The purpose of the hearing is to accept public testimony on the the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed Easton Point residential development project. Speakers are encouraged to comment on the accuracy and adequacy of the issues discussed in the Draft EIR, including the conclusions regarding significant impacts, identified mitigation measures, and alternatives. Speakers should be encouraged to submit their comments in writing. (Forms will be available at the hearing to do so.) Written comments are due by 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 2001. (Written comments received as of the report date are attached.) Comments regarding the merits of the project should be discouraged, as there will be ample opportunity for that at future hearings. Following the conclusion of public testimony, Commissioners may provide their comments on the Draft EIR.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Accept public testimony on the Draft EIR.

Set a date for a Planning Commission project site visit, if desired. (The applicant is installing story poles at the site to illustrate building locations and heights. The applicant will indicate expected installation date at the hearing.)

Continue the public hearing to a future date for the purpose of determining Draft EIR adequacy.

SETTING

The project site is located at the southeastern tip of the Tiburon Peninsula in unincorporated Marin County, about five miles southeast of the U.S. Highway 101-Tiburon Boulevard interchange via Tiburon Boulevard, and about eight miles from the Highway 101-Tamalpais Drive interchange via Paradise. The site is contiguous to the Town’s corporate boundary on the south and west where it also is adjacent to the Old Tiburon and Hill Haven residential neighborhoods (south), Old St. Hilary’s Open Space Preserve and Tiburon Uplands Nature Preserve (west), and Paradise Drive (north and east). (See Exhibits 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 in the Draft EIR).

The property encompasses 110 acres of undeveloped hillside situated at the southeast end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The property contains several ridges transitioning to steep slopes. The southern portions of the property are characterized by open grassland, while the northern and northeastern portions of the site contain dense vegetation (including oak woodland). In addition, the site contains several springs and seasonal drainage channels. The site is accessed by several existing streets in the Hill Haven neighborhood (south) and by Paradise Drive (east and north). Lands to the south, southeast and north are developed with detached single-family homes situated on large lots; lands west of the site are undeveloped, permanent open space; and Keil Cove is located to the east.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Prezoning and Precise Development Plan applications have been filed for a residential development of the 110-acre hillside property. The project proposes the creation of 34 residential building sites and access roads, which would be clustered on 49.74 acres of the site (45% of the site area). The residential clusters include: a) three residential sites accessed from Mountain View Drive; b) 13 residential sites accessed from Ridge Road; c) one residential site accessed from Straits View Drive; d) three residential sites accessed from Paradise Drive, west of Keil Cove; e) ten residential sites accessed by the Marin Municipal Water District water tank road off Paradise Drive; and f) one residential site situated at the northernmost portion of the property that would be accessed by Paradise Drive. One commonly-owned private open space parcel is proposed that would encompass 60.26 acres (55%) of the site. Residential lot sizes range from 0.6 to 6.7 acres. Project improvements include the construction of a new 180,000-gallon water tank that would be sited on the private open space parcel.

Approval of the pending application would not involve construction of housing units by the applicant. Instead, housing units would be custom designed and built either by individual lot owners or in groups (clusters) by future developers. The application identifies Design Guidelines for building design. The Design Guidelines would be in addition to requirements imposed by the Town under the Hillside Design Guidelines. A Property Owners Association would implement the project’s Design Guidelines. The applicant’s project description includes a draft of the proposed Easton Point Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants, and Codes (CC&Rs).

With respect to "affordable housing," the applicant proposes to pay "in lieu" fees in accordance with the Town’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

The following planning applications have been filed for this project:

1. Prezoning approval to the Residential Planned Development (RPD) District at a density of 1 unit per 3.24 acres.

2. Precise Development Plan approval for 34 single-family residential lots and 60.26 acres of private common open space.

3. Approval of annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to the Town and Sanitary District #5.

Other required Town approvals include a Tentative Map, Final Map, a Design Review Permit for each lot, and building permits.

A detailed description of the proposed project is contained in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR.

