KarunaIS 8-19-13 fnl · 2013-09-11 · A. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jerome Draper...

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Marin County Environmental Coordination and Review

Pursuant to Section 21000 et. seq. of the Public Resources Code and Marin County Environmental Impact Review Guidelines and Procedures, a Negative Declaration is hereby granted for the following project. 1. Project Name: Karuna Land LLC Master Plan (MP 09-1), Subdivision

Vesting Tentative Map (LD 09-2), Precise Development Plan (DP 09-5), and Design Review

2. Location and Description: 1 Sacramento Avenue, San Anselmo, California

Assessor's Parcel 177-220-10 The project is an alternative proposal to subdivide an 11-acre lot into six lots for residential development, and one remainder lot. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors denied a previous proposal for a two-lot land division. The applicant filed a lawsuit in Marin County Superior Court and a June 2012 Settlement Agreement allows for processing this alternative through the public planning process including environmental review and a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. The proposal includes a proposal for a Precise Development Plan, and Design Review for all proposed structures because a Vesting Tentative Map is proposed. The Precise Development Plan is for the design of the subdivision location and configuration, the common driveway and retaining walls, and infrastructure. The Design Review is for the design of the six 1,500 square foot single-family residences. One of the residences, on Lot 4, would be designated as an affordable unit. The residential lots would range in size from 3,539 square feet for Lot 4 to 6,119 square feet for Lot 2. The remainder lot would be 9.2 acres, the Driveway and Utility Parcel, including an existing 20-foot Driveway and Utility Easement for the existing access to 1 Sacramento Avenue of 0.705 acres. The residences proposed on Lots 1 through 6 would have maximum heights above finished grade of 33 feet, 31.5 feet, 27.8 feet, 29 feet, 29.5 feet, and 29 feet, respectively. Because the residences would be set into the hill with excavation of the soil from around the base of the structures, the maximum heights above existing grade would be 28 feet, 29.8 feet, 27.5, 29 feet, 29.5 feet, and 29 feet, respectively. Retaining walls would range in height from 1-foot to 7 feet behind and adjacent to the residences, and up to a maximum height of 11 feet for a fire truck turnaround area set into the base of the hill west of Lot 4. The 9.2-acre remainder lot is proposed to be permanently used for agriculture, recreation, a family memorial site, and a meditation area. The potential development potential of the remainder lot would be transferred to a yet-to-be-determined receiver site as part of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The applicant proposes to provide access to the subdivision from the end of Sacramento Avenue on a common private driveway. Improvements to the existing common driveway that extends from the end of Sacramento Avenue would include the removal of an existing concrete block wall and widening the paved driveway to provide a 24-foot wide transition from Sacramento Avenue to a 16-foot wide paved common driveway. The common driveway would provide access to the three existing residences at 58 Sacramento, 11 Sacramento, and 5 Sacramento Avenue. The total number of residences proposed to be served by this common driveway is 9 residences.

A new concrete box culvert/bridge with a natural bottom would replace the existing two 24-inch diameter concrete culverts for the common driveway crossing over the creek. Surface runoff from all of the proposed structures and common driveway pavement would be directed to bioswales along the driveway. Additionally, a 160 square foot portion of the common driveway at the downslope end would intercept surface runoff with permeable pavement to allow for percolation into the ground and reduce the peak stormwater flows into the creek. 3. Project Sponsor: Jerome Draper III

4. Finding:

Based on the attached Initial Study and without a public hearing, it is my judgment that:

The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

The significant effects of the project noted in the Initial Study attached have been mitigated by modifications to the project so that the potential adverse effects are reduced to a point where no significant effects would occur.

_____________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Environmental Planning Manager Based on the attached Initial Study and the testimony received at a duly noticed public hearing,

a Negative Declaration is granted.

______________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Chairperson, Planning Commission ______________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Hearing Officer ______________________________________________ Date: _________________________ President, Board of Supervisors Appeal: Subsequent to an appeal of the granting of a Negative Declaration and based on the

testimony received at a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, the record of the public hearing on the Negative Declaration and the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration is granted.

