Alternative is less desi.rable than the proposed project and rej~cts this alternative for the
reasons discussed below.
The alternative only meets 3 of the 12 project objectives and thus is not consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) that states that an alternative should "...feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
Alternative 4 -Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Facts
The Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only alternative assumes construction of all
the proposed project elements except for the new classroom wing and expansion of the
school population.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Alternative are discussed on pages 150 through 152 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of
the Final EIR. This alternative could potentially meet 10 of the 12 basic objectives of the
project. The Town Council finds that the Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the
reasons discussed below.
The Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only Alternative would not substantially
lessen environmental effects of site development in comparison to the project. In fact,
this significant and unavoidable noise and traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for
the project as originally proposed would remain. The project as approved incorporates
substantial caps on increased use of the site and extensive mitigation for noise and traffic
impacts. The project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation will have fewer
impacts than this alternative.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 69
Alternative 5 Restricted Use
Facts
The Restricted Use Alternative assumes development of all proposed additions but would
restrict the use of those facilities by requiring all events except existing Friday night .
events to end by 9:00 p.m.; allowing new Saturday and Sunday evening events only every
other weekend; and requiring that no more than 275 people be on site for new events.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Restricted Use Alternative are discussed on pages
152 through 154 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town Council
that finds that although the Restricted Use Alternative is environmentally superior to the
proposed as originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR, this alternative would have
greater impacts than the project as app~oved with the incorporation of mitigation.
Specifically, this alternative would allow more Saturday and Sunday night events and
would allow a maximum attendance of275 people at these events. Furthermore, this
alternative does not include the catering enclosure and substantial traffic m~tigation
measures that further reduce the impacts of the project as approved. In addition, the
Town finds this alternative to be infeasible as it fails to meet project objectives and would
unduly restrict Kol Shofar's existing uses. (FEIR, pp. 158-159.)
Alternative 6 Reduced Events
Facts
The Reduced Events Alternative assumes development of all proposed additions but
would restrict the use of those facilities by reducing the number of Saturday evening
events to a maximum of27 events and Sunday night events to a maximum of20 events.
It would restrict the number of people allowed at proposed events to a maximum of275
people.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Reduced Events Alternative are discussed on
pages 3 through 6 and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town Council finds that the
Reduced Events Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project.
However, this alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impact
to a less than significant level. This alternative is not environmentally superior to the
preferred Restricted Use Alternative. Furthermore, this alternative would not be
environmentally superior to the project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 70
Alternative 7 Further Reduced Events
Facts
The Further Reduced Events Alternative assumes development of all proposed additions
but would restrict the use of those facilities as follows:
. Saturday events would end at 11 p.m. and would be limited to 12 events per year.
Of those twelve events, attendance would be limited as follows: 4 events with a
maximum of 250 attendees, 4 events with a maximum of 200 attendees, and 4
events with a maximum of 150 attendees.
. Sunday events would be limited to 15 evenings per year, all ending by 9 p.m.
Sunday events would have the following limitations on attendance: 3 events with a
maximum of 250 attendees, 5 events with a maximum of 200 attendees, 4 events
with a maximum of 150 attendees and 3 events with a maximum attendance of 100
attendees.
Additionally, under the Further Reduced Events Alternative, the applicant proposed a
revised circulation and parking plan. According to this plan, the Reedland Woods Way
driveway would be an exit only, and all guests would enter the site from Via Los Altos.
In addition, signs would be posted at the intersection of Reedland Woods Way and along
Via Los Altos, directing visitors to follow this circulation plan.
Findings and Rationale
While this alternative is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed
and analyzed in the EIR, it is nevertheless not environmentally superior to the project as
approved with the incorporation of mitigation. Specifically, the project as approved
includes an enclosed service/catering area that will further reduce post-event noise,
reduces the number and lateness of events, requires additional on-site parking, and
includes several other substantial mitigation measures that will reduce parking and traffic
impacts.
Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed In The EIR
In addition to the alternatives discussed above, two other alternatives were identified in
the EIR, but eliminated from further analysis because they were considered infeasible.
(DEIR, pp. 154-156.)
Alternative Location
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 71
As explained in the EIR, several commenters on the Notice of Preparation stated that they
felt that Kol Shofar had outgrown its present site and should relocate. The EIR, however,
assesses the impacts of the current application, which is for construction of the multi-
purpose room and classrooms, and other improvements. The EIR therefore concluded
that an alternative-location alternative would consist of a feasible location to construct
four new classrooms and a multi-purpose room.
The EIR concluded there are no vacant sites that are large enough to construct the
proposed 13, 395 square feet of building space. A site would have to be 1.5+ acres to
allow this amount of non-residential development. Town staff has stated that no vacant
sites of this size designated for non-residential use exist. Of sites that are designated for
residential use, only two are not surrounded by existing residential use (where there
would. be similar impacts as at the proposed site). One site is the "Neill Smith" property
(34 acres) off of Paradise Drive. This site has an 'existing home, and there are plans to
subdivide it to build additional homes. The other site is the western portion (about 15
acres) of the "Cherry" property on the south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard. This site is
bordered by residential development to the south and north. There is currently an option
on this site which would allow future (likely residential) development. Constructing the
four new classrooms at a location far from the rest of the school would not be feasible,
given administrative and educational coordination required for such an institution.
Constructing the multi-purpose room elsewhere in Tiburon is not feasible because there is
not a suitable non-residential site and because adequately-sized residential sites are either
not for sale, have existing development plans, or have neighboring residential uses
(where impacts could be expected to be similar to those identified for the proposed
project). (DEIR, p. 155.)
In response to comments raised at the public hearing, Kol Shofar provided the Town with
additional information on the feasibility and availability of alternative locations for just
the multi-purpose room and classrooms, or the entire facility, including locations outside
the Town of Tiburon. (August 22,2006, Letter from Ron Brown, Exhibit H to the Staff
Report for the October 24, 2006 hearing.) The letter describes the years-long search by
Kol Shofar to find a place to relocate the synagogue; a search that has so far been
fruitless. The letter also describes the infeasibility of renting other facilities for
observance and celebration of life-cycle events.
The Town Council therefore finds there are no feasible alternative locations for the
proposed project or relocation of the entire synagogue.
Proiect Redesign
The DraftEIR also considered re-designing the proj ect to move either the classrooms or
the multi-purpose room. The re-design was chiefly aimed at reducing what the Draft EIR
considered to be significant and unavoidable noise impacts. (DEIR, pp. 155-156.) As
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 72
explained in the Draft EIR, such a re-design would not reduce the noise impacts, it would
simply shift them. Furthermore, moving the location of either the classrooms or the
multi-purpose room could have additional safety impacts and visual impacts. (DEIR, p.
156. )
F or these reasons, the Town Council finds that any re-design alternatives would not
reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project, particularly when compared to
the project as approved with incorporation of mitigation.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/21/2007 73