BACKGROUND

In 1992, a previous application for development of the project site was submitted by the Martha Company. A Draft EIR for that project was prepared and circulated for public review in May of 1996. Public hearings to receive comments on the Draft EIR were held on July 10, 1996 and August 14, 1996. The project reviewed in 1996 proposed 49 single-family residential lots on 125 acres, which included 15 acres of a separate property on the east side of Paradise Drive, north of Keil Cove. This 15-acre "peninsula" property has since been sold to other parties and is no longer part of the current application. Because of several concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the public, the Draft EIR was determined to be inadequate and the applicant elected to redesign the project. A Final EIR was not completed and certified, and no further action was taken on the application in 1996. Revised applications for the redesigned project were received by the Town in 1999, and are the subject of current review.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

Considering that the project had been significantly redesigned and an EIR for the previous application had not been certified, in addition to the amount of time that had passed since the previous Draft EIR had been prepared, the Town determined that it was appropriate to begin the CEQA review process anew, but at the same time using previous information where relevant. In May 2000, the Town completed an Initial Study to confirm the need to prepare a new EIR and preliminarily determine the topics for analysis in this new EIR. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts for evaluation in the following subject areas:

The Town published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in May 2000 and forwarded it to government agencies, special service districts, organizations, and individuals with an interest in or jurisdiction over the project. Comments on the NOP were received from more than 60 respondents. On June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting where participants commented on the scope of the EIR identified in the NOP. As a result of the scoping process, the range of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR was expanded.

The firm of Nichols-Berman has prepared the Draft EIR for this project. The Draft EIR was released for public review on September 10, 2001. Although the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a minimum 45-day review period, the Town has provided for a 60-day review period, which closes on November 9, 2001. Written comments must be submitted to the Town by the end of normal business hours on that date. Written comments may also be submitted at the public hearing. In addition, verbal comments at the hearing will be recorded. Following closure of the public review period, Town staff will compile and review all comments.

To assist the Planning Commission in its review of the Draft EIR and proposed project, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission schedule a controlled site visit to observe story poles erected at the site. The story poles are intended to provide a visual reference for building locations and heights.

At a later Planning Commission meeting (specific date to be set), the Planning Commission will be requested to determine, based on all comments received, that the Draft EIR is either: (1) adequate in its present state in terms of compliance with CEQA, or (2) requires revisions that would necessitate recirculation under the requirements of CEQA. If determined to be adequate, the Planning Commission will be requested to direct staff to prepare a Final EIR that will include responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will be considered for certification by the Town concurrent with its deliberations on the merits of the project.

SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The purpose of an EIR is to inform decisionmakers and the public of the environmental consequences of discretionary project approvals. An EIR identifies potentially significant impacts and describes mitigation measures that may be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to a "less-than-significant" level. A significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level is considered to be an "unavoidable" impact. Mitigation measures identified in an EIR must be "feasible" and may include measures proposed as part of the project by the applicant, or by the preparers of the EIR. An EIR also considers a range of reasonable alternatives to the project as proposed, with emphasis on alternatives that would eliminate or reduce the unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project.

Decisionmakers for a project must consider and weigh the findings of the EIR in approving, conditioning, or denying a project. A project may be approved even though it would result in unavoidable impacts; however, such an approval would require a "statement of overriding considerations" by the approving agency. Decisionmakers also have the discretion to determine whether recommended mitigation measures are feasible when determining conditions to impose on an approved project.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts

The Draft EIR identified 10 (ten) significant unavoidable impacts of the project as proposed. Following is a brief summary of these impacts and the key elements that make them unavoidable. It should be noted that Draft EIR Impacts 5.1-1, 5.2-1, 5.2-3, 5.2-4, and 5.4-5 (items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 as listed below) involve direct or secondary impacts associated with methodologies employed to implement the Town’s landslide repair policy. The policy basically calls for "full repair or elimination" of landslides. As part of Draft EIR preparation, the Town’s geotechnical engineer provided a letter clarifying the extent of landslide repair work required under the Town’s policy. The EIR consultant’s geologist evaluated landslide potential and repair alternatives on a lot-by-lot basis. The applicant’s geologist and EIR’s geologist identified alternative repair methodologies that, if implemented, could in some cases reduce potential direct or secondary impacts to less-than-significant levels. Further clarification and/or resolution of the acceptability of these alternative methods in relation to the Town’s policy will be needed to determine the feasibility of mitigation and final impact determinations. (See additional discussion under "Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved" later in this report.)