______________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Chairperson, Planning Commission _____________________________________________ Date: _________________________ President, Board of Supervisors

5. Mitigation Measures: No potential adverse impacts were identified, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Please refer to mitigation measures in the attached Initial Study.

The potential adverse impacts have been found to be mitigable as noted under the following factors in the Initial Study attached.

(List Initial Study Sections and Mitigation/Monitoring) All of the mitigation measures for the above effects have been incorporated into the project and

are embodied in conditions of approval recommended by the Marin County Community Development Agency - Planning Division.

Other conditions of approval in support of these measures may also be advanced. 6. Preparation: This Negative Declaration was prepared by Ben Berto, Principal Planner, of the Marin County

Community Development Agency - Planning Division. Copies may be obtained at the address listed below.

Marin County Community Development Agency Planning Division 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 473-6269

Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

\\FILEDPW\CDAPlanData\Cur\RWarner\PROJS\Karuna-Draper IS\NegDecKaruna.docx

MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLANNING DIVISION

INITIAL STUDY KARUNA LAND LLC MASTER PLAN,

SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND DESIGN REVIEW

I. BACKGROUND

A. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jerome Draper III Karuna Land LLC 11 Sacramento Avenue San Anselmo CA 94960 B. Lead Agency Name and Address: Marin County Community Development Agency Planning Division, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 San Rafael, California 94903-4157 C. Contact Person: Ben Berto Telephone Number: (415) 473-3658 (desk), or (415) 473-6269 (office) E-mail Address: bberto@marincounty.org

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Project Title: Karuna Land LLC Master Plan (MP 09-1), Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map (LD 09-2), Precise Development Plan (DP 09-5), and Design Review

B. Type of Application(s): Master Plan, Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map, and Precise

Development Plan C. Project Location: 1 Sacramento Avenue, San Anselmo, California Assessor's Parcel 177-220-10 Refer to: Figure 1: Location Map – Thomas Brothers Map Figure 2: Location Map – San Rafael USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Figure 3: Location Map -- Aerial Photograph 2011 Marin County GIS Figure 4: Assessor’s Final Map

D. Countywide Plan Land Use Designation: MF2 – Multiple Family, one unit to four units per acre (Built Environment Element, Planning Area 4 – Upper Ross Valley, Pages 3-232 to 3-234, Map 4.1) Refer to: Figure 5: Sleepy Hollow Countywide Plan Map 4.1 -- Land Use Policy Map

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP – THE THOMAS GUIDE

FIGURE 2: USGS SAN RAFAEL 7.5’ QUADRANGLE

Project Site and Vicinity

Project Site

FIGURE 3: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL 177-220-10 AND VICINITY

FIGURE 4: ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP

Assessor’s Parcel 177-220-10

Project Site

FIGURE 5: SLEEPY HOLLOW MARIN COUNTYWIDE PLAN LAND USE POLICY MAP 4.1

E. Community Area: Sleepy Hollow/San Anselmo

Zoning: RMP-1.33 – Residential Multiple-family Planned District, one unit per 1.33 acres maximum density (Board of Supervisors Ordinance 2056)

F. Description of Project:

Environmental Setting and Existing Conditions: The subject property is an 11-acre property on the south side of a small valley bounded by the hills between Sleepy Hollow/San Anselmo and San Rafael. The site has northern aspect slopes of 25% to 45% down from the ridge that separates the communities of San Rafael and San Anselmo. The site is adjacent to Sorich Ranch Park to the north and Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery to the east, along the south side of Sorich Creek, an intermittent creek that supports riparian vegetation including willow and bay trees, and blackberry bushes. An existing 430 lineal foot, 2-foot diameter, concrete culvert conveys creek water through 140 lineal feet from the northern property line to the southwest, through 110 lineal feet within the San Anselmo Department of Public Works Corporation Yard, and then 180 lineal feet through the neighboring Sorokin lot where it daylights at the neighboring LePage lot. Downslope of the culvert outlet the vegetation along the creek banks consists primarily of blackberry bushes and willow trees. At the downslope end of the LePage lot, the creek passes through two 2-foot diameter concrete

The Project Site is in the Planned Residential (PR) District and the northeastern upland portion of the site is in the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Area (RUG).

