HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2003-09-03 (2)
. \
,e
e
-e
e
I Nichols · Berman
Environmental Planning
. 110 East D Street
Benicia California
. 94510
.
.
.
-
.
..
.
. TIBURON GLEN
. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
-
. Final
- Environmental Impact Report
. Response to Comments
- Document
.
.
-
.
.
-
I-
~
~
~
~
~
~ TOWN OF TIBURON
~ State Clearinghouse No. 2001072036
.
. August 2003
.
.
.
.
. Nichols. Berman
Environmental Planning
. 110 East 0 Street
Benicia California
. 94510
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. TIBURON GLEN
. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
.
. Final
. Environmental Impact Report
. Response to Comments
. Document
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. TOWN OF TleuRoN
.
I. State Clearinghouse No. 2001072036
I. August 2003
~
~
~ ~
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 8.0
. 8.1
8.2
. 8.3
. 8.3-1
8.3-2
. 8.3-3
. 8.4
. 8.5
8.6
.
. 8.4-1
. 8.4-2
. 8.6-1
.
. A.
. B.
. C.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T1BlJRONGLEN
FINAL .ENVIRONMEN"fAL JMPACTREPORT
8.0 RESPONSE TO 'COMMENTS DOCUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Introduction
Persons Commenting on the RDEIR
Master Responses
Tree replacement and Enhancement Program, Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b)
Modified Three-Lot Alternative .
Consistency Analysis with Town policies
Written Comments and Response to Written Comments
Public Hearing Comments and Response to Public Hearing Comments
Changes to the Revised Draft EIR
EXHIBITS
Post-Project 100-year Peak Discharge for Site Watersheds With and
Without Proposed Residential Use Area
Combined Vehicle, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Traffic Counts
Modified Three-Lot Alternative
APPENDICES
Summary of Changes Related to an 18 percent Roadway Grade
Traffic Appendix: Intersection and Roadway Count Summaries and Level of
Service Computation Worksheets
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page
8.1-1
8.2-1
8.3-1
8.3-1
8.3-8
8.3-10
8.4-1
8.5-1
8.6-1
8.4-36
8.4-48
8.6-12
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
I-
~
I-
~
~
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
"'.;8' ...",:j',(i,T<_,n'~J~I)I~T:..."I. .~A:I
>. ;~,~;...:,,~;~:,:~_:t,~, -:~,.;:,n:;:.~~~Ii:":'.~::'~'~' ,',;' :~'.'iV'
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) contains the public and agency comments received
during the public'review period on the Tiburon Glen Residential Development Precise Development
Plan Revised Draft EIR (May 2003). This document has been prepared by the Town of Tiburon, in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document intended to disclose to the
Town Planning Commission, Town Council, other decision makers, and the public the environmental
consequences of approving and implementing the Tiburon Glen residential development project.
All oral comments made at the public hearing on the Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR) held by the Tiburon
Planning Commission on July 14, 2003 and all written comments received during the 45-day public
review period are addressed in this FEIR.
This Final EIR consists of two volumes: the Response to Comments on the Revised Draft EIR (this
volume), and the Revised Draft EIR of May 2003. The Draft EIR of September 2002 is not part of this
Final EIR. ,
The governmental agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the RDEIR are listed
below in section 8.2 (Persons Commenting). Section 8.3 provides master responses that have been
prepared for selecte9 comment topics to pro~de a comprehensive analysis of major environmental
issues raised in multiple comments. These master responses are often referred to in the response to
individual comments in sections 8.4 and 8.5.
Section 8.4 (Response to Written Comments) presents and responds to all written comments on the
RDEIR. The original letters are reproduced, and comments are numbered for referencing with
responses. Responses to individual comments raising significant environmental points are presented
immediately after each comment letter. Section 8.5 (Response to Public Hearing Comments) includes
comments made orally at the public hearings with responses presented immediately following the
minutes of the meeting. Some responses refer to other comments or responses in this section or to the
pages of the RDEIR where specific topics are discussed. Some comments do not pertain to physical
environmental issues but to the merits of the project. These comments are included in this section,
although responses to project-related comments are not necessary in an EIR. However, inclusion in
this document will make the commentor's views available to public officials who will make decisions
about the project itself.
Section 8.6 (Changes to the Revised Draft EIR) shows all revisions that have been made to the RDEIR
in response to public comments as well as staff-initiated revisions. The revisions are illustrated by
strikeout formatting for text that will be deleted and underline formatting for text that will be added.
8.1-1
IJ
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Comment letters on the Revised Draft EIR were received from the following individuals.
A. Eric McGuire, Environmental Services Coordinator, Marin Municipal Water-District, June
10,2003
B. Timothy C. Sable, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation, June
10, 2003
C. Ron Barney, Fire Marshal, Tiburon Fire Protection District, June 12,2003
D. Anne Norman, 42 Norman Way, July 1,2003
E. Karen Nygren, 22 Paseo Mirasol, July 2, 2003
F. Norman Traeger, The Discovery Group, July 1,2003
G. Katherine Cuneo, Katherine Cuneo Environmental Consulting, July 1,2003
H. Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting, July 3,2003
1.- Sandra Swanson, 2 Seafirth Lane, July 7, 2003
J. Diana Farrell, 40 Norman Way, July 1,2003
K. Scott Pearson, 40 Norman Way, July 1,2003
L. Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, July 7,2003
M. John Kunzweiler and Julie LaNasa, 16 Norman Way, July 8, 2003
N. Robert Benbow, 53 Norman Way, July 8, 2003
O. William White, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, July 8, 2003
P. Jerry Riessen, Co-Chair, The Last Chance Committee, July 8, 2003
Q. Tom Newton, Planning Advisory Corporation, July 9, 2003
R. Diane Renshaw, Consulting Ecologist, July 8, 2003
S. James MacNair, MacNair & Associates, July 9, 2003
T. Jana Haehl, President, Marin Conservation League, July 7, 2003
U. Anne Norman, 42 Norman Way, July 12,2003
V. Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, July 13,2003
W. William White, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, February 18,2003
X. William White, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, November 13,2002
Y. William White, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP, October 4,2002
Z. Barbara Salzman, Conservation, Marin Audubon Society, July 14,2003
AA. Robert Benbow, 53 Norman Way, July 14,2003
BB. Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, July 14,2003
Cc. Lois Moody, 88 Mt. Tiburon, July 23, 2003
DD. John Kunzweiler, President, Norman Estates HOA, July 25, 2003
8.2-1
8.2 PERSONS COMMENTING
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
A public hearing on the Revised Draft EIR was held by the Town on July 14, 2003. The following
individuals and planning commissioners provided spoken comments at the hearing:
. ,
A. Ann Norman
B. Robert Benbow
C. Jerry Riessen
D. Dave Koury
E. Bill White
F. John Kunzweiler
G. Olav Norman
H. Commissioner Stein
I. Commissioner Collins
J. Commissioner Snow
8.2-2
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
\.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
eo
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Introduction to Master Responses .
Numerous comments raised during the public review period pertained to the same topic and/or issues.
As a result, a Master Response was prepared that appropriately responds to these groups of comments,
There are three Master Responses included in this Response to Comments document, related to (1) the
Tree Replacement and Enhancement Program proposed in Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b); (2) a Three~
Lot Alternative located in one development area; and (3) analysis of the project's consistency with
Town policies.
Master Response 8.3-1
T r e eRe p I ace me n tan d En h a n c e men t Pro g ram
Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b)
A number of commentors have raised concerns relating to Mitigation Measure 5.34, and in particular,
Mitigation Measure 5 .3-4(b), the Tree Replacement and Enhancement Plan. Mitigation Measure 5.34
describes feasible measures that could mitigate the impact of the proposed project on the site's mixed
coast live oak-bay woodlands habitat. However, the RDEIR concludes that the project's impact on
site woodlands cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and the inipact would remain
significant and unavoidabl~. Although it is not possible to fully mitigate the impact, Mitigation
Measure 5.34(b) provides an opportunity to enhance the on-site woodland habitat by selectively
removing diseased trees and planting new trees that may be less susceptible to Sudden Oak Death
Syndrome (SODS), a disease process that is prevalent in Marin County and on the Tiburon Peninsula.
Specifically, the enhancement measures proposed by Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) in the RDEIR
propose the selective removal of diseased trees (not the clear cut that many commentors suggest) and
replanting with coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and black oak (Quercus kelloggii), which leading
SODS researchers believe are more resistant to the disease. UC Davis researchers believe that these
species do not become susceptible to SODS until they have reached approximately three to foUr inches
in diameter at breast height (dbh), which would take between 15 and 20 years. Researchers with
Marin Releaf suggest that trees do not become susceptible until approximately 60 years of age, but
empirical evidence is currently inconclusive on this point. While it is true that a complete ecosystem
supports dead and dying trees, the level of poor to marginal trees documented on site far exceeds the
typical condition, and the condition of the woodlands on site is unhealthy.
~ '
. n1.1;;. ~While this mitigation approach may be somewhat unique, it is appropriate for mitigating impacts to a
rfl7v/lP~ diseased woodland that shows signs of continuing decline. This determination is based on the
. e;t. '~S<:l3Ieraf well known SODS researchers who were consulted in the preparation of the
RDEIR, including David Rizzo with UC Davis, Janice Alexander with Marin County UC Davis .
Extension, Matteo Garbelotto with UC Berkeley, and individuals with the nonlprofit ~~iz~iollJJ
Marin Releaf, as well as the project's arborist, James MacNair. .....~! (AD ...fI(; lUiJ{;e..r f/azr-
In addition, the approach is consistent with reconimendations ofthe California Department ofFish and
Game (CDFG), which suggest oak woodland mitigation plans include preservation at an acreage ratio
8.3-1
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.~
.
.
.
.
.
.
of 3: 1 (preserved:10st) and restoration at an acreage ratio of 1: 1. To the extent feasible, both on-site
preservation and restoration are encouraged because they directly address the impact to the site's
habitat. Generally, there is little opportunity for on-site restoration, and finding suitable sites to
establish oak woodlands can be challenging, since most (but not all) suitable sites already support oak
woodland habitat. However, the SODS epidemic in Marin County has created increased opportunities
to locate and restore sites that have been devastated by SODS. The objective of the CDFG
recommendations is to replace lost woodlands with mitigation habitat that is of equal or greater value
than found in the development areas where habitat would be affected by a project. Enhancement of
existing on-site diseased woodlands to create healthy mitigation habitat is consistent with the intent of
the restoration component of the CDFG recommendations. The project proposes the permanent
preservation of 17.64 acres of the site woodlands through dedication of a conservation easement,
which is greater than a 3:1 preservation ratio. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) proposes
restoration of the five acres of woodlands impacted by the project at a 1: 1 ratio, consistent with the
CDFG recommendation.
Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b), as presented in the RDEIR, was developed with the goal of providing a
I: 1 acre mitigation ratio for impacts on the five acres of site woodlands that would result from the
proposed eight-lot project. Replanting of 0.55 acres ofland already proposed to be graded and cleared
for landslide repair would provide for the replanting of approximately 100 new trees, assuming a
density of 200 trees per acre. Additional restoration and enhancement areas totaling 4.45 acres would
be necessary to provide for the targeted 1: 1 acre mitigation ratio. This would involve the selective
removal of California bays and coast live oaks that are in poor condition. While the preference is for
on-site mitigation, site conditions, as well as the desire to retain trees for visual screening (even though
the trees maybe diseased), would limit the areas deemed appropriate for selective tree removal and
enhancement necessary to completely mitigate the impacts of the proposed eight-lot project on-site.
Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) allows for mitigation planting off-site but elsewhere on the Tiburon
Peninsula. Preservation of the 17.64 acres of on-site oak-bay woodlands and restoration of an area
equal to that impacted by development (5.0 acres) on- or off-site would effectively mitigate and
compensate for the project's impacts to site woodlands. However, the RDEIR concludes that the
impacts to on-site woodlands would remain significant and unavoidable due to the number of years
that it would take for the restoration habitat to mature.
Comments regarding potential secondary impacts of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) are addressed below.
Many of the comments regarding the proposed tree mitigation are similar in scope and have been
paraphrased (below) into five main topics. These five topics are responded to in the following order:
1. Explain changes between the tree mitigation proposed in the September 2002 DEIR and the
May 2003 RDEIR.
2. Further explanation of the health of the site's woodlands and SODS on-site is needed.
3. . Implementation of the mitigation measure would result in the clear cutting of five additional
acres of the site, increasing the real impact to woodlands to 10 acres or 1,000 trees.
4. The mitigation measure text omits certain details relating to implementation, maintenance, and
monitoring.
5. Secondary effects of mitigation measure implementation would result in significant
environmental impacts related to visual resources, site hydrology, and biological resources.
8.3-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
1. Explain changes between the tree mitigation proposed in the September 2002 DEIR and the May
2003 RDEIR.
Many commentors have expressed concern. that the mitigations proposed in the May 2003 RDEIR
differ from the original September 2002 DEIR mitigations and require less of the applicant. The
approach used in the September 2002 DEIR was based on a less defined and potentially much greater
level of impact than determined in the RDEIR, because the applicant had not yet developed a specific
strategy for landslide repair. Based on the .information known at the time, the September 2002 DEIR
took a rather conservative approach for the recommended mitigation, and required the applicant to
restore woodland habitat based on a varying tree replacement ratio, 3: 1 to 5: 1 depending on the
diameter at breast height (dbh) of the tree. The ultimate ratio was expected to average 3:1 because of
the size of most trees. The mitigation approach used in the May 2003 RDEIR is based on an
evaluation of the effects 'of a specific landslide repair plan, as proposed in the December 2002 plans
submitted by the applicant.
Assuming the enhancement of existing woodland habitat at a 1: 1 acreage ratio and an average of 200
trees per acre, 1,000 new trees ~ would be planted, resulting in almost a 2: 1 tree replacement ratio for
the loss of 522 trees located within the impacted five acres. The standard replacement ratio for
impacts to moderate to high quality riparian habitat, which is very rare in this region of California, is a
3:1 acreage ratio with tree replacement ratios varying from 1:1 to 5:1, based on the dbh of the tree.
Oak woodland habitat, while very important, is far more common then riparian woodlands. Although
the CDFG has no regulatory authority over native oak woodlands, the Department recommends that
mitigation plans for the loss of native oak woodlands include both a preservation and a restoration
component. Preservation at an acreage ratio of 3: 1 (preserved:lost) is recommend to mitigate the
short-term effect on woodlands habitat, while restoration at an acreage ratio of 1: 1 is recommended to
mitigate the long-term impact and assure there is no net loss of the habitat. These recommendations
are intended to address the effect that removal of trees for development have on the habitat value of
oak woodlands. An acreage replacement ratio, as opposed to individual tree replacement ratio, reflects
the desire to maintain the level of healthy woodlands habitat in Marin County and the state. Tree
replacement ratios are one means of achieving the objective of restoring an area equal to the area
impacted by development, as the higher ratios are intended to compensate for the habitat values lost
while the restored woodlands mature and ensure that equal habitat values are provided. However, the
ultimate objective of the CDFG recommendations is to replace lost woodlands with mitigation habitat
that is of equal or greater value than found in the development areas where habitat would be affected
by a project. Site woodlands .that would be impacted by the proposed development are already in
decline and the mitigation woodlands would be of greater habitat value than the habitat that would be
lost. Therefore, based on the professional opinion of the preparers of the RDEIR, the 1: 1 acre ratio is
appropriate for the project
. 2. Further explanation of the health of the site's woodlands and SODS on-site is needed.
There is a high incidence of woodlands infected by SODS in Marin County. It has been estimated by
SODS researchers that the infection rate of this disease is approximately 16-18 percent in all areas
affected by SODS. James MacNair, the applicant's arborist, is certified by the California Department
of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to diagnose SODS in woodlands. The diagnostic process is based on .
three elements: (1) presence of host species, such as bays; (2) dead trees; and (3) trees showing
symptoms of SODS, bays showing foliar signs and oaks "bleeding." MacNair surveyed the Tiburon
Glen site and confirmed that all three of these elements are present and relatively pervasive. There is
little doubt thatthe woodland on the project site is symptomatic of a woodland with SODS. Based on
the MacNair tree survey, 212 of the 295 coast live oaks surveyed on the project site (72 percent) are in
poor to marginal health. The condition of the woodlands on' site is not at all typical of a "healthy" oak
8.3-3
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
woodland. While it is true that a complete ecosystem supports dead and dying trees, the level of poor
to marginal trees documented on the site far exceeds the typical condition.
3. Implementation of the mitigation measure would result in the clear cutting offive additional acres
of the site, increasing the real impact to woodlands to 10 acres or 1,000 trees.
Mitigation Measure 5 .3-4(b) proposes the planting of all areas that are graded for landslide repair and
located within proposed conservation easements (0.55 acre, which would accommodate approximately
100 trees), and the selective removal of trees in areas on site that are in particularly poor health. This
includes trees that may be spreading the disease and other trees that are in deteriorated health due to
SODS. The mitigation measure requires a survey of site woodland conditions and identifies
performance standards to determine appropriate areas for selective removal of diseased trees. The
mitigation measure does not allow for clear cutting of an additional five acres of woodland. In some
areas, the measure would selectively remove diseased trees, however a sufficient number of mature
trees would remain within an enhancement area in order to retain an adequate tree canopy for visual
and aesthetic purposes. Furthermore, the mitigation measure allows for off-site mitigation elsewhere
on the Tiburon peninsula. The EIR will clarify the intent of the Tree Replacement and Enhancement
Plan, by including additional performance standards as follows:
Page 5.3-32 (Section 5.3, Vegetation and Wildlife), first full paragraph, last sentence of the RDEIR is
revised as'follows:
"To accomplish this, the Plan shall encompass the following features in accordance with the
identified performance standards:"
Page 5.3-32 (Section 5.3, Vegetation and Wildlife), fourth bullet of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) is
revised as follows: .
· "Prior to the removal of any trees, the applicant shall re.tain a Qualified arborist to conduct
follow-up surveys of the site woodland conditions shall be oonduotcd in order to identify
appropriate enhancement/selective removal locations. The follow-up surveys shall be
subiect to peer-review by the Town's consulting restoration ecolo!rist. The following
performance standards shall be utilized to identify selective removal locations:
o The preference shall be for removal of bay-dominated areas.
o Oaks and other trees showing signs of disease shall be positively identified to have SODS
using the most current identification procedures.
o The visual screening value of the tree canopy shall be considered when identifying
. selective removal/enhancement areas. As a guideline. the selective removal of diseased
trees shall be limited to 25 percent of tree canopy cover within a selected enhancement
area to ensure that a sufficient tree canopy is retained for visual and aesthetic purposes.
o Active landslide areas shall only be considered for tree removal and replacement if the
location is deemed appropriate by the Town's consulting geologist."
4. The mitigation measure text omits certain details relating to implementation, maintenance, and
monitoring.
8.3-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Comment L-8 states the mitigation measure fails to specifY an irrigation plan and the party responsible
for providing, maintaining and. funding irrigation.' Comment L-14 states the mitigation measure does
not specify funding mechanisms for monitoring and maintenance. Other comments raise similar
concerns regarding the implementation and monitoring of the proposed tree mitigation plan. As
stipulated in Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b), the applicant would retain a qualified restoration ecologist
to develop a Tree Replacement and Enhancement, Plan, subject to peer-review by the Town's
consulting restoration ecologist. The plan would specify the location of the mitigation areas, the
condition and type of trees to be removed, and the type and location of trees to be planted, in
accordance with the performance standards identified in the mitigation measure. In addition, the plan
would specify the location and design of the irrigation system and the monitoring and maintenance
program, all in accordance with the performance standards identified in the mitigation measure. The
applicant would be responsible for complete funding of the mitigation plan, including the five-year
maintenance program.
Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) provides sufficient detail regarding the implementation of the Tree
Replacement and Enhancement Plan, as it provides guidance for the preparation of such a document as
well as performance standards that must be met in order to provide effective mitigation. This
approach is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, which state that formulation of mitigation measures
should not be deferred until some future time, and that measures should specify performance standards
that would mitigate the significant effect identified in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4(a)(1)(B)). Mitigation Measure 5.3-4 identifies performance standards to determine the
success of the tree plantings, and stipulates that dead trees shall be replaced and the monitoring period'
shall start over with replanting. For tree restoration efforts, drip irrigation is typically installed as part
of the project to ensure that the trees become established. The applicant would install and maintain
irrigation for the first three years in areas where deemed necessary by the consulting restoration
ecologist. However, the precise irrigation plan cannot be designed without knowledge of where the
planting would take place, which the Town cannot know until the until after the Precise Development
Plan is approved. Failure to design an. effective irrigation plan would result in the failure of the tree
plantings, and thus would require re-planting ofthe dead trees and re-starting of the monitoring period.
5. Secondary effects of mitigation measure implementation would result in significant environmental
impacts related to visual resources, site hydrology, and biological resources.
Comment letters expressed concern about possible secondary impacts related to visual and biological
resources, and site hydrology, especially erosion and sedimentation concerns. For example, comment
0-10 states the mitigation measure could have "devastating effects on drainage, erosion, and
biological and visual resources." Comment L-2 states the "visual and other impacts" are unknown and
comment L-8 expresses concern about hillside erosion. Comment T -3 states the "increased visual
impacts and potential for erosion" should be assessed and mitigated. Comment. V-I 0 states the
RDEIR should address the "secondary effects of these new massive c1earcuts." Comment Z-2
describes potential impacts of the mitigation as "soil erosion, sedimentation, temporal loss of
wildlife habitat, movement corridors."
As stated on page 5.3-34 of theRDEIR, implementation of the mitigation measure "could result in
greater erosion and sedimentation impacts." The provisions of Mitigation Measure 5.2-5, which
includes standard Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and sedimentation, would be applied
to the mitigation areas. Additionally, consistent with the standard procedures for. removing trees
infected with SODS, the stumps of trees and theirroots would remain in place, thus protecting against
erosion and degradation of downstream water quality due to sedimentation.
8.3.5
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Peak flow computations prepared for the RDEIR. hydrology analysis treated the potential mitigation
areas of the site as natural watershed. Reduced tree canopy would not change the function of the
hillside as a natural watershed and thus would result in the same runoff coefficient calculation.
Reduced tree canopy may cause minor variations in runoff rates, but this would most likely be reduced
runoff due to increased groundwater infiltration. A reduction in the tree canopy within these areas
would not alter the course of natural drainage patterns on the site and would not adversely affect the
site drainageways. Consistent with Town policy and the requirements of the Department of Fish and
Game, tree removal would not take place within 25 feet of either side of site drainageways. This
would provide a natural buffer that would act to reduce sedimentation in the drainageways and
downstream receiving waters. Increased groundwater infiltration resulting from reduced tree canopy
would not represent a significant hydrologic effect. Increased groundwater is associated with slope
instability, however, because the stumps and root ball would be left in the ground the slope stability
would be maintained. Further, root generation and the establishment of new trees would occur more
quickly than the old roots would decay. Nonetheless, to ensure that no significant secondary impacts
would result from the proposed Tree Replacement and Enhancement Plan, Mitigation Measure 5.3-
5(b) stipulates that "[a]ctive landslide areas shall only be considered for tree removal and replacement
if the location is deemed appropriate by the Town's consulting geologist" (page 5.3-32, fourth bullet).
Impacts on native wildlife habitat and movement corridors would also be less-than-significant with the
proposed selective tree removal and replanting program. This is due tq the relatively small 26-acre
site, the small area of disturbance (five acres), the occurrence of similar habitats elsewhere on the
Tiburon Peninsula which are not being disturbed, and the fact that the disturbance would not be
permanent. A very small area of the regionally prevalent oak-bay woodland would be impacted as a
result of the project and mitigation measures. The majority of the habitat in the vicinity of the project
would remain, thereby resulting in a less than significant impact to local wildlife species.
Numerous commentors have stated the mitigation measure would result in an additional five
continuous denuded acres, which would result in a significant visual effect. This is incorrect, as
explained above, the mitigation measure proposes. that the applicant selectively remove. bays
(Umbellularia calif arnica) that may be spreading the disease and other trees that are in deteriorated
health due to SODS. The mitigation measure requires a survey of site woodland conditions to identify
appropriate areas for selective removal, based on the performance standards identified above. The
mitigation measure does not allow clear cutting of an additional five acres of woodland. While
diseased trees or bays would be removed in some areas, performance standards incorporated into the
mitigation measure would ensure that a sufficient number of mature trees would remain within a
mitigation area in order to retain an adequate tree canopy for visual and aesthetic purposes. Although
areas of selective removal are not reflected in the photo simulations contained in the RDEIR, page 5.3-
~4 of the RDEIR. acknowledges that implementation of the mitigation measure "could further degrade
the aesthetic value of the site." However, the visual impact that would result from the selective
removal of diseased trees (in accordance with the performance standards identified in Mitigation
Measure 5.3-4(b)) would not be substantially greater than or significantly different from the secondary
visual impacts that would result from the proposed project. As noted in the discussion under Impact
5.1-3, Secondary Effects of Grading for Landslide Repair and Site Development, "[I]n the coast live
oak-bay woodlands, tree removal would have a long-term negative visual impact from the loss of that
unique visual resource...therefore, visual impacts resulting from project implementation, including
landslide repair, would remain ~ignificant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation
measures." .
In conclusion, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) would not result in any secondary
impacts that differ significantly, or are substantially greater than the impacts that would result from the ..
proposed eight-lot project or the secondary impacts related to landslide repair, as already identified in
8.3-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
the RDElR. As stated in the RDElR, the secondary visual impacts associated with the selective
removal of diseased trees must be balanced by the possibility that a large percentage of trees on the
site would eventually fall victim to SODS even without project implementation.
8,3-7
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Master Response' 8.3-2
Modified Three-Lot Alternative.
Numerous public comments on the RDEIR requested that the EIR include analysis of a three-lot
alternative with all development located in Development Area No.1. CEQA Guidelines section
15126.6(a) provide that an EIR "need not consider every conceivable alternative" but rather "it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision
making and public participation." That said, to further aid the Town decision-makers, this Response
to Comments analyzes a three-lot alternative that confines development to Development Area No.1.
Many of the significant impacts described in chapter 5.0 of the RDEIR relate to grading required for
landslide repair and site preparation. This includes impacts to site drainageways, vegetation and
natural habitats, visual impacts, and those resulting directly from grading operations (air quality,
noise). Therefore, the formulation of development alternatives focused on alternative site designs that
would reduce the amount of grading and thus the extent of grading-related impacts.
Due to the presence of Landslides D and E, as shown on Exhibit 2.2-6 of the RDEIR, any feasible
development alternative comprised of more than two lots located entirely within Development Area
No. I would require extensive grading for landslide repair. For this reason, the Two-Lot and Three-
Lot Alternatives presented in the RDEIR do not propose any development in the vicinity of Landslides
D and E. However, even though extensive grading would be required for landslide repair, a three-lot
development alternative located entirely within Development Area No. 1 could substantially lessen
significant impacts that would result from project development.
In considering a three-lot alternative that would be located entirely within Development Area No. I,
different lot configurations were found to be feasible. These possible configurations are discussed
below. The Modified Three-Lot Alternative depicted in Exhibit 8.6-1 was selected to be included in
the Response to Comments document because it would, lessen environmental effects of site
development to the greatest extent by minimizing the area disturbed by grading and by reducing the
number of significant visual impacts. In addition, this alternative would better conform with the
overall goals, objectives, and policies of the Town Plan than the proposed project by limiting
development to one development area (and one access road) and by reducing the significant visual
impacts of development.
This Modified Three-Lot Alternative is within the range of alternatives already discussed in the
RDEIR. It is based on the Modified Four-Lot Alternative site plan (page 6.0-27 of the RDEIR) but
eliminates Alternative Lot 1 from this site plan, and retains Alternative Lots 2, 3, and 4. (Please note,
as this alternative is a reduced version of the Modified Four-Lot Alternative site plan, the same lot
numbers are used. For this reason, the Modified Three-Lot Alternative has no Lot 1); In addition, this
Modified Three-Lot Alternative places the lot lines closer to the area of development, creating an
"open space lot" totaling 22.18 acres.
This site design was selected because development at these locations would keep the grading
necessary for lot development, and thus the area of impact, to a minimum. This is because grading for
development of Roadway B and repair of Landslides D and E would partially overlap with grading
required for development of Alternative Lot 4. Because of this overlap, the additional grading
required for development. of Alternative Lot 4 would be less than the grading. required for
development of other lots. ill addition, the building envelopes and access for the two other lots
included in this alternative, Alternative Lots 2 and 3, are located on bedrock, thereby minimizing the
grading necessary for landslide repair. Elimination of Alternative Lot I of the Modified Four-Lot
8.3-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.3 MASTER RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Alternative site plan would avoid additional grading necessary to repair colluvial deposits that underlie
the northwest corner of the building envelope, the lower portion of Landslide D which extends into the
driveway, and the steep cut bank along' Paradise Drive which would require improvement to assure
stabilityof a building envelope.
Additionally, by reducing the visibility of project development and eliminating the parking area
proposed by the applicant within th~ Paradise Drive ROW, this alternative would result in only one
significant visual impact. Proposed development would also be -located further from Paradise Drive,
and a greater amount of existing vegetation would remain to screen the development. The Modified
Three-Lot Alternative site plan considered in this document eliminates visual impacts in Viewpoint 1
and therefore would have fewer significant visual impacts than a lot configuration that includes .
development on Alternative Lot 1.
The estimated disturbed area for the Modified Three-Lot Alternative is 2.8 acres, compared to the
Modified Four-Lot Alternative, which was estimated to impact 3.2 acres. Grading associated with the
1;'wo-Lot Alternative is estimated to total 1.75 acres. By avoiding Landslides D and E, the Two-Lot
Alternative requires less grading for landslide repair. Therefore, as concluded in the RDEIR, the Two-
Lot Alternative would remain the environmentally superior development. alternative because the
reduced grading would substantially lessen grading-related impacts. All identified impacts could be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation for the Two-Lot Alternative, while the impact
to site woodlands would remain significant and unavoidable with the Modified Three-Lot Alternative.
Impacts to site woodlands would also remain significant and unavoidable with both four-lot
alternatives and the Three-Lot Alternative in the RDEIR. A more detailed discussion of the Modified
Three-Lot Alternative is provided in section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in this Final EIR Response to
Comments document.
Other Possible Three-Lot Configurations Considered, within DevelopmentArea No.1:
Exhibit 6.4-2 of the RDEIR (page 6.0-22) depicts another possible three-lot alternative. The
c<mfiguration depicted in this exhibit is made up of three of the four lots identified in the Four Lot
Alternative (PDP Lots 2, 5 and 6), all within Development Area 1. Although this configuration is
considered a feasible project alternative, it is expected to result in a greater amount of grading than the
Modified Three-Lot Alternative site plan considered in this docume1).t.
Another possible three-lot alternative is one c~mprised of Lots 1, 2, and 4 as shown on the Modified
Four-Lot Alternative site plan (see Exhibit 6..5-1 on page 6.0-27 of the RDEIR). However, as
explained above, inclusion of Alternate Lot 1 would,require slightly more grading, and would not
reduce visual impacts to the extent that the Modified Three-Lot Alternative site plan considered in this
document would.
8.3-9
8,3 MASTER RESPONSES
'Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Master Response 8.3-3
Consistency Analysis with Town Policies
The State CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to "... discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed
project and applicable general plans and regional plans".] A project does not need to be in
conformance with every policy of a General Plan; rather, it must be "generally consistent" and "in
harmony". As stated in a 1980 court decision, "[t]he general plan which a city or county is required to
adopt is simply a statement of policy. A general plan or policy, whether it be adopted by
governmental entity or private organization serves to provide a standing consistent answer to recurring
questions and to act as a guide for specific plans or programs [italics added].2
In one notable 1993 case, the court found that "it is beyond cavil that no project could completely
satisfy every policy stated in the [general plan], and that state law does not impose such a
requirement". A general plan "must try to accommodate a wide range of competing interests ... and to
present a clear and comprehensive set of principles to guide development decisions. Once a general
plan is in place, it is the province of elected city officials to examine the specifics of a proposed
project to determine if it would be "in harmony" with the policies stated in: the plan.3
The determinations of conformance provided in the RDEIR represent the EIR authors' best judgment
based on a strict third-party interpretation of the policies examined. The Tiburon Planning
Commission and Town Council ultimately must determine the project's conformance with Town
policies before making a recommendation or taking action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny
the pending application. The analysis of conformance in this EIR is intended to aid in these decisions.
It should l;le noted that an apparent inconsistency of the proposed project with a Town policy reflected
in the Tiburon General Plan would not, in and of itself, constitute a significant impact on the
environment. Rather, the policies of the plan are used as sources of criteria for determining the
significance or lack of significance of the environmental effects identified in the various impact
discussions in the EIR. Ultimately, Town of Tiburqn planning staff and the Planning Commission will
make recommendations to the Town Council regarding the consistency of the project with the General
Plan and the site's suitability for the proposed use. All potential significant environmental effects of'
the proposed project, including those for which criteria for significance were based on policies or
standards of the Tiburon General Plan, are addressed and mitigated to the extent feasible in their
respective sections of the EIR.
, In cases where some aspects of the project would conform and some would not conform with a policy,
the project was determined to be "Partly Inconsistent." Similarly, where the project would conform
with some and conflict with other aspects of a policy, the project was determined to be "Partly
Inconsistent." However, in response to comments raised during the public comment period, the Town
has elected to strike the phrase "partly inconsistent" from the RDEIR. Section 8.6 Changes to the
RDEIR of this Response to Comments document includes Exhibits 4.1-1, 4.1-2, and 4.1-3 with this
and other changes made in response to comments illustrated in strike-out formatting.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(b).
2 Bownds v. City of Glendale, ]]3 Cal. App,3d 875,881.
3 Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland. 23 Cal.AppAth 704,79], summarizing from Greenbaum v, City of
Los Angeles, 153 Cal.App.3d 391.
8.3-10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
This chapter includes copies ofthe comment letters received by the Town of Tiburon during the public
review period on the Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR) released in May 2003 and responses to those
comments. Each comment was identified with an alpha-numeric designator. Some responses refer
readers to other comment responses in this section or to the pages in the RDEIR where specific topics
are discussed. Where responses have resulted in changes to the text of the RDEIR, these changes are
noted here and appear in section 8.6 of this Final EIR Response to Comments Document.
8.4-1
~ MARIN MUNICIPAL
~ WATER DISTRICT
A
220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169
www.rnarinwater.org
RECEIVED
JUN 1 1 2003
June 10, 2003
Jayni Allsep
Town of Tiburon Planning Dept.
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISiON
TOWN OF TIBURON
Subject: Tiburon Glen Residential Development - Revised Draft EIR
Dear Ms. Allsep;
Staff review of the above noted document has resulted in the following suggested
modifications to the water service section of the DEIR.
Page 5.8-10
"The Mount Tiburon water distribution system currently is adequate, however the tank's
fire flow storage capacity is below MMWD standards. The MMWD is planning to
increase the Mount Tiburon tank's fire flow storage capacity in the future due to dem~:md
created by the development of large residences in the area, but has not yet developed
any specific improvement plans. The District collects storage charges from new
development within the Mount Tiburon tank service area to offset the cost of future
improvements. In addition, MMWD Landscape Ordinance 385 requires new
development to use pool covers, drought-tolerant landscaping and water-conserving
irrigation plans. Water Conservation Ordinance 385 also requires new development to
install low-flow toilets, shower heads,ahd faUcets;" "
Page 5.8-11
"Impact 5.8-8
Water Service Impacts
Development of the project would not require new water facilities,
however, the MMWD would require the Applicant to contribute to
the funding for future emergoncy storage improvements. }}
recycled
recyclable
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
<:ont .
Page 5.8-11
[\cc.9rdi1l9J9.1be Jy1.MW.P...Jhe..Q!:.91~ct' s_~stimated S!.r:mual_geman.fLQf.J2.J2.1..sLg:~-f~.!
would be supplied by the existinQ 500,000 gallon Mt. Tiburon Tank. "According to the
MMWD, the 500,000 g:allon Mount Tiburon t::mk would be 3dequ:lto for domestic use
but not fire flow requirements. The 500,000 g3110n t:ank would be .3dequ3te to supply
the project's estim.3ted :annu31 dem:and of 5.81 3cre feet. Based on proposed home
sizes, all larger than 3,600 square feet, the TFPD would require a water supply capable
of providing a minimum of 1,500 gpm to fire hydrants for two hours, thus a minimum of
180,000 gallons, The TFPD could require the applicant to install 8-inch water lines to
the proposed development areas in order to meet this flow requirement.
Page 5.8-12
"The MMWD has indicated the existing fire flow storage 'capacity of the Mount Tiburon
tank is below MMWD standards, and as with other recent development in the area,
would collect storage charges from the applicant to be used to improve the storage
capacity of the tank in the future. No other mitigation or impact fee would be required of
the project by the MMWD, however the District indicated one approach to addressing
the Mount Tiburon tank fire flow deficiency would be for the Tiburon Glen Estates
developer to construct an additional 500,000 gallon water tank. However, as indicated
by the MMWD, the inadequate fire glow capacity is an existing condition, and therefore
would not be a result of the proposed project. CEQA provides for the contribution of a
fair share payment towards the con~truction of new facilities which are 'roughly
proportional' to the impacts caused by the project."
Page 5.8-12 (Mitigation Measure 5.8-8)
"Significance after Mitigation. The District has indicated that payment of the storage
charges would mitigate the project's impact on emergency storage capacity."
'2
These changes primarily focus on the perception that emergency, or fire flow, storage is
of greatest concern. Please note that as development increases within the service
area of our Mt. Tiburon Tank the domestic supply has also become increasingly
impacted. The need for a new, equal sized tank, at the site of the Mt. Tiburon Tank has
been increasing over the years, and this project increases the need even more.
If you should have any questions or comments please call me at 415-945-1586.
Sinc,erelY, ~
(I,,' /1 -'
UIA.-G ~C ~
Eric McGuire
Environmental Services Coordinator
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RESPONSE TO LETTER A - Eric McGuire, MMWD Environmental Services Coordinator
Response to Comment A-1
The commentor indicates several suggestions for changes to 5.8 Public Services and Utilities in the
RDEIR text. The text has been revised to include these changes. Please refer to section 8.6 Changes
to the RDEIR in this Final EIR Response to Comments document for revlsions made to the Revised
Draft EIR. It should be noted that changes to the September 2002 DEIR were based on the October 2,
2003 comment letter received from Eric McGuire. This letter stated: "It should be clarified that
'emergency', as used in the DEIR, should be defined as fire flow."
Response to Comment A-2
The commentor states that insufficient capacity at the Mt. Tiburon tank based on MMWD standards is
not only related to emergency, or fire flow, storage, but that "domestic supply has also become
increasingly impacted." The comment is noted. Mitigation Measure 5.8-8 requires the applicant to
contribute funding to the District's anticipated improvement to the Mt. Tiburon tank system.
8.4-4
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.
STATE OF CALIFORN1A BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-4444
(510) 286.4454 TDD
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2 Z003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
June 10, 2003
Ms. Jayni AIlsep
Community Development Department
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. AIlsep:
'B
GM y DAVIS Governor
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
MRN-131-1.86
MRN13 1074
SCH 2001072036
Tiburon Glen Residential Development - Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental
review process for the proposed project. We have reviewed the DEIR and have the following
comment to offer:
The DEIR indicates that the Town has an on-going program of fee collection for
improvements to the Trestle Glen/ Tiburon Blvd. (State Route 131) intersection. We concur
with mitigation measure 5.5-2, which states that the applicant shall pay the project's
prorated share of roadway improvements shown in the Town Plan (traffic mitigation fee).
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Maija Cottle of my staff at (510) 286-5737.
~:~'e-~
~. SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Philip Crimmins (State Clearinghouse)
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER B - Timothy Sable, Department of Transportation, District Branch
Chief
Response to Comment B-1
The comment is noted.
8.4-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
05/12/2003 08:25
<l15<:l357205
PAGE Ell
--_.--- -- -.....
c
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1679 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920
TELEPHONE: (415) 435-7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205
RICHARD PEARCE. FIRE CHIEF
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2 2003
June 12. 2003
TO: Tlburon Planning Department
via fax: 435-2438
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
RE: DEIR Tlburon Glen Residential Development
FR: Ron Barney, Fire Marshal '0i< C.1"8 .
A ITN:Jayni Allsep
Dear Jayni,
I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tiburon Glen project
dated May 2003-, and would like to forward the following comments;
Ori page 3.0-44 and page 5.8~6 mitigation measure 5.8-3 states that the resolution of the
maximum road grade could be resolved by either the lot developer or the applicant. This
issue should be decided prior to project approval as the need to reduce the road grade
could significantly change road alignment, amount of grading, height of retaining walls
or the like. It is unlikely that the applicant will be successful in gaining approval.to
exceed the maximum 18% gracie, especially in light of the traffic analyst's
recommendation.
I:
During the evolution of this latest draft EIR the Tiburon Fire District adopted the new
California Fire Code. The ordinance adopting this document was Ordinance #121. The
new ordinance number should I'eplace the refel'ences to ordinance # 120 throughout the
document, ie;, pages 3.0-43 and 5.84. Irmay be easier to delete the speCific code section
numbers, they have all changed. and simply quote the ordinance. If you need to update
the specific code sections let me know and they will beprovided.
Thank you for the opponunity to review the documents.
PROTECTING THE COMMUNlTIES OF BELVWE/U: AND TI8URON
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
RESPONSE TO LETTER C - Ron Barney
Response to Comment C-1
The commentor states that it is unlikely the applicant will gain approval to exceed the TFPD standard
of 18 percent maximum road grade for project roadways. Further, the commentor states this issue
should be resolved prior to project approval, as reduction of the road grade may result in changes in
road alignment, grading, and retaining walls. It should be noted that certification of the EIR does not
mean the project will be approved; the Town Council must decide on project approval subsequent to
certification of the EIR.
In response to this comment, the applicant's engineer. prepared a summary of the changes required to
lower the roadway grades from 20 percent to 18 percent and what outcome these changes would have
in terms of grading volume, disturbed area, tree removal, retaining walls, and drainage. This summary
is provided in the appendix of this Response to Comments document. Based on the information
provided by the applicant, the area of disturbance and volume of grading would not change
significantly as a result of reducing the road grade to 18 percent. There would be an increase in
retaining wall height and length in some locations. The increased retaining wall height and length
would contribute only marginally to the significant and unavoidable visual impacts already attributed
to the project, and would not substantially increase the severity of these impacts. For these reasons a
reduction in road grade would not substantially change the outcome of the environmental analyses in
the RDEIR. The significance of impacts related to grading and mitigation measures employed would
remain the same. For example, the same erosion control measure would apply, total project grading
would still result in a significant and unavoidable loss of oak-bay woodlands, and grading and site
. development would still result in significant and unavoidable visual impacts. , If the applicant does not
gain approval to exceed the 18 percent maximum road grade, a revised grading plan depicting road
grades of 18 percent would be required. The Town shall review the revised plans to determine if the
proposed grading and retaining walls are significantly different from those analyzed in the RDEIR. If
the revised plans are substantially different than those analyzed in the EIR, the Town would require a
Supplemental EIR, Negative Declaration, or Addendum to the EIR as mandated by CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 through l5164.It should be noted that the Town of Tiburon's standard for private
roadways allows a maximum road grade of20 percent, consistent with the PDP.
Response to Comment C-2
The commentor indicates the TFPD has adopted the new California Fire Code with Ordinance #121
and that Ordinance #120 as referenced in the RDEIR should be changed. The text has been revised to
include these changes. Please refer to section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in this Final EIR Response
to Comments document for revisions made to the Revised Draft EIR.
8.4-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
COtlnie Cashman
From: TREETOPANNE@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 01,20036:50 PM
To: ("mi>lfe Cashman
Subject: TIBURON GLEN SUBDIVISION PARKING LOT
TO: PLANNING COMMJSSIONERS, JAYNI ALLSEP, PLANNER, AND SCOTT
ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: PARKING LOT FOR PROPOSED TIBURON GLEN SUBDIVISION
INTRODUCTION: The issue I am addressing is the proposed public parking lot
on Paradise drive, to be located 1 mile south of Trestle Glen Rd.
The residents of Norman Way strongly oppose creating the proposed parking lot
on th~ easement of the Marin County road where a turnout now exists. The
applicant for the Tiburon Glen subdivision has proposed creating this lot in order
to mitigate the problem of being unable to provide, acccirding to code, a
minimum of four parking spaces for every new home, even though two of those
spaces may be inside a garage. In addition, for houses of this size, more
. spaces are a!Jpropriate, hence the need for additional parking.
The reasons for inability to provide enough spaces are multiple:
1. The terrain is too steep and unstable to build upon.
2. The proposed roadway will be very narrow, making it very difficult for
large vehicles to pass each other in opposite directions.
3. Although the lot sizes are big, a large portion of them is unbuildable.
4. The proposed size of the homes will run between 6000 to 8000 square
feet. Size alone dictates the potential need for a much greater number of
spaces, not only for residents, but also for numerous service providers and
, guest~.
5. Residents of these new homes, their guests and service providers,
will not want to park in a lot below, and walk up a steep incline up to a distance
of one-fifth of a mile. The result would probably be the creation of a situation
where a number of vehicles simply block access by parking along the
subdivision's narrow, steep roadways.
6. The Town of Tiburon, to avoid the cost of maintaining said road, would
'probably designate it as a "Private" road. This means that the Town may ask
for, and refuse, an Offer of Dedication from the applicant. This further implies
that there will be no policing of unproperly parked vehicles, and right of ways will
not be controlled.
7. The proposed parking lot will be open to the public. There will be no way
to prevent anyone from using those parking spaces, resulting in their not being
available to the new residents of Tiburon Glen.
~t
8. It is well understood that Paradise Drive is already a dangerous road for
bicyclists, motorists, and joggers. The creation of a new parking area will attract
more users from outside this area, adding to the already hazzardous situation.
7/2/03
Page 1 of 2
])
RCCCIVED
JUL 2 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Page 2 of 2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9 Parking in this area has already created problems for overflow traffic for
Paradise County Beach Park. The numerous "No Parking" signs along the blind
curves on Paradise Drive are an indication ofthis.
10. The provision of a public parking lot in this residential area of Paradise
Dr. is totally out of keeping with the character of the area.
3
11. A 'Jublic lot, along with the addition of a drinking fountain, will not only
attract additional cars to the area, but will provide a rest stop for many users of
the road. Conversations, start-up of cars, slamming of doors, and radios will all
be readily audible to nearby residents and will not enhance their quality of life.
(fhe area is regularly used by homeless people, sleeping on the hillsides.
Providing water will guarantee an increase in this use.)
4
12. The problem of maintenance of this lot is another issue which has not yet
been addressed. Who would be responsible for maintenance, the Town of
Tiburon? Maintenance may include paving, striping, landscaping, and keeping
the water fountain in working order. Would Tiburon Glen Homeowners be able
and willing to undertake an agreement for maintenance of a public facility?
5
13. In conclusion, the measures proposed for mitigation of the basic parking
problem, cannot possibly work. To the contrary, these measures will add
substantially to the already existing problems.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Norman
42 Norman Way
7/2/03
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
RESPONSE TO LETTER D- Anne Norman
Response to Comment 0-1
The commentor is concerned that the proposed parking lot would not effectively replace on-lot
parking, causing a hazardous obstruction of the roadways by improperly parked vehicles. The RDEIR
traffic analysts agree that individual residential lots' must have adequate parking or visitors would be
more likely to park illegally along on-site roadways. For this reason, each lot must have sufficient
parking space to accommodate residents' small meetings or parties without spilling over to roadsides.
The Town should require each lot to have sufficient parking area for at least six vehicles (in addition
to two covered garage spaces). This recommendation is based on experience with vehicle parking
problems that can occur in deyelopments with steep topography where narrow roads limit on-street
parking. The applicant-proposed parking area along Paradise Drive was originally intended to
supplement on-site parking, however, in response to the requirement of Mitigation Measure 5.5-5 of
the September 2002 DEIR, the PDP site plan was revised to include six (6) parking spaces (in addition
to two garage spaces) on each lot. This is four times more than required by the Town's zoning code
(two spaces). Therefore, in its current configuration, this parking area is not a substitute for providing
on-site parking.
Response to Comment 0-2
The commentor expresses concern that the proposed parking lot would attract users from outside the
area and thus increase the already dangerous conditions on Paradise Drive. It is highly speculative to
conclude the parking area would attract drivers from outside the area to Paradise Drive and in the
opinion of the EIR preparer, not likely. As noted above, the parking area proposed by the applicant
would not be needed in order to provide adequate parking for the proposed project. The PDP site plan
submitted in December 2002 was revised to include six (6) parking spaces (in addition to two garage
spaces) on each lot. Ultimately, the Town Council will determine whether the proposed parking area
should be approved. Further, even if the parking area were approved and it did attract visitors, as only
seven spaces are proposed, this would not represent a significant environmental impact. The issue of
roadway safety is addressed in Response to Comments 1-5 and N-2, and N-3.
Response to Comment 0-3
The commentor states the public parking lot is "out of keeping" with the character of the area and
would be a nuisance to nearby residents. This comment addresses the merits of the proposed project,
specifically the parking lot, and not the adequacy of the RDEIR.
Response to Comment 0-4
The commentor asks who will be responsible for maintaining the parking lot. As part of a private
roadway system, the property owners would be responsible for maintaining these improvements.
Should the parking lot be approved, a maintenance agreement between property owners and whoever
owns the parking area (probably the County of Marin) would be established. This comment addresses
the merits of the parking lot and not an environmental impact.
Response to Comment 0-5
The commentor states the parking lot would not mitigate the impact of inadequate on-site parking and
will result in other impacts. As discussed in Response to Comment D-l, the parking lot is not required
to mitigate impacts of inadequate parking as each lot will be required to provide six off-street parking
spaces for guest parking in addition to two spaces in a garage.
8.4-11
Jul 01 03 07:29p
Karen N~C!;ren
415-435-4642
Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Planning Commission,
Tiburon Planning Department
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
July 2, 2003
RE: RDEIR Tiburon Glen
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners, Councilmembers and Planners,
I write to you regarding my coni:;erns of the Tiburon Glen project proposal.
RECEIVED
JUL . 2 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Traffic in Tiburon has been a major concern of our community for many years. ,Projects such as
the Harromon, Leonard Jay, Perini, Martha and ete. have all raised significant issues regarding
the cumulative traffic impacts to Tiburon Blvd. Due to these actual and legitimate concerns, a
close analysis and scrutiny by the community, of the impacts of these projects, has taken place
and modifications to projects by various means has resulted due to these concerns,
The community that you represent, clearly has let it be known, that it does not want to increase
the Level of Service beyond LOS C or existing delay/wait time on Tiburon Blvd. This has been
established and codified in the Tiburon General Plan and zoning ordinances. Mitigations such as
widening and adding new lanes along Tiburon Blvd. have been rejected by votes of the
community, particularly when they considered widening Highway 37/Tiburon Blvd. through
Blackies Pasture near Trestle Glen. Thus, a suggested mitigation in the RDEIR of Tlburon Glen,
is totally unacceptable to the community and its regulations and should not be considered as an
acceptable mitigation in the RDEIR. The proposal of paying mitigation funds to the Town, for a
project that is unacceptable to the community is not a valid traffic mitigation. The traffic impacts
from this project would be a significant impact that would be totally unmitigatable to the Tiburon
community.
Currently the traffic back up on Tiburon Blvd and Trestle Glen at peak hours is beyond Tiburon's
accepted LOS and wait time of our community's General Plan and zoning ordinances. The
proposed Tiburon Glen project VoIOuld create a significant health and safety issue to our Tiburon
residents that can not be mitigated as addressed in this RDEIR Due to this fact, I strongly
encourage you to look carefully at the extent of this Tiburon Glen proposal, keeping in mind our
town's General Plan and zoning ordinances and the Tiburon residents.
Thank you for representing our Tiburon residents,
SinCere,IY, " " .' Q
/'
. ',/ ' ~
.,/ c:z.- .-21 '
Karen N}'9ren J
p. 1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
E.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER E- Karen Nygren
Response to Comment E-1
The commentor cites the Level of Service (LOS) standard for intersections in the Town's General
Plan, and states that the mitigation listed in the RDEIR for the Tiburon Glenffiburon Boulevard
intersection is "unacceptable to the community and its regulations and should not be considered."
However, as discussed in chapter 5.5, Transportation and Circulation, cumulative General Plan
buildout conditions with or without the proposed project require mitigation. The mitigation measure
described in the RDEIR is based strictly on the current General Plan Circulation Element, adopted in
1994. This mitigation measure consists of adding another westbound lane through the intersection.
The General Plan clearly states that "no significant encroachment into Blackie's Pasture is proposed"
as part of this mitigation. Implementation of this mitigation measure would restore operation of the
intersection to an acceptable LOS C or better during weekday AM and PM peak commute hours, even
under the cumulative condition.
8.4-13
NORMAN L. TRAEGER
THE DISCOVERY GROUP
3700 PARADISE DRIVE
TIBURON. CA 94920-1100
F
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RECEiVED
JUL 0 3 2003
July 1, 2003
F'U\NNINCo D'VISION
fOWN OF TIl3URON
Jayni Allsep
Contract Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. Allsep
Re: Tiburon Glen Environmental Impact Report.
3 I
+/
· Hvdroloev and Drainae-e. 5,2,10: Our property, parcel number 039-231-16 is
located just to the north of the subject property and is downhill to many of the
proposed building envelopes. We presently have a substantial silting problem
during heavy rains. I addressed this issue in a letter to you on September 25,
2002. I was not able to find how the Developers plan on mitigating an already
serious problem.
· Sanitary Sewer Services. 5.8: Sanitary #5 is not accepting new applications.
How are the Developers planning on constructing new homes without a sewer
service in place?
· Transportation and Circulation. 5.5 What provisions are the Developers
making for a bike/walking path on the property frontage to Paradise Drive?
· Vee:etation and Wildlife. 5.3: What provisions are the Developers making for
the losss of deer and other animal habitat?
2-
When will these, and other issues, be addressed by the Developer?
PHONE: 41 5 435-2504 FAX: 41 5 435-2505 E-MAIL: NORMTRAEGER@MSN.COM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
RESPONSE TO LETTER F- Norman Traeger
Response to Comment F-1
The commentor expresses concern that the proposed project would exacerbate existing siltation
problems experienced on their property during heavy rains. The potential for increases in siltation
could occur during project construction and following project completion. During project
construction, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2-5 would reduce erosion and'sedimentation
impacts to insignificant levels during the construction process. '
Following completion- of construction, the surface drainage from the overwhelming majority of the
Tiburon Glen residences would be diverted to gutters, driveways, and roadways and would not come
into contact with hillslope soils likely to generate silt and sediment. Thus, there would not be a
substantial increase in the amount of silt flowing off-site. The project would increase peak flow rates
in Drainageway 1, which traverses the commentor's property downstream of Paradise Drive.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-2 addresses the effect of on-site peak flow increases on ,the potential for
increased erosion in existing channels downstream of the project area. As outlined in the mitigation
measure, the Town would require that the applicant submit a hydraulic/geomorphic evaluation of the
lower reach of Drainageway 1 on the commentor's property prior to approval of a Final Subdivision
Map. If this evaluation indicates that the channel is either subject to existing instability (i.e. erosion)
or could become so under post-project conditions, the applicant would be required to install channel
stabilization measures to minimize any channel erosion impacts.
Unrepaired landslides are a major source of siltation to down slope properties. The Town would
require landslide repair for any approved project. The landslide repairs would reduce the probability
of severe landslides in the upper watershed and would lessen the risk of significant downstream
sedimentation due to future hillslope failures. The impact these repairs may have on the extent of peak
flow increases have been evaluated in the RDEIR on page 5.2-6, which concluded the repairs would
not affect the post-project peak flows.
Response to Comment F-2
Please see Response to Comment H-3.
Response to Comment F-3
The commentor asks what provision the applicant would make for a bike or walking path on the
property frontage of Paradise Drive. The commentor is referred to Impact and Mitigation Measure
5.5-5, which addresses the project's impact on the use of Paradise Drive by pedestrians and bicyclists.
This measure calls for the applicant's contribution to implementation of safety improvements on
Paradise Drive as discussed in the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan, and also suggests the provision of a
designated (signed) rest area. It should be noted that Goal III-I of the Plan is "[t]o maintain the rural
character and configuration of Paradise Drive and improve safety for all users" and is accompanied by
the action to "[i]nvestigate ways to provide safety improvements without making major changes to the
roadway." In many locations along Paradise Drive provision of a bicycle lane would require
substantial grading of hillside bluffs and construction of retaining walls in order to provide a bicycle
lane. This is the case for much of the distance along the Tiburon Glen project frontage. The majority
of the property's frontage along Paradise Drive is characterized by very steep bluffs. Widening of
Paradise Drive through sections with steep bluffs would require extensive grading and construction of
retaining walls. These would be major changes to the roadway and would not mitigate any significant
project impact.
8,4-15
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment F-4
The commentor asks what provisions the applicant would make for the loss of deer and other animal
habitat.' In determining the significance of impacts on biological resources, environmental analyses
focus on special-status and / or sensitive plant and animal species identified by resource agencies
(such as the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CDFG and
USFWS, respectively) and the scientific community (represented by such specialized organizations as
the California Native Plant Society, CNPS). These agencies administer their respective State and
Federal Endangered Species Acts and other relevant statutes. Impacts related to such species and their
habitat is addressed in the RDEIR. . Deer and other native wildlife on the project site are not special-
status species. Furthermore, no suitable habitat for special-status animal species was identified on the
project site (Impact 5.3-3). The RDEIR bases its evaluation of the project's significant impacts on
biological resources on the significance criteria outlined in Appendix G of CEQA. CEQA recognizes
that projects will result in impacts, but determines that these impacts are only significant when they
are substantial (see pages 5.3-24 of RDEIR). While the RDEIR identified a number of significant
biological impacts that would result from buildout of the project on biotic resources (such as impacts
to special status-plants, coast live oak-bay woodlands, and jurisdictional waters), it determined that the
project would not result in a significant (i.e., substantial) impact to deer or other native wildlife habitat
(Impact 5.3-7 Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife). '
8.4-16
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<:.
REGEWED
JUL 0 3 2.003
PL.ANNir~'3 DiV'SION
TOWN Of TiBURON
July 1, 2003
Katherine
Cuneo
Environmental
Consulting
Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
TiburoD, CA 94920
Re: Tiburon Glen Draft ElR
Dear Mr. Anderson:
7 Poco Paso
San Rafael,
Caiifornia
94903.3866
My background is in biology and botany and I have worked for 20+/-
years as an environmental consultant My Ph.D. is in environmental
planning from D.C. Berkeley.
Phone I Fax
(415) 499-7712
The biologists working on the assessment and initial Draft EIR for this
proposed project did a very good job of investigating and reporting on the
expected impacts of this project. It appears to me, however, that by the
second Draft EIR the proponent was pressuring the consultant to change
the mitigation for loss of coast live oak-bay woodland.
The DEIR of September 2002 asks for replacement of lost trees at a 3:1
ratio for trees 2" to 6" dbh, 4:1 ratio for trees 7" to 12" dbh, and 5:1 ratio
for trees greater than 12" dbh and the recirculated DEIR (May 2003) only
calls for 1: 1 replacement of woodland acreage lost and avoids comment
" on numbers of tree, replacements. This mitigation measure also describes
using 4.5 acres of the proposed open space conservation easement for on-
site replacement plantings. The rationale given for using this area for
mitigation is that the trees are in very poor condition on the entire site and
that by removing bays and replacing them with more "disease resistant"
oaks they can achieve a more sudden oak death (SOD) resistant
woodland. In my view this is an additional 4.5 acres of impact to be
added to the 5 acres of construction and slide repair losses.
KCEC
2
3
4-
On June 18, 2003 I visited the site and spent several hours walking it and
comparing the data on the tree reports and DEIR with what I saw in the
field.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I believe that a tactic is being used to continually raise the specter of a
"diseased" woodland to devalue it in the planning commission's view.
The . arborist mentions fmding the trees affected by limb and trunk rot,
bark beetles and ambrosia beetles but never once reports finding evidence
of SOD within the woodland. What the arborist describes is a normal
woodland that is probably a "second growth" woodland and consists of
stump sprouts and a dense growth of seedlings. Certainly a percentage of
these trees are crowded and not exhibiting a large spreading canopy but
this is not an abnormal situation as decay and death are nonnal to
woodlands.
I believe that four of the lots are too steep and/or too small for
development if this was not a RPD. If it were not for the steepness of the
terrain it would not take 5 acres of grading to develop 8 building sites. I
further believe that if the "open space conservation easement" were
officially declared on the subdivision maps, it would comprise the
remaining coast live oak-bay woodland outside of the building envelopes
which presumably would mean that it was in joint ownership and could
not contribute acreage to individual lots and thus make them "in
compliance" with the slope ordinance used as a guideline.
I would recommend that you require, in advance of issuing any permits,
that, the proponent pay for a real mitigation plan for all of the projects
impacts to natural habitats (with price estimates by both the consultant
and the City department that will have to manage this plan) and put up a
bond that will cover the plan for 5 or 10 years depending on the mitigation
plan. If you depend on the proponent doing any of the plan you will never
get an adequate mitigation.
Sincerely,
~/~
Kaherine L.C. Cuneo, Ph.D.
Ph. 4151479-2814, Fax 4151499-7699, email rkcuneo@earthlink.net
CC: Tiburon Planning Commission
JaneA1sepl
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
RESPONSE TO LETTER G - Katherine Cuneo
Response to Comment G-1
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment G-2
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment G-3
The commentor indicates that by officially declaring an open space and conservation easement the
land within the easement would then be considered in joint ownership and thus would not contribute to
the acreage totals of the individual lots. Further, the commentor states that without this acreage the
individual lots would not be in compliance with the Town's slope ordinance. Establishment of a
conservation easement, such as is commonly used to protect open space or farmland from future
development, does not change the ownership status of the land itself. The area within the open space
conservation easement would still remain within the respective individual lots, and those lots in their
entirety are the subject of the Town code compliance review. The RDEIR describes the environmental
effects that would result from developing on steep terrain. Further, it should be noted that the Tiburon
Glen site is designated Residential Planned Development (RPD). The minimum lot size based on
slope, as provided in Table 14-73 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land),
is not applicable to land in the RPD zone. The RPD designation is specifically intended to allow
flexibility in site design to accommodate site constraints such as steep slopes. '
Response to Comment G-4
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
8.4-19
H
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RECEIVED
Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
Town of Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
JUL j 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
July 3, 2003
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT ON THE TIBURON
GLEN DEVELOPMENT (SCH# 2001072036)
Dear Ms. Allsep;
Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECo) has been retained by the Norman Estates Homeowners
Association to review and monitor California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation and
compliance for the proposed Tiburon Glen development project. This letter presents our comments in
response to the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for that .project. General
comments are provided first, followed by a page-by-page listing of specific c,omments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
,
Assessment of "Residential Use Areas" and Other Impacted Areas. The RDEIR states that "The
hydrology, biology, and visual analyses assume that all vegetation within all eight proposed building
envelopes would be removed". We question whether or not these are reasonable worst-case
assumptions, given that grading and varying levels of site development are permitted to occur
throughout the "Residential Use Areas". The RDEIR further is spotty in its consideration of ground
disturbance within the newly designated "Residential Use Areas" and may understate grading
associated with development of houses on the proposed lot,S. As shown on Figure 2.2-10, there are
considerable portions of "Residential Use Areas located outside of the "Disturbed Area Limit". We
suggest that the analyses be revised to expand these assumptions to the entire Residential Use Area.
L
Grading Associated with Geologic Hazard Abatement. As identified in our February 11, 2003 letter,
the revised grading and slope stabilization plans mysteriously substantially shrink the previously
mapped large landslide on the upper portions of lots 6 and 7, even though no new geologic studies
have been performed. Further, as also described in the February letter, the project proposes 2:1 slopes
but the REIR (mitigation 5.1-4) notes that those slopes could be too steep to be stable, and that broader
(less steep) slopes may be required. These broader slopes would occupy more space than the 2:1
slopes, and could result in substantial increases in grading and disturbed areas. Finally, the RDEIR
acknowledges that additional landslide stabilization may occur when houses are developed (see, for
example, Exhibit 2.2-16). This combined potentially substantial amount of undefined and unanalyzed
clearing and grading may reverberate throughout the document, and result in the DEIR substantially
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 2-
cOne.
.
.
.
.
. 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 1-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tiburon Glen Project Revised ErR Comments
July 3, 2003
Page 2
understating project impacts on the geologic, biologic, aesthetic (visual), air quality, and hydrologic
environment.
Sewer Issues. Another substantial omission from thisRDEIR is the resolution of project- and
cumulative sewage treatment impacts. The EIR concludes that the nearby sewage treatment plant
cannot handle project or projected cumulative flows and notes that a substantial extension of the
Town's sewer mains to the project area may be required to serve the project. Yet the RDElRincludes
no analysis of the impacts of such an extension. Instead the document relies on the project's "fair
share" contribution to funding required sewage conveyance and treatment improvements. This
approach does not assure any actual mitigation if it is not accompanied by an appropriately funded
program of sewer improvements timed to coincide with project development (per Napa Citizens v.
Napa County (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 363.) In this case, it is not clear what sort of mitigation the
project's" fair share" funding would, in fact, fund.
Project Growth Inducement. The growth-inducing impacts of expanding the sewer system are noted
in the Public Services chapter, (i.e. "Future flows could result in the addition of existing and proposed
housing units north of the project site to this anticipated future line" (RDEIR p. 5.8-17) but these
impacts are not adequately incorporated in the Growth,Inducement discussion on p. 3.0-7 of the
.RDEIR. That section concludes that growth induced by expansion of the sanitary sewer system is not a
significant Impact because such growth is allowed in the Town's General Plan and the system's
inadequacy was noted by Sanitary District #5 as early as 1994. This completely misses CEQA's
requirements, which deal with the physical world and not the "planning" world. It is clear in the
RDEIR that the existing system is deficient and, as such, a substantial constraint to development in the
area. The RDEIR concludes that it is likely that an extension of sewer mains from the site to the Main
Treatment Plant are likely to be required for the project. This would remove a substantial constraint to
a significant level of development in the area, and thereby result in a significant adverse growth
inducing impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) specifically identifies
removal of wastewater treatment limitations as a potential growth inducing impact. This is an impact
regardless of compliance of that growth with a General Plan. Both CEQAGuidelines (Section 15125(a))
and case law (Environmental Information and Planning Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131
cal.App:3d 350) are clear that impacts must be compared with existing on-the-ground conditions, and
not some future planned level o{growth. The project's expansion of sewer lines/ capacity.would
clearly induce growth compared with existing conditions.
OakfBayWoodlands. The proposed mitigation for loss of oak woodlands, while innovative and
potentially beneficial, is marred by the biologists' "fuzzy math". A 1:1 replacement ratio is proposed
for oak woodlands to be destroyed by the project. This in itself seems inadequate; please note that 2:1
or greater replacement ratios are identified in the ErR for other habitat types to be removed. Five acres
are planned to be clearcut for slide repair, grading and infrastructure installation within the residential
use areas of the project. In order to implement the proposed tree replacement ratio onsite, 5 more acres
of oak woodland would need to be cleared, resulting in the permanent loss of 5 acres of oak woodland
'S-
c. ent.
b
7
<6'
Tiburon Glen Project Revised EIR Comments
July 3, 2003
Page 3
and a long-term "temporary" (10- 50-year) loss of another 5 acres of this habitat, for a total loss of 10
acres of the site's oak/bay woodland habitat. This denudation of another 5 acres (for a total
denudation of close to 40% of the site) and replacement with small (10-inch sleeve) oaks would have
significant unanalyzed impacts to biological resources, erosion, drainage, and, visual quality, all of
which would be secondary impacts of the project that must be analyzed in the EIR. Please identify the
total number of mature trees that would be lost as part of this mitigation. The most obvious approach
to reducing this secondary impact is to reduce the project so that the amount of oak woodland
eliminated is significantly lessened.
Cumulative Visual Impacts and View Blockage. The RDEIR considers cumulative visual impacts to
be a less than significant impact. However, in views from the Bay and from Paradise Drive, it seems
likely that full buildout of all pending and proposed projects could significantly increase the
appearance of mini-castle suburban development rather than the current generally open space
appearance. Please address this issue with an additional photo-simulation. Additionally, the EIR
should address view blockage associated with development on lots 7 and 8.
Fire Protection Access. The Town's Fire Marshall commented that "On page 3.0-44 and page 5.8-6
mitigation measure 5.8-3 states that the resolution of the maximum road grade could be resolved by
either the lot developer or the applicant. This issue should be decided prior to project approval as the
need to reduce the road grade could significantly change road alignment, amount of grading, height of
retaining walls or the like. It is unlikely that the applicant will be successful in gaining approval to
exceed the maximum 18% grade, especially in light of the traffic analyst's recommendation." (Letter
from Ron Barney to Jayni Allsep, 6/13/03).
This issue must be resolved in the EIR, as it could well result in project redesign and potential increases
in project grading. It is an example of inappropriately deferred mitigation, as described in the
following paragraph.
Mitigation. Numerous mitigation measures are still relegated to future studies or plans. These include
mitigations for nearly all impacts that may result from the future houses on the site, such as geologic
and geotechnical investigations. This deferral of detailed mitigation to future plans and studies is
impermissible under CEQA. .
The RDEIR includes mitigation monitoring and reporting (MMRP) discussions for each identified
mitigation measure. We applaud this early disclosure of how mitigations would be monitored.
However, we are concerned that most of the monitoring would be left up to the applicant or HOA.
CC&R's can be changed by an HOA. This is effectively allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. All
mitigations to be applied to the project need to be made an explicit part of the Precise Development
Plan and funding mechanisms for maintenance and monitoring need to be included. All MMRP
discussions should be re-written to assure that the applicant fund a Town-hired monitor who will
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. go
. COht..
.
.
. Cj
.
.
.
.
.
. J (J
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tiburon Glen Project Revised EIR Comments
July 3, 2003
Page 4
independently verify the implementation of the extensive mitigation that would be required as part of
this project.
Alternatives. The 3-10t alternative does not appear to be designed to reduce impacts to the maximum
extent feasible. The use of both development areas in this alternative would substantially increase
grading compared to a 3-unit alternative located entirely on development Area 1. Such an alternative
would logically be the Modified Four Lot Alternative minus one house. The most logical house to be
removed would be on Lot 1, which requires its own access road, requires grading down to Paradise
Drive, and which appears most prominently in views from Paradise Drive, as indicated in Exhibit 5.4-6.
County Lands. The RDEIR focuses on project impacts within the Town of Tiburon and on compliance
with the Town's plans and policies, however the Paradise Drive parking proposed as part of the project
is outside of the Town's jurisdiction, and would require that property besurplussed by the County and
annexed by the Town. It is unclear if this action is proposed as part of the project. If it is proposed, it
should be included in the Project Description; if not, the project's parking would not be in compliance
with County regulations and could be considered infeasible. Due to this possible infeasibility, ilnpacts
of the project absent that parking should be described.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, the RDEIR presents a thorough and fair analysis of the proposed project, however we have
identified a number of deficiencies that should be addressed in the Final ErR. Primary among these is
that the secondary impacts of mitigation for removal of oak/bay woodlands are not fully assessed.
Additionally, the impacts of geologic hazard abatement and provision of sewer service are not well
described. Similarly the growth-inducing impacts of providing sewer service to the site are
understated and mischaracterized, and an additional 3-unit alternative should be addressed. Despite
these deficiencies, the RDEIR clearly shows that this site is highly constrained and its development is
eiwironrnentally problematic. The site's steep lower slopes are riddled with landslides and other
instabilities, while the more gently sloping upper slopes are home to several endangered plant species.
In addition, it strongly appears that, once mitigation, sewage, and growth inducement are fully
assessed, new or expanded impacts will be found.
Please feel free to contact me at (510) 849-2354 if you have any questions regarding these comments;
Sincerely;
Richard Grassetti
Principal
I /
1'2
13
It
Tiburon Glen Project RDEIR Comments
July 3, 2003
Page 5
Additional Comments:
/5
Page Comment
2.0, general The extent of potential accessory structures is not addressed in this chapter, or
analyzed in the EIR. Please add.
Impact and This impact and mitigation discussion addresses only active raptor nests, but
Mitigation 5.3-8: not the loss of nesting opportunities in future nesting seasons resulting from
Raptor Nest Impacts: the loss of 10 acres of on-site trees. Please expand.
Impact 5.4-1 What is the effect of limiting building heights to 25 feet, etc. in relation to
maximum floor areas. Would ground-floor grading be increased to
compensate for floor area lost to the height and upper story bulk restrictions?
The limitation on floor area in this mitigation is too vague to actually guarantee
any mitigation. Please revise to include actual limits or ranges.
5.4, general Was fire fuel load reduction clearing factored into the visual quality analyses?
If not, please discuss.
Exhibit 4.1-1 The analysis of the project's conformance with the Town of Tiburon General
Plan repeatedly assumes that proposed houses would be consistent with RPD
zone requirements, as well Site Plan and Architectural Review requirements.
How can this be assumed absent any plans for the houses? These should be
changed from" consistent" to "unknown" or "not determined" .
Exhibit 4.1-1, Goal The analysis assumes that the project would comply with the Town's
SE-A: Landslide Repair Policy, yet the technical analyses in the EIR do not make this
assumption, but rather make allowances for not fully implementing the policy.
The EIR can't have it both ways. Implementing the policy fully would increase
visual, hydrologic, and biological impacts, among others, while not
implementing it could violate Town policies. The public needs to know to
what degree this policy will be implemented; this should ultimately be
included in the revised conceptual grading plan, and project impacts re-
evaluated accordingly.
Exhibit 4.1-1 Gated Access: The site design does not specifically show gates, but it does
show entrance structures that could accommodate gates. As a mitigation in
this EIR, gates should be specifically prohibited so as not to impede emergency
access
5.1-12 6th bullet: the 100,000 cubic yard threshold of significance for grading seems
high. Although this may be the definition of "mass ?;Tading", far lower
I~
If
l<g
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;.
i.