It should also be noted that for impacts identified below where "LTS/SU" is indicated (meaning that the final impact determination could be either less-than-significant or significant unavoidable), measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level would either require project redesign (e.g., elimination of lots), or implementation of alternative landslide repair methods.

Impact 5.1-1 Landsliding (SU). With all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant and the Draft EIR, most potential landslide impacts can be mitigated. However, the Draft EIR concludes that the "mass grading" required for landslide repair "would possibly result in significant secondary impacts (e.g., loss of vegetation, altered local drainage) for the areas of Lots 8-9, 16-24, and 31." Additional discussion of secondary effects is contained under some of the following impact items.

Impact 5.2-1 On-site Drainage (SU) Landslide repairs within and south of Lots 16-19 would eliminate the natural character of Drainageway 1. No mitigation is available to avoid this impact. Impacts to Drainageways 2-5 would be significant and unavoidable with proposed landslide stabilization methods. Alternative stabilization methods may be available that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level; however, these methods would not be in strict compliance with the Town’s landslide repair policy.

Impact 5.2-3 Groundwater and Sensitive On-site Habitats (LTS/SU). Landslide repair and improvement required to conform with Town policy could result in the dewatering of the Keil spring and/or conversion of site groundwater to surface water. Both potential impacts would reduce the available water supply to the Keil property which depends on the supply for irrigation of its gardens and grounds which are significant historically, horticulturally, and biologically. Alternative stabilization methods may be available that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level; however, these methods would not be in strict compliance with the Town’s landslide repair policy.

Impact 5.2-4 Groundwater and Sensitive On-site Habitats (LTS/SU). Landslide repair or improvement required to conform with Town policy could eliminate two seeps in Watershed K, one seep and a seasonal pond in Watershed L, and the two seeps in Watershed U. In addition, parts of three seasonal drainages (Principal Drainageways 1, 2, and 3) would be eliminated. Since the EIR biologists have mapped these seeps and drainageways as potential jurisdictional wetlands, their elimination would constitute a significant impact. Alternative stabilization methods may be available that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level; however, these methods would not be in strict compliance with the Town’s landslide repair policy.

Impact 5.3-1 Loss of Habitat for Marin Dwarf Flax (LTS/SU). Development and long-term use on proposed Lots 1-4 and 7 would eliminate the population of threatened Marin dwarf flax which grows on the site and extends onto the contiguous Old St. Hilary’s Open Space Preserve. Mitigation measures could include elimination of Lot 2, reconfiguration of Lots 1 and 7, establishment of buffers, and other management and restoration measures. Such project redesign measures could reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Alternatively, a site restoration plan and off-site habitat acquisition as mitigation would reduce impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 5.3-4 Loss of Serpentine Bunchgrass (LTS/SU). Project implementation would result in loss of 10.51 acres of serpentine bunchgrass habitat. This would eliminate approximately 93 percent of this habitat on-site. Moreover, because this habitat is not abundant regionally, this loss would represent a significant impact. The Draft EIR concludes that the only way to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level would be to eliminate Lots 1-7.

Impact 5.4-1 View from Tiburon Ridge (SU). Development on the project site would be highly visible from the Tiburon Ridge viewpoint. Because of the maximum sensitivity of this view, future development would need to be inevident. The nature of the visual change would be significant and unavoidable with any development in this area, even with mitigation measures to reduce the impact.

Impact 5.4-2 View from Heathcliff Drive (SU). Development of the project site would be highly visible from the viewpoint on Heathcliff Drive. Because of the maximum sensitivity of this view, future development would need to be inevident. The nature of the visual change would be significant and unavoidable with any development in this area, even with mitigation measures to reduce the impact.