:.
t
:.
i.
..
.
.
..
[e
ie
.
.
je
'.
i.
.
..
.
:.
:.
.
'.
e
,.
.
,e
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. I~
. C orrt.
.
.
.
. Ig
.
.
.
.
.
. 20
.
.
. 2-1
.
.
. 2-1-
.
.
. ?-3
.
.
. 2f
.
.
. J5
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tiburon Glen Project RDEIR Comments
July 3, 2003
Page 6
quantities of grading could significantly alter the landscape. We suggest
reducing this significance criterion from 100,000 cu. yds. to 10,000 cu. yds.
Under this threshold, the project's gross grading (cut and fill) of approximately
26,500 cu. yds. would be significant.
It should be further noted that the cut and fill "balance" conclusion is
deceptive, as each development area would not have a balanced cut and fill,
but substantial quantities of earth (about 4260 cu. yds.) cut from Development
Area B would need to be transported over to Development Area A for
disposal.
5.1 general See previous comments re inadequacy of assumption of grading being limited
to grading shown on grading plans. Grading could occur anywhere in the
Residential Use Areas, and additional grading may be required if 2:1 slopes are
too steep to be feasible, as well as for development of individual houses.
Exhibit 5.2-3 What runoff coefficients were used in calculating peak discharges? What
assumptions were made for development of "Residential Use Areas' with
impervious surfaces? Was denudation of an additional 5 acres of the site for
biological mitigation assumed? Post-project discharges seem very low
compared to pre-project runoff. Please recalculate with reasonable worst-case
assumptions, and including secondary impacts of identified mitigation
measures.
Impacts 5.2~1, 5.2-2 Adequacy of the 80-foot culvert crossing Paradise Drive and other culverts
from the site crossing Paradise needs to be determined now, and not deferred
to a future study, as its replacement could result in additional impacts.
Impact 5.2.4 How would proposed catchments be cleared/ cleaned out? Would this process
result in additional ground-disturbing impacts? Would access clearing be
required?
P. 5-20 RDEIR notes that revised grading plans do not include erosion control plans.
These must be added to assure the public that the massive grading proposed
will not cause water quality problems,
Figure 5.3-3 Biological resources on Residential Use Areas could be severely impacted by
the project, and should be added to this map as well as to all disturbed acreage
calculations.
p. 5.3-6, 2nd para. This discussion notes that 16-18 % of oaks are infected with SODS, but implies
that this somehow is related to the 72% of site oaks and bays that are in poor to
marginal health. Mitigation is based on infestation with SODS, but most trees
on the site aren't infected with this disease. Please clarify.
Discussion omits on-site spring. Please add.
.
,.
i.
'.
..
:.
,.
:.
,e
,.
;
:.
:e
..
..
.
..
.
.
l.
.
.
i.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tiburon Glen Project RDEIR Conunents
July 3, 2003
Page 7
'2&
p. 5.3-8
p. 5.3-28, mitigation
measure 5.3-2(b)
2.7
Impacts j Mitigations
5.3-4,5.3-5,5.3-6,5,3-
7, and 5.3-8
2-8
Chapter 5.4, general
'29
5.6-6
'DO
5.7-6
'01
Impact 5.8-3
"3'L
This analysis concludes that the mitigation may well be unsuccessfut but says
impact will be less than significant anyway. This is in direct conflict with the
impacts discussion, which concludes that the impact absent mitigation is
significant. A significant impact with an often-unsuccessful mitigation is, by
definition, significant and unavoidable. Please revise for project and all
alternatives that could affect these plants.
See general comment re oak woodland mitigation. The math is off - there,
would not be 522 trees and 5 acres lost to the project, but roughly double that. J
As a result of the recommended mitigation/twice that acreage and number of
trees would be lost, at least for the 10-30+years before the seedlings planted as
mitigation mature to equivalent habitat value as current vegetation. All of
these impacts and mitigations should be revised accordingly.
See previous comments re underestimation of grading and tree removal.
Visual impacts analyses need to be revised to account for these - this is
especially important for the proposed long~tem temporary removal of an
additional 5 acres of mature oak woodland as mitigation for the loss of 5 acres
of oak woodland due to project grading and development.
Mitigation 5.6-1(a): Consider adding a mitigation that grading shall not be
permitted on days when winds exceed 20 mph.
See previous general comments regarding inappropriate Mitigation
Monitoring. Town should employ a monitor funded by applicantjHOA. Note
that HOAs are notorious for underfunding mitigation and the Town must
remain involved in mitigation.
Certain project roadway segments do not meet Fire Department Standards,
and mitigation identified is to get a review and exemption by the Fire
Department. The Town's Fire Marshall has reviewed the project and opined
that liOn page 3.0-44 and page 5.8-6 mitigation measure 5.8-3 states that the
resolution of the maximum road grade could be resolved by either the lot
developer or the applicant. This issue should be decided prior to project
approval as the need to reduce the road grade could significantly change road
alignment, amount of grading, height of retaining walls or the like. It is
unlikely that the applicant will be successful in gaining approval to exceed the
maximum 18% grade, especially in light of the traffic analyst's
recommendation." Thus such an exemption seems highly unlikely. Please
revise the discussion accordingly.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 3Z
. cont.
.
.
. 33
.
. ~'f
.
.
.
. tff}
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tiburon Glen Project RDEIR Comments
July 3, 2003
Page 8
Further, Mitigation 5.8-3 requires turnouts not included in the project roadway.
Meeting this requirement could involve additional grading and tree removal.
This needs to be worked into the project plans reviewed in this ErR. Deferral
"-
of this aspect of the project is inappropriate, given the substantial additional
impacts that could result.
Mitigation 5.8-8 Payment of Fair Share does not assure mitigation. See general comments,
above.
Mitigation 5.8-11 Payment of Fair Share does not assure mitigation. See general comments,
above.
Alternatives See general comment re Alternative 3. Disturbing two development areas for
this alternative turns it into a "straw man" alternative. A 3-1ot development
that disturbed only one of the development sites would more closely achieve
CEQA's goal for alternatives, which is to reduce project impacts as much as
possible.
Also, tree loss for all development alternatives could be double that assumed
in 'the alternatives due to the proposed mitigation. Therefore" alternatives with
less ground disturbance actually reduce tree loss by a proportional factor of 2
compared to those with greater disturbance.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER H- Richard Grassetti
Response to Comment H-1
The commentor states that because there are portions of "Residential Use Area" located outside of the
' "Disturbed Area Limits" on Exhibit 2.2-10, the amount of grading and development could be
understated and thus the hydrology, biology and visual analyses should be revised. Development of
housing units and enclosed accessory structures would be confined to the building envelopes of each
lot. Other alterations (pool, deck, landscaping, etc.) would be confined to the residential use area. The
total amount of residential use area located outside of the designated disturbed area limits is 1.07
acres, the largest portion of which is 0.34 acre on PDP Lot 4.
As shoWn in Exhibits 2.2-10 and 2.2-11, all of the residential use areas located outside the disturbed
area limits are narrow bands of land contiguous to the existing disturbed area limits. Extension of
grading and development of accessory structures in these areas would not introduce new
environmental impacts or significantly increase the level of impact already identified to result from the
defined grading. The commentor concludes the level of impact related to hydrology, biology, and
aesthetics could be worse as a result of the additional grading and development of accessory structures
in these areas. Although it is speculative to assume all 1.07 acres would be disturbed and/or
developed, each of these topics is considered below assuming grading of all additional 1.07 acres:
Hydrology Grading in these areas would not affect site drainageways, site drainage patterns, or
jurisdictional waters because the areas are not within site hydrologic features. The additional grading
would not affect groundwater recharge due to. the limited existing infiltration caused by steep slopes.
Erosion and sedimentation impacts would not increase substantially, and the same mitigation measures
would apply and reduce the impact to a less than significant level. In order to address the effect of
additional impervious surfaces from the development of accessory structures in the residential use
areas, the post-project 100-year peak discharges have been recalculated assuming the entire residential
use area would be converted to impervious surfaces. The resulting increases do not substantially
increase the peak flow rates already analyzed in the RDEIR, and are manageable with the already
proposed mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 5.2-2) (see Response to Comment H-20).
Biology Removal of trees from within the residential use area for either landscaping or accessory
structure development would be subject to the Town's Tree Ordinance, which requires tree
replacement at a 3: 1 ratio. Impacts to oak woodlands are considered significant and unavoidable with
the assumed disturbed area limits. Landscaping and accessory structure development would require
Design Review and permit approvals, and Mitigation Measure 5.2-6, which imposes limitations on the
size of turf lawns, would be imposed as a condition of PDP approval as well as a condition of the
design review approvals for each home. The severity or significance of other biotic impacts addressed
in the RDEIR, such as loss of wildlife habitat or interference with the movement of wildlife would not
be increased by grading or development in these areas because of the immediate proximity of these
areas to the proposed development and defined grading. Impacts to special status plants and
jurisdictional would not be increased by grading or development in these areas because these habitat
types and jurisdictional waters are not within these areas, and thus would not be affected.
Visual All parts of the residential use area in consideration are adjacent to the proposed area of
disturbance. For this reason, assuming that trees are removed from this area, the removal would be
viewed' as an extension of tree removal that is already anticipated to result from the project, and would
not result in substantially greater impacts than already concluded in the RDEIR. The RDEIR
concludes that secondary impacts that would. result from grading for the project represents a
8.4-28
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.p.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS .
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
significant and unavoidable impact. Grading of the additional 1.07 acres would not change the
outcome of the RDEIR visual impact analysis. As stated above, removal of trees from the proposed
residential'use areas would be regulated by the Town's Tree Ordinance.
Response to Comment H~2
The commentor states that the large landslide located on the upper portions of Lots 6 and 7 is
inexplicably smaller in the RDEIR than in previous landslide mapping and that no further geological
studies have been performe9. As described on pages 2.0-10 and 2.0-16, referenced in 5.1 Geology,
Soils, and Seismicity, and discussed in Appendix 7.5, the applicant's geotechnical consultant, Herzog
Geotechnical, performed additional subsurface investigations on December 4, 2002. The intent of
these investigations was to further define the extent of all site landslides, and in particular, those
located on the higher elevations of the site. The landslide on Lot 7 (designated Landslide K) was
found to be located in the vicinity of the drainage swales, not extending further across the site. The
large landslide on Lot 6 and extending to Lot 3 has been designated as Landslides D and E. These
extend over a portion of the site nearly identical to that shown in Exhibit 5.1-1 on page 5.1-7 of the
September 2002 DEIR.
The commentor also states that Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 could increase the amount of grading by
decreasing the slope angle of slopes cut at grades of 2 : 1. Mitigation Measure 5.1-4 states that "cut
slopes shall be examined during construction to determine whether they would be stable in the long-
term. If the geotechnical consultant determines that the exposed bedrock materials are weaker than
expected, this condition shall be mitigated by decreasing the proposed slope angle or by selectively
using retaining walls." The only location on the proposed plans where a 2: I slope is proposed is on
Lot 6 behind (upslope of) the proposed building envelope. The owner of Lot 6 and their geotechnical
consultant and engineer have the option to mechanically stabilize embankments, use retaining walls,
or grade a slope with a decreased slope angle. Use of mechanically stabilized embankments or
retaining walls would confme site alterations to the same (or smaller) area identified in the December
2002 plans. Therefore, use of mechanically stabilized embankments and retaining walls would likely
reduce the amount of grading required. While the extent of disturbance would not be known until
proposed, use of grading to decrease, the slope angle in this location would extend the graded area
further upslope and would require additional excavation of material. This would not represent a
substantial amount of additional grading and would not change the outcome of impact analyses. If
additional retaining walls were to be used to ensure stability of slopes on Lot 6; the resulting retaining
walls would not result in impacts that would be substantially different than what would result from
construction of a home and other planned improvements assumed in the EIR analysis. Therefore, as
stated in the RDEIR, "The net direct and indirect effects of this measure would not differ substantially
from the impacts described in the EIR."
Finally, the commentor states that additional landslide stabilization which may occur when houses are
developed would also result in unanticipated grading. The commentor makes reference to Exhibit 2.2-
16, which was intended to read: "May include additional slope stabilization." All landslide
stabilization would be completed by the applicant as part of the subdivision improvements (not
deferred until home construction), as required by the Town's Landslide Repair Policy. The conceptual
building footprints and retaining walls depicted on the project plans illustrate a feasible landslide and
slope stabilization method for development of a housing unit within each building envelope. The
additional grading for stabilization of the building envelope that would be undertaken by individual lot
owners would solely relate to slope stabilization within the immediate vicinity of their building
footprint. It may be different from that shown on the PDP due to a building design which is not likely
to be identical to the PDP's conceptual building footprints. ' This grading would not represent
significant undefined grading or clearing in that a project entailing the necessary grading for lot
8.4-29
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
development has been assessed in the EIR. ' Repair of Landslides A-K identified by the EIR
consultant, Town's geotechnical consultant, and the applicant's geotechnical consultant would be fully
implemented by the applicant and would be required to satisfy the Town's landslide repair policy.
Individual lot owners would not be required to undertake additional grading forlandslide repair.
Response to Comment H-3
The commentor states that Mitigation Measure 5.8-11 (page 5.8-16) does not assure mitigation of
potential impacts relating to inadequate sewer treatment capacity. However, as stated in Mitigation
Measure 5.8-11, "the Town's issuance of development permits shall be contingent upon the
applicant's receipt of an 'ability to serve' letter from the District." The Sanitary District has indicated
that no new connections would occur if adequate capacity is not available.
The Sanitary District is currently considering a proposal to. improve sewer service to the Paradise
Cove area which would involve conversion of the Paradise Cove treatment plant to a pump station to
pump effluent up-hill through a new over-land pipeline traveling south to existing lines on Gilmartin
Drive. The existing lines would convey the effluent to the main treatment plant.]
The commentor also states that no analysis of the impacts of the sewer line extension or other system
improvement is provided in the EIR. The Tiburon Glen project does not include a sewer line or other
improvements and the project would not cause any improvements to District facilities. The District is
considering an improvement plan to be implemented by a group of private property owners in the
Paradise Drive area. This plan will require environmental review which will address the physical
impacts associated with the improvements. The District decided to improve the sewer treatment
facilities on Paradise Drive before and independent of the Tiburon Glen proposal; the District has been
considering these improvements since at least 1994 and will undertake an improvement program
whether or not the Tiburon Glen project is approved.
Response to Comment H-4
The commentor states the RDEIR fails to address growth inducing impacts which would result from
the possible sewer line extension to the SD#5 Main Treatment Plant. As stated above in Response to
Comment H-3, the sewer system improvements would not be a result of the Tiburon Glen project A
facilities improvement plan that would be implemented by a group of private property owners in the
Paradise Drive area is being . considered by the Sanitary District. This plan would require
environmental review which would address impacts associated with the expansion, including growth
inducing impacts. The District decided to improve the sewer treatment facilities on Paradise Drive
before and independent of the Tiburon Glen proposal; the District has been considering these
improvements since at least 1994, and will undertake an improvement program whether or not the
Tiburon Glen project is approved.
Response to Comment H-5
Please see Master Response 8.3- L
Nichols Berman conversation with David Coe, Genera] Manager, Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin County, Ju]y ] 0,
2003 (consu]tant to SD #5), and Henrik O]sgaard, Acting Manager, Sanitary District # 5, August 7, 2003. '
84-30
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment H-6
The commentor states that proposed cumulative development will significantly change the nature of
views of the area and should be shown in a photo simulation. Cumulative development is discussed
under impact 5.4-6, which discusses the location of the cumulative development proposals in relation
to one another. Exhibit 5.4-13 shows the site and its environs from the ferry, and includes a portion of
the Sorroko site in the lower right-hand corner. Due to the considerable distance between the other
two development proposals (parente and Martha Company), inclusion of all four cumulative
development proposals on one photosimulation would not be feasible. Further, this distance precludes
a mutual contribution of cumulative visual impacts. Finally, the presence of permanent open space,
the limitations on future development due to site constraints, and the Town's low-density development
requirements would prevent the suburban development envisioned by the commentot'.
Blockage of views by development on Lots 7 and 8 is discussed on page 4.0-8 (Policy OSC-3).
Response to Comment H-7
Please refer to Response to Comment C-I.
Response to Comment H-B
The commentor argues that implementation of mitigation measures that involve long-term
maintenance by future lot owners or a Home Owners Association (BOA) cannot be assured and a
Town-hired monitor should be funded by the applicant. CEQA 15126.4(a)(2) states that measures
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agi-eements, or other legally binding instruments.
Mitigation Measures in the RDEIR require the establishment of a HOA, creation of a maintenance
plan, and establishment of funding responsibilities in order to assure maintenance of roadways,
culverts/storm drains, and other infrastructure. These same requirements would be incorporated into
the individual lot's Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Further, implementation of the
Mitigation Measures would be a condition of development permit approvals, which the Town would
monitor and enforce through a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. HOAs and CC&Rs are a
well-established means of enforcing the maintenance of long-term mitigation measures. To ensure
enforcement, the Town requires that the CC&Rs and all joint maintenance agreements contain several
clauses that authorize the Town to enforce the mitigation provisions of those documents if the owners
fail to implement them. The documents would provide that the Town could, among other remedies,
have the necessary work performed and place liens on the property tax bills of the affected lot owners.
Such enforcement provisions are standard in all CC&Rs containing project mitigations. Those
mitigation measures that rely on CC&Rs or joint agreements will be incorporated as conditions of
project approval; the CC&Rs will act as a notification system for individual lot owners as to their
responsibility and will reference the Town's conditions of approval and Town enforcement
mechanisms. This approach establishes both the Town of Tiburon and property owners in the
subdivision, either individually or collectively, as capable enforcers of the mitigation measures.
Further, the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department will be responsible for
overseeing implementation and administration of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (the
MMRP) for the Tiburon Glen residential development.
The Community Development Director will designate a staff member, to manage the MMRP. If
current staffing in the Community Development Department cannot absorb the task of managing the
MMRP, an independent contractor will be hired at the expense of the project applicant. The
8.4-31
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
independent contractor would serve under the direction of the Community Development Director or
designated staff member. Duties of the staff member responsible for program coordination, whether a
permanent Town staff member or independent contractor, would include the following:
. . Conduct routine inspections, plan checking, and reporting activities.
· Serve as liaison between the Town and project applicant regarding mitigation monitoring issues.
· Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the project applicant when such expertise and
qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures.
· Coordinate with other Town personnel and agencies having mitigation monitoring
responsibilities.
· Assure follow-up and response to citizens' complaints.
· Complete forms, checklists, and other documentation provided by the Town for reporting.
Maintain reports and other records and documents generated by the MMRP.
· Coordinate and assure corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary.
The MMRP will be incorporated as a condition of project approval. Therefore, the applicant and
subsequent owners must comply with all mitigation measures in order to' fulfill the requirements of the
approval. The Town would implement a number of the mitigation measures during the course of the
development review process. ,These measures will be checked in plans, in reports, and in the field
before granting construction-related permits (that is, grading, building, and occupancy permits). If
compliance is not found, these permits would not be granted. Most of the remaining mitigation
measures would be implemented during the construction or project implementation phase. If work is
performed in violation of mitigation measures, the Town would issue stop work orders.
The Town would implement other mitigation measures over time to ensure long-term compliance.
These mitigation measures involve the success of wetland habitat and woodland enhancement. Public
agencies have the authority to levy charges, fees, or assessments to pay for the program, just as they
currently do for the preparation of environmental documents under CEQA. For the Tiburon Glen
project, the project applicant would be responsible for the costs of mitigation monitoring.
Response to Comment H-9
The cornmentor states that the EIR should analyze an additional alternative that includes only three
lots in Development Area No.1. In response to this and other comments, this Response to Comments
document includes such an alternative. Please see Master Response 8.3-2.
Response to Comment H-10
The commentor states the parking area located in the Paradise Drive ROW may be considered
infeasible by the County. In Appendix 7.9 of the RDEIR Art Brook, Marin County Department of
Public Works Transportation Engineer, discusses the procedures by which the ROW would be
annexed by the To\Vl1' This letter gives no indication that this procedure would be infeasible. Further,
as discussed in Response to Comment D-l, use of the Paradise Drive ROW for project parking is
proposed by the applicant but it is not necessary for project feasibility. Removal of the parking area
would not result in any environmental impacts, and would reduce some visual impacts.
8.4-32
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
',--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Response to Comment H-11
The commentor requests that the EIR's project description include additional information regarding
the extent of accessory structures. However, the Town will not have details about building design and
accessory structures until future lot owners submit applications to the Town. Exhibit 2.2-5
summarizes the proposed maximum allowable housing unit and accessory structure square footage for
each lot. Each lot's proposed total development square footage is based on the "Table of Floor Area
Ratio Guidelines," of the Tiburon Town Code, which determines the maximum combined floor area
for housing units and accessory structures based on lot size.
As indicated on page 2.0-8 of the RDEIR, maximum floor area of "future housing units would range
from 5,960 square feet (Lot 4) to 7,000 square feet (Lots 1-3 and 6-7), as shown in Exhibit 2.2-5. Up
to another 1,750 square feet could be built in accessory structures on Lots 1-3 and 6-7 for a maximum
total floor area of 8,750 square feet of development per lot on those five lots. On Lots 4, 5, and 8, the
maximum floor area of all development (both the housing unit and any accessory structures) would be
5,960 square feet (Lot 4), 6,690 square feet (Lot 5), and 6,295 square feet (Lot 8)." Accessory
structures and other improvements that the applicant proposes to be allowed within proposed
residential use areas are listed on page 2.0-7 of the RDEIR and include cabanas, pools, decks,
detached garages, guest houses, work or storage sheds, etc. The Town's floor area ratio guidelines,
described above, would limit the size of enclosed accessory structures. All development would be
confined to the individual lot' s residential use area, while all enclosed structures would be confined to
the building envelopes. The Design Review process would determine the extent of permitted
accessory structures.
Response to Comment H-12
The commentor complains that impact 5.3-8 does not address the loss of nesting opportUnities in the
future for raptors because of the loss of trees. The commentor is directed to Impact 5.3-3 (Loss of
Habitat for Special Status Animals) and to Impact 5.3-7 (Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife). As
noted in Impact 5.3-3, the RDEIR concluded that the relatively small loss of habitat for whlte-tailed
kite and Cooper's hawk would result in a less-than-significant impact. The RDEIR also concluded
under Impact 5.3-7 that the project would not, result in a significant impact to habitats for native
wildlife (e.g., non-special-status raptors such as the red-tailed hawk). Thus, the RDEIR has addressed
impacts to raptor habitat and concluded that the project would not result in a significant loss of
potential nesting habitat. As discussed in Master Response 8.3-1, Mitigation Measure 5.3-4 would not
result in the loss of 10 acres of site woodlands, and the mitigation measure would allow for woodland
habitat enhancement to take place off-site.
Response to Comment H-13
As discussed in response to Comment H-Il, future development by individual lot owners would be
limited to the floor area permitted by the Town's Floor Area Ratio Guidelines or as specified in the
approved Precise Development Plan. Reductions in building height resulting from Mitigation.
Measure 5.4-1 would not permit the proposed structures to exceed these maximums, and therefore the
mitigation measure in combination with the Floor Area Ratio Guidelines and the discretionary design
review process would serve to limit the size of the buildings.
Response to Comment H-14
The commentor questions whether fuel load reduction requirements for reduced fire hazard have not
been incorporated into the visual analysis and visual simulations. According to the Tiburon Fire
Protection District's Fuel Modification Matrix provided in Appendix 7.8 of the RDEIR, within the
8.4-33
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
vicinity of 0-30 feet from a structure, hardwoods, brush and chaparral type vegetation, which typify
the proposed residential use areas, are required to be thinned according to the following standards:
.
"Hardwood: Raise tree crowns to 10 feet above ground. Remove all deadwood and
pyrophytes within 10 feet of dripline.
Brush and Chaparral: Remove all deadwood. Thin all brush so that each bush is separated by
a distance of no less than 2 times its height. Remove pyrophytes."
Compliance with these standards would require pruning and thinning of trees and brush, removal of
deadwood, and removal of pyrophytic trees (such as pine and eucalyptus, of which there are few on
the project site). In addition, it is estimated that provision of a 10-foot fire break along roads, as
required by the TFPD, would result in the removal of an additional five trees (please see Response to
Coinment L-I 0). This would not result in a significant visual impact.
Response to Comment H-15
The commentor states that the analysis of the project's conformance with the Town General Plan
unjustifiably assumes the project would be consistent with RPD zone requirements and Site Plan and
Architectural Review requirements. Please see Response to Comments 0-6 and V -19. A potential
inconsistency of the proposed project with a Town policy would not, in and of itself, constitute a
significant impact on the environment. Rather, the Town uses these policies as sources of criteria for
determining the significance or lack of significance of the environmental effects identified in the
various impact discussions in the EIR. Ultimately, Town of Tiburon planning staff and the Planning
Commission will make recommendations to the Town Council regarding the consistency of the
proposed PDP with the General Plan and the site's suitability for the proposed use.. All potential
significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including those for which criteria for
significance were based on policies or standards of the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
are addressed and mitigated to the extent feasible in their respective sections of the EIR. As for the
homes ultimately constructed, the Town will require Design Review approval before issuing a
building permit. This process will ensure that individual homes conform to the approved PDP as well
as the Town's Site Plan and Architectural Review criteria.
Response to Comment H-16
The commentor states that the analysis Goal SE-A incorrectly assumes the project would conform
with the Town's landslide repair policy. As described on pages 2.0-10 and 2.0-16of the project
descriptio.n, in 5.1 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, and in Appendix 7.5, the Town's geotechnical
consultant, Miller Pacific Engineering Group, reviewed the landslide repair plan included in the
December 2002 project plans and found the plan to be consistent with the Town's landslide repair
policy.
Response to Comment H-17
The PDP does not propose gated access. Further, this comment does not address the adequacy of the
RDEIR, but rather specifies the desire for gated access to be prohibited if the project is approved. If a
gate is proposed, the owner of the property where the gate is proposed would be required to obtain a
permit.
8.4-34
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Response to Comment H-18
The commentor states 10,000 cubic yards should be the threshold for "mass grading" because "[u]nder
this threshold, the project's gross grading (cut and fill) of approximately 26,500 cubic yards would be
significant." Based on the professional experience of the EIR geotechnical consultant, Snyder &
Smith Associates, the level of 100,000 cubic yards is an accurate threshold for indicating when the
effects of grading-related secondary impacts resulting from grading operations become unacceptable.
Thus, 100,000 cubic yards or more of grading constitutes "mass grading" and would result in a
significant impact.
This has been the standard applied to other projects in the Town because "mass grading" in excess of
100,000 cubic yards of material involves amounts that the Town considers inconsistent with the Town
of Tiburon General Plan. In our opinion, 10,000 cubic yards is an unreasonable threshold for "mass
grading." In many circumstances, 1,000 cubic yards is less than the size of excavations required for
each footing for a building. Because each building would require the use of several footings, limiting
grading to less than 10,000 cubic yards would make it difficult to create safe building sites without
compromising stability. It should be noted that the RDEIR identifies significant and unavoidable
secondary impacts related to grading that result from the area of disturbance, not the volume, of
grading (impacts to site woodlands and visual impacts). The secondary effects associated with
grading are summarized under Impact 5.1-3 and discussed in greater detail in chapters 5.2 and 5.3.
Response to Comment H-19
See Response to Comment H-2.
Response to Comment H-20
The commentor asks what runoff coefficients were used in calculating peak discharges and level of
development within the "Residential Use Areas." Peak flow rates are discussed on pages 5.2-5
through 5.2-7 of the RDEIR. On page 5.2-5 the RDEIR states the peak discharges were computed
using the USGS formulation of the Rational Method (Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of
Storm-Drainage Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, S.E. Rantz, U.S. Geological
Survey, Open-File Report, 1971.) The level of development depicted on the December 2002 plans
was used to determine the extent of impervious surfaces. As stated on pages 5.2-5 and 5.2-6, "site
impervious surface areas were assumed to include 100 percent of the designated building envelope for
each lot identified in Exhibit 2.2-4 (Summary of Project Characteristics), as well as roadways...
[which] would result in an approximate total of 1.6 acres of impervious area on lots and another 0.5
acre of paved on-site roadway."
Accessory structures and other improvements that could increase the level of impervious surfaces on
site (pools, decks, patios, etc.) could be proposed anywhere within the designated residential use areas.
In order to assess the impact the additional impervious surfaces could have on peak flow rates, the
post-project 100-year peak discharges have been recalculated assuming the entire residential use area
would be converted to impervious surfaces. These calculations, provided below, include all site
roadways and all residential use areas (which include the building envelopes).
8.4-35
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
EXHIBIT 8.4-1
POST-PROJECT 100 YEAR PEAK DISCHARGE FOR SITE WA TERSHEDS
, WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE AREA
Runoff Coefficient for Peak Flow Rate Percent Chanae in Peak Flow Rate
Watershed Without RUA With RUA Without RUA With RUA
A 0.43 0.45 +19.0 +25.0
B 0.42 0.43 +2.4 +4.0
C 0.43 0.46 +8.3 +15.0
D 0.40 0.43 -3.5 +4.0
E,F No change
Under this worst-case scenario, assuming that the entire residential use area would be converted to
. impervious surface, the only watershed that shows a notable increase in peak flows on a percentage
basis is Watershed A (25 percent increase). The increases shown in this table can be mitigated to less-
than-significant levels with the mitigation measure identified in the RDEIR (Mitigation Measure 5.2-
2), which includes culvert upgrading where required and implementation of channel stabilization
along the channel reaches downstream of the project site. It should be noted that it is unlikely that full
impervious coverage of these areas would occur.
The commentor asks what level of tree mitigation was assumed in calculating peak discharges. Peak
flow computations treated the potential-mitigation areas of the site as natural watershed. Reduced tree
canopy would not change the function of the hillside as a natural watershed and thus would result in
the same runoff coefficient calculation. Reduced tree canopy may cause minor variations in runoff
rates, but this would most likely be reduced runoff due to increased ,groundwater infiltration. Thus
implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) would not increase the peak flow rates from the site.
Response to Comment H-21
The commentor states that the adequacy of the Paradise Drive culverts should be determined at this
stage in the development review process. The final design of the project, and therefore resulting peak
flow impacts, would not be known until the project or an alternative is approved by the Town. The
precise effect of development on the Tiburon Glen site on the Paradise Drive culverts would not be
known until approval because the number and configuration of units and level of development in the
Residential Use Areas would affect the peak flow rates resulting from site development. Mitigation
Measure 5.2-2 outlines the requirements and includes performance standards for replacing any
Paradise Drive culverts that are inadequate to convey the projected post-project peak flows without
roadway flooding. The Town Engineer would be responsible for ensuring that the applicant's civil
engineer provides adequate technical documentation in support of the development's final design for
drainage improvements. Implementation of this measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Response to Comment H-22
The commentor asks how the proposed catchments would be cleaned. The catchments (i.e. catch
basins) along Paradise Drive would be cleared on an annual basis by the County of Marin, as part of
their normal maintenance activities. Elsewhere on the project site, the property owners would be
responsible for clearing/cleaning and maintaining storm drain catch basins. Mitigation Measure 5.2-2
recommends the installation of debris/trash racks at the inlets to all storm drains/culverts. These racks
would catch debris that would otherwise plug the culvert inlets and produce nuisance flooding in the
vicinity of the structures.
8.4-36
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Response to Comment H-23
The commentor states that the EIR should provide a revised erosion control plan. The EIR hydrologist
concurs that the erosion control plans must be in-place in order to protect against water quality
problems. However, this level of project detail is not typically known until the final project design
phase. Any erosion control plan for the project would have to be submitted to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board for review as part 6fthe NPDES General Permit application.
Response to Comment H-24
Please see Response to Comment H - L
Response to Comment H-25
The commentor asks for chirification of the health of the site's woodlands with regard to SODS
infection. Please refer to Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment H-26
The commentor states that discussion of the on-site spring has been omitted. The RDEIR does discuss
the spring, however, the text does not mention that the seasonal drainage channel located in the
northwest corner of the site on Lot 1 flows from the spring. The text on page 5.3-8 has been revised to
include discussion of the spring. Please refer to section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in this Final EIR
Response to Comments document for revisions made to the Revised Draft EIR.
Response to Comment H-27
The commentor states that the potential for Mitigation Measure 5.3-2 to be unsuccessful indicates it
should be considered significant and unavoidable. As stated on page 5.3-28, this mitigation strategy is
often unsuccessful for large-scale replacement efforts, but in this case given the relatively small size
and temporary nature of the impact, the mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than.,.
significant level.
Response to Comment H-28
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment H-29
The commentor states that the visual impact analysis should be revised to reflect the effects of
additional tree removal for implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4 as well as within the
Residential Use Area and outside the Disturbed Area Limit. As discussed in Master Response 8.3-1,
five acres of tree removal for replanting is not proposed by Mitigation Measure 5.3-4. As discussed in
response to H-l, grading or tree removal within the Residential Use Areas and outside the Disturbed
Area Limit would not result in new significant visual impacts or change the significance of the impacts
identified in the RDEIR.
Response to Comment H-30
In response to this comment, the fInal (lIth) bullet item of Mitigation Measure 5.6-1(a) has been
revised. Please refer to section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in this Final EIR Response to Comments
document for revisions made to the Revised Draft EIR.
8.4.37
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment H-31
Please see Response to Comment H-8.
Response to Comment H-32
Please see Response to Comment C-l.
Assuming the required turn-outs are located entirely outside of the existing disturbed area limit lines,
provision of three turn-outs could result in additional 1,350 square feet (0.03 acre) of grading. This
would not cause substantial additional impacts. Based on the site average of 100 trees per acre, this
could result in the removal of three additional trees. This additional grading would not increase the
severity of secondary impacts resulting from grading activities as addressed in the RDEIR.
Response to Comment H-33
The commentor states the payment of a fair share contribution to the MMWD does not assure
mitigation of impacts related to inadequate existing water storage capacity. The project would
represent a cumulative contribution to this existing impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15130 (a)(3)
state: "A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to
implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the
cumulative impact." The MMWD has identified the Mt. Tiburon water tank to have inadequate water
storage capacity due to cumulative development within the tank's service area. The District is
planning to upgrade the water storage facilities in this location and is currently collecting fees to fund
this process. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that improvements to the facilities will take place in
the future. CEQA case law provides that mitigation must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts
cause by a project; as such, requiring the applicant to mitigate the existing cumulative impact would
be unjustified. '
Response to Comment H-34
Please see Response to Comment H-3.
Response to Comment H-35
Please see Master Response 8.3-2.
8.4-38
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sandra Jewel Swanson
. ~ng Department
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Fax: 435-2438 ,
e-mail: ccashman@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Copies: Jayni Allsep, Planner
Scott Anderson, Planning Director.
-
I
RECEIVED
JUL 7 2003
July 7, 2003
SUBJECT: RDEIR TIBURON GLEN
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Planners,
I bring to your attention several health and safety issues regarding
this project, with the sincere wish that, because of the many significant
unavoidable impacts of this project which cannot be reduced with the
proposed mitigations, you will seriously consider a much-diminished
project at the July 14 hearing.
EXHIBIT 5.5-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (wait time at the
signalized Trestle Glen/Tiburon Boulevard intersection.)
t
Note: The RDEIR does not cite a source for 5.5-5 data.
The DEIR states that the peak AM wait at the stoplight at Trestle
Glen/Tiburon Boulevard is 27.4 seconds and the peak PM wait is 14.1
seconds. The data predicts that once all projected houses have been built
along Paradise Drive, the peak PM wait will double, rising to 30.7 seconds,
which is Level of Service C (LOS C) and the peak AM rate will rise to 58.3
seconds (LOS E) an "unacceptable leve1." Peak AM is cited as 8:00 - 9:00.
Peak PM is 5:00 - 6:00.
The Tiburon General Plan Circulation Element states that peak
LOS shall not deteriorate below LOS C.
Implementing the mitigation suggested; adding a second westbound
, Tiburon Boulevard through lane; and extending the new through lane as
far east toward Stewart Drive as possible, is cited as improving AM peak
hour operation from Level E to Level D. The mitigation suggests that
the applicant pay a pro-rata share toward the suggested roadway
improvement above. This mitigation would not meet the Town Plan's
standard. This mitigation would not improve the Level of Service but,
rather, further erode the Town standard.
. f
tovrt.
2
Impact 5.5-2 Cumulative-plus-Project Impacts on Study Intersections
further states that the unacceptable LOS E is a potentially significant
impact. Again, this unavoidable impact cannot be reduced with the
proposed mitigations.
In the experience of those who live along Paradise Drive, this
intersection already operates at LOS F; already "unacceptable."
. We created a questionnaire for residents along Paradise Drive,
Hacienda, Stewart Drive, and Trestle Glen to respond to. (Attached.) On
June 17, the questionnaire went out to about 75 households. HaAs
handed them out to their residents. A copy is enclosed. We asked
homeowners to take note of how long the wait at the Tiburon
Boulevard/Trestle Glen stoplight is, both going to and from Trestle Glen.
Additionally, we asked our residents what, in their experience, the
Peak AM and Peak PM hours were, if different from the DEIR.
At this writing, 37 homeowners have responded to the
questionnaire, plus the Upper Trestle Glen HOA, who polled their
residents.
The residents unanimously reported that, in their experience, the
DEIR data is inaccurate. They reported AM waits to turn left from Trestle
Glen to Tiburon Boulevard @ between 1:45 (one minute forty-five seconds) ,
and 3:03 (three minutes and three seconds.) They reported peak PM waits
to turn left from Tiburon Boulevard to Trestle Glen between 1:35 (one
minute thirty five seconds) and 5:30 (five minutes and thirty seconds.)
Even using the low end figures (1:45 and 1:35), these waits are
defined as Level F according to RDEIR EXHIBIT 7.7-1.
Respondents stated that, in their experience, peak traffic is 7:30 - 9:30
AM and 5:00 - 6:30 p.m. And that the lunch hour traffic (12:00 -1:30 PM) is
often heavy with construction and service pickup trucks exiting Tiburon.
And that the 3:00 - 4:00 traffic, representing school pick-up time and
construction and service truck leaving time, is often as heavy as the 5:00-
6:30 time frame. A few respondents wished to call to attention the 10:00
AM - 11:00 AM time frame and some felt that the heaviest traffic was
between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM.
No doubt the answers reflect the individual time of usage of the
intersection for the respondents. All respondents use this intersection on a
daily basis. All residents who responded are unanimous in their
skepticism of the RDEIR wait statistics.
Should the RDEIR prediction of wait times' doubling be correct, wait times
would double from 1:45 to 3:25 and from 1:35 to 3:05 on the low end of the
current scale, representing LOS F, in contradiction to the Town Plan, a
significant unavoidable impact that cannot be reduced with the
proposed mitigations.
.
.
:.
:.
t.
.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
APPENDIX 7.7;'2 EXISTING VEHICLE, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN
VOLUMES SA TURDA Y PEAK HOUR OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
The appendix shows 92 vehicles, 33 bicycles, and eight pedestrians
sharing the roadway, the "results of Saturday peak hour counts
determined through a four-hour long traffic count (1:30- 5:30 PM.)"
Mr. Robert F. Benbow et al. carried out a five-hour long traffic count
(9:00 AM and 2:00 PM) on Saturday, June 21, in the same location. He
counted a total of 400 vehicles, 386 bicycles, and 12 pedestrians. This
report will be forwarded to you by Mr. Benbow.
The RDEIR states that "the Saturday peak traffic hour was found to
occur between 4:00 and 5:00 PM." Mr. Benbow did not count during that
time. His peak time Saturday bicycle count (10-11:00 AM) showed 101
bicycles. Peak vehicle time (1-2:00 PM) showed 107 vehicles.
This data demonstrates hourly bicycle traffic as much as 300%
greater than stated in the RDEIR and vehicle trips more than 400% greater
than stated in the RDEIR. These levels are also inconsistent with the
Town Plan: unacceptable; and cannot be reduced by the proposed
mitigations.
The RDEIR also states that "In the vicinity of the site, project
cumulative traffic volume increases create a hazard for bicycle riders or
(and) pedestrians." .
4
EXHIBIT 5.5-7 TRIP GENERATION:
Based on a 1997 study, this exhibit shows that each new house built
at Tiburon Glen would generate 9.57 new traffic trips per day. And that '
ten two-way trips would be added to the Trestle Glen/Tiburon Boulevard
intersection from the entire project. In other words, of the 16 people (or
more) who wil1live in the eight massive homes at Tiburon Glen, only ten
would go out to Tiburon Boulevard on a daily basis.
Again, our 2003 experience is different. For weekday traffic,
mothers with school age children reported that they -- alone -- make
twelve or more daily weekday trips through the Trestle Glen/Tiburon
Boulevard intersection. An average school day is said to be:
AM: Take husband to ferry/return (for some)
Take child/ children to school! return.
Run errands and'do activities (exercise, meetings, etc.) / return
(often 2x, again in the afternoon.), '
PM: Pick up children from school/return (sometimes 2x)
Take child/ children to after school activities/ return.
Pick up child/ children from activities/ return (often 2x)
These trips do not take into account trips taken by other family
members nor trips generated by: gardeners, lawn services, window-
cleaning services, household help, pool and tennis court services, repair
4-
({)'Tt.
and installation services, interior designers and painters and upholsterers,
roofers, structural service people, dry cleaners, pest control services, UPS,
FedEx and other delivery services, caterers, friends and relatives, etc.
To limit a huge Tiburon home with high upkeep to ten two-way
trips a day is in no way realistic.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;.
..
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
Ie
.
.
:.
:e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IMPACT 5.5-5 Project Impact on Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular
Safety n Paradise Drive
Footnote 19 states that "the accident rate for Paradise Drive... is
below the state-wide average for conventional tow (sic: two) lane roads ..."
:5
Accidents along Paradise Drive: Here is an analysis of the 97 accidents
that were reported to the California Highway Patrol 1992- 2002:
Number of Sunday accidents where people died: 2
Number of Sunday accidents where the people who died were bicyclists
(both male): 2
Number of injury accidents: 45
Total # of the 45 injury accidents involving bicycles: 12 (26.6%, better than
1 in 4)
Total # of people injured in the 45 accidents: 60 ,
Number of vehicle on wrong side of road accidents involving head-on
collisions, side-swipes, and broadsides: 24%
Four of the more serious, reported accidents were at Seafirth Road
and Paradise Drive.
It is clear that the nature of Paradise Drive produces bicycle
accidents and head-on collisions and the ensuing injuries. The RDEIR
states "the project's effect would constitute a cumulative impact (on
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety) '" significant when combined
with other conditions (nature of the road)."
Again, the proposed mitigations would not reduce the significant
unavoidable impact.
5.5-6: CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACTS
G
Asbestos: The RDEIR states that asbestos is released from serpentine rock
when it is broken or crushed and that this can happen when land is graded
for building purposes and that asbestos is present in amounts ranging to
25 percent and more. And that once released from the rock, asbestos can
become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods.
As this property has much serpentine rock, this is a concern for us
and the RDEIR states that this could be "significant." There are two pages
citing possible mitigation to be carried out by the developer for the
problem of airborne asbestos. However, how enforceable is the
mitigation? There are 29 specific, necessary mitigations cited.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
~
'1
Who will be responsible for oversight? Who will pay for the
oversight? Who Will assure that, among the mitigations required, grading
does not take place on windy days; water is applied three times daily;
water sweepers are also used daily on "all paved access roads, parking
areas, staging areas, and nearby streets," etc.?
Truck trips:
The RDEIR states that, initially, the applicant will be exporting
grading material at a rate of 38 two-way truck trips. Then the export
volume would spike to an estimated 1108 truck trips along Paradise Drive.
Additionally, it is stated that 8-12 workers could be on a single
residential lot in a given day, or 96 workers for the eight houses proposed,
adding, potentially, another 192 vehicle trips along Paradise Drive per day
for the workers, for around 12 months per house. In addition to the
workers' vehicles, there would be vehicles that include "bulldozers, cement
mixers, construction trailers, cranes, and material delivery trucks."
The trucks and heavy equipment vent their exhaust overhead. The
exhaust falls into Seafirth and stays there until there is sufficient wind to
blow it away.
The trucks and heavy equipment are so tall that they scrape our
trees, hard, and that noise, mixed with their loud, rumbling engines, and
their heavy load bouncing on the roadway, forces us to close all windows
and doors. The windows reverberate from the impact of the bouncing.
The larger and heavier the vehicle, the more bouncing, the more noise.
Paying mitigation funds to the Town by the developer does not
improve the situation. Nowhere in the RDEIR are the pollution and noise
from the trucks addressed. Twelve-wheeler trucking on this order of
magnitude does not meet the Paradise Drive Visioning goal of "preserving
the rural character of Paradise Drive."
I trust that you will be sensitive to the residents whom you
represent. Thanks very much.
, Sincerely,
~
';
Two Seafirth Lane Tiburon, CA 94920
TEL: 415-435-9565 FAX: 435-0954
e-mail: Sswan200@aol.com
June 17, 2003
RE: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for development
proposed along Paradise Drive.
Dear neighbor, ,
The DEIR data states that the peak AM wait at the stoplight at
Trestle Glen/Tiburon Boulevard is 27.4 seconds. And that the peak PM
wait is 14.1 seconds. The data predicts that once all projected houses have
been built along Paradise Drive, the peak PM wait will double, rising to
30.7 seconds and the peak AM rate will rise to 58.3 seconds. Peak AM is
cited as 8:00 - 9:00. Peak PM is 5:00 - 6:00.
At 1:50 on Thursday afternoon 6/12, non peak time, I waited one
minute and eight seconds (1.08 minutes) to turn right (on red) from Trestle
Glen onto Tiburon Boulevard. The cars waiting to turn left were still at the
light. Returning at 3:00 p.m., I was 12th in a stack of 16 cars that stretched
past Belveron. OnI y nine made the light. I waited through two lights, 4.09
minutes to turn from Tiburon Boulevard onto Trestle Glen.
I am interested in your personal experience at this intersection. I am
doing the traffic report for the Tiburon Glen DEIR analysis, focusing on
consistency with the Tiburon General Plan and the Paradise Drive
Visioning Plan.
It would be unfortunate if the new development projects were based '
on inaccurate information, and that waiting times might actually double. I
would greatly appreciate your input. None of your names will be used, I
am only preparing numbers. Please copy and return this, with as much
datal as many comments as you wish to share. Thanks very much.
1. In your experience, does the stoplight wait data above seem correct? (If
yes, ignore the other questions and return this.)
2. What would you say is the longest wait you have experienced when
turning left onto Tiburon Boulevard from Trestle Glen? Time of day?
3. What would you say is the longest wait you have experienced when
turning right onto Tiburon Boulevard from Trestle Glen? Time of day?
4. What would you say is the longest wait you have experienced when
turning left from Tiburon Boulevard onto Trestle Glen? Time of day?
5. In your experience, when is "peak" traffic at the intersection?
SandraJ.Swanson
2 Seafirth Lane
415-435-9565
Fax: 415-435-0954
.
.
.
i.
.
.
'.
.
Ie
i.
Ie
.
.
,t
'.
.
.
:.
..
I
.
.
..
:.
'.
!.
.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RECEIVED
JUL 1 4 2003
AlIfAch"""t +0
rraM :r
~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Sandra Jewel Swanson
July 12, 2003
Planning Department
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA94920'
Fax: 435-2438
e-mail: ccashman@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Copies: Jayni Allsep, Planner
Scott Anderson, Planning Director.
LATE MAIL # I
SVBJECT: RDEIR TIBURON GLEN
Dear Planners,
I am resubmitting here the letter that I hand-delivered to Town
Hall on July 7, 2003. I would very much like the EIR consultants to
advise how they have responded to the questions raised in the
RDEIR, or, if they have not responded, to please do so now. Thanks
very much.
July 7, 2003
SUBJECT: RDEIR TIBURON GLEN
Dear Planners,
I bring to your attention several health and safety issues regarding
this project, with the sincere wish that, because of the many significant
unavoidable impacts of this project which cannot be reduced with the
proposed mitigations, you will seriously consider a much-diminished
project at the July 14 hearing.
EXHIBIT 5.5-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (wait time at the
signalized Trestle Glen/fiburon Boulevard intersection.)
Note: The RDEIR does not cite a source for 5.5-5 data.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER 1- Sandra Jewel Swanson
Response to Comment 1-1
The commentor states that the RDEIR does not cite a source for the data in Exhibit 5.5-5. Exhibit 5.5-
5 cites Crane Transportation Group and the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Operations Methodology.
The commentor also states that the provision of an additional westbound through lane would improve
the AM peak hour operation to LOS D only, and that cumulative conditions would be at LOS E, both
of which are not consistent with the Town's requirement of LOS C.
This comment is incorrect. The mitigation would improve intersection operation to LOS B, acceptable
level, not LOS D, as shown in Exhibit 5.5-5 (reproduced below) and stated on page 5.5-14 (under
"Significance after Mitigation").
EXHIBIT 5.5-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Existing Existing-Plus- Cumulative Cumulative-Plus-
Project without Project Project
AM Peak Hour Level of Service
Paradise Drive / N/A A-9.2 a N/A A-9.3
Roadway A-B
Paradise / Trestle B-IO.2/ A-7.2 b B-IO.3/ A-7.2 B-I1.3/ A-7.2 B-I1.4/ A-7.2 I
G]en Boulevard I
Trestle Glen / C-27.4 c C-27.8 E-57.5 E-58.3
Tiburon Boulevard B-16.43 d B-16.6 d
PM Peak Hour Level of Service
Paradise Drive / N/A A-9.3 a N/A A-9.4
Roadway A-B
Paradise / Trestle B-1O.8/ A-7.2 b I B-IO.9 / A-7.2 B-13.3/ A-7.2 B-13.2 / A-7.2
Glen Boulevard
Trestle Glen / B-14.1 c B-l4.4 C-30.0 C-30.7
Tiburon Boulevard
Source: Crane Transportation Group and 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Operations Methodo]ogy
a Side street stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds). Northbound Paradise Drive
approach.
b Side street stop sign controlled level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds). Northbound Paradise Drive left turn /
westbound Trestle Glen Bou]evard left tum.
c Signalized level of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds).
d Mitigated signalized leve] of service-average vehicle delay (in seconds). Add a second westbound Tiburon Bou]evard
through lane and extend it as far east toward Stewart Drive as possible.
e Project trip generation is in this EIR section under "Transportation and Circulation Impacts and Mitigation Measures,"
Response to Comment 1-2
The commentor states that in the experience of those who live along Paradise Drive, the Tiburon
GlenlTiburon Boulevard intersection already operates at LOS F. She provides the results of a
questionnaire with responses from 37 residents, and offers observations of roadway traffic peak
periods.
8.4-46
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Level of Service Methodology utilized in the Tiburon
BoulevardfTrestle Glen intersection analysis provides an averaging of the time required to accomplish
all through and turning movements at the intersection during a single signal cycle. The length of
control delay experienced for an individual turning movement will never match the average control
delay reported for the entire intersection. This is because the average takes into account movements
with short delays (through movement) and long delays (left turns).
All signalized intersections are phased (timed) to diVide the amount of green time (i.e., the amount of
time the light is green for each direction of travel) among the intersection approaches, and the time
may be further divided by turning movement (i.e., vehicles turning right or left at each intersection
approach). Signals can be phased (timed) to prioritize through traffic over turning movements, or to
do the reverse (prioritize turning movements over through movements). To achieve the greatest _
efficiency for overall intersection operation, the heaviest movements are given the greatest amount of .
green time per signal cycle, leaving less time for other movements. At the Tiburon BoulevardfTrestle
Glen intersection, Tiburon Boulevard through movements are by far the heaviest movements. For a
signalized intersection operating at Level of Service E as is the case projected for the Tiburon
BoulevardfTrestle Glen intersection under cumulative conditions (with and without the project),
individual turning movements will operate at the lower range of LOS E (up to 79 seconds [l minute,
19 seconds] of control delay) or at LOS F (greater than 80 seconds control delay), while the average of
all movements will operate at LOS E. The Tiburon General Plan- and EIR-proposed mitigation of
adding a second westbound through lane to the Tiburon Boulevard approach to Trestle Glen would
allow through traffic on this westbound approach to clear the intersection faster than without the added
lane. This would allow a reduction in the signal's time allocation to through movements, freeing time
(and reducing the amount of control delay) for turning movements. The appendix to this Response to
Comments document provides Level of Service worksheets with signal phasing used in the analysis.
It should be noted that Caltrans, not the Town of Tiburon, approves the design and operates and
maintains the signals along Tiburon Boulevard, and determines signal phasing (timing for each
movement at each intersection approach).
The observations of traffic peak hours are aclmowledged. The RDEIR traffic analysts identify the
peak hour by counting for a minimum of two to three hours during lmown commute peak periods.
The residents' observations of peak traffic periods are generally consistent with the field observations
of the RDEIR traffic analysts, with peak traffic occurring during weekday AM and PM commute
hours, as well as in the vicinity of 1 :00 to 2:00 PM and during weekday afternoons due to after-school
traffic. Because historic traffic counts conducted along Tiburon Boulevard have shown the weekday
commute peak hours to have consistently higher traffic volumes than other peak periods, analysis of
these time periods have become the standard for traffic analysis in Tiburon (as well as other areas of
the County). Consistent analysis of these time periods provides a basis for comparison to prior
studies.
Response to Comment 1-3
The commentor compares data collected by Robert Benbow in June, 2003, with that collected for the
RDEIR analysis in October, 2001, and concludes that Mr. Benbow's data demonstrates bicycle traffic
to be 300 percent greater and vehicle trips to be 400 percent greater than reported in the RDEIR. The
following should aid interpretation of the data. It has been prepared to generally follow the format of
the table prepared by Mr. Benbow.
Mr. Benbow conducted vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian counts along the project site frontage of
Paradise Drive on Saturday, June 21,2003; two-way traffic (i.e., northbound plus southbound traffic)
are presented in Exhibit 8.4-2, below. These data are compared to those conducted on Saturday,
8.4-47
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
October 27,2001 for the RDEIR by Crane Transportation Group (CTG). For ease of comparison, the
data from the CTG counts are shown in parentheses. Dashed lines indicate no data for the time period.
Note that there was no single time period when a full hour of data overlapped. Peak bicycle, vehicle
and pedestrian counts are shown in bold.
EXHIBIT 8.4-2 COMBINED VEHICLE, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC COUNTS
9-10 10-11 11-12 12 noon- 1-2 PM 2-3 PM 3-4 PM 4-5 PM
AM AM noon 1PM
59 101 73 68 48 -- -- --
Bicycles ( --) (--) ( --) (--) ( --) (32) (30) (33)
Cars and 70 57 76 88 107 -- -- --
trucks (--) (--) ( --) (--) (--) (91) (94) (98)
4 6 I I 0 -- -- --
Pedestrians (--) (--) (--) (-- ) (-- )
(8) (2) (8)
Note: Data from the CTG counts are shown in parentheses and data from Mr. Benbow's counts are not.
The Benbow peak bicycle count occurred from 10 - 11 AM with 101 bicycles, while the RDEIR peak
bicycle count occurred from 4-5 PM with 33 bicycles. The Benbow count was slightly over three
times (over 300 percent) higher than the RDEIR count.
The Benbow peak vehicle count occurred from I - 2 PM with 107 cars and trucks, while the RDEIR
peak vehicle count occurred from 4-5 PM with 98 cars and trucks. The Benbow count was nine
vehicles (about ten percent) higher than the RDEIR count. '
The Benbow peak pedestrian count occurred from 10 - II AM with 6 pedestrians, while the RDEIR
peak pedestrian count occurred from 2-3 PM and 4-5 PM with 8 pedestrians during both time periods.
The RDEIR count was two pedestrians (about 33 percent) higher than the RDEIR count.
In summary, these count results illustrate the variability of roadway use during two Saturdays: one
during the summertime and one during the fall. The bicycle counts are at wide variance between the
two Saturdays, however, vehicle and pedestrian counts are not nearly as far apart, and could reflect a
typical daily range of variation. Additional survey days would further define the range of weekend
(Saturday) bicycle use of the roadway, however, this information would not be expected to result in
conclusions other than those currently reached in the RDEIR, as follows:
Page 5.5-9:
"The remote scenic qualities of Paradise Drive -- in some locations it provides the only public
roadway access to views of San Francisco Bay along the northern and eastern parts of the
Peninsula -- make it attractive for scenic and recreational drivers, runners, and bicyclists.
However, throughout its length there are no pathways, consistent width shoulders, or
sufficiently wide paved travel lanes to accommodate both vehicles and bicyclists or pedestrians.
Along most sections of Paradise Drive, there is no refuge for pedestrians and bicyclists to move
out of the way of oncoming vehicles. Through the narrowest road segments (eight-foot lanes
with no shoulders), if a car encounters a bicyclist pedaling ahead, the driver must slow to the
speed of the bicycle until both arrive at a roadway section sufficiently wide and with adequate
sight distance to allow the car to pass the bicycle safely. Observations indicate that drivers
sometimes do not wait for a sufficiently safe viewing distance to pass but enter the lane of
8.4-48
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.'
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
opposing traffic on the chance that there will be no collision. The segment of Paradise Drive
near the site currently has a very low level of peak hour traffic, and, while lane widths are
considered adequate for prevailing traffic volumes, it is the opinion of the EIR traffic analyst
that the roadway width is unsafe for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. This is recognized by the
fact that the Bay Trail, a pedestrian and bicycle trail, is not officially designated anywhere along
Paradise Drive because the road and right-of-way are generally too narrow to widen, straighten,
or paint a bicycle lane."
Page 5.5-17:
"Project-generated traffic would slightly increase the number of vehicles traveling along
Paradise Drive. Exhibit 5.5-7 indicates the project could be expected to result in 80 daily two-
way trips, seven of which would be during the AM peak hour and ten during the PM peak hour.
Although this is not considered to be a significant impact to pedestrians and bicyclists along
Paradise Drive, any increase in vehicles would contribute to existing unsafe conditions for
pedestrians and bicyclists along Paradise Drive. Therefore, the project's effect would constitute
a cumulative impact (of little or no significance when taken alone but significant when
combined with other conditions). Additionally, the project's contribution to Paradise Drive
traffic volumes would be considered minor, and would not constitute a significant impact to
vehicular traffic safety on that roadway."
The RDEIR acknowledges the existing hazardous roadway conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians
and concludes the trips expected to result from the project would represent an incremental contribution
to the existing unsafe roadway conditions, constituting a cumulative impact. Issues relating to the
project's impact on roadway safety are adequately addressed in terms of the requirements of CEQA.
The conclusion by this and other commentors that the roadway conditions on Paradise Drive are. so
dangerous that no new development should be permitted addresses the merits of the project, not the
adequacy of the RDEIR.
The commentor's statement that "these levels are also inconsistent with the Town Plan: unacceptable;
and cannot be reduced by the proposed mitigations" presumably refers to vehicle volumes. Thus, the
commentor is directed to the discussion in Response to Comment 1-1. (Note: The RDEIR anaiysis of
intersection operation is determined based upon weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle use of the
intersection, and is not dependent upon the bicycle or pedestrian count data.)
Response to Comment 1-4
The commentor states that the EIR underestimates project trip generation. As stated in the footnote to
the RDEIR Trip Generation table (Exhibit 5.5-7) the trip generation rates used for the analysis of the
AM and PM peak hour are higher than the standard ITE rate for single family homes. The rate is
based upon actual' counts of weekday ANi and' PM peak hour trip rates developed for the Tiburon
planning area and used in traffic analyses prepared for the Town's 1993 and 1995 General Plan
updates, and most recently updated in 2002. These surveys take into account households with
residents who telecommute (i.e., home offices, with few to none of the traditional AM and PM peak
hour trips generated by residents who commute to work) as well as households with higher than
average AM and PM peak hour trip generation such as the commentor describes. Consistent with the
commentor's observations, residential trip generation rates in the Tiburon planning area are higher
than standard national rates for single family homes, and these higher rates were used in the EIR
analysis.
8.4-49
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Response to Comment 1-5
The commentor lists CHP accident <il!-ta for Paradise Drive and states that the proposed mitigation
would not reduce the impact. As acknowledged in the RDEIR and by the commentor, the roadway
hazards associated with Paradise Drive are an existing condition resulting from the narrow roadway
and popularity with pedestrians and cyclists. Further, the RDEIR identifies the project impact on
roadway safety as a cumulative impact rather than a project-specific impact. The Town cannot require
the project to mitigate impacts resulting from existing development. CEQA specifies that mitigation
measures should be "roughly proportional" to the project impacts. For this reason, Mitigation
Measure 5.5-5 requires the applicant create a designated refuge (rest stop) for pedestrians and cyclists
on the project site frontage. Further, the only other improvement to Paradise Drive which would be
able to reduce roadway hazards would be widening the roadway. This is inconsistent with the goals of
the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan and would incur considerable secondary impacts. Issues relating to
roadway safety are adequately addressed in terms of the requirements of CEQA. The conclusion by
this and other commentors that the roadway conditions on Paradise Drive are so dangerous that no
new development should be permitted addresses the merits of the project, not the adequacy of the
RDEIR.
Response to Comment 1-6
The commentor states that enforcement of Mitigation Measure 5.6-1 is uncertain' and thus would not
mitigate the potential impact of airborne asbestos. 2 Mitigation Measure 5.6-l(b) was designed to
mitigate potential impacts from airborne asbestos released during grading activities, while 5.6-1(a)
addresses other grading-related air quality impacts and 5.6-1(c) requires designation ofa Disturbance
Coordinator. The Town of Tiburon shall require that all measures outlined in 5.6-1 be incorporated
into the contracts of contractors and subcontractors prior to issuance of grading permits. The
designated Disturbance Coordinator, responsible to the Town, shall be responsible for enforcement of
the measures. Ultimately, through implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, the Town shall be responsible for assuring implementation of the measures. For a further
discussion of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, see Response to Comment H-8.
Additionally, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) requires an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan be prepared and approved by the District prior to any site grading. At the time of
preparation of this mitigation measure, the District did not regulate airborne asbestos impacts from
construction and grading activities. The Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction,
Grading. Quarrying and Swface Mining Operations (Asbestos ATCM for Construction and
Quarrying) requires construction and grading operations in areas where naturally-occurring asbestos is
likely to be found to employ the best available dust mitigation measures to reduce dust emissions. The
Asbestos ATCM for Construction and Quarrying requires an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan (ADMP) ,
be submitted to and approved by the BAAQMD prior to the start 'of any grading activities on
properties on which any portion of the area to be disturbed is located in a geographic ultramafic rock
unit; or has naturally-occurring asbestos, serpentine, or ultramafic rock.3 The Asbestos ATCM for
Construction and Quarrying outlines the general mitigation practices to include in the ADMPs (see
2 It should be noted, no grading activities are proposed within the site areas identified as "sp" ("serpentine and other high
graded u]trabasic rock") on Exhibit 5.1-1. Asbestos most commonly occurs in u]trabasic (also called ultramafic) rock
that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (proper rock name serpentinite) and often contains
chrysotile asbestos.
3 See http://www.baaqmdgov/enflCOMPLNCE/Asbestos_ACTM/Reports/AsbestosATCM2.PDF for the full text of the final
regulation order.
8.4-50
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
"'-
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
-.
.
,e
.
.
.
.
,
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
8,4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 93105(e)(4)). The applicant would be required to
prepare an ADMP and verify approval of the plan by the BAAQMD to the Town prior to the issuance
of any grading permits.
Response to Comment 1-7
The commentor states noise and air quality impacts from construction traffic have not been assessed.
The applicant and individual lot owners would be required to adhere to the provisions of the Tiburon
Municipal Code, which limits arrival and departure of heavy equipment to between 7:00 AM and 5:00
PM Monday through Friday and 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM on Saturday. Hours of operation of heavy
equipment are limited to between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday (equipment may
begin warming up at 7:30 AM). These measures would limit the daytime duration of elevated noise
levels from intermittent truck traffic. In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.7-1 requires that all
construction equipment be equipped with properly maintained mufflers and a noise Disturbance
Coordinator be available to address complaints regarding noise. These measures would serve to
reduce the level of noise created by construction traffic. Elevated noise levels from passing trucks
would be temporary and periodic, and due to the limited duration when passing residents on Paradise
Drive, would not represent a substantial increase in ambient noise levels and would not cause a
significant impact. (Construction noise impacts from on-site construction activity are also addressed
by Mitigation Measure 5.7-1).
Air quality impacts from truck and heavy equipment exhaust would also be temporary and short in
duration. As stated on page 5.6-3 of the RDEIR:
. "Minor sources of .construction-related emissions also include exhaust emISSIOns from
gasoline or diesel-powered construction equipment, solvents in construction materials, and
gases emitted from asphalt for a short period of time after paving occurs but are not
generated in measurable quantities to be determined significant under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)."
As such, the impacts resulting from construction traffic would not rise to the level of a significant air
quality impact under CEQA. (As discussed in Response to Comment 1-7, construction related air
quality impacts in the vicinity of the Tiburon Glen site are addressed by Mitigation Measure 5.6-1).
8.4-51 .
Diana Farrell
40 Norman Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
J
July 1, 2003
Tiburon Planning Commission
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Tiburon Glen Revised DraftEIR Comments - Consistency with Town Policies
To the Town Staff and the Town Planning Commissioners:
Thank you for giving me th.e opportunity to comment on the Tiburon Glen Revised Draft EIR.
The revised report is certainly thorough and is a big improvement over the previous report. I
appreciate the substantial amount of additional information provided. While I am not an expert
and cannot take issue with the information provided, I do disagree with several of the report's
conclusions, particularly in the area of consistency with the Town of Tiburon General Plan
(section 4),
I first of all note that the report finds six elements of the project inconsistent with the town General
Plan. Most importantly, the development is deemed inconsistent with Policy LU-17 despite being
at, but not exceeding, the maximum density permitted by this Policy. This is because 8 homes
are deemed to not comply "with other Plan standards related to landslides and steep slopes,
preserving sensitive habitat, and views of the project site."
The plan also notes that the proposed homes are twice the size of the neighboring homes,
violating Tiburon Code 4,02.07(c) calling for the size of a project "bearing reasonable relationship
to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity." And it finds the proposed grading violates the
30% grade limit on graded slopes.
In many cases, however, the revised DEIR labels an item "partly inconsistent" if one part of the
development is consistent and one part inconsistent with a given Policy, Code, or Goal. I believe
this is not the correct way of determining conformance. This is a big project - some aspects may
be in conformance with a given policy, others not. But the crucial point for me is that if any aspect
of the proiect is materially out of compliance with Town policy, then that aspect should be labeled
inconsistent
To label it partly inconsistent gives the impression of a minor violation or of something that
perhaps can be overlooked or given a pass. This is certainly not the case, Many items labeled
partly inconsistent are grossly at odds with Town General Plan.
As Tiburon residents, we look to the Planning Commission's to uphold the General Plan and
zoning ordinances against all material violations. This Plan and these ordinances express the.
collective community view of the kind of place we want to live in, You are the guardians of these
and we count on you to defend them.
This is particularly important as this project will set a precedent for many other pending
developments in the area. If this project is permitted to violate numerous zoning and General
Plan provisions, these future developments will have a stronger claim to do the same, Please
see the attachment to this letter for some specific examples of the point I make above about
misclassifying Partly Inconsistent with Inconsistent.
Sincerely yours,
Diana Farrell
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.1
.
.
3
t
5
Diana Farrell
Page 2
July 1, 2003
Attachment: The specific policies I refer to in my letter are listed below.
Land Use Element
Goal LU-F: To preserve existing neighborhood
character and identity by requiring buffer zones
(greenbelts) between new and existing
development where practical.
Policy OSC-14: to the maximum extent
feasible, greenbelts shall be provided in areas
between developments....
,
L
Policy LU-12. ..,new development should be
located on the least environmentally sensitive
and least hazardous portions of vacant lands
whenever feasible."
Goal OSC-B. .. .result in protection or
enhancement to the maximum extent feasible
of .. .wetlands . ..steep slopes... other
significant vegetation, and areas of visual
importance,
Visioning Goal 1-3: To preserve trees,
vegetation, and other natural features that
contribute to the area's rural visual
appearance.
Goal OSC-A. To preserve the character of the
Tiburon peninsula through control of the type
and location of development.
Goal OSC-D. To discourage to the maximum
extent feasible development of areas subject to
hazards.. .
Goal SE-A. to identify hazardous areas and to
guide development away from them,
Policy SE-5 New construction located to the
maximum extent feasible in areas where. there
are no hazards.
Tiburon Code 4.08.04: Due consideration to
avoidance of areas posing geoiogic hazards
Policy OSC-2, To direct growth as to preserve
and enhance views.. .significant vegetation to
the maximum extent feasible, New
development shall be in harmony with adjacent
neighborhoods
Comment
DEIR labels this as Parily Inconsistent because
Development Area 1 provides for a buffer zone
I greenbelt. However Development Area #2
(lots 7 and 8) virtually abuts existing homes
and directly contradicts the goal and the policy,
It should be Inconsistent.
DEIR labels this as Partly Inconsistent because
it avoids serpentine bunchgrass, locates in the
lower portion of the site and provides for
landslide repair, But this project impacts 5
acres of coast live oak woodlands (requiring
the removal of 522 trees -- essentially
clearcutting the development areas above
Paradise Dr.) and 3,000 square feet of
wetlands. It puts new housing on excessively
steep slopes, How is this in any way
consistent with the Policies and goals? It
should be labeled Inconsistent.
DEIR labels this as Consistent. How can
destroying 5 acres of oak trees, placing 8
massive homes in clear view of a rural road,
and putting in over % mile of retaining walls be
consistent with the character of this part of the
Tiburon peninsula? It should be Inconsistent.
DEIR labels this Parily Inconsistent because
applicant has submitted a landslide repair plan
and because 6 of 8 building envelopes are not
on slides. But the Goals do not mention a
repair plan, it mentions avoidance. On its face
this development is Inconsistent with this
Goal.
DEIR labels this Parily Inconsistent because
development avoids bunchgrass, ridges, and a
stream. However the impact on the oak trees,
and the visual impact is clearly Inconsistent
as is the disharmony of home size with
adjacent neighborhoods.
Diana Farrell
Page 3
July 1, 2003
b
Policy OSC-3. New structures should be so DEIR labels this partly inconsistent because
situated or kept low to avoid interference with the roofs of homes in lots 7 and 8 are below
existing outlooks the window height of existing homes.
Policy OSC-4. Principal inboard and outboard However the report notes that structures
vistas should be defined and development proposed for lots 7 and 8 could be as close as
located to protect such vistas to the maximum 45 feet to existing homes and that "they would
extent possible. change the nature of those views considerably
Tiburon Code 4.02,07(b), Location of by replacing existing vegetative cover". with
proposed improvements in relation to location structures."
of improvements on adjoining sites, with This is a massive impact and is clearly
particular attention to view considerations." Inconsistent with the policy.
Tiburon Code 4,08.04(k) Adequate
consideration given to the need for privacy and
minimum visual and aural intrusion into the
indoor and outdoor living areas from other
living areas
Policy OSC-7. The Town shall discourage DEIR labels this as Partly Consistent for
development on slopes exceeding 40% reasons not given. Three of the lots have an
wherever possible. existing slope greater than 40%, This is
Policy SE-6. The Town shall avoid approving Inconsistent on its face.
development on slopes exceeding 40% where
possible.. ,
Policy OSC-11. Town shall encourage location DEIR labels this Partly Consistent because
of structures in a manner which minimizes tree ridgelines and other higher elevation resources
removal and grading... When grading every are protected. However it is impossible to say
effort shall be made to retain the natural that this project minimizes tree removal and
features of the land. Excessive grading to grading, hence it is inconsistent.
stabilize soil is not in the best interest of the
Town,
Tiburon Code 4.02.07(e) Planners to take into
account the extent to which the site plan
reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal
of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural
features of the site
Tiburon Code 4,08.04(b) Preservation of the
natural features of the land shall be achieved to
the maximum extent feasible through
minimization of grading and sensitive site
design. Features worthy of preservation
include ridgelines.. .trees, [etc]
Goal CC, To maintain all existing,..residential DEIR labels this Partly Consistent for unclear
streets with consideration of a combination of reasons - perhaps because some mitigation is
residents' safety... by limiting traffic volumes proposed to the addition of traffic to an already
dangerous road, But the proposed mitigation
would do nothing to make the road safer,
making this inconsistent.
7
8'
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
',-
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
i.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
-, 10
.
e'
.
.1
. /I
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 12.
~
.
.
.
.
- /3
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
Diana Farrell
Page 4
July 1, 2003
C-20. .. .Additional new roads that will intersect DEIR labels this Partly Consistent. This project
Paradise Drive shall be kept to the minimum proposes two roads, not one. with the second
number possible... road needed for just 2 of the 8 homes. This is
Visioning Goal 11-1 : . ..minimize the number of therefore inconsistent.
roadways and driveways onto Paradise Drive..,
Tiburon Code 4.08.04, roads shall be DEIR labels this Consistent because the roads
designed for minimum slopes, grading, are narrow and have steep grades. However
cutbacks, and fill. Narrowing of roadways may the code calls for roads with "minimum slopes".
be allowed to reduce grading, retaining walls, The steep slopes are inconsistent with the
and other scarring of the land. code and, combined with narrow roads. create
a fire hazard. Indeed, the fire district has
formally stated that some road grades do not
meet their standards and must be changed,
Visioning Goal 1-3: Limit the bulk and mass of DEIR labels Partly Consistent for unclear
new residential structures reasons, perhaps because specific home
design plans have not been submitted,
However DEIR notes that the homes will be
5,960 to 8.750 square feet with footprints of up
to 2,967 square feet, and be "considerably
larger. .. than some of the older homes within
the vicinity." The high visibility of many of the
homes provides further argument that this goal
has not been achieved by the proposed house
sizes, This is clearly wholly Inconsistent.
Visioning Goal 11-1 : The area south of Trestle DEIR inexplicably labels this Consistent. The
Glen will continue to have a much more rural photo simulation in exhibit 5.4-8 cannot be
character than the area to the north. squared with a "rural character". This project is
inconsistent with this goal. .
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS .
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
RESPONSE TO LETTER J - Diana Farrell
Response to Comments J-1 and J-2
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment J-3
The commentor states that the project should be considered inconsistent with Goal OSC-A. Comment
noted. An apparent inconsistency of the proposed project with a Town policy reflected in the Tiburon
General Plan would not, in and of itself, constitute a significant impact on the environment. Rather,
the policies of the plan are used as sources of criteria for determining the significance or lack of
significance of the environmental effects identified in the various impact discussions in the EIR.
Ultimately, Town of Tiburon planning staff and the Planning Commission will make
recommendations to the Town Council regarding the consist~ncy of the project with the General Plan
and the site's suitability for the proposed use. All potential significant environmental effects of the
proposed project, including those for which criteria for significance were based on policies or
standards of the Tiburon General Plan are addressed and mitigated to the extent feasible in their
respective sections of the EIR.
Response to Comments J-4 through J-10
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment J-11
Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment C-I. The intent of this measure is to encourage
the design of roadways which minimize grading and retaining walls. The proposed roadways were
designed to follow the natural site slope as much as possible in order to minimize grading and
retaining walls. Therefore, the project was found to be consistent with this policy.
Response to Comment J-12
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment J-13
Comment noted. The project is consistent with the low density and FAR guidelines of the Town,
which also are intended to maintain the "rural character" of the southern peninsula. For this reason,
the project is considered consistent with the intent of this Visioning Plan Goal.
8.4-56
.
.
.
.
:e
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.'
_I
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.>
~
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
-
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SCOTT D. PEARSON
40 NORMAN WAY
TtBURON. CA 94920
K
July 1, 2003
RECEIVED
Tiburon Planning Commission
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
JUL 0 8 2003
PLANNiNG DIVISION
TOWN OF TISURON
RE: Tiburon Glen Public Comments: Retaining Walls
To the Town Staff and the Town Planning Commissioners:
I likl:: many of my neighbors have read the May, 2003 revised draft EIR with great interest, I
would like to commend Nichols Berman and the Town planning staff for producing a report that
is far more comprehensive and thorough than the preVious report. This was a substantial amount
of work that we all should recognize and appreciate.
While there are numerous aspects of the report worthy of comment, this letter addresses just one
issue raised in the report: the issue of retaining walls. The table in Exhibit 2.2-12 summarizes the
retaining walls to be used on this project, but does 'not sum up the total impact of the retaining
walls.
If one adds up the total length of retaining walls, we find that over 6/10 of mile (3,310 linear
feet) of retaining walls are proposed for the project.
Assuming that each wall's height would be the average of the height range estimated in column 3
of the table, I produced the astounding conclusion that the total surface area of all retaining
walls would amount to over 23,000 square feet, or over Yz acre of visible retaining walls.
am unaware of any other development or area in the entire town with retaining walls of this
extell~.
In my opinion neither the visual simulations nor the impact assessments, which focus on the
impact of the homes, grading, and tree loss, adequately reflect the horrific visual impact these
, massive walls will have. To make matters worse, I believe that the total amount of retaining
walls required are substantially underestimated, for three reasons:
1) The plan assumes road grades of up to 20% (page 2.0-27). However this amount exceeds
that typically permitted by the fire marshal. A more typical acceptable amount is 15%. I
dusted off myoid trigonometry textbook and calculated that lowering the grade from
20% to 15% would increase total road length by over 1/3 to achieve the same elevation
gain. The entire road is bordered by retaining walls, which would also likely need to be .
higher due to the lower slope,
2) The plan assumes a parking lot at Paradise Drive. It is highly doubtful that such a
parking lot will be approved. Even if it were, it is likely that most homeowners would in
any event elect to build sufficient parking at their homes so as to avoid relying on a
i
l\0Yl t:
Scott D. Pearson, Comments on Tiburon Glen Revised DEIR
July 1, 2003
.
;e
i.
:.
:1-
t.'
:.
",.
il
i.
i.
i.
t.
ie
:.
.
:.
',.
"
!9
'.
'.
'.
.
:."
, ~
'.
'.
:e
'.
'-
.
it
:.
i.
'.
f.
'.
:.
1.
:.
..
.
.
.
.
.
Page 2
distant lot down a steep hill. Hence there will likely be more parking by the homes than
forecast, more leveling, and, inevitably, more walls.
3) Retaining walls around building envelopes make general assumptions about the housing
a.'1d landscaping preferences of the individual home builders which could very well
underestimate the need for additional retaining walls as homeowners seek larger level
lots.
Ifwe assume that the total impact of these three effects is to increase the need for n;taining walls
by 33% this implies 4,400 linear feet and 31,000 square feet of retaining walls.
2.
The report already notes that three of the visual impacts stUdied are Significant and Unavoidable
(5.4-2,5.4-2, and 5.4-4). However, I would submit that the impact of the retaining walls would
also lead to a SU classification for 5.4-1 (Viewpoint 1). The recommended mitigant of contrast
minimization, while important, does not in any way eliminate the extraordinary destruction to the
visual rural landscape of Paradise Drive.
These walls, unsightly as they are, are unavoidable when trying to develop numerous massive
homes on such a steeply graded property. The property is inappropriate for such development-
for that reason it has lain untouched over the years,
I th2~k you for the time you have taken to carefully consider my comments. I regret that due to
prior travel commitments I will not be at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting to present
this in person, however this in no way indicates a lessened interest on my part.
Sincerely,
/s/
Scott Pearson
.
.
.
.
.'
'.
e)
e,
.
.
.
'.
.
.'
.
.
.
,-
e'
.
.
..
.
.
.
,e
.
-
.
.'"
"
.
.
.\
'=
.
.
.
.
.'
II
.
.
.
.
Scott D. Pea~son, Comments 00 Tiburoo Glen Revised DEIR
July 1,2003
Per Report
Square
Lot Wall # Lennth Avo. Heioht Footaae
W1 115 2.5 288
1 W2 25 15.0 375
W1 225 10.0 2,250
2 W2 50 10.5 525
W3 150 6.5 975
W1 395 7,0 2.765
3 W8 115 3.5 403
W9 140 2.0 280
W6 95 6.5 618
4 W7 125 7.5 938
W8 80 10.5 840
W1 150 7.0 1.050
W10 185 11.0 2,035
5 W11 110 3.5 385
W12 35 5.0 175
W13 15 12.0 180
W14 130 5.0 650
6 W14 355 7.0 2,485
W15 30 2,5 75
W16 30 4.0 120
W18 280 8.5 2,380
7 W19 80 5.5 440
W20 20 15.0 300
W21 115 4.5 518
W17 45 5.0 225
8 W19 80 16.0 1,280
W20 20 5.0 100
Public W4 65 3.5 228
ROW W5 50 9.0 450
Total 3,310 23 330
5,280 ftImile
43,560 sq/ftIacre
0.63 miles
0.64 acres
Page 3
Assuming 33% more
Avg. Square
Len nth Heiaht Footage
153 2.5 383
33 15.0 500
300 10.0 2,999
67 10.5 700
200 6.5 1,300
527 7.0 3,686
153 3.5 537
187 2,0 373
127 6.5 823
167 7.5 1,250
107 10.5 1,120
200 7.0 1.400
247 11.0 2.713
147 3.5 513
47 5.0 233
20 12.0 240
173 5.0 866
473 7.0 3.313
40 2.5 100
40 4.0 160
373 8.5 3,173
107 5.5 587
27 15.0 400
153 4.5 690
60 5.0 300
107 16.0 1,706
27 5,0 133
87 3.5 303
67 9.0 600
4,412 31 099
0.84 miles
0.71 acres
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
, RESPONSE TO LETTER K - Scott D. Pearson
Response to Comment K-1
The commentor states that the photosimulations and impact assessment text do not adequately reflect
the negative effect of proposed retaining walls. Additionally, the commentor states that development
of the Tiburon Glen site would require more retaining walls than assumed in the December 2002 plans
because the road grades may be lowered, the parking lot may not be approved, and individual home
owners may design their homes in a manner requiring more retaining walls.
Site retaining walls are depicted in relation to viewpoint locations shown on Exhibits 5.4-1 and 5.4-2
(the walls, are listed in Exhibit 2.2-12 on page 2.0-22) of the RDEIR. The walls have been included in
the photo simulations and are identified in the impact discussions. Considering the proximity of the
walls to the proposed units on the lots, the visual effect of the walls per se would not be more
significant than tl:1e units themselves. TheRDEIR concludes the visual effects of both the housing
units and the retaining walls would result in significant and unavoidable visual Impacts in Viewpoints
2 through 4. The possibility of additional or more extensive retaining walls as discussed in this
comment would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of the
impacts already identified. With regard to the lowering of the roadway grade, please refer to Response
to Comment C-1. With regard to parking spaces, the December 2002 plans submitted for the PDP
demonstrate the provision of six parking spaces on each lot as well as the retaining walls required to
support these parking areas.4 As discussed in Response to Comment D-l, six spaces on each lot
would be sufficient to avoid on-street parking and would make the Paradise Drive ROW parking area
unnecessary. The commentor states additional retaining walls may be required if individual lot
owners seek larger level lots. Development of enclosed structures would be limited to the designated
building envelope on each lot. Retaining walls depicted in plans provide for stabilization of the entire
building envelope with a level footprint that nearly covers the entire envelope. The need for additional
retaining walls is speculative, and as discussed above, the retaining walls depicted in the conceptual
development plans would contribute to significant and unavoidable visual impacts in three of four
viewpoints analyzed in the RDEIR.
Response to Comment K-2
The commentor states the effect of retaining walls suggests Viewpoint 1 should be considered a
significant and unavoidable impact. The RDEIR acknowledges the proposed project, including the
grading, development of housing units, and retaining walls, would dramatically alter the visual
character of the site. As discussed on page 5.4-10, the sensitivity level of Viewpoint 1 is considered
moderate due to the presence of existing development and proximity of the site to the roadway and
other existing development, as opposed to a high sensitivity level, which was observed at the other
three viewpoint locations. For this reason, the mitigation measure would need to reduce the project
contrasts with the existing conditions to a co~dominant level, whereas with the other viewpoints, the
impact would need to be reduced to a subordinate level to be considered less-than-significant. A co-
dominant level of visual dominance is defined in Exhibit 5.4-3 (on page 5.4-6) to mean the project
elements are prominent within the setting and attract attention equally with other landscape features
because they borrow from naturally established form, line, color, and texture so that visual
characteristics are compatible with their surroundings. Mitigation Measure 5.4-1 would reduce the
4 Six on-]otparking spaces were required by Mitigation Measure 5.5-5 in the September 2002 DEIR. These spaces were
included in the December 2002 project plans.
8.4-60
.
.
.
.
;.
.;
I.
e
.
.
.'
.,
-
.
..
.
.
~
.
.
.
'-
.
.
.
.'
.
-
.
-
.
.
(.
,-",,'
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.\
.
-
.;
.
.
~
.
~
.
e
.'
.
.
.
.
.'
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
r_
t
.
.
.
.
.'
~
.
.
-
-
.
..
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
impact of development in Viewpoint 1 to a co-dominant level, and thus would result in a less-than-
significant impact.
8.4-61
July 7 2003
L
.
:.
.
i.
ie
.
.
'.
.
;.
.
.
-
'.
'.
.
.
.
'.
.
'.
,-
'.., , :
, '
.
.
.
:.
-
..
t
.
.
'.
..
:.
'.
I.
.
-
.~
.
:-
.
45 Norman Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
435-2769; rany@sbcglobal.net
Tiburon Planning Commission
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
REiCEIVED
JUL 0 8 2003
RE: Tiburon Glen RDEIR Woodland Impacts
PLANNI~JG DIVISIOI\[
TO\^il"J OF TI8URON
TO: Tiburon Planning Commissioners:
In this !~tter I have tried to present an accurate picture of what is presented in the RDEIR for
mitigating woodland impacts. This has been an amazingly difficult task. The mitigations as
offered are often overlapping and contradictory. The RDEIR does not present an accurate count
of trees to be removed, indicate all the locations from which they are to be removed, or identify
the areas designated for replacement trees. These should all be identified in the document. The
RDEIR proposes leaving specifics to be decided after project approvals, which does not allow
for proper analysis of impacts.
1. The revised DEIR appears to significantly understate tree removal numbers (possibly by as much
as 100%) and associated impacts, The undercount occurs because only trees to be removed
in 5 acres of development areas are counted. To make room for these 5 acres of replacement
trees, more trees are proposed to be removed from up to five additional acres. Trees on these
additional 5 acres do not appear to be counted. Assertions in the RDEIR that this is a 1: 1
replacement ratio are incorrect. Up to 10 acres are to be cleared of trees, and 5 acres are to
be replanted
The report states that 522 trees on approximately 5 acres will be removed in the residential
use areas of the project for slide repair, grading and lot development. The assumption appears
to be that all of the trees on these 5 acres will be removed, including many smaller ones that
are not included in the 522 figure. In addition, "the selective clearing of diseased
trees.. . could total as much as five acres..." (p,5.3-34, 3rd full paragraph). This is a proposal
to clear a total of up to 10 acres of the total 22 woodland acres on the property. As much as
45% of the woodlands on the property could be removed - a staggering figure. We don't
know how many trees these 10 acres contain; it could well be hundreds more.than the 522 tree
number cited in the RDEIR. Analysis of impacts should be revised to address 10 acres of
woodland clearing.
2-
2. As stated, the RDEIR does not appear to count the trees that will be removed to
accommodate up to 5 acres of replacement "trees". The RDEIR says that replanting areas
shall be within proposed grading limits and contiguous areas that will be cleared of diseased
trees (Mitigation 5,3-4(b), 3rd bullet). This appears to indicate that the location for additional
tree clearing for installation of up to 5 acres of replacement trees is contiguous to the clearcut
5 acres that will hold building, infrastructure and slide repair areas. Although not explicitly
stated, it appears that we are looking at 10 largely contiguous acres of clearcut on the portion
July 7, 2003
Greenberg RDEIR comments
Page 1 of3
.
.
,ta
.
.
~
.
.\
.
.'
.
.
.
.'
'-
.
.
'.
.
..'
'.'
-
,.
.
.
.
.
-
.
~
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.'
j
.
.'
.
2-
cent.
3
If
5"
~
'7
of the property fronting Paradise Drive. The visual and other impacts of these additional
acres of nursery-like planting remain unknown and unanalyzed. These impacts should be
addressed in the EIR, not at some unknown future time.
3, p.5.3-34 Visual & Aesthetic Quality. This section describes tree removal as "a short-term
visual change because,the replanted woodlands would eventually mature", I believe this is
an unfair characterization. The project proposes clearcutting up to 10 acres on the lower
portion of the site. It will be decades before the proposed replacement trees even begin to
approximate the appearance of the mature woodlands they are supposed to replace, assuming
that the effort is successful. This same paragraph says that "The secondary visual impacts [of
tree removal] must be balanced by the possibility that a large percentage of trees on the site
would eventually fall victim to SODS even without the project." They must also be balanced
by the possibility that a large percentage of the trees would not become infected. The
MacNair tree report states that 16-18% of the site's oaks appear affected by SOD (while up
to 45% of the existing woodland is proposed to be removed). Current research indicates that
there is no predicting how many trees in a given area will be affected by SOD. The tree
planting/enhancement program does not mitigate visual impacts of the proposed tree removal
in a reasonable time frame, and the impacts should be assessed accordingly. Under CEQA,
the EIR is supposed to compare the project with existing conditions, and not speculate about
some sort of potential, but unknowable, future baseline.
4. Mitigation 5.3-4(b) 3rd bullet, says that "on-site replanting areas shall be comprised of areas
within the proposed grading limits and additional contiguous areas that will be cleared of
diseased trees to allow planting of the replacement trees". Areas of selective tree removal
and i."~placement would be adjacent to the "proposed disturbed area limits and thus appear as
an extension of the area of visual impact, depicted in the photo simulation in 5.4, (p.5.3-34),
Does this mean that photo simulations do not show this extended area? If not, they should be
corrected.
5. p. 3.0-42 Mitigation 5.8-2 "... the applicant and individual lot owners shall design screen
plantings with the least amount of vegetation and lowest density sufficient to mitigate visual
effect." This mitigation is totally subjective and unenforceable.
6. Trees in poor condition are to be removed from open space conservation easement areas to
provide room for replacement trees as part ofa Tree Enhancement plan (Mitigation 5.3-4(b),
5th bullet). This is in contradiction to Mitigation 5.3-4(a), 1st bullet, which states that "coast
live oak woodland not affected by proposed development shall be permanently preserved
within the proposed conservation easements." (A plan to clear up to 5 largely contiguous
acres of the 17 woodland acres in the conservation areas, and replace them with oak
seedlings, does not "preserve" existing mature woodland. It creates a start-\:lp tree nursery.)
7, Although mitigation 5.3-4(b) 3rd bullet, states that "the preference shall be for on-site [tree]
removal and replacement", some unknown number of trees may be installed off the Tiburon
Glen property at an unknown site. This suggests that removed trees may not be replaced at
even the proposed questionable 1: 1 ratio on site, already a very low mitigation ratio by any
current standard.
g'
8, Oaks in 10" sleeves need regular irrigation for several years (Mitigation 5.3-4(b), lOth bullet,
"Plant Survival"). No mitigation specifies the water source for such irrigation, the system
July 7, 2003
Greenberg RDEIR comments
Page 2 00
,t'
CM0.
9
10
1/
/2
13
(f i
.that will provide it, or the party responsible for provision, maintenance and funding of such a
system. This information should be included in the EIR. An evaluation of the impact of
reg1l1~r watering of replacement plants (on 5 acres of steep hillside) on existing oaks and
hillside erosion should be made, and mitigations proposed if necessary.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.;~.
:-
:.
~
.
:.
:.
if
i-
.
.
:.
:.
.
~-
.'
'.
Ie
'.
.
-
.
,
.
.
-
-
~
-
.
.
,tj
~
.
.
.
9, While mitigations ensure that oak restoration will be ongoing indefinitely until some level of
success is achieved (Mitigation 5.3-4(b), 10th bullet, "Plant Survival"), no information is
offered on what a reasonable time frame might be. Research on the internet suggests an oak
replacement "success" rate of 30-60%. The standard presumed in the EIR is 80%. The EIR
should present data on the likelihood that the replanting effort will be successful with the
replanting ratio suggested in some reasonable time frame.
10, p. 3.0-42 Mitigation 5.8-2 states that CC&R's shall require the HOA to maintain a
minimum 10' wide fire break adjacent to all project roads, Does the 522 tree total to be
removed include trees that will be lost for this fire break? Ifnot, what is the new total?
11. Fire Marshall Barney's 6/12/03 letter states that it is likely that road grades exceeding 18%
will have to be reduced. How will changes to road grades and installation of acceptable
turnarounds affect the number of trees to be removed? What will be the secondary impacts if
the number of trees removed is increased?
12. "All on-site replacement plantings shall be located within the proposed open space
,conservation easement" with some exception for Lots 7 & 8. (Mitigation 5,3-4(b), 5th bullet).
This "lost acreage shall be replaced at a 1: 1 ratio (requiring 5 acres of replanted woodlands)"
(Mitigation 5.3-4(b) 1st bullet) at a density of about 200 trees per acre (Mitigation 5,3-4(b),
2nd bullet). The report further states that the replanting density in the debris catchment basin
will be on a reduced basis. The planting density for this area should be specifically stated so
that visual impacts can be properly assessed.
D. Mitigation 5.3-4(b), 6th bullet. Says that while the replacement species selected are
vulnerable to SOD, they are believed not to become infected until they reach a certain
maturity. What is that maturity? What is the source ofthis assertion?
14. No funding mechanisms for monitoring and maintenance specified in the mitigations are
identified. This is critical because those specified can continue up to 5 years and longer.
Thank you for responding to my comments,
Sincerely,
Randy Greenberg
Cc: Jayni Allsep, Planner
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
July 7, 2003
Greenberg RDEIR comments
Page 3 of3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
-,
-
.
.
.'
.'
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
-:
.
RESPONSE TO LETTER L - Randy Greenberg
Response to Comment L-1
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment L-2
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment L-3
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment L-4
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment L-5
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
The commentor states that a portion of Mitigation Measure 5.8-2 is subjective and unenforceable.
However, the language in question is an appropriate measure to balance fire protection concerns with
the aesthetic and privacy considerations normally addressed during the Town's design review process.
Some subjectivity inevitably enters into any process involving aesthetic concerns. That subjectivity
does not render the mitigation measure unenforceable. Mitigation Measure 5.8-2 merely requires that
landscape plans for the residential lots be designed in accordance with guidelines established by the
Tiburon Fire Protection District for reduction of fuel load within a unit's defensible space. The
mitigation measure provides an example of how fire protection issues must be considered along with
aesthetic and privacy concerns when evaluating landscape plans for residential development. This is
done by referral of project plans to the Tiburon Fire Protection District during the design review
process and prior to the issuance of a building permit. The measure is entirely enforceable because the
Town will not approve the construction of any home if the landscape plan fails to meet the aesthetic',
privacy and fire protection requirements. The Tiburon Fire Protection District would also inspect
developed lots annually to assure 'compliance.
Response to Comment L-6
The commentor concludes that removal of trees from the open space conservation easement is
contradictory to the purpose of conservation easement. However, the two proposals serve different
(albeit related) purposes. The RDEIR recommends the' conservation easement (Mitigation Measure
5.3-4(a)) to prevent future development on those portions of the project site and thus prevent the
permanent removal of woodlands. As discussed in Master Response 8.3-1, Mitigation Measure 5.3-
4(b) proposes to selectively remove trees to improve the health of the site woodlands so that the
condition of the woodlands is better in the long term. All of Marin County and the Tiburon Peninsula
are considered to be infected with SODS. The Tree Enhancement and Replacement plan would
remove infected oak and bay trees, which host the SOD pathogen and thus foster its spread, and would
plant oak trees more resistant to the disease.
8.4-65
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment L-7
The 1: 1 acreage replacement ratio requiring 200 trees per acre would be required regardless of where
the forest enhancement and replanting takes place. Please refer to Master Response 8.3-1 for
additional information regarding the 1: 1 replacement ratio.
Response to Comment L-B
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment L-9
The commentor states that the mitigation plan should present data on the likelihood that the replanting
effort will be successful. As stated on page 5.3-33 of the RDEIR, "All trees installed shall have an 80
percent survival performance criterion during the five year monitoring period." Survival results
following cessation of irrigation during the initial three-year establishment period would indicate
whether plants' roots are sufficiently developed to support the plants under natural conditions, an
indication of long-term survival. Due to the fact that the replanting effort would take place within
areas which currently support woodland habitat, if the mitigation areas are properly irrigated and
monitored, they are expected to reach the 80 percent survival performance criterion during the five
year period. However, the RDEIR concludes that even with mitigation, impacts to on-site woodlands
would remain significant and unavoidable due to the number of years that it would take for mitigation
habitat to mature.
Response to Comment L-10
The commentor asks if the 10-foot fire breaks along roads required by the TFPD would increase the
number of trees impacted by development. The designated disturbed area limits extend 10 feet beyond
Roadways A and B, however, the limit extends only five feet beyond Roadway c.5 The additional
five feet of tree removal along 400 feet of roadway length would represent 2,000 additional square feet
of tree loss. Based on the site average of 100 trees per acre, this could result in the removal of 5
additional trees. The RDEIR concludes that an estimated 522 trees would be removed as a result of
the proposed development. Removal of five additional trees would not represent a substantial increase
in the severity of the impact that is addressed in the RDEIR.
Response to Comment L-11
Please see Response to Comment C-l regarding road grades and H-32 regarding turnouts. Installation
of turnarounds and reduction in road grades may slightly increase tree removal, however this
additional number of trees would not be significant. Assuming the required turn-outs are located
entirely outside of the existing disturbed area limit lines, provision of three turn-outs could result in
additional 1,350 square feet (0.03 acre) of grading. This would not result in substantial additional
impacts. Based on the site average of 100 trees per acre, this could result in the removal of three
additional trees. This additional grading would not increase the severity of secondary impacts
resulting from grading activities as addressed in the RDEIR. Further, in the event that the applicant
does not gain approval to exceed the 18 percent maximum road grade, a revised grading plan depicting
road grades of 18 percent would be required. The Town shall review the revised plans to determine if
the proposed grading and retaining walls are significantly different from those analyzed in the RDEIR.
5 See Sheets] 0 and I] of the December 2002 project plans.
8.4-66
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
'.'
'-'!
.
.
i.
-
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
t
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
...
.'
.
-
.
el
.
--
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.'
..
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
..
.
-
.
.
-.
(e
.
.';
"'.
.'
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
When there is a substantial change in the conditions analyzed in an EIR after the EIR has been
certified, a Supplemental EIR, Negative Declaration, or Addendum to the EIR may be required
pursuant to CEQAGuidelines sections 15162 through 15164.
Response to Comment L-12
The commentor states that the planting density in the debris catchment basin should be specified "so
that visual impacts can be properly assessed." Exhibit 5.4-8 (Viewpoint 2) depicts the removal of
vegetation for the grading of the debris catchment basin. The replanting of trees within this area
would not result in a significant negative visual effect.
Response to Comment L-13
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment L-14
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
8.4-67
)
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission
Tiburon, California
Via e-mail
M
July 8, 2003
Subject:
Revised Draft - Environmental Impact Report
Tiburon Glen
Residential Development Precise Development Plan
RECEIVED
JUL 0 8 2003
Honorable Commissioners,
PLANNI~IG DiViSIOi\i
TOWN Of: TIBURON
In this letter I would like to address the Visual and Aesthetic Quality section of the
Revised Draft - Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR).
An excellent job has been done detailing the massive impact of the proposed project and
the resulting visual impacts. I do however disagree with several of the assessments of the
potential visual impacts.
In the RDEIR, 5 viewpoints serve as the basis of the assessment.
Viewpoint 1 - View oflots 1,2, and 4 looking west from Paradise Drive
Viewpoint 2 - View oflots 3,4,5 and 6 looking east from Paradise Drive
Viewpoint 3 - View of lots 7 and 8 looking west from Paradise Drive
Viewpoint 4 - View of lot 8 looking north from Paradise Drive
Viewpoint 5 - View of site from Larkspur ferry
And finally there is an assessment of the Cumulative Visual Impacts resulting from the
proposed project.
I fully agree with the detailed analysis and impact assessment of Viewpoints 2,3 and 4 as
creating a "significant and unavoidable impact."
I disagree with the following:
· Viewpoint I - assessed in the report as having the potential to be mitigated to a
"less than significant level." The information is significantly incomplete and
thus the impact is under,ated. In all site drawings, there is a small footnote stating
that for Lot 2 "Reconstruct cut slope along Paradise Drive depending on results of
Geotechnical investigation performed for house design." Note that the building
envelope of Lot 2 is set approx. 30 feet above Paradise Drive and within 20 feet
of the ledge. While it is possible a home could be built without a massive
retaining wall directly on the shoulder ofthe road, this outcome is certainly
unknown, but the impact is significant enough to merit mention on all site
drawings and discussion. With or without a retaining wall, there will be a
landscape-free 30-foot wall ofrock or concrete plus an additional 25-30 foot
I.
.
-
;e
:.
i-
i.:
.
-
.
.
.
,.
.
:-
:.
.
'.
:.
.
:.'
;~
,,~
.
.
.
.
e
'.
,t
:.
'.
'.
.
i.
:.
:.
.'
41
'.- \
;
;.
I;.'
x
'.
.
.'
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.1'
.
.
-
.'
.
.'
..
.
.'
.
.'
.
.
.
.
-
.
."
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.'
I
cont
house. The visual impact will be shocking, invasive and totally out of character
with the neighborhood. The current assessment is unreasonably optimistic. I
recommend that it be more realistic and consistent with the assessments of similar
viewpoints -- significant and unavoidable impact.
L
. Viewpoint 5 - assessed in the report as having a "less than significant impact" due
to the view being subordinate to the existing landscape. This is probably a
misstatement due to the law of averages. 220,400 sq ft (slightly less than 5 acres),
or 20% of the entire project area will be "disturbed," To some, 20% destruction
may seem minor, particularly when viewed from several miles away. However,
it is important to note that the 5 acres of destruction all occur in the Lot
Development, areas which are largely contiguous. In addition, another 5 acres
(contiguous to above) are designated to be cleared to plant replacement oak
seedlings. A concentrated excavation of 10 acres will be "extremely" visible
from the Larkspur Ferry... ..not to mention the rest of the area. With a more
precise understanding of the total disturbed area, it is quite obvious that both the
"sensitivity" and "visual dominance" have been radically altered. I recommend a
more realistic assessment of: significant and unavoidable impact.
3
. Cumulative Visual Impacts - As the document itself states, four projects on
Paradise Drive are currently in various planning stages. Given that the other three
projects are likewise ambitiously conceived, but not yet designed to the extent of
this project, how can such an assessment even be made? I am confused by the
conclusion that"... the existing pattern of low density development would assure
the continues (sic) appearance of Paradise Drive as a 'rural' woodland area
interspersed with residential structures." Though the Tiburon Glen property is
relatively large, all the building occurs along Paradise Drive, a highly visible area
from many vantage points. 10 acres will be clear-cut. Ttlle building sites
themselves are tightly clustered -building envelopes for Lots 1 and 2 are 30 feet
apart; the sites for Lots 3 and 4 appear to be within 20 feet; Lots 1,2 and 4 are
within 20-30 feet of Paradise Drive; Lot 7 is with 50 feet of an existing home, A
7 stall parking lot is required on the Paradise. This is NOT "rural! I recommend
this impact be restated to: significant and unavoidable impact.
t
. Viewpoint X - Interestingly, no viewpoint analysis was taken at the entrance to
the 6-lot development, though the eye of any passer-by will certainly be drawn
there, First, you will see a parking lot, bordered to the right by a 9' wall and to
the back by a 7' wall. The proposed landscaping mayor may not exist; trash,
graffiti and campers may populate the site. A 20' wide road will Iltn steeply up
the hill only to be blocked by Retaining Wall #1 which will reach heights of 16.'
This view is urban, not rural; it is absolutely in conflict with any possible
interpretation of the General Plan, Paradise Drive Visioning Plan and common
sense.
In addition to these Viewpoint-specific impacts, the proposed plan will forever blight this
beautiful area. As mentioned above, a 10 acre clear-cut, concentrated in the lower
*
*
*
*
*
*
.
'.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
..
.
.
.
:'.
;.
:e
e.
.
'.~
.
.
.
..
'.
.
~
.
,,-.-
, ,
'.
.
.
:.
'.
.
.-
.
.
.
,e
portion of the property, will outrage many residents of Tiburon. Additionally, 3200+
feet of retaining walls, some extending as much as 900' and reaching heights of 22,' will
not be hidden from view, regardless of how much ivy is planted or brown paint used.
The homes themselves are a giant question mark -the existing FAR's for this property
will allow 8000'+ homes and they in and of themselves, will pose a huge and "out of
character" visual impact compounded by the clustering of them at the lower elevations of
the property.
The cumulative visual and aesthetic impact of all the components of this proposed project
is significant. unavoidable and destructive. I'm not aware of any legitimate "burning"
issues that demand such permanent destruction of this area, It seems that the developer
should have "reasonably" considered the challenges of this location and responded
accordingly. What is presented in the RDEIR is a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem
that does not exist... .yet with negative and permanent consequences imposed on all
existing residents and users of Paradise Drive.
Respectfully yours,
John T. Kunzweiler & Julie LaNasa
16 Norman Way
Tiburon, CA
.
.
.
.
-.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
Ie
'.
.
'.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER M - John Kunzweiler and Julie LaNasa
Response to Comment M-1
The commentor states project effects on Viewpoint 1 would be significant and unavoidable because
Lot 2 would require additional stabilization along roadway that could take the form of a retaining wall
or other "landscape-free" stabilization technique that was not reflected in the simulation. The potential
reconstruction of this cut slope as noted on project plans was considered in the preparation of the
Viewpoint I photosimulation. As stated on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 :
"The graded embankment below (south) of the Lot 2 housing unit is within that Lot's residential
use area, therefore it would be landscaped by the lot owner. No information regarding the
repair or landscaping of this area was provided, therefore it is shown with existing vegetation
removed to depict the visual change. Reconstruction of the existing cut slope may not require
removal of all vegetation in this area, and landscaping would likely screen the lower portions of
the retaining wall and housing unit."
The RDEIR geotechnical consultant believes that this area would probably not require full slope
reconstruction (and thus total vegetation removal) or the extensive use of retainmg walls. Based on
this analysis, the RDEIR found this impact to be less than significant after mitigation. Additionally,
please see Response to Comment K-2.
Response to Comment M-2
The commentor states that the impact of the project in Viewpoint 5 should be considered significant
and unavoidable because of the visual impacts of the woodlands mitigation. Please see Master
Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment M-3
The commentor states that cumulative visual impacts (Impact 5.4-6), should be considered significant
and unavoidable. Please see Response to Comment H-6. It should be noted that precise development
proposals and a draft EIR have been prepared for each of the three other cumulative development
projects. This information was used for the analysis in Impact 5.4-6.
Response to Comment M-4
The commentor states that no view of the entrance (Roadway A-B intersection with Paradise Drive
and the parking area) was prepared. Viewpoint 2 includes the entryway (Roadway A-B) and depicts
the retaining"walls referenced by the commentor. This, viewppint was selected because it captured
both the proposed parking area and home sites on four of the six lots proposed in Development Area
No.1. Although this viewpoint does not depict all of the project elements the commentor suggests,
the RDEIR recognizes the significant visual impact of the proposed improvements. As discussed on
page 5.4-13, the parking lot and parked cars would "emphasize the presence of development and
would detract from the existing rural character," and even after maturation of the landscaping, "the
parking area would still dominate the view from a distance and from Paradise Drive," thus resulting in
a significant and unavoidable impact.
8.4-71
Mr. Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Ms. ji:lyni Allsep, Contract Planner
Planning Department
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
N
.
.
:.
:.
!-
:.
:e)
!.
1.
,.
i.
!.
.
:.
.
.
,.
',.
:.
.
.
:.
.
'.
.
.
:.,
..
.
:-
:.
'.
.
.-
..
-
.
.
-
.1
.'
.
.
RECEIVED
JUL 0 8 2003
E-mail: ConnieCashman<ccashman@citiburon.ca.us>;
Jayni Allsep <Allsep planning@comcastnet>;
Scott Anderson <sanderson@ci. tiburon.ca. us>
PLANNI~,lG DIVISION
, TOWN OF TI8URON
July 8, 2003
RE: Tiburon Glen Estates RDEIR
Dear Scott and Jayni,
I write to formally bring to your attention and enter into the record my continuing
concerns with respect to safety and, in my view, a seriously flawed Section 5.5,
Transportation and Circulation. This letter is to supplement those already provided by
others, especially Anne Norman and Sandra Swanson as well as comments from Scott
Pearson at the time of the hearing for the initial DEIR.
The core of my concern is the inability to understand and accurately assess the impact of
the proposed projeCt on the safety of traffic, vehicular, bicycles, and pedestrian, on
Paradise Drive. As we all know and the RDEIR acknowledges, Paradise Drive road is
dangerous, the lives of people traversing it knowingly in peril. Therefore, as I state in
my conclusion, it is imperative every effort be made in the rigorous pursuit of the truth
of the fact situation.
My points are as follows:
2
.. The traffic surveys are unreliable because the process followed in developing
them was unscientific, substituting personal judgment and therefore bias for
random sampling selection of observation days and times. For example, a five
hour observation of traffic, data that I personally collected on Saturday, June 21,
2003 between 9 AM and 2 PM, shows egregious differences from data collected
on October 23 and 27, 2001, on which is based Section 5.5. The data 1 collected
shows 2-3 X more bicycle traffic in the face of just as heavy or worse levels of
vehicular traffic. I have attached a copy of my traffic survey information to this
e-m for your perusal.
· Section 5.5 makes no effort to more carefully assess danger by quantifying the
incidence of risk. Based on my own traffic data I calculate the mcidence of risk
events during my five hour observation period at not less than 1,144 and ranging
up to 2,288 PER HOUR. A risk event is the passing of a bicycle or pedestrian by a
car or truck. I believe the number of risk events is much more than worrisome. I
, believe they are representative of a shocking trend that has outpaced relatively
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
e)
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.,
.
.
'.
.
.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2-
c.Orrt. ,
3
4-
benign historic data, as well as a powerful foreshadowing message for all who
touch the project to exercise great care. In fact, this highly dangerous situation
was underscored when at approximately 3 PM the day of my observations a
vehicle ran off the road at the intersection of Trestle Glen and Paradise Drive,
requiring a roll by both fire and ambulance services. A copy of the assumptions
on which my calculation of risk events is based is also attached to this e-m.
· A footnote at Section 5.5-5, page 17, speaks to a report obtained from the County
of the traffic accident rate between Trestle Glen and the entrance to the Romberg
Center. Almost assuredly, with only very minor exceptions, all traffic egressing
onto Paradise Drive from Tiburon Glen Estates ~d turning South, toward town,
is going all the way to town, not stopping at the Romberg Center. Further, my
traffic survey showed an average of 52 vehicles per hour driving toward town
and only 28 toward Trestle Glen. In my opinion, the terminus of the South
measurement point should be no sooner than Mar Centro and perhaps even
further South toward town. Again, underscoring the peril to life along Paradise
Drive, the County data shows two bicycle deaths, one at Paradise and Mar West
and a second at Paradise and Mateo Drive. While these are sad and regretful, in
my view they also speak to the affect on the data from the arbitrariness of
selecting the Romberg entrance as the study south bound end point.
· Section 5.5-4, page 16, speaks to Safe On-Site RoadWays. Gradepercentages are
presented of 20% (Tiburon max for private roadways), 18% (TFDP max), 16%
(Tiburon max for public roadways) and 15% ("EIR traffic analyst's standard
recommendation"). A discussed mitigant is incorporation of "brushed concrete
surfaces" for road grades in excess of 15 %. The use of the term "mitigant" in the
text, however, is narrow to the road grade per se. Such narrowness of thought is
shot throughout the document as risks are parsed and mitigating remedies
presented, as if no other considerations need be taken into account. I believe this
is wrong, that the larger view in many instances would suggest doing things
conservatively as a matter of prudence simply because it is impossible to foresee
all circumstances where things can go tragically awry. Notwithstanding the
logic and appeal of many mitigants, common sense suggests some be rejected
simply as a matter of the exercise of care and appropriate stewardship in the
larger context. In my view, the larger and more appropriate point of view with
respect to the road grades is the dangerous conditions of Paradise Drive,
undulating and narrow width, dense and vulnerable peak traffic, radically
shifting traffic mix and lives knowingly at peril. I believe it compounds the
felony given the facts of Paradise Drive to approve road grades in excess of the
standard 15 % recommendation. What is the point of pushing the edge of the
envelope where people's lives already are at risk?
In conclusion I wish to make what I feel is an important point. I come back to the issue
of accepting mitigants for parsed risks when the larger issue otherwise suggests great
care and prudent stewardship be exercised through more conservative choices by the
approving authority. The larger issue here is that development along Paradise Drive
clearly is at and perhaps beyond what is a sensible level without an action plan to fix the
road so as to e1.i.IDinate peak periods of danger. If the counsel members had sat by my
side when I was observing traffic they would have seen an elderly jogger on the yellow
line, joggers three abreast in the center of the North bound lane, and a car slipping
through the center of a group of cyclists. Many times in driving Paradise Drive I have
seen cars blindly pass cyclists on curves. And, I have seen parents in their unwamed
innocence, towing children behind their bikes. None of us wants the empirical evidence
befc:.'2 us of a Paradise Drive "bloodbath." Yet, parsed logic notwithstanding, I fear
unless the approving body keeps the larger issues in mind and further pushes to
rigorously develop the facts, reigns in such patently inappropriate developments as
Tiburon Glen, the risk trends are such that in the not too distant time it is exactly what is
going to occur.
.
.
.
.
:.
i.
.
Ie
'.
:.
I
;.
.
.
.
it
.
.
,.'
'.
' ,
:.
.
,
\e
'.
:.
.
.
.
:.,
-
:.
ie
.'
.
.
'-
:.
:.
.
.'
.
:.
.
Sincerely Yours,
Robert F. Benbow
53 Norman Way
'.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
-
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
\-
1-
~
~
~
~
Saturday, June 21, 2003
Traffic Observations By Robert F. Benbow, 53 NW
Observation Point: Turnout on East side of Paradise Drive, 1.3 miles South of Trestle Glen,
immediately South of proposed Roadway A-B
Time 9-10AM 10-11AM 11-12Noon 2 Noon-1 PM 1-2PM Total Hr. Ave
Bicycles 59 101 73 68 48 349 70
Cars 65 58 74 86 103 386 77
Trucks 5 1 2 2 4 14 3
Pedestrians 1 Q 1 1 Q 12 g
Total Trips 133 166 150 157 155 761 152
South Bound (Toward Town)
Bicycles 37 75 51 34 21 218 44
Cars 36 37 46 64 68 251 50
Trucks 3 1 1 2 1 8 2
Pedestrians 1 ~ Q Q Q 1 1
S.Tr:?,> 77 116 98 100 90 481 96
North Bound (Toward Trestle Glen)
Bicycles 22 26 22 34 27 131 26
Cars 29 21 28 22 35 135 27
Trucks 2 0 1 0 3 6 1
Pedestrians ~ ~ 1 1 Q ~ g
N. Trips 56 50 52 57 65 280 56
Assumptions for the Calculation of Risk Events
Letter to Planning Department from R. F. Benbow
Dated July 8, 2003
RECEIVED
JUL 0 9 2003
PLANNiNG DIVISION
. Cars and trucks average speed of 25 miles per hour. TOWN OF TIBURON
. Bicycles average speed of 12 miles per hour.
· Pedestrians average speed of3 miles per hour.
. Use data from last column of traffic observations, Five Hour Average.
. A risk event is a car or truck passing a bike or pedestrian irrespective of whether
the latter are in a South or North bound lane.
. Calculation:
o 70 bikes per hour/60 minutes = 1.66667 bikes per minute.
o Bike speed of 12 mph/60 minutes = .20 miles per minute or 5 minutes per
mile.
o 4.4 mile road sectionl.20 miles per minute = 22 minute traverse time.
o (1,16667 X 22 = 25.67 bikes per 4.4 mile segment) x 80 vehicles per hour
= 2,053 risk events per hour.
o Similar calculation for pedestrians yields 235 risk events per hour.
o 2,053 + 235= 2,288 risk events per hour.
o 2,288/2 = 1,144 risk events per hour assuming an average vehicle trip of
2.2 miles.
.'
ie
:.
i.
!.
'.
,e
le
'.
'.
.
,.
'.
.
.
..
..
ie
.
..
.
,.
'.
..
.
.
,e
,.
.'
-
.
.
..
:.
.
I.
I.
'.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
RECEIVED
JUL 1 4 2003
AN~.-'" ,.,
rrlN N
:=~TE:~MAIL # I
PLANNING DIVISION Bicycle
TOWN OF TIBURON Risk Events Per Hour
(Car, Truck or Motorcycle Passing Cyclist)
150 1925 2475 3027 3579 4131 4683
140 1795 2310 2825 3340 3855 4370
Vehicles 130 1667 2145 2623 3101 3579 4057
Per 120 1539 1980 2421 2862 3303 3744
Hour 110 1411 1815 2219 2623 3027 3431
100. 1283 1650 2017 2383 2749 3115
90 1155 1485 . 1815 2145 2475 2805
80 1027 1320 1613 1906 2199 2492
70 898 1155 1412 1669 1926 2183
70 90 110 130 150 170
Bicycles Per Hour
RF Benbow July 14, 2003
Assumptions: 12 MPH Bicycles, Ave. Vehicle Trip 2.2 miles,
4.4 mile course (Trestle Gen To Mar Centro)
BOX: Actual No. Risk Events, 5 hr. average, 6/21/03
Pedestrians/Joggers
Risk Events Per Hour
(Car, Truck or Motocycle Passing P/J)
Vehicles
Per
Hour
150 207 411 615 819 1023 1227
140 192 381 570 745 920 1095
130 177 352 ' 527 702 877 1052
120 162 323 484 645 806 967
110 147 293 439 585 731 877
90 132 264 396 528 660 792
80 117 235 352 470 587 704
70 103 205 308 411 514 616
2 4 6 8 10 12
Pedestrians Per Hour
RF Benbow July 14, 2003
Assumptions: 3 MPH Joggers/Pedestrians, Ave. Vehicle Trip 2.2 miles',
4.4 mile course (Trestle Glen to Mar Centro)
BOX: Actual No. Risk Events, 5 hr. average, 6/21/03
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER N - Robert F. Benbow
Response to Comment N-1
The commentor states that the traffic surveys are unscientific and have different results than the data
collected by the commentor. Please see Response to Comment 1-3 for a discussion of the different
data collected on roadway conditions. Please see Response to Comment N-2 for a discussion of the
traffic analysis methodology.
Response to Comment N-2
The commentor is concerned that the RDEIR "makes no effort to assess danger by quantifying the
incidence of risk." He defines a "risk event" as "the passing of a bicycle or pedestrian by a car or
truck. "
The study methodology employed in the Tiburon Glen EIR traffic analysis, a methodology developed
in consultation with the Town of Tiburon, is very similar to that required for other projects within the
Town, several of which are located along Paradise Drive. The Tiburon Glen EIR traffic analysis
follows the current professional standard for EIR traffic analyses conducted throughout California.
Such studies routinely employ a traffic engineer, but generally do not require the services of a
statistician.
Counts of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians were conducted during four hours on a weekday, from
7:00-9:00 AM and from 4:00-6:00 PM. These are the time periods when commute traffic would be at
peak, thus the time period of greatest concern for automobile-bicycle interface. The weekend counts
were conducted during good weather in October from 1:30 PM to 5:00 PM. Although the count days
were not full days, the time periods are considered to reasonably represent conditions on Paradise
Drive. The commentor's observations of maximum time periods for bicycle use are helpful; however,
on the day counted, the greater number of bicyclists occurred during the afternoon from 4:00-5:00 PM.
The time of peak bicycle activity would be expected to vary somewhat from weekend to weekend.
The commentor provides data to support a finding of 1,144 to 2,288 "risk events" per hour. This is not
standard practice for evaluating roadway safety, and raises many questions concerning how such an
evaluation might be used in evaluating roadway safety. For example, it would seem that risk of
accident would have to consider such factors as width and distance of available shoulders for use by
pedestrian and bicyclists per roadway segment, terrain, sight distance and conditions of visibility
(sunny, foggy, raining, glare, nighttime, daytime, etc.), speed of vehicle versus bicyclist, etc. Even
after having conducted a well-designed study which can take into consideration these many factors,
there would be no comparison studies or established standards against which to measure the results.
The study would provide a number of risk events to which no threshold of significance could be
applied and for which there would be no basis of comparison with other roadways in order to establish
the des~red roadway risk associated with this particular roadway. Further, even with a determined
number of risk events, there would be no rational way to factor in the project's contribution to the
existing risk environment and thus assign a value to the project's effect in order to conclude whether
the project's contribution is significant. A more common practice is to establish an accident rate per
million vehicle miles of travel for the roadway type (i.e., classified as rural, suburban or urban setting,
number of lanes, divided or undivided, flat, rolling or mountainous terrain, design speed). This is
done as follows:
8.4-78
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.g.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Accident rate = (Number of accidents) X (1,000,000)
'Vehicle Miles of Travel
This type of accident rate analysis is done statewide and county-wide, and allows comparisons of one
roadway to another with similar characteristics. Using this methodology, Marin County Public Works
researched the five-year accident rate for the approximately three-mile long segment of Paradise Drive
(from milepost 4.31 to 7.22), which includes the project site frontage, and found it to be "below the
state-wide average for conventional two-lane roads in both rolling and mountainous terrains." Further
discussion of the Paradise Drive accident rate is provided below.
The RDEIR acknowledges the existing hazardous roadway conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians
and concludes that the 80 daily two-way trips expected to result from the project would represent an
incremental contribution to the existing unsafe roadway conditions, constituting a cumulative impa<::t.
Statistical analysis is not needed to reach this conclusion and would not present any further evidence
of this fact in a meaningful formant that could illuminate the project's contribution. Issues relating to
roadway safety are adequately addressed in terms of the requirements of CEQA. The conclusion by
this and other commentors that the roadway conditions on Paradise Drive are so dangerous that no
new development should be permitted addresses the merits of the project, not the adequacy of the
RDEIR.
Response to Comment N-3
The commentor characterizes the data provided by the Marin County Department of Pubic Works
(DPW) as arbitrary because the studied roadway segment begins at Trestle Glen Boulevard and ends
in the vicinity of the entrance to the Romberg Center and concludes that extending the segment to Mar
Centro or further would yield more meaningful data. The EIR traffic engineer contacted the County
DPW in order to ask the reasons for the chosen roadway segment and asked them to elaborate on
accident data and the method of derivation of accident rates for Paradise Drive. County DPW staff
'state that the County maintains a data base for all County roadways.6 The data base is set up by
roadway, and each roadway is categorized by segment, based upon characteristics such as width,
grade, terrain (i.e., level versus rolling or mountainous; straight versus winding), design speed,
pavement condition, urban versus rural, etc., and each segment must have a traffic count (ADT
(average daily traffic), usually based upon 24-hour hose counts) in order to determine the accident
rate. ADT varies greatly segment to segment along Paradise Drive. The segment of Paradise Drive
for which the County provided accident data (post mile 4.31 [Trestle Glen] to post mile 7.22 [NET
Depot, near the entrance to the Romberg Center] was established for its specific characteristics: this
segment is narrow and winding, there are no consistent shoulder widths or pedestrian sidewalks or
pathways, and it is outside the influence of traffic associated with neighborhoods in the Town of
Tiburon (a more urban environment). The County established the adjacent segment (post mile 7.22
[NET Depot, near the entrance to the Romberg Center] to p,ost mile 8.76 [l)buron town limit, near
Mar East Street] for its specific characteristics: nearer the Tiburon town limit Paradise Drive has more
urban characteristics, such as increasing frequency of intersecting roadways and driveways, and higher
ADT.
As described in the response to comment N-2, the County calculates accident rates by "million vehicle
miles of travel." This allows comparisons of one roadway to another with similar characteristics, and
can be compared to state-wide averages. The County provided the five-year accident rate for the two
6 Crane Transportation Group telephone communication with Jason Nutt, Marin County Department ofPub]ic Works,
August 6, 2003.
8.4-79
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
roadway segments: post mile 4.31 to post mile 7.22 (the rural two-lane segment) has a five-year
accident rate of 1.09, while post mile 7.22 to post mile 8.76 (the suburban two-lane segment) has an
accident rate of 1.65.
According to the County, the state-wide average accident rate for a two-lane rural road in rolling or
mountainous terrain (with similar ADT to that of Paradise Drive from post mile 4.31 to post mile 7.22)
is 1.53 (in comparison to the Paradise Drive accident rate of 1.09). The state-wide average accident
rate for a two-lane suburban road in rolling or mountainous terrain (with similar ADT to that of
Paradise Drive post mile 7.22 to post mile 8.76) is 2.95 (in comparison to the Paradise Drive accident
rate of 1.65). Therefore, both Paradise Drive roadway segments have five-year accident rates below
the state-wide average for similar roadway segments.
Response to Comment N-4
The commentor questions the allowable roadway grade percentage. He supports use of a maximum 15
percent roadway grade for on-site roadways. The commentor's opinion on maximum roadway grades
is acknowledged. The RDEIR traffic analysts' standard recommendation is that roadway and
driveway grades not exceed 15 percent, and, if this cannot be avoided, that a brushed concrete
roadway surface should be provided through the steep grade. This is more conservative than the
Town's roadway standards of 16 (public) and 20 percent (private roads).
8.4-80
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
07-08-2003 04:52PM FROM-Shute. Mihaly & Weinberier LLP,
+415552581 S
T-932 P,002/016 F-590
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER tiP
ATTORNE!YS AT LAW
o
E, C I.~"'.NT s..UTE. .JFl,
MARl( I. WEINeEAGER
f\o4,4RC e, MIHA.LV, P.C.
F'~AN,M, \-AnON
~.A.Ch(L B. HOOPCR
ELI-E.N IJ. GAFle~R
CHRISTY H. TA.y'LOR
TAMARA s. G.o\L.AN1"tR
f:l..l.I~ON F"OL.K
RICI"lARO 5. T^YLOR
Wll.l..tAM oJ. WI"IIY(
J:lOBEAT e. f=lERLMuTftA
05A L ARMI
BRIAN..J. ..JOI"lNSON
"ANETTE 1;., "eMU.
396 HAYtS STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (41::il 552-7272
FACSIMILE: l04 I 5, 552.58 16
WWW.SMWLAW.COM
.,I&FFAEY M. BI'lAX
M...R\.ENA G eY~NE
M"TThEW 0, ZINN
CATHERINE C, ENGB ERG
ERIN RYAN
MATTHEW O. vtSPI\
LAUAEL L. IMPt:TT, AtCP
CARME N .,I, BORG
Vltt.A.. PL...,....(R9
ELIZ"B&TH M, eeoe
OAVIO NAWI
0' cOv"!IE~
July 8, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Jayni Allsep
Contract Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 TibuTon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Comments on Tiburon Glen Revised Draft Environmental Imvact
Report
Dear Ms. Allsep:
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submits these comments on the Town of
Tiburon's Revised Draft Env1ronmentallmpact Report ("RDEIR") for the Tiburon Glen
project ("project") on behalf of the Last Chance Committee and the Norman Estates
Homeowners Association. The RDEIR contains additional information and analysis ,
which improves on the prior DEIR. This new analysis further reinforces what has been
apparent from the beginning, namely that the proposed project would have severc and
unavoidable environmental and community impacts, and that it cannot be approved
under existing Town land use policies and regulations. The project's acknowledged
inconsistencies with at least 35 general plan policies and zoning requirements preclude
approval as a matter oflaw. As is clear from the environmental analysis in the RDEIR,
the extremely steep, environmentally sensitive character of the project site simply cannot
support the mtensive grading, landslide stabilization, and. vegetative clearing required
for the construction of eight separate mega-homes, the size and scale of which are out
grossly of character with the neighboring corrurnmity.
Unfortunately, the RDEIR continues to focus the envirorunental analysis
on the proposed 8~lot project, despite the impossibility ofits approval. The analysis of
alternatives in the RDEIR, which is far ,more relevant in this case, is given shon shrift.
07-08-2003 04:52PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberaer LLP,
+4\555Z581 S
T-Q32 P,D03/01S F-590
.
.
.
.'
'.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:.
'.
.
.
.
!.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J ayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 2
The RDEIR not only fails to provide an adequate analysis and comparison of the
alternatives presented, but focuses on alternatives that fail to achieve meaningful
reduction in impacts. The most glaring omission is the absence of a three-lot alternative
designed to eliminate development in the "Area 2" portion of the site and to dispense
with the proposed 7-car parking lot on Paradise Drive. Without an adequate discussion
of alternatives, the RDEIR does not provide the meaningful analysis required under
CEQA. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California
(1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 404.
The RDEIR also continues to be deficient in a number of other critical
respects. Although a contemplated sewer upgrade would eliminate a major constraint on
development in the area, the RDEIR skins any analysis of corresponding growth-
inducing impacts. The RDEIR also fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts
of future development and omits any discussion of several significant impacts identified
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"). These deficiencies along with a
number of others discussed below, render the RDEIR inadequate as a matter of law.
Because of the fatal inconsistencies of the project with the General Plan,
zoning and other requirements, the Commission should deny the proposed project now
and direct the applicant to submit a redesigned project that is consistent with applicable
requirements and minimizes environmental impacts. A new or revised Draft EIR should
then be prepared in conjunction with the revised project that corrects the deficiencies
identified below.
I. The Project i~ Inconsistent with the TOWD ofTiburon General Plan and
Zoning Code.
A. The Project May Not Be Approved Based Qnly on Stated
Inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and
development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan. Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570. To be consistent, a
project must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs
specified in the general plan. Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural EI Dorado County
(FUTURE) v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 1332, 1336. A project may
be found inconsistent where it frustrates general plan goals and policies or conflicts with
a specific general plan policy. Id. (project inconsistent where conflicted withland use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
07-08-2003 04:52PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberier LLP,
+4155525816
T-9a2 P.004/015 F-590
J ayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 3
density policy); San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino
1
(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 738, 753 (project inconsistent where conflicted with a single
policy in conservation element); Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. County ofNaoa
(2001) 91 Ca1.AppAth 342,379 (Updated specific plan inconsistent where frustrated
goals of general plan).
The Land Use and Planning section of the RDEIR contains an analysis of
the project's consistency with i~dividual policies and requirements of the Town's
General Plan, Zoning Code, and Paradise Drive Visioning Plan. The revised analysis
reveals even more inconsistenci1es with the Town General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
than previously determined in ilie original DEIR. The RDEIR concludes that the project
is partially or wholly inconsisteht with nearly half of the SO General Plan goals and
policies analyzed, as well as with twelve provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and nine
provisions of the Visioning PIJ. RDEIR, Section 4.0. The sheer number of these
inconsistencies is remarkable, ~nd makes clear that the proposed 8-unit project cannot
legally be approved. .'
The proposed project blatantly disregards Town policies requiring
development to respect the phy~ical an environmental constraints of the property. As
General Plan Policy LV-l7 makes clear, housing densities specified in the Land Use
Element are maximums and mJy not be achieved if other standards of the General Plan
pertaining to environmental, pHysical, or off-site constraints, such as steep slopes or soil
instability, require lower densities or intensities. In this case, it is difficult to imagine a
site more constrained than the proposed project site. Several lotS have an average
existing slope greater tban 40 Hercent and ubiquitous soil instability results in no less
than 11 distinct landslide areasl. RDEIR, at 2.0-10. The areas that are least steep contain
I
sensitive plant communities. RDEIR at 5.3-25. Despite these severe constraints, the
project proposes to construct t~e maximum units allowable under ideal building
conditions.' RDEIR, at 2.0-5.
The project is also inconsistent with unambiguous numeric standards
established by Town regulatio~s. For example, Zoning Code section 4.08.04(c) states
that slopes created by grading ~hould not exceed 30 percent. Vastly exceeding this
, Indeed, the proposed [project goes beyond the maximum density of 0.3 units per
acre set forth in the General Plan. According to the RDEIR, the actual size of the
property is 26.03 acres, resulti1ng in a density of 0.33 units per acre for an 8-tinit project.
07-08-2003 04:52PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberier LLP,
+4155525816
T-932 P,OD5/016 F-S90
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
ie
..
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
..
...
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 4
\
maximum, tbe project's many landslide repair areas would range in slope from 33 to 67
percent.
In addition to ignoring the site's physical limitations, the project proposes
homes that are grossly out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood character. The
proposed mansions, the largest of which could total 8,750 square feet, are over twice the
size of existing homes in direct violation of Zoning Code section 4.02.07( c), which
requires that development bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing
buildings in the vicinity. Compounding this conflict, the proposed homes, and the
extensive vegetative clearing, landslide repair and grading associated with their
development, would have devastating visual impacts, contravening the requirement of
Zoning Code section 4.08.04(f) to minimize the visual prominence of development and
construction.
AJ1y one of these or the other acknowledged inconsistencies in the RDEIR
are sufficient to preclude the Town from approving the project as proposed. FUTURE,
62 Cal.App.4th at 1336.
B. The RDEIR Understates or Misrepresents Project Inconsistencies
with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Paradise Drive Visioning
Plan.
I
Without explanation or analysis, many of the RDEIR'sconslstency
findings are framed as "partly inconsistent." It is unclear how a project can be only
"partly" inconsistent with applicable policies and regulations. If a project is not fully
consistent with those requirements, there ;s an inconsistency, and the RDEIR should so
state. To the extent that there are certain aspects of the project that, if removed or
modified, would eliminate an identified inconsistency, that should be explained in the
DEIR. But describing the project as having only partial inconsistencies witn certain
policies is misleading to decisionmakers and the public.
2-
Moreover, the degree of the project's inconsistency with the Town's land
use regulations is even greater than described in the RDEIR's consistency analysis. For
example, General Plan Policies OSC-7 and SE-6 require that the Town discourage
development on slopes exceeding 40% and grading in excess of 30%. Not only will the
project's extensive ~ading disrupt the natural contours of the site, but the slope of four
proposed lots is also in excess of 40%. The slope of the building envelope of three lots
is in excess of 40%, with one exceeding 70%. Furthermore, as discussed above in the
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2-
CQ1'C.
3
'4
07-0B-Z003 04:S3PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberier LLP,
+4ISS5Z5eI5
T-93Z P,OOS/01S F-S90
Jayni Allsep
July 8~ 2003
Page 5
context of the project's inconsistency with Zoning Code section 4.08.04(c), the slopes
created by grading would range from 33 to 67 percent. Despite the clear exceedences of
these numeric standards, the RDEIR inexplicably concludes that the project is only party
inconsistent with OSC-7 and SE-6. This is even more perplexing given the original
DEIR's conclusion - based on identical information - that the project was fully
inconsistent with OSC-7 and SE~6 (DEIR, at 4.0-7, 4.0-11).
The RDEIR also continues to downplay the inconsistencies resulting from
the inclusion of Development Area 2 (lots 7 and 8) in the development plan. By adding
development adjacent to existing Nonnan Estates without a buffer, the proposed
development plan is clearly inconsistent with General Plan Goal LU-F and Policy ase-
14 favoring greenbelt buffers between developments. The RDEIR erroneously
determined that the project is only "partly" inconsistent with botn OSC-14 and LV-F,
despite the original DErR's conclusion that the project is fully inconsistent with asc-
14, and without any explanation or additional analysis.
: 1 ~
The creation of Development Area 2 also maximizes the number of new
access roadways onto Paradise Drive. General Plan Policy C-20 states that driveways
along Paradise Drive should be discouraged and avoided where feasible, that new
development shall explore other options for access, and that additional new roads that
intersect Paradise Drive shall be kept to the minimum number possible. By including
two entirely separate development areas, necessitating two new access roads off of
Paradise Drive, the project is in direct contravention of Policy C-20, as well as similar
policies under Goal II-I of Visioning Plan. Again, the RDEIR's description of these
inconsistencies as only partial is groundless and without explanation. The statement on
page 4.0-12 that a single access would not be feasible "short of no residential lots in one
or both proposed development areas" has no relevance to the consistency finding, since
elimination of residential development in Development Area 2 is plainly feasible. The '
RDEIR should revise its finding for these policies from to "inconsistent." To be
consistent with these policies - and thus approvable by the Town - the project must be
redesigned to eliminate development in Area 2.
The project is also clearly inconsistent with the Town IS open space
policies. The project site is designated in tl1e General Plan as potential open space.
RDEIR, at 2.0-5. The General Plan Open Space Element requires that open space areas
be protected to the "maximum extent feasible." See OSC-1; OSC-2. The proposed
project clearly does not meet this requirement. Particularly when landslide repair is
considered, the placement of eight lots on a property as heavily constrained as this one
+4155525816
.
:.
i.
..
i.
'.
:.
:.
:.
i.
..
..
.
r.
..
.
'.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
07-08-2003 04:53PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberisr LLP
5
b
7 I
T-932 P 007/016 F-590
Jayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 6
would have devastating effects on the site's prime open spaceand its associated
resources. Because, as the DEIR's alternatives analysis indicates, feasible alternatives
exist, the General Plan would compel denial of the proposed eight-lot development plan
on this basis alone.
Similarly, as discussed above, the scale and density of housing is
incongruous with the environmental constraints of the project site and the surrounding
neighborhood character. The original DEIR recognized this inconsistency in several of
its fIndings, yet the RDEIR paradoxically concludes that the project is consistent with
several analogous policies. Compare Zoning Code SS 4.02.07(c); 4.08,04(f) with LU-B;
LU~3; H-B. These findings must be changed from consistent to inconsistent.
The RDEIR also presumes that the project's as-of-yet undesigned homes
are consistent with policies such as Goal 1-3, which call for the design of homes in a
rural style to blend into the existing landscape. RDEIR, at 4.0-28. The RDEIR must
state that design compatibility is currently unlrnovvn.
The RDEIR's focus on an 8-unit development with no possibility of
approval is at the expense of a meaningful analysis of more realistic, environmentally
preferable alternatives. The RDEIR fails to analyze the consistency of the proposed
alternatives with the General Plan and other Town regulations. This omission is critical,
since only an alternative to the 8-unit development can be approved. Before further
resources are expended analyzing the project as proposed, the Commission should deny
the project outright and invite the applicant to submit a redesigned, reduced-density
proposal that addresses the inconsistencies identified in the RDEIR. With a redesigned
project as a starting point, the environmental and consistency analyses can be revised to
focus on and compare the merits of realistic project alternatives.
II. THE RDEIR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEQA.
A. The RDEIR Does Not Adequately Disclose or Analyze Significant
EnVironmental Impacts, or Include Reasonable Mitigation Measures.
An EIR must be detailed, complete, and reflect a good faith effort at full
disclosure. The document should provide a sufficient degree of analysis to inform the
public about the proposed project's adverse environmental impacts and to allow
decisionmakers to make intelligent judgments. (CEQA Guidelines S 15151.) In
reviewing the legal sufficiency of an EIR, the focus i;; on adequacy, completeness and a
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
OH9-Z003 04:53PM FROM-Shute. Mihaly &, Weinbernr LLP,
+41555Z5916
T-93Z P,009/016 F-590
Jayni Allsep
July 8,2003
Page 7
good faith effort at full disclosure. As emphasized in Kin2:s County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (1990), an EIR must support with rigorous
analysis and substantial evidence the conclusions regarding environmental impacts.
(See id. at 712.)
,While the additional analysis in the RDEIR is an improvement over the
prior version, it remains deficient in a number of critical respects. As a result, the
RDEIR fails to fully disclose the nature and extent of the project's potentially significant
impacts. The following conunents highlight several of the document's major
shortcomings. A number of additional problems that are not repeated here but are
nevertheless significant are documented in the letter submitted by Richard Grassetti,
Grassetti Environmental Consulting on behalf of the Norman Estates Homeo\VIlers
Association. We are in full agreement with the comments made in that letter, which we
incorporate by reference herein.
1. Mitigation Measures for the Project's Impacts to the Site's
Mixed Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat are Misleading and
Inadequate
TIle RDEIR paradoxically acknowledges a greater impact to the site's oak
woodlands than previously while simultaneously reducing proposed mitigation.
Whereas the original DEIR proposed a standard 3:1 to 5:1 replacement ratio for lost
trees with off-site restoration of oak woodland habitat, Mitigation Measure 5.3-4 of the
RDEIR proposes only 1: lon-site tree replacement. Compare DEIR, at 5.3,.30 with
RDEIR, at 5.3-32. Moreover, the proposed replacement program would actually result
in the destruction of 5 additional acres of mature woodlands, the potentially significant
impacts of which are not analyzed. Without apparent evidentiary basis, the RDEIR
invokes th~ specter of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome ("SODS") to justify the dramatic
decrease in mitigation for the destrUction of the site's oak woodlands. The condition of
the site's woodlands is typical of the entire county. Allowing the applicant to avoid
proper mitigation though general references to SODS and "disease," would set a
disturbing precedent.
9
Despite repeated reference to the site's "diseased" woodlands, the RDEIR
offers little evidence that the woodlands are infected with SODS. The RDEIR only
notes that signs of poor tree health include "trUnk and limb decay, low vigor and canopy
density, oak bark beetle and ambrosia beetle infestation, and Bonyosphaeria fungus
infection." RDEIR, at 5.3-30. SODS is not mentioned. Conditions such as low canopy
9
cant
10
I I
07-08-2003 04:53PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberisr LLP,
T-932 P 009/016 F-5S0
.
:.
i.
i.
!.
'.
,.
:-
:e
:.
:.
!.
.
'.
:.
'.
.
.
'.
:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
+4155525816
Jayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 8
density are typical of "second growth" woodlands, where crowded seedlings grow
upward without spreading a canopy. The poor health of the existing woodland could
easily be derived fTom overcrowding, competition or predation by an exotic species, or a
number of other environmental factors to which the supposed "disease-resistant"
saplings the applicant proposes to plant would be equally vulnerable.
Without more evidence, the RDEIR's reliance on SODS for unorthodox
and insufficient mitigation of the loss of oak woodland habitat is illusory. Indeed, the
proposed mitigation would actually cause additional impacts. The mitigation measure
does not plant a new tree for each tree destroyed as a result of Project construction.
Rather, five acres of "healthy" woodland would be created by first Clearing existing
woodland. 'Thus, the number of acres of woodland potentially destroyed is double that
of what is lost through Project construction. Even assuming the replacement saplings
survive - which is far from certain - several years are required before the saplings are
grown and able to fulfill the same functions as those trees currently on the Project site.
During this lag time, the loss of mature trees could have devastating effects on drainage,
erosion, and biological and visual resources. Despite these potentially significant
impacts, the RDEIR offers no analysis. These impacts must be addressed.
Moreover, the RDEIR concludes that the impacts would remain significant
after mitigation. CEQA requires that feasible mitigation measures be identified for
significant impacts. The original DEIR identified a 3:1 off-site replacement ratio.
Although, as we have stated in previous comment letters, oak replacement is a risky and
questionable .form of mitigation, a 3: 1 ratio would obviously have a greater chance of
reducing impacts than the ~ewly proposed 1: 1 ratio. There is no explanation as to why a
3:1 ratio is now infeasible. The prior mitigation must be included in the RDEIR as well.
2. Inadequate Analysis of Growth-Inducing Impacts.
CEQA considers a project to be growth-inducing when it encourages and
facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively. CEQA Guidelines S 15126.2( d). Sanitary sewer service is
a limiting factor for any future development in the project area. Because the Paradise
Cove plant is at full capacity, the project requires major sanitary sewer service
improvements. Required improvements would most likely take the form of a new sewer
line. RDEIR, at 5.8-14; 4.0-6 (General Plan policy LU-18). The RDEIR itself
acknowledges that "the provision of a new sewer line would provide access to existing
homes or undeveloped areas already within the Town .of Tiburon and Sanitary District
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11-
,3
OT-oe-Z003 04:53PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly.& Weinberier LLP
T-93Z POIO/DIS F-590
+41S55Z581S
Jayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 9
# 5." RDEIR, at 3.0-7. Indeed, Mitigation Measure 5.8-12 proposes to expand the width
on the proposed sewer Hoe for the express purpose of accommodating future flow
resulting from additional proposed housing units. RDEIR, at 5 .8-17. These are growth-
inducing impacts that must be analyzed in the RDEIR.
However, rather than providing that analysis, the RDEIR dismisses the
growth-inducing impacts of sewer system improvements on t}:le grounds that the,
improvement represents a preexisting need and any resulting additional growth is
already anticipated under the Town Plan. This approach violates CEQA.
Environmental impacts are assessed by comparing the proposal with actual conditions in
the area. Environmental Plannin~ & Information Council v. County orEl Dorado
(1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350,354. Whether or not future development is anticipated in
the Town Plan is irrelevant for the purposes of a growth-inducing impacts analysis. Id.
The project's contemplated sanitary system improvements will remove a significant
obstacle to population growth in the area. Expansion of a waste water treatment plant is
specifically cited in CEQA Guideline section 15162:2( d) as an example of a project that
could foster growth in the surrounding environment, the impacts of which must be
analyzed. Because the RDEIR provides no discussion of the extent to which expansion
of sewer line capacity could increase development or the impacts of such development,
the document remains fatally flawed.
3. Inadequate Analysis of Cumulative Impacts.
The RDEIR also fails to provide an adequate analysis of the cumulative
impacts ofthe project together with other projects in the af(~a. The CEQA Guidelines
define cumulative impacts as "two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts."
CEQA Guidelines S 15355(a). "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a
single project or a nunlber of separate projects." CEQA Guidelines S I 5355(a). A
legally adequate "cumulative impacts analysis" views a particular project over time and
in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects whose impacts might compound 'or interrelate with those of the project at hand. '
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721 (1990).
The RDEIR does not meet these requirements. Most fundamentally, the
document does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of currently proposed
projects identified in Section 2.3, all of which are located on the last remaining open
space areas along TlbuTon Ridge. The project site is considered prime open space, much
07-08-2003 04:54PM FROM-Shut9, Mihaly & Weinberi9r LLP,
+4155525816
T-932 P,011/016 F-SSO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 10
13
tOrI t
of which would be lost should the project be developed as proposed. RDEIR, at 4.0-36.
The combined impact of this loss of open space coupled with other foreseeable projects
must be properly analyzed.
1'1-
With regard to cumulative biological and hydrological impacts the RDEIR
concludes that the several specific impacts are less-than-cumulatively considerable
because the project mitigates its own impacts to a less-than-significant level. RDEIR, at
5.3-41 (impacts to raptor nests and wildlife habitat); RDEIR, at 5.2-24 (impacts to water
quality of Bay). This approach to cumulative impacts analysis is directly contrary to
CEQA. The fact that an impact is not by itself significant does not mean it is
cumulatively insignificant in light of other past, present and foreseeable future projects.
Kings County, 221 Cal.App.3d at 724. The RDEIR is required to identify supporting
facts and analysis for all impacts not found to be cumulatively significant, which it has
failed to do. CEQA Guidelines S 15130(a)(2).
4. The RDEIR Fails to Identify Feasible Measures to Mitigate the
Project's Significant Impacts.
CEQA requires that mitigation measures be identified and analyzed. "The
purpose of an environmental impact report is . . . to list ways in which the significant
effects of such a project might be minimized...." Pub. Res. Code S 21061. The
Supreme Court has described the mitigation and alternative sections of the EIR as the
"core" of the document. Citizens of Goleta Valleyv. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cat. 3d
553 (1990). An EIR is inadequate ifit fails to suggest mitigationmeasurcs, orifits
suggested mitigation measures are so undefined that it is impossible to evaluate their
effectiveness. San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San
Francisco, 151 Ca1.App.3d 61,79 (1984). "Mitigation measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or legally binding instruments."