Impact 5.4-4 View from Angel Island (SU). Development of the project site would be highly visible from the viewpoint on Angel Island. Because of the high sensitivity of this view, future development would need to be subordinate. The nature of the visual change would be significant and unavoidable with any development in this area, even with mitigation measures to reduce the impact.

Impact 5.4-5 Visual Impact of Landslide Repair (SU). Compliance with the Town landslide repair policy could result in substantial landslide excavation, and landslide repair in the coast live oak woodlands could involve removal of parts of the woodlands. If any coast live oaks are removed because of necessary landslide repair work, the visual impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Significant Impacts that can be Eliminated or Reduced to Less-Than-Significant by Implementing Mitigation Measures Identified in the Draft EIR

The Draft EIR concludes that many potentially significant impacts of the project as proposed could be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels by implementing specific mitigation measures. These potential impacts are listed below; a summary of the mitigation measures recommended is presented in Exhibit 3.0-1 of the Draft EIR.

5.1-2 Grading

5.1-3 Slope Stability

5.1-4 Sewage Disposal

5.1-5 Expansive Soils

5.1-6 Groundwater

5.1-7 Seismicity

5.1-8 Artificial Fill Areas

5.1-9 Maintenance of Geotechnical and Hydrologic Mitigation Measures

5.2-2 On-Site Peak Flow Rates and Attendant Downstream Flooding

5.2-5 Erosion and Sedimentation

5.2-6 Water Quality

5.3-2 Loss of Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog

5.3-5 Loss of Coast Live Oak Woodland

5.3-7 Disturbance to Jurisdictional Waters

5.3-10 Introduction of Invasive Exotics

5.3-12 Disturbance to Active Raptor Nests

5.4-3 View from Paradise Drive

5.5-3 Provision of Safe Access Roadways and Driveways

5.5-4 Project Traffic Added to Hill Haven Neighborhood Streets

5.5-5 Provision of Safe On-Site Roadways

5.5-6 Provision of On-Site Parking Space

5.5-8 Impact on Pedestrians and Bicycle Use of Paradise Drive

5.5-9 Construction Traffic Impacts

5.6-1 Generation of Dust or Asbestos

5.7-3 Short-Term Construction Noise

5.8-2 Wildland-Building Fire Exposure

5.8-3 Emergency Access

5.8-8 Insufficient Water System Description

5.8-9 Inadequate Water Pressure

5.8-10 Capacity of Existing Tanks

5.8-14 Increased Project and Cumulative Sewage Conveyance Demand

5.8-15 Possible Replacement of Paradise Drive Line Segments

5.8-16 Special Requirements for Lot 24

5.9-1 Potential Subsurface Resources

Less-Than-Significant Impacts

The Draft EIR analyzed a number of potential impacts and concluded that they would be less-than-significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are recommended. These impacts are listed below; more detailed descriptions can be found in Exhibit 3.0-1 of the Draft EIR.

5.3-3 Loss of Habitat for Special Status Animals

5.3-6 Loss of Northern Coyote Brush Scrub and Non-Native Grassland

5.3-8 Interference with Movement of Native Wildlife

5.3-9 Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife

5.3-11 Indirect Impacts to Native Wildlife by House Cat Predation

5.5-1 Existing-Plus-Project Impacts on Study Intersections

5.5-2 Cumulative Buildout-Plus-Project Impacts on Study Intersections

5.5-7 Impact on Public Transit

5.6-2 Creation or Contribution to Objectionable Odors

5.7-1 Land Use Compatibility of Noise Environment

5.7-2 Permanent Noise Increase

5.7-4 Aircraft Noise Exposure

5.8-1 Fire Service Demand

5.8-4 Cumulative Fire Service

5.8-5 Reed Union School District

5.8-6 Tamalpais Union High School District

5.8-7 Cumulative Public School Impacts

5.8-11 Increased Water Demand

5.8-12 Cumulative Water Service Impacts

5.8-13 Increased Project and Cumulative Sewage Treatment Demand

5.8-17 Gas and Electric Service

5.8-18 Cumulative Gas and Electric Service

5.9-2 Historic Significance of Spanish Trail

Topics Dismissed from EIR Analysis by the Initial Study

During the Initial Study review of the proposed project, several topics were eliminated from detailed review in the Draft EIR because it was determined, based on available information, that there was no potential for significant impacts to occur. These impacts are listed below. (Note that numbers refer to Initial Study Environmental Checklist Items [see Appendix 7.9 of the Draft EIR which contains the Initial Study]. The Initial Study describes the reasons for determining that the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.)