CEQA Guidelines S 15126.4(a).
In the present case, the RDEIR adopts several mitigation measures that are
either infeasible or not fully enforceable as required under CEQA. Several mitigation
measures rely on Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) enforced through
self-regulation or a Homeowners Association (BOA). Because CC&Rs can often be
enforced only by the association or by the individual lot owners there is no way for the
Town to ensure compliance. . Moreover, self-regulation by lot owners or HOAs is often
unreliable, particularly in the case of ongoing maintenance of drainage facilities and
erosion control measures. The enforcement problem is further complicated here by the
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
07-08-Z003 04:54P~ FRO~-Shut8, Mihaly & W8inb8ri8r LLP,
+41555Z5816
T-93Z P,OlZ/016 F-590
J ayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 11
proposed configuration of development. The division of the project into essentially two
separate developments, with lots 7 and 8 (Development Area #2) physically separated
from the remainder, drastically reduces the prospects of fanning a cohesive homeowners
association and the ability to internally enforce CC&Rs. Because there is no assurance
that these measures will actually be implemented and maintained over the long term, the
RDEIR should be revised to conclude that the impacts they are designed to mitigate are
significant and unavoidable. Sundstrom v. Countv of Mendocino (1988) 202
Cal.App.3d 296, 309.
The following mitigation measures rely primarily or exclusively on self-
regulation through CC&Rs through a HOA.
.
Mitigation Measure 5.1~9: Maintenance of Geotechnical and
Hydrologic Mitigation Measures. Requires preparation of CC&R and
establishment ofHOA for long-term maintenance of private roadways,
drainage facilities, and infrastructure such as retaining walls and utilities.
The DEIR states that "[w]ithout such methods, mitigation may not sustain
reductions in the magnitude of impact to less-than-significant levels.')
DEIR, at 5.1-29. Although the analysis of this impact is unchanged, the
RDEIR inexplicably deleted this conclusion.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-2: On-Site Peak Flow Rates and Attendant
Downstream Flooding. HOA would be responsible forlong-term
monitoring of culvert/stonn drain installation and attendant energy
dissipation measures.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-5: Erosion and sedimentation. HOA would be
responsible for maintaining mitigation measures along roadway, including
roadway gutters and storm drain inlets.
. Mitigation Measure 5.2-6: Water Quality Impacts. This measure relies
on landscaping restrictions enforced through a CC&R to reduce impact
level to less than significant. The RDEIR concludes that this impact can
be fully mitigated by imposing an extremely complicated set of
landscaping requirements on each future homeowner through CC&Rs.2
2 A proposed alternative mitigation measure would totally prohibit turfgrass
lawns, but the RDEIR would not require such prohibition. RDEIR, at 5.2-23.
07-08-2003 04:54PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinber,er LLP,
+415552581 S
T-932 P,013/01S F-590
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:.
'.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
'.
le
I.
i.
.
.
.
.
ie
:.
.
.
.
:.
i.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni AlJsep
July 8, 2003
Page 12
RDEIR, at 5.2-22. The rules purport to limit the size and slope of the
"landscaped area, the timing of irrigation (based on such variables as soil
moisture, temperature, humidity and wind speed), and the method and
frequency of chemical application, Id. Even assuming that homeowners
would be capable of understanding all of these requirements, it is
extremely unlikely that they will comply.
Mitigation Measure 5-2.7: Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts. Relies on CC&R discussed in Mitigation Measure 5.2-6.
15"
C~1:-.
Mitigation Measure 5.3-1: Permanent Loss of Habjtat for Special-
Status Species. Requires HOA distribute a brochure to future site
residents as part of a public education program describing the presence
and value of the sensitive on-site serpentine bunchgrass,
Mitigation Measure 5.3-9: Introduction ofInvasive Exotics. Requires
applicant to prepare CC&Rs which list and prohibit the planting of all
exotic plants known to readily naturalize to habitats similar to those found
in the project site.
Mitigation Measure 5.8-2: Wildland-Building Fire Exposure.
Requires HOA to formulate a maintenance plan and minimum ten-foot
wide fire break adjacent to all roads on the site.
Jt is clearly unreasonable to assume that individual lot owners or a
homeowners association will have the capacity to enforce these myriad requirements.
The RDEIR should propose alternative means of enforcement or should revise its
conclusions regarding significance after mitigation accordingly.
q~
The RDEIR also improperly relies on uncertain improvements to mitigate
impacts. For example, the the capacity of the Mount Tiburon tank is inadequate for fire
flow requirements. RDEIR, at 5.8-11. To mitigate this impact, Mitigation Measure 5.8-
B calls for the project proponent to pay a fair share storage charge for future emergency
water storage improvements. However, there appears to be no immediate plan for such
a storage tank to be built. A commitment to pay fees without any evidence that
mitigation will actually occur is inadequate. Save Our Peninsula Committee v.
Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 140. Without a
demonstration that a reasonable plan to actually constrUct the emergency tank currently
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I~
C::orrt.
;7
1<6
07-08-2003 04:54PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinberier LLP,
+4155525816
T-932 P,OI4/016 F-590
J ayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 13
exists, the fair share contribution proposed in the RDEIR does not mitigate the project's
impacts.
5. Tbe RDEIR Omits a Discussion of Several Significant Impacts.
Although the project itself is unchanged, the RDEIR mysteriously omits a
discussion of several significant impacts previously identified in the DEIR.' The
RDEIR's elimination of these impacts appears to be a step backward in providing a clear
picture of the project's impacts.
For example, the RDEIR appears to have eliminated a visual impact
analysis provided in the original DEIR as Impact 5.4-5, Visual Impacts from Viewpoint
5 _ View of Lot 8 Looking South from Paradise at Playa Verde. DEIR, at 5.4-13. As
there appears to be no adequate basis for the removal of an analysis of this impact, it
should be reincorporated in the RDEIR.
Equally troubling is the absence of any discussion of the impacts
associated with the separate seven-space parking lot that would border Paradise Drive.
Although the parking lot would have an array of environmental impacts, its existence is
barely acknowledged in the RDEIR. The parking lot would be completely out of
character with the rest of Paradise Drive, and would have severe visual impacts. The
lack of anention to these impacts has led to a failure to consider whether the project can
be redesigned to eliminate the need for the parking lot, or indeed whether the lot is even
necessary given the ample on-site parking already proposed. The impacts of the parking
lot are particularly relevant to the comparison of the alternatives, since the proposed 3-
and 2-lot alternatives are the only ones that do not include the lot.
B. The RDEIR Does Not Adequately Discuss Alternatives to the
Proposed Project.
An EIR must describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project that
would feasibly at1ain the proje~t's basic objectives while avoiding or substantially
lessening the project's significant impacts. Pub. Res. Code 9 21100(b)(4); CEQA
Guidelines 9 15126.6(a). A proper analysis of alternatives is essential for the County to
comply with CEQA's mandate that significant environmental damage be avoided or
substantially lessened where feasible. Pub. Res. Code. S 21002; CEQA Guidelines
s~ 15002(a)(3), 15021 (a)(2), 15126.6(a); Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount
Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433,443-45 (1988). The discussion Of alternatives must focus
07-08-Z003 04:55PM FROM-Shute, Mihaly & Weinber,er LLP,
+4155525816
T-93Z P,015/016 F-590
.
.
:.
..
.
i.
:.
..
:.
I
..
.
.
.
:.
'.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
'.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
July 8, 2003 .
Page 14
on alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the adverse environmental
effects ofa project, "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." CEQA Guidelines
9 l5126.6(b).
The alternatives analysis is particularly important here given the inability
of the Town to approve the proposed 8-101 alternative due to General Plan and zoning
inconsistencies. While the inclusion of a new 4-unit and modified 4-unit alternative in
the RDEIR provides a broader range of alternatives than previously examined, the
altematives analysis remains deficient. The new alternatives fail to address some of the
most fundamental problems of the proposed project, and thus do not provide meaningful
reduction ofthe project's impacts.
For example, neither the new alternatives nor the previously proposed "3-
lot" alternative eliminate both Development Area 2 and the need for a parking lot on
Paradise Drive. These are two of the most problematic aspects ofthe.proposed project.
Restricting development to Area 1 would reduce many project impacts stemming from
the landslide repair, extensive grading, vegetative clearing, visual impacts, and added
route off Paradise Drive that would result if Area 2 were developed. As discussed
above, the proposed parking lot would have significant visual impacts and is grossly out
of character with the character of Paradise Drive.
Jq
TIle obvious solution for avoiding these impacts is through an alternative
that limits development to Development Area 1 and is of a density, scale and design that
. does not require a separate parking lot. A well-designed three-lot alternative limited to
Development Area I may be able to accomplish these objectives. Given the severe
environmental and development constraints, this alternative would seem to be the
natural choice for this site, and would provide a greater return for the developer.
However, despite repeated requests to do so, the DEIR does not analyze such an
alternative. Instead, it seems to suggest there are only two problematic options: either
Development Area 2 is developed, or the parking lot. This is a false choice. The
RDEIR must be revised to include this alternative and to compare its environmental
benefits against those of the other proposed alternatives. Laurel Heights Improvement
Ass'Jl v. Regents ofUniversitv of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 404. Such an
analysis would provide the public with essential information as to the extent of
additional impacts associated with the incremental increase in project site development.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
07-08-2003 04:55PM FROM-Shuts, Mihaly' Wsinbsrisr LLP,
+4155525816
T-932 P,016/016 F-590
J ayni Allsep
July 8, 2003
Page 15
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
I/~
William J. White
(P:ITibur GleJiIGlcn ~1fT\dvOOS (commenlS Tiburon revised DEIR),wpd]
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRI7TEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
RESPONSE TO LETTER 0 - William J. White
Response to Comment 0-1
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment 0-2
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment 0-3
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment 0-4
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment 0-5
The commentor states that Tiburon General Plan Goal LU-B, Policy LU-3, and Zoning Ordinance
sections 4.02.07(c) and 4.08.04(f) are analogous and the project should be considered inconsistent
with all of them. It is the opinion of the EIR preparer that these town guidelines are not analogous
because they serve different, albeit related purposes. The zoning code sections provide direction for
reviewing specific project features while General Plan guidelines are general goals meant to guide
decision makers.
Tiburon General Plan Goal LU-B is to "ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and
arrangement, serve to protect and enhance the low-density residential and village character and image
of the community." As stated on page 4.0-5 of the RDEIR, the project is considered to be consistent
with the goal because it would conform with the residential land use designation for the site and the
maximum potential density of 0.3 unit per acre identified by Town Plan Table 1. The residential land
use designation for the site is "low-density residential" on Diagram LU-3 of the Town Plan. Policy
LU-3 is clearly intended to guide Town decision makers. Further, the RDEIR fulfills the intent of this
measure by providing Town decision makers with information regarding the environmental constraints
of the site.
Zoning Ordinance section 4.02.07(c) specifically addresses the size of structures and how they relate
to "existing buildings in the vicinity." As stated on page 4.0-20, the proposed project is inconsistent
with this policy because the proposed Tiburon Glen structures could be larger thane~isting buildings
in the vicinity. Finally, Zoning Ordinance section 4.08.04(f) calls for use of existing site features such
as wooded areas, topography, or rock outcroppings to screen proposed structures. As is evident from
review of the photosimulations, the project does not achieve this objective because most existing site
vegetation would be removed from locations in front of proposed development.
Response to Comment 0-6
In response to this comment, the text has been revised to say the consistency is unknown. Please refer
to section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in this Final Em Response to Comments document for revisions
made to the Revised Draft EIR. .
8.4-96
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final E1R
Response to Comment 0-7
The commentor states that the RDEIR does not assess the consistency of the project alternatives with
the Town's policies and zoning regulations. Review ofthe proposed alternatives in light of the Town
guidelines indicates that the alternatives would result in the same consistency conclusions as did the
project. In a few cases, such as General Plan Policy C-20 and Visioning Goal II-I, which call for
limited new driveway connections to Paradise Drive, the project alternatives that propose development
only in Development Area No. 1 would be consistent with these policies while the project would not.
This is noted on pages' 6.0-13 and 6.0-26 of the RDEIR. Further, the policies of the Town Plan and
Zoning Ordinance are used as sources of criteria for determining the significance or lack of
significance of the environmental effects identified in the various impact discussions in the RDEIR.
These same criteria were applied to the assessment of the proposed alternatives. The extent to which
the alternatives would reduce site grading and secondary impacts is clearly identified in the
alternatives analysis. .
Response to Comment 0-8
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment 0-9
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment 0-10
See Master Response 8.3-1 and Response to Comment H-20. Also, note that although the loss of tree
canopy in the tree mitigation areas would reduce interception of rainfall, the implementation of the
revegetation plan and an erosion control program would minimize the erosion impact of the
mitigation. Thus, the impact on erosion and sedimentation would be less than significant with the
implementation of the prescribed erosion control measures (Mitigation Measure 5.2-5).
Response to Comment 0-11
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment 0-12
Please refer to Response to Comment H-4.
Response to Comment 0-13
The commentor states that cumulative impacts to open space must be addressed. None of the four
project sites included in the list of cumulative projects is designated open space on General Plan
Diagram LU-3. As with all large undeveloped properties in the Tiburon Planning area, this site is
designated as "potential open space" on Diagram OSC-3. However, this designation does not preclude
development of the sites consistent with densities specified on Diagram LU-3. Development of any of
these sites would not require a General Plan amendment to re-designate previously designated open '
space area for use, and thus would not result in a cumulative loss of designated open space. Further,
as is evident from review of Table 1 and Diagrams OSC-2 and OSC-3 of the Tiburon General Plan,
the cumulative development project sites are not the last remaining open space areas along Tiburon
Ridge. '
8.4-97
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment 0-14
The commentor states that the RDEIR conclusion that cumulative impacts to raptor nests, wildlife
habitat, and water quality are less-than-significant is incorrect because "the fact that an impact is not
by itself significant does not mean it is cumulatively insignificant...". Mitigation Measure 5.3-8
would reduce the project's impacts to active raptor nests to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the
project would have no individual impacts to contribute to a cumulative impact, and thus would be less-
than-cumulatively considerable. The project was found to have less-than-cumulatively considerable
impacts on wildlife movement because the project site is isolated from cumulative development sites
and is surrounded with either permanent open space or already developed land, and thus would not
combine with the other development projects to significantly impact wildlife movement. CEQA
Guidelines section 15130(b)(1)(B)(1) indicate that the location of a project's individual impacts may
not contribute to a cumulative effect. With regard to cumulative water quality impacts,
implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.2-5 and 5.2-6 are expected to reduce the project's impact to
a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would have no individual impacts to contribute to
a cumulative impact, and thus would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures 5.3-8, 5.2-5 and 5.2-6, the project's impacts would be reduced to pre-project
levels, and thus the project would have no net effect and would not contribute to cumulative impacts.
CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b)(1 )(B)(2) describes the list approach of "probable future projects"
and indicates this list "may be limited to those projects requiring an agency approval for an application
which has been received at the time the notice of preparation is released." Section 2.3 of the RDEIR
provides a list of projects proposed at the time the NOP was released. This list, as well as Town Plan
buildout projections, were used in the cumulative impacts analyses.
Response to Comment 0-15
The commentor indicates that implementation of mitigation measures by an HOA cannot be assured.
The commentor is correct that the identified measures rely on CC&Rs and an HOA. However, the
Town can also impose the measures as conditions of approval, which the Town can enforce itself, and
require that the CC&Rs notify future property owners of both the measures and the Town's
enforcements rights. Please see Response to Comment H-8. Responses to the comments on specific
mitigation measures are IJrovided below:
Mitigation Measure 5.1-9: The commentor is correct that the identified measures rely on CC&Rs
and an HOA. However, the Town can also impose the measures as conditions of approval, which the
Town can enforce itself, and require that the CC&Rs notify future property owners of both the
measures and the Town's enforcements rights. Please refer to section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in
this Final EIR Response to Comments document for revisions made to the Revised Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measures 5.2-2, 5.2-5, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7: While it is true that the HOA would have
responsibility for maintaining storm drain inlets and outfall structures, the Town can also impose the
measures as conditions of approval, which the Town can enforce itself, and require that the CC&Rs
notify future property owners of both the measures and the Town's enforcements rights. Furthermore,
the inference that all homeowners would be negligent in their attention to such responsibilities is
counterintuitive. If the HOA did not maintain storm drain inlets, nuisance flooding conditions would
be present within the development itself and would present a clear danger to residents. Similarly, the
Town can also impose the measures requiring implementation of published Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as conditions of approval. These measures are recommended by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and represent the best available methodology for protecting water
quality, along with the ongoing assessments of pesticides and herbicides conducted by the USEP A.
8.4-98
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8,4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
CC&Rs would serve to notify future property owners of both the measures and the Town's
enforcements rights.
Mitigation Measures 5.3-1 and 5.3-9: In addition to a 100-foot development buffer and an
enhancement plan, Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 also requires that areas containing special-status plant
species be identified to all new home owners by demarking the areas with fencing and signs. Further,
the proposed conservation easement would require these areas to be left in their current state. The
brochure would serve as an additional public education program illustrating the importance of these
designated areas. In the experience of Town planning staff, the EIR preparer, and the EIR consulting
biologist, when a new resident is informed of the presence of a protected resource on their property,
they generally do not engage in activities that would violate the regulations which apply to the
resource. Most violations are due to ignorance and rarely to malicious intent. Distribution of a
brochure informing residents of the sensitive resource on their property would reinforce the protective
measures already established through the conservation easement, development buffer, fencing and
signs. This information could easily be incorporated into CC&Rs in the event a HOA is not required.
CC&Rs would also address information as it pertains to particular invasive exotic plant species. This
would not only establish the prohibition of planting such species, but would again serve as public
education. The Town can also impose these measures as conditions of approval, which the Town can
enforce itself, and require that the CC&Rs notify future property owners of both the measures and the
Town's enforcements rights. Both individual property own,ers (neighbors) and the Town may take
legal action to require implementation of the terms of the CC&Rs. The use of CC&Rs to prohibit the
planting of certain plant species is a common enforcement tool employed by many jurisdictions.
Further, individual lot owners would be required to submit their landscape plans to the Tiburon Design
Review Board for approval during the review of applications to build a house on each lot, although
subsequent landscaping changes could be made without formal review by the Town.
Mitigation Measure 5.8-2: The Town can also impose these fire prevention measures as conditions
of approval, which the Town can enforce itself, and require that the CC&Rs notify future property
owners of both the measures and the Town's enforcements rights. The Tiburon Fire Protection
District would be responsible for monitoring ongoing compliance with these measures.
Response to Comment 0-16
Please see Response to Comment H-33.
Response to Comment 0-17
As stated in footnote 3 on page 5.4-3: "Five views were selected for preparation of photosimulations
for the September 2002 EIR, two in Development Area No. 1 and three in Development Area No.2.
For the May 2003 EIR, photosimulations were prepared for only two viewpoints in Development Area
No.2 because the fifth viewpoint did not show a significant amount of the proposed development or
landslide repair."
Response to Comment 0-18
Please see Response to Comment D-l. In addition, the Modified Three-Lot Alternative presented in
this Response to Comments document and hereby incorporated into the Final EIR excludes the
parking area proposed by the applicant (see Master Response 8.3-2). Further, it is noted that
elimination of the parking area from the proposed eight-lot project or any of the development
alternatives would reduce some of the significant visual impacts.
8.4-99
Response. to Comment 0-19
Please refer to Master Response 8.3-2.
. ~'''''
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4-100
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
p
THE LAST CHANCE COMMITTEE
July'8, 2003
Tibufon P~antliflg CommiSsion-
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tfburon-, CA 94920
RECEIVED
JUL - 8 Z003
RE: Tiburon Glen RDEIR
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN 0::: TIBURON
To-: Tiburon ~ GOffIfI'HssiQns:
The Last Chance Committee has a number of concerns that relate to process and to
Opefl Spare.
1. Please stop using the term "PartlyConsisteflt." It is vert, misleadiAg: "FRisprotect
has- maAy vef'f signifiCant imflaets-anEi- the tet=m- "Partly CeRSistenf' makes-.many of
these impacts seem minor-they are not. If an impact in not consistent with the Tiburon
Gener~Plan,lt-shoWd be se-Aetee-as-"lAoonsistent" Shooting-someone iR-tRe-~ is
not "Party. C~fsteflt-" with "assautf' j.t1st because yO\;{ didn't shoot himeverywhere. .
2-
2-. 'White the- appIiGaRt-G~privat€ opEffi-spaGe. he--rmlst- make certain- it-~ys
open space. A HOA and CC&R's offer no real protection. There needs to be an open
space easemern-w~ an ifldependent eGRSeFVatkmageney- aooreat fuRdffig-set-~ in
advance for it's maintenance and protection.. ,
3
The recent TiPw'on General- PlaR lJmiate Surv~cenfim1s OACe"again,thatOpeFt-
Spaee--prccervation is-the-mest-important tssuEHn-Tiburon. The PJa.Fm.iAg-Commission
must take this fact into consideration as it reviews the overwhelming number of
impacts to Open Space that the p~Oject proposes.
3. The impacts to trees are also very dramatic. The applicant must fund an outside
ageneyroee.respc)Rsible,for replantingand-m6flitofing; "Future-let owners can- hardly
be certain to be responsible. Evenwith-ttHs-ootside:-agency,ttlc impacts-witt-stiQ be '
very significant. Replacement of only 1 to 1 for trees Is not proper. At least 2 to 1"'
shoukl-be used te-aeeooAt-fef-.the-RUmger-ef-trees-that-wiU-oot-make It te-~rity.
erely. ~
ry A. t~n'
oChair
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER P - Jerry A. Riessen
Response to Comment P-1
Please see Master Response 8.3-3.
Response to Comment P-2
Please see Response to Comment H -8 and V-I.
Response to Comment P-3
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
8.4-102
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thu~dal.J!:!.!YJ9.,.200311.:~7 AIy1.
Jayni AlIsep 415 789-0735
pac
planning advisory corporation
715 sun lane
novato, ca 94947
4168980962
fax 415 898 0963
RECEIVED
JUL 1 0 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF rlSURON
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Contract Planner
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Comments on Draft ElR
Tiburon Glen PDP
Dear Ms. Allsep:
p,02
Q
tom w newtonl president
land development planning
and consulting services
July 9, 2003
, Submitted herewith are comments on the DEJR You will receive separate comments from
Herzog Geotechnical, Consulting Engineers; .MacNair and Associates, Arboricu1tural
Consultants; and Diane Renshaw, Consulting Ecologist.
My comments are as follows:
1. The DElR notes that there are approximately 522 trees that would be removed as part of
slide repair and const:ruction. However, a significant nwnber oftho8C 1:fcjg IU'e in marginal
to poor health as noted on page 5.3-29, and only 180 trees (less than halt) to be removed are
in moderate to good health. Mitigation measures recommended are extensive and include a
tree protection plan to preserve remaining woodbmd&, a tree replacement and enhancement
plan to improve the health of the remaining woodlands and to replace the trees lost to
sracJin8 II.11d development, which includes pOSIi1"b1e planting on off-site locations in Tiburon.
It is not logical to conclude that after implementation of all the recommended mitigation
measures, a significant unavoidable impact would remain. To the contrary, a logical
conclusion would be that the i:mplemen~8:tion measures would reduce the impact to a less
than significant level. .
2. Pages 5.1-23 and 5.8-4 refer to the creation of a homeowner's association. Because this
project is relatively small, conditions, covenants and restrictions will be formulated and
recorded to provide for maintenance of roadways and drainage facilities, meet sweeping
and fencinglsignage along the conservation easement.
2
Thursday, July 10,200311:47 AM
Jayni AIIsep 415789-0735
.
p.03 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.3
.5'
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Page 2
July 9, 2003
3. In the section on Transportation at page 5.S-18, the DEIR recommends that the developer
. create a bike rest stop at one or both of the roadway intersections with Paradise Drive.
Inasmuch as the DEIR concludes that Paradise Drive is unsafe for bicyclists, it would seem
that the creation of a bike rest stop would create its own significant unavoidable impact.
4-
4. In the section on Hydrology and Water Quality, page 5.2-23, the DElR recommends
prohibiting gra5S lawns. An alternative mitigation measure would be to' prohibit the use of
fertilizers or pesticidea via the CC&.R's. From a water supply standpoint, Marin Municipal
Water District does not prolubit turfbut does limit the area of turf and landscaping allowed
for new development. There are a number of subdivisions throughout Marin that include
limitations on the use of fertilizers or pesticides rather than prohibiting lawns outright.
S. In the Alternatives section, 6.0-11, the 2- and 3-lot Alternatives prOpose that a majority of
'the site would become public open space. However, the DEIR does not indicate whether
any pubUc agency has expressed a willingness to take the property as public open space. If
there were no public agency willing to take the land, these altematives.would be infeasible.
6. In the VtSUal and Aesthetic Quality section, impacts 5.4-2 viewpoint 2, 5.4~3 viewpoint 3
and 5.4-4 viewpoint 4, all depict houses that are not close to reality. The box"Hke structures
depicted would more than likely not be approved by the Town of Tiburon's De&ign Review
process. The architectural review and approval process employing the proposed mitigation
measures could reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Exhibit 5.4-12 viewpoint 4 is incorrect. The retaining wall shown at the base of landslide H
would not be located as close to the paved road surfuce as shown. The correct location is
further into the hillside, away from the edge of the road so that the ~sting drainage ditch.
can be maintained along the roadway and so that the wall does not create a traffic hazard.
On page 6.0-3, the last sentence of the paragraph on the Modified 4-lot Alternative states
that a detailed site plan was not provided. A detailed plan was provided, and it has been
reproduced in the DEIR as Exhibit 6.5-1.
6
7
1S.1 7
~
8. On page 4.0-6, the DElR states that the project is inconsistent with PoliCy LU-17 of the
Tiburon General Plan. However, the mq>lanation on the inconsistency does not identify
which lots are inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan and why they are inconsistent. In
ordc;r to fully understand tm; conclusion of inconsistency, 11 more detailed statement would
be required.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thul'$day, July 10, 2003 11 :47 AM
..- ,---
, Javni AlIsep 415 789-0735
p.04
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Page 3
July 9, 2003
, ,
9. On page 4.0-20, the DEI&. states that the plan is inconsistent with the surrounding
neighborhood character. The inconsistency explanation states that the homes in Nonnan
Estates are smaller than those that might be allowed in the proposed Tiburon Glen
development. However, the home sizes are consistent with those along Gilmartin Drive
10 south of Tiburon Glen. Inasmuch as no homes have been proposed in Tiburon Glen, a
finding ofiDconsistency is inappropriate. 'Additionally, the proXimity to Paradise Drive and
the density of me proposed development along roadways A-B are. in fact. consistent with
the Nomum Estates development, which can easily be noted by looking at the Town's aerial
photographs for comparison. .
1/
10. Page 4.0-22 states that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Town's Precise
Development Plan Principles subsection (c). That principle states that slopes created by
grading should not exceed 30%. The proposed project is consistent with that principle.
inasmuch as the graded slopes as proposed are for repair and replacement of existing slopes
that exCeed 30%. There arena new graded slopes that exceed 30%, only repla.cemcnt of
existing slopes; therefore, Tiburon Glen is consistent with that grading principle_
cc: Mike Menko
Neil Sorensen
Glenn Dearth
fun MacNair
Diane Renshaw
Craig Herzog
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER Q - Tom W. Newton
Response to Comment Q-1
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment Q-2
A homeowners association established to enforce the CC&Rs is preferable to CC&Rs without an
association because the HOA as an enforcement body has direct authority to levy regular and/or
special assessments in order to provide ongoing funding for maintenance and mitigation. The Town
has the authority to require formation of a homeowners association as a condition of approvaL
Tiburon Glen proposes the creation of eight units, which could support a formal homeowners
association.
However, a homeowners association is not practical in all cases, particularly with smaller projects.
The smaller the number of units in a development, the more difficult it is to sustain a formal
homeowners association. The Two-Lot, Three-Lot, or Four-Lot Alternatives discussed in this EIR
probably could not sustain a formal homeowners association. To ensure enforcement, the Town
requires that the CC&Rs and all joint maintenance agreements contain several clauses that authorize
the Town to enforce. the mitigation provisions of those documents if the owners fail to implement
them. The documents would provide that the Town could, among other remedies, have the necessary
work performed and place liens on the property tax bills of the affected lot owners. Such enforcement
provisions are standard in all CC&Rs implementing project mitigations, but especially important in
smaller projects.
Those mitigation measures that rely on CC&Rs or joint agreements will be incorporated as conditions
of project approval; the CC&Rs will act as a notification system. for individual lot owners as to their
responsibility and will reference the Town's conditions of approval and Town enforcement
mechanisms. This approach establishes both the Town of Tiburon and property owners in the
subdivision, either individually or collectively, as capable enforcers of the mitigation measures.
Response to Comment Q-3
The provision of a bicycle rest stop would provide refuge for cyclists who currently use the roadway
despite the apparent hazard. A properly designed and located bicycle rest stop would improve safety
conditions for cyclists by creating a clearly marked area outside of the travel lane. A major reason that
Paradise Drive can be unsafe for cyclists is that there are few places of refuge (outside of travel lanes)
that provide a paved surface for controlled stops. Creation of a bicycle rest stop would provide such a
refuge and would not create new significant adverse impacts.
Response to Comment Q-4
Mitigation Measure 5.2-6 clearly gives the Town ofTiburon the option of adopting a ban on turf lawns
or placing a limitation on turf lawns in conjunction with implementation of a water quality
management plan, which would include specific measures to regulate use of fertilizers and pesticides.
Blanket prohibition of fertilizers or pesticides would be extremely difficult to enforce because a
homeowner would have to be caught in the act of using such products, while limiting lawn sizes
reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides at the outset. Because of the extreme difficulty in
enforcing a ban on fertilizers and pesticides, this is not an equivalent mitigation for those listed in the
RDEIR.
8.4-106
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
With respect to the limitation of turf lawns for water quality protection, the RWQCB recommends
published Best Management Practices (BMPs) for implementation at development sites. These
measures represent the best available methodology for protecting water quality, along with the
ongoing' assessments of pesticides and herbicides conducted by the USEP A. Maximization of native,
drought-resistant plantings in site landscaping is the best defense against excessive pesticide use and
water quality degradation.
Response to CommentQ-5
The commentor states that if no public agency would assume ownership of the open space reserve then
the Two-Lot and Three-Lot Alternatives would be infeasible. Froman environmental impact
- standpoint, there is no difference whether the open space portions of the' site are privately owned or
publicly owned in fee, provided that they are protected by an open space easement or a conservation
easement, as proposed in the application. Therefore, the Two-Lot and Three-Lot alternatives have
been revised to indicate that either public or private open space is possible. Please refer to section 8.6
Changes to the RDEIR in this Final EIR Response to Comments document for revisions made to the
Revised Draft EIR.
Response to Comment Q-6
The commentor states that design review by the Town and implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-
1 would prevent structures which resemble those in the photosimulations, thus the impact of
development should be, considered less-than-significant. As stated on pages 5.4-6 and 5.4-7 of the
RDEIR, the photosimulations are intended to illustrate the visual change that could result from the
proposed project, and are based upon the applicant-supplied conceptual floor elevations, maximum
building heights, and illustrative designs showing potential volume as well as conceptual building
designs of proposed homes. The simulations are not intended to represent what the homes would
actually look like. Impacts 5.4-1 through 5.4-4 analyze impacts from development of the eight lots
from different viewpoint locations. Impact 5.4-2 (Viewpoint 2), Impact 5.4-3 (Viewpoint 3), and
Impact 5.4-4 (Viewpoint 4) were identified as having high visual sensitivity, requiring new
development be subordinate to the existing landscape in order to avoid an impact. Due to the nature of
development in Viewpoint 2, including the proposed parking area, the proximity of the proposed
housing units, the substantial loss of vegetative cover, and the prominence of retaining walls, even
with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-1, the new development would likely remain co-
dominant within the view. 'Likewise, in Viewpoints 3 and 4, due to the proximity of development to
the roadway and the potential height of the proposed structure compared to the tree canopy, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-1, the new development would likely remain co-dominant
within the view. Therefore, the visual impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Response to Comment Q-7
The comment is acknowledged. The incorrect location of the retaining wall in the simulation was
brought to the attention of the EIR photosimulation preparer too late for the time-consuming
correction to the simulation to be made prior to publication of the RDEIR. Therefore, a note at the
bottom of the page was added to acknowledge that the actual location of the wall may vary from the
depiction in the simulation.' Relocation of the retaining wall further into the hillside would not change
the outcome of the impact analysis.
8.4-107
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment Q-8
The comment is acknowledged. The statement on page 6.0-3 is a typographical error and has been
deleted. Please refer to section8.6 Changes to the RDEIR in this Final EIR Response to Comments
document for revisions made to the Revised Draft EIR.
Response to Comment Q-9
The comment is noted. As stated in the consistency discussion, a reduction in the number of lots
would achieve consistency with other Town Plan policies related to landslides, steep slopes,
preservation of sensitive habitat, and views of the project site. It is not simply a matter of certain lots
being inconsistent with other Town Plan policies, but rather the amount of grading required and
resulting visual impacts and impact on woodlands render the project as a whole inconsistent with
numerous Town Plan policies. While the final determination of project consistency with the Town
Plan rests with the Town Council, in the opinion of the EIR preparer, the project as proposed is
inconsistent with Policy LU-17.
Response to Comment Q-10
The comment is noted. The Norman Estates neighborhood is the nearest existing development to the
Tiburon Glen site, is part of the Paraqise Drive area (Gilmartin Drive homes are not) and is therefore a
more relevant guide for determining the "character of existing buildings in the vicinity." The size of
the ridge-top homes on Gilmartin Drive is acknowledged in the text.
Response to Comment Q-11
The comment is noted. The EIR preparer interprets General Plan Policy OSC-7 and Zoning Ordinance
section 4.08.04(c) to intend for development to take place on graded slopes no greater than 30 percent.
Because of the existing steep slopes, this project cannot comply with this policy without substantial
cut and fill work to recontoui- the hillside. Further, the requirement that "final contours and slopes
shall reflect existing land forms" does not indicate that the graded slopes should reflect the existing
slope in steepness, but rather, should be shaped like the existing natural land features and not shaped
as excessively terraced or as steep cut banks meeting flat surfaces. While the final determination of
project consistency with the Town Plan rests with the Town Council, in the opinion of the EIR
preparer, the project as proposed is inconsistent with Policy OSC-7 and Zoning Ordinance section
4.08.04(6).
8.4-108
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
,~hursday, July 10, 20.03 11:47 AM
JayniAlIsep 415 789-0735
p,05
: /--
R
Diane L Reashaw
COll51l1tbag Ecologist
607 Paeo Drive
, Los Altos, CA 94014
650948-3537 phone. fax 650 948-7895
, dlr@ecosvstem.com.
rtEe~IVED
JUl 1 " 2D93
PL.ANt~INC DIYI::;IO!~
. TOWN OF Tl8tJRON
July 8, 2003
Ms. Jayni AlIsep
Contract Planner
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tibw'on Boulevard.
Tibur~ CA 94920
Dear Ms. Allsep.
At the.request of Mr. Tom Newton, I have reviewed Section :5.3, Vegetation and Wildlife.
from the, Tiburon Glen Revised DEIR My comments are summarized below.
, SETTING
The material that describes the existing setting appears to be thorough and accurate, and
consistent with what I have observed at the site over the years.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS,
!1p,pact 5.3-1. Mitiption. Measure S.3-1 (naae 25)
The proposed mitigation haS 1bree pans. The first two parts seem reasona.b~ achievable,
and enforceable: If there is redesign of the PDP, then establish a lOO-foot se1back from the
serpentine grassland; demarcate the grassland and educate the homeowners of its sensitive
~.
The third proposed mitigation contains some major pitfalls. It requires a habitat
enhancement plan for the bunchgrass habit;a.t including weed removal and replac;ement
with special-statuB species. This plan is to be combined with a second grassland
restoration plan described under ~.3-2(b). The uritigation states that if this second .
mitigation measure is not tequited, then "..: the provisions outlined in that measure shall
be applied to the habitat enhancement plan. " .
Impact 5.3-1 discusses potential impacts that could occm to the sensitive species in the
grassland from human and dog intrusion and from introductionS of non-native landscape
plants. It also mentions existing and Ongoing impacts that have occurred upslope :from the
TIBURCl'of OI..PN - DEIR COMMBNrS . DIANB L. RBNSHA W, OONSULTING ECOLOGISI · JULY S.2003 · PAGE 1
ThursdOty, July 10, 2003 11 :47 AM
Jayni AlIsep 415 789-0735
Tiburon Glen 5ite, from downdrift of irrigation and fertiliw from homes along Gilmartin
Diive. Downdrift would not be a problem with the l'iburon Glen development, since it lies
downhill, not uphill; from the serpentine grassland
While the Tiburon Glen project should definitely mitigate any direct or indirect impacts
that it caUses, it is inappIupriate that it should mitigate for actions caused by others, or that
it should implement mitigations for impacts that might not occur. There is a detailed
roocvery plan for listed serpentine soils species of the San Francisco Bay Area that has
, been prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Scrviec. I don't have the references from the
I EIR so I don't know if the EIR biologists drew information from it. The recovery plan
. eOn't-. emphasizes the need to start with monitoring to detemtine and assess any site-specific
threats.
The current value of the serpentine grassland is quite high, and it does not need to ba:ve
anything done to it to ..... restore the value... ~.. as recommended on page 26 in the third
part of mitigation 5.3-1. Appropriate management responses for resource protection
should be based on a carefu1assessment of what is or is not actually happening. and what
the source of the impact is. Misguided att.emp1E to ''restore'; values by altering the existing
grassland could conceivably cause more harm than benefit As writteD, I do not think that
this part of proposed mitigation 5.3-1 is reasonable, nor does it effectively attenuate any
potCntial impact3.
Tmnact 5.3-2. Miti2&tionMeasure S.3-2(a) and 5.3-2(j)) (~26)
This section addresses the installation.of the waterline along the 5O-foot easement. It
proposes two alternate mitigation measures. If waterline iDstallation can avoid loss of
Marin dwsrf flax and Tiburon paintbrnsh,then mitigation 5.3-2(8) shall apply. If there is
take of the plants. then mitieation 5.3-2(b)shall apply.
The first mitigation, 5.3-2(a), coupled to avoidance, is reasonable and achievable. A
preconstmction survey would need to be conducted in Mayor early June to locate
precisely any plants in the vicinity of the proposed treIlChing. The major concentrations of
these plants I obMr'Ved in the field are not along the 5O-foot easement. The easement lies
along the edge of the proposed development area, and skirts the oak canopy. Marin dwarf
flax tends to grow further out in the grassland area. Tiburon paintbrush appears to be.
confined to rocky slopes at some distance above or to the north of the development site.
Consequently, avoidance of any individual plantB that may occur in the easement should
ecrtainly be; possible, especially if tyenching is kept to a bare minimum, and even done by
hand if necessary. I would also recommend stoCkpiling thet0p8oil as it is removed from
the excavation and replacing it as close as possible to where it was removed.
The second mitigation. 53-2(b), would be required if it is not possible to avoid take of
individual plants in the waterline aasem.co.t. To me this mitigation sounds Uke one written
L 'for a much larger project with a more extensive project impact. The provisions are not
appropriate for an impact area the size of the proposed trenching. For instancet finding a
TIB'ORONOWN-DBIRCOMMENTB · DIANBL.RINSHAW,CONSULTlNOECOlDGIST. .roLY8.2003 · PACJB2
.
p.06 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
'.'0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.1
.'
.
.
__ Thursda~uly 10l 2003 11 :47 AM
Javni AlIsep..415 789-0735
p.07
~.1
31
land trust organization willing to take on management of such a small. isolated habitat plot
is not likely to happen and is an inappropriate recommendation for a mitigation.
Inpct 5.3-3. Mitiption~u:re 5.3-3 (mule 28)
No impacts to listed or sensitive animals are expected, and no mitigations are required.
This assessment seems to me to be accurate and appropriate.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please let me know if you
have any questions or require more information. .
Best Regards,
,. e'
I -
/i1u--U~/~
Diane L.Renshaw
Consulting Ecologist
, TIBURON GLEN _ D.BIR COMMENTS .. DIANE 1.. RENSHAW. (X)NSUl.:TING ECOLOGIST · JULY S. 2<XS . PAGE 3
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER R - Diane Renshaw
Response to Comment R-1
The commentor states that the third bullet of Mitigation Measure 5.3-1, which calls for a habitat
enhancement plan to restore the value of existing bunchgrass habitat, is inappropriate because the
value of the habitat on-site is high, it does not address an impact specifically caused by the applicant,
and it could cause more harm than good. As stated on page 5.3-25, "[t]he impacts of future incidental
uses of this habitat by project site residents may be cumulative and, combined with the already
existing impacts due to adjacent development, result in a significant adverse impact to this sensitive
habitat." Therefore, the proposed improvement of the serpentine habitat is intended to compensate for
the combined effect of the incidental uses of the area brought on by the project and the existing
degradation of the habitat caused by up-hill development. It is the professional opinion of the EIR
consulting biologist that implementation of an enhancement plan would be beneficial to the serpentine
grassland because removal of French broom and other exotics would create more opportunities for the
native grasses to establish and would improve the overall quality of the habitat. The commentor's
report, Sensitive Species Survey for Tiburon Glen Estates, Diane Renshaw, June 25, 2000, identified
the location and extent of invasive species and downhill drift of irrigation, fertilizer, and other lawn
and garden cultivation products on the project site, as noted in footnote 52 on page 5.3-25 of the
RDEIR. The commentor's previous report of 1998, Preliminary Environmental Assessment: 27 acres,
Paradise Drive, Town of Tiburon, Diane Renshaw, June 24, 1998, stated "French broom, which is a
problematic weed in many other locations in Marin County, is uncommon at this site at this. time." It
is reasonable to conclude that because broom and other exotics spread to the site between 1998 and
2000, this has continued in the past three years, and will continue in the future, thus an enhancement
plan is warranted to compensate for the combined effect of the incidental uses of the area brought on
by the project and the existing degradation of the habitat.
Response to Comment R-2
The commentor states. that Mitigation Measure 5 .3-2(b) is better suited for a larger habitat area,
specifically, it is inappropriate to recommend identification of a land trust organization to manage
such a small serpentine bunchgrass habitat plot. Since the potential impacts would be on such a small
scale, implementation of this measure would not be a difficult task. If restoration efforts are
necessary, the resulting mitigation area would be rather small; mitigation would only be required if
listed species actually occurred in the trenching area and are impacted by the project. Relatively few
populations of these species exist and as such, unique effort should be taken to ensure that the
mitigation is successful and site protected from future unintended impacts. Admittedly, it could be
difficult to locate an established land trust organization to manage the habitat after the restoration plan
has taken effect. The Town of Tiburon could manage the habitat, which would be funded by the bond
or endowment established by the applicant. Ultimately, the intent of the measure is to provide for the
permanent preservation of the restored habitat, which can be accomplished through conditions of
approval and mitigation monitoring, both of which are managed by the Town.
Response to Comment R-3
Comment is noted.
8.4-112
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e;
Jayni AII!.ep 415 7S9-0735 ..
Thurs~ax,_~uly 10, 200311~47 AM
MAC~I~
AS S 0 C [ AT ES
CONSt/1.l1NG AR1l0lUSTS AND HORTICULnnttSTS
July 9, 2003
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Consulting Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon. CA 94920
RE: Tiburon Glen: Revised DEII' .Comments on Tree MItigation Measures
p,OS
s
RECEIVED
JUL 1 Q 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
'TOWN O~ TI8U~ON
Dear Ms. Allsep:
This letter provldes comments on the Tiburon Glen DEIR Mitigation Mea5ure 5.3-4. This
mitigation measure recommends 1.) A Tree Protection Plan to preserve the woodlands outside
the project area and 2.) A Tree Replacement end Enhancement ~Ian, which provides for the
planting of 5 acres of oaks as mitigation for the 5 acres of bay/oak woodland impacted by the
proposed project. .
Issue #1:
','... .
. ." ...,,', .' . .';.
The DEIR discussion within Impact 5.~-4 Loss of Mixed Coast'Live Oak-Bay Woodland concrud~
that there will be an indirect adverse Impact on the oak woodland plant community caused by the
. project construction. ThIs Indirect impact is stated to be the result of "additional environmental
stress on trees on the site through soil compaction during construction {such as grading and site
preparation) and also through on..going landscape irrigatIon once homes have are occupied",
Further "indirect adverse impacts may occur due to the spread 9f the pathogen during actMtles
such as tree trimming and removal, which could Increase the dispersal of the SOD fungus to
surrounding trees not yet afl'ectedM.
The grading limits are clearly defined on plans entItles Disturbed Area Limits (L TO Engineering,
11/02). The trees within these grading limits are the trees requiring removal. Gradlngwlll not
impact treK deaignated BE> retained, except where they occur close to the grading limIts. This
impact will be limited and not widespread. The charactertzation of this impact as affecting the site
is inaccurate. The 17 acres of remaining, protected woodland will generally not be impacted "
beyond the grading limits.
Tree pruning and tree removals will be performed aCCQrding to the MarIn County requirements
and there is no supporting evidence or research that these procedures will spread the 'SOD
pathogen. The entire area is infected and it is the bay trees that are the likely primary host of the
qi~ea$e !;ind the. source fOr additional infectlon. The constnJction of this project provldesa-means
for lo~lIzed control of the disease and should not be considered an adverse Impact,
FLiture landscaping will be limited to graded building envelopes and any irrigation occurring withIn
these zones will not have an affect on the surrounding woodland.
POST OFFICE BOX 1150 " GLEN ELLEN, CALlt'ORNIA 95442 · FAX 707.938.1837 · PHON! 707-938'1822
Comments:
l
.31
Jayni AlIsep 415 78!Q735
.
p,09 .
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.'I
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ThursdOlY, July 10, 2003 11;47 AM
TlburonGlen: Revised DEIR Comments on Tree MItigation Measures
Page 2 of 2
719/03
Issue #2:
Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) establishes a 1:1 lost acreage replacement plan. This plan will
require the planting of approximately 1000 trees over five acres. This measure provides for either
on-site or off.site planting areas provided the off-site area is located on the TiburonPeninsula.
Comments:
t
The available area for replanting wIthin the grading limits is 1 .18 acres and not .55 acres as
stated in the DEIR (refer to Exhibit 2.2-13 Disturbed Area Summary). These 1.18 acres Is
comprised of areas outside deslgnated building envelopes and proposed roadways. These areas
will require re-planting and should be counted as a part 01 tl"le required 5-acre mitigatIon area.
,Further, the replanting of an additional four aeres will not be practical on the site due to the
topography and protectIon of the remall'llng woodlanos and serpentine grassland areas. The
remaining 3.82 acres ot mItigation pl~mtin9 will require an off-aite looation.
5
Considering the poor health and structural condition of the existing woodland within the project
limits, the replentlng of five Bcree, or 1000 trees, and the requIrement for a monitoring plan
guaranteeing an 80% survival rate, this mitigation measure should reduce the Impact to a less
than significant level. '
. Please contact me with any questions, or If additional Information is required. .
Sincerely.
m acNair
In rnational Society of Arborlculture Certified Arbor1st WC-0603
e ber American Society of Arboncultural Consultants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.!
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER S - James MacNair
Response to Comment S-1
The comment is noted. Impacts to site woodlands are based on review of the Disturbed Area Limits
provided in the December 2002 plans and a peer review of the survey conducted by MacNair and
Associates.
Response to Comment S-2
The commentor states there is no evidence that SODS is spread by construction activities. To the
contrary, it is the professional opinion of many SODS experts that transmission is likely to result from
transport of infected soil and plant parts or unprocessed wood, the byproducts of construction
activities on wooded sites. Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(a) would require the project to comply with
"Best Management Practices" outlined by the California Oak Mortality Task Force and Marin County
requirements. As the commentor has noted, pruning and removal of any trees will be required to be
consistent with these requirements.
Response to Comment S-3
The commentor is incorrect. Future landscaping would be limited to residential use areas, which are
larger and encompass the building envelopes. Irrigation could affect the woodland immediately
adjacent to any landscaped areas. Water would soak into the ground where the roots ofthe established
trees exist, and there would be some level of water run-off on sloped areas, and thus could result in an
indirect impact on the trees. ,
Response to Comment S-4
The commentor states there are 1.18 acres of area available for replanting on-site which would result
from project grading. The areas the commentor refers to which are located outside of the 0.55 acre
identified in the RDEIR are based on the conceptual lot development plans, and are not proposed to be
graded by the applicant. The applicant would conduct grading operations for landslide repair and
installation of roadways and utilities only. The grading for landslide repair would result in 0.55 acre
of area available for on-site replanting. Further, the areas the commentor refers to would be located
within an individual lot's residential use area. Such areas are not considered appropriate for replanting
of woodlands because they are not permanently preserved as with the other areas which are in the
conservation easement.
The EIR preparers concur with the commentor's conclusion that four acres of on-site replacement may
not be feasible due to site conditions. As noted in Master Response 8.3-1, while the preference is for
on-site mitigation, it is recognized that site conditions, as well as the desire to retain trees for visual
screening (even though the trees may be'diseased), would limit the areas deemed appropriate for
selective tree removal and enhancement necessary to completely mitigate the impacts of the proposed
eight-lot project on-site. Mitigation Measure 5.3(b), as presented in the RDEIR, allows for mitigation
planting off-site but elsewhere on the Tiburon Peninsula. However, even assuming that a 1: 1 acre
replacement/enhancement ratio would occur, the RDEIR concludes that the impacts to on-site
woodlands would remain significant and unavoidable due to the number of years that it would take for
the replacement habitat to mature.
8.4- \15
Response to Comment 5-5
The comment is noted. Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
8.4-116
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.
.
.
'.'
.
.'
.
Ie
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
I.'
MARIN CONSERVATION LEAGUE RECEIVED
1623A Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901
(415~ 485-6257 ~ax(415) 4~5-6259 JUL 1 4 2003
e-maIl: mc1(a),mannconservatlOnleague.org
web site: www.marinconservationleague.org PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
LATE MAIL #
1
July 7, 2003
T
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 TiburonBlvd. nl""';....r-n"-n
, Tiburon, CA 94920
SUBJECT: TIBURON GLEN Revised DEffi
Dear Commissioners:
Tbe Marin Conservation League (MCL) offers the following comments on the Tiburon Glen
Draft revised EIR (RDEIR).
The RDEIR cannot assess a number of impacts that will occur because it puts off studies that
will make such impacts known until after project approval. This includes issues related to
grading and numbers and location of tree removal and replacement. This data needs to be made
available and assessed in the EIR.
Revised grading figures should be provided for (1) slopes proposed to be graded at 2: 1 which the
RDEIR (5.1-4) says may need a more gradual slope to be stable; (2) for reduction in road grades
from the proposed 20% to the maximum 18% allowed by the Tiburon Fire District; and (3)
additional landslide repair needed for house ,constiuction.
1
The growth inducing potential of an extension of a sewer . system to serve the project is not
appropriately addressed. Such an extension will provide opportunity for development in new
subdivisions, on existing built and unbuilt lots and permit simple lot subdivision where that is
now not permitted.
:3
The impacts of loss of oaklbay woodlands, while assessed as a significant unmitigable impact,
are still greatly understated. It appears that some 10 acres of the site (not the 5 acknowledged)
will be t;:1e.ared of existing trees and that just 5 acres will be replanted - with very young trees.
The increased visual impacts and potential for erosion this tree removal will cause must be
correctly presented, assessed and mitigated. The actual tree replacement ratio, which is less than
1: I, is unacceptably low (even lower, since the acceptable success rate is 80%). '
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
J ana Haehl
President
Cc: Scott Ariderson, Planning Director
Jayni Allsep, Planner
Hard copy sent by mail
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER T - Jana Haehl, Marin Conservation League
Response to Comment T-1
The commentor states that the EIR should provide revised grading figures for three reasons. Each
reason is listed and then addressed below: (1) slopes proposed to be graded at 2:1 which the RDEIR
(Mitigation Measure 5.1-4) says may need a more gradual slope to be stable; (2) for reduction in road
grades from the proposed 20 percent to the maximum 18 percent allowed by the Tiburon Fire District;
and (3) additional landslide repair needed for house construction.
(1) See Response to Comment H-2.
(2) Ple~se see Response to Comment C-1. In general, a reduction in road grades would not
significantly alter the extent of grading that would be necessary. A 20 percent grade indicates a rise of
20 feet over a distance of 100 feet while an 18 percent grade indicates a rise of 18 feet over a distance
of 100 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference between these is two feet over a distance of 100 feet.
This difference may change elevations of building envelopes and heights of retaining walls, but could
likely be done without altering the surficial extent of disturbance.
(3) See Response to Comment H-2.
Response to Comment T-2
The commentor states that the growth inducing potential of an. extension of the sewer line have not
been addressed. Please see Response to Comment H-4.
Response to Comment T-3
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
8.4-118
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.'
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
e:
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.'
Page I of I
JUL 1 4 2003
LAtiMAJ~ # I
u
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
From:
Sent:
TREETOPANNE@aol.com
Sunday, July 13, 2003 4:59 PM
Connie Cashman
To:
Cc:
VTBNWf@aol.com; L YNDABLEVINS@EARTHLlNK.NET; BENBOW@ALTACOMM.COM;
(Iohurcn Design Review Board) John Kunzweiler; CCJMLANASA@aol.com;
CBMCGUINN@VEENLAW.COM; Jammhp@aol.com; TELLlNI@CONCENTRIC.NET;
CRYSTAL.B@MINDSPRING.COM; SDPearson@aol.com; WNSimon@aol.com; (Tiburon Planning
Commission) Randy Greenberg
Subject: TIBURON GLEN PROPOSAL
TO: Planning Commission, cc to Jayni Allsep, Planner, and Scott Anderson, Planning Director.
Addendum to Objections submitted by Norman Way HOA
In conclusion, it is necessary to evaluate the very long list of corrective
measures that would be necessary in order to carry out the recommendations for
mitigation of the many serious problems created by the developer's attempt to
subdivide this land.
1 The problem of monitoring and verifying that the developer, and/or
subsequent developers, will perform all ofthe measures recommended for
mitigation, is most difficult. The Town of Tiburon would probably need
I additional stp.ff and resources to assure compliance with all of these measures.
July 12, 2003
Anne Norman
7/14/03
RESPONSE TO LETTER U - Anne Norman
Response to Comment U-1
Please see Response to Comment H7'8.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.'
.'
-
.
--
.
.
i.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
-
.
.
'.1
.~
.
-
.
.
.
'.
.
.
'.
8.4-120
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
I.,
.
.
..
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RECEiVED
JUL 1 4 2003
45 Norman Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
July 13,2003
v
RE: Tiburon Glen revised Draft EIR comments
etATE~MAIL #L,
To the Planning Commission:
The questions below are in addition to those submitted in a July 5 comment letter focusing on
woodland impacts of the proposed Tiburon Glen project. .
1. The Tiburon GlenRDEIR concludes that "the project site can be considered prime open
space" (p.4.0-36). Tiburon's General Plan states that "landowner's are encouraged to design
their.project to maximize protection... [of prime open space] to the maximum extent feasible.
The RDEIR proposes keeping prime open space on individually owned lots and using. CC&R' s
as a primary protection tool. CC&R's are only as effective as their enforcement, which is
generally lax in small developments. The maximum protection of prime open space is transfer to
a public or non-profit agency. This is feasible in this case where the serpentine grasslands on site
are such as to have international value to researchers and educators.
. The next best protection is to take the protected open space areas of the property and place it in
"common open space", jointly owned by all the homeowner's, who will share responsibility for
its protection, as required in the precise development plan and outlined in CC&R's.
Homeowner's are much less likely to alter commonly owned property than that which is part of
their private lots. This is a common solution, but not much liked by developers because of a
perceived downsizing of individual lots, This is perception only, since the property put into
commonly held open space would be precluded from any development under the offered
mitigations anyway. The common open space solution protects the open spaces from future
development. proposals, protects the integrity of the approved Precise Development Plan and the
general community's interests. I note that the Easton Pt. DEIR says that open space values are
generally degraded over time when designated protected open space is held in individual private
ownership. The RDEIR should assess the best protection of prime open space for this project:
individually owned private open space, common open space managed by the homeowner' s
association or management by a public agency or non-profit conservation organization..
2. Impact 5.3-1, "Permanent Loss of Habitat for Special-Status Plants". The 9/02 DEIR
proposed mitigating this impact by having the applicant establish a conservation easement and/or
transfer ownership of the habitat excluded from private lots to a public agency or non-profit
'l conservation organization for long-term management and protection. The 9/02 DEIR .says that
"preservation by a public land trust agency or non-profit would facilitate future research as well
as the monitoring and management of the sensitive plant populations. This transfer of ownership
has been dropped as a potential mitigation in the revised DEIR. Please explain: .
13.!"!lpact 5.3-4, "Loss of Mixed Coast Live OaklBayWoodland". The 9/02 DEIR proposed
3 mitigating this impact by reducing the number of impacted trees to 150 or fewer. It suggested
July 13, 2003 Greenberg RDEIR Comments Page I of 4
3
t~t.
accomplishing this by reducing building envelope size, clustering building and carefully locating
building footprints to minimize removal of native trees". This mitigation has been replaced by
one that clearcuts 5 acres currently holding 522 native trees plus uncounted hundreds more (to
clear areas for replanting) on an additional 5 acres. The revised DEIR states that in the
intervening 2 years the condition of the woodland has deteriorated somewhat. Please specify the
nature of the deterioration that justifies this cataclysmic shift in mitigation from reducing the # of
trees to be impacted to one that increases tree removal many times over. The RDEIR must
address secondary impacts of these new massive clearcuts.
4. Four drainage ditches are proposed to be from 120' to 900' long. Have the impacts of
t these ditches have been evaluated, including for tree loss and visual impact? If not, please
describ~ impacts and mitigations.
5. Lot 7 and 8 impacts. In order to understand the impacts associated with creating two
lots, 7 and 8, separated from the main area of development, assess and quantify the reduction
in all impacts associated with having one geographical location for the development, in place
? of two as proposed. Include visual, grading (roads, 750' water line, trenching for culverts
and installation of other drainage facilities, slide repair, creation of building pads, etc.),
impacts on serpentine grasslands and jurisdictional waters, tree loss (including for
installation of utility lines), inconsistencies with policies for clustering and minimizing new
Paradise Dr. access points and other policies and any other impacts.
6. All mitigations which refer to the removal of 522 trees on 5 acres should be revised.
The RDEIR woodland mitigation proposes to clear trees on up to ail. additional 5 acres
b (presumably containing a similar number oftrees), for a total that is more likely on the order
of a 1 ,000+ trees. All associated impacts should be reassessed accordingly.
7. Mit. 5.5-4. Provision of safe on-site roadways. Mitigation simply provides for
brushed concrete on steeper road portions and a "will serve" letter from the Fire Protection
'1 District. Evaluate sight distances along the internal roadways for resident and service
vehicles that will use these narrow 2-way roadways.
8. Mit. 5.5-4. Provision of safe access roadways. In regard to access to lots 7 and 8,
this mitigation requires removing one tree and trimming the intervening roadside vegetation
to increase sight lines 'to the south. No ongoing responsibility for such work is assigned.
Casual observation (and personal experience) along Paradise Dr. clearly demonstrates that
~ homeowners do not maintain roadside vegetation on or off their property and/or in the public
right of way so as to provide safer access to their homes/subdivisions, even though it is in
their interest to do so. This mitigation gives lip service to the problem, but will not be
effective. If Paradise Dr. is not to become more unsafe than it already is, new access points
must have adequate sight lines without requiring gardening maintenance to achieve them.
9. Mit. ,5.5-5. Rest stop for bicycles. At best, this mitigation will create an attractive
nuisance. It will provide water for the homeless who regularly camp out in the area, parking
9 for people beginning a bicycle tour, noise from cars and conversations. This "mitigation"
creates secondary impacts that are not an enhancement for residents of the area. The
sf'condary impacts of this mitigation must be addressed.
July 13, 2003
Greenberg RDEIR Comments
Page 2 of4
.
.
~
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
-
.
-
.
.
~.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.'
.
.
-
.
.
I.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.'
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10. Walter Levison, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401, in a 10/5/02 comment
letter on the project stated that "the potential effects of Sudden Oak Death on the site due to
movement of construction personnel, grading machinery, vehicles, and tree removal could be
quite severe, but are unknown at this time." Diana Farrell, speaking at the 10/9/02 Planning
Commission hearing on Tiburon Glen cited a publication by the California Oak Mortality
Task FOf~e which notes that "any agent that carries infested soil can spread the disease
[SOD]... Construction or tree removal equipment working in areas of infestation probably
10 represent one of the more likely sources of soil movement." She cited another report by the
UC Berkeley Extension in Marin that notes that while it is not currently understood how
SOD spreads, a few species are also known to be airborne. The proposal to have at least 2
distinct development areas (proposing to moving soil from one area to the other, as well as
exporting it off site) increases the probability of spreading SOD in the area. Removal of
excessive numbers of trees, particularly on windy days, has the potential to further spread the
disease. Mitigation should include reducing the size of the project, limiting it to one
development area, and substantially reducing the number of trees to be removed.
Ii. .Goal LU-F. To preserve existing neighborhood character and identity by requiring
buffer zones (greenbelts) between new and existing development where practical The
consistency designation should be changed from "partly inconsistent" to "inconsistent." This
proposal not only puts lots 7 and 8 right next to Norman Way homes'(no buffer zone), but
i I separates them totally from the rest of the new development. It isolates them further by
putting them on a separate driveway. This separation does not enhance neighborhood
identity. Including "partly" in this designation suggests that developments that take X
number of homes and divide them into widely separated groups are still meeting the intent of
a clustered housing policy, which is not the case.' This project is not a clustered development.
12. LU-12. ...new development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive
and 'least hazardous portions of vacant lands.... For accuracy, the consistency discussion
/2 should include the fact that some building envelopes include slopes in excess of 40% and
include landslides and areas of colluvial deposit.
D. OSC-11. Grading and Tree Removal. ...encourage location of structures ... [to]
minimize tree removal and grading. Putting the maximum density on the site (and
ignoring the General Plan statement that assigned densities are maximums which may not be
rs achieved because of environmental constraints) in no way minimizes tree removal and
grading. To create 1.59 acres of building envelopes, 5 acres will be graded and up to 10
acres of woodland will be cIearcut. This designation should be changed to "inconsistent".
14. Policy C-20. "Driveways along Paradise Dr. should be discouraged New
development shall explore others options for access and, where feasible, avoid driveways
on Paradise Dr. Additional new roads that will intersect Paradise Dr. shall be kept to the
minimum number possible and be situated in safe locations." This project is inconsistent,
tt not partly incQnsistent, with this policy. It does not minimize new access points. Creating
two distinct development areas results in a new access point along Paradise Dr. to serve just
2 residences. Further, this driveway has an inadequate sight line. The cumulative'impacts of
new access points along Paradise should also be considered in making the consistency
designation.
July 13,2003
Greenberg RDEIR Comments
Page 3 of 4
15. PR-8. Requires publicly-accessible off-road connecting trails... The proposed trail does
not appear to connect to the trail that is accessed off Norman Way. A public trail that dead ends
It) at the N,,:,mum Way open space area could be extended through this project to make it consistent
with PR-8, which requires connecting trails.
J6. Zoning Ord. Ch. 16, Sec. 4.02.07(a). Site Plan adequacy. ...[project) provides safe
and reasonable access.... The project is not consistent with the purpose ofthis Section which,
in part, is to avoid further degradation of safety to the, varied users of the roadway. To achieve
this, new access points along Paradise Dr. should be minimized. Minimization requires one new
I~ access for new development, not two. In addition, one of the two proposed access points has an
inadequate sight line and the the mitigation offered is unlikely to be maintained. The project does
indeed further degrade safety for users of the roadway and is not consistent with this zoning
provISIon.
17. Visioning Goal IT-I. "Plan new development to minimize the number of roadways
and driveways onto Paradise Drive for safety and to reduce the need for grading and
Ii paving." The project is "inconsistent" with this goal. The plan to divide development into
two totally separate areas drives the need for extra access points and roadways. This is not
the kind of planning envisioned in this goal.
18. Visioning Goal IT-2. The goal to cluster housing in new development was strongly
supported in the Visioning document for the reasons stated in this Goal - to minimize visual
f'6' and environmental impacts. Dividing the development by locating two lots so that they have
no meaningful relationship to the rest of the development is not what was intended here. This
is not a clustered development, it is a divided one. The project is "inconsistent" with this
Goal.
19, Visioning Goal II:-2. Develop design standards to define low visual impact The
developer should provide such standards to be included in the Precise Development Plan"
The fact that he does not plan to build the houses does not reduce his responsibility to make
LGJ sure that the subdivision he has created will meet this goal. The lack of such standards
makes the project "inconsistent" with this Goal, which was intended to apply to the
development of new subdivisions.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Randy Greenberg
Cc: Jayni Allsep, Planner
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
July 13,2003
Greenberg RDEIR Comments
Page 4 of 4
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
'.J
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.'
.
.
.'
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8,4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER V - Randy Greenburg
Response to Comment V-1
The commentor requests additionalinformation regarding the best method for protection of the site's
open space. While there is no one best method, the project proposes to protect 20 acres of the site as
private open space through the establishment of a conservation easement. The use of conservation
easements conveyed to a public agency or other body (such as a non-profit land trust) through the
regulatory process to protect open space is a common practice. In the opinion of the EIR preparers,
the use of such conservation easements is an appropriate way to protect the site's open space. To
ensure that the conservation easement is an effective tool, the following steps should be included:
· Conditions of project approval should clearly identify the requirement for the conveyance of a
conservation easement to a second party and the conservation values to be preserved.
· The project applicant should be responsible for the cost of preparing the easement document, a
baseline report documenting existing conditions, and establishment of an endowment fund to pay
for future monitoring and potential enforcement.
· Ensure that the terms of the easement are complete when the decision on the development
application is made.
Response to Comment V-2
The commentor only includes part of the statement on page 5.3-24 of the 2002 DEIR. The entire
sentence reads: "A conservation easement or transfer of ownership to a public agency or non-profit
conservation organization would provide the greatest protection for this valuable and sensitive
resource and also provide the greatest public benefit." (Italics added.) Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 in
the 2002 DEIR called for the applicant to "establish a conservation easement and / or transfer
ownership of the habitat excluded from private lots to a public agency or non-profit conservation
organization." (Italics added.) The intent of the measure was to assure permanent preservation of the
bunchgrass habitat, and two methods were provided. The December 2002 project plans incorporated
the provision of a conservation easement which includes all of the serpentine bunchgrass habitat. For
this reason, the applicant fulfilled the intent of the 2002 DEIR mitigation measure. As stated on page
5.3-26 of the RDEIR, "The proposed conservation easement would provide the greatest protection for
this valuable and sensitive resource."
Response to Comment V-3..
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment V-4 _
Exhibits 2.2-6 and 2.2-7 illustrate the area of disturbance required for implementation of the PDP.
Included within this area are the drainage ditches referred to in this comment. The disturbed area
limits were the basis for determining the area of grading impacts to site, as shown in Exhibit 5.3-3,
Impact Map, and discussed in 5.3 Vegetation and Wildlife. The area disturbed by the construction of
the drainage ditches was included in the estimate of tree loss. '
The commentor is referred to page 5.4-7 of the RDEIR which states:
8.4-125
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Grading, Retaining Walls, and Landslide Repair The plans submitted in December 2002
include a landslide repair program and retaining wall details to supplement the information
provided in the September 2000 PDP. The 2002 plans depict an area of disturbance that
would result from grading for landslide repair, concepfual site and building envelope
preparation, and roadways and utilities. The plans also include details regarding the height
and length of all proposed retaining walls. The information provided in these plans is
represented in the following photosimulations, including the grading and associated
vegetation removal. (emphasis added)
Exhibits 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 also illustrate the area of disturbance required for implementation of the PDP.
The area disturbed by the construction offour drainage ditches was included in the visual simulations.
Because the location of the proposed drainages are south of and below the elevation of the roadways,
the view of the drainageways would not be distinguishable from that ofthe roadways.
Response to Comment V-5
The commentor recommends that the EIR assess how the project's significant effects could be reduced
by limiting development to one geographic area. In 6.0 Alternatives the RDEIR includes analysis of
the Two-Lot Alternative and the Modified Four-Lot Alternative, both of which propose development
in PDP Development Area No. 1 only. In addition, the Modified Three-Lot Alternative presented in
this Response to Comments document and hereby incorporated into the Final EIR, would confine
development to Development Area No.1. Please refer to Master Response 8.3-2 for a revised table
which provides a summary of the relative merits the proposed eight-lot project and alternatives,
including the Modified Three-Lot Alternative. Further, it is noted that CEQA does not require
analysis of all possible alternatives, but rather a "reasonable range" which provides sufficient
information about the environmental impacts involved.
Response to Comment V-6
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment V-7
Sight lines for on-site roadways are discussed under Impact 5.5-4 on page 5.5-6 of the RDEIR as
follows:
Sight lines on the on-site roadway and driveway intersections would be considered adequate
due to the short driveway lengths and removal of existing mature vegetation. On-site
circulation would be limited to roadway use by site residents with reduced speeds utilized on
the short roadways. Although grading for site development would remove existing
vegetation, eventually mature landscaping could obstruct sight lines. Individual lot owners
would be responsible for maintaining adequate visibility at their Lot's driveway intersection
with site roadways.
A review of the site plan by the EIR traffic consultant concluded that adequate visibility is provided
for in the roadway design.
Response to Comment V-8
The commentor states that no ongoing responsibility for maintaining clear sight lines is assigned.
Howe~er, as stated on page 5.5-16, "The Town would be responsible for'monitoring implementation
of this measure, including the on-going maintenance of adequate sight distance at the Roadway C
8.4-126
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
f
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
intersection." Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 would be a condition of development
permit approval, and enforcement would be monitored by the Town through the implementation of a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The County of Marin Public Works
Department also conducts periodic vegetation trimming along the right-of-way. The installation of a
new. driveway would lead to increased maintenance in this vicinity as compared to current needs.
Additionally, see Response to Comment H-8 regarding implementation ofthe MMRP.
Response to Comment V-9
The commentor speculates on the potential use of a pedestrianlbicycle rest stop by persons presumably
undesirable to the Tiburon cOl:nmunity and the nuisance this would result in for neighboring residents.
It should be noted that the development of this location and more frequent use by drivers on the
proposed roadway would likely discourage campers. Additionally, it is highly speculative to conclude
that a rest stop would attract visitors from outside the area to Paradise Drive, and in the opinion of the
EIR preparer, not likely. Further, the nuisance that the commentor assumes would result would not
rise to the level of an environmental impact. Mitigation Measure 5.5-5 calls for a designated
pedestrianlbicycle rest stop at one or both of the proposed site access intersections with Paradise
Drive, and suggests that there would be sufficient space within the Paradise Drive ROW at the
entrance to Development Area No.1. It should also be noted that a rest stop could be provided at this
location whether or not the parking area proposed by the applicant is approved. Ultimately, the Town
Council has the discretion to determine whether the parking area should be approved as part of the
proposed project.
Response to Comment V-10
Please see page 5.3-33, first bullet, regarding the spread of SOD. Some of the Alternatives discussed
in this Response to Comments document accomplish the objectives outlined by this commentor: The
Two-Lot Alternative, the Modified Three-Lot Alternatiye (presented in the this Response to
Comments document) and the Modified Four-Lot Alternative would reduce the size of the project,
limit development to one development area, and reduce the number of trees removed.
Response to Comment V-11
Please see Master Response 8.3-3 and section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR.
Response to Comment V-12
The consistency discussion ofLU-12 has been revised to include the following statement:
However. three of the proposed building envelopes have an average existing slope of 40 percent or
greater.
Please see Master Response 8.3-3 and section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR.
Response to Comment V-13
Please see Master Response 8.3-3 and section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR.
Response to Comment V-14
Please see Master Response 8.3-3 and section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR as well as Response to, .
Comment V-16.
8.4-127
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment V-15
In response to this comment, the text on page 4.0-16 has been revised to consider the project
inconsistent with Town Plan Policy PR-8. Please see section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR.
Response to Comment V-16
Comment noted. Potential project impacts related to safe access are addressed in 5.5 Traffic and
Circulation. As discussed on page 5.5-17 ofthe RDEIR, due to the low volume of vehicles associated
with the project roadways, the provision of two new intersections as opposed to one would not be
considered a significant impact under CEQA. Provision of safe access is discussed under Impact and
Mitigation Measure 5.5-3. TheDEIR provides analyses of sight lines and stopping sight distances at
the two proposed project roadway connections to Paradise Drive. Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 requires
that a minimum of 150 feet of sight distance be provided in both directions along the frontage of Lots
7 and 8 for inbound and outbound vehicles at the Roadway C/Paradise Drive intersection.
Implementation of this measure would reduce project impacts related to safe access to a less-than-
significant level. In addition, please see Response to Comment V-8.
l)ltimately, Town of Tiburon planning staff and the Planning Commission will make
recommendations to the Town Council regarding the consistency of the project with the General Plan
and the site's suitability for. the proposed use, including the. suitability of two new access roads
connecting with Paradise Drive. All potential significant environmental effects of the proposed
project, including those for which criteria for significance were based on policies or standards of the
Tiburon General Plan, are addressed and mitigated to the extent feasible in their respective sections of
the EIR.
Response to Comment V-17
Please see Master Response 8.3-3 and section 8.6 Changes to the RDEIR
Response to Comment V-18
The comment is noted. As stated in the consistency discussion, the proposed development is in fact
"clustered on the site's lower wooded elevations adjace~t to the Norman Estates neighborhood." The
policy does not explicitly state new development should not be clustered near existing development
and only near new development as the commentor implies. By clustering development near existing
development as opposed to uphill portions of the site, the proposed site plan does avoid further
environmental impacts. Ultimately, Town of Tiburon planning staff and the Planning Commission
will make recommendations to the Town Council regarding the consistency of the project with the
General Plan and the site's suitability for the proposed use, including the proposed development of
Lots 7 and 8.
Response to Comment V-19
The commentor states the consistency designation for Visioning Goal II-2 should be "inconsistent"
because the applicant failed to provide development standards. In response to this comment, the
designation has been changed to "Consistency Unknown" because too little about the project is known
to determine conformance with this vague standard of the Visioning Plan. (Please see section 8.6
Changes to the RDEIR).
The proposed PDP application has been submitted to the Town of Tiburon and would require approval
by the Town. As such, development standards may be applied as conditions of project approval.
8.4-128
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Individual lot developers would be required to comply with any development standards and/or
conditions of approval. In addition, development of each lot would undergo review by the Design
Review Board based on the Site Plan and Architectural Review Guiding Principles outlined in Section
4.02.07 of the Town Code. The Guiding Principles indicate the following priorities: appropriate site
layout in relation to adjoining sites, taking into consideration views, privacy, and topographic
constraints; preservation of the character of existing neighborhoods, taking into consideration height,
size, architectural style and exterior fmish; minimizing grading and tree removal; use of native
drought-tolerant landscaping for screening of new development without impacting existing views; and
prevention of light trespass from proposed new lighting. The Guiding Principles specify that in .
planned residential zones (including the project site), building envelopes are intended to provide
flexibility in the siting of structures and are not intended to be filled by new development. The Design
Review Board will apply the principles outlined above to the individual proposals for lot development
and require changes in site layout, building design, landscaping and lighting as conditions of approval.ù
8.4-129
'-~~TS.MAU.f~E' MIHALY & WEINBERGER UP
ATTORNEYS ATLAW
E, CLEMENT SHUTE, ..JR,
MARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P,C.
FRAN 1'01, LAYTON
RACHEL B, HOOPER
ELLEN ..J. GARBER
CHRISTY H, TAYLOR
TAMARA S,. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S, TAYLOR
WILLIAM ..J. WHITE
ROBERT S. 'PERLMUTTER
OSA L, ARM I
BRIAN..J. ..JOHNSON
..JANETTE E, SCHUE
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE: (4 15) 552-7272
FACSIMILE: (4 15) 552-58 I 6
WWW.SMWLAW.COM
July 11, 2003
J ayni Allsep .
Town of Tiburon Community Development Department
1505 Tiburon Doulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Resubmission of Comments on the Tiburon Glen Proiect
Dear Ms. Allsep:
RECEiVED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
JUL 1 4 2003
PLANNING DiVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
..JEFFREY M. BRAX
MARLENA G. BYRNE
MATTHEW D. ZINN
CATHERINE C, ENGBERG
ERI N RYAN
MATTHEW D, VESPA
LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP
CARMEN ..J. BORG
URBAN PLANNERS
ELIZABETH 1'01, DODD
DAVID NAWI
OF" COUNSEL
Attached are three comment letters subinitted by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
prior to the recirculation of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report ("RDEIR") for the
Tiburon Glen Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(f)(1), we request that the
Planning Commission address the concerns raised in each of these letters and provide a written
response explaining how those concerns were addressed.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, MIHAL Y & WEINBERGER LLP
~
..-.//"....--...."
, . i. ( \
".."1 . ,.;
..f . // L \
l / i ...- __
/, ,~.. -"- \
. .----::.....
BILL WHITE
[P:\Tibur Glen\Glen 3\mdv007 {submission of previous corrunents}.wpd]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
w
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, .JR.
MARK I. WEIN.8ERGER
MARC B. MIHALY. P,C,
FRAN M. LAYTON .
RACHEL,B. HOOPER
ELLEN.J. GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
WILLIAM.J. WHITE
ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER
OSA L. ARM I
BRIAN.J. .JOHNSON
.JANETTE E. SCHUE
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94 I 02
TELEPHONE: (4 I 5) 552-7272
F A.C S I MIL E: (4 , 5) 5 5 2 - 5 8 I 6
WWW.SMWLAW.COM
JEFFREY M. BRAX
MARLEN'" G. BYRNE
.JOHN A. HICKEY
MATTHEW D. ZINN
CATHERINE C. ENGBERG
ERIN RYAN
MATTHEW D. VESPA
LAUREL L IMPETT. AICP
CARMEN J BORG
uRBAN PLANNERS
February 18,2003
ELIZABETH M. DODD
DAVID NAWI
or COUNSEL
Members of the Tiburon Planning Commission:
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Tiburon Glen Grading and Landslide Repair Plan
Dear Commissioners: ,
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submits this letter on' behalf of the Last
Chance Committee and the Norman Estates Homeowners Association: In letters we
submitted to you dated October 4, 2002 and November 13, 2002, we explained the
numerous ways in which Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Tiburon
Glen project ("project") is legally inadequate and that recirculation of a revised draft was
required.. In response to the concerns expressed by us and other members of the
community, the Planning Commission indicated in Noveinber that it would make a final
detenilination whether to recirculate after the developer submitted detailed grading and
landslide repair plans and 'a proposed Final ErR was prepared. Recently, a revised
development plan showing the proposed slide repair measures and other grading work
was submitted. The revised plan shows even more clearly than before that the EIR must
be revised and reclrculated.
As we have discussed in our prior letters, one of the DEIR's most glaring
deficiencies is its failure to describe in any meaningful detail the potentially significant
impacts associated with landslide repair and other grading work necessitated by the
proposed project. The revised development plan indicates that, in fact, the extent of
New information is considered "significant" if, among other things, the
EIR is changed in a way that "deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project." (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Cali fomi a, 6 Ca1.4th 111'2, 1129-30
(1993).) This occurs not only when new information reveals a previously undisclosed
significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, but also when the
draft EIR "was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
public comment on the draft was in effect meaningless." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines ~
15088.5(a)). An agency cannot simply release a draft report "that hedges on important
environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final [EIR] that is
insulated from public review." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 214
Ca1.App.3d 1043, 1053 (1989).)
.
.
.
.
.
.
ei
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Members of the Planning Commission
February 18,2003
Page 2
grading, site disturbance and tree removal is far greater than what was described in the
original plan. This will substantially increase the severity of the project's environmental
impacts in virtually every impact category. Yet these impacts were never specifically ,
analyzed in the DEIR, and the public has never been given an opportunity to comment on
them. In addition, the revised plan includes an entirely new "4-10t" alternative. This
alternative would plainly have more severe impacts than the current 2 and 3 lot
alternatives included in the DEIR, and indeed appears to do little if anything to reduce the
significant impacts of the proposed project, yet has never been analyzed in any document.
. ,
In short, the public is now seeing for the first time the most important
information bearing qn the project's environmental impacts and a brand new alternative
that would have greater impacts than the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR. To deprive
the public of the opportunity to comment on this critical information would turn CEQA
on its head and subject the Town to substantial legal risk should it approve the project.
As we have noted before, CEQA requires recirculation of a revised draft
DEIR "[ w ]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report"
after public review and comment on the earlier draft DEIR. (Pub. Res. Code ~ 21092.1.).
A revised EIR must be subject to the same "critical evaluation that occurs in the draft
stage" so that the public is not denied "an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the data
and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn
therefrom." (Sutler Sensible Planning. Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 122 Cal.App.3d 813,
822 (1981); see also City of San Jose v. GreatOaks Water Co., 192 Ca1.App.3d 1005,
1017 (1987).)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Members of the Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 3
Accordingly, the Town may not defer its detailed analysis of the impacts of
grading and landslide repair to the final EIR. In the absence of any information on the
extent of these activities, the DEIR could state only a bare conclusion that the site's
springs, seeps, seasonal drainages and other hydrological features, special status species,
oak woodlands, visual quality, and other resources could be significantly impacted as a
result. The DEIR concluded that it was "premature" to analyze these impacts because the
nature and magnitude of stabilization efforts "is not currently known. "DEIR at 5.1-21.
As we have noted, the document's generic analysis is inadequate under CEQA. (Santiago
County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal.App.3d 818,831 (1981); Stanislaus
Natural Heritage Project. v. County of Stanislaus, 48 Cal.AppAth 182, 194-206 (1996);
Citizens of Goleta Valleyv. Board of Supervisors, 52 Ca1.3d 553,568 (1990).)
Now that the extent of the proposed slide repair and grading is better
known, its impacts can and must be analyzed, and the public must have an opportunity to
review and comment on that analysis. A recent appellate decision mandated recirculation
under similar circumstances. In Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County
Board of Supervisors, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 131 (2001), the defendant County had adopted
a measure to mitigate the groundwater impacts of the project at issue, but had not
analyzed the potential impacts of the measure in the draft EIR. The County argued that
. . documents submitted before the project was approved, but after the public comment on
the draft EIR, contained the required analysis of the new measure. Rejecting this
argument, the court held that even if the analysis was adequate, the information had to be
"subjected to the test of public scrutiny" through recirculation~ (Id.) This was particularly
true "[i]n light of the atmosphere of public concern" surrounding groundwater impacts
generally and the proposed mitigation measure in particular. (Id.)
The need to recirculate in the present case is even more compelling than in
Save Our Peninsula, siIice the grading and slide repair plans recently submitted are not
merely mitigation measures; rather; they are an integral component of the project itself.
There has been substantial public concern since the release of the DEIR about the absence
of a landslide repair plan from the project description, the potential impacts of that plan
and other project-related grading, and the failure of the DEIR to meaningfully analyze
those impacts. The public may not be deprived of an opportunity to comment on one of
the most fundamental issues concerning the project.
Moreover, the revised development plan and new data submitted therewith
indicate that project as originally proposed has substantially changed and the severity of
the impacts substantially increased compared to what was presented and analyzed in the
Members of the Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 4
DEIR. As detailed in the February 11, 2003 letter submitted by Richard Grassetti, the
new plans would almost double number of trees removed (from 300 to 500) and would
triple the amount of ground disturbance (from six percent of the site to over 18% percent)
as compared to what would occur under the original Preliminary Development Plan
("PDP"). These differences are astonishing in their degree and plainly render the analysis
of the original plan obsolete. As courts have repeatedly recognized, "[a]n accurate,
stable, and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally
sufficient EIR." (County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 CaI.App.3d 185,193
(1977).)
Nor do the revised plans tell the entire story. As detailed in the Grassetti .
letter, those plans still fail to account for ground disturbance that would result from
proposed parking and access mitigations, construction activities, potential landslide
repairs on upper portion of lots 6 and 7, and other aspects of the project. The combined
impacts from all of these activities must be analyzed, and that analysis subjected to public
scrutiny.
The applicant's submission of a new 4-unit alternative, which has not been
analyzed previously, also requires recirculation. It is unclear what purpose this alternative
serves and why it is being proposed at this late stage. Even under the 2-10t and 3-lot
alternatives analyzed in the DEIR, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain.
The proposed 4-unit alternative neither decreases the overall amount. of development on
the site compared to those alternatives nor avoids development in the critical "area 2"
portion of the site. Rather, it would have more severe impacts than the existing
alternatives, and would retain some of the most harmful features of the proposed project
(i.e., development within area 2, construction of a second access road from Paradise
Drive to .serve that development, etc.). For these reasons, the 4-unit alternative appears to
have little if any benefits over the proposed project in terms of impact reduction or.
consistency with applicable general plan and code provisions, and thus should not be
considered as a viable alternative. To the extent the Town chooses to consider that
. alternative, however, it must first provide an analysis of the potential impacts of the
alternative and allow the public and opportunity to review and comment on that analysis.
We note that providing a public hearing on the proposed final EIR will not
satisfy the recirculation requirement. When recirculating an EIR, the lead agency must
comply with the same procedures for review and comment that are applicable to draft
EIRs; i.e., the agency must provide notice that the document is available for review and
coniment for a minimum of 30 days, and must evaluate and respond to the comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Members of the Planning Commission
February 18, 2003
Page 5
received. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ~~ 15088.5(d) and (f), 15087, 15088.) We recognize that
this time line will make it virtually impossible for the Town to meet the court-ordered
April 22 deadline.. However, the existence of the deadline in no way alters the Town's
obligation to comply with CEQA's public review requirements or reduces its legal
exposure should it fail to do so. Rather, if the Town proceeds with its review of the
, .
current application, it would need to seek an additional extension from the court if it
cannot meet its legal obligations by the deadline.
In view of the necessity for recirculation, the time constraints imposed by
the court, the severity of the project's environmental impacts, and the numerous general
plan and code inconsistencies that preclude approval of the project as proposed, we
continue to believe that all parties, including the developer, would benefit if the current
application were withdrawn and a new application prepared that both reduced the total
number of units and eliniinated all development within area 2. We fail to understand
what can.be gained by further expenditure of time and resources on an application that
cannot be approved. Alternatively, because "CEQA does not apply to projects that a
public agency rejects or disapproves" (14 Cal.Code Regs. ~15270(a)), the Cominission
may send a denial recommendation to the Council priorto completion of the
enVironmental review. This would give the Council an opportunity to deny the
application without further unnecessary expenditure of Town resources on the current
untenable proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
S~~~ERLLP
William J. 'te" -
cc: Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
P:\Tibur Glen\~w040b (Tiburon Glen - comments on grading plan).wpd
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR'
RESPONSE TO LETTER W - William J. White, February 18,2003
Response to Letter W
This letter addresses reasons the information provided in the December 2002 plans related to grading
and landslide repair should be included in a revised draft EIR and recirculated in order to provide the
public an opportunity to comment on the environmental effects of the project. The Town of Tiburon
revised the September 2002 DEIR and released the revised draft EIR for public review on May 28,
2003.
8.4-136
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SHUTE, MIHALY &WEINBERGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
x
JANETTE E SCHUE
BRIAN J. JOHNSON
MARLENA G BYRNE
JOHN A. HICKEY'
MATTHEW.D ZINN
E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR
MARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P C.
FRAN M. LAYTON
RACH EL B. HOOPER
ELLEN J. GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
SUSANNAH T. FRENCH
WILLIAM J. WHITE
ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER
OSA L. ARMI
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94 I 02
TELEPHONE (4 I 5) 552-7272
FACSIMILE (4 I 5) 552-58 16
WWW.SMWLAW.COM
LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M. DODD
DAVID NAWI
OF COUNSEL
NOT LICENSED TO
PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA
November 13,2002
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Jayni Allsep
Contract Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Recirculation of Tiburon Glen Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Dear Ms. Allsep:
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submits this letter on be4alf of the Last
Chance Committee. On November 13,2002, the Planning Commission will consider
the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Tiburon Glen
project ("project") and whether to recommend recirculation of a revised DEIR. . As ,
discussed in detail in our letter of October 4, 2002, we believe that the DEIR is legally
inadequate in a number of respects and that recirculation is clearly required.
In response to the comments raised in our prior letter, in other comment
letters, and at the October 9 Commission hearing, Town sta.ffhas. indicated that it will
revise the EIR to include new information regarding the landslide repair and
stabilization that. will be necessitated by the project. However,. in its Staff Report for the
pending hearing, staff has taken the position that recirculation of the revised EIR for
public review and comment is not necessary. We strongly disagree with this position
and believe that the Town would be taking a substantial legal risk if it proceeds without
recirculating.
As discussed in our October 4 letter, theDEIR contains a number of
obvious legal inadequacies. The most glaring of these is its failure to describe the ,
nature and extent of landslide stabilization, despite the faqt that such stabi1izatio~ is
potentially the most significant element of the project in terms of its environmental
Jayni Allsep
November 13,2002
Page 2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
impacts. The DEIR is also deficient due to its failure to analyze cumulative impacts, its
deferral of mitigation measure development until after project approval, and its
inadequate analysis of impacts to hydrology, biological resources, visual resources and
"..--. '
prime open space, among other reasons.
The lack of an adequate analysis of the project's impacts has deprived the
public of the opportunity to meaningfully comment on those impacts. "The primary
reason that public comment is solicited is so that potential significant adverse effects of
the project can be identified ~at the earliest possible time.'" (Save Our Peninsula
Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors ("SOPC") (2001) 87 CaLApp.4th
99, 133 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of
California ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6 CaL 4th 1112, 1129)).
"Public review is essential to CEQA. The purpose of requiring public.
review is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact,
analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. . .. Public review
permits accountability and informed self-government. . . . [P]ublic review and comment
. . . ensures that appropriate alternatives and mitigation measures are considered, and
permits input from agencies with expertise. . . . Thus(,] public revie~ provides the dual
purpose of bolstering the public's confidence in the agency's decision arid providing the
agency with information from avariety of experts and sources." (Schoen v.Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 556, 573-574, (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted); accord SOPC 87 Cal.App. 4th 99, 133).
For these reasons, CEQA requires recirculation of a revised draft DEIR
"[ w ]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report" after
public review and comment on the earlier draft DEIR. (Pub. Res. Code S 21092.1.). A
revised EIR must be subj~t to the same. "critical evaluation that occurs in the draft
stage" so that the public is not denied. "an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the
data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn
therefrom." (Sutter Sensible Planning. Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 122 Cal.App.3d 813,
822 (1981); see also City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co., 192 Ca1.App.3d 1005,
1017 (1987).) An agency cannot simply release a draft report "that hedges on important
environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final [EIR] that is
insulated from public review." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Cornm'n, 214
Ca1.App.3d 1043, 1053 (1989).)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, Jayni Allsep
November 13,2002
Page 3
New information is considered "significant" if, among other things, the
EIR is changed in a way that "deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project.~' (Laurel
Heights II, 6 Ca1.4th at 1129-30). This occurs not only when new information reveals a
previously undisclosed significant impact, but also when the draft EIR "was so
fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that public comment
on the draft was in effect meaningless." (Id.; CEQA Guidelines S 15088.5(a)) There is
no question here that, assuming the EIR is revised to correct the deficiencies identified
in the public comment process, the public will have been deprived of an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the project's significant effects.
For example, the public has to date been given no information relating to
,the nature, extent or impacts of the proposed grading and landslide repair that will be
required for this project, save the DEIR's acknowledgement that those activities could
potentially wipe out all of the site's springs, seeps, seasonal drainages ~d other
hydrological features, significantly impact all known special status species on the site,
cause unspecified significant visual impacts, and the like. This is because the DEIR
concluded that it was "premature" to analyze these impacts because nature and
magnitude of stabilization efforts "is not currently known." DEIR at 5.1-21. Instead,
the DEIR analyzed the project's impacts as if no stabilization would occur. Given the
EIR's own acknowledgment of the potential significance of the impacts of stabilization,
the inclusion of an analysis of those impacts clearly must be presented for public review.
The Staff Report asserts that recirculation is not required because the
original DEIR recognized thatthe secondary impacts oflandslide stabilization could be
"significant" assuming a "worst case" scenario. However, a bare conclusion of potential
significance without analyzing what the nature and extent of the impacts actually will
be, is patently inadequate under CEQA. An EIR must not only identify the impacts, but
'also provide "information about how adverse the adverse impact will be." (Santiago,
118 Ca1.App.3d at 831) "The ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that -
decision right ,or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide the ,
decision-makers and the public with the information about the project" that CEQA
requires. (Id. at 829)
In Santiago, for example, the court invalidated an EIR lacking data on the
effect on water supply resultiilg from a proposed sand and gravel mining operation. The
court noted that the EIR's conclusion that the project will-have an unavoidable adverse
effect on increased water demand is only "stating 'the obvious." ''What is needed is
Jayni Allsep
November 13, 2002
Page 4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
some information about how adverse the adverse impact will be. 'An ErR should be
prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with
information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. '" (rd. at 831). This principle is well-settled. (See
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Proiect. v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Ca1.App.4th 182,
194-206 (invalidating ErR for residential project where agency concluded impacts on
long-term water supply could result in significant impacts, but failed to provide any
analysis of those impacts); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52
Ca1.3d 553, 568 ("EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare
conclusions").
Here, the DEIR has expressly stated that no landslide stabilization plan has
been submitted and that the effects of that plan have thus not been analyzed. The
document's generic conclusion that impacts could be significant under a "worst case"
scenario is not sufficient replacement for this analysis. The public could not
meaningfully review and comment on the impacts of a stabilization plan that does not
yet exist, and where the only analysis presented was a conclusion that the environmental
impacts of the plan could range somewhere between minimal and devastating. Denying
the public an opportunity to review a sufficiently detailed analysis of the actual impacts
of this major component of the project by including such analysis only in the FinalEIR
would circumvent CEQA's public review requirement and is grounds for invalidation.l
The same is true with respect to the other deficiencies of the EIR. For
example, a cumulative impacts analysis must be provided to the public; inclusion of
such analYSIS in afinal EIR is not sufficient. (Schoen, 58Cal.App.4th at 573-75.)
Indeed, in Schoen, the court recognized the "critical need to recirculate to the public all
I To the extent the Staff Report suggests that the "worst case scenario" approach
is somehow adequate because landslide stabilization constitutes a "mitigation measure"
and thus need not be analyzed in as much detail, it is mistaken. It strains credulity to
characterize landslide stabilization as a mitigation measure rather than a component of
the project, given the fact that it is mandatory, not optional, and that its impacts are
potentially as or more severe than the balance of the project. In any event, the analysis
is woefully inadequate regardless of the level of detail required, since it fails to provide
any meaningful understanding of what the impacts of stabilization would actually be.
Courts have invalidated EIRs for failure to recirculate where the imp~ts of mitigation
measures analyzed in the final EIR were not adequately addressed the draft EIR. (See,
~, SOPC, 87 Cal.App.4th at 128-31.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
November 13, 2002
Page 5
information relating to a cumulative effects analysis," and held that a failure to provide a
cumulative impacts analysis for public review violates CEQA even if that analysis finds
no significantimpacts. (Id. at 574). Given that.no cumulative impacts analysis was
included in the Tiburon Glen DEIR, the Town is required not only to prepare but to
recirculate such analysis for public review.
The recommendations of the Staff Report appear to be influenced by the
fact that the Town has been ordered by the Superior Court to certify the EIR by March 1, .
2003. It is important to be aware, however, that the one-year EIR deadline in CEQA
does not relieve the Town of its obligation to ensure that the document is legally
adequate. Unlike other statutes that impose time limits (e.g., the Permit Streamlining
Act), CEQA does no~ contain any provision for automatic or "deemed" certification of
EIRs in the event the time limit is exceeded. (Land Waste Management v.. Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 950,961,.62.) Rather, an EIR can
only be certified if the requirements of CEQA have been met. (CEQA Guidelines S
l5090(a)(1).) Accordingly, if the Town fails to fully comply with CEQA, the EIR will
be subject to invalidation in court, notwithstanding the existence of the timing
requirement.
Admittedly, it would be difficult ifnot impossible to recirculate the DEIR
and prepare an adequate FEIR within the time frame established by the Court. Because
recirculation is required in this instaIice, we believe the Town has an obligation to ask
the Court for an extension of the deadline. Given the circumstances, we think the Court
would view an extension of 60 days as reasonable; This should give the Town enough
time to revise and recirculate the DEIR and prepare a Final EIR, provided sufficient
resources are allocated to the task.
We also note that, as. we discussed in our prior letter, the project as
currently proposed cannot legally be approved by the Town due to the numerous
General Plan, zoning, arid other inconsistencies already identified in the DEIR. Of
course, CEQA applies only to project "approvals" (pub. Res~ Code S 21080) and the
Town is not obligated to prepare an EIR or otherwise comply with CEQA if it decides to
deny the project. While nothing in CEQA prevents the Town from completing an EIR
prior to a project denial, we continue to believe thatthe most reasonable and cost-
effective solution for both the Town and the developer would be to withdraw the current
application now and resubmit 8., new application for a reduced-density project that is
consistent with Town policies and regulations.
Jayni Allsep
November 13,2002
Page 6
Very truly yours,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions.
[P:\Martha\Matllwjw036 (Tiburon Glen - recirculation comments).wpd]
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
~
William J. White
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER X-William J. White, November 13,2002
Response to Letter X
This letter addresses reasons the September 2002 DEIR should be revised and recirculated in order to
provide the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental effects of the project. The reasons
listed in the letter include:
· Failure to describe the nature and extent oflandslide stabilization
· Failure to analyze cumulative impacts
· Deferral of mitigation measure development until after project approval
· Inadequate analysis of impacts to hydrology, biological resources, visual resources, and prime
open space.
The Town of Tiburon revised the September 2002 DEIR and released the revised draft EIR (RDEIR)
for public review on May 28,2003. The information provided in the December 2002 plans related to
grading and landslide repair was included in a revised draft EIR. The RDEIR includes mitigation
measures to address impacts to hydrology, biological resources, and visual resources as they relate to
the proposed landslide repair plan in Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, respectively. Prime open space is
discussed in section 4.2 (additionally, please. see Response to Comment 0-13). An expanded
discussion of cumulative impacts is provided in the RDEIR within their respective tQpical sections in
5.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. In summary, the issues raised in this
letter have been adequately addressed in the RDEIR.
8.4-143
y
E. CLEM.ENT SHUTE, -.J R
MARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B MIHALY. P C
FRAN M LAYTON
RACHEL B. HOOPER
ELLEN -.J GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAMARA S. GALANTER
ELLISON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
SUSANNAH T. FRENCH
WILLIAM -.J. WHITE
ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER
OSA L. ARMI
SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
-.JANETTE E SCHUE
BRIAN -.J -.JOHNSON
MARLENA G. BYRNE
-.JOHN A. HICKEY.
MATTHEW 0 ZINN
396 HAYES STREET .
SAN FRANCISCO. ,CALIFORNIA 94 102
TELEPHONE (4 I 5) 552-7272
FACSIMILE (4 I 5) 552-5816
WWW.SMWLAW.COM
LAUREL L IMPETT, AICP
URBAN PLANNER
ELIZABETH M DODD
DAVID NAWI
Of" COUNSEL
NOT LICENSED TO
PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA
October 4, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Jayni Allsep
Contract Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Comments on Tiburon Glen Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Allsep:
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger submits these comments on the Town of
Tiburon's Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Tiburon Glen project
("project") on behalf of the Last Chance Committee, an association of Tiburon residents
working to protect open space and the natural environment on the peninsula. The
project is one of several proposed developments that threatens the Town's dwindling
remaining supply of unprotected open space. Indeed, as recognized in the DEIR, the
property meets the General Plan's definition of "prime open space," and as such it must
be protected to the maximum extent feasible.
Unfortunately, the analysis in the DEIR not only demonstrates that the
proposed eight-unit project would cause significant and unmitigatable impacts to prime
open space and its associated environmental resources, but grossly understates the
magnitude of those impacts by failing to meaningfully analyze key aspects of the
project, most importantly the massive grading and clearing required to eliminate
landslides on the property. The impacts of these landslide repair activities could
potentially dwarf those of the remainder of the project. Yet because of the applicant's
failure to submit a grading and site stabilzation plan, the DEIR acknowledges that it is
unable to describe those impacts except in the most general terms. The deferral of
analysis of these significant impacts to a later date contravenes the most basic principles
of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code SS
21000 et seq.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
".
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 2
This deficiency, along with a number of others discussed below, render
the DEIR inadequate as a matter oflaw. To remedy these deficiencies, a revised DEIR
must be prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. Failure to recirculate
a revised DEIR will deprive the decisionmakers, affected agencies, and members of the
public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on potentially significant impacts of the
project and is itself an actionable violation of CEQA. (Laurel Heights Improvement
Ass'n v. Regents oftheUniv. ofCal., 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1130 (1993) ("Laurel Heights
II") . )
Notwithstanding its legal inadequacies, the DEIR clearly shows that the
proposed eight-unit project cannot be approved by the Town. The DEIR identifies
numerous inconsistencies with the Town's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Paradise Drive Visioning Plan, in addition to the project's significant and unmitigatable
impacts. While in our view the DEIR understates the extent of the project's
inconsistency with Town policies and regulations, the identified inconsistencies alone
would compel denial of the project as proposed. Accordingly, we recommend that, prior
to preparation of a landslide stabilizatioIl plan and recirculation of the DEIR., the
applicant be requested to submit a revised application that substantially reduces the
number of units and otherwise minimizes the impacts of the project.
I. INADEQUACIES OF THE DEIR.
An EIR must be detailed, complete, and refl<?ct a good faith effortat full
disclosure. The document should provide a sufficient degree of analysis to inform the
public about the proposed project's adverse environmental impacts and to allow
decisionmakers to make intelligent judgments. (CEQA Guidelines S 15151.) In .
reviewing the legal sufficiency of an EIR., the focus is on adequacy, completeness and a
good faith effort at full disclosure. A number of court decisions have developed criteria
for determining what constitutes a "reasonable" effort to analyze a project's potential
impacts. As emphasized in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 .
Ca1.App.3d 692-(1990), an EIR must support with rigorous analysis and substantial
evidence the conclusions regarding environmental impacts. (See id. at 712.)
While much of the DEIR's analysis is thorough and informative, it is
deficient in a number of crucial respects and as a result fails to fully disclose the nature
and extent of the project's potentially significant impacts. The following comments
highlight several of the document's major shortcomings. A number of additional
. problems that are not repeated here but are nevertheless significant are documented in
A. Impacts of Landslide Repair.
.
.
.
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 3
the letter submitted by Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting on behalf
of the Norman Estates Homeowners Association. Weare in full agreement with the
comments made in that letter, which we incorporate by reference herein.
As noted above, the most glaring shortcoming of the DEIR is its failure to
consider a major component of the project: the grading and other site stabilization
measures necessary to comply with the Town's landslide policy. Landslides and
colluvium deposits cover a substantial portion of the subject property. . As the DEIR
acknowledges, the measures required to eliminate or stabilize these areas are likely to
involve far greater disturbance of the site's environmental resources than described in
the applicant's PDP, which does not address landslide stabilization. Most ifnot all of
the landslide deposits would need to be completely removed and recompacted -
including the entirety of Lots 4 and 5 - resulting in the complete loss of existing
vegetation on those areas and the wholesale replacement of natural landforms with
engineered fill. To the extent landslide improvement is a permissible alternative to
elimination, substantial retaining walls and other measures would be necessary, which
could also have significant impacts.
Virtually every impact category would be affected by these repair
, . measures. An of the site's hydrological features, including all seeps, springs, and
primary and secondary drainageways, could be eliminated. Substantial areas of
serpentinebunchgrass, special status plant species found on the site (including Marin
dwarf flax and Tiburon Indian paintbrush), and oak woodland habitat, could be
eliminated. Visual impacts would be substantially increased as a result of extensive tree
loss, engineered slopes, and retaining walls. Construction-related impacts such as
traffic, noise, and air quality degradation ",ould also be likely to significantly worsen.
Indeed, the project's impacts potentially increase by an order of magnitude when
landslide repair is considered.
The DEIR fails to specifically analyze these impacts, however, stating that
"[i]t is premature to describe and quantify the precise nature of those impacts because
the full magnitude of stabilization efforts which eventually would be involved is not
currently known and because the techniques the applicant ultimately proposes to employ
at the site have not been defined." DEIR at 5.1-21. This approach violates CEQA. The
ToWIi may not rely on the applicant's failure to submit a stabilization plan to avoid
analysis of the impacts of that plan. "The agency should not be allowed to hide behind
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
C1lnt.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 4
its own failure to collect data. . . CEQA places the burden of environmental
investigation on government." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d
296,311 (1988).) Nor may the Town defer its obligation to consider these impacts to a
later date. "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a
diminished influence on decisionmaking." (Id. at 307.) Such ~tudies must be conducted
as part of the CEQA process to ensure potential impacts are considered "at a point in the
planning process 'where genuine flexibility remains.'" (Id.)
To comply with CEQA, the Town must analyze the impacts of landslide
repair in meaningful detail. The DEIR's generic conclusions that the impacts of
landslide stabilization, while not lmown, could be potentially significant, are legally
insufficient. An EIR must not only identify the significant impacts of a proposed ..
project, but must also provide "information about how adverse the impact will be."
(Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal.App.3d 818,831 (1981).)
In the absence of a landslide stabilization plan, the DEIR can provide only gross
generalizations of the potential impacts of that plan. This failing is exacerbated by the
fact that the vast majority of the DEIR's analysis- includIng estimates of grading area
and vegetation removal, identification of impacted water features, visual simulations,
and the like - is bas.ed on the project without landslide repair, creating the false
impression that many of the project's impacts are insignificant or ate mitigable, when in
fact these impacts are.likely to be significant and unavoidable with the necessary
addition of landslide repair.
. Understandably, the absence of a submitted landslIde plan makes
meaningful analysis of the impacts of that plan by the Town virtually impossible.
However, CEQA requires that this ,problem be resolved not by deferring analysis to a
later date, but by requiring the applicant to submit a sufficiently detailed plan as part of
the environmental review process. To do otherwise would allow one of the most
environmentally harmful aspects of this project to escape full consideration and public
reVIew.
B. Landslide Policy Requirements
1.
In addition to improperly deferring full environmental analysis of
landslide repair, the DEIR fails to properly characterize the requirements of the Town's
landslide policy and its implications for any future landslide stabilization plan for the
site. The DEIR appears to assume that some of the site~s landslides can be mitigated
through improvement methods rather than through full repair or elimination. (See DEIR
.....
c. Hydrology and Water Quality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 5
l
corrt .
at 5.1-14to 19.) However, the Town's policy, set forth in a May 4,2000 letter from the
former Town Engineer, provides that every landslide within a proposed subdivision
must be "fully repaired or eliminated" unless it is (1) inactive, (2) outside the proposed
building envelope, and (3) not a threat to property withi:p. or outside the subdivision.
Only if all three of these conditions are met are btabiliz~ti~ ~~s;rre~,.pe~ht~d' te"r i \
HnprO'/8ffi8nt for full repair or elimination. Because neither the landslide map (Exhibit )
5.1-1) nor the textual discussion indicates whether the identified landslides would be
considered "active" or "inactive" under the policy, there is no basis for determining
whether improvement measures would be permissible. Indeed, because the DEIR
appears to indicate that most if not all of the landslides threaten property within or
outside the subdivision, it appears full repair would be required, which could in turn
result in secondary effects that are more severe.
The revised DElR should identify which landslide deposits on the site are
considered "active." The landslide map should also include an overlay of the proposed
lots and building env~lopes so that their location relative to the site's landslide deposits
can be easily ascertained. Further, it appears that not even a preliminary investigation
has been performed for several areas on the site (e.g., Lots 5, 6, most of7). All areas of
the property should be fully explored and mapped, and this information should be
presented in the revised DEIR. Based on this information, the DEIR should analyze the
consistency of the proposed. landslide plan with the Town's policy to the extent it
proposes measures short of full repair or elimination, and if those measures deviate from
the policy, the DEIRshould analyze the risks associated. with doing so.
As noted. above, landslide repair has the potential to impact and could
eliminate virtually all of the property's many surface water features, including all of the
site's six principal drainageways (which include a blue line stream), seve~al secondary
drainageways, both known seeps, the known spring, and additional springs and seeps
that are likely to exist on the site but have yet to be identified. This radical modification
of the site's natural hydrology will have significant direct and secondary impacts
(including biological and visual effects) that must be analyzed in detail in the DEIR.
3
Moreover, the generalized description of these impacts in the current
DEIR is in many places confusing and inconsistent. For example, different portions of
the DEIR variously describe the drainageways that could be eliminated by landslide
repair as drainageways 5 and 6 (Impact 5-2-1), drainageways 1-3,5 and 6 (page 5.2-11),
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 6
and drainageways 1,2, and 4-6 (Impact 5.2-4). These inconsistencies give the
misleading impression that some drainageways would not be impacted, even though the
DEIR at various points identifies each of them as threatened with elimination. This
highlights the problems of proceeding with the environmental analysis in the absence of
a developed landslide repair plan. Once a plan is submitted, the analysis should be
clarified to identify specifically which drainageways and other hydrological features will
be impacted.
:3
Cbn-eo .
The DEIR is also misleading to the extent it suggests that potentially
significant hydrological impacts of landslide_ repair will be fully mitigated, without yet -
knowing the magnitude of those impacts and thus whether the necessary level of
mitigation would be feasible. For example, the peak flow rates calculated in the DEIR
do not include those associated with landslide repair because, without a landslide repair
plan, the extent of those rates "cannot be determined at this stage." (DEIR at 5.2-12.)
The DEIR relies on, a number of mitigation measures (such as upgrade of drainage
structures, channel' stabilization, etc.) to address the potential flooding impacts.
However, the extent of the mitigation needed seems to depend on the magnitude of the
impacts, the analysis of which has been improp~r1y deferred. Thus, it is not yet known
whether the necessary mitigation measures would be feasible, or the extent to which
they would cause visual, biological, or other impacts of their own.
This is illustrated by the DEIR's treatment of flooding impacts on
downstream property. Not only has peak flow (with landslide repair) not been
calculated for the site, but downstream drainageways and hydraulic structures have not
yet been adequately analyzed, as the DEIR acknow.ledges (DEIR at 5.2-12.) Deferral of
this analysis until after the environmental review process is improper. Until the location
4 and extent of the needed drainage improvements are determined, it cannot be known
whether those improvements would themselves cause environmental impacts; or
whether it is feasible for the applicant to implementthern. This is particularly true given
the fact that the Construction of off-site improvements depends on obtaining the consent
of other private property owners, which cannot be assured. The DEIR cannot defer the
development of specific mitigation until after project approval. (CEQA Guidelines ~
15126.4(a)(1)(B).)
In addition, some of the proposed measures for mitigating water quality
impacts appear to be, on their face, unrealistic. For example, while correctly
5 acknowledging that even a small addition of pesticides to the Bay would constitute a
significant cumulative impact, the DEIR concludes that the impact can be fully
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
CtKIt
mitigated by imposing an extremely complicated set of landscaping requirements on
each future homeowner through CC&Rs.1 (DEIR at 5.2-22). The rules purport to limit
the size and slope of the landscaped area, the timing of irrigation (based on such
variables as soil moisture, temperature, humidity and wind speed), and the method and
frequency of chemical application. (DEIR at 5.2-28.) Even assuming that homeowners
would be capable of understanding all of these requirements, it is extremely up.likely that
they will comply. In the absence of any evidence or analysis to the contrary, the DEIR
cannot rely on this mitigation to reduce the project's water quality impacts. (Kings
County Farm Bureau, 221 Ca1.App.3d at 727~28 (where a measure is relied upon to
mitigate significant impacts, failure to analyze the feasibility of that measure is fatal to
meaningful evaluation by the decisionmaker and the public).)
6
The same is true for the other mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR
that rely primarily or exclusively on self-regulation through CC&Rs by individual
owners or a Homeowners Association. (See, e.g., Mitigation Measures 5.1-9
(maintenance of geotechnical and hydrologic mitigation measures), 5.2-2 (downstream
flooding), 5.2-5 (erosion and sedimentation).) CEQA requires that mitigation measures
be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding .
instruments. (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.4(a)(2).) Covenants inCC&Rs can often be
enforced only by the association or the indiv;iduallot owners. Thus, .there is no way for
the ToWn to ensure compliance with the covenants. Moreover, self-regulation by lot
owners or HOAs is often unreliable, particularly in the case of ongoing maintenance of
drainage facilities and erosion control measures. The enforcement problem is further
complicated here by the proposed configuration of development. The division of the
project into essentially two separate developments, with lots 7 and 8 (Development Area
#2) physically separated from the remainder, drasticallyreduces the prospects of
forming a cohesive homeowners association and the ability to internally enforce
CC&Rs. Because there is no assurance that these measures will actually be
implemented and maintained over the long term, the DEIR should be revised to
conclude that the impacts they are designed to mitigate are significant and unavoidable.
(Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 306, 309).
.1 A proposed alternative mitigation measure would totally prohibit turfgrass
lawns, but the DEIR would not require such prohibition. (DEIR at 5.2-22.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 8
D. Vegetation and Wildlife
1
As discussed earlier, the impacts of landslide repair on vegetation and
wildlife would almost certainly be significant and unavoidable, but are only generally
noted in the DEIR. Such repair would eliminate much of the site's oak woodlands,
wetlands, and serpentine bunchgrass (including populations of the endangered Tiburon
Indian paintbrush and the threatened Marin dwarf flax), severely reducing the habitat
value of the site. The DEIR's characterization of the impacts ~o most of these resources
as significant but mitigable is based on the project without landslide repair and presents
a misleading picture of the true impacts associated with the project. These impacts must .
be analyzed in detail in the revised DEIR once a landslide stabilization plan is
submitted.
~
That analysis must also" include a discussion ofthe impacts oflandslide
repair on the micro-blind harvestman. TheDEIR's general acknowledgment of the
biological impacts of landslide repair fails to mention potential impacts to this species.
The DEIR's conclusion that impacts to this species are "less than significant," despite its
expected presence in the grassland seep habitat found on the site, is based on the
assumption that the habitat will not be disturbed by the project. Because the landslide
repair is likely to impact or eliminate that habitat, the impactS on the harvestman must be
analyzed.
Even" apart from the question of impacts from landslide repair, the DEIR's
approach to bIological resources contains several inadequacies. For example, the DEIR
proposes to mitigate impacts to Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Marin dwarf flax and other
sensitive bunchgrass habitat by requiring the future preparation of a "Site Avoidance
and Protection Plan" which will establish building envelope buffers of an ,as-yet
undetermined size. The DEIR notes that in some cases, buffers "much larger" than 50
9 'feet maybe needed based on site-specific considerations (DEIR at 5.3~24.l However, it
is not yet known whether adequately sized buffers are possible for the proposed lot
configuration. This is an example of mitigation deferral, which is prohibited under
CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15126.4(a)(I)(B); Sundstrom, 202 Ca1.App.3d at 307,.
309.) An EIR t:nay not rely on mitigation measures that are so undefined that it is
impossible to evaluate their effectiveness. (See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth
v. City and County of San Francisco, 151 Ca1.App.3d 61, 79 (1984).) Reliance on
2 The DEIRdoes not mention that the USFWS Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil
Species recommends a 500 foot buffer for Marin Dwarf flax populations.
q
c'fiVTt.
ambiguous mitigation measures violates the CEQA principle that "the environmental
consequences of a government decision on whether to approve. a project will be
considered before, not after, that decision is made.;' (Stanislaus Natural Heritage Proiect
v. County of Stanislaus, 48 Cal.App.4th 182,196(1996).)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 9
The analysis of impacts to wetlands also improperly defers development of
mitigation to a later date. The measure calls for on- or off-site compensation for lost
acreage, but does not identify any potential sites for such compensation, much less
J 0 analyze the prospects of success. Thus, again, there is no basis for concluding that this
measure will succeed in mitigating the 16ss of wetlands. Further, the measure would
allow "preservation" of existing wetlands as compensation, which would simply
maintain the status quo and does not actually mitigate for the loss of existing wetlands.
fI
In contrast with the above, the DEIR's oak wodlands analysis correctly
. concludes that, because a suitable mitigation site has not yet been identified, the
proposed mitigation measures cannot be relied upon to reduce the significance of the
project's impacts. (DEIR at 5.3-31.) However, the mitigation discussion is misleading
to the extent it suggests that the impacts could be fully mitigated if a site were located.
It would take years for newly planted saplings to attain the size and habitat value of the
mature, contiguous oak habitat that would be lost, assuming that the restoration is
successful in the first place. The revised DEIR should include a discussion of the
efficacy of oak woodland restoration, looking at whether any comparable restoration
efforts have been successfu1.
The discussion of the "temporary" impacts caused by construction of the
water lines pipeline is also inadequate. As with the landslide repair plan, the applicant
has not submitted a detailed,plan defining the work associated with waterline
construction. The DEIR nevertheless concludes that the impacts on bunchgrass can be
fully mitigated through a restoration plan, even while acknowledging such plans are
"often unsuccessfu1." (DEIR at 5.3-26). The basis for this conclusion is that the impact
/2. would be "temporary" and of "relatively small size." However, if the restoration is
unsuccessful, the impact will not be temporary but permanent. Further, given the fact
that there are only 21 extant populations of MaJin dwarf flax and seven ofIndian
Paintbrush, any impact to these species must be considered significant. To determine
the magnitude of these impacts, a detailed construction plan must be submitted, and a
the DEIR should anal}{Ze the full range of potential impacts from that construction,
including impacts outi;ide the easement caused by construction machinery.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 10
Please note that Exhibit 5.3-2 appears to be missing primary drainageway
3. This drainageway should be depicted on the map.
E. Visual Impacts
The DEIR's visual impact a,nalysis, while finding significant and
unavoidable impacts from a number, of the views analyzed, substantially understates the
nature and severity of the project's potential visual impacts. The most significant
problem, as already noted, is its failure to analyze in any meaningful way the impacts
associated with landslide repair. While not yet defined, the grading, hillside
engineering, and retaining wall construction required for landslide repair - together with.
that required for road and driveway construction and building pad stabilization - is
likely to be one of the most significant aspects of the project from a visual impacts
perspective.
i3
Despite this potential impact, these features were completely omitted from
the most important element of the analysis -- the Visual simulations -- on the ground that
the DEIR lacks sufficient description of their nature. (DEIR at 5.4-6.) As discussed
above, the DEIR's failure to adequately describe these critical components of the projeCt
cannot be used to justify a failure to properly analyze their potential impacts. The Town
should either require preparation of a grading and retaining wall plan that is specific
enough to allow analysis of its visual impacts or present a reasonable worst case analysis
based on the information already in the DEIR. .To present visual simulations of the
development without some representation of these elements, however, is misleading.
Landslide repair is not only likely to be visually prominent itself, but by removing
natural tree cover may exacerbate the visual impacts of the proposed residences and
other project improvements. ,
The narrative description of the effects of landslide repair is also
inadequate. While the DEIR concludes that repair would have significant arid
unavoidable impacts, this conclusion appears to be based solely on the fact that where
wooded areas require excavation, replanted trees would take several years to mature.
(DEIR at 5.4-17'.) Nowhere does the DEIRdiscuss the fact that the potentially
substantial grading operations required for landslide repair could transform areas of .
what is now natural hillside into engineered hillside. Revegetation of engineered areas -
which may not be possible at all where soils have been recompacted - is unlikely to hide
the fact that the basic character of the hillsides has changed; the' visual topological
F. Prime Open Space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 11
differences between natural and engineered slopes are obvious. These impacts should
be discussed in the DEIR.
13
corrt.
Another flaw of the analysis is its failure to analyze the'visual impacts of
mitigation measures proposed elsewhere in the DEIR for other impacts, such as clearing
along Paradise Drive (Measure 5.5-3), roadway widening and concrete roadway
surfacing (Measures 5.5-4 and 5.8-3), internal parking space area requirements
(Measure 5.5-5), drainageway stabilization measures (Measure 5.2-2), firebreaks and
fuel modification zones (Measure 5.8-2), and others. An EIR must consider the impacts
of mitigation measures in addition to those of the project itself. (CEQA Guidelines S
15126.4(a)(l)(D).) The visual impacts of the project together with the proposed
mitigations should be analyzed in the revised DElR.3
We applaud the inclusion of a prime open space analysis in the DEIR.
However, while the analysis correctly concludes that the project site "can be considered
prime open space," a more detailed analysis is required in order to meet the
requirements of the General Plan relating to prime open space. The Open Space and
Conservation element of the General Plan defines "prime open space" as areas that
because of their characteristics and attributes are "worthy of permanent protection to
the extent such protection is feasible." (Open Space and Conservation Element at 8.)
The element describes in detail a number of attributes that characterize prime open
space. (Id. at 9-14.) Where aproject would impact open space, the applicant must
show that the project protects prime open space areas ''to the maximum extent feasible."
(Id. at 15.) The Town may require preservation of prime open space ''to the extent
legally permissible." (Id.)
The prime open space analysis in the DEIR narratively describes the site
features that meet various of the prime open attributes as defined by the General Plan.
However, no map is provided to s~ow the combined location of all identified prime
14 open space.areas relative to the location of the proposed building envelopes, roads, and
other project improvemen~. Indeed, several of the identified prime open space
attributes, such as significant ridgelines and steep slopes, are not mapped anywhere in
3 The DEIR must also analyze the impacts of proposed mitigation measures on
~e other impact categories discussed in the DEIR, such as biolo~cal resources and
hydrology.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"""
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 12
the DEIR. To determine whether the proposed project protects prime open space to the
maximum extent feasible, the site's prime open space areas must first be clearly
mapped.
/5"
The recently proposed Tiburon Open Space Protection Initiative, which
will be on the ballot this November, provides a number of specific criteria for
identifying prime open space. Those criteria include, for example, all ' lands designated.
in the Open Space Element as "Potential Open Space": (1) within 150 horizontal or 50
vertical feet of Tiburon Ridge; (2) within 100 horizontal or, with limitations, 30 vertical
feet of other designated significant ridgelines; (3) with slopes exceeding 40%;
containing jurisdictional wetlands or other jurisdictional waters; (4) within 100 feet from
the top of the bank of a permanent water body, blue line stream, or certain ephemeral
. . .
watercourses or drainages; (5) with significant habitat for special status species; (6) with
sensitive plant species; or (7) with significant woodland stands.
There is a substantial possibility.that the Town will be required to apply
the Open Space Protection Initiative to this project after November. Accordingly, the
revised DEIR should include a map of prime open space on the site that is based on the
criteria set forth in the Initiative. This map should be overlaid on the proposed site plan
to determine which portions of the plan are within prime open space. The DEIR should
also analyze the impacts of landslide repair and other mitigation-related aspects of the
project on prime open space areas.
G. Cumulative Impacts
IG
The DEIR's analysis of cumulative impacts is deficient. Section 3.6 ofthe
DEIR, entitled "Cumulative Impacts," contains a mere three sentences. They state that
the effects of the project were analyzed under existing and future conditions, that future
conditions were defined to be buildout of the Tiburon Planning Area, and that the
project ''would contribute to future cumulative conditions but the resulting impacts
would not be significant." (DEIR at 3.0-8.) These bare statementS do not meet the legal
requirements for an adequate cumulative impacts analysis., Section 2.3 ("Cumulative
Projects") sets forth a list of Town development projections for the year 2015 and lists
four other proposed Paradise Drive projects. Notwithstanding that section's assertion to
the contrary, none of this information is reflected in the DEIR'slater topical analysis
(with the exceptionoftraffic and public services).
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Pagel3
16
cont
An EIR must analyze the cumulative impacts of a project. (CEQA
Guidelines S 15130(a).) The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as "two or
more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts." (Id. S 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual
effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects."
(rd. S 15355(a).) The cumulative impacts concept recognizes that "[t]he full
environmental impact of a proposed. . . action cannot be gauged in a vacuum."
(Whitman v. Bd.of Supervisors, 88 Ca1.App.3d 397,408 (1979).) The requirement of a
cumulative impact analysis of a project's' regional impacts is considered a "vital
provision" ofCEQA. (Bozung v. LAFCO, 13 Ca1.3d 263,283 (1975).) A legally
adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project over time and in
conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects
whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. (Kings
County Farm Bureau, 221 Ca1.App.3d at 721.)
The DEIR provides no analysis of the combined impacts of the project
with those of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. For
example, in section 5.3 ("Vegetation and Wildlife), the DEIR identifies a number of
potentially significant'impacts of the project, including.the loss of serpentine bunchgrass
habitat, oak woodlands, and wetlands, as well as other less than significant impacts (loss
of native habitat, impacts to wildlife movement). However, there is no discussion of the
combined effects of the project and the other projects identified in section 2.3 on these
resources. Similarly, the DEIR inexplicably states that "no cumulative visual assuptions
were identified for this DEIR" (DEIR at 2.0-23), even though all of the identified
projects are located in the last remaining open space areas along Tiburon Ridge and
have the potential to negatively impact the Town's visual resources. The combined
impacts of these and other foreseeable projects on biological resources, visual resources,
prime open space, water quality and other resources must be considered in an analysis of
the project's cumulative effects., Further, the DEIR must identify supporting facts and
analysis for any impacts found not to be cumulatively significant. (CEQA Guidelines S
15l30(a)(2) (emphasis added).)
H. Alternatives
/7
The 3-10t alternative, though a substantial improvement over the proposed
project, would continue to have significant and unavoidable hydrological, biological
resource, and other impacts due in large part to the inclusion of lot 8 and the attendant
necessity of landslide repair in watershed B. While the text of the alternatives analysis
/
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
CCYrlt
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 14
makes clear that the 2-lot alternative is environmentally superior to the 3-:lot alternative
because it eliminates all development in that watershed, this distinction is not reflected
in the determinations of impact significance discussed in section 6.2 or in the impact
summary table (Exhibit 6.5-1). The distinction between the two alternatives in terms of
the secondary impacts of landslide repair should be discussed in greater detail, and the
impact summary for the 3-lot alternative shouldbe revised to show those impacts as
significant and unavoidable.
L Recirculation of DEIR
18
CEQA requires recirculation of a revised draft DEIR "[ w ]hen significant
new information is added to an environmental impact report" after public review and
comment on the earlier draft DEIR. (Pub. Res. Code S 21092.1.) The opportunity for
meaningful public review of significant new information is essential "to test, assess, and
evaluate the data and make an informed judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to
be drawn therefrom." (Sutter Sensible Planning. Inc. v. Ed. of Supervisors, 122
Cal.App.3d 813, 822 (1981); see also City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co.; 192
Cal.App.3d 1005, 1017 (1987).) An agency cannot simply release a draft report "that
hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to
the final [EIR] that is insulated from public review." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish
& Game Comm'n, 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1053 (1989).) Because curing the deficiencies
of the DEIR requires the addition of significant new information to the DEIR relating to
critical but previously unanalyzed aspects of the project, recirculation of the revised
DEIR for further public review and comment is required.
II. General Plan and Zoning Inconsistenci~s
The Land Use and Planning section of the DEIR contains'an analysis of
the project's consistency with individual policies and requirements of the Town's
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Paradise Drive Visioning Plan. . This analysis
concludes that the project is partiallyor wholly inconsistent with nearly half of the 50
General Plan goals and policies analyzed, as well as with six provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and nine provisions of the Visioning Plan. (See DEIR section 4.0.). The
sheer number of these inconsistencies is remarkable, and makes amply clear that the
proposed 8-unit project cannot legally be approved.
Jayni Allsep
October 4, 2002
Page 15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
fl
I
Moreover, the degree ofthe project's inconsistency with the Town's land
use regulations appears to be even greater than described in the DEIR's consistency
analysis. For example, much of the analysis appears to ignore the potential impacts of
landslide repair. Given the significant impacts of such repair and other project
components to the site's hydrological features, sensitive species, visual impacts, and
other resources as discussed above, the DEIR's finding of consistency or only partial
inconsistency with policies designed to protect those resources is clearly erroneous.
(See,~, Policies OSC-ll (grading, tree removal), OSC-12 (riparian corridors); Town
Code ~~ 4.02.07(e)(grading, tree removal), 4.08.04(d) (various resources), (h)
(minimizing environmental impacts); Visioning Plan Goal 1-3 (natural features, rural
visual character)).
The inclusion of Development Area 2 (lots 7 and 8) in the development
plan is additionally directly inconsistent with a number of policies. By adding
development adjacent to exitsing Norman Estates without a buffer; the proposed
development plan is fully inconsistent with General Plan Goal LU-F and Policy OSC-14
favoring greenbelt buffers between developments, which the DEIR acknowledges in its
discussion of the latter but not the former. Development Area 2 also maximizes the
number of new access roadways onto Paradise Drive, in direct contravention of one of
the Visioning Plan's policies under Goal II-I. The DEIR should revise its finding for
this policy from "partially inconsistent" to "inconsistent."
In addition, as discussed above, the General Plan requires that areas of
"prime open space" be protected to the "maximum extent feasible." The proposed
project clearly does not meet this requirement. Particularly when landslide repair is
considered, the placement of eight lots on a property as heavily constrained as this one
would have devastating effects on the site's prime open space and its associated
resources. Because, as the DEIR's alternatives analysis indicates, feasible alternatives
exist, the General Plan would compel denial of the proposed eight-lot development plan
on this basis alone.
III. Consideration of Reduced Lot Alternative
In light of the magnitude of the proposed project's environmental impacts,
the substantial work that will be required to revise the DEIR, and the existence of fatal
inconsistencies between the project as proposed and the Town's land use regulations, it
is our recommendation that the project be revised prior to the preparation of a revised
DEIR. This will enable the applicant to prepare a more targeted landslide repair plan
that avoids impacts to Watershed B, and will simplify the environmental review process.
.
.
. .'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jayni Allsep
October 4,2002
Page 16
Of course, any revised proposal must allow for some economic use of the
property, consistent with constitutional requirements. It is well settled, however, that
the mere diminution in the value of property due to land use regulation does not
constitute a taking. (MacLeod v. Santa Clara County, 749 F.2d 541,544 (9th Cir.
1984); Del Oro Hills v. City of Oceanside, 31 Cal.App.4th 1060,1081 (1995)). Courts
have repeatedly rejected regulatory takings claims, even where a severe reduction in
value has occurred, where some economically beneficial use of the property remains.4
In this case, we think it is likely that both the applicant's economic interests and the
environmental goals of the Town can be accommodated. We recommend that the
applicant be requested to submit a revised development plan that includes two or three
residential lots and that eliminates Development Area # 2. Thatshotild allow for
substantial economic use of the property while maximizing protections of the site's most
sensitive environmental resources.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
SHUTE, .MIHAL Y & WEINBERGER LLP
/idZ-1C'~
---
William J. White
4 See, ~.,Haas v. City & County of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117, 1120-21
(9th Cir. 1979) (value diminished from about $2,000,000 to about $100,000); HFH, Ltd.
v. Superior Court, 15 Ca1.3d 508,512 n.2, 512-18 (1975) (where property retained value
. of $75,000, allegation that value had diminished by 80% did not state a claim for a
taking); City and County of San Francisco v. Golden Gate Heights Inv., 14 Ca1.App.4th
1203, 1209 (1993) (denial of 14-10t subdivision and restriction to 5 lots would not be a
taking); see also Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 631 (2001) ("A regulation
permitting a landowner to build a substantial residence on an 18-acre parcel does not
leave the property 'economically idle. "').
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER Y - William J. White, October 4, 2002 7
Response to Comment Y-1
The commentor states the September 2002 DEIR fails to adequately assess the impacts of landslide
repair and is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. These issues are addressed in the May
2003 RDEIR.
Response to Comment Y-2
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. Appendix 7.5 of the RDEIR provides ..
a detailed explanation of the proposed landslide repair. This includes a letter dated November 25,
2002 prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, Town's Geotechnical Consultant, discussing the
application of the town's repair policy to the Tiburon Glen site.
Response to Comment Y-3
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revision~ to the EIR. Please review Impacts 5.2-1, 5.2-3,
and 5.2-4 of the RDEIR.
Response to Comment Y-4
Please see Response to Comment H-21.
Response to Comment Y-5
Based on the EIR hydrologist's professional opinion, either option of Mitigation Measure 5.2-6 with
regard to turf lawns would be feasible. The first option (prohibiting turf lawns) would be the most
environmentally sensitive choice for the Town to implement. If turf lawns are permitted with the
second option (the restriction in size to 20 percent of the residential use area), the combination of
small lawns and the positioning of the lawns to drain onto adjoining vegetated slopes rather than
directly onto roadways would combine to minimize herbicide/pesticide contamination of stream flow.
These measures represent effective Best Management Practices for stormwater quality control, and
would reduce the potential cumulative water quality impact to a less-than-significant level. Further,
the Town of Tiburon would require implementation of these measures as a condition of project
approval. Additionally, future lot' owners would be required to obtain permits for the removal of
additional trees based on the Town's tree protection ordinance.
Response to Comment Y-6
Please see Response to Comment H-8.
Response to Comment Y-7
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. The commentor states the effects of
landslide repair on site biological resources has not been addressed, including impacts to site
7 This letter addresses the September 2002 DEIR.
8.4-160
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
4t
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
woodlands, serpentine bunchgrass, and wetlands. In the May 2003 revised draft EIR, Impacts 5.3-1,
5.3-2, 5.3-4 and 5.3~5 were revised to reflect the impacts resulting from the landslide repair plan
provided by the applicant in December 2002.
Response to Comment Y-8
The Tiburon micro-blind harvestman had at one time been classified as a Federal Candidate 2 species
for consideration for listing. Upon further review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed this
species from consideration and it no longer has any status that would justify its classification as a
species of special concern. As discussed under Impacts 5.3-1 and 5.3-2, impacts to micro-blind
harvestman potential habitat (serpentine bunchgrass) would be considered less-than-significant with
implementation of mitigation measures.
Response to Comment Y-9
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 in the
RDEIR provides that a 100-foot buffer be established on lots 3, 6, and 7 between building envelopes
and sensitive habitat. As shown on Exhibit 5.3-2 of the RDEIR, a 100-foot or greater buffer would be
feasible on all three lots.
Response to Comment Y-10
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the Ern... Based on the December 2002 plans,
the impact to site wetlands is estimated to be 0.07 acre in the May 2003 RDEIR rather than 0.11 acre
as assumed in the September 2002 EIR. Given this relatively small amount of wetlands, on-site
replacement of impacted wetlands at a 2:1 ratio would be feasible.
Response to Comment Y-11
The commentor states that the revised DEIR should include a discussion of the efficacy of oak
woodland restoration. The CDFG recommends in addition to a 3: 1 acreage ratio of woodlands
preservation, a 1: 1 acreage ratio of woodlands replacement for mitigating impacts to oak woodlands.
This standard is applied with success to projects throughout Marin County. Because the CDFG, the
state resources agency responsible for natural resource management, recommends oak, woodlands
restoration as mitigation, it is reasonable to conclude it is considered an effective mitigation strategy.
Further, it is"the professional opinion of the consulting EIR biologist, that when properly monitored,
woodlands habitats can be successfully restored. The best way to ensure the mitigation strategy is
properly implemented is to require the applicant post a performance bond.
Response to Comment Y-12
Please see Response to Comment H-27.
Response to Comment Y-13
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. The visual impact analysis and
photosimulations of the RDEIR take into account the proposed landslide repair program. The
commentor indicates that certain mitigation measures identified in the EIR would result in visual
impacts not addressed by the EIR. Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 calls for the clearing of one tree and
trimming of intervening roadside vegetation. Due to the minimal change required by this measure it
would not have a significant visual effect. Mitigation Measure 5.2-2 calls for "fluvial geomorphic and
hydraulic engineering" drainage stabilization measures, such as boulder-type step pool morphology.
8.4-161
rf
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Such stabilization measures would not result in a visual impact. The PDP includes the provision of six
off-street parking spaces on each lot, which have been depicted in the RDEIR photo simulations.
Roadway widening is no longer required by Mitigation Measure 5.8-3. Please see Response to
Comment H-32 regarding the provision of roadway turn-outs, H-14 regarding fuel modification for
reduced fire hazard, and L-1 0 regarding fuel breaks.
Response to Comment Y-14
The commentor argues that the EIR should include a map depicting the prime open space areas on the
project site. The Town of Tiburon does not require preparation of a map depicting areas which meet
the "prime open. space" defmition for individual properties subj ect to a development proposal.
However, Section 4.2 of the RDEIR discusses the extent to which the site contains the characteristics
and attributes used by the Town to define "prime open space", and Exhibit 4.2-2 of the RDEIR
provides a summary of this discussion.
Response to Comment Y-15
Please see Response to Comment Y-14, above.
Response to Comment Y-16
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. See Impacts 5.2-7, 5.3-10, and 5.4-6.
Response to Comment Y-17
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR.
Response to Comment Y-18
This comment is no longer pertinent due to the revision and recirculation of the EIR.
Response to Comment Y-19
This comment is no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR.
8.4-162
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.'
.'
.
-
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
~
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.!
.
tJ
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
07/14/08 05:09pm P. 001
--U- ~ ~~
~ .
~ -=-~ --=-~~
z
Marin JIwfubon SociefJ
~O~S33 Mill1/a[{eqJ
July] 4,2003
Planning Commission
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tibman Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
ATT: JA YNI ALLSEP
)UL I 4, 200:,
RE: TIBURON GLEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEJR
~:: L/,I\' hJ ii, '.....
iO\fVi,.j T!'dUF?Qi.,i
Dear Commissioners:
Thc Marin Audubon Society apprcciates the OPP011.unity to comment oil the Revised Draft FIR
for the Tiburoll Glen residential project Significant changes should be made in theEIR, and the
projecL before it should bc acceptahle to the T ovm repres~nting the public interest.
This project would result in numerous significant adverse impacts and which are not adequately
addressed inthc EIR. We recommend thc fol!owing:
TREE LOSS Perhaps the mas egregious impact of this project is the proposal to remove nativc
trees described as being in poor condition, in the name of mitigating project impacts. This would
be in addition to direct losses resulting fr0111 construction of the structures and
This self-serving approach is not in the public interest, does not comply with Town policies, and
should in no way be acceptable to the Town. Tn fact it is the most outrageous mitigation we have
reviewed in an EJR in 25 years of reviewing DR's, The notion that living trees would be
removed hecause they are mfected with phytophthera ignores the fact that some trees are infected
and have not and may not die, that some trees seem to be developing tolerance or antibodies, that
there may be increased understanding and perhaps ways to treat the disease.
Further, this recommendation fails to take into consideration the significant time lag that would
OCCllI' before any replacement trees reach the same maturity as these trees, and the fact that even
newly trees could be infected. This would be a most dangerous precedent that, in addition to
significant loss on this site. could lead w other pro.iects taking the same approach that could
fUl1her devastate Ollr native oak populations, We strongly disagree tbat this mitigation would
improve the habitat value, If anything, it would result in an increase in signi fieant native oak
woodland habitat losses.
2.
The DR has not adequately evaluated the potential adverse impacts of this mitigation. These
include: soil erosion and loss that would result from the removal of living plants, sedimentation
do\^mstream, temporal loss of wildlife habitat, movement corridors.
@
~q Chapter Of 1{gtionaI .!4wiubon Society
07/14/03 05:08pm P. 002
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
It"
./
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What does mean? Would non-oaks be used as replacement?
3
In addition, we recommend that the Town hire an independent arboristand a scienlists
knowledgeable about phytophthera should also be consulted to provide an informed evaluation
and analysis that is in the interest of the public and our native tree resources, not the developer.
Avoidance should be the mitigation of choice for impacts to the Native trees and to Marin dwarf
flax and Tiburon paintbrush
4
MitigationS.3.4 (h) Removing broom once is insufficient It must be removed repeatedly over
years because the seeds live in the soil for many years,
CA TS - Several studies Most notably a 1989 study in England demonstrate tbat a single cat is
responsible: for the loss of up to 400 native birds and mammals in one year. Hardly a minor
amount. This is significant, and any condition of approval should require that any cats remain
indoors.
5
We agrce that the project would (not could) result in significant cumulative impacts due to the
many biological impacts listed at Impact 5.3-10, however, we disagree that the implementation of
the stated impacts on page 5.3-42 would adequately reduce this impact to less that significant.
6
AL TER:-JA TrVES The project Alternative of two units should be so designed as to avoid
adverse biological impacts. This can be accomplished by choosing the two un it alternative, and,
in addition, requiring that the units be located in areas with no serpentine soil, native trees, native
grasslands, seeps, wetlaJ1ds, drainageways, and threatened plants, The units should be limited in
size and area covered area to accomplish this, The EJR should evaluate the feasibility of such 31
alternative, and revise the two unit alternative accordingly,
Thank you for considering our comments.
/
.
.
.
~
.
.'
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
..
.
-
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.'
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER Z - Barbara Salzman, Marin Audubon society
Response to Comment Z-1
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment Z-2
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Comment Z-3
Only oak species are proposed for the replacement planting. The commentor states the Town should
hire and independent arborist and other knowledgeable scientists. The comment is noted. As stated in
Mitigation Measure 5.3-4, a qualified restoration ecologist would be hired by the town to review the
Tree Enhancement and Replacement Plan.
Response to Comment Z-4
The RDEIR concurs that avoidance of sensitive species is the preferred approach, but CEQA also
accepts that complete avoidance may not always be possible. According to CEQA guidelines Section
15370, "mitigation" is defined as follows:
"Mitigation" includes:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action.
(e) Compe1:}sating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
The commentor states removal of broom only one time is insufficient. Please see page 5.3-33 under
Mitigation Measure 5.3-1(b). It states that "Invasive exotic species, such as French broom, shall be
removed at least once annually for a five-year period."
Response to Comment Z-5
The commentor is concerned about the effect of cats on native birds. Pages 5.3-38 and 5.3-39 of the
RDEIR discuss what contribution the project may have on the existence of cats in the area. As noted
in the RDEIR the project would be expected to add about three cats to an area that already supports
domestic cats. While these cats may prey some on local wildlife, the increase of three small predators
. to the system will not adversely affect the regional occurrence or success of any small mammal or
bird. Therefore, based on the criteria established by the CEQA Guidelines, the impact is. not
substantial and thus, is less than significant.
8.4-165
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Comment Z-6
The commentor states the Two-Lot Alternative should be designed to completely avoid impacts to
biological resources. The alternative accomplishes the objectives of the commentor to the maximum
extent feasible. It should be noted there is no way to avoid both native grasslands and native trees
because these two habitat types cover the entire site.
8.4-166
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.'
-:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
-
.
. ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
" -.-
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
-
.
.\
.
.
.,
.
ft'
-
.
.
.
.'
~
.
.
.,
-,
.
.1
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
Comments to Planning Commission
July 14, 2003
Robert F. Benbow
53 Norman Way
AA
',"."
i,:.,,,,::r
,JUL .i ?OC!3
I
. I have authored a number of memos and letters
to the planning department, all having to do with
safety, most recently on July 8, 2003.
. In my opinion Chapter 5.5, Transportation and
Circulation, does not serve the purpose of
measuring the impact of the proj ect on safety.
, This is because the base data is unreliable, and
therefore incremental assessments not possible.
. The 1 st point of iny letter of 7/8/03 is that no
statistical random sampling methodology was
used to collect the traffic data, instead the
Chapter is predicated on observations from just
two days late in the year, 10/23-27/2001.
o Your letter, 7/19/2001 "scientifically
designed survey."
o Your letter, 10/8/2002 "survey should be
statistically rigorous in its design.. .urge the,
hiring of a qualified statistician."
o I am advised there is an association of traffic
engineers with prescribed protocols for
doing this kind of work and the work
performed satisfies those protocols.
I
cc;vrl
2
· This raises the issue of work rules vs.
policy: I'm sure the protocols are not
work rules to be inflexibly followed in
every instance. More likely they are in
the nature of policy, a flexible guide for
getting at a fact situation. I'm also sure
the traffic study protocols do not
preclude following accepted statistical
procedures, including the use of a
statistician. Lives are at risk and we
want the truth of the fact situation.
· I did not feel RDEIR traffic
observations on two days in late
October of 200 1 comes anywhere near
...
getting at the answers and so did my
own survey as a personal test. As I
suspected, my survey showed material
adverse differences from the Oct. 2001
data. Similarly, another letter writer
conducted surveys, concluding the
same...Chapter 5.5 traffic data doesn't
come even close to getting a solid data
base against which to measure the
impact of the proj ect. . . especially taking
into account seasonality from the
construction cycle and from the
recreational point ofvievv.
.
.
.
: -.....;.-J.
.
-
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
'.
.'
,~,
.
.
.
,41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
'.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.'
e\
.'
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.1
-
.
.
.
.\
< :
'. .-
.
.
.
.-
.
.1
.
-
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.'
.
3
. Next, and incredibly, the Chapter 5.5 data makes
no effort whatsoever to estimate the degree of
danger inherent on Paradise Drive, '
o From downtown Tiburon to Blackies pasture
roads are wide, provision is made for bike
lanes, and pedestrian walkways exist and are
well set back from roadways. My guess
would be that a studv would show the risk to
. "'
cyclists, joggers and pedestrians from
vehicles under these circumstances is
deminimous.
o Paradise Drive, however, has none of these
safety features. ~ . pedestrians, joggers and
cyclists alike are driven into the traffic lanes
due to the narrowness of the road. And,
. they are present in high volumes at peak
periods. My five hour data sampling
showed risk events, cars, trucks and
motorcycles passing cyclists, joggers and
pedestrians of 1,144 per hour assuming an
average 2.2 mile vehicle trip. My gut says
that a proper statistical analysis might show
peak hour risk events of2,000+/-. It doesn't
take much in the way of increased units to
drive the numbers up. And, importantly, it
won't take much in the way of new
development to push them even further. I
ask, how much is enough? The provided
3
CO'lt,
accident data in the RDEIR we are told
suggests Paradise Drive is safer than other
comparable roads in the state. In my
opinion, such data in the face of what I view
as an unacceptable high volume of risk
events is a false positive, not reflective of
current and prospective conditions"
o Since the county data covers 10 years, it
raises the question of how far we have
advanced risk wise over the last 10 years.
The building department reports, at the end
of May, active permits totaling 601. It
would be interesting to develop the ten year
record of completed building
permits... perhaps 6,000 to 8,000? For sure,
enough that a priori Tiburon likely has a
material increase in its housing stock and
attendant increase in an kinds of traffic. Yet
the roads network is relatively fixed. . AI. .
competent economist will tell us more and
more inputs into a fixed road network will
lead to decreasing returns to scale. . . traffic
delays and snarls, and accidents where
people are hurt, some seriously.
o Next consider the traffic coming onto the
peninsula. Just as one example, at an
estimated 2 vehicles per active building
permit, Game 4 PM each week day,
.
.
-
.
.
.
.'
-
.
.
.
.
~
.
-
.
'.
ft
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
r_
.
--
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
'.
.
,'.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.\
.,
.
.
'.
.
4t'
.
.
.
.
,~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.,
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.'
.
3
cent.