B.1 Converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.

B.2 Conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

B.3 Involving other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

C.1 Conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

C.2 Violating any air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

C.3 Resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.

D.6 Conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

E.3 Destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature directly or indirectly.

F.1 Exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.

c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

G.1. Creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

G.3 Emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

G.4 Being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled and, as a result, creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

G.5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

G.6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

H.7 Placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.

H.8 Placing within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.

H.10 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

I.1 Physically dividing an established community.

I.3 Conflicting with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

J.1 Resulting in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and residents of the state.

J.2 Resulting in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

K.2 Exposing people to or generating excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

K.5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

K.6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

L.1 Inducing substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.

L.2 Displacing substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

L.3 Displacing substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

M. Resulting in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for:

2. Police protection.

4. Parks.

5. Other public facilities.

N.1 Increasing the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

N.2. Including recreational facilities or requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

O.2 Exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

O.3 Resulting in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location which would result in substantial safety risks.

O.7 Conflicting with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks).

P.1 Exceeding wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

P.4 Having sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or needing new or expanded entitlements.

P.5 Resulting in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

P.6 Being served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

P.7 Complying with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Alternatives

The Draft EIR analyzes four alternatives to the proposed project. These are summarized as follows:

No Development ("No Project"). The No Development Alternative assesses the continuation of existing environmental conditions with no development at this time at any location on the site. This means that the proposed project would not be approved and implemented. The No Development Alternative acknowledges that development could occur at a future time, consistent with existing Town (if annexed) or County (if not annexed) land use designations and zoning. Therefore, it is not an open space alternative. Instead, it illustrates the effects of maintaining the status quo (should existing conditions persist unmitigated). Accordingly, the No Development Alternative provides a basis for understanding the effects of build-out according to the proposed PDP (as assessed in the preceding chapter) and for comparing those effects with impacts expected from the other alternatives. With the No Development Alternative, other growth in the region would continue to occur, but the site would not contribute to this cumulative development.

Nine-Lot Alternative. The Nine-Lot Alternative assumes all development would be confined to oak woodlands on the lower, northeastern elevations of the site. Six lots would be located on Forest Glen Court (along the approximate Paradise Drive water tank service road), and three lots would be located along Paradise Drive. Lots generally would coincide with proposed Lots 21-22, 24, 27, 29-31, and 33-34 with lot lines and building envelopes designed to avoid landslides and protect drainages in order to accommodate California Red-Legged Frog movements (see Exhibit 2.2-2 of the Draft EIR for the location of these lots). This alternative would completely preserve sensitive dwarf flax and bunchgrass habitat in the southwest corner of the site and wetlands located in Watersheds K, L, and U, and assumes avoidance rather than any slope stabilization to repair or improve landslides.

Seventeen-Lot Alternative. The Seventeen-Lot Alternative assumes development in three parts of the site. Seven lots would be located near the existing Paradise Drive water tank service road, and three lots would be located on Paradise Drive (similar to the Nine-Lot Alternative). Seven lots would be located just downslope of Ridgeline 21 (shown on Exhibit 4.2-3 of the Draft EIR) with access from Ridge Road. These seven lots would avoid dwarf flax habitat entirely and preserve the majority of serpentine bunchgrass habitat, while resulting in a small but mitigable grassland loss to provide access. This alternative assumes stabilization of private use areas for lots as proposed, repair of landslides south of Ridgeline 21 (which affect off-site areas in conformance with the Town’s landslide repair policy), and improvements to preserve the Lands of Keil Spring.