4
something between 1,200 and 1,400
contractor ow-ned vehicles are heading
toward the Tiburon Blvd.-Trestle Glen
,intersection. Then, seasonally the
intersection gets burdened further with
recreational and school traffic. Is it any,
wonder that vehicles have begun racing
around the back side of the peninsula in'
order to avoid the backup' on Tiburon
Boulevard. I ask, in order to reduce
contractor trafficwhv isn't the town
-'
rationing the number of active building
permits?
o Next, consider the increase in recreational
traffic. I have no useful examples to present
except my own data which, it seems to me,
strongly suggests notwithstanding Chapter
5.5, no one has a clue re levels of risk, that
more work is needed.
. In conclusion, it seems to me that we know great
danger lurks along Paradise Drive. If we don't
measure it accurately, we can't manage it. The
routine continuous collection of metrics through
, time is what really is needed. And, in the instant
case of the Tib. Glen application the traffic
section should be rejected because it tells us
nothing reliable. Interestingly, I believe there is
no excuse for not collecting the data. This is
4-
Lbl'>t_
because Paradise Drive is a tight fact
situation. . . only two main acCess points, a limited
road length of 4.4 miles 'and only three classes of
units (vehicles, bikes and pedestrians). Such
constrained fact .situations almost ideally lend
. ~
themselves to empirical analysis, and reliable
conclusions based thereon. But, the job has to be
done right. I add, it simply is not an adequate
excuse, especially where risk is high and the
stakes are people's lives, to not push beyond the
norms of standardized traffic analysis to get at
the truth of the fact situation.
.
.
-
..
.
.
I.'
'.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
A,
,~
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
..
.1
.
.
t
.
.
-
.
.
.
.'
.
~
.
.
~-
.
.
.
-
.
~
.
.
.J
.
.
.
.
-
.
-
.
.
\.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER AA - Robert F. Benbow
Response to Comment AA-1
'The commentor indicates statistical analysis should have been used to assess the project's impact on
safety. Please see Response to Comment N-2 for a discussion ofthe traffic analysis methodology.
Response to Comment AA-2
The commentor states his traffic observations contradict those provided in the RDEIR. Please see
Response to Comment 1-3 for a discussion of the different data collected on roadway conditions.
Response to Comment AA-3
The commentor states that the RDEIR traffic analysis does not quantify the degree of traffic hazard
associated with Paradise Drive. Please see Response to Comment N-2 regarding traffic analysis
methodology and the definition of accident rates. The commentor disagrees with the County's
information that Paradise Drive is safer than other similar roads; this disagreement is based on the
assumption that the County's information covers a ten-year period, thus does not reflect the existing
roadway conditions. However, the commentor is incorrect regarding the scope of the County accident
rate data cited in the RDEIR; it does not cover accidents over a 10-year period but rather over a five-
year period. Additionally, the EIR traffic consultant confIrmed the five-year accident rate for Paradise
Drive is below the state-wide average; please see Response to Comment N-3. Further, review of the
traffic incident data from 1992 to 2002 indicates the number of accidents increased from a low of six
in 1995 to a high of 13 in 1998, however; there were 10 accidents in 1992, 1999, and 2001.8
Therefore, the data does not definitively illustrate a substantial increase in traffic incidents at the end
of the 10 year survey period.
Response to Comment AA-4
The commentor states the RDEIR traffic analysis is inadequate because it does not accurately measure
the dangerous conditions of Paradise Drive and such measurement should be easy given the specific
characteristics of the roadway. Please see Response to Comment N-2 for a discussion of the traffic
analysis methodology and factors considered in accident rate calculations.
8 This information was provided with a letter from Scott Pearson and Diana Farrell commenting on the September 2002
DEIR, dated October 3, 2002. .
8.4-173
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BB
.
.
e
.
-
.
.
I.
~
.
.
.
~
.
..
.
.
.'
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.:
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
'.
.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
~OfP~
.~~~~
:f* 11-
$ ~ ~
~.~.~
'>~ OF "J!~O""'"
. Gray Davis
GOVERNOR July 14,2003
RECE\Veo
Tal Finney
INTERIM DIRECTOR
JUL 1 6 2003
Jayni Allsep
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF T\8URON
Subject: Tiburon Glen Residential Development Project
SCH#: 2001072036
Dear Jayni Allsep:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review, On the
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 11,2003, and the comments from the
responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond' promptly.
Please note that Section 211 04( c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
~e~
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 www.opr.ca,gov
e~*!
.
.
.
.
-
(.
.
.
.
.
.
'.'
.
.
.
.
.
.'
i
.
.
.'
.
.:
.
.
.
/.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
'.
tit
.
.
.
.
SCH#
Project Tftle
Lead Agency
"""''''''''1''';-''. .,"'.&.01....., . __""__"-'
State Clearinghouse Data Base
2001072036
Tiburon Glen Residential Development Project'
Tiburon, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description Revised Draft EIR prepared for project to address revisions to Precise Development Plan applications
for the development of eight single-family lots for subsequent deve!opment, including construction of
roadways, landslide repair, and utility install.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Jayni A\lsep
Agency Town ofTiburon
Phone 415.435.7390/415.780.0736
email
Address 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
City, Tiburon
Fax
State CA Zip 94920
Project Location
County Marin
City Tiburon
Region
Cross Streets Paradise Drive and Norman Way
Parcel No. 39-241-01
Township Range.
Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways 131
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
San Fransisco Bay and Richardson Bay
Reed and Bel Aire
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development)
Project Issues
AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Flood Plain/Flooding;
Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity;
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Traffic/Circu,lation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply;
Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Cumulative Effects
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; Cali10rnia Coastal Commission;
Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Delta Protection Commission;
Department of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission;
Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Native American
Heritage Commission; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic
Substances Control
Date Received OS/28/2003
Start of Review OS/28/2003
End of Review 07/11/2003
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
~TA'J'F; OF CALIFORNlA-BUSTNESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
'_"_."__ __ qRAX.Q.AYIS.,G.o.vel'n~;:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-4444
(510) 286-4454 TDD
~
.
Flex you.r power!
Be energy efficumt!
June 10, 2003
:MRN-131-1.86
:MRN131074
SCH 2001072086
C9/L;
(].\ \ -03
~
Ms. Jayni Allsop
Community Development Department
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. Allsep:
Tiburon Glen Residential Development - Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental
review process for the proposed project. We have reviewed the DEIR and have the following
comment to offer:
The DElli indicates that the Town has an on-going program of fee collection for
impl:'ovements to the Trestle Glen! Tiburon Blvd. (State Route 131) intersection. We concur
with mitigation measure 5.5-2, which states that the applicant shall pay the project's
prorated share of roadway improvements shown in the Town Plan (traffic mitigation fee).
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Maija Cottle of my staff at (510) 286-5737.
~::--c.~
~-SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Philip Crimmins (State Clearinghouse)
"Caltran.- irriprou€JJ mobility ccross California"
.
.
.
.
.-
.'
.
.
~
.
,e
'.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
-
'.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
-
.
.
-
.;
.'
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER SS ..:.. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse
Response to Comment SS-1
The comment regarding compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents is acknowledged. The letter submitted by the Department of Transportation
is Comment Letter B.
8.4-177
.
.
c.c :
.
.
~. :;J.- ?,2-e>o 3 .
.
r?~ ~ RECEIVED .
C7~ r .J~ JUL 2 3 2003 .
P.,. . PLANNING DIVISION .
aa.. '>-nA. --0 ~ TOWN OF TiBlJRON ~
~~ ~ ':jt;:L ~?~.
...9 ~~ u., ~ ____ ~ /.;'. :
~.7k~ ~~ .
~ 1-~~ ~E/,e ~ .
.a~.AL~~_~. ~~,.
~ ~~~ ~ ~.~.
~~,?-X~ ~'^-~. .
,to ~ :J. ~ ~ cL.<-...".......
~~ ~ ~~--a...~.
~~~.~~-p~
~~~~~-~~ .
~~. ~~~~~C~/ t5 ~ .
~ ~ -u... ~ '-. 6!i-. .'
~ ~ "!J- zz;:. ~ _a...J Zk..... ..
~ ~",.,-.~. :5t-.....:r ~ .
0~~~~~ y
~~e.:":"'- .A-L~ a...: dA-~r::--- ...
r>~A_ --. ::> W~ ~ ~ ~ .
I -~.....~ ~ ~ A..<-~ .
~.~~~~ .
~ ~~'~~..
~~,~~~~..
~ j ~ ':;t;., ~#-<-h L4..- .
"~ ~c.; -- ..k.<-~/
/7 ~. /J /J ~ t2; 6 ~ .
1::::::;:::; ~ ~ ~ :
.
-
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.<
.
.'
.'
.
e,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
~~.7
~ ~ ~ ~,.I-./\__."_
~ ~ ~~~
~~~~~
~~ ..;tr ~~ .~
'3-~ ~ ~~~
C4- ~'~ ~~~
~..&G-~~~~
~~~~~
F ,~~ ~~'"
d ~, ~ 'u>rn--L~ -<:f,-, ' ~ ~,'
, ~rf}~~
~.7. ~;1~~.
~~~
~~~~
-Ln~/
~.~
" ~,<;- m-t... :7~
;:J.~, G. qyq~
"
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER CC - Lois Moody
Response to Comment CC-1
The commentor is concerned about the effect the project and landslide repair would have on the
grasslands on the upper elevations of the site. Repair of site landslides would not extend into the
grassland portions of the site. Grading for lot development would impact five acres of oak woodlands.
8,4-180
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.,
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
-
.
.
-
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e.,
'.
.
.
.'
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-i,
'D1:>
Norman Estates Homeowner's Association
July 25,2003
Subject:
Via E-mail
Tiburon Planning Commission
. Scott Anderson
J ayni Alsep
Tiburon Glen EIR
To:
Copies to:
Dear Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of the Norman Estates Homeowner's Association, I would like to submit this
letter to confirm comments made by the public in the course ofEIR hearings before the
Planning Commission. '
The currently proposed project is utterly incompatible with the environmental constraints
of the site, the Town;s General Plan and zoning regulations. The developer has refused
to modify his initial proposal for 8 units, and it is clear the Town cannot legally approve
this proposal. An approval of anything resembling this 8 unit project would subject the
Town to protracted and costly litigation. Since an alternative scenario is likely to be
approved, it is extremely important that alternatives offered in the EIR adequately cover
the options available. It is equally important that the alternative analyses be complete
and allow accurate comparison.
As a citizen group, we endorse the following conditions. We believe they balance the:
. Environmental challenges of the area,
. ,Intent of our legal and community guidelines,
. Economic interests of the developer, and
. Interests of the affected citizens
We take this opportunity to reiterate recommended conditions for establishing possible
development alternatives. First, any proposal that expects serious consideration must
respect the Tiburon General Plan, the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan, CEQA, local zoning
and common sense. Other conditions include:
1. Limit Development Area access from Paradise Drive to one entrance at Area A.
2. Significantly reduce clear-cutting.
3. Allow only a single roadway-no road splits or intersections - within the
Development Area.
4. Minimize grading and retaining walls. ' Specify design, materials and planting that
will adequately screen such walls. State who is responsible to fund, install and
maintain.
,
(,ont
5. Require a monitoring and feedback loop to ensure that all landslide and erosion
mitigations do, in fact, work; and if mitigation fails, ensure the problem is
corrected before proceeding further.
6. Specify homes sizes compatible with the character of the area - no home to
exceed 5,000 sq ft.
7. Locate the homes further back from Paradise Drive. Retain the rural character of
the area by providing for the native oaklbay woodland Paradise frontage.
Currently, several homes are located with 20 ft of Paradise Drive and within 20 to
40 ft of each other.
8. Realign building envelopes to minimize tree loss and grading, provide privacy for
new homeowners, and minimize visual impacts from Paradise Dr.
9. Do not allow construction on slopes >30% --as clearly stated in the General Plan
10. No parking lot on Paradise Drive -all approved lots must provide sufficient on-
site parking.
11. Seriously consider the impact of increased traffic on Paradise Drive. We believe
the traffic survey numbers cited in the DEIR are wrong. Our "informal" surveys
find "order of magnitude" differences. Further, do not ignore the cumulative
impact of all projects proposed for the corridor -this whole issue must be brought
under control.
12. All mitigations must be clearly and fully described, included in the Precise
Development Plan and be bonded or otherwise structured so that they can, in fact,
be accomplished. Relying on CC&R's and future decisions/policies is
insufficient.
13. Place the large, contiguous area of nondevelopable open space under the care of
an appropriate agency or create it as a separate, fully protected lot under common
ownership of the subdivision's homeowners.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
,.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
Alternatives
It is likely that alternatives which meaningfully reduce environmental impacts will have
reconfigured lot lines and building envelopes. With adoption of the conditions above, it
is difficult to imagine a scenario with more than two lots. More than two lots are likely
to present significant unmitigatable environmental impacts and result in gross
inconsistencies with town policy. We cannot see any combination or permutation of the
original 8 lot plan as being workable in any way -it simply has too many flaws.
*
*
*
*
*
*
We respectfully submit these ideas to the Planning Commission as a summary of
statements made by the public during the DEIR hearings. The RDEIR covers in
excruciating detail a project that will never be built. However, the approval is likely to be
chosen from alternatives not yet offered, and these must be comprehensive and fully
analyzed.
A clean sheet of paper, clear thinking, respect for the Town's rules and guidelines.. ..and
common courtesy will create development alternatives that can merit your time and
serious consideration.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's important we get this one right. Many Tiburon citizens have worked hard with this
goal in mind. This particular project and the evaluation process will continue to be
highly visible. Far-reaching precedents will be set and the results will be with us for
years. There is indeed a lot at stake. '
Respectfully yours
Isl
John T. Kunzweiler
President, Norman Estates Homeowner's Association
16 Norman Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
4157899580
8.4 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
RESPONSE TO LETTER DD - Norman Estates Homeowner's Association
Response to Comment DD-1
This comment addresses the criteria which the Norman Estates HOA believes should guide the
decision making process regarding alternatives to the proposed project. This comment addresses the
merits of the project and not the adequacy of the ElR.
8.4-184
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~,
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
'8~;~t{R;E$$lp)(?)f'/)$/~!:j\stQt,Ap;fE~ii~!i~'Tf!j;~~~;IIfjJ~~1'QqFM<M1gi!~T;$.'
This chapter includes a copy of the minutes from' the July 14, 2003 Tiburon Planning
Commission special meeting and responses to the comments contained within the minutes. Each
comment was numbered. Some responses refer readers to other comment responses in section 8.4
or to the pages in the RDEIR where specific topics are discussed.
8,5-1
MINUTES NO. 882
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 14,2003
Special Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLLCALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair Smith, Commissioners Collins, Greenberg, Snow, and Stein
Staff Present:
Community Development Director Anderson, Environmental
Coordinator Allsep, EIR Preparer Harrison, EIR Biologist
Hopkins, and Town of Tiburon Geotechnical Consultant Stephens
Commissioner Greenberg recused herself from participation at this meeting because her
residence is located within 300 feet of the Tiburon Glen property. Chairman Smith recused
himself from participation at his meeting because he is currently acting a special legal counsel to
Sanitary District No.5 which is in negotiations concerning the Tiburon Glen property. Both
Commissioner Greenberg and Chairman Smith left the room.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
None.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
REGARDING RECIRCULATION OF THE REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TIBURON GLEN PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CREATE EIGHT BUILDING SITES ON A 26.03 ACRE PARCEL; 3700 BLOCK OF
PARADISE DRIVE NEAR NORMAN WAY; Xanadu Property Holdings, Inc., Owners;
Assessor's Parcel No. 39-241-01
Vice Chairman Snow asked for the Staff Report.
Planner Allsep summarized the background history and merits of the proposed project stating
that the Town published and circulated a Draft EIR in September of2002. Subsequent to closing
of the public hearing, the applicant submitted additional application materials, which Staff
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 14,2003
Page I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
determined would require revision and recirculation of the DEIR. The DEIR was recirculated
for public review and comment with the comment period closing at,this hearing. She then
summariied the main conclusions of the Revised Draft EIR and the significant unavoidable
impacts identified in the revised DEIR. Planner Allsep indicated that several comment letters
have been received on the Revised Draft EIR, which letters irichide comments on: 1)
traffic/traffic safety; 2) extent of grading, landslide repair and secondary impacts; 3) tree
removaVtree mitigation; 4) sanitary sewer service; and 5) cumulative and growth inducing
impacts.
With regard to the review process, Planner Allsep, explained that the purpose of the hearing was
for the Commission to consider whether new significant information has been received and
whether recirculation of the DEIR was necessary. She clarified that while comments on the
revised DEIR will be accepted, the meeting is not a public question-and-answer session.
Furthermore, she noted that due to a litigation filed by the applicant in 2002, time is of essence
for certification of the EIR since the Marin County Superior Court had imposed a deadline.
However, upon mutual agreement between the applicant and the Town, said deadline was
extended to September 24, 2003, although it was unlikely that the Superior Court would grant an
additional time extension.
In response to Commissioner Stein, Planner Allsep stated that recirculation of the DEIR would
be required if new significant information that would deprive the public the opportunity to
comment on a project impact was submitted. In staffs opinion, so far, no new significant
information has ,been submitted in any of the written comments.
The hearing was opened to public comment.
Anne Norman, 42 Norman Way, noted her letter dated July 1,2003 opposing the creation and
location of a parking lot along Paradise Drive in order to mitigate the inability of providing
adequate on-site parking for the homes. In her opinion, reducing the size of the homes would
decrease the need for additional off-site parking.
Robert Benbow, 53 Norman Way, noted his letters dated July 8, 2003 expressing concern that
the DEIR did not adequately analyze traffic, vehicular access, bicycles, and pedestrian safety on
2. Paradise Drive. In his opinion, traffic surveys were unreliable because the process followed in
developing them was unscientific. He concluded by recommending that the traffic section of the
DEIR be rejected.
Jerry Riessen, 616 Ridge Road, echoed the safety concerns along Paradise Drive. He also
~ commented on the importance of preserving open space through a public open space easement
with funding for future maintenance and protection as indicated in the Town General Plan.
4 J David <;oury, 3~ 12 Paradise Drive, stated that the DEIR was inadequate, particularly the
alternatIves sectIOn. ,
Bill White, attorney representing the Last Chance Committee and residents of Norman Way,
stated that while the DEIR was improved, there were still several issues outstanding, such as:
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 14,2003
Page 2
5
6 ,.
1
8
.
Mitigation for tree loss. Replacement on a one-to-one ratio, on-site is not adequate.
Furthermore, while the document implies that Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SODS) exist
on the property, no actual testing has been conducted to determine if SODS is on-site and
whether trees need to be removed. Off-site mitigation at a 3-5 to one ratio would be more
appropriate.
The proposed eight-lot project is inconsistent with over thirty General Plan policies.
Although the altematives section has been expanded, it does not include an alternative
which would mitigate all impacts. The only alternative that would mitigate most of the
impacts is the two-lot alternative. However, the DEIR should consider a redesigned
alternative which limits development to development area #l,reduces the size of homes in
order to eliminate the need for a parking lot on Paradise Drive, and minimizes the amount
of grading.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In response to Commissioner Stein, Mr. White stated that while his proposed additional
alternative may be considered to be part of the merits process, it should at least be addressed in
the DEIR.
John Kunzweiler, 16 Norman Way, stated that in his opinion significant new information has
been presented which would require recirculation of the revised DEIR, particularly with regards
to grading, tree removal, and visual impacts. Furthermore, he found the proposed project to be
inconsistent with at least half of the General Plan policies and asserted that the DEIR did not
adequately analyze reasonable alternatives. Guiding criteria for the project should be: one
development area with one entrance from Paradise Drive; minimal clear cutting; elimination of a
split road in development area #1; minimal grading and amount of retaining walls; reducing the
size of homes in order to better fit the character of the area; eliminating development in areas
with a slope greater than 30%; requiring that all mitigations be legally binding; eliminating the
proposed parking lot on Paradise Drive; analysis of additional alternatives; applicant outreach to
the community; and requiring that common open space is not individually owned.
The hearing was closed to public comment.
Planner Allsep stated that all issues raised in the written comments and at this meeting will be
addressed in the Final EIR. In her opinion as Environmental Coordinator, no new significant
information, which would require recirculation of the document, had been presented.
Commissioner Stein questioned the process being followed and the fact that the Commission was
being asked to consider whether the DEIR should be recirculated prior to receiving responses to
comments. Staff explained that under State CEQA law, no public meetings were required on an
EIR. However, urJder local guidelines adopted by the Town of Tiburon, the public was being
given another opportunity for further comment beyond the usual written comment period. Staff
reiterated that all comments will be addressed in the Final EIR, except for those regarding the
merits of the project. Comments regarding merits of the project will be noted as such. The
Planning Commission may also take this opportunity to comment on the revised Draft EIR.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 14,2003
Page 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Commissioner Stein stated that members of the public may have not understood the process and
therefore suggested that the hearing be reopened to give members of the public the opportunity
to speak again if they so desired.
The hearing was reopened to public comment.
Mr. Riessen stated that it should be the Planning Commission's decision as to whether the DEIR
should be recirculated.
Mr. Coury agreed that further review would be appropriate since the consultant was hired by the
developer to prepare the document based on the information provided by the developer himself.
cr t Mr. Olav Norman attested to the safety hazards on Paradise Drive.
Mr. White stated that recirculation of the document could be determined at any time, especially
since the Commission has not had time to digest all comments.
Tom Newton, Planning Consultant for development team, stated that his understanding of the
purpose ofthe meeting was to obtain further comment, direct Staff to respond to each and every
comment, and then prepare a final document, which would come back to the Planning
Commission to determine whether it is adequate. Therefore, he had no additional comments at
this time.
The reopened hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stein stated that the revised DEIR did not address the amount of retaining walls
'10 and their impacts in all alternatives.
Commissioner Collins asked, for photo simulations of the alternatives. He then asked whether
liability should be addressed in case the landslide repair mitigation plans were not effective.
Planner Allsep stated that the EIR was not the appropriate time to address such legal issues.
Commissioner Collins then asked whether the proposed parking lot on Paradise Drive could be
relocated. Planner Allsep stated that said parking lot was part of the project proposed by the
applicant, but was not a requirement. This issue would be reviewed during the merit review
process, at which time the Planning Commission can decide the fate of the proposed parking lot.
n
Commissioner Snow made the following comments: 1) tree replacement should be increased
back to 3:1 as originally proposed; 2) all conditions and restrictions should run with the land, not
with a Homeowners Association; 3) expand analysis on slopes, grading, and retaining walls; and
4) expand ,analysis on the Traffic Circulation section.
tl
Commissioner Stein found that the Revised DEIR included more detail regarding landslide
repairs. However, since earth movement was a major concern in the area, he agreed that the
Final EIR should provide additional information regarding the risks of repair plans in terms of
what can, or cannot, be done and more discussion of the proposed engineering methods to be
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
, MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2003
Page 4
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 14,2003
Page 5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I used.
, .
Town Geological Consultant Stephens noted that retaining walls for landslide repairs were
different than those for pad development, and that landslide repair plans were still conceptual at
this state.
Planner Allsep noted that the DEIR focused on the grading and landslide repairs associated with
the eight-lot development project in order to analyze a worse case scenario.
Commissioner Stein asked for more focus on geological and grading impacts in the alternatives
section in the FEIR.
In response to Commissioner Collins, Director Anderson stated that from an environmental
standpoint it did not make a difference whether open space was privately or publicly owned
because it would remain as open space permanently in either case. However, the Planning
Commission does have some reasonable discretion as to the form of ownership that would ~e
exercised during the merit review phase.
Commissioner Stein stated that general plan policies require that open space be preserved to the
maximum extent feasible, and asked for an explanation as to where this fits in the CEQA
analysis.
Commissioner Stein stated that some of the unmitigable issues related to visual impacts.
Therefore, he asked how this would be dealt with, what the environmental consequences would
be, and whether said impacts would prevent an eight-unit alternative. '
Anderson replied that projects with significant unavoidable can only be approved if the Town
makes findings of overriding considerations which state that due to social, economic or other
factors, the project should be approved even though significant impacts remain.
MIS Collins/Stein (3-0) to find that the revised DEIR does not need to be re-circulated, and
to direct that responses to comments be prepared and a Final EIR released.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, Vice Chair Snow adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
WAYNE SNOW, VICE-CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.5 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Response to Public Hearing Comment 1
Please see Response to Comment D-l. Other comments address the merits of the proposed
project and not the adequacy of the RDEIR.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 2
Please see Responses to Comment Letters Nand AA, and Response to CommenH-3.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 3
Please see Response to Comment V-I.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 4
Please see Master Response 8-3-2.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 5
Please see Master Response 8.3-1.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 6
This comment addresses the merits of the proposed project and not the adequacy of the RDEIR.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 7
Please see Master Response 8.3-2.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 8
This comment addresses the merits of the proposed project and not the adequacy of the RDEIR.
Further, please see Master Response 8.3-2 and Response to Comment V-I.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 9
Please see Responses to Comment Letters Nand AA, and Response to Comment 1-3.
Response to Public Hearing Comment 10
Please refer to section 5.4 Visual and Aesthetic Quality, of the RDEIR, where the visual impacts
of the project, including the retaining walls, were addressed. The proposed alternatives represent
reduced versions of the proposed project, and assume similar lot configurations and retaining
walls as analyzed in section 5.4 Visual and Aesthetic Quality. Each alternatives analysis
considers the extent of the retaining wall as part of the overall visual impact analysis. CEQA
Guidelines section 15l26.6( d) provides that the discussion of environmental effects of an
alternative may to be less detailed than the discussion of the impacts of the project as proposed in
order to avoid redundancy. '
Response to Public Hearing Comment 11
Please see Master Response 8.3-1, Response to Comment H-8, Response to Comment K-l, and
Response to Comment Letters I and N.
8,5-7
Response to Public Hearing Comment 12
8,5 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
riburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The commentor is directed to pages 2.0-10 through 2.0-16, section 5.1 Geology, Soils and
Seismicity, and Appendix 7.5 of the RDEIR for a discussion of the landslide repair program.
Appendix 7.5 includes (1) a table summarizing the proposed repair techniques for each identified
landslide; (2) a lot-by-lot assessment of the geologic hazards present on the site and evaluation of
the proposed repair, (3) illustrations of the repair techniques, and (4) two letters from Miller
Pacific Engineering Group, the TO\lffi's geotechnical consultant, which address site landslides and
the proposed landslide repair.
8,5-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In response to issues raised by the Town Planning Commission and interested groups and
individuals during the public review period, a number of corrections and changes are made to the
Revised Draft EIR and are incorporated as part of the Final EIR.
The following section' includes all revisions that have been made to the Revised Draft EIR in
response to public comments as well as staff-initiated revisions. The revisions are illustrated by
strikeout formatting for text that has been deleted and underline formatting for text that has been
added.
Where a change is made as part of a response to a comment on the Revised Draft EIR, the
comment number is noted in brackets at the end of the text change. Where no comment number
is given, the change is initiated by the Town.
Page 5.1-24 (Section 5.1, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity) Mitigation Measure 5.1-9 is revised as
follows:
"Mitigation Measure 5.1-9 In order to insure the effectiveness oflong-term maintenance
in mitigating the project's impacts, the applicant shall prepareCC&Rs and establish an
HOA, formulate a maintenance plan for the project, and add its administration to the
responsibilities of the HOA. Maintenance responsibilities shall be incorporated into the
CC&Rs. Draft CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Town for review prior to recordation of
the final subdivision map. Without such methods, mitigation may not sustain reductions
in the magnitude of impact to less-than-significant levels." [0-15]
Page 5.3-8 (Section 5.3, Vegetation and Wildlife), first full paragraph, seventh sentence of the
RDEIR is revised as follows:
"The third delineated, drainage is a small portion of a seasonal drainage channel which
occurs in the northwest corner of the site on Lot L and flows from the on-site spring
occurring on Lot 1." [H-26]
Page 5.3-31 through page 5.3-34 (Section 5.3, Vegetation and Wildlife), Mitigation Measure 5.3-
4(b) ofthe RDEIR, is revised as follows:
"Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(b) To reduce and compensate for impacts on the mixed coast
live oak-bay woodlands, a Tree Replacement and Enhancement Plan 1 shall be prepared
I Commonly referred to as a "Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan."
8.6-1
8.5 CHANGES TO THE RDEIR
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
by a qualified restoration ecologist, peer reviewed by a restoration ecologist selected by
the Town, and implemented by the applicant. Implementation of this plan shall involve
the selective removal of California bays and coast live oaks that are in poor condition
(California bays are the main host of the SOD pathogen in Marin County, however, 72
percent of the site's coast live oak is already in marginal to poor health). Areas of high
infestation shall be cleared and replanted with trees that show resistance to the pathogen.
The preference is for removal of areas dominated or co-dominated by bays because this
species is a persistent carrier of the pathogen. This approach would not only remove
trees that might further infest other trees of the area, but would replace the trees lost to
development with those that are more resistant to SODS. To accomplish this, the Plan
shall encompass the following features in accordance with the identified performance
standards:
. Lost acreage shall be replaced at a I : 1 ratio (requiring five acres of replanted
woodlands). Mitigation habitat shall be provided which is of greater value than found
in areas where habitat would be affected by proposed development. Replacement
shall compensate for the loss of 522 trees (estimated 517 directly removed and five
potentially impacted trees) by providing five acres of healthy woodlands.
. Replacement trees shall be planted at a 15-foot by 15-foot average density (225 square
. feet per tree) resulting in a density of approximately 200 trees per acre. However,
replacement plantings within the debris catchment basin shall be planted at a reduced
density do ensure the efficacy of the basin.
. On-site replanting areas shall be comprised of areas within the proposed grading
limits and additional contiguous areas that will be cleared of diseased trees to allow
planting of the replacement trees. The December 2002 Plans indicate that grading for
proposed landslide repair would clear an estimated 0.55 acre, therefore an additional
4.45 acres would be required. Given the number of diseased trees on-site, it is
possible and preferable that all mitigation planting take place on-site. However, the
applicant may propose some of the mitigation planting off-site but on the Tiburon
Peninsula. The purpose and goal of the off-site mitigation would be to locate and
improve a woodland area on the Tibuton Peninsula that is exhibiting serious decline
from SODS. Thus, the mitigation and enhancement program would be improving the
circumstance for the off-site area by removing diseased and dying trees and replacing
them with healthier tress that are considered more resistant to SODS. The preference
shall be for on-site removal and replacement. P
. Prior to the removal of any trees, the applicant shall retain a qualified arborist. to
conduct follow-up surveys of the site woodland conditions sball be C0Rdt:16ted in
order to identify appropriate enhancement/selective removal locations. The follow-up
surveys shall be subject to peer-review by the Town's consulting restoration ecologist.
The following performance standards shall be utilized to identify selective removal
locations:
o The preference shall be for removal of bay-dominated areas.
o Oaks and other trees showing signs of disease shall be positively identified to
have SODS using the most current identification procedures.
8,6-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
8.5 CHANGES TO THE RDEIR
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
[] The visual screening value of the tree canopv shall be considered when
identifying selective removal/enhancement areas. As a guideline. the selective
removal of diseased trees shall be limited to 25 percent of tree canopy cover
within a selected enhancement area to ensure that a sufficient tree canopy is
retained for visual and aesthetic purposes.
[] Active landslide areas shall only be considered for tree removal and
replacement if the location is deemed appropriate by the Town's consulting
geologist.
· All on-site replacement plantings shall be located within the proposed open space
conservation easement. (With the exception of those areas within the Lot 7 and 8
residential use areas proposed to be graded for landslide repair by the applicant.
These replacement plantings will be permanently preserved through establishment of
deed restriction within each lot's CC&Rs.) Off-site replacement plantings shall be
preserved through establishment of a conservation easement or transfer of ownership
to a public agency or no-profit conservation organization.
· The primary replacement species to be planted is coast live oak along with a limited
number of California black oaks (Quercus kelloggii). These two species were chosen,
even though they are susceptible to SODS, because they are more resistant than other
species.2 While research on this disease is on-going, it is currently believed that these
two oaks do not become infected until they reach a certain maturity. Other species
may be included in the final planting plan if it is determIned by SOD researchers or
other lmowledgeable individuals (such as the Marin Chapter of the California Native
Plant Society) that these species are acceptable. The planting stock shall be collected
, locally if possible, and planting shall be conducted from November to January. The
tree container size of the replacement trees shall be ten-inch tree sleeves with
appropriate predator and weed control materials. hrigation shall be provided for the
first three years in areas where deemed nece'ssary by the consulting restoration
ecologist.
· Cut down trees shall be disposed of in ways consistent with the "Best Management
Practices" outlined by the California Oak Mortality TaskForce. At a minimum, the
trees shall be cut into firewood, branches chipped, and stumps removed and ground or
stumps shall be completely covered with clear plastic for six months to prevent further
beetle emergence.
· Site maintenance shall be conducted regularly for the first three years after initial
planting, including weed control, irrigation system maintenance, and foliage protector
maintenance.
· Invasive exotic species, such as ,French Broom, shall be removed at least once
annually for a five-year period.
· The success of the Tree Mitigation and Enhancement Plan shall be monitored by a
qualified restoration ecologist for a period not less than five years after initial
2 LOA conversation with David Rizzo, op, cit,
8.6-3
8.5 CHANGES TO THE RDEIR
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
implementation. Elements such as plant survival, percent cover, tree height and basal
area, plant vigor / health, and natural recruitment / reproduction shall be evaluated
during the annual monitoring of the replanted sites. The following criteria for
monitoring the replanted trees shall be employed:
IJ Plant Survival All trees installed shall have an 80 percent survival performance
criterion during the five year monitoring period. All dead trees shall be replaced if
survival falls below this performance criterion. The monitoring period shall start
anew following replanting at any time, if survival falls below 80 percent. Survival
results following the cessation of irrigation during the three-year establishment
period would indicate whether plants' roots are sufficiently developed to support
the plants under natural conditions.
o Percent Tree Cover Percent cover would be used as an indicator of successful
establishment of habitat. The final percent cover goal by Year 5 of monitoring is
15 percent tree cover.
IJ Tree Height and Basal Area The height of the replacement trees along with their
basal area shall be measured during the annual monitoring. Basal area provides a
good measure of woodland biomass and tree diameter growth. By the end of the
five year monitoring period, the trees should be at a predetermined height and have
a predetermined basal area.
o Plant Vigor / Health The overall plant vigor and health of the installed trees shall
be monitored. Taken into consideration in the qualitative observation of vigor and
health would be the factors of plant color, bud development, new growth,
herbivory, drought stress, fungal/insect infestation, and physical damage. If a
plant's foliage is abnormally sparse, then the health/vigor rating shall be lowered
accordingly, even if the foliage present is healthy. Overall health and vigor shall
be rated according to the following scale:
o High -- 1-3 --67-100 percent healthy foliage
o Medium -- 4-6 -- 34-66 percent healthy foliage
IJ Low -- 7-9 -- 0-33 percent healthy foliage.
IJ Dead -- 10
IJ Natural Reproduction / Recruitment Natural reproduction/recruitment of woody
plant species within the mitigation areas shall be monitored. Additional trees
which had not previously been planted shall be counted and considered to be
natural reproduction and recruitment. Any other native or non-native woody plants
that become established shall also be counted and reported by species."
Page 5.6-6 (Section 5.6, Air Quality), final (lIth) bullet item of Mitigation Measure 5.6-I(a) is
revised as follows:
8,6-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.5 CHANGES TO THE RDEIR
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
"Suspend any grading or excavation, activities during strOI,lg winds (in excess of 20 mph)
which cause dust plumes visible to nearby sensitive (residential) land uses and which
cannot be controlled by watering." [H-30]
Page 5.8-4 (Section 5.8, Public Services and Utilities), of the RDEIR, the second bullet of
Mitigation Measure 5.8-2 is revised as follows: ,
". In accordance with minimum building standards of the Town of Tiburon and Tiburon
Fire Protection District (TFPD), all developers of individual lots or lot clusters shall
install:
o Approved spark arresters in all chimneys, consistent with Section 11.201 (b) of
TFPD Ordinance ~121.
D A fire-resistant roof system with a minimum Class "A" rating on all residential and
accessory buildings, consistent with the Town ofTiburon Building Code.
D Automatic fIre sprinkler systems and approved smoke detectors, consistent with
Sections 10.306 and 10.305(e) ()fTFPD Ordinance ~121." [C-2]
Page 5.8-10 (Section 5.8, Public Services and Utilities), of the RDEIR, the third paragraph under
the Water Service Setting is revised as follows:
"The Mount Tiburon water distribution system cUrrently is adequate, however the tank's
fir-€!. flow storage capacity is below MMWD standards. The MMWD is planning to
increase the Mount Tiburon tank's [we flmv storage capacity in the future due to demand
created by the development of large residences in the area, but has not yet developed any
specifIc improvement plans. The District collects storage charges from new development
within the Mount Tiburon tank service area to offset the cost offuture improvements. In
. addition, MMWD Landscape Ordinance 385 requires new development to use pool
covers, drought-tolerant landscaping and water-conserving irrigation plans. Water
Conservation Ordinance 385 also requires new development to install low-flow toilets,
shower heads, and faucets." [A-I]
Page 5.8-11 (Section 5.8, Public Services and Utilities), of the RDEIR, Impact 5.8-8 is revised as
follows:
"Impact 5.8-8 Water Service Impacts
Development of the project would not require new water facilities, however, the
MMWD would require the applicant to contribute to the funding for future
omorgf:Jflcy storage improvements. S" [A-1]
Page 5.8-11 (Section 5.8, Public Services and Utilities), of the RDEIR, the last paragraph is
revised as follows: '
"According t6 the MMWD. the proiect's estimated annual demand of 5.84 acre-feet
would be supplied by the existing 500.000 gallon Mt. Tiburon Tank. Accordingto the
MMWD, the 500,000 gallon Mount Tiburon tank would be adequate for domestic use but'
8,6-5
8.5 CHANGES TO THE RDEIR
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
not fire flow requirements. The 500,000 gallon tank would be adequate to supply the
projeet's estimated amH:ia1 cleRland of 5.81 aere feet.. Based on proposed home sizes, all
larger than 3,600 square feet, the TFPD would require a water supply capable of
providing a minimum of 1,500 gpm to fIre hydrants for two hours, thus a minimum of
180,000 gallons. The TFPD could require the applicant to install 8-inch water lines to the
proposed development areas in order to meet this flow requirement." [A-I]
Page 5.8-12 (Section 5.8, Public Services and Utilities); of the RDEIR, the first full paragraph is
revised as follows:
''The MMWD has indicated the existing fire flow storage capacity of the Mount Tiburon
tank is below MMWD standards, and as with other recent development in the area, would
collect storage charges from the applicant to be used to improve the storage capacity of
the tank in the future. No other mitigation or impact fee would be required of the project
by the MMWD, however the District indicated one approach to addressing the Mount
Tiburon tank fire flow defIciency would be for the Tiburon Glen Estates developer to
construct an additional 500,000 gallon water tank. However, as indicated by the
MMWD, the inadequate fIre glO'll capacity is an existing condition, and therefore would
not be a result of the proposed project. CEQA provides for the contribution of a fair
share payment towards the construction of new facilities which are "roughly
proportional" to the impacts caused by the project." [A-I]
Page 5.8-12 (Section 5.8, Public Services and Utilities), of the RDEIR, the significance after
mitigation for Impact 5.8-8 is revised as follows:
"Significance after Mitigation The District has indicated that payment of the storage
charges would mitigate the project's impact on emergenoy storage capacity." [A-I]
Page 6.0-3 (Section 6.0, Alternatives), of the RDEIR, the paragraph discussing the Modified Four
Lot Alternative is revised as follows:
"Modified Four Lot Alternative This alternative assumes development of four
residential lots all within Development Area No'. 1. The alternative combines the original
eight lots to create four larger lots, while limiting development to three of the original
building envelopes (pDP Lots 2, 5, and 6) and one new building envelope (within the
vicinity ofPDP Lots 3 and 4). It is assumed to require two separate driveways but would
result in a single new connection on Paradise Drive, similar to the Roadway A-B
connection proposed by the PDP. The alternative was suggested by City staff and is
considered feasible by the applicant. .^. detailed site plan ',vas Rot pro'lided for this
alternative." [Q-8]
Page 6.0-11 (Section 6.0, Alternatives), of the RDEIR, the first-paragraph is revised as follows:
"All of PDP Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 would be preserved as either a public or a private
open space reserve (21.82 acres for 84 percent of total site area). Additionally, this
alternative includes 3.29 acres of private open space (areas that are undeveloped but
privately owned)." [Q-5]
8,6-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.5 CHANGES TO THE RDEIR
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Page 6.0-14 (Section 6.0, Alternatives), of the RDEIR, the third paragraph under Description is
revised as follows:
"All of PDP Lots 3-6 and 89 ,percent of PDP Lot 7 (8.43 acres) would be preserved in
either a public or a private open space reserve and not developed (76.5 percent of total
site area). This area would provide an open space connection between existing public
and private open space located southeast and southwest ofthe site." [Q~5]
Page 6.0-33 (Section 6.0, Alternatives), of the RDEIR, the cell found in the fourth row, seventh
column (Impact 5.4~2) is revised as follows:
"S11"
Due to a typographical error, for the Modified Four-Lot Alternative Impact 5.4-2 was identified
as "significant" in Exhibit 6.7-1 of the RDEIR, however, in the text on page 6.0-26 of the RDEIR
this Impacts was identified as "significant and unavoidable." See Master Response 8.3-2 for the
completed Exhibit 6.7-1.
8,6"7
The RDEIR is revised to include the following discussion of a Modified Three-Lot Alternative:
MODIFIED THREE LOT AL TERNA TIVE
DESCRIPTION
This alternative assumes creation of three residential lots on the 26.03-acre site. All three alternative
lots would be served by a single roadway connection with Paradise Drive, Roadway B, as depicted in
the PDP, however, the parking area in the Paradise Drive ROW is not proposed with this alternative.
(Please note, as this alternative is a reduced version of the Modified Four-Lot Alternative site plan, the
same lot numbers are used. For this reason. the Modified Three-Lot Alternative has no Lot ]).
Alternative Lot 2 would utilize the PDP Lot 5 building envelope and would include the remaining part
of PDP Lot 4 extending to Paradise Drive. Alternative Lot 3 would use' the PDP Lot 6 building
envelope. Alternative Lot 4 would be located within the vicinity ofPDP Lot 3, but would include part
of PDP Lot 4 extending to Paradise Drive. 3
The Modified Three-Lot Alternative places the lot lines of the three lots close to the area of
development creating an "open space lot" that would total 22.18 acres, and would be permanently
preserved with a conservation easement or other method considered appropriate by the Town.
Landslide repair assumed for this alternative would be very similar to that proposed for the eight-lot
project. the Modified Four-Lot Alternative, and Four-Lot Alternative. Repair of Landslide B (located
on PDP Lot 1 near the northwest corner of the site) would involve only the installation of subdrains,
instead of excavation and reconstruction as with the eight-lot proiect. As with the Modified Four-Lot
Alternative and Two-Lot Alternative, repair of Landslides G-K in Development Area No.2 could be
less extensive than proposed with the eight-lot proiect.
The Modified Three-Lot Alternative would substantially lessen environmental effects of site
development by reducing the area of disturbance in comparison to the proposed project. Additionally,
it would better conform with the overall goals, objectives. and l>olicies of the Town Plan than the
proposed proiect by limiting development to one development area and reducing the visual
prominence of the development.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GeoloQV and Soils
The PDP building: envelopes of Lots 5 and 6 (proposed to be used for Alternative Lots 2 and 3,
respectively) are mostly underlain by bedrock Grading for lot access and landslide repair would be
similar to that proposed for the eight-lot proiect. however. a 2.2 acre reduction in disturbed area would
result from the preparation of fewer lots (estimated 2.8 acres of disturbed area compared to five acres
with the proiect). All identified site landslides would be either repaired. eliminated, or improved
consistent with the Town's landslide policy, however, less extensive repair of Landslide B would be
required with the alternative site plan. Landslides A and C-K would be repaired as proposed with the
, eight-lot proiect. although less extensive repair of Landslides G-K may be permitted by the Town.
3 In other words. PDP Lot 4 would be divided between Alternative Lots 2 and 4. oroviding each a Paradise Drive frontage,
The oroposed PDP Lot 5 building envelope and residential use area would be used for Alternative Lot 2. however a new
building envelope and residential use area was defined for Alternative Lot 4, Alternative Lot 4 would has a larger
building envelope than currentlv proposed for PDP Lot 3.
8,6-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Overall, the effects of this alternative would be less severe than those of the proiect and the impacts
could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. ,
HvdroJoQV and Water Quality
In Development Area No. L the impacts to Drainages 1 and 2resulting from site development and
landslide repair would be nearly identical to those aSSQciated with the eight-lot proiect and four-lot
alternatives because a similar landslide repair program would be emploved. The impact to
iurisdictiQnal waters would be less than with'the ?roi ect because the off-site wetlands and lower
reaches of Drainageway 4 WQuld not be impacted by construction Qf RQadway C. These impacts
could be mitigated to. a less-than-significant level.
Iml'acts to Qn-site drainage patterns and resulting from peak-flQw rates would be lessened with this
alternative and could be mitigated to a less-than-significant leveL as with the proiect.Water quality
and erosion and sedimentation impacts would be lessened with this alternative.hQwever, the same
mitigation measures would apply.
VeQetation and Wildlife
Implementing the MQdified Three-Lot Alternative would affect an estimated 2.8 acres for'
development Qf building pads. site access. colluvium excavatiQn and landslide repair. This would
represent about 12.6 percent of the site's woodland habitat. This is cQmpared with the proiect's
impact on approximately five acres (about 22 percent), the Modified Four-Lot Alternative's impact on
aPl'roximately 3.2 acres (about 16 percent), and the Two-Lot Alternative's 'impact on approximately
1.75 acres (about eight percent). The impact to. site wOQdlands with this alternative would remain a
significant and unavQidable impact. even with implementatiQn of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4. due to the
number of years it would take fQr the replacement habitat to. mature.
The Modified Three-Lot Alternative may reduce potential indirect long-term cumulative effects on
special-status plants because with reduced development there would be reduced incidental use of the
bunchgrass habitat by site residents. ShQrt-term temporary impacts to serpentine bunchgrass would
also be somewhat reduced fQr this alternative because there WQuld be no utility line installation to
Development Area No.2. The same mitigation measures would apply.
The Modified Three-Lot Alternative would result in reduced impacts on jurisdictional waters than
expected frQm implementing the project. Drainageway 4 WQuld not be disturbed with this alternative.
Drainageways 1. 2. and 6, 4 and the secondary drainageway on PDP Lot 1 would b~ impacted as
proposed with the project. These impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level for this
alternative.
Visual and Aesthetic Quality
With the Modified Three-Lot Alternative. housing units in building envelQpes Qn PDP LQts 5. 6, and
the vicinity of Lots 3-4 (proPQsed to be used for Alternative Lots 2. 3. and 4. respectively) would be
visible from Paradise Drive. as with prol'osed project. HQwever. with fewer hQmes. the visual density
of the develQpment would be substantially less. ,A greater ammint of existing vegetation would remain
within the area of PDP Lots 3 and 4. which would provide screening of Alternative Lots 2, 3. and 4.
The parking area within the Paradise Drive ROW is not proposed with this alternative.
,\
4 A small area (estimated 225 square feet) of drainageway 6 would be impacted by construction of a debris barrier for
landslide K.
8,6-9
8,0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
With the elimination of Alternative Lot 1. visual impacts associated with Viewpoint I would be less-
than-significant. The visual impacts associated with Viewpoint 2, which depicts the roadway
intersection, and Alternative Lots 2, 3, and 4, would remain significant. Because the parking area is
not proposed as part of this alternative. implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4-1 would reduce
visual impacts associated with Viewpoint 2 to a less-than-significant level. whereas the proiect's
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Likewise, both four-lot alternatives propose the
parking area, and thus visual impacts associated with Viewpoint 2 would remain significant and
unavoidable for both four-lot alternatives. However, elimination of the parking area would reduce
these impacts to a less-thari.-significant level with mitigation.) Additionally, as with the Modified
Four-Lot Alternative, elimination ofPDP Lots 7 and 8 would reduce the impact in Viewpoints 3 and 4
to less-than-significant, whereas with the proiect these impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Traffic and Circulation
The Modified Three-Lot Alternative would result in one intersection with Paradise Drive, compared
with two intersections for the proposed proiect. This would reduce the proiect's impacts related to on-
and off-site roadway safety. pedestrian and bicycle safety on Paradise Drive, and construction traffic.
However the same mitigation measures would apply. By proposing one intersection with Paradise
Drive instead of two, this alternative would better conform to the Town Plan, Town Code, and
Paradise Drive Visioning Plan.
Air Quality
The type of short-term construction impacts from this alternative would be similar in nature to those of
the proiect. although the extent and severity of construction dust impacts would be substantially less
than those of the proposed proiect. This is because less area would be disturbed to prepare fewer lots
for development. Construction of water facilities in the southern part of the site to serve development
could disturb serpentine known to be present there and release asbestos fibers into the air. as with the
proiect.
Noise
The Modified Three-Lot Alternative would have reduced construction noise compared to the proiect
by requiring less site preparation and construction to develop three lots compared with eight lots;
Additionally, fewer lots would be clustered near existing residents, primarily those who live on
Norman Way. Therefore, existing neighbors would be exposed to lower noise levels. Neither this
alternative nor the proiect would result in significant traffic noise, operational noise, or land use and
noise compatibility impacts.
Public Services
As there would be fewer structures to protect, wildland-building fire exposure and cumulative fire
service impacts would be less with this alternative. However, the same mitigation would apply. If
sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is not available, development of the Modified Three-Lot
Alternative would still require participation in the program for improving wastewater treatment
operations for Sanitary District #5. However, it is possible that with five fewer homes requiring
sewage treatment, the alternative may'be able to be served by existing facilities, resulting in a less-
than-significant impact.
8.6-10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Cultural Resources
Development according to the Modified Three~Lot Alternative would affect a smaller area of the site
than the proiect' but potentially could result in similar impacts as could occur with proiect
implementation bv revealing or disturbing subsurface cultural, materials, if present, during
development activities.
8,6-11
8,0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
is a reduced version of the Modified Four-Lot Alternative site
MODIFIED THREE-LOT AL TERNA TIVE
'. " "~/6'/,i,
1 ! /" V , J
:;c>.u; fort," / .....-;,
Source: L TD Engineering, Inc., May 2003, and Nichols Berman, August, 2003. Note: Because this alternative
plan, the same lot numbers are used. For this reason, the Modified Three-Lot Alternative has no Lot J.
2
...........................................
8.6,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
To reflect the changes resulting from the inclusion of the Modified Three-Lot Alternative in this Pinal EIR
Response to Comments document, Exhibits 6.0-2 and 6.7-1 have been revised as follows:
EXHIBIT 6.0-2 SUMMARY OF AL TERNA TIVES EVALUA TED
Project Alternative
Tiburon No Dev. / Four Modified Three- Two- Modified
Glen ODen Soace Lot Four Lot Lot Lot Three Lot
Pro;ect Site Land Uses (acres)
Residential Lots 26.03 0.0 26.03 ! 26.03 2.5 1.3 3.85
Public Open Space Reserve 0.0 26.03 0.0 0.0 23.53 24.73 22.18
Total Acres 26.03 26.03 26.03 26.03 26.03 26.03 26,03
Lot Locations (number of lots)
Roadwav A 2 0 1 1 2 2 0
Roadwav B 4 0 2 3 0 ,0 3
Roadway C 2 0 1 0 1 0 0
Total Lots I 8 0 4 4 3 2 3
i
Impact on Site Woodlands
, Acres 5.001 0.0 3.66 3.2 2.5 1.75 2.8
Estimated number of trees 522 I 0 320 N/A 190 132 N/A
8.6-13
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
3- I Modified I 4 Open
Lot 3-Lot Lot Space
- - - -
S ~ ,S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S SU SU SU LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
-
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
-
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
SU SU SU SU LTS
S ~ S S LTS
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
S ~ S S LTS
S ~ S S LTS
SU SU SU SU LTS
a
EXHIBIT 6.7-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND AL TERNA T1VES
8-Lot
Project
2-
Lot
S
S
LTS
S
S
S
LTS
S
S
LTS
S
S
LTS
LTS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
No
Project
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
S
S
LTS
S
S
S
LTS
S
S
LTS
SU
S
LTS
LTS
S
S
SU
S
S
SU
S
S
S
S
S
S
5.
5.1-2
5.1-3
5.1-4
5.1-5
5.1-6 Groundwater
5.1-7 Seismicity
5.1-8 Artificial Fill Areas
5.1-9 Maintenance of Mitigation Measures
Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
5.2-1 On-Site Drainage Pattern
5.2-2 On-Site Peak Flow Rates / Flooding
5,2-3 Groundwater
5.2-4 Drainageways and Groundwater-Supported Habitats
5.2-5 Erosion and Sedimentation
5.2-6 Water Quality Impacts
5,2-7 Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Vegetation and Wildlife
5.3-1 Loss of Habitat for Special-Status Plants
Temp. Loss of Habitat for Special-Status Plants
Loss of Habitat for Special-Status Animals
Loss of Coast Live Oak-Bay Woodland
Disturbance to Jurisdictional Waters
Interference with Movement of Native Wildlife
Impact
Geology and Soils
1-1 Landsliding
Grading
Secondary Effects of Grading
Slope Stability
Expansive Soils
Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife
Disturbance to Active Raptor Nests
Introduction of Invasive Exotics
5,3-10 CumulativeBiologic Impacts
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.3-4
5.3-5
5.3-6
5.3-7
5.3-8
5.3-9
a All impacts identified in the table as significant ("S"), would be less-than-significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this EIR. Those impacts identified
as significant and unavoidable ("SU") would remain so even with implementation of mitigation measures,
8,6-14
.......... ........ .............. ..;.........
............................'...........'... .
8,0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
Impact 8-Lot No 2- 3- Modified 4 Modified Open
Project Project Lot Lot 3-Lot Lot 4-Lot Space
Visual and Aesthetic Qualitv
5.4-1 View of Lots 1,2, and 4 S LTS S S LTS S S LTS
5.4-2 View of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 SU LTS S S S SU SU* LTS
5.4-3 View of Lots 7 and 8 SU LTS LTS SU LTS SU LTS LTS
5.4-4 View of Lot 8 c SU LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.4-5 View of Site from Larkspur Ferry LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.4-6 Cumulative Visual Impacts LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Transportation and Circulation . ,
5.5-1 Existing-plus-Project Imoacts LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.5-2 Cumulative-plus-Project Impacts S LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.5-3 Provision of Safe Access Roadways S LTS LTS S LTS S LTS LTS
5.5-4 Provision of Safe On-Site Roadways S . LTS S S S S S ' LTS
5.5-5 PedestrianlBicycleNehic1e Safety on Paradise Drive S LTS S S S S S LTS '
5.5-6 Construction Traffic Imoacts S LTS S S S S S LTS
Air Qualitv
5.6-1 Generation of Dust or Asbestos S LTS S S S S S LTS
Noise
5.7-1 Construction Noise I S LTS LTS I LTS I S S S I LTS
EXHIBIT 6. 7-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND AL TERNA TIVES _ CONTINUED a
All impacts identified in the table as sIgnificant ("S"), would be less-than-significant with implementation of mitigation measures
as significani and unavoidable ("SU") would remain so even with implementation of mitigation measures.
identified as in Exhibit 6,7-1
identified in this EIR, Those impacts identified
this
RDEIR
the text on page 6,0-26 of the
in
however,
of the RDEIR,
"significant
8,6,15
Please note, due to a typographical error, Impact 5,4,2 was
Inipacts was identified as "significant and unavoidable, ..
a
*
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tlburon Glen Final EIR
a
Impact 8-Lot No 2- 3- Modified 4 Modified Open
Project Project Lot Lot 3-Lot Lot 4-Lot Space
Public Services and Utilities
5.8-1 Fire Service Impacts LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-2 Wildland-Building Fire Exposure S S S S S S S S
5.8-3 Emergency Access S LTS S S S S S LTS
5.8-4 Cumulative Fire Service Impacts S LTS S S S S S LTS
5.8-5 Reed Union School District LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-6 Tamalpais Union High School District LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-7 Cumulative Public School Impacts LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-8 Water Service Impacts S LTS S S S S S LTS
5.8-9 Increased Water Demand LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-10 Cumulative Water Service Impacts LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-11 Increased Sewage Treatment Demand S LTS S S S S S LTS
5.8-12 Increased Sewage Conveyance Demand S LTS S S S S S LTS
5.8-13 Gas and Electric Service LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
5.8-14 Cumulative Gas and Electric Service LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Cultural Resources
5.9-1 'Potential 'Subsurface Resources S LTS S S S S S LTS
5.9-2 Potential Paleontological and Unique Geological LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS' LTS LTS
Resources
EXHIBIT 6.7-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND AL TERNA T1VES - CONTINUED
Those impacts identified
...........................................
EIR,
All impacts identified in the table as significant ("S"), would be less-than-significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this
as significant and unavoidable ("SU") would remain so even with implementation of mitigation measures,
6
8,6-
a
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Tiburon Glen Final EIR
In response to comments raised during the public comment period, the Town has elected to strike
the phrase "partly inconsistent" from the RDEIR. On the following pages, Exhibits 4.1-1, 4.1-2,
and 4.1-3 of the RDEIR are provided with this and other changes made in response to public
comments. The revisions are illustrated by strikeout formatting for text that has been deleted and
underline formatting for text that has been added. The changes made in response to written
comments are noted in section 8.4 in the responses to the individual comments and the comment
number is noted in brackets at the end of the text change.
Pages 4.0-5 through 4.0-31 (Section 4.0, Land Use and Planning), of the RDEIR, are revised as
follows:
8,6-17
...........................................
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
-/ Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Land Use Element
Consistent Eight housing units on 26 acres would conform with the residential land use
designation for the site and the maximum potential density of 0.3 unit per acre identified by
Town Plan Table 1. Future units would have maximum heights of 30 feet and would be
built in the site's two separate areas adjacent to the existing Norman Estates subdivision.
On-site open space would be preserved outside residential use areas iri the form of a
conservation easement owned by individual residents. The project's private open space
would adjoin both public and private open space off-site.
Goal LU-B To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and
arrangement, serve to protect and enhance the low-density residential and village
character and image of the community.
J2eF#y-Inconsistent Norman Estates' private open space would function as a buffer
between that subdivision's homes and Tiburon Glen's Development Area No. 1. No
equivalent buffer would separate Norman Estates' lots and Development Area No.2.
Instead, theprojectwould cluster new development in the vicinity of existing development.
Goal LU-F To preserve existing neighborhood character and identity by requiring
buffer zones (greenbelts) between new and existing development where practical.
Consistent This policy is intended to guide decision makers at the Town bfTiburon. This
EIR identifies environmental conditions on the project site which represent constraints to
development and assesses the extent to which the project would or would not take these
conditions into account, thus permitting Town officials to consider such constraints when
reviewing the project. Among the site's constraints which influence the location and
density of development are the steep slopes and presence of landslides, special status plant
species and regionally significant habitat, safety concerns related to site access, and visual
prominence.
Policy LU-3 The Town shall closely consider the environmental constraints of
land through the development review process in determining the location, type,
and density of development.
J2eF#y-Inconsistent The proposed development avoids ridgelines and most sensitive
serpentine bunchgrass as well as most site drainage ways, seeps and unstable areas (effects
on bunchgrass would be limited to 0.10 acre). However, 0.07 acre of delineated wetlands
habitat and 5.00 acres of coast live oak-bay woodlands would be impacted by grading.
Additionally, landslides would affect each proposed lot, however, the proposed landslide
repair program would mitigate the hazards associated with site landslides. However. three
of the proposed building envelopes have an average existing slope of 40 percent or greater.
[V-12]
Policy LU-i2 In Planned Residential Districts, new development should be
located on the least environmentally sensitive and least hazardous portions of
vacant lands wherever feasible to promote sound land development and planning
practices. Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelines open and
unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible.
J2eF#y-Inconsistent Development in the bay-oak woodland would fragment this sensitive
habitat but would preserve, as private open space, 77.4 percent of the site's woodlands and
99.4 percent of the site's bunchgrass grasslands which extend to Tiburon Ridge. The two
on-site seeps located in proposed private open space would not be impacted by site
development.
4,0-5
Policy LU-i6 The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest extent feasible
wildlife habitat in the open ridges, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other
biologically sensitive areas.
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Land Use Element --
r
Inconsistent As noted in relation to Goal LU-B, Town Plan Diagram LU-3 and Table 1
designate the site for a maximum of eight units, the number proposed (a density of 0.3 unit
per acre). This EIR's comparison of the Four-, Three- and Two-Lot Alternatives with the
project shows that lower density development than given in Diagram LU-3 and Table 1
would be required to achieve other Plan standards related to landslides and steep slopes,
preserving sensitive habitat, and views of the project site.
Continued
Policy LU-17 Future land use decisions shall be consistent with Diagram LU-
3, Proposed Land Use. However, the densities and intensities specified in the
Land Use Element are maximums ... which may not be achieved if other standards
of the General Plan pertaining to environmental, physical, or off-site constraints,
such as steep slopes, soil instability, or limitations on necessary infrastructure
require lower densities or intensities.
Consistent The site is located in the service areas of the Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) and Sanitary District #5 (SD #5). The project proposes to install new
connections to existing water and wastewater facilities. As discussed in 5.8 Public Service
and Utilities, Sanitary District #5 (SD #5) would require the applicant to participate in or
fund improvements to the wastewater treatment and conveyance system within the project
site vicinity if there is insufficient capacity at the Paradise Cove treatment plant.
Policy LU-18 Sewer, water, and other essential infrastructure improvements must
be available to serve new development by the time new development is
constructed. Developers shall participate in the funding of expanded
infrastructure.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Consistent While Town Plan Diagram OSC-3 shows the site as "Potential Open Space,"
Diagram LU-3 and Tablel foresee low density residential on the vacant site. The project
would retain exposed grasslands (and woodlands outside building envelopes) as private
open space. With development clustered along Paradise Drive, private open space farther
upslope would constitute visual open space where visible from downhill viewpoints.
Envelopes would be clustered on both sides of the Norman Estates neighborhood and along
Paradise Drive, following development patterns already established in these areas.
GoaIOSC-A To preserve the character of the Tiburon peninsula through control
of the type and location of development.
~Inconsistent Envelopes and roadways would avoid seeps, ridgelines, the site's blue
line stream and most of the site's intermittent drainages, outcrops located in grasslands, and
rare and endangered plants, but would be located on steep slopes and would remove five
acres of regionally significant bay-oak woodlands (an estimated 522 trees), 0.07 acre of
wetlands, and 0.10 acre of serpentine bunchgrass. As demonstrated by the analysis of the
Four, Three and Two-Lot Alternatives, a reduction in the number oflots would'
significantly reduce necessary grading.
...........................................
GoaIOSC-B To provide a flexible guide for landowners to submit proposals for
development which will preserve as much open space as possible and result in
protection or enhancement to the maximum extent feasible of shorelines, open
water, wetlands, significant ridgelines, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock
outcroppings, rare and endangered plant and animal habitat areas, other significant
vegetation, and areas of visual importance.
4,0-6
...........................................
EXHIBIT 4.1-1 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
Town Plan Policy , 1 Consistency
OP!3n Space and Conservation Elf!ment -- Continued
P6Ftly-Inconsistent A number of landslide deposits are present on the site, located both
inside and outside proposed building envelopes. The applicant has provided a landslide
repair program which has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the Town's
Landslide Repair Policy by the Town's geotechnical consultant. Implementing the policy
would result in stabilization of all geologic hazard areas. The project site is not located in a
flood-prone zone.
feasible development of areas
geotechnical problems, unstable
Goal OSC-D To discourage to the maximum extent
subject to hazards including, but not limited to,
slopes and flood-prone areas. .
-
Consistent Nearly 20 acres (about 76 percent) of the site would be located outside
residential use areas, and would be designated private open space within the open space
conservation easement. The area would be undeveloped except for utility easements.
Policy OSC-l Open Space. The Town has long been favored with large amounts
of undeveloped land and open water providing a sense of open space. This
character should be protected to the maximum extent feasible.
P6Ftly-Inconsistent Building envelope's are proposed to be located on lower site elevations
within oak woodlands, downhill from Tiburon Ridge and secondary Ridgelines 7-8 and
similarly downhill from grasslands which support the site's sensitive plant species, from
seeps, and from the segment of a blue line stream which crosses the southeast comer of the
site. However, secondary impacts from landslide repair and grading wouldTesult in
significant and unavoidable impacts to coast live oak forests. Additionally, the proximity
to Paradise Drive and density of the proposed development along Roadways A-B is unlike
the development pattern of the adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy OSC-2 Growth. While accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it
, should be so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant
vegetation, habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximuni extent
feasible. New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and
surrounding open space areas.
4,0-7
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Open Space and Conservation Element --
I Consistency
Per#y-Inconsistent Due to the lower elevation of the proposed housing units and the 30-
foot height limit, the proposed homes are not expected to block outward views of homes
situated on Norman Way. As shown in Exhibit 2.2-7, the upper, lower, and garage finished
floor elevations for the conceptual building footprint on Lot 7 are 235 feet, 215 feet, and
225 feet, respectively.' The addition of a 30-foot maximum height to the fInished floor
elevation of the upper level of this structure results in a maximum built height of 265 feet.
iExhibit 2.2-7 also includes a footprint outline of the structure on 63 Norman WayJ which
indicates the ground-floor elevation of this structure is approximately 265-260 feet.
Therefore, the top of the roof of the proposed structure would not be anticipated to exceed
the ground-floor elevation of the structure at 63 Norman Way. The conceptual footprint on
Lot 8 indicates an upper level finished floor elevation of 230 feet, resulting in a maximum
built height of260 feet. Again, this structure is not anticipated to block views from 63
Norman Way. Other existing structures on Norman Way in the vicinity of proposed Lots 7
and 8 are shown to have ground-floor elevations of280-270 feet on Exhibit 2.2-7, higher
than that of 63 Norman Way. However, it is possible that future lot owners of Lot 7 or 8
could locate or design their structures within the designated building envelopes in a manner
which may result in some view obstruction from 63 Norman Way. This is considered
unlikely because the existing elevation of the Lot 7 building envelope is 245 to 225 feet, a
minimum of 15 feet below the elevation of the Norman way structure.
Although the proposed structures are not expected to obstruct any outward views from
Norman way, they would change the nature of those views considerably by replacing
existing vegetative cover, both grassland and woodland areas, with structures. Views from
existing homes built along Tiburon Ridge would not be blocked.
Continued
Policy OSC-3 Outward Views. Property owners cherish their views. New
structures and associated landscaping should be so situated or kept low to avoid
interference with existing outlooks.
Per#y-Inconsistent Conceptual building pad elevations indicate it is unlikely that
development would interfere with views of existing residents who live near the site or
travel along Paradise Drive. Inboard views of the site are limited from nearby viewing
locations (such as along Paradise Drive due to the narrow winding roadway alignment
combined with the steep uphill banks and dense vegetation growing on the site), although
views from more distant locations are possible (such as from the Bay). Same as Policy
OSC-3 (immediately above) regarding outboard views. Additionally, the project would
result in ~ignifIcant and unavoidable visual impacts along Paradise Drive.
Policy OSC-4 View Corridors. PrincipaJlinboard and outboard vistas should be
defined and development should be located to protect such vistas to the maximum
extent feasible.
Consistent The elevation of secondary Ridgeline 8 is higher than secondary Ridgeline 7 at
the project site's uphill property boundary. The highest elevation of any proposed building
envelope on the site would be 310 feetMSL (Lot 6). It would be located 750 horizontal
feet from the point on Ridgeline 8 identifIed as 50 vertical feet from Tiburon Ridge where
the elevation is 415 feet. The highest elevation of a building envelope proposed near
Policy OSC-5 Ridgelines. Undeveloped ridgelines have overriding visual
signifIcance to the Town. To the extent feasible, all new development shall be
located well below the ridgelines. In addition, the following ridge line guidelines
shall be applied to the Tiburon Ridge.
4.0-8
...........................................
...........................................
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
l Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Open Space and Conservation Element --
Continued
150 horizontal feet to either side of the
Development should be set back
Tiburon Ridge.
.
Ridgeline 7 would be 230 feet MSL (Lot 1). It would be located 150 horizontal feet from
the point on Ridgeline 7 identified as 50 vertical feet from Tiburon Ridge where the
elevation is 340 feet. Therefore, all proposed building envelopes and homes would be
located well below the ridge line.
To the maximum extent feasible, development should not break the Tiburon
Ridge as viewed from the opposite side (from the line of sight to the highest
elevation).
.
be allowed within 50 vertical feet of the major
the highest point of the roofline of a structure
No development shall
ridge line, measured from
JleF#y-Inconsistent Exhibit 2.2-4 provides a summary ofthe average existing slope of each
proposed lot and building envelope. Three of the proposed lots have an average existing
slope greater than 40 percent (46 percent on Lot 2,55 percent on Lot 1, and 62 percent on
Lot 5). When considering the slope of only the portion of the lots where homes and
accessory structures could be located, three of the proposed building envelopes have an
average existing slope greater than 40 percent (42 percent on Lot 4,44 percent on Lot 8;
and 71 percent on Lot 5). Within landslide repair areas, constructed slopes would vary
between 33 and 67 percent. These slopes would be required to meet an appropriate factor
of safety, as required by the Town's landslide repair policy. Although some of the finished
slopes would exceed the recommended 30 percent, they would reflect existing land forms
on the site.
land
.
If this policy pre'vents all reasonable use of the property, encroachment into the
setbacks a may be allowed provided that structures are limited to a maximum of
one story of 15 feet in height.
Policy OSC,-7" Slope Policy. The Town shall discourage development on slopes
exceeding 40% wherever possible. To the extent feasible, slopes created by
grading shall not exceed 30%. Final contours and slopes shall reflect existing
forms.
Consistent Undeveloped land outside the designated building envelopes is proposed to be
private open space. The lots' open space would be located on the site's upper elevations
which, except for the flatter tops of Ridge lines 7 and 8, have slopes of 40 percent or
steeper, limiting accessibility.
readily
the Town should encourage
would result in
are not
Policy OSC-9 Private Open Space. In all projects,
the provision of private open space where public open space
public spaces which are not readily accessible or for other reasons
usable by the public.
JleF#y-Inconsistent Grading would occur on the site's lower elevations and would not
affect Tiburon Ridge or
Policy OSC-1I Grading and Tree Removal. The Town shall encourage location
of structures in a manner which minimizes tree removal and grading. Specifically,
grading shall be kept to a minimum and every effort made to retain the natural
features of the land including ridges, rolling land forms, knolls, vegetation, trees,
rock outcroppings and water courses. Where grading is required to stabilize areas
of geologic instability, the graded area shall be returned to a natural land form.
Excessive grading to stabilize soil is not in the best interest of the Town and is
4,0-9
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Open Space and Conservation Element --
T
secondary Ridgelines 7 or 8, significant resources on higher elevations (sensitive plants,
seeps, rock outcrops, blue line stream segment). Impacts to site drainage ways would be
limited to the lower reaches of three drainageways. However, five acres of oak woodlands
(an estimated 522 trees) would be affected by grading for site preparation.
Continued
inconsistent with the Town's desire to retain natural land forms. Therefore,
excessive grading is to be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
:flt:mly-Inconsistent The site is crossed by a segment of one blue line stream and also is
traversed by five additional principal drainageways. The blue-line stream's off-site
discharge point at Paradise Drive would be located about50 feet from Roadway C's
intersection with Paradise Drive and about 200 feet from the building envelope of proposed
Lot 7. On-site portions of the blueline stream would be located 400 feet from proposed
development. However, the lower reaches of three site drainage ways and an portion of off-
site wetlands would be affected by site development, impacting 0.07 acre of jurisdictional
wetlands.
Policy OSC-I2 Riparian Corridors. The Town shall require open space buffers
along riparian corridors to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation and
maintain aesthetic, scenic and environmental attributes of the corridor. Where
modification of corridors is required for flood control or crossings, such
modification shall be done in a manner that enhances, replaces or retains
vegetation forming ground cover and shade.
use areas is proposed to be permanently
of an open space conservation
Consistent Undeveloped land outside residential
preserved as private open space through establishment
easement.
Policy OSC-I3 Secured Open Space. Publicly- or privately-owned open space
which has been devoted to open space use shall be protected and made permanent
open space. It shall be guaranteed that publicly-owned open space parcels will not
be traded or sold.
:flt:mly-Inconsistent Norman Estates' private open space would function as a buffer
between that subdivision's homes and Tiburon Glen's Development Area No. 1. No
equivalent buffer would separate Norman Estates' lots and Development Area No.2.
Instead, the project would cluster new development in the vicinity of existing development.
be
Policy OSC-J4 Greenbelts. To the maximum extent feasible, greenbelts shall
provided in areas between developments and / or linking open space areas.
Consistent Twenty acres (about 76 percent of total site area) outside residential use areas
would be designated private open space through establishment of a conservation easement.
This undeveloped open space would be located on upper site elevations adjacent to public
open space preserved southeast and southwest of the site.
Policy OSC-I5 Site Coverage. To the maximum extent feasible, a goal of 50% of
large undeveloped parcels should be considered for retention in permanent open space
outside of any parcel or lot which has development potential. Such open space shall
be contiguous and link up with adjacent open space whenever practicable. Where a
more desrrable site plan would result, consideration may be given to larger individual
lots. In the latter case, to the maximum extent feasible, 50% of the large undeveloped
parcel should be retained in open space and the portions of open space within a parcel
or lot with development potential should be restricted from development by open
space easement or other appropriate means. This policy shall not require or preclude
clustering and protection of open space views shall be accomplished through
appropriate building and site coverage restrictions.
4.0-10
...........................................
...........................................
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
l' Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Circulation Element
Pm:tly-Inconsistent The project site would be served by Paradise Drive, a "collector street'
which carries residential, through, and recreational traffic. Due to the narrow winding
roadway cross-section, safety conflicts exist involving autos, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Project-generated traffic and new residents would add users to Paradise Drive. While the
increment of increase would be small (80 daily vehicular trips and recreational use by'up to
20-30 residents 1), new users would contribute cumulatively to poor safety conditions.
Traffic-generated noise levels attributable to the project would not be significant. Narrow
steep roadways and driveways proposed on-site would require mitigation to reduce
potential safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. Private on-site roadways would not
require maintenance by the Town. A "before and after" pavement evaluation program to
mitigate potential construction traffic impacts would reduce mamtenance of Town and
County roadways,
Goal C-C To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential
streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of
maintenance, protection of residential qualities, and efficient use of the land by
limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise.in an attempt to niaintain the livability of
the streets. '
Consistent Information in this EIR.abo~t existing, existing-pIus-project, cumulative-
without-project, and cumulative-pIus-project traffic conditions will enable Town officials
to take traffic considerations into account when making decisions about the project and
alternatives. Project-generated traffic volumes would result in less-than-significant impacts
on intersections studied in the EIR.
Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic
Policy C-I
impacts.
Pm:tly-Inconsistent Existing, existing-plus, cumulative-without, and cumulative-plus-
project conditions at Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard in the AM peak hour
would be LOS C/C/EIE, respectively, and in the PM peak hour would be LOS B/B/C/C.
Intersection improvements needed to mitigate cumulative-without-project conditions would
also mitigate cumulative-plus-project conditions. At Paradise Drive / Trestle Glen both
AM and PM conditions would be LOS B.
Policy C-2 At the following intersections, the average peak hour level of service
(LOS) shall not deteriorate below LOS C: Tiburon Boulevard at ... Trestle Glen
Boulevard [and] all intersections along Paradise Drive* .. 2
population factors of 2.4 persons her household (pph)
I
residents, respectively, could live on the project site (rounded to
listed in
intersection not
only include intersections selected for analysis in this EIR, not all intersections identified in Policy C-2,
1994 when the Circulation Element was adopted. The EIR also assessed the proposed unsignalized Paradise Drive / Roadway A-B
4,0-11
19-3
estimated
and 1,2 persons per gross acre, an
Based on the Town PIal
20-30 people).
locations listed in Exhibit 4,2-
unsignalized as of November
The
Indicates
C-2,
2
*
EXHIBIT 4.1-1 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
Town Plan Policy -I Consistency
Circulation Element -- Continued
PttF#y-Inconsistent Two new driveways on Paradise Drive are proposed to serve the
project: six lots via Roadway A-B and two lots via Roadway C. Short of no residential lots
in one or both proposed development areas, alternative access would not be feasible for
several reasons: Norman Way is a private roadway not controlled by the project applicant,
access to the site from Norman Way is blocked by residential lots and open space, and a
single project access road serving Development Areas No. 1 and 2 would require extensive
grading resulting in significant geologic, biotic, and visual impacts. (The Two-Lot and
Modified Four-Lot Alternatives propose one development area and one connection with
Paradise Drive).
Policy C-20 Driveways along Paradise Drive should be discouraged. New
development shall explore other options for access and, where feasible, avoid
driveways on Paradise Drive. Additional new roads that will intersect Paradise
Drive shall be kept to the minimum number possible and be situated in safe
locations.
PttF#y-Inconsistent Housing units on the proposed lots would be visible from various
locations on Paradise Drive, however, existing and new vegetative screening would
effectively block most views of project development. The project would not obstruct
outward views from Paradise Drive.
Policy C-22 Views from Paradise Drive should be preserved wherever possible.
PttF#y-Inconsistent The applicant proposes to remove the existing berm located in the
Paradise Drive right-of-way (ROW) (for access to Roadways A-B and provision of seven
paved off-site parking spaces) which would improve refuge for bicyclists and pedestrians
adjacent to Development Area No. 1. Construction of Roadway C would expand a turnout
refuge area, and implementation of mitigation would insure adequate sight lines at this new
intersection. Project implementation would not involve any widening per se of the traveled
way of or shoulders along Paradise Drive because it would be infeasible in this location.
Policy C-23 Turn-outs and shoulders on Paradise Drive should be created
wherever possible to protect the health and safety of its users. Paradise Drive
should be widened where possible to accommodate bike lanes and, where
possible, iinprove the sight distance around curves and at intersections.
Goal LU-B and Policy LU-3
Same as
Consistent
Housing Element
Goal H-B To encourage the type and placement of housing development
consistent with the protection of open space and environmental constraints of the
land.
Consistent The eight-lot project would conform to the maximum development densities
shown in Diagram LU-3 (Low Density Residential up to 0.5 unit per acre) and Table 1
(eight units up to 0.3 unit per acre) of the Town Plan Land Use Element.
Goal H-E To preserve the present dominance oflow-density residential
development within existing and future neighborhoods throughout the community.
Same as Policy LU-18 above.
Consistent
Policy H-16 To enSure proper planning by requiring that sewer, water, and other
essential infrastructure is available to serve new housing by the time such housing
is constructed. Developers shall participate in the funding of expanded
infrastructure.
2
...........................................
4,0-
...........................................
EXHIBIT 4.1-1 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
Town Plan Policy 1 Consistency
Safety Element
.fltmly-Inconsistent Slide deposits are mapped on all proposed lots. With the exception of
Lots 3 <ind8, building envelopes on all proposed lots would avoid landslides. Subdivision
and development of the site would ,be required to comply with the Town's Landslide
Repair Policy. Implementing the policy would result in stabilization of all geologic hazard
areas. The applicant has provided a landslide repair program which has been reviewed and
found to be consistent with Town policy by the Town's geotechnical consultant.
Goal SE-A To identify hazardous areas and to guide development away from
hazardous areas.
Same as Goal SE-A, immediately above
0;
.<;:'
Same as Policy OSC~7.
Consistent The applicant has provided a landslide repair program which has been
reviewed and found to be consistent with the Town's Landslide Repair Policy by the
Town's geotechnical consultant. Implementing the policy would result in stabilization of
all geologic hazard areas.
.fltmly-Inconsistent
.fltmly-Inconsisteilt
Policy SE-5 Require new construction to be located, to the maximum extent
feasible, in areas where there are no geologic and non-geologic hazards.
Policy SE-6 The Town shall avoid approving development on slopes exceeding
40% wherever possible in order to reduce the impact to the original topography
from grading and alteration of topography for drainage purposes.
Policy SE-8 New development within the Town should be required to mitigate
any threats to persons or property during the development process by the
rebuilding of unstable slopes, installation of drainage improvements, installation
of vegetation, and / or other measures.
Consistent The EIR geologist, Dave Snyder of Snyder & Smith Associates, is a Certified
Engineering Geologist and Registered Geologist in the State of California.
Policy SE-IO Appoint a certified engineering geologist to review proposed
building sites as part of the EIR review process
Consistent This EIR estimates additional runoff expected to be generated by project
implementation and makes recommendations to mitigate resulting impacts to downstream
drainage systems.
4,0-13
Policy SE- I 3 Require as a condition of project approval for land divisions, a
study of the proposed drainage system for the development; effects of any
additional runoff on other drainage systems, the ability of said drainage systems to
convey runoff volumes generated by the I DO-year' storm, and recommendations
for compliance with Town design standards. Recommendations of the study may
be implemented prior to project construction. To the extent that each property
owner is responsible for exceeding the capacity of the existing system, he / she
should be responsible for the cost of improvements to the systeni. Require that
on-site detention and / or disposal of runoff vohuhes be equal to existing runoff
volumes from proposed development sites to prevent any further increase in,"
runoff beyond that existing for the 100-year storm.
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Safe~ Element -- Continued
I Consistency
Inconsistent Application materials do not provide for fuel-breaks. Site development would
be required to comply with Tiburon Fire Protection District standards.
Policy SE-16 Encourage provision of fuel-breaks in all projects where fIre hazard
is possible. On-going maintenance of fuel-break buffers in new development
projects shall be assured in a form satisfactory to the Town prior to construction of
improvements.
Consistent The MMWD has indicated it would have adequate water supply for domestic
demand, however, the Mount Tiburon tank has been rated as having insuffIcient fIre flow
supply. (TFPD has indicated that the existing Mount Tiburon water tank would be able to
provide adequate flows to hydrants located on-site.) Site development would be required
to comply with TFPD, MMWD, and UBC standards. The TFPD and MMWD would
review project plans prior to approval of development permits.
Policy SE-17 Provide suffIcient water supply and equipment for domestic water
use, irrigation, and fIre suppression adequate to serve new development by the
time new development is constructed to ensure that:
of the Tiburon Fire Protection District are met.
The requirements for minimum fIre flow and the site, type, and location of
water mains and hydrants set forth in the Uniform Fire Code and by local
ordinance in all existing and new development areas are met.
Fire suppression systems such as fire hydrants and sprinklers are provided in
all development projects.
The requirements
.
.
.
FaFtly-Inconsistent The project proposes three on-site access roadways. Roadways A and
B would serve Lots 1-2 and 3-6, respectively, in Development Area No.1. Roadway C
would serve Lots 7-8 in Development Area No.2. The roadways are not connected
internally and, thus, do not provide alternate routes to other parts of the site in the event
that access is blocked in an emergency. However, connection of the proposed roadways
required extensive grading resulting in significant geologic, biotic, and visual impacts. (see
Policy C-20, above). Fire trucks could make use of the fire road off Gilmartin Drive above
the site to access the upper portions of the site.
two
Policy SE-19 Whenever practical, require all developers to provide at least
ac~ess routes for flIe-fighting equipment for all projects.
Consistent The MMWD has indicated the exiting water supply system within the project
site vicinity has adequate capacity for domestic supply to the project site and the applicant
would be required to contribute storage improvement fees for the ,future upgrading of the
local water tank's flIe flow storage capacity. TFPD has indicated that the existing Mount
Tiburon water tank would be able to provide adequate flows to hydrants located on-site.
...........................................
4,0-14
Policy SE-20 All new development within areas of insuffIcient peak load water
supply shall contribute to the construction of a new, or upgrading of an existing,
water tank. The water tank shall be in place to serVe new development prior to
occupancy.
...........................................
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TlBURON GENERAL PLAN
1 Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Safety Element -- Continued
Consistent The applicant has conducted geotechnical investigations in order to determine
unstable or potentially unstable development areas. The applicant has provided a landslide
repair program which includes engineered slope configurations, retaining walls, and,
subsurface drainage systems. It has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the
Town's Landslide Repair Policy by the Town's geotechnical consultant. Implementing the
policy would result in stabilization of all geolagic hazard areas.
Policy SE-22 Require developers to use specially engineered slope
canfigurations, faotings and foundatians, retaining walls, and subsurface drainage
system[ s] an all developments in areas having unstable or potentially unstable
slapes or substrate ar avoid the development of such areas after engineered study.
Consistent The Initial Study determined and the EIR confIrmed that the site's very quiet
naise environment wauld be compatible' far residential use. The EIR evaluated shart-term
canstruction naise impacts on existing and future residents of aff- and on-site homes
throughaut site develapment. These residents would be exposed to. signifIcant temporary
construction noise levels during site buildaut which could be mitigated to a less-than-
signifIcant level.
Noise Element
Goal N-A To ensure that residential areas are quiet and that noise in public and
cammercial areas remains within acceptable noise levels.
~
Same as Gaal N-A
Consistent
Policy N-4 The Tawn should use the Naise and Land Use Campatibility
Guidelines cantained herein to determine whether naise levels in the cammunity
are acceptable or unacceptable. These advisory guidelines have been prepared by
the California Department af Health Services.
Consistent This EIR estimated maximum periadic naise levels expected to be generated
during project implementatian, determined that construction noise levels would be
signifIcant, and identifIed measures to. mitigate co.nstructian naise impacts to. a less-than-
signifIcant level.
Policy N-5 Where,appropriate, enviranmental reviews (enviranmental impact
reparts, initial studies, arnegative declaratio.ns) of projects within the Tiburan
Planning Area should include an acoustical analysis of the praject's potential to
cause a naise impact.
Consistent Due to the low volume of traffIc expected to be generated by the project and
low ambient no.ise levels in the vicinity, the Initial Study co.ncluded that future noise levels
wauld remain appraximately at current levels along roadways serving the site and
dismissed the topic from further consideration.
4.0-15
Policy N-7 The Town should require an acoustical analysis for all proposed
prajects that have the po.tential to generate noise thraugh the generation of traffic
ar through the operation afthe project. Such projects should contribute to. the
mitigatio.n afthe naise impact wherever it is found by the Town that such impacts
are cantributed to in part by the proposed project.
CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 4.1-1
Town Plan Policy
Parks and Recreation Element
r Consistency
land
Consistent This residential subdivision proposes no publicly-oWned parks or recreational
facilities. Instead, it would create eight residential lots, each composed of a building
envelope within a residential use area and private open space elsewhere on the lot, on
designated by the Town for residential (not park or recreational) use.
Goal PR-A To provide sufficient land and facilities for a balanced system of
parks and recreation in the Tiburon Planning Area.
residents with project site development,
J 0 acres of park land per 1,000 people. As with
the applicant would be required to pay in
Policy PR-l Sufficient park land and recreational facilities shall be maintained
over time. A ratio of 5.0 acres of park land per 1,000 persons is hereby
established pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(b).
Consistent All on-site open space would be private on individual lots and would be
protected through the establishment of an open space conservation easement. The
applicant does not propose to dedicate land to the public for park or open space purposes.
Under the Quimby Act, the Town may require dedication of land, payment of fees, or a
combination of both for park and recreational purposes. Projects smaller than 50 units pay
fees in lieu ofland dedication. Payment of fees is considered mitigation under CEQA.
Policy PR-2 The Town of Tiburon should continue to require new parkland
dedication and lor collection of in-lieu fees during the development review
process.
Consistent Inconsistent A lO-foot wide pedestrian easement is proposed along the site's
eastern property line on Lot 1. The existing trail nearest to the site is located just downhill
from the crest of Tiburon Ridge, at an elevation higher than the site. The proposed
pedestrian easement would facilitate access to the ridgeline trail and Town open space from
Paradise Drive. In the absence ofa trail or walkway along'Paradise Drive, such a
connection would not continue from the ridge line to the shoreline (such as via Paradise
Beach County Park). [V-IS]
...........................................
4,0-16
Policy PR-8 The Town should require publicly-accessible off-road connecting
trails between recreation areas (developed, developable, and open space) and
neighborhood areas.
...........................................
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
r Consistency
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
Consistent The Precise Development Plan (PDP) designates land outside of individual
residential use areas as private open space that would be protected through the '
establishment of a conservation easement. This open space would comprise a total of
19.89 acres (approximately 76 percent of total site area) and would encompass woods on
lower elevations and grasslands on upper site elevations. The grasslands support botanical
(Marin dwarf flax, Tiburon Indian paintbrush, and serpentine bunchgrass) and other
resources (seeps, outcrops, etc.).
Residential Planned Development Zone (RPD)
Section 2.07.00 The Residential Planned Development (RPD) Zone is intended
to protect and preserve open space as a limited and valuable resource without
depriving owners of a reasonable use of their property for residential purposes.
Chapter 16: Zoning --
:'r:;f"-
"
-"'~-
Consistent The PDP would confine on site development within 4.5 acres devoted to
residential use areas (about seventeen percent of total site area). Enclosed structures would
be confmed to 1.6 acres of building envelope area. Building envelopes are proposed on
lower site elevations adjacent to Paradise Drive (lined by existing low density residential
development) and contiguous to the built out Norman Estates subdivision. Development in
conformance with Tibur6n Fire Protection District (TFPD) requirements would protect the
community from fITe hazards The project would not create or contribute to downstream
flooding. Implementing the proposed landslide repair program would result in sta1:>ilization
of all geologic hazard areas on~site.
The regulations ofthe Zone are designed to insure, to the extent feasible, the
conservation of natural resources all(~ the retention of land in its natural or near
natural state in order, among other things, to assist in the containment of urban
sprawl and protect the community from the hazards of fITe, flood, seismic, and
other catastrophic activity, and to otherwise implement the goals and policies of
the Tiburon Genenll Plan.
y.
Consistent 'The PDP would subdivide the site into eight residential lots, each to be
developed with'one single-family housing unit, facilities necessary to support residential
uses (roads, utilities, etc.), and permanent open space. No non-residential development
would occur with prpject implementation:
single-family dwelling.
Uses Permitted
Principal
Section 2.07.01
Consistent The PDP does not identify any other uses on this residential subdivision than
development of single-family homes with accessory structures
Uses Permitted
Conditional
Section 2.07.02
Consistent Town approval of the proposed PDP would establish the number oflots to be
created. The applicant has requested approval of an eight-lot subdivision, the maximu~
number defined for the site by Table I of the Town Plan's Land Use Element.
4,0-17
Section 2.07.03 Lmd and Structure Regulations. Density: Maximum residential
densities for developed land in the RPD zone shall be as established by the
adopted Master and / or Precise Plans for the development, as fmalized by the
recorded subdivision map(s) for the development. ... Maximum residential
densities for undeveloped land in the RPD zone shall be as established on the
Zoning Map, and shall in no case exceed the density established in the Tiburon
General Plan.
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
~ Consistency
Continued
Consistent The applicant would sell improved lots for residential development by
individual lot owners who would design and build their own homes. Therefore, details
about building design would not be known until future lot owners submitted applications to
the Town except that maximum height would be 30 feet.
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
Chapter 16: Zoning -- Planned Development Zone (RPD) --
, ,
Section 2.07.03 Land and Structure Regulations. Building height limit: 30 feet
for main building and 15 feet for accessory buildings, unless otherwise specified
in an applicable Precise Development Plan.
Residential
Consistf!nt The PDP defmes proposed building envelopes on each residential lot and also
defmes the setback distances for each envelope from lot lines (see Exhibit 2.2-4). Exhibit
2.2-4 shows that building envelopes would represent from 1.88 to 23.47 percent (proposed
Lots 7 and 5, respectively) of total lot area. Exhibit 2.2-5 shows the total amount of site
development which could occur in conformance withthe Town's Floor Area Ratio
Guidelines. Assumingthree-story construction (a building footprint one-third the total
development area shown), future structures could cover from about 23 to 41 percent (Lots
5 and 2, respectively) of proposed building envelope area.
Section 2.07.03 Required yards: Lot area, lot width, lot coverage, and required
yards shall be as approved in applicable Precise Development Plans for the
development
Consistent Exhibit 2.2-5 shows that future housing units would range from.5,960 square
feet (Lot 4) to 7,000 square feet (Lots 1-3 and 6-7). Up to another 1,750 square feet could
be built in accessory structures on Lots 1-3 and 6-7 for a maximum floor area of 8,750
square feet per lot in conformance with Town's Floor Area Ratio Guidelines. As noted
above (Section 2.07.03), details about building design would not be known until future lot
owners submitted applications to the Town.
unless
As provided in Section 4.02.07,
3
Floor area ratio
an applicable Precise Development Plan.
Section 2.07.03
otherwise specified in
Section 4.02.01 Purpose. The purpose of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Ptwily-Inconsistent Implementing the PDP would create eight residential lots which would
is to determine compliance with this Ordinance and to promote the orderly flank the existing Norman Way Estates neighborhood on the north and south, and thus
development of the Town, the preservation of its unique visual character, the would appear as an extension of existing development along Paradise Drive. Because the
stability of land values and investment, and the public health, safety and welfare applicant does not propose to build homes but would sell improved lots,' the' extent to which
by preventing the erection of structures, and additions or alterations thereto, which future residential structures would be compatible with or detract from the aesthetic
are unsightly and detract from the aesthetic character of the neighborhood or character of the site or surrounding lands cannot be determined until individual lot owners
which are not properly related to their sites, adjacent uses, or traffic circulation in submit their detailed plans for Town Design Review. Exhibits 5.4-6 through 5.4-12
the vicinity; and by preventing the indiscriminate clearing of property, excessive ~llustrate the potential visibility of 30-foot high buildings (note: the simulations are not
grading, and the unnecessary destruction of mature trees and! or mature mtended to represent what the homes would actually look like, but rather the visual change
shrubbery. that could result from the proposed project. Although the project would introduce two new
roadway connections with Paradise Drive, potential safety hazards associated with the
Chaoter 16: Zoning -- Site Plan a.nd Architectural Review
supercede prior Section 4.02.07 referred to by Section
999, respectively,
15,
Section 4.02.08 "Site Plan and Architectural Review", Ordinances 442 and 450, effective February 5 and October
2.07.03 (above), Newly adopted Section 4.02.08 provides the Town's floor area ratio (FAR) guidelines,
3
8
...........................................
4:0-
...........................................
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
Town of Tiburon Code Provision 'I Consistency
Chapter 16: Zoning'-- Site Plan and Architectural Review -- Continued
'new roadways would be reduced with mitigation. Project-generated traffic would not
degrade conditions significantly at intersections studied in this EIR. However new users
would contribute cumulatively to poor safety conditions on Paradise Drive. Grading for
site preparation would impact five acres in the oak woodlands portion of the site (19
percent of the site area). This would remove an estimated 522 trees.
Section 4.02.07 Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications. In reviewing
site plans for Site Plan & Architectural Review, the acting body shall consider the
following principles as they may apply:
Consistent The PDP would cluster proposed lots at the site's lowerelevations near the
existing Norman Estates neighborhood and along Paradise Drive where the project would
appear as an extension of existing development. Development would be served by two
new private access roadways connecting to Paradise Drive (Roadway A-B and Roadway
C). Each would have steep segments which would conform with the Town and Tiburon
Fire Protection District's (TFPD) standards with mitigation. (Less steep grades would,
require more excavation and involve construction of longer and / or higher retaining walls
with concomitant impacts.) Impairment of sight distances by existing vegetation at
proposed roadway intersections with Paradise Drive could be mitigated. The addition of
project-generated vehicular traffic and resident bicyclists or pedestrians would add
incrementally to cumulative c'onditionson Paradise Drive due to existing conflicts between
motorists and cyclists and walkers.
(a) Site Plan Adequacy: Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it
promotes or~er1y development of the community, provides safe and reasonable
access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare. '
Ptmly-Inconsistent Building envelopes of lots proposed would be located at lower site
elevations where development in oak woodlands would leave upper elevation grasslands as
undeveloped open space. Due to the extent of vegetation removal, future homes would be
expected to be visible from existing homes on Norman Way. However, the proposed
homes would not interfere with light or'air access of Norman Way residents. Views from
homes built along Tiburon Ridge would not be blocked. While building envelopes on
proposed Lots 7 and 8 (and the eventuaI30-fo?t high structures) would be lower than the
graded footprint elevations of homes located at 53 and 63 Norman Way, a structure on Lot
7 could be as close as 45 feet to the structure on 63 NormanWay. The proximity of
proposed Lots 7-8 to the adjacent Norman Way lots could affect the privacy of existing
residents. Although the proposed structures are not expected to obstruct any outward views
from 53 and 63 Norman way, they would change the nature of those views considerably by
replacing existing vegetative cover with structures.
9
(b) Site Layout in Relation to Adjoining Sites: The location of proposed
improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining
sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, adequacy oflight
and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by
particular site conditions.
4,0-
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
l Consistency
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
Inconsistent The PDP proposes the custom-design and construction of units by individual
lot-owners. Application materials permit 30-foot high three-story units, more typical of
contemporary stepped hillside development than older one- and two-story homes. Exhibit
2.2-5 shows that, in accordance with the Town's Floor Area Ratio Guidelines, from 5,960
to 8,750 square feet of residential and accessory development could be built on proposed
lots with no home exceeding 7,000 square feet in size. Existing structures within the
Norman Estates subdivision range in size from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 square feet.
Newer structures located uphill and south. of the project site off Gilmartin Drive are of
comparable size to the proposed structures (5,300 to 7,000 square feet). Therefore, the
proposed structures could be considerably larger in terms of square footage than some of
the older homes within the vicinity. The proposed homes would be limited to a height of
30 feet, as with the Norman Estates homes, and would be subject to design review.
Additionally, the proximity to Paradise Drive and density of the proposed development
along Roadways A-B is unlike the development pattern found in the adjacerit
neighborhoods. Setbacks vary among all proposed lots (see Exhibit 2.2-4)
Site Plan and Architectural Review - Continued
(c) Neighborhood Character: The height, size, and I or bulk of the proposed
project bears reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the
vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For
example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story
additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other
design features to minimize intrusion on the neighborhoods.
Chapter 16: Zoninfl
Consistent Exhibit 2.2-5 shows that, in accordance with the Town's Floor Area Ratio
Guidelines, from 5,960 to 8,750 square feet of residential and accessory development could
be built on proposed lots with no home exceeding 7,000 square feet in size.
(d) Floor Area Ratio: The relationship between the size and scale of.
improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are
proposed. This concept is known as "floor area ratio".
~Inconsistent. Grading for site preparation would impact five acres (19 percent) of the
site, removing an estimated 522 trees and impacting 0.07 acre of delineated wetlands.
Rock outcroppings and seeps shown on the Resource Conservation Map are located
primarily on upper site elevations within the private open space areas oflots. The blue line
stream which crosses the southeast comer of proposed Lot 7 is located outside the building
envelope.
(e) Grading and Tree Removal: The extent to which the site plan reasonably
minimiz,es grading and lor removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural
features of the site, such as rock outcroppings or watercourses.
Consistent Same as Section 2.07.03. Individual lot owners would identify proposed
architectural styles, exterior building inaterials, and colors in the detailed designs of their
proposed homes when submitting plans to the Town for Design Review.
(f) Compatibility of Architectural Style and Exterior Finish: The architectural
style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity
and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings.
Consistent The PDP includes a schematic landscape plan which lists species the applicant
would plant along internal private access roadways (Exhibit 2.2-15). Individual lot owners
would prepare landscaping plans and plant palettes for their own lots when designing their
site and building plans. (The MMWD identifies drought tol~rant plants, and Tiburon Fire
Protection District (TFPD) identifies fire retardant plants.)
(g) Landscaping: Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to
prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual
and noise impacts of development. Applicants are encouraged to use native and
drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscape shall be used which will at
maturity minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings.
40-20
...........................................
...........................................
Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
r
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
Chapter
Consistent The PDP does not identify lighting plans for applicant-implemented
development (site access roadways or their intersections with Paradise Drive). Lighting on
residential lots will not be known until individual lot owners prepare detailed site and
building plans that would be subject to design review.
Continued
(h) Lighting: Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade privacy of other
properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination
for safety and security purposes~
Site Plan and Architectural Review
16: Zoning
Consistent Same as Section 2.07.03. Based on three-story construction shown on PDP
maps, future structures could cover from about 23 to 41 percent (Lots 5 and 2, respectively)
of proposed building envelope area.
m Appropriate Use of Building Envelope: 4 In Planned Residential (RPD and
RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-
needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its
accessory structures. The building envelope should not be interpreted as an area
intended to be "filled" by'a main structure and its accessory structures.
Consistent Nearly 20 acres (about 76 percent of total site area) located outside of
residential use areas would be designated as an open space conservation easement.
area would be undeveloped except for utility easements:.
Chapter 16 - Zonin9-. Chapter 4.08.04 Precise Qevelopment Plan Principles
(a) Significant open space shall be preserved, through dedication or other means
acceptable to the Town, consistent with policies of the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the Tiburon GeneralPlan.
The
Same as Section 4.02.07( e).
Improvement, relates to sites where existing development is located and would not apply to the project examined in this EIR.
4,0-2
PeF#jr-inconsistent
(b) Preservation of the natural features of the land shall be achieved to the
maximum extent feasible through minimization of grading and sensitive site
design. Features worthy of preservation include ridgelines, prominent knolls,
desirable native vegetation, trees, significant rock outcroppings, water courses,
and riparian corridors.
PropertY
Overall
Section 4,02,07(i)
4
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
r Consistency
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
Precise Development
Inconsistent Within landslide repair areas, constructed slopes would vary between 33 and
67 percent. These slopes would be required to meet an appropriate factor of safety, as
required by the Town's landslide repair policy. Although some of the fInished slopes
would exceed the recommended 30 percent, they would reflect existing land forms on the
site.
Continued
Final contours and
Plan Principles --
(c) Slopes created by grading should not exceed 30 percent.
slopes should reflect natural land features.
16
Chapter
Ptmiy-Inconsistent Conceptual building footprint elevations (Section 4.02.07(b)) indicate
it is unlikely that development would interfere with views of existing residents who live
near the site or travel along Paradise Drive. Building envelopes would be located within
the site's lower elevation oak woodlands while upper elevation woodlands and grasslands
would be protected through the establishment of a conservation easement (Section
2.07.00). ,Mapped seeps and special status botanical species would be preserved in the
upslope open space and conservation easement. However, grading for site preparation
would impact fIve acres (19 percent) of the site, removing an estimated 522 trees and
impacting 0.07 acre of delineated wetlands and 0.10 acre of serpentine bunchgrass habitat.
(d) Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve view corridors, mature trees,
rare plants, signifIcant flora and fauna, areas of historical signifIcance, access
corridors, and habitats of endangered species.
Consistent Site elevations range from approximately 164 feet near Paradise Drive to 475
feet near the crest of Tiburon Ridge, The highest lower floor elevation of a conceptual
footprint of a project site building would be 282.5 feet (Section 4.02.07(b )). Proposed Lots
1-3 straddle Secondary Ridgeline 7, and Lots 6-7 straddle Ridgeline 8 which descends from
Tiburon Ridge into Norman Estates (see Resolution 2859, SignifIcant Ridgelines, below).
(e) Location of development well below ridge lines shall be achieved, in
conformance with General Plan and other policies.
Inconsistent While all building envelopes are proposed within the site's lower elevation
oak woodlands, much of the existing vegetation would be removed from within the setback
areas between building envelopes and Paradise Drive.
...........................................
(f) Prominence of development and construction should be minimized by
appropriate location of grading and placing of buildings so that they are screened
by wooded areas, rock outcroppings, and depressions in topography or other
features.
4,0-22
...........................................
2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
-/ Consistency
EXHIBIT 4.
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
1
PfFF#y-/nconsistent Slide deposits are mapped on all proposed lots. With the exception of
Lots 3 and 8, building envelopes on all proposed lots would avoid landslides. Subdivision
and development of the site would be required to comply with the Town's Landslide
Repair Policy. Implementing the policy would result in stabilization of all geologic hazard
areas. The applicant has provided a landslide repair program which has been reviewed and
found to be consistent with Town policy by the Town's geotechnical consultant.
Continued
be given to avoidance of areas posing geologic
Precise Development Plan Principles __
(g) Due consideration shall
hazards.
Chapter 16
Consistent Implementation of measures to mitigate significant adverse impacts identified
in this EIR would be required, if the Town approves or conditionally approves the project.
This EIR indicates the effectiveness of measures to substantially reduce the magnitude of
impact to a less-than-significant level. Even with implementation of mitigation measures,
visual impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Town can impose
conditions of approval (if approved) in addition to the measures required by the EIR. In
addition, the applicant can implement and / or incorporate in the project alternate meastires
~hich meet the performance standards identified in this EIR.
as detailed in the Environmental
(h) Minimization of significant adverse impacts,
Impact Report, if one is required.
Consistent Roadways have been designed to have narrow widths of 14-20 and'grades of up
to 20 percent feet in order to minimize cut and fill operation.
(i) Roads shall be designed for minimum slopes, grading, cutbacks, and fill
Narrowing of roadways may be allowed to reduce grading, retaining walls, and
other scarring of the land. '
Consistent The Tiburon Glen project would be adjacent to Norman Estates but would have
separate access completely independent from that neighborhood. Except for the proposed
seven-space parking area proposed within the Paradise Drive ROW near Roadway A-B,
project access roadways would be similar in appearance to other roads and driveways
serving existing development in the vicinity of the site. The proposed pattern of lower
elevation residential development within woodlands and / or near to Paradise Drive and
upper elevation open space on open grasslands would be compatible with other nearby
development. Housing units would be designed by individual lot owners, and, although no
site planning or architectural elements would be known until submitted to the Town for
Design Review, it is unlikely that they would be so similar as to be monotonous.
4.0-23
(j) Proposed arrangement of residential units and design of circulation system
shall provide harmonious transition from and be compatible with neighboring
development,and open space. Monotony in design shall be avoided.
EXHIBIT 4.1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
1 Consistency
Town of Tiburon Code Provision
Precise Development Plan Principles
7
Ptmly-Inconsistent As discussed above (Section 4.02.07(b )), strucfures on proposed Lots
and 8 could be as close as 45 feet to existing Norman Estates' homes. The location of
other proposed project site building envelopes would set fufure housing units on Lots 1-6
back farther from adj acent Norman Estates' homes. After proj ect buildout which would
generate significant but mitigable short-term noise impacts, long-term noise attributable to
residential activities on the site would not be expected to differ from levels presently heard
in nearby neighborhoods. Although the proposed strucfures are not expected to obstruct
any outward views from 53 and 63 Norman Way, they would change the nature of those
views considerably by replacing existing vegetative cover with structures.
from
Continued
(k) Adequate consideration shall be given to the need for privacy and with
minimum visual and aural intrusion into the indoor and outdoor living areas
other living areas
Chapter 16 --
Consistent After project buildout which would generate significant but mitigable short-
term noise impacts, long-term noise attributable to residential activities on the site would
not be expected to differ from levels presently heard in nearby neighborhoods.
intrusion of noise on
. .. .
l1ll1llll1lZe nOIse
be placed so as to
(1) Improvements shall
nearby areas.
Ptmly-Inconsistent Individual lot owners would prepare landscaping plans and plant
palettes for their owillots when designing their site and building plans. Ornamental
landscaping would be limited to the residential use area of each lot. The open space
conservation easement would remain in its natural state, including the special status plant
species growing in upslope grasslands.
(m) Landscaping shall be designed so as to result in the least possible disfurbance
of natural and / or open areas and shall be compatible with the natural setting.
Consideration shall be given to fire protection, water conservation, protection of
views and trail areas, and buffering of noise
Consistent Same as Section 4.02.0 1(h). Application materials .do notidentify lighting
plans for Roadways A-B and C (or the Paradise Drive ROW parking spaces). Lighting on
residential lots ,will not be known until individual owners prepare detailed site and building
plans.
be of low
(n) Utilities shall be underground, and street lights,.ifneeded, shall
intensity and low in profile.
Consistent Same as Sections 2.07.03 and 4.02.07(f). Individual owners would identify
exterior building materials and colors in the detailed designs of their proposed homes when
submitting plans to the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board.
blend into the natural
(0) Materials and colors used in improvements shall
environment to the extent reasonably possible.
with Town Plan goals and policies is
...........................................
Ptmly-Inconsistent The project's conformance
summarized in Exhibit 4.1-1.
4,0-24
(p) Consistency with other goals and policies of the General Plan Elements shall
be demonstrated.
........................... ........... .'....
2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
1 Consistency
EXHIBIT 4. 1
Provision
two
The 16 criteria listed by Resolution 2859 are discussed below in relation to the
secondary ridgelines (Ridgelines 7 and 8) present on the site.
Ridgelines
The Town ofTiburon recognizes that each significant ridgeline has different
qualities and characteristics. The significance of each ridge line shall be
determined during the development review process using the following criteria
Significant
Resolution 2859
These two ridgelines are difficult to see from many viewing locations readily accessibly by
the public, particularly from downhill elevations (such as along Paradise Drive where thick
vegetation growing upslope of the narrow winding roadway blocks views of higher
elevations). From more distant locations off-shore, they form an indistinguishable part of
the open space mosaic band which descends from the crest of Tiburon Ridge. Of the two
secondary ridges, grasslands make Ridgeline 8 more promment than wooded Ridgeline 7.
Visual prominence.
Ridgelines 7 and 8 proVide direct connections via private residential open space proposed
on-site (the open space conservation easement located on proposed Lots 1-3 and 6-7) from
public open space along the crest of Tiburon Ridge to existing private open space located
in the Nomian Estates subdivision and to public open space contiguous and immediately
southeast of the site.
Ability to connect existing / potential open space.
Proposed open space containing Ridgelines 7 and 8 would separate existing Tiburon Ridge
neighborhoods frombuilding envelopes located at downhill elevations on the project site.
Ridgeline 8 which descends into Norman Estates' private'open space effectively functions
as a separator between project Lots 6-7.
Potential to act as a neighborhood separator.
Ridgeline 8 affords more dramatic panoramic outboard views than Ridgeline 7. This is
because of the higher elevation and grassland cover of Ridgeline 8 compared with the
lower elevation wooded Ridgeline 7. As observed above (Visual Prominence), inboard
views are limited from such locations as Paradise Drive, but, from the Bay or more distant
viewpoints on land, Ridgelines 7 and 8 contribute to the overall open space backdrop of the
Peninsula.
4.0-25
Inboard and outboard views.
1-2 CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
I
EXHIBIT 4.
Provision
Consistency
The length of Ridgeline 7 from the uphill to downhill property lines (Tiburon Ridge to
Paradise Drive) is about 550 linear feet. The length of Ridgeline 8 from the uphill property
line through Norman Estates to Paradise Drive is about 1,700 feet, although the segment
on-site is about 350 feet long.
Continued
Significant Ridgelines --
Resolution 2859
Length.
is about 405 feet and of
At the uphill site property line the elevation of Ridgeline 7
Ridgeline 8 is about 475 feet.
All of Ridgeline 7 is wooded on-site, all of Ridgeline 8 on-site and in the Norman Estates
open space is covered by grasslands, and the lower elevations ofRidgeline 8 in the
developed part of Norman Estates is wooded.
Height.
Wooded or Unwooded.
No officially designated segment of the Bay Trail is located near the site. (Paradise Drive
is too narrow to provide a bicycle and / or pedestrian trail separate from the vehicular travel
way, unofficially used as a Bay Trail link. Howeve~, all ridge lines (except Ridgeline 20)
connect directly or via adjoining ridge lines to Paradise Drive.
to link with Bay Trail.
Ability
Rock outcrops are located on Ridgeline 8.
Unusual physical characteristics.
highly visible.
Sensitive plant species (Marin dwarf flax, Tiburon Indian paintbrush, and serpentine
bunchgrass) are growing on Ridgeline 8, and seeps with their associated wetland plants are
located on the flanks ofthe.ridgeline. Regionally significant oak woodlands cover
Ridgeline 7 and the lower elevations of Ridge line 8.
not
Ridgeline 8, open slopes covered by grasslands, but is
Highly visible open slopes
Significant vegetation.
They do
immediately above (Significant Vegetation)
As discussed above (Visual Prominence), Ridgelines 7 and 8 are difficult to see.
not exhibit special silhouette or backdrop features.
Same as
Sensitive environmental habitat.
Ridgeline 7 is mapped as having slopes of 40 percent or greater. The crest of Ridgeline 8
has some of the flatter slopes on the site including those less than 20 percent and between
20 and 30 percent, surrounded by more steeply sloped land.
Special silhouette or backdrop features.
Difficulty of developing or accessing.
intact
...........................................
The landform of both ridgelines remains pristine and their integrity
4,0-26
Integrity of the ridgeline landform.
...........................................
3 CONFORMANCE WITH PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PLAN
~onsistenCY
EXHIBIT 4.1
Visioning Goals / Actions
To provide safe and convenient local pathways for pedestrians within the community.
Ptlr!ly-Inconsistent The project would not change Paradise Drive except at the two proposed
site entrances (Roadway A-B and Roadway C intersections) where existing turnouts would
be widened, thus improving refuge for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project site does not
have a continuous frontage along Paradise Drive. Norman Estates separates Development,
Areas No.1 and No.2. Development of a pathway along the inboard side of Paradise Drive
would require substantial vegetation removal and grading of the steep banks within the
County's right-of-way (ROW) and on the project site.
Goal 1-2
Explore opportunities for providing local pathways near the road as a safe
convenient alternative to walking on the side of Paradise Drive.
character of the Paradise Drive area, including taxation for public open space acquisition to preserve land from
Goall-3 To use a variety of techniques to maintain the rural
development.
5
lots for a resulting
the site for up to a maximum of
Consistent The PDP would subdivide 26.03 acres into eight residential
density of one unit per 3.25 acres. The Town Plan designates
eight units.
development.
Maintain a pattern of low density residential
Ptlr!ly-Inconsistent All building envelopes are proposed within the site's lower elevation oak
woodlands. Grading for site preparation would impact about five acres (19 percent) of the
site, removing an estimated 522 trees and impacting 0.07 acre of delineated wetlands.
Exhibits 5.4~6 through 5.4-12 show the potential visibility (and screening) onO-foot high
homes which could be constructed on the building envelopes identified by the PDP, and thus
change the site's character. The proposed pattern oflower elevation residential development
within woodlands and / or near to Paradise Drive and upper elevation open space on open
grasslands would be compatible with other nearby development. Nearly 20 acres of the
26.03-acre site (76 percent) would be located outside of residential use areas and preserved as
private open space through establishment of a conservation easement.
4,0-27
Preserve trees, vegetation, and other natural features that contribute to the area's
rural visual appearance
Goal II-I designates low density as one unit per 2.5 acres.
5
1-3 CONFORMANCE WITH PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PLAN
EXHIBIT 4.
Visioning Goals / Actions
Continued
T Consistency
Consistent Proposed residential development would be located within oak woodlands on the
site's lower elevations and would not block views of the Bay from off-sIte. Exhibits 5.4-6-
5.4-12 show the potential visibility of30-foot high homes and illustrate the extent to which
the site's rural character would be maintained.
rural visual character of the hillsides and provide visual access to the
1-3
Maintain the
Bay.
Goal
Consistent Building envelopes and roadways would be expected to cover 2.3 acres within the
4.5 acres of residential use area, leaving the remaining 22 acres as private open space (20
acres within the conservation easement). Proposed lots would be clustered adjacent to the
Norman Estates neighborhood and along Paradise Drive, similar to the established patterns of
development in those areas.
Maintain a pattern of residential development (homes within a rural landscape ) to
promote the rural character.
Ftmly-/nconsistent Because individual lot owners would design and build their own homes,
their bulk and mass are not known at this time. However, the PDP shows conceptual lower,
ground, and upper level floor elevations, suggesting that three-story stepped units may be
built within the 30-foot building height. In three-story buildings, 5,960 to 8,750 square feet
of total developed area still could have footprints of 1,978 to 2,967 square feet. The proposed
structures could be considerably larger in terms of square footage than some of the older
homes within the vicinity.
residential structures.
Limit the bulk and mass of new
ConsistenfY.t Unknown As observed above, individual lot owners would design and build
their own homes. As a result, no design details are known at this time, and the design
compatibility of future homes with the rural landscape cannot be assessed without
speculating. Individual lot owners would identify proposed architectural styles, exterior
building materials, and colors in the 'detailed desigp.s of their proposed homes when
submitting plans to the Town for Design Review. [0-6]
in a rural style to blend into the e{Citing landscape.
Design homes
Consistent The project would not change the alignment of Paradise Drive. Implementation of
the PDP would expand somewhat two existing turnouts on curves, add two new driveways
(Roadways A-B and C), and construct seven parking spaces in an area that is currently within
the right-of-way of Paradise Drive.
Maintain the current rural circuitous alignment of Paradise Drive while providing
for traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian safety improvements.
Goal/-3,
...........................................
Same as
Consistent
4,0-28
To preserve the rural character along Paradise Drive.
On larger, subdividable parcels ofland, continue the current designation oflow
and very low density development, with low density defmed as 1 unit per 2.5 acres
and very low density as 1 unit per 10 acres or lower.
Goal II-I
...........................................
EXHIBIT 4.1-3 CONFORMANCE WITH PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PLAN
fConsistency
Visioning Goals / Actions
Continued.
Consistent The project site is south ofTrestIe Glen. As site planning and building design
will not be known until individual lot owners submit plans to the Town for Design Review, it
is difficult to assess whether or not the project would maintain a rural character. See Goal I-
3. Building envelopes would be clustered on both sides of the Norman Estates neighborhood
and along Paradise Drive, followirig development patterns already established in these areas
II-I
Recognize and protect the differences in rural character of the areas north and
south of Trestle Glen. The area south ofTrestIe Glen will continue to have a much
more rural character than the area to the north.
Goal
/2m:#y-Inconsistent Residential development would be concentrated on a total of 1.6 acres
within the building envelopes designated for each lot (ranging in size from 6,250 to 12,130
square feet on Lots 8 and 6, respectively), with an additional 0.7 acre of roadway (both within
the 4:5 acres of residential use area). Grading for site preparation would impact five acres
(19 percent) of the site, removing an estimated 522 trees. The PDP's Schematic Landscape
Plan illustrates entrance signs at the Roadway A~B Intersection with Paradise Drive and a
pavement pattern across the roadway into the site and into the seven parking spaces proposed
within the Paradise Drive right-of-way. No application materials indicate any proposal to
erect gates either at Roadway A-B or Roadway C.
Develop design standards which ta1ce into consideration... the extensive tree cover
south ofTrestIe Glen and which avoid a suburban style of development and gated
communities.
/2m:#y-Inconsistent The project proposes constructing three new access roadways
(driveways) which would connect with the through travel lanes of Paradise Drive at two
locations. (Roadways A and B would merge into a single roadway within the Paradise Drive
right-of-way.) Sight distances at the two new intersections would be adequate after
implementation of mitigation at Roadway C. The alternative to two intersections would be to
build one roadway into Development Area No.1 and extend it to Development Area No.2
~ia a long steep connection around Norman Estates which would increase grading and
paving. Another alternative, to obtain access to one or both development ' areas from Norman
Way, would not be feasible. Norman Way is a private roadway lined by private lots.
14 to 20 feet wide with no sidewalks.
PDP plans do
Consistent Roadways would range from
not indicate proposed lighting.
Plan new development to minimize the number of roadways and driveways onto
Paradise Drive for safety and to reduce the need for grading and paving.
lighting and no sidewalks.
Maintain rural road standards with low intensity street
Consistent The site is zoned Residential Planned Development (RPD), and the application is
for approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP). Lots are proposed in two development
areas and to be clustered on the site's lower wooded elevations adjacent to the Norman
Estates neighborhood and along Paradise Drive.
4.0-29
of new development.
Continue using planned district ZOnlng which encourages clustering and siting of
development to minimize visual, and environmental impacts
Goal II-2 To reduce the visual impact
EXHIBIT 4.1-3 CONFORMANCE WITH PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PLAN
Visioning Goals / Actions IConsis ten cy
Cont.
impact.
to define low visual
II-2
Develop design standards
Goal
ConsistenfJl./ Unknown Individual lot owners would be responsible for submitting the site
plans and building designs for their lots to the Town Design Review Board. [V -19]
Consistent Proposed building envelopes
secondary Ridgelines 7 and 8.
Locate new development away from ridges and visually prominent subridge areas.
would be located downhill from Tiburon Ridge and
users.
Ptmly-Inconsistent The project would not change Paradise Drive except at the two proposed
site entrances (Roadway A-B and Roadway C intersections) where existing turnouts would
be widened, thus improving refuge for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project site does not
have a continuous frontage along Paradise Drive. Norman Estates separates Development
Areas No.1 and No.2. Development ofa pathway along the inboard side of Paradise Drive
would require substantial vegetation removal and grading of the steep banks within the
County's right-of-way (ROW) and on the project site. A lO-foot wide pedestrian easement
is proposed along the site's eastern property line on Lot 1. The existing trail nearest to the
site is located just downhill from the crest of Tiburon Ridge, at an elevation higher than the
site. The proposed pedestrian easement would facilitate access to the ridgeline trail and
Town open space from Paradise Drive.
and improve safety for all
the rural character and configuration of Paradise Drive
Create a system of off-road neighborhoodpaths for residents to use as an
alternative to walking on the side of the road.
To maintain
Goal III-I
Ptmly-Inconsistent Construction of Roadways A-B and C would expand existing turnouts.
The project also proposes to build seven parking spaces within the existing Paradise Drive
right-of-way. These improvements could improve opportunities for refuge by bicyclists and
pedestrians from vehicular traffic. The project does not propose any changes to the Paradise
Drive alignment. The site's Development Areas No. 1 and 2 are separated by the Norman
Estates neighborhood. Therefore, any roadway widening on the project site would not be
continuous but would be interrupted by existing development.
to make
Explore the possibility of improving the safety of Paradise Drive through more
turnouts for passing, shoulder widening and paving, and speed bumps.
well-informed decisions about land use and
...........................................
impacts under existing and future
Consistent This EIR assess the project's traffic
cumulative conditions.
an accurate information base about existing and projected future traffic conditions
4,0-30
Request the County and Tiburon to conduct traffic studies to project cumulative
amounts of traffic from future development.. . Studies should include an evaluation
of the capacity of Paradise Drive and whether the roadway can support the traffic
from projected growth, including bicycle traffic.
Goal III-2 To develop and maintain
transportation.
...........................................
EXHIBIT 4.1-3 CONFORMANCE WITH PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PLAN
1 Consistency
Visioning Goals / Actions
IV-I
Consistent The MMWD has indicated it would hitve adequate water supply for domestic
demand and the applicant would be required to contribute storage improvement fees for the
future upgrading of the local water tank's fire flow storage capacity. TFPD has indicated that
the existing Mount Tiburon water tank would be able to provide adequate flows to hydrants
located on-site. Site development would be required to comply with TFPD, MMWD, and
UBC standards. The TFPD and MMWD would review project plans prior to approval of
development permits.
To provide adequate water for household use and fIre protection.
Investigate options and implement solutions to provide water pressure adequate for
frrefIghting and household use throughout the planning area.
Goal
The project does not propose a new water tank.
When new developments are built with a requirement for a tank for water storage,
explore the possibility of allowing existing residences to connect to the tank.
Goal
the risk of frre on public and private lands.
Consistent The Tiburon Fire Protection District would review site and building plans for
individual lots and would inspect the project annually.
manage vegetation on their
which reduce
Educate private property owners
property.
Goal IV-5 To have adequate and unobtrusive provision of utilities
To carry out vegetation management practices
the need to
about
IV-2
for all residents.
would be placed underground.
Inconsistent Proposed utility trenches would be located within existing utility easement in
Paradise Dive for approximately 1,380 feet. The project does not proposed to place existing
above ground utilities within the Paradise Drive easement.
utilities for the proposed project
All
Consistent
Underground utility lines whenever possible.
When trenches for sewer and water lines are opened for repair or upgrading, use
the opportunity to underground or install other utility lines such as telephone fiber
optic, and electric power.
Goal
cost.effective wastewater treatment systems.
-Ptmly-Inconsistent The applicant has not coordinated with the RTC, the County Parks
Department, or other nea~by properties to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities or
coordinate wastewater conveyance systems. However, Sanitary District #5 (SD #5) would
require the applicant to participate in or fund improvements to the wastewater treatment and
conveyance system within the project site vicinity if there is insufficient capacity at the
Paradise Cove treatment plant.
with environmentally-sound,
Coordination between the Romberg Tiburon Center (RTC), the County Parks
Department, and near by properties to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities.
To provide residents
V-I
"-
Consistent The project site is proposed to be connected to wastewater collection and
treatment facilities operated by SD #5.
4,0-3
New development on large properties should be served by sewers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Summary of Changes
Rei ate dt 0 a n 1 8 per c e n t R 0 a d way Grade
SUmnwyof Plan ~ - 11 PwcentRolld Glade ~ 11buron Glen ResIdentIal SWdMsfM t71.231OS)
Chlnges Lot 1 LoU Lot 3 Lot 4 LotS l.oI8 LoU uti
I ~the ta.edMn
Low. 1he IIOUI8 MoYe lie main roed stope Met l'8Iuo8tha Reckzoe lhtlndul of ht
Lower V1e'houIIe ftcor eItvaIooI by 2 Gout 151t. into ihe ~dflo haII5e. tlratCUVB In lie IUd b
Plan ReWlIon None toar eIevatDnI by 2 b 3ft. Mrn<e tie ~ drMJway. ReIocaIeone- AMri88 OOIlI'Qundon ~ 35 feet, "'move tha None
&.nmIIy t)3ft. mM ro8d8bQJt 15 off sh8t pedctng!plCe ~ iIINrourxI. cu'YuboUl2Dft
ft. cbser to the doeerto tle hou8a. Ganlge Iewll "OS 1IOlJl\wesl
hOuae. UI'I'9I1MlI28S'
LII'lllllleYel2fB
Change il 1nae8lllDQvaIiDn Rwda lOadwIlIyfl~ ~tJ1Id~ Atil....l cut II1d III at
Gradilg NA voU\'IlI by IiIJotj volune by abwI90 NA IJocnIaseIl WlJmeby vt'lIme~ NA
VolJme 13l}CJ. cy. aIlCM 190 0/. HDuse elaI'IaUon .., road QroII8lla1l1nced.
r8b:ed by., lit 4OOCV.
Chengeln NA Nc~ MJ awtoe NA No 0IenQ& R<<Uoed by 0.2 acre Il1CA!IlSeby om aae NA
0isIurbed Area
Chengllln T188 !'fA No 0IIr1ge No a.&nga ..... No cnange RtducecI by 0.2 8CI8 Ina9aSe by c.m 8CI8 NA
RemcMl
Im;ruae"~ EIinInII8 20 tofwal
W1O. BInt1ateWillW12.
~In ClfM1lW1oppos1A RedJJOeWlM Eil'inallt'MIIl W14 en IllCI'lBID length of wall
NA 1h8 huuI& drMMu)I heIgtt by IIloulO 10 NA lot 5. Ina111J88 heIgIIt or NoChqe WtSb,SOft.. Jncle8slt NA
Rel8flirg W811S bybetr.eanOand4 3 feet. WBII W1 beIween 0 t) 10 heigt1tofwalWl8 byO III
feet.... about It. tlthe a_ CJAlO8I& 6 II abrG 200 ft.
110feeL lIIelloule,
~h ReIocatIt medstledlct1
HA No CIlM'1J8 NoCl1ange NA No Change No Chango to IIIBu:h new road NA
Dr8in8ge ~.
...........................................
.
.
.
.
.i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Traffic Appendix: Intersection and Roadway
Count Summaries and Level of Service
Computation Worksheets
This appendix includes the following traffic data used by the EIR traffic consultant, Crane
Transportation Group:
. Intersection and Roadway Count Summaries; and
. Level of Service Computation Worksheets.
INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
Street Segment: Paradise Ori ve near Tiburon Glen Site Access
Date: Saturday, Oct 27,2001 Time Period: 1 :30-5:30 PM
PEAK HOUR SUMMARY
.-- 49
43 ---+
Paradise Drive near Tiburon Glen Site Frontage
Volumes by 15 minute segments
Time: NBT SBT Total
1 :30-1 :45 13 10 23
1 :45-2:00 10 13 23
2:00-2:15 11 8 19
2:15-2:30 12 11 23
2:30-2:45 9 9 18
2:45-3:00 11 10 21
3:00-3:15 . 10 10 20
3:15-3:30 9 8 17
3:30-3:45 9 11 20
3:45-4:00 10 9 19
4:00-4:15 9 10 19
4:15-4:30 11 13 24
4:30-4:45 9 12 21
4:45-5:00 14 14 28
5:00-5:15 8 10 18
. 5:15-5:30 9 9 18
Peak Hour 43 49 92
(4:00-5:00)
CRANE TRANSPORTA TION GROUP
t
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
'It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NORTH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
Intersection
Date:.
Tiburon Blvd
20-Sep-01
at
Time Period:
Trestle Glen
7:00-9:00 AM
PEAK HOUR SUMMARY
222
Trestle Glen
I '
: i
89 I 218
L.:
I
t
NORTH
.J
L
78
.. 1342
~ 1120
- - - - - - - - -1 - -
140
997 ---+
1086 --.
Tiburon Blvd
Turn Movements (by 15 minute segments)
Time: Tiburon Blvd Trestle Glen Tiburon Blvd
EBT EBL SBR SBL WBR WBT Total
7:00-7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15-7:30 149 14 36 7 3 167 376
7:30-7:45 240 21 62 14 4 233 574
7:45-8:00 315 31 60 20 7 269 702
8:00-8:15 307 40 57 25 31 289 749
8:15-8:30 214 25 48 24 29 305 645
8:30-8:45 230 36 60 19 8 233 586
8:45-9:00 246 39 57 21 10 293 666
Peak Hour 997 140 222 89 78 1120 2646
(8:00-9:00)
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Turn Movements (by 15 minute segments)
Time: Tiburon Blvd Trestle Glen Tiburon Blvd
EBT EBL SBR SBL WBR WBT Total
4:00-4:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15-4:30 225 35 31 9 33 220 553
4:30-4:45 , 201 37 28 9 28 224 527
4:45-5:00 211 54 31 12 27 190 525
5:00-5:15 229 32 16 16 24 ,229 ' 546
5:15-5:30 253 50 40 11 14 226 594
5:30-5:45 283 43 44 17 28 202 617
5:45-6:00 299 53 50 11 22 192 627
Peak Hour 1064 178 150 55 88 849 2384
(5:00-6:00)
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
'.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,..'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
Intersection Tiburon Blvd at
Date: 20-Sep-01 Time Period:
Trestle Glen
4:00-6:00 PM
PEAK HOUR SUMMARY
150
Trestle Glen
I
I
I
I
55 I
4:
I
i
t
NORTH
266
.J
L
88
4 999
------------
-1
+--'- 849
----------
178
1064
-+
1119 ---.
Tiburon Blvd
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
..
.
.
' '
.
.
.
~
i.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
".
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I-
INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
Intersection Paradise
Date: 20-Sep-01
at
Time Period:
Trestle Glen
7:00-9:00 AM
PEAK HOUR SUMMARY
Paradise
.
122
+-- 16
5
~
.r
58
87
~
52 ----+
:, I
I
145 I 106 47
l I
I
I
I
I
Trestle Glen
t
NORTH
Turn Movements (by 15 minute segments)
Time: Paradise Paradise Trestle Glen
EBR EBT WBT WBL NBR NBL Total
7:00-7:15 9 1 1 5 7 2 25
7:15-7:30 16 0 1 5 5 3 30
7:30-7:45 17 1 3 16 9 11 57
7:45-8:00 25 0 4 10 13 15 67
8:00-8:15 20 1 4 12 12 31 80
8:15-8:30 25 1 4 19 9 29 87
8:30-8:45 16 2 3 10 14 26 71
8:45-9:00 26 1 5 17 12 20 81
Peak Hour 87 5 16 58 47 106 319
(8:00-9:00)
Turn Movements (by 15 minute segments)
Time: Paradise Paradise Trestle Glen
EBR EBT WBT WBL NBR NBL Total
4:00-4:15 18 3 5 9 3 42 80
4:15-4:30 21 1 11 12 8 49 102
4:30-4:45 11 0 6 6 11 33 67
4:45-5:00 14 1 4 9 9 39 76
5:00-5:15 17 10 5 11 7 37 87
5:15-5:30 22 4 8 15 6 35 90
5:30-5:45 19 1 8 15 6 52 101
5:45-6:00 26 2 6 7 13 50 104
Peak Hour 84 17 27 48 32 174 382
(5:00-6:00)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
Intersection Paradise
Date: 20-Sep-01
at
Time Period:
Trestle Glen
4:00-6:00 PM
PEAK HOUR SUMMARY
Paradise
OIl
201
+-- 27
17
~
+
48
----------
84
--.
49 ----.
:, I
I
132 I 174 32
1 I
I
I
I
I
Trestle Glen
t
NORTH
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.'
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.'
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'08/13/2003 113:22
51132365624
COLE/CRANE
132
PAGE
MITIG8 - Existing AM
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:48:19
Page 1-1
-------------------------------~------------------------------------------------
Tiburon Glen
---------------------~----------------------------------------------------------
Level Of service computation Report
2000 HCH Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
*************~**********************+***********************~~******************
Intersection *4 Tiburon Glen/Trestle Glen
***~*******************************.****************************************~****
Cycle (see): 90 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.955
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/vehl: 27.4
Optimal Cycl.e: 133 :Level of Service: C
******************************************************************************.*
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
---~---~----I---------------\ I---------------I\---------------II----------~----I
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include OVl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I~--------------I
volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 89 0 222 140 997 . '0 0 1120 78
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 89 0 222 140 997 0 0 1120 78
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 89 0 222 140 997 0 0 1120 78
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00,
PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 99 0 247 156 1108 0 0 1244 87
Reduct Vol: 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 99 O. 247 156 1108 0 0 1244 87
peE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 99 0 247 156 1108 0 0 1244 87
------------1---------------1 I-~-------------Jl--~------------I 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module: '
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190ij 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 Loo 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.07
'Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1760 123
------------1---------------1 I----------~----I 1---------------) 1---------------1
Capaci ty Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.150.09 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71
"-
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.09 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.3 0.0 81.1 97.9 4.6 0.0 0.0 25.1 25.1
User OelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00
AdjDelNeh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.3 0.0 81.1 97.9 4.6 0',0 ,0.0 25.1 25.1
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 5 0 11 7 11 0 0 20 1
**************************~******~****************************************~*****
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
08/13/2003 10:22
COLE/CRANE
PAGE
5HJ2365624
MITIG8 - AM Peak Hour
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:49:24
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiburon Glen
Existing + Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Service computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume JU. ternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection 14 Tiburon Glen/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.957
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.8
Optimal cycle: 135 Level of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound south Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
____________1_______________1 1---------------\ 1---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include OVl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 ,0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 90 0 225 142 997 0 0 1120 78
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 90 0 225 142 997 0 0 1120 78
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 90 0 225 142 997 0 0 1120 78
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PRF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 100 0 250 158 1108 0 0 1244 87
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 100 0 250 158 1108 0 0 1244 87
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 100 0 250 158 1108 0 0 1244 87
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.07
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1760 123
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.09 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.09 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 81.3 98.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 25.7 25.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDellVeh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 81.3 98.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 25.7 25.7
DesiqnQueue: 0 0 0 5 0 11 7 11 0 0 20 1
***************+**************************-****~*********************************
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
03
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.:
.
..
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
,.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.;
.'
.~
r.._. :
.
.
.
.
.
.'
, ,
.
.
.'
.'
'_ J
.
.
.\
.
r.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
08/13/2003 10:22
COLE/CRANE
04
PAGE
5102365624
MITIG8 - AM Peak Hour
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:51:23
Page 1~1
-----------~--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiburon Glen
Cumulative Base Case
----------~---------------------------------------------------------------------
, Level Of Serv:ice computation Report
2000 HCM Operations MethOd (Future Volume Alternative)
****************************************************+~**************************
Intersection .4 Tiburon Glen/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 Critical Vol./Cap. (Xl: L 103
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 57.5
optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of service: E'
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------1'1---------------1 \--~------------I
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include OVl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 a 1 1 0 1 0 a ,a 0 a 1 0
-----~------l---------------Il---------------Il---------------II---~~-----~----I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 115 0 284 190 1127 a 0 1282 88
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 115 0 2B4 190 1127 0 0 1282 88
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 a a 115 0 ~84 190 1127 0 0 1282 88
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
PHF Volume: a 0 0 126 0 312 209 1238 0 0 1409 97
Reduct Vol: 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 a
Reduced Vol: a 0 0 126 0 312 209 1238 0 0 1409 97
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.oO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 126 0 312 209 1238 0 0 1409 97
------------I~--------------Il---------------I J-------~-------l 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.B5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.06
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1762 121
_________~__I~--_---~-------II---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity AnalysiS Module: .
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.650.00 0.00 0.80 0.80
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.18 0:10 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.72 0~72
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.79 0.00 0.00 1.10 1~10
Delay/veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.3 0.0 121.1 136.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 70.1 70.1
User De~dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.3 0.0121.1 136.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 70.1 70.1
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 6 0 13 10 13 a 0 24 2
********************************************,************************************
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
08/13/2003 10:22
COLE/CRANE '
PAGE
5102355524
MITIG8 - AM Peak Hour
Tue Ju1 29, 2003 12:18:09
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiburon Glen
Cumulative + ~roject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of service computation Report
2000 HCM oPerations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
******************************************~*************************************
Intersection #4 Tiburon Glen/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.107
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 58.3
optimal cycle: 180 Level Of Service; E
********************************************************************************
, Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include OVl Include Include
Min. Green; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module,:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 116 0 287 192 1127 0 0 1282 88
Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 L 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 116 0 287 192 1127 0 0 1282 ae
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 116 0 287 192 1127 0 0 1282 8e
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.9i 0.91
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 127 0 315 211 1238 0 0 1409 97
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 127 0 315 211 1238 0 0 1409 97
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 127 0 315 211 1238 0 0 1409 97
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.84 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.06
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1602 1805 1900 0 0 1762 121
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.20 0.12 0.65 0.00 0.00 O.SO 0.80
Crit Moves; **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.18 0.11 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 1.11 1.11 0.79 0.00 0.00 1.11 1.11
Delay/veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.4 0.0 122.2 137.1 6.6 0.0 0.0 71.8 71.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.4 0.0 122.2 137.1 6.6 0.0 0.0 71.8 71.8
DesignQueue; 0 0 0 6 0 14 10 13 0 0 25 2
********************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
05
.-
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.','
, "
.
.
'.
.
.
.
(-
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
_0'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.'
'.1
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
e-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
08/13/2003 10:22
COLE/CRANE
06
PAGE
5102365624
~TIG8 - Existing PM
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:37:39
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------~-~------------------------~--------------
Tiburon Glen
-------------------------------------~---~--------------------------------------
Level Of service computation Report
2000 HCM operations Method (Future Volume A:l.ternative)
*******~***************************************************~**************+*****
Intersection #4 Tiburon Blvd/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.776
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh):14.1
Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of service: , B
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
______------1---------------1 1---------------1 1_______________1 1---------------1
control: Protected Protected' Protected protected
Rights: Include Ovl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
____________I________~______I I------------~--I 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module: '
Base Vol: 0 0 0 55 0 150 178 1064 0 0 849 B8
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 55 0 150 178 1064 0 0 849 SB
Added vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserBYVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 55 0 150 178 1064 0 0 849 B8
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF volume: 0 0 0 61 0 167 198 1182 0 0 943 98
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 61 0 167 198 1182 0 0 943 98
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 61 0 167 198 1182 0 0 943 98
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I----------~----I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1~00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.09
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1699 176
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 l-----------~---I 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56
erit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:78 0.00 0.56 0;78' 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.,78 0.78
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 35.7 51.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1
User DeLAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 35.7 51.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 7 9 10 0 0 16 2
****~*+*************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
08/13/2003 10:22
5102365624
COLE/CRANE
MITIG8 - PM Peak Hour
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:44:19
Page 1-1
-------------------------------------~-------------------------------------
'1'iburon Glen
Existing + Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------.-------
Level Of, Service computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #4 Tiburon Blvd/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cyele (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap; (X): 0.781
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 14.4
Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: B
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include OVl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 56 0 153 183 1064 0 0, 849 89
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 56 0 153 183 1064 0 0 849 89
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
passerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 56 0 153 183 1064 0 0 849 89
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOa LOa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 62 0 170 203 1182 0 0 943 99
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 62 0 170 203 1182 0 0 943 99
peE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 62 0 170 203 1182 0 0 943 99
------------I-~-------------I 1---------------1 1---------------) 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.B5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.09
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1697 178
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.14 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71
VOlume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.56 0.78 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.6 0.0 35.5 51.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5
User De~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel!Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.6 0.0 35.5 51.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 3 0 7 9 10 0 0 16 2
************************************r*******************************************
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
PAGE
07
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
:.
.'
"
.
.
..
.
.'
.
.
.
I.
.
.
-
.
.
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.\
.;
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
08/13/2003 10:22
COLE/CRANE
08
PAGE
5102365624
MITIG8 - PM Peak Hour
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11~46~12
Page 1-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------~----------
Tiburon Glen
cumulative Base Case
-----~-----------------------------------------------------------~~-------------
Level Of Service computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future volume Alternative,)
*********************************************-***********************************
Intersection #4 Tiburon Blvd/Trestle Glen
*****~**************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 critical vol./Cap. (X): 0_973
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.0
Optimal Cycle: 149 Level Of service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
____________1_______________1 I---~---~-------I 1---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected'
Rights: Include Ovl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
____________1_______________1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 70 0 231 268 1309' 0 0 1033 110
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 70 0 231 268 1309 0 0 1033 110
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 70 0 231 268 1309 0 0 1033 110
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
PHF Volume: 00 0 77 0 254 295 1438 0 0 1135 . l.2l
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 77 0 254 295 1438 0 0 1135 121
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 .a 0 77 0 254 295 1438 0 0 1135 121
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.10
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1695 180
----------~-1----7~---------1 I----~-------~--I 1---------------1 I-~-------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 '0.00 0.16 0.16 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.21 0:17 0:86' 0.00" 0.00 0.69 0':69
volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.74 0.97 0.88 0:00 0.00 0.97 0.97
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.7 0.0 41.7 81.4 10.0 O~O 0.0 32.032.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LaO
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.7 0.0 41.7 81.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 32.0
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 4 0 10 13 13 0 0 21 2
****************************************************************,****************
Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
08/13/2003 10;22
5102365624
COLE/CRANE
MITIG8 - PM Peak Hour
Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:41:14
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiburon Glen
Cumulative Base Case + Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of service computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
***********************************************************************~********
Intersection 14 Tiburon Blvd/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.978
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.7
Optimal cycle: 155 Level Of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
____________1_______________1 1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include ov1 Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
____~__~----I---------------I 1---------------1 )---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 71 0 234 273 1309 0 0 1033 111
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 71 0 234 273 1309 0 0 1033 111
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 71 0 234 273 1309 0 0 1033 111
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 78 0 257 300 14380 0 1135 122
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 78 0 257 300 1438 0 0 1135 122
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Acij: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 78 0 257 300 1438 0 0 1135 122
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------\
saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.000.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.10
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 1693 182
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 )---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module: '
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.17 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.21 0.17 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.74 0.98 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.8 0.0 41.5 82.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.8 0.0 41.5 82.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 4 0 10 13 13 0 0 22 2
********************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.0715, (e) 2002 Dowling A$soc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
PAGE
09
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..\
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
..
.
.
.'
.
.
.
..
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
08/13/2003 10:22
COLE/CRANE
5102365624
MITIGS - AM cumulative BC Mon Feb 25, 2002 12: 07 :'23
Page 1-1
------------------------~------------------~------------~-----------------------
Tiburon,Glen
Mitigated w/Added WB Thru LAne
--~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service computation Report
2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #4 Tiburon Blvd/Trestle Glen
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 90 criticalVol./Cap. (Xl: 0.810
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R =' 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.8
optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: B
***~****************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Ovl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
----~-------l---------------I I~--------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 115 0 284 190 1127 0 0 1282 88
Growth Adj: 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 115 0 284 190 1127 0 0 1282 88
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 ,0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 126 0 312 209 1238 0 0 1409 97
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: ' 0 0 0 126 0 312 209 1238 0 0 1409 97
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 126 0 312 209 1238 0 0 1409 97
-----------~I---------------I I-----------~---I 1---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module: ' .
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.940.94
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 3344 230
~-----------I---------------I 1---------------1 [---------------1 I----~----------[
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.070.00 0.19 0.12 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42
Crit Moves: **** **** ***T
Green/tycle: O.~O 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0:27 0.17 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.72 0.67 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67
Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 5~.3 0.0 35.5 40.2 8.3 0.0 0.0 11.4 11.4
User De~dj: '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDelfVeh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.30.0 35.5 ~0.2 8.3 0.0 0.0 11.4 11.4
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 6 0 12 9 15 0 0 29 2
********.**~*+*********.**~*******************************************************
Traffix7.5.1015 (cl 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
PAGE
10
08/13/2003 10:22
5102365624
COLE/CRANE
MITIG8 - Cum/Project
Mon Feb 25, 2002 12:08;49
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiburon Glen
Mitigated with2nd WB thru lane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
**************++****************************************************************
Intersection #4 Tiburon Blvd/Trestle Glen
**************************************************,******************************
Cycle (see): 90 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.811
Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.0
Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: B
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T' R
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 [---------------1
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Ovl Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 117 0 287 192 1127 0 0 1282 88
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 117 0 287 192 1127 0 0 1282 88
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 129 0 315 211 1238 0 0 1409 97
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 00 0 129 0 315 211 1238 0 0 1409 97
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 L 00 1. 00
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 129 0 315 211 1238 0 0 1409 97
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94
Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.13
Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 1805 1900 0 0 3344 230
--~---------I-------------~-I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.20 0.12 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.42' 0.42
crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.17 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.72 0.67 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67
Delay/Veh:O.O 0.0 0.0 55.2 0.0 35.5 40.2 8.4 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.2 0.0 35.5 40.2 8.4 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5
DesignQueue: 0 0 0 6 0 12 9 15 0 0 29 2
***** * ********* ** *** ** * ***** ****** **** * * ** *.* * .,,," *.*.*.*.**.**.***-* **.*** * .*.*....**-****** * * *
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to CRANE TRANS. GROUP, SF
PAGE
11
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
i.,'
, '
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
'.
' ,
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
'.
.
.
.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
INTRODUCTION
Background Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 (California Public Resources Code (PRe) Section 2108.6)
became law in California on January 1, 1989. This bill requires all public agencies to adopt mitigation
or reporting plans when they approve projects with Mitigated Negative Declarations or Environmental
Impact Reports which identify significant environmental impacts. The reporting and monitoring plans
must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) so that the program can be made a condition of project approval. The plan must
be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. If
certain project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long-term mitigation
, monitoring should be provided in the monitoring plan.
Purpose The Tiburon Glen mitigation monitoring plan will ensure that all mitigation measures
required by the Environmental Impact Report and agreed to by the applicant are completed as part of
project construction and are maintained in a satisfactory manner during and following project
implementation. This plan is designed in a table format for ease of use by the responsible parties. The
table identifies the individual impacts, corresponding mitigation measures, individual/agency
responsible for implementation, time frame for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to
implement, monitor, and confirm the implementation of the mitigation plan. The table will be used by
the Town of Tiburon to verify that all required mitigation measures are incorporated into the project
and will provide a convenient tool to determine whether required measures have been fulfilled.
MITlGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Management The Town of Tiburon Community Development Department will be responsible for
overseeing implementation and administration of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (the
MMRP) for the Tiburon Glen development.