Public Open Space Alternative. This conceptual alternative assumes acquisition of the site by a public agency for preservation as permanent open space and no development except trails for public access. This alternative is, in effect, a "No Development" alternative; however, it is not a "No Project" alternative because its implementation would require a separate "action" of its own.

All of the alternatives evaluated satisfy the CEQA objective of avoiding or substantially lessening the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project as proposed. The Draft EIR includes an extensive analysis of each alternative. In addition, all alternatives and the proposed project were comparatively evaluated in a matrix (Exhibit 6.5-1 of the Draft EIR). In comparing the proposed project and all alternatives, the Public Open Space Alternative was determined to be the "environmentally superior" alternative, largely because it would permanently retain the physical character of the site and its environmental features. Among the development alternatives, the Nine-Lot Alternative was concluded to be environmentally superior because it avoids all of the significant unavoidable impacts of the project as proposed. The Seventeen-Lot Alternative avoids most, but not all, of the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. (The Seventeen-Lot Alternative would still have significant unavoidable effects for Impacts 5.2-3, 5.4-1, and 5.4-4 [see descriptions earlier in this staff report].)

Cumulative Impacts

The Draft EIR evaluated potential cumulative effects in the areas of hydrology, biology, traffic, and public services. No significant cumulative effects were identified that could not be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels through project-specific mitigation. The proposed project would be consistent with the Tiburon General Plan land use designation and would, therefore, not result in a development that had not been assumed in this adopted plan.

Growth-Inducing Impacts

The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would not result in growth-inducing impacts. See section 3.5 of the Draft EIR for the complete discussion.

Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved

The Draft EIR identifies a number of issues that require Town decisions and may represent tradeoffs between differing policy objectives (such as those identified by the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance). The most prominent issue involves slope stabilization in conformance with the Town’s landslide repair policy.

The Precise Development Plan (PDP), as proposed, represents a dual approach to addressing on-site landslides. First, the PDP proposes to avoid most areas of instability where feasible. Second, the PDP proposes specific techniques to stabilize specific landslides without full repair. The latter is intended to minimize the area disturbed by landslide repair. The Draft EIR concludes that the proposed approach would not be adequate geotechnically, but could be mitigated through additional landslide repair or alternative methodologies. Moreover, the PDP approach of leaving some landslides unrepaired or unimproved would not conform with Town policy according to the Draft EIR

Full conformance with Town policy is expected to result in mass grading estimated to involve about 150,000 to 185,000 cubic yards of material to stabilize lots. A combination of improvements including localized grading, installation of retaining walls, and installation of drainage improvements could be used (but currently is not proposed) to stabilize Landslide Feature A and slides upslope of the Lands of Keil spring in the site’s private common open space. These repairs would mitigate on- and off-site slope stability hazards and would avoid significant secondary impacts. The alternative to stabilize this area would be mass grading of a magnitude that would be expected to result in short-term biotic (including loss of vegetation, filling of wetlands, and dispersal of wildlife using site habitat), on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation, noise, air quality, visual, and potentially other impacts. Unless selective alternative repair methods are deemed adequate and implemented, stabilization of Landslide Feature A and the slopes upslope of the Lands of Keil spring would result in the significant long-term loss of surface water and groundwater sources of the Keil property downhill from the site.

Resolution of these issues will likely require: (1) project redesign to eliminate specific lots or development sites; (2) additional coordination with Town engineers/geologists to determine acceptable engineering solutions that would avoid the significant secondary effects identified in the Draft EIR while conforming with the objectives of the Town’s landslide repair policy; and/or (3) deviation from the Town’s landslide repair policy in specific consideration of the project site’s conditions. It is important to note that the Town’s policy concludes with the following statement: "All of the above is subject to the professional judgment of the Project Geotechnical Engineer, as well as the Town Engineer and the Town’s Geotechnical Consultant." In past practice, the Town has exercised considerable latitude in applying this policy in a reasonable and sensible fashion.

ATTACHMENTS

Vicinity Map

Notice of Completion / Notice of Public Hearing

Correspondence received to date