The Planning Director will designate a staff member to manage the MMRP. If current staffing in the
Planning Department cannot absorb the task of managing the MMRP, an independent contractor will
be qired at the expense of the project applicant. The independent contractor would'serve under the
direction of the Planning Director or designated staff member. Duties of the staff member responsible
for program' coordination, whether a permanent Town staff member or independent contractor, would
include the following:
· Conduct routine inspections, plan checking, and reporting activities.
· Serve as liaison between the Town and project applicant regarding mitigation monitoring issues.
· Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the project applicant when such expertise and
qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures.
· Coordinate with other Town personnel and agencIes having mitigation monitoring
responsibilities.
· Assure follow-up and response to citizens' complaints.
· Complete forms" checklists, and other documentation provided by the Town for reporting.
Maintain reports and other records and,documents generated by the MMRP.
· Coordinate and assure corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary.
Baseline Data The baseline data for each of the environmental impact mitigation measures to be
monitored over the duration ofthe project are contained in the May 2003 Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Tiburon Glen development.
Dispute Resolution The overall goal of the MMRP, to ensure compliance with required mitigation
measures, could be affected by disputes between the Town and project applicant or the individual lot
owners over what constitutes compliance. Therefore" a procedure for conflict resolution about
appropriate mitigation measure implementation, the responsible Town staff member will notify the
Planning Director via a brief memo and hold a meeting with the project applicant. After assessing the
information, the responsible staff member will determine the appropriate method for mitigation
implementation and will notify the Planning Director of the decision. The project applicant, Planning
Director, or any interested member of the public may trigger Town Council review by timely appeal or
directed referral. The Town Council's decision is final.
Enforcement The MMRP will be incorporated as a condition of project approval. Therefore, all
mitigation measures must be complied with in order to fulfill the requirements of the approval. A
number of the mitigation measures will be implemented during the course of the development review
process. These measures will be checked in plans, in reports, and in the field before granting
construction-related permits (that is, grading, building, and occupancy permits). . If compliance is not
found, these permits would not be granted. Most of the remaining mitigation measures will be
implemented during the construction or project implementation phase. If work is performed in
violation of mitigation measures, stop work orders would be issued.
Other mitigation measures will be monitored over time in order to ensure long~term compliance.
These mitigation measures include the success of wetland habitat and native grassland enhancement.
Planning Department staff are to provide for revisions to the mitigation measures if necessary to
assure success, subject to the appeal process. Mitigation measures and monitoring actions are
provided in the MMRP.
The MMRP The MMRP identifies the impact and mitigation measure(s). Each impact and mitigation
measure number (for example, Impact 5.2-3, Mitigation Measure 5.2-3) is the same as documented in
the Revised Draft Environmental Impact. In addition, the MMRP identifies the person / agency
responsible for implementing and monitoring the mitigation ("Implemented By"). The "When
Implemented". column identifies at which stage during the review or construction process the
mitigation should be implemented.
Funding AB 3180 does not provide a specific funding mechanism' for implementing MMRPs.
However, public agencies have the authority to levy charges, fees, or assessments to pay for the
program, just as they currently do for the preparation of environmental documents under CEQA. For
the Tiburon Glen project, the project applicant would be responsible for the costs of mitigation
monitoring.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
. ... ....... _. ....... e. -. .....\..............
Verified By /
Date
f
Monitored
By
I
Tiburon Glen Precise Development Plan
When
Implemented
I
Implemented
By
I
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
I Mitigation
Impact
Community
Development
Director and
Town Engineer
Condition of Precise
Development Plan;
before issuance of
grading permit for
landslide repair, and
before issuance of
grading / or building
permits for individual
homes
Town Engineer
and independent
geologist;
Community
Development
Director
(applicant funded)
Prior to grading
permit issuance;
During grading
operations and before
occupancy
Project Applicant
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
I
In order to reduce the significance of the
project's landsliding impacts, the
applicant shall implement following
mitigation measures or mitigl!tion
options:
. Detailed engineering geologic and
geotechnical investigation shall be
performed on a lot-by-Iot basis before
, development of roadways and utilities
and within proposed building
envelopes of each individual lot.
. ,Based on the detailed, design-level
geotechnical investigations, one
comprehensive design-level grading
plan shall be prepared covering a
landslide repair program on all lots, and
the repair program shall be
implemented by the applicant.
. All landslides shall be eliminated,
repaired, improved or avoided in
accordance with Town policy prior to
approval of the final subdivision map.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
5.1-1 Landsliding Landslides are
located in the proposed lots and building
envelopes. Site development could affect
the stability of landslides adversely if all
potential landslides are not repaired,
eliminated, improved or avoided. In
addition, if not properly repaired,
eliminated, or improved in accordance
with Town policy, landslides could
reactivate and threaten adjacent properties
and Paradise Drive. Repair, elimination,
improvement or avoidance of landsliding
would be feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint.
In order to reduce the impacts of grading
to Ii less-than"significant level~ the
applicant, individual lot owners, and their
respective geotechnical consultants 'shall
implement acceptable methods of grading
and also, where possible, shall minimize
the extent of grading. Typical
performance criteria shall include:
. Unsuitable materials (such as
landslides, colluvium, and artificial fill)
located in or adjacent to areas of
proposed grading shall be removed' and
recompacted during landslide repair,
grading operations for road
construction, or development of
5.1-2 Grading Due to Town policy
that requires the repair, elimination~
improvement, or avoidance of landslides
on lots which could affect building
envelopes, off-site properties, and public
roadways, site slides would be mitigated
through a combination of drainage, other
improvements, and localized grading,
including a cut-and-fill operation. Based
on the information provided with the
December 2002 plans, applicant-proposed
grading for roadway and utility
installation and landslide repair would
involve an estimated 132l.0 cubic yards
of cut andl3, 130 cubic yards of fill,
;c;;;;:;
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
individual private'lots under the
observation of and testing by a
registered engineer.
The geotechnical consultant shall
observe and direct grading operations,
evaluate the effects of bedding
orientation and / or soil shear strength
on the gross stability of existing and
proposed slopes in the development
area, and make site-specific
determinations.
Natural and cut slopes shall be
examined during grading to confirm
their potential for long-term stability.
If the geotechnical consultant
determines that the exposed earth
materials are weaker than expected,
this condition shall be mitigated by
recompaction as an earth buttress or
stability fill or by the selected use of
retaining walls or other acceptable
methods.
Cut and fill slopes shall be planted with
ground cover in order to prevent
erosion, raveling, or development of
rills, sloughs, and other failures which
could reduce the effectiveness of
stabilization methods. This is because
roots of newly planted vegetation
would enhance the stability of graded
slopes by holding materials in place.
All grading shall be performed in
accordance with the Uniform Building'
Code (UBC) and local agency
requirements.
All fills shall be compacted to a
rTIinimum of 90 percent relative
compaction in loose lifts of six inches
and placed at or near optimum moisture
.
.
.
.
.
Impact
resulting in 140 cubic yards of material to
be exported. An additional 7,710 cubic
yards of cut and 3,450 cubic yards of fill
are estimated to be required for individual
lot development. Therefore, the
estimated amount of grading required for
full site development (applicant and lot-
owner implemented development) would
be about 20,980 cubic yards of cut and
16,580 cubic yards offill (37,560 cubic
yards total).
2
...... .>'.......... ..'. e.... .'.. ........... .0...
................. ,,'.. _. e.. .'. _......... -.....
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
content. Before receiving fills,
excavated area shall be stripped of
unsuitable materials (such as loose
surficial soils, organic materials, and
deleterious debris). All unsuitable
materials shall be removed from the
site.
In order to minimize the extent of
grading, the use of retaining structures
mechanically stabilized embankments,
and / or other similar suitable repairs
also shall be implemented where
possible and deemed appropriate by the
project geotechnical engineer.
Geotechnical exploration shall be
performed before grading in areas
which have not be thoroughly
investigated in order to detennine the
depths and limits of removal and
recompaction.
.
.
Impact
Town Engineer
and/or Town
Building Official
Community
Development
Director
Prior to grading
pennit issuance;
During construction
and before occupancy
Project applicant &
individual lot
owners
The applicant or individual lot owners
and their respective geotechnical ,
consultants shall implement the following
measures in order to mitigate the impacts
of low shear strength of some bedrock
materials and resulting erosion and failure
of some slopes more than ten feet high
cut at grades of 2 : 1:
5.1-4 Slope Stability Cuts often feet
or greater on slopes with 2 : 1 grades
(horizontal to vertical) could erode or fai
locally until they reach equilibrium.
3
. Cut slopes shall be examined during
construction to detennine whether they
wouldbe stable in the long term. If the
geotechnical consultant detennines that
the exposed bedrock materials are
weaker than expected, this condition
shall be mitigated by decreasing the
proposed slope angle or by selectively
using retaining walls.
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
· Depending on the remolded shear
strength of compacted fill materials
used on the site, some of the proposed
fill slopes shall be reinforced with
mechanically stabilized embankments
(MSEs) (such as geogrid-reinforced
earth retaining walls). This would
allow for steeper slopes with enhanced
long-term stability.
Impact
· Drainage facilities shall be designed to
include terrace drains every 30 feet of
vertical height on all slopes with grades
steeper than 5 : 1. The terrace drains
shall have a minimum flowline gradient
of six percent to make them self-
cleaning (a minimal tenet of the
Uniform Building Code). They also
shall be fitted with downdrains every
150 linear feet of terrace length to
allow for quick drainage.
Town Engineer
and/or Town
Building Official
Community
Development
Director
Prior to grading
pennit issuance;
During construction
and before occupancy
Project applicant
(roads and utilities)
and individual lot
owners (lot
development)
In order to reduce impacts of the site's
expansive soils on development to a less-
than-significant level, the applicant,
individual lot owners, and their respective
consultants shall implement
5.1-5 Expansive Soils Development
(structures, roads, utilities) located on
expansive soils could be damaged by
differential movement caused by cyclic
shrinking and swelling.
geotechnical
the following measures:
Plasticity index or expansion index
testing shall be performed after grading
to detennine the specific shrink-swell
potential for development. Sites as
deemed appropriate by the respective
geotechnical engineer( s).
Site-specific mitigation shall be
identified which accounts for
conditions present at proposed
development sites. Typical measures to
.
.
4
.............. ....... e...... ................
................-..........................
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
treat expansive soils shall include the
following (or their equivalent):
o Pre-saturate fill soils and place wet
fill soils (above optimum moisture
content) to expand the soil, thereby
reducing potential damage to
concrete by allowing room for future
shrink / swell movement of the soils.
o Place a non-expansive imported soil
in the upper part of building pads.
o Bury expansive soils deep in fills.
o Treat soil with lime.
o Mix expansive soils with less
expansive soils.
o Design foundation-footing systems to
incorporate measured variations of
soil swell with effective confinement
(dead weight).
· Residential development on individual
lots shall be designed to account for
each site's expansive soils. Measures
typically incorporated in building
design shall include the following (or
their equivalent):
o Strengthen foundations (beam).
o 'Use suspended wood floors, drilled
pier and grade-beam foundations,
floating slabs, or pre-stressed (post-
tensioned) slabs on-grade.
o with chemicals.
o more of those
Impact
Treat
Combine two or
techniques.
Town Engineer
and Community
Development
Director
Before filing of Final
Map; prior to
issuance of grading/
building permit for
individual lots
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
5
In order to reduce impacts of the site's
groundwater on development to a less-
than-significant level, the applicant,
individual lot owners, and their respective
geotechnical consultants shall implement
5.1-6 Groundwater Site groundwater
may trigger debris flows in unstable
colluvial deposits
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
accepted methods of surface and
subsurface drainage to direct and control
groundwater, including:
.
Impact
Drainage facilities shall be designed to
conform with agency and code
standards. This shall include terrace
drains every 30 feet of vertical height
on all slopes with grades steeper than
5 : 1. The terrace drains shall have a
ininimum flow line gradient of six
percent to make them self cleaning (a
minimal tenant of the Uniform
Building Code). They also shall be
fitted with downdrains every 150 linear
feet of terrace to allow for quick
drainage.
In order to intercept subsurface water
or seepage, as subsurface drainage
system shall be provided along the
bottom areas of proposed compacted
fill (such as canyon fills or buttresses).
During grading, the engineering
geologist and / or geotechnical engineer
shall evaluate the necessity of placing
additional drains. All subdrain systems
shall be observed and approved by the
engineering geologist and or
geotechnical engineer before covering
with compacted fill.
Positive surface gradients shall be
provided adjacent to structures and at
the tops and toes of slopes to direct
runoff away from foundations, slabs,
retaining walls, and slopes to suitable
discharge facilities. Site surface
drainage shall be constructed in
accordance with the recommendations
of the project's civil engineer.
.
.
6
...........................................
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
issuance of
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Town Engineer
and/or Town
Building Official
Before
grading permits
and/or building
permits
Implemented
By
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
Mitigation
Any future site development shall comply
with all applicable seismic design
provisions of the most currently accepted
Unifonn Building Code (UBC) in effect
at the time the applicant or individual lot
owner applies for a building permit from
the Town. In addition to the routine
requirements expected of any
development in the Town, the applicant
and individual lot owners shall take the
recommendations of the Structural
Engineers Association of Northern
California (SEAONC) into account when
designing and implementing site
development.
Impact
5.1-7 Seismicity Strong seismic
shaking is expected to occur on the site
some time during the effective "life" of
development.
Community
Development
Director, Town
Engineer, and
Town Building
Official
Before issuance of
grading and I or '
building permits and
during construction
of individual homes
(before occupancy)
Project applicant
(roads and utilities)
and individual lot
owners (lot
development)
7
In order to mitigate this potential impact
the applicant and individual lot owners
shall implement the following measures
in their respective projects:
Before preparing site-specitlcdesigns
and receiving building permits, conduct
field investigations to determine the
presence and limits of such materials in
the vicinity of parts of the site proposed
for development.
After receiving grading or site
alteration permits from the Town,
remove and recompact artificial fill
located in or adjacent to areas of
proposed grading under the observation
and testing of a registered geotechnical
engineer.
.
.
5.1-8 Artificial Fill Areas New
construction on existing artificial fill, if
present, could settle unevenly and be
damaged or could stimulate or ac.celerate
erosion.
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Community
Development
Director and
Town Engineer
...........................................
When
Implemented
Condition ofPDP
approval; before
recordation of the
final subdivision
map; on-going after
site development
Implemented
By
Project applicant
(creation of HOA)
and HOA (plan
implementation)
8
Mitigation
In order to insure the effectiveness of
long-term maintenance in mitigating the
project's impacts, the applicant shall
prepare CC&Rs and establish an HOA,
formulate a maintenance plan for the
project, and add its administration to the
responsibilities of the HOA.
Maintenance responsibilities shall be
incorporated into the CC&Rs. Draft
CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Town
for review prior to recordation of final
map. Without such methods, mitigation
may not sustain reductions in the
magnitude of impact to less-than-
significant levels.
Impact
5.1-9 Maintenance of Geotechnical
and Hydrologic Mitigation
Measures Maintenance of private
roadways, public utilities, and public and
private drainage facilities would involve
long-term monitoring and maintenance
after site development to ensure the
effectiveness and success of mitigation
for the project.
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
I
Monitored
By
I
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
r
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Impact , .1 Mitigation
Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Marin County
Department of
Public Works and
Town Engineer
(plans and
implementation);
Community
Development
Director and HOA
(long-term
monitoring)
Before approval of
Final Subdivision
Map (grading and
drainage plans) and
before issuance of
building permits
(implementation of
repairs)
Project applicant
(grading and
drainage, including
landslide repairs)
and HOA (ongoing
maintenance)
9
In order to both reduce the impact of
project development on culvert capacities
and flooding along Paradise Drive and on
downstream drainageways to less-than- '
significant levels, the applicant shall
implement the following measures:
. If any of the eight Paradise Drive
culverts specified in Exhibit 5.2-2 are
of insufficient capacity to convey the
site's 100-year peak flows without
roadway flooding, they shall be
replaced. The appropriate culvert sizes
shall be determined by an engineering
hydraulic analysis using peak flow
rates cited in Exhibit 5.2-3, as verified
by the applicant's engineer.
Replacement culverts, where required,
shall be upsized to accommodate some
debris passage during the design 100-
year rainstorm. Current engineering
practice recommends sizing culverts at
twice the clear water capacity which
would handle the design flow. Where
individual culvert overflow is accepted
as part of the drainage design, field
surveys ("level surveys") shall be
undertaken to ensure, that the overflow
would reach the prescribed downslope
culvert inlet. If survey information
indicates instead that the overflow
would proceed across Paradise Drive
and onto an adjoining property, the
drainage design shall be revised to
rectify the situation. Alternatively,
other drainage features (such as paved
gutters and additional tie-in drain
inlets) shall be installed to prevent
5.2-2 On-Site Peak Flow Rates and
Attendant Downstream Flooding
Project implementation would result in
increases in the 100-year peak discharge
of 19.0, 2.4, and 8.3 percent from
Watersheds A, B, and C, respectively.
While these increases are minor to
moderate, the applicant's engineer has not
performed the hydraulic analysis
necessary to determine whether the
existing roadway culverts under Paradise
Drive have adequate capacities to
accommodate the increased flows without
flooding. If these culverts do not have
sufficient capacity to pass the post-project
100-year design discharge, on-site,
roadway, or downstream flooding could
be significant during a severe rainstorm.
This would be especially true if the
culverts were subject to partial blockage
by incoming watershed debris. This
would constitute a potentially significant
impact.
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Impact
uncontrolled overflow onto adjacent
properties.
· Properly engineered energy Dissipators
shall be installed at culvert outlets
affected by project-induced increases in
peak flow rates (Watersheds A, B, and
C), and instream stabilization shall be
constructed within the downstream
reach of Drainage way 6 to the extent
required to maintain channel stability.
Channel stabilization measures shall be
determined based on a walking survey
of the downstream channel reach and
subsequent design to be conducted by a
civil engineer, hydrologist, or fluvial
geomorphologist familiar with channel
stabilization design and / or stream
restoration. In-channel stabilization
measures shall emphasize biotechnical
teclmiques to the extent possible.
Riprap or gab ion stabilization methods
shall be discouraged.
Debris racks shall be
installed at the
entrances to any new or presently
unprotected culvert inlets along
Paradise Drive. (The racks shall not be
flush with the culvert barrel so that
debris can be trapped without
obstructing the barrel.)
.
· The applicant shall ensure that all
above-ground drainage way reaches of
Drainageway I (both on-and off-site)
are sufficient to convey the increased
flows from the expanded Watershed A
contributing area without channel
incision or other forms of chanriel
instability. If any of these channe
o
...........................................
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
reaches prove inadequate to handle the
projected Watershed A flows without
channel downcutting (i.e. incision) or
other forms of channel adjustment (e.g.
widening of the channel cross-section),
or if channel flow velocities exceed 4.0
feet per second during the 2-yr. p,eak
flow, the applicant shall implement
channel stabilization measures to
protect against significant channel
erosion. The stabilization program
shall include a fluvial geomorphic and
hydraulic engineering assessment of the
channel to determine the proper
elements of a stabilized channel for the
particular geologic and hydrologic
conditions in the projectarea.
Immediate junctures with upstream
culvert segments will be especially
critical due to the heightened scour
potential downstream of these
hydraulic structures.
Impact
. The applicant sh~ll ensure that all
engineered drainage structures (e.g.
culverts, storm drains, old wood stave
channels) downstream of Paradise
Drive are adequate to convey the
increased flows from Watersheds A, B
and C without exceeding their design
capacities and/or resulting in nuisance
flooding of downstream properties. If
any such structures prove inadequate to
handle the projected flows under the
established Town drainage design
criteria, the applicant shall upgrade the
undersized structures to meet the Town
criteria.
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Cormnunity
Development
Director, Town
Engineer,
RWQCB, and
CDFG
When
Implemented
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map
Implemented
By
Project applicant
Mitigation
In order to compensate for the loss of
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and to
reduce the disturbance of Drainageways
and 2, the applicant shall implement the
following mitigation measures:
described
. The reconstructed portions of
Drainageways 1 and 2 shall be
designed to approximate the existing
chamlel form. Thus, the segments of
these reaches upslope of the flat-
bottomed portion of the debris
catchment area shall be reconstructed
using channel hydraulic and
'geomorphic parameter values (i.e. at
the channel's bankfull discharge) that
are consistent with the post-remediation
channel gradient, bed and bank
sediments and flow regime. Since
some of the pre-construction overhead
tree canopy would be lost as a result of
the landslide stabilization work, these
restored channel reaches could be
revegetated with appropriate riparian
vegetation and trees.
(see 5.3
Habitat shall be replaced as
in Mitigation Measure 5.3-5
Vegetation and Wildlife).
.
Impact
5.2-4 Impacts on Drainageways and
Groundwater-Supported Habitat
Grading and slope dewatering measures
outlined in the 2002 project plans have
been limited to downslope areas of the
site and, with the exceptions of the lower
reaches of Drainage ways 1 and 2, outside
of principal site drainageways. Three
debris barriers are proposed to mitigate
potentially unstable colluvial swales
associated with Drainageways 3, 4, and 6.
The barriers would not significantly affect
either the character or the floodwater
conveyance function of these
he
drainageways. T two seeps in
Watersheds A and B, and the spring in
Watershed C are sufficiently far removed
from the excavation/grading and
dewatering areas and thus would not be
affected by the proposed landslide and
colluvium repairs. While the repair plan
has minimized the extent of impacts to
drainage ways and groundwater-supported
habitats, the landslide repairs affecting
Lots 1, 3 and 7 and the construction of the
Roadway C on Lot 7 would eliminate
segments of Drainage ways 1,2 and 4, a
secondary drainage on Lot 1, and off-site
freshwater wetlands at the lower end of
Drainageway 6. This includes 0.07 acre
of jurisdictional waters. These project
encroachments would constitute a
significant impact to on- and off-site
drainageways and groundwater-supported
habitats.
2
...........................................
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Town Engineer
(SWPPP, plans,
and post-
construction)
When
Implemented
Before issuance of
grading and building
pennits
Implemented
By
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
Mitigation
In order to mitigate the project's impacts
on erosion and downstream
sedimentation, the applicant and
individual lot owners shall implement the
following measures in addition to the
PDP's proposed erosion control features
RWQCB
(SWPPP), and
ROA
(maintenance
along roadway)
. ABtate National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Pennit
(NPDES General Pennit) for
Discharges of Stormwater Associated
with Construction Activity sh~ll be
obtained and its provisions shall be
implemented. Because lots would be
developed according to individual
owners' schedules, the applicant shall
submit it single NPDES Pennit
application covering all planned
development on the site, regardless of
the ultimate timing of construction.
Under the guidance of a single set of
pennit conditions, appropriate erosion
control and water quality mitigation
measures would be applied to each
development phase.
3
. A Notice of Intent shall be filed with
the State Water Resources Control
Board, Division of Water Quality. The
filing shall describe erosion control and
stormwater treatment measures to be
implemented during and following both
applicant and / or lot owner
construction and provide a schedule for
monitoring performance. These
measures are referred to as Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the
control of point and non-point source
pollutants in stormwater and constitute
5.2-5 Erosion and Sedimentation
Construction of impervious surfaces
(coverage by homes, roadways, and
driveways) in the site's watersheds would
increase peak flow rates in on-site
drainageways and increase the risk of
incision (i.e. downcutting) and instability
in receiving drainage ways downslope of
Paradise Drive. In addition, grading of
lots and roadways, installation of utilities,
and the repair of unstable landslide and
colluvial deposits would disturb parts of
the site and expose bared soil surfaces to
the erosive forces of rainfall and runoff.
This could result in downstream
sedimentation and obstruction'of
hydraulic structures (culverts and catch
basins). These constitute potentially
significant erosion and sedimentation
impacts. On Lots 3 and 6, a debris
catchment basin with a slotted riser pipe
to evacuated flows is proposed to be
constructed within the lower reaches of
Drainageways 1 and 2. While the current
riser pipe design may be adequate to
protect the culvert inlet from full
obstruction and to convey water flows
under Paradise Drive in the aftermath of a
catastrophic landslide or debris flow, the
large storage volume of the catchment
area, the abrupt change in channel
gradient, and the presence of the
restricted openings in the riser pipe would
foster high rates of sediment deposition
over the normal range of flows that occur
in Drainageways 1 and 2. This could
reduce the capacity of the debris
Impact
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
a project's Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). BMPs for
control of pollutant sources during
construction and for on-site treatment
of project stormwater are described in
the California Storm Water Best
Management Practice Handbookfor
Construction Activity
Impact
catchment basin.
The proposed slotted riser pipe inlet
that would be fitted to the existing 36-
inch culvert at the lower end of
Drainageway I should be amended to
allow some measure of sediment
transport to occur during non-
catastrophic flows. The enlarged
opening(s) would be cut into the lower
end of the cylinder, but would not be so
large that the pipe would become
substantially obstructed by an incoming
flow.
.
debris
In-channel straw bale dike design shall
be adjusted to accommodate a spillway
overflow section to reduce the risk of
bale failures. If a notch is cut into the
straw bale, the overflow section shall
be additionally reinforced.
Alternatively, the straw bales could be
replaced with rock weirs which
facilitate converging flow and do not
increase the risk of lateral bank erosion.
be
.
Mitigation Measure 5.2-2 shal
implemented (downstream
drainage way stabilization along
principal Drainageway 6).
.
4
...........................................
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
continued
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Monitored
By
COmnlunity
Development
Director
When
Implemented
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map;
before grading and/or
building permit
issuance
Implemented
By
Individual lot
owners (landscape
plans)
Project applicant
(SWPPP &
NPDES permit)
Mitigation
In addition to implementing Mitigation
Measures 5.2-2 (On-Site Peak Flow Rates
and Attendant Downstream Flooding) and
5.2-5 (Erosion and Sedimentation), the
applicant shall incorporate the following
site-appropriateBMPs or their,
equivalents in the project SWPPP for
short- and long-term implementation by
the applicant and individual lot owners, in
order to comply with the requirements of
the NPDES General Permit and
provisions of the Town ofTiburon
Municipal Code:
. A regular schedule of street sweeping
shall be instituted by the Town with
financing by the Home Owners
Association (HOA). The frequency of
cleaning shall be higher (tWice
monthly) during the winter rainy
season, yet maintained year-round.
Regular cleaning of paved surfaces
reduces the '~first flush" phenomenon
wherein the highestconceIltration of
contaminants is flushed off the surfaces
during the early part of a runoff event.
. Project CC&Rs shall include one of the
following options to be implemented,
as determined for the project by the
Town:
Impact
5.2-6 Water Quality Impacts Project
implementation would increase the area
devoted to both paved (roadway and
driveway) surfaces and irrigated
landscaping. Episodic discharge of
stormwater contaminated with heavy
metals would not typically impair
shoreline waters along Paradise Cove or '
EI Campo due to the low density and
extent of site development. Residential
lot development could be accompanied by
increased application of fertilizers and
chemicals (such,as herbicides and
pesticides). Over-irrigation combined
with accidental spills or releases of
fertilizer or pesticides / herbicides could
result in downstream migration of
contaminated runoff to drainage ways
tributary to San Francisco Bay. Due to the
listing of Central San Francisco Bay as
impaired for several pesticides, including
chlordane, dieldrin, and diazanon and
some heavy metals (such as mercury and
copper), even minor amounts ofthese
substances would constitute a
potentiallysignificant impact.
Private development of turf grass
lawns shall be prohibited in order to
minimize or eliminate the application
of chemical amendments which
could affect downstream water
c
5
quality in Central San Francisco Bay.
Landscaping would be confined to
establishment ofnative drought-
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Impact
tolerant species, with an exemption
for a small number of container
plants. OR
o Lot landscaping shall be restricted to
20 percent of the residential use area
and shall be confined to the side of
each residence which does not front
on the access roadway. This
landscaped area shall be sloped to
drain to adjoining vegetated slopes,
not to the street, so that some
filtering ofthe runoff would occur.
In conjunction with this option, the
applicant shall prepare and
implement a water quality
management plan governing the
application of irrigation water and
chemical amendments to landscaped
areas adjacent to buildings and
within or adjacent to roadways and
driveways. The plan shall:
-- Include an irrigation schedule linked
to soil moisture levels or related
variables (such as temperature,
humidity, and wind speed).
n Propose specific chemical inputs
tested and cleared by the USEP A for
application to vegetation.
-- Indicate the frequency and
scheduling of these chemical inputs
based on site-specific characteristics
(such as soii and vegetative cover
and rates of uptake) and the
acknowledged sensitivity of
downstream receiving waters.
Since the objective of erosion control and
water quality treatment measures would
be to reduce contaminant loading to the
extent practicable with implementation of
6
....... .'...................................
...........................................
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
17
Mitigation
the best available technologies, the
recommended BMPs are not fixed. Other
measures can be applied as long as the
applicant can demonstrate that those
measures can provide equivalent levels of
reduction in contaminant loading.
Impact
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
I
Implemented
By
I
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Mitigation
Impact
Community
Development
Director (with
consulting
biologist)
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map;
ongoing (public
education brochure
Project applicant
and Town's
consulting biologist
To reduce impacts to serpentine
bunchgrass habitat to a less-than-
significant level, the applicant shall
prepare and implement a site avoidance,
protection, and enhancement plan for the
serpentine bunchgrass, which addresses
the following:
Vegetation and Wildlife
5.3-1 Permanent Loss of Habitat
for Special-Status Plants Project
implementation could affect habitat for
special-status plants through incidental
uses of the serpentine bunchgrass habitat
by individual lot owners (indirect
impact).
Any subsequent redesign of the Precise
Development Plan (PDP) shall
establish a minimum 100-foot buffer on
Lots 3, 6, and 7 to set the residential
use areas back from the protected
habitat upslope on those lots. *
.
. To discourage human intrusion into the
bunchgrass habitat that would be
preserved on-site through establishment
of the conservation easement, the
applicant shall place fencing at the
downhill limits of the bunchgrass area
(the woodland-grassland interface). In
addition, signs shall be posted along the
fence line and along any established
recreational trails in the grassland
areas, indicating the sensitive nature of
the habitat. The applicant shall prepare
and the Home Owners Association
shall distribute a brochure to future site
residents as part of a public education
program describing the presence and
value of the sensitive serpentine
imits,
...........................................
8
three lots based on the current residential use area
would be feasible on al
00 feet
A buffer of
*
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Implemented
By
Mitigation
bunchgrass community on-site.
. The applicant shall develop a habitat
enhancement plan to restore the value
of the existing bunchgrass habitat. This
include the removal of
plan shal
invasive exotic species and their
replacement with special-status species.
This plan shall be combined with the
sit~ resto'ration plan required.in
Mitigation Measure 5.3-2(b). (If'
Mitigation Measure 5.3-2(b) is not
required because sensitive plants are
avoided during utility trenching, the
provisions outlined in that measure
shall be applied to the habitat
enhancement plan).
Community
Development
Director
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map
(selection of either
(a) or (b))
Project applicant
In order to reduce temporary impacts
from installing proposed waterlines to a
less-than-significant impact, the applicant
shall implement either Mitigation
Measure 5.3-2(a) or Mitigation Measure
5 .3-2(b).
Community
Development
Director
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map
Project applicant
(a) To reduce impacts to the Marin dwarf
flax and Tiburon paint brush the applicant
shall establish the location of the
trenching and grading operations in such
a way as to completely avoid impacting
these two species or at the very least
minimize the actual loss of these species.
If the waterlines can be installed with no
direct loss of these two species, than no
additional mitigation would be required.
In order to implement this mitigation
measure the applicant shall:
Conduct
Impact
5.3';2 Temporary Loss of Habitat
for Special-Status Plants Installation
of new waterlines could temporarily
affect habitat for special-status plants in
the serpentine areas due to trenching and
grading associated with construction of
these facilities (direct impact)
9
a pre-construction survey to
.
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Impact
two species
Submit a detailed grading and
trenching plan to the Town
demonstrating that installation of the
waterlines would avoid impacts to the
two relevant species.
map the location of these
within the easement.
.
. Erect construction fencing to ensure
that the project would not damage
plants inadvertently which were
expected to be avoided.
. Provide for a qualified on-site monitor
to be p~esent during construction
related activities which may either
disturb serpentine bunchgrass habitat or
come in close proximity to this
sensitive habitat.
Community
Development
Director
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map
Project applicant
a
(b) To reduce impacts to the Marin
dwarf flax and Tiburon paint brush the
applicant shall prepare and implement
site restoration plan for the temporary
impacts. The applicant shal
.
Prepare and implement a Site
Restoration Plan to replace the
serpentine bunchgrass habitat which
may contain individuals of the Marin
dwarf flax and Tiburon Indian
paintbrush where temporary impacts
would occur. A qualified botanist shall
identify all avoidance areas and
establish buffer zones of sufficient size
around these areas to eliminate
potential disturbance to the dwarf flax
and paint brush during construction.
The size of the buffer zone(s) shall
account for such factors as slope, type,
20
...........................................
...........................................
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
and proximity of construction
activities. At a minimum, the Site
Restoration Plan shall define the
Impact
following:
Location of on-site areas (and
suitable buffer) to restore lost plant
populations. It is assumed that the
topsoil can be stock piled and
replaced once the trenching operation
is complete. These areas shall be
prepared and, based on appropriate
propagation techniques, restored to
the reclaimed areas. Once
established, these areas would
become part of the larger open space
area and set aside in perpetuity by
establishing a conservation easement
c
Propagation techniques (such as seed
collt)cting, greenhouse efforts to
grow plants, etc.) to be employed in
the restoration effort.
c
The timetable to implement the
restoration plan, including pilot-
phase studies if necessary.
"
" Remedial measures to be performed
in the event that initial restoration
measures are not successful in
meeting the performance criteria.
The performance criteria would need
to ensure that there would be a
minimum of a I : 1 replacement of
the size of the population and area
affected (replaced: lost)
2
c Site maintenance activities to follow
restoration activities, including weed
contr,01. irrigation, and control of
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Impact
herbivory wildlife.
Identification of a suitable land trust
organization (approved by the CDFG
and USFWS) to take over
management of these areas once
established by the applicant or its
agent.
o
Provision of a suitable bond or
endowment to adequately fund long-
term management of the dwarf flax
and Tiburon Indian paintbrush set-
aside areas
o
This mitigation strategy for specialized
plants (such as Marin dwarf flax and
Tiburon Indian paintbrush) is often
unsuccessful, but in this case it is
expected to reduce impacts to less-than-
significant level given the relatively small
size of the potential impact (0.10 acre),
the fact that it would be a temporary
impact, and relatively few plants expected
to be impacted by waterline installation.
22
...........................................
...........................................
~
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
In order to reduce the projects' direct and
indirect effects on mixed coast live oak-
bay woodland habitat on the site, the
applicant shall implement a Tree
Protection Plan to preserve the remaining
woodlands (Mitigation Measure 5.3-4(a))
and a Tree Replacement and
Enhancement Plan (Mitigation Measure
5.3-4(b)) to improve the health of the
remaining woodlands and to replace the
trees lost to grading and development.
Individual lot developers shall implement
Mitigation Measures 5.3-4(c) to
compensate for the removal of additional
trees from their respective residential use
areas.
Impact
5.3-4 Loss of Mixed Coast Live
Oak-Bay Woodland Project
implementation (development of
structures, construction of roadways,
trenching for the new waterlines and
landslide repair) could affect an estimated
five acres of mixed coast live oak-bay
woodland by removing an estimated 522
trees (direct impact) and fragmenting and
isolating habitat from adjacent or nearby
large woodland patches (indirect impact)
Community
Development
Director, and
Town Building
Official (with
consulting
restoration
ecologist); Design
Review Board,
-
Before issuance of
grading permits
(subdivision
improvements and
individual lots);
before issuance of
tree removal permits
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
(a) A Tree Protection Plan shall be
developed by the applicant and
implemented by the applicant and
individual lot owners during construction
and landscaping. This plan shall
incorporate the recommendations of the
applicant's arborist report, and shall
include the following: .
affected
by proposed development shall be
preserved within the proposed
conservation easements. A minimum
Coast live oak woodland not
.
of 17.3 acres, approximately 78
percent, of mixed coast live oak-bay
woodland shall be set aside and
23
permanently preserved within the
easement area.
· Trees to be preserved shall be protected
during grading and construction. This
shall be accomplished by installing
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
temporary orange construction fencing
to protect the root zone (the area under
the crown plus one-third) of trees that
are within or adjacent to the grading or
Impact
construction zone.
. Guidelines for pruning trees,
landscaping near or adjacent to the
woodland habitat, and measures to
reduce or prevent the spread of SODS
on the site shall be implemented. The
"Best Management Practices" outlined
by the California Oak Mortality Task
Force shall be followed, including the
recommended methods for disposal of
trees that are cut down. At a minimum,
the trees that are to be removed shall be
Community
Development
Director, (with
consulting
restoration
issuance of
for
Before
grading permit
subdivision
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
ecologist)
before
improvements
issuance of
gradinglbuilding
permits for individual
lots
cut into firewood, branches chipped,
and stumps ground or trees shall be
completely covered with clear plastic
for six months to prevent further beetle
emergence.
(b) To reduce and compensate for
impacts on the mixed coast live oak-bay
woodlands, a Tree Replacement and
Enhancement Plan shall be prepared by a
qualified restoration ecologist, peer
reviewed by a restoration ecologist
selected by the Town, and implemented
by the applicant. Implementation of this
plan shall involve the selective removal
of California bays and coast live oaks that
are in poor condition (California bays are
the main host of the SOD pathogen in
Marin County, however, 72 percent of the
site's coast live oak is already in marginal
to poor health). Areas of high infestation
shall be cleared and replanted with trees
that show resistance to the ~tho~n. The
24
...........................................
........ .......-.-.-............................
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
preference is for removal of areas
dominatedor co-dominated by bays
because this species is a persistent carrier
of the pathogen. This approach would
not only remove trees that might further
infest other trees of the area, but would
replace the trees lost to development with
those that are more resistant to SODS. To
accomplish this, the Plan shall encompass
the following features in accordance with
the identified performance standards:
Impact
Lost acreage' shall be replaced at a I : I
ratio (requiring five acres of replanted
woodlands). mitigation habitat shall be
provided which is of greater value than
found in areas where habitat would be
affected by proposed development.
replacement shall compensate for the
loss of 522 trees (estimated 517
directly removed and five potentially
impacted trees) by providing five acres
of healthy woodlands.
.
. Replacement trees shall be planted at a
IS-foot by 15~foot average density (225
square feet per tree) resulting in a
density' of approximately 200 trees per
acre. However, replacement plantings
within the debris catchment basin shall
be planted at a reduced density do
ensure the efficacy of the basin.
25
. On-site replanting areas shall be
comprised of areas within the proposed
grading limits and additional
contiguous areas that will be cleared of
diseased trees to allow planting of the
replacement trees. The December 2002
Plans indicate that grading for proposed
landslide repair would clear an
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
estimated 0.55 acre, therefore an
additional 4.45 acres would be
required. Given the number of
diseased trees on-site, it is possible and
preferable that all mitigation planting .
take place on-site. However, the
applicant may propose some of the
mitigation planting off-site but on the
Tiburon Peninsula. The purpose and
goal of the off-site mitigation would be
to locate and improve a woodland area
on the Tiburon Peninsula that is
exhibiting serious decline from SODS.
Thus, the mitigation and enhancement
program would be improving the
circumstance for the off-site area by
removing diseased and dying trees and
replacing them with healthier tress that
are considered more resistant to SODS.
The preference shall be for on-site
removal and replacement.
Impact
. Prior to the removal of any trees, the
applicant shall retain a qualified
arborist to conduct follow-up surveys
of the site woodland conditions shall be
conducted in order to identify
appropriate enhancement/selective
removal locations. The follow-up
surveys shall be subject to peer-review
by the Town's consulting restoration
ecologist. The following performance
standards shall be utilized to identify
selective removal locations. The
preference shall be for removal of bay-
dominated areas. Oaks and other trees
showing signs of disease shall be
positively identified to have SODS
using the most current identification
procedures. The visual screening value
26
.... .... .....'.-<.-.-........ ......................
...........................................
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
of the tree canopy shall be considered
when identifying selective
removaVenhancement areas. As a
guideline, the seleCtive removal of
diseased trees shall be limited to 25
percent of tree canopy cover within a
selected enhancement area to ensure
that a sufficient tree canopy is retained
for visual and aesthetic purposes.
Active landslide areas shall only be
considered for tree removal and
replacement if the location is deemed
appropriate by the Town's consulting
geologist.
Impact
. All on-site replacement plantings shall
be located within the proposed open
space conservation easement. (With
the exception of those areas within the
Lot 7 and 8 residential use areas
proposed to be graded for landslide
repair by the applicant. These
replacement plantings will be
permanently preserved through
establishment of deed restriction within
each lot's CC&Rs.) Off-site
replacement plantings shall be
preserved through establishment of a
conservation easement or transfer of
ownership to a public agency or no-
profit conservation organization.
27
. The primary replacement species to be
planted is coast live oak along with a
limited number of California black
oaks (Quercus kelloggii). These two
species were chosen, even though they
are susceptible to SODS, because they
are more resistant than other species.
While research on this disease is on-
going, it is currently believed that these
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
two oaks do not become infected unt
they reach a certain maturity. Other
species may be included in the final
planting plan if it is determined by
SOD researchers or other
knowledgeable individuals (such as the
Marin Chapter of the California Native
Plant Society) that these species are
acceptable. The planting stock shall be
collected locally if possible, and
planting shall be conducted from
November to January. The tree
container size of the replacement trees
shall be ten-inch tree sleeves with
appropriate predator and weed control
materials. Irrigation shall be provided
for the first three years in areas where
deemed necessary by the consulting
restoration ecologist.
Impact
· Cut down trees shall be disposed of in
ways consistent with the "Best
Management Practices" outlined by the
California Oak Mortality Task Force.
At a minimum, the trees shall be cut
into firewood, branches chipped, and
stumps removed and ground or stumps
shall be completely covered with clear
plastic for six months to prevent further
beetle emergence
Site maintenance shall be conducted
regularly for the first three years after
initial planting, including weed control
irrigation system maintenance, and
foliage protector maintenance.
.
· Invasive exotic species, such as French
Broom, shall be removed at least once
annually for a five-year period.
28
...........................................
...........................................
MITlGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Impact
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
The success of the Tree Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan shall be monitored
by a qualified restoration ecologist for a
period not less than five years after
initial implementation, Elements such
as plant survival, percent cover, tree
height and basal area, plant vigor /
health, and natural recruitment /
reproduction shall be evaluated during
the annual monitoring of the replanted
sites. The following criteria for
monitoring the replanted trees shall be
employed:
o Plant Survival All trees installed
shall have an 80 percent survival
performance criterion during the five
year monitoring period. All dead
trees shall be replaced if survival
falls below this performance
criterion. The monitoring period
shall start anew following replanting
at any time, if survival falls below 80
percent. Survival results following
the cessation of irrigation during the
three-year.establishment period
would indicate whether plants' roots
are sufficiently developed to support
the plants under natural conditions.
.
Percent Tree Cover Percent cover
would be used as an indicator of
successful establishment of habitat.
The final percent cover goal by Year
5 of monitoring is 15 percent tree
cover.
o
o Tree Height and Basal Area The
height of the replacement trees along
with their basal area shall be '
~
29
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
measured during the annual
monitoring. Basal area provides a
good measure of woodland biomass
and tree diameter growth. By the end
of the five year monitoring period,
the trees should be at a
predetermined height and have a
predetermined basal area.
Impact
Plant Vigor / Health The overal
plant vigor and health of the installed
trees shall be monitored. Taken into
consideration in the qualitative
observation of vigor and health
would be the factors of plant color,
bud development, new growth,
herbivory, drought stress,
fungaVinsect infestation, and
physical damage. If a plant's foliage
is abnormally sparse, then the
health/vigor rating shall be lowered
accordingly, even if the foliage
present is healthy. Overall health
and vigor shall be rated according to
the following scale
o
High -- 1-3 --67-100 percent
healthy foliage
Medium -- 4-6 -- 34-66 percent
healthy foliage
Low -- 7-9 n 0-33 percent
healthy foliage.
Dead - 10
Q
Q
o
o
Natural Reproduction / Recruitment
Natural reproduction/recruitment of
woody plant species within the
mitigation areas shall be monitored.
Additional trees which had not
previously been glanted shall be
o
30
'............... .'...... .....................
..........-................................
MITlGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
counted and considered to be natural
reproduction and recruitment. Any
other native or non-native woody
plants that become established shal
also be counted and reported by
Impact
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director,
Before issuance of
tree removal permits
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map
Individual lot
owners
Project applicant
_ speCIes
(c) Removal of any trees within the
residential use areas by individual lot
owners (outside of the five-acre area of
impact identified in this EIR) shall be
subject to the provisions of Section 15A
of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Trees)
and if a permit for removal is granted,
removed tree shall be subject to a 3: 1
replacement ratio.
A wetland restoration plan shall be
prepared to reduce effects on wetland
resources by minimizing significant
impacts to the extent feasible and
The Corps of
Engineers,
CDFG, and
RWQCB
The following features or their
equivalent shall be included in the plan:
o
compensating for any remaining
significant impacts:
.
Replacement of lost wetland habitat
acreage at a ratio sufficient to retain
functions and values. A 2 : I
replacement ratio (replacement: lost)
would be expected to off-set wetland
resource impacts adequately (0.14
acre).
5.3-5 Disturbance to Jurisdictional
Waters Project development would
result in the loss of 0.07 acre of seasonal
wetlands, primarily on Lot I, Lot 3, and
off-site east of Lot 7. In addition the
applicant will need to obtain permits and
certification from the Corps, RWQCB,
and CDFG.
3
o Compensation involving on- or off-
site restoration, enhancement, and /
or creation of seasonal wetlands and /
or seasonal drainage channels
elsewhere on- or off-site. Preference
shall be to identify appropriate on-
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND,REPORTlNG PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
site locations for replacement habitat
and / or to enlarge other existing on-
site wetlands to create seasonal
wetlands.
Impact
Establishment of undeveloped
buffers on both sides of seasonal
wetlands or seasonal drainage
channels. A minimum buffer of 50
feet would be required around the
seasonal wetlands and seasonal
drainage channels.
o
· A Clean Water Act permit shall be
obtained by providing the verified
wetland delineation, plan-view
drawings and cross-sections of
proposed work, conceptual mitigation
plan, implementation framework, and
Section 404b( 1) alternatives analysis.
The Wetland Restoration plan shall be
prepared according to Corps'
guidelines and include:
o A course of action for reducing the
level of impacts to wetlands through
restoration, enhancement, or creation
of other wetlands either on (or in
some cases off) the project site.
A monitoring component for
ensuring that the success of the
Wetland Restoration plan can be
determined over time and that
remedial measures can be employed
if performance objectives listed in
the plan are not being met.
o
· A Streambed Alteration Agreement
shall be entered into which itemizes
any mitigation measures designed to
32
.. ..'. .......... .'e.. .'........ '..... .'.........
...........................................
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
Town Engineer;
Community
Development
Director
When
Implemented
Before issuance of
grading and lor
building permits;
Prior to selective tree
removal per
Mitigation Measure
5.3-4(b)
MITIGA TlON MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Implemented
By
Mitigation
protect the biotic values associated with
the seasonal creeks to be obtained by
providing project plans and the wetland
delineation showing all seasonal creeks
within the project area.
Impact
· Section 401 Water Quality Certification
shall be obtained by. providing the
verified wetland delineation, project
plans, a copy of the Clean Water Act
Permit, a copy of the Streambed
Alteration Agreement, the notice of
certification of the EIR, and an
application fee of$500.
Project applicant
(pre-construction
surveys before
start-up and site
preparation) and
The applica'nt and each individual lot
owner shall implement the.following
measures before beginning their
respective construction activities to
reduce impact to nesting raptors.
· Within 30 days of beginning
construction during the raptor-nestmg
season (February to August), a survey
shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist of construction areas and their
immediate vicinity for active raptor
,nests. Surveys shall be conducted
according to a protocol developed in
consultation with the CDFG.
5.3-8 Disturbance to Active Raptor
Nests from Construction Activities
During Project Implementation
Construction activities could result in
incidental impacts on birds of prey ,
protected by State and Federal statutes if
breeding or nesting on the site during
project implementation.
33
· Any active nests discovered during the
pre-construction survey shall be ,
marked on a map and a construction-
free setback or buffer shall be
established around each active nest by
means of fencing or stakes with ,
conspicuous flagging. Typical buffers
vary from 200 to 250 ft., but buffers
smaller and larger are sometimes
MITlGA TlON MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
acceptable or necessary to ensure that
the project does not disturb an active
raptor nest. Therefore, the actual size
of the buffer will be determined by the
qualified biologist who will consider
among other things the species,
topography, and type of project
activity. No' construction activities
shall be permitted within the buffer
area until the conclusion of the nesting
season.
Impact
Community
Development
Director
......... .'......... .~.... .'... .1...... '........
Before filing of Final
Subdivision Map
(CC&R's) and before
issuance of grading
and / or building
permits (landscaping
plans)
Individual
owners
(landscaping plans)
Project applicant
(CC&Rs and
roadway
landscaping plans)
lot
The applicantshall prepare CC&Rs (as
indicated in Mitigation Measure 5.1-9)
which list and prohibit the planting of a
the exotic plants known to readily
naturalize in habitats similar to those
found on the project site. A qualified
botanist or horticulturist shall prepare the
list. Species such as black locust, blue
gum, various brooms, periwinkle, pampas
grass and other species known to be
invasive and difficult to eradicate shall be
placed on this list and not planted on the
project site. Additionally, no ornamental
or non-native planting shall be permitted
in the conservation easements on the
individual lots. Forest enhancement
programs consistent with the intent and
guidelines of Mitigation Measure 5.3-4
shall be the only permitted plantings in
this area.
34
5.3-9 Introduction of Invasive
Exotics Non-native plants used at any
location on the site in landscaping of lots
or roadways could "escape" and become
established elsewhere on on- or off-site
open space
...........................................
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
MIT/GA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
T Mitigation
Impact
Community
Development
Director; Design
Review Board
Condition ofPDP;
Before Design
Review and before
occupancy of homes
Individual lot
owners
In order to mitigate the impacts identified
above, individual lot developers shall be
required to meet the standards outlined
below.
.
Reduce the visibility and perceived
mass of the structures, particularly the
upper stories. Measures to accomplish
this include the following (or their
equivalent): .
5.4-1 Viewpoint 1 -. View of Lots 1,
2, and 4 Looking West from .
Paradise Drive The visual impacts of
development in this viewpoint resulting
from building and retaining wall height,
color, form, and texture could be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Visual and Aesthetic Quality
Limit building height to 25 feet.
Limit two-story elements to at most
40 percent of the building footprint.
Design houses to step down the
hillside with the,slope.
Limit total floor area to a size
considered appropriate by the
Design Review Board and less than
the maximum allowed FAR.
o
[]
[]
o
. Minimize the contrast between the
proposed structures and the woodland
backdrop. Measures to accomplish this
include the following (or their
equivalent):
o Require individual lot developers to
use deep, saturated hues which are
represented within the natural palate
of the woodland backdrop and
prohibit light, reflective hues for
exterior materials.
35
Require individual lot developers to
locate additional screen plantings
downslope of the proposed structures
and utilize fire-resistant, drought- '
tolerant, native species already found
on-site or within the Tiburon
Peninsula or Southern Marin County.
o
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
...........................................
, '
Community
Development
Director
Condition ofPDP
Before Design
Review and before
occupancy of homes
Implemented
By
Individual lot
owners
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Mitigation
(Town Code requires landscape
plans be consistent with TFPD
standards for reducing fuel load).
Impa~t
Minimize the contrast between the
proposed retaining walls and the
woodland backdrop. Measures to
accomplish this (to be implemented by
the applicant and individual lot
developers) include the following (or
their equivalent):
o
.
Design retaining walls associated
with landslide repair, roadway and
structural stability to minimize
contrast in form, texture, and color
with the existing view. Paint walls
or use masonry similar in hue to
surrounding environment to shield
the walls from view.
Plant vegetative screens in front of
walls or design terraced or cribbed
walls planted between steps using
native plant species.
o
36
Require the applicant and individual lot
developers to implement Mitigation
Measure 5.4-1 (in order to meet the
standards outlined below).
· Reduce the visibility and perceived
mass of the structures, particularly the
upper stories.
· Minimize the contrast between the
proposed structures and the woodland
backdrop.
· Minimize the contrast between the
proposed retaining walls and the
woodland backdrop.
5.4-2 Viewpoint 2 -- View of Lots 3,
4, 5, and 6 Looking East from
Paradise Drive Impacts resulting from
building height, color, form, and texture,
removal of vegetation and introduction of
retaining walls could not be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level in this
viewpoint, a significant and unavoidable
impact.
...........................................
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Community
Development
Director
Condition ofPDP
Before Design
Review and before
occupancy of homes
Implemented
By
Individuallot
owners
Mitigation
Require the applicant and individual lot
developers to implement Mitigation
Measure 5.4-1 (in order to meet the
standards outlined below).
. Reduce the visibility and perceived
mass of the structures, particularly the
upper stories.
. Minimize the contrast between the
proposed structures and the woodland
backdrop.
. Minimize the contrast between the
proposed retaining walls and the
woodland backdro.Q:
Impact
5.4-3 Viewpoint 3 -- View of Lots 7
and 8 Looking West from Paradise
Drive Impacts resulting from building
height, color, form, and texture, removal
of vegetation and introduction of
retaining walls could not be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level in this
viewpoint, a significant and unavoidable
impact.
Community
Development
Director
Condition ofPDP;
Before Design
Review and before
occupancy of homes
Individual lot
owners
in
Require the developer of Lot 8 to
implement Mitigation Measure 5.4-1
order that they meet the following
standards:
.
Reduce the visibility and perceived
mass of the structures, particularly the
upper stories.
Minimize Jhe contrast between the
proposed structures and the woodland
backdrop.
.
5.4-4 Viewpoint 4 -- View of Lot 8
Looking North from Paradise Drive
The visual impacts of development in this
viewpoint resulting from building height,
color, form, and texture, removal of
vegetation and introduction of retaining
walls could not be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level. '
37
Minimize the contrast between the
proposed retaining walls and the
woodland backdrop.
.
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
I
When
Implemented
I
Implemented
By
I
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
T Mitigation
Impact
Community
Development
Director
Before issuance of
building permit
Project applicant
No mitigation would be required other
than payment of Town mitigation fees
(project's pro-rated share ofroadway
improvements shown in the Town Plan)
Transportation and Circulation
5.5-1 Existing-plus-Project Impacts
on Study Intersections Project traffic
would increase traffic volumes at study
intersections along Trestle Glen
Boulevard, Tiburon Boulevard, and
Paradise Drive.
Community
Development
Director
Before issuance of
building permit
Project applicant
The applicant shall pay the project's
prorated share of roadway improvements
shown in the Town Plan (traffic
mitigation fee). No additional mitigation
would be required.
5.5-2 Cumulative-plus-Project
Impacts on Study Intersections
Cumulative-plus~project conditions
would increase traffic volumes at study
intersections 'along Trestle Glen
Boulevard, Tiburon Boulevard, and
Paradise Drive, The project would
contribute to cumulative traffic which
would cause the Trestle Glen / Tiburon
Boulevard intersection to operate at an
unacceptable level of service during the
weekday AM peak hour.
Community
Development
Director; Town
Engineer; Marin
County Public
Works
Before occupancy
issued;
needed
pemiits
ongoing as
Project applicant
and Lot 7 and 8
owners
In order to reduce the significant access
driveway safety impacts for the Roadway
C access driveway serving Lots 7 and 8,
the following mitigation measure would
be required:
5.5-3 Provision of Safe Access
Roadways Sight distance for a driver
stopped at the Roadway C intersection
with Paradise Drive would not meet the
AASHTO minimum standard. This raises
. A minimum of 150 feet of sight
distance shall be provided in both
directions along the frontage of Lots 7
and 8 for inbound and outbound
vehicles at the Roadway C / Paradise'
Drive intersection. This could be
achieved by clearing one tree and
trimming the intervening roadside
vegetation and could increase sight
lines to the south (viewing northbound
vehicles) to 600 feet.
safety cOlicerns.
38
.. e(..... .,.(e,......... .".. ....'...'.. .'. ..... .,e"..
......... ...... .'........ ...,. ....... .'... ....
,
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
Community
Development
Director and
TFPD
Marin County
Development
Department
When
Implemented
Before,filing of Final
Map and before
occupancy
Before approval of
Tentative Map
Implemented
By
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
Project applicant
Mitigation
In order to insure access to individual lots
by TFPD and other emergency vehicles,
the following mitigation measure would
be required:
. The applicant and lot owners shall
incorporate brushed concrete surfaces
for roadway grades in excess of 15
percent.
. The applicant initially and individual
lot owners subsequently shall obtain a
"will serve" letter from the TFPD
stating that emergency vehicles will be
able to gain access to the individual lots
during cold and wet weather
conditions.
Although pedestriari,and bicycle use of
Paradise Drive is considered by the EIR
analysts to be unsafe (see Observed
Safety Concerns, above), large numbers
of pedestrians and bicyclists use Paradise
Drive. Therefore, the applicant shall
provide a designated (signed) pedestrian I
bicycle rest stop at one or both site access
intersections with Paradise Drive. For
example, there would be sufficient space
within the Paradise Drive ROW at the
Paradise Drive I Roadway A-B ,
intersection to provide a bench, bicycle
rack, and water source (drinking
fountain). Runners and bicyclists could
be provided a designated place to park
bicycles, drink water, fill water bottles,
and rest, well removed from the Paradise
Drive vehicle travelway. Such ,
improvements would not constitute major
changes to the roadway yet would
promote safety for users of the roadway.
Additionally, the applicant shall
participate in future funding and lor
39
Impact
5.5-4 Provision of Safe On-Site
Roadways Steep on-site roadways arid
driveways could cause safety concerns by
hindering accessibility by emergency
vehicles.
-
5.5-5 Project Impact on Pedestrian,
Bicycle, and Vehicular Safety on
Paradise Drive Project site residents
would be expected to contribute slightly
to the number of pedestrians and
bicyclists using Paradise Drive, a
roadway considered unsafe for these uses.
The project also would add traffic to this
unsafe ex'isting roadway condition.
While not significant alone, this
additional increment of traffic would
exacerbate already constrained
conditions. '
Verified By I
Date
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
implementing Paradise Drive
improvements determined as an
outgrowth ofthe Marin County Paradise
Drive Visioning Plan,
Impact
Marin County and
Town Community
Development
Director
Before approval of
Tentative Map and
before Design
Review
Project applicant
(initially) and
individual lot
owners (relevant
provisions)
The applicant shall be responsible for
preparing a construction traffic control
plan and roadway pavement mitigation
plan to be carried out during both
applicant- and lot owner-implemented
development. The plan shall include the
following elements:
5.5-6 Construction Traffic Impacts
Project implementation would add
significant numbers of construction trips
to Paradise Drive, raising concerns about
safety, pavement damage on affected
roads, and disruptions to the flow of peak
hour traffic.
. Approval by the Town ofTiburon after
consultation with Marin County of
construction truck haul routes and
operating hours.
. Inclusion of provisions in construction
contracts of contr~ctors and
subcontractors to prohibit parking of
construction vehicles anywhere other
than on-site or within the Paradise
Drive ROW at Roadway A-B (where
project parking is proposed).
Construction-related parking and
staging of construction vehicle and
equipment shall not obstruct the travel
way in'residential streets.
. Repair of any deteriorated pavement
along Paradise Drive identified in
cooperation with the Town of Tiburon
and Marin County based on a "before
and after" evaluation program which
shall determine if project-generated
truck traffic caused any additional
pavement deterioration. The
before/after road condition evaluation
shall include videotaping or other
40
.. ej...... .... ......... ..'..... ... .... e,e.. ....
...~....................................~..
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
~
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
41
Mitigation
physical documentation of pavement
condition prior to construction as deem
appropriate by the Town.
. Approval by Marin County of a
sequence for installing utilities within
the Paradise Drive right-of-way to
minimize road closures.
Impact
.........
Verified By I
Date
I
Monitored
By
I
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
I
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Mitigation
Impact
In order to reduce dust and asbestos
emissions to less-than-significant levels,
respectively, the following measures shal
be required as conditions of permit
Air Quality
5.6-1 Generation of Dust or
Asbestos Construction activities,
including grading of site soils containing
serpentine, would generate dust and
possibly release asbestos fibers into the
air.
Town Building
Official; Town
Engineer
Before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
approval by the Town:
(a) As a condition of Town approval of
any site alteration or grading permit, the
applicant and the future owners individual
residential lots shall incorporate the
following dust control measures in the
contracts of any contractors or
subcontractors whose activities would
disturb the ground:
. Prevent visible dust clouds from
extending beyond construction sites.
. Water all active construction areas at
least twice daily and more often during
windy periods, Keep active areas
adjacent to residences damp at all
times.
. Cover all haul trucks or maintain two
feet of freeboard.
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or
apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all
unpaved roads, parking, and staging
areas.
· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all
paved access roads, parking areas,
staging areas, and nearby streets where
soil material deposits are visible.
· Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soi
stabilizers to inactive construction areas
42
...........................................
...-.................................-.....
MITlGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Impact
(previously disturbed areas which are
inactive for more than ten days).
Enclose, cover, water twice daily,
apply non-toxic soil binders to all
exposed stockpiles.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved parts
the site to 15 miles per hour (mph).
or
.
.
of
· Install wheel washers on all exiting
trucks.
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as
quickly as possible.
· Suspend any gr,adiIig or excavation
activities during strong winds (in
excess of 20 mph) whieh cause dust
plumes visible to nearby sensitive
(residential) land uses and which
cannot be controlled by watering.
Town Building
Official; Town
Engineer
Before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
(b) This mitigation measure shall apply
as a condition of town approval of any
site alteration or grading permit to
construction which would disturb
serpentine. Before applicant- or lot
owner-implemented construction at any
location on the site, the presence of
serpentine shall be identified. For any
construction site encompassing surface or
subsurface serpentine material, the
applicant or lot owner shall prepare and
incorporate in the contracts of any
contractors or subcontractors whose work
would disturb the ground a Site Safety
Plan for construction activities involving
asbestos-bearing serpentine rock. The
plan shall apply to initial development
and any future maintenance of the lot.
The Site Safety Plan shall address
California Occupational Safety and
43
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
Administration requirements and any
local or BAAQMD regulations applicable
at the time a site alteration or grading
permit is requested. (The BAAQMD
does not require a permit at this time.)
The Site Safety Plan shall contain the
following elements:
Impact
· The presence on-site during excavation
of a trained inspector to identify
serpentine rock.
Measures to minimize disturbance of
serpentine rock including reducing
travel over exposed serpentine rock.
.
Emission or downwind concentration
thresholds which would trigger
additional controls and / or suspension
of activities which generate dust
emissions.
.
Monitoring activities to measure
compliance with emission- or
concentration-based thresholds.
.
· Measures for safely transporting (and
disposing) material containing
serpentine rock material.
· Measures directing on-site procedures
(such as keeping damp at all times
disturbed areas in active construction
where serpentine has been identified,
including on weekends and holidays
when work is suspended, and watering
and covering any serpentine materials
placed in haul trucks for export off-
site ).
· Triggers to suspend construction
activities if dust control measures do
not prevent the escape of fugitive dust
44
...........................................
...-.......................-...............
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Mitigation
(visible dust clouds) or result in
unacceptable risk to workers on-site or
people nearby.
Impact
Community
Development
Director and
Town Building
Official (and
Disturbance
Coordinator)
Before approval of
Tentative Map and
before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
(c) The applicant shall designate (or fund
Town designation of) a Disturbance
Coordinator for the duration of applicant-
implemented construction and also shall
require individual lot owners to designate
(or fund Town designation of) a
Disturbance Coordinator for the duration
of lot owner construction. The
Disturbance Coordinator shall:
. Provide all residents adjacent to
construction sites with a schedule of
construction activities.
. Conspicuously post his or her name and
phone number at the construction site.
. Respond to all complaints regarding
dust at residential areas.
. Have the authority to suspend
construction activities if measures to
prevent visible dust clouds from
impacting residential locations are not
being properly implerriented or are
unsuccessful. '
45
The individual designated as Disturbance
Coordinator to monitor construction
period air quality can be the same
person(s) responsible for construction
period noise mitigation (Mitigation
Measure 5.7-1).
Verified By I
Date
I
Monitored
By
r
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
1
MITIGA TlON MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
r Mitigation
Impact
Community
Development
Director; Noise
Disturbance
Coordinator;
Town Building
Official
Before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
The applicant and individual lot owners
shall mitigate their constiuction noise
impacts by implementing the measures
set forth in the Town of Tiburon's Noise
Ordinance. In addition, the following
measures shall be implemented:
Noise
5.7-1 Construction Noise Project
implementation would generate
substantial periodic noise levels in the
vicinity of the site. These levels would
exceed both existing ambient levels and
the maximum 12-month duration
established by the Town's
Construction equipment mufflers and
maintenance All internal combustion
engine driven construction equipment
shall be properly muffled (equipped
with stock manufacturers' supplied
mufflers or equivalent which are in
good condition).
.
Construction Noise Ordinance. This
temporary impact would be considered
significant but mitigable.
. Idling prohibitions Unnecessary idling
of internal combustion engines shall be
prohibited.
. Quiet equipment selection "Quiet"
construction equipment (particularly
air-compressors, standby engines, etc.)
whenever possible.
. Noise disturbance coordinator
Designate a "noise disturbance
coordinator" who shall be responsible
for responding to any complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause
of the noise complaint (such as starting
too early, bad muffler, etc.) and
institute reasonable measures warranted
to correct the problem. The telephone
number and name ofthe disturbance
coordiriator shall be posted
consgicuously at each construction site.
46
...........................-...............
......................-..-......-..........
I Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented 1
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Mitigation
Impact
Town Building
Official and
Tiburon Fire
Protection District
(TFPD)
Before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
HOA, and
individual lot
owners
In order to minimize wildland-building
fIre exposure impacts, the applicant
would be required to employ the
following measures during applicant-
implemented construction. In order to
ensure the effectiveness of long-term
maintenance in mitigating the project's
impacts, the applicant shall establish a
Home Owners Association (HOA),
formulate a maintenance plan, and add its
funding and administration to the
responsibilities of the HOA. Individual
lot owners would be required to
implement 'the following measures, which
are enforced by the following ordinances
and should be included in CC&Rs
prepared by the applicant and attached to
each lot:
Public Services and Utilities
5.8-2 Wildland-Building Fire
Exposure Development adjacent to
open space would be subject to risks
associated with wildland fires,
particularly in severe weather conditions
of drought, excessive heat, and strong
winds. In addition, construction workers
would be particularly vulnerable to
accidental wildfIre before water delivery,
communications systems, and roadways
are fully developed on the site.
. The applicant shall implement of the
provisions of Section 901.3 of the
California Fire Code.
In accordance with minimum building
standards of the Town of Tiburon and
Tiburon Fire Protection District
(TFPD), all developers of individual
lots or lot clusters shall install:
o
.
Approved spark arresters in all
chimneys, consistent with TFPD
Ordinance 121.
47
o A rue-resistant roof system with a
minimum Class "A" rating on all
residential and accessory buildings,
consistent with the Town of Tiburon
Building Code.
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Mitigation
Automatic fire sprinkler systems and
approved smoke detectors, consistent
with TFPD Ordinance 121.
o
Impact
The Home Owners Association shall
maintain a minimum ten-foot wide fITe
break adjacent to all roads on the site.
.
The applicant shall prepare a
Vegetation Modification Plan for each
lot in consultation with and approval by
the TFPD.using the TFPD Hazard
Matrix, In accordance with the Fuel
Modification Matrix, lot owners shall
reduce flammable vegetation and debris
within their respective fuel
modification zones. The Vegetation
Modification Plans and guidelines of
these matrices also shall be
incorporated in the individual lot's
CC&Rs.
.
. Landscaping plans for residential lots
shall be designed in accordance with
TFPD guidelines for reduction of fuel
load within a unit's defensible space.
For example, the applicant and
individual lot owners shall design
screen plantings with the least amount
of vegetation and lowest density
sufficient to mitigate visual effects.
Areas with trees planted as screens
shall not include smaller vegetation
which can spread a ground fITe into the
tree canopy. Planting of trees and
vegetation with a high fire risk (such as
Manzanita) shall be prohibited within
the defensible space of buildings.
. The applicant and individual lot owners
48
...........................................
......................~....................
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Verified By /
Date
Monitored
By
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
Mitigation
shall require their contractors to
implement fire prevention measures
during construction. ' Prevention
measures shall include, but are not
limited to, the following:
o
Impact
fire
Maintain and clearly mark on-site
fire response equipment (such as fire
extinguishers, fue retardant blankets,
shovels, buckets, etc.) at each
construction area.
Clear brush and other potential
fuel around construction areas.
o
Ensure that all construction workers
are trained in the use of on-site fue
response equipment and workplace
safety measures.
o
I
49
o Locate and cleafly identify a cellular
phone or other communication
device on-site at all times during
construction.
I
Implemented When Monitored Verified By I
By Implemented By Date
-
Project applicant Before issuance of Town Building
grading and / or Official and
building permits TFPD
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
In order to mitigate roadway impacts, the
applicant would be required to revise the
PDP to reflect the roadway standards of
the TFPD related to road grade and
turnouts by incorporating the following
measures;
Mitigation
Impact
5.8-3 Emergency Access Site
roadways could be inconsistent with
Tiburon Fire Protection District
emergency access standards.
Design site roadways and driveways
consistent with Article 10 of the
Uniform Fire Code and Tiburon Fire
Protection District Emergency Access
Standards.
o
.
Design turnouts on all roadways
longer than 300 feet to provide a
minimum improved width of 20 feet
and length of75 feet. (Turnouts 24
feet wide only need to be 60 feet
long.)
. On roadway segments which would
exceed an 18 percent grade, either lot
developers shall design stmctures
according to Section 504 of the Tiburon
Fire Protection District's 1997 Urban-
Wildland Interface Code, "Class One
Ignition Resistant Construction." or the
applicant shall reduce road grades as
required bv the TFPD.
i'.
Community
Development
Director and
TFPD
......................~....................
Before approval of
Tentative Map
Project applicant
50
If so directed by the TFPD, the applicant
shall pay development impact fees
assessed by the District.
5.8-4 Cumulative Fire Service
Impacts Project implementation would
not result in significant cumulative fire
service demands.
... ..'...... -........ -....-. .'..'.... .'........
Verified By I
Date
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
Monitored
By
Community
Development
Director
When
Implemented
Before issuance of
building permit
Implemented
By
Project applicant
Mitigation
The applicant would be required to pay
storage charges assessed by the MMWD.
Impact
5.8-8 Water Service Impacts
Development of the project would not
require new water facilities, however, the
MMWD would require the applicant to
contribute to the funding for future
storage
SD #5 and
Town Community
Development
Director
Before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
If so directed by SD#5, the applicant shall
make a "fair-share" contribution to the
funding of a program intended to improve
the wastewater treatment operations of
the District. This will include the funding
of facilities improvements as deemed
necessary by the District, including a
portion of the cost for the construction of
a connection to the main treatment plant.
The Town's issuance 'of development
permits shall be contingent upon the
applicant's receipt of a an "ability to
serve" letter from the District and
contribution of funds to the program.
improvements
5.8-11 Increased Project and
Cumulative Sewage Treatment
Demand Development of the project site
would increase sewage treatment
demands on Sanitary District #5. The
Paradise Cove Treatment Plant may not
have sufficient capacity to serve the
project
SD #5, and
Town Community
Development
Director
Before approval of
Tentative Subdivision
Map; before issuance
of building permits
Project applicant
5
In order to determine appropriate line size
to accommodate cumulative
development, the applicant shall consult
with Sanitary District #5 and incorporate
their recommendations in the final utility
plan.
5.8-12 Increased Project and
Cumulative Sewage Conveyance
Demand The existing conveyance
system to the Paradise Cove treatment,
plant is expected to be adequate to
accommodate flows generated by the
project. However, the four-inch Paradise
Drive lines proposed by the project could
be incompatible with future facilities
improvements.
Verified By I
Date
I
Monitored
By
1
When
Implemented
I
Implemented
By
I
MITIGA TlON MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
I Mitigation
Impact
Community
Development
Director
Before issuance of
grading and / or
building permits
Project applicant
and individual lot
owners
In order to minimize the potential for
significant impacts on cultural resources,
the applicant initially and lot owners
subsequently shall incorporate the
following measures in the contracts of
their respective contractors and
subcontractors to implement:
. In the event that archaeological
artifacts or cultural soil deposits are
encountered during future grading,
excavating, or other land alterations, al
work in the immediate vicinity of the
find shall be stopped until the
discovery area can be evaluated by an
archaeologist. Depending on the extent
and cultural composition of the
discovered materials, it may be
advisable to have subsequent
excavation monitored by an
archaeologist who'wouldbe ready to
record, recover, and / or protect
significant cultural materials from
further damage.
. In the event that human skeletal
remains are discovered anywhere on
the site, work in the vicinity of the
discovery shall be discontinued and the
County Coroner shall be contacted. If
skeletal remains are found to be
prehistoric Native American (not
modern), the Coroner within 24 hours
shall call the Native American Heritage
Commission jn Sacramento who will
identify the person(s) it believes to be
the "Most Likely Descendant" of the
Cultural Resources
5.9-1 Potential Subsurface
Resources While no discernible
impacts to archaeological resources are
anticipated or human remains expected to
be present on the site, the possibility
cannot be precluded that prehistoric
cultural deposits and features are present
below the ground surface and could be
damaged during land alteration activities,
~
52
..... ..'.... ~............... .'..-.'............
..... ..:.......... .......... ...... .'.........
Verified By I
Date
Monitored
By
MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN continued
When
Implemented
Implemented
By
53
Mitigation
decreased Native American.
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 work for means of
treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains
and any associated grave goods as
provided in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98. '
Most
The
Impact