culverts installed for the existing driveway over the creek for access to the adjacent residential property at 1 Sacramento Avenue to the south. Project: The project is an alternative proposal to subdivide an 11-acre lot into six lots for residential development, and one remainder lot. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors denied a previous proposal for a two-lot land division. The applicant filed a lawsuit in Marin County Superior Court and a June 2012 Settlement Agreement allows for processing this alternative through the public planning process including environmental review and a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. The proposal includes a proposal for a Precise Development Plan, and Design Review for all proposed structures because a Vesting Tentative Map is proposed. The Precise Development Plan is for the design of the subdivision location and configuration, the common driveway and retaining walls, and infrastructure. The Design Review is for the design of the six 1,500 square foot single-family residences. One of the residences, on Lot 4, would be designated as an affordable unit. The residential lots would range in size from 3,539 square feet for Lot 4 to 6,119 square feet for Lot 2. The remainder lot would be 9.2 acres, the Driveway and Utility Parcel, including the existing 20-foot Driveway and Utility Easement for the existing access to 1 Sacramento Avenue, would be 0.705 acres. The residences proposed on Lots 1 through 6 would have maximum heights above finished grade of 33 feet, 31.5 feet, 27.8 feet, 29 feet, 29.5 feet, and 29 feet, respectively. Because the residences would be set into the hill with excavation of the soil from around the base of the structures, the maximum heights above existing grade would be 28 feet, 29.8 feet, 27.5, 29 feet, 29.5 feet, and 29 feet, respectively. Retaining walls would range in height from 1-foot to 7 feet behind and adjacent to the residences, and up to a maximum height of 11 feet for a fire truck turnaround area set into the base of the hill west of Lot 4. The 9.2-acre remainder lot would be permanently used for agriculture, recreation, meditation, and memorial site uses. The potential development potential of the remainder parcel would be transferred to a yet-to-be-determined receiver site as part of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The applicant proposes to provide access to the subdivision from the end of Sacramento Avenue on a common private driveway. Improvements to the existing common driveway that extends from the end of Sacramento Avenue would include the removal of an existing concrete block wall and widening the paved driveway to provide a 24-foot wide transition from Sacramento Avenue to a 16-foot wide paved common driveway. The common driveway would provide access to the three existing residences at 58 Sacramento, 11 Sacramento, and 5 Sacramento Avenue. The total number of residences proposed to be served by this common driveway is nine residences. A new concrete box culvert/bridge with a natural bottom would replace the existing two 24-inch diameter concrete culverts for the common driveway crossing over the creek. Surface runoff from all of the proposed structures and common driveway pavement would be directed to bioswales along the driveway. Additionally, a 160 square foot portion of the common driveway at the downslope end would intercept surface runoff with permeable pavement to allow for percolation into the ground and reduce the peak stormwater flows into the creek.

FIGURE 6: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FIGURE 7: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PARTIAL)

FIGURE 8: SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS “A”

FIGURE 9: SCHEMATIC ELEVATIONS “B”

FIGURE 10: CONSTRAINTS MAP

III. CIRCULATION AND REVIEW

This Initial Study is being circulated to all agencies that have jurisdiction over the subject property or the natural resources affected by the project to attest to the completeness and adequacy of the information contained in the Initial Study as it relates to the concerns which are germane to the agency's jurisdictional authority. The agencies include: the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Marin Municipal Water District; the County of Marin Department of Parks and Open Space; and the County of Marin Department of Public Works, MCSTOPPP and Land Use and Water Resources Division.

This Negative Declaration is being circulated for review and comment for a 30-day period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.

Project information and studies in support of the Negative Declaration are referenced in topical sections by number and listed in Attachment 1, Documents Incorporated by Reference.

IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and the County EIR Guidelines, Marin County will prepare an Initial Study for all projects not categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The Initial Study evaluation is a preliminary analysis of a project that provides the County with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. The points enumerated below describe the primary procedural steps undertaken by the County in completing an Initial Study checklist evaluation and, in particular, the manner in which significant environmental effects of the project are made and recorded.

A. The determination of significant environmental effect is to be based on substantial evidence

contained in the administrative record and the County's environmental database consisting of factual information regarding environmental resources and environmental goals and policies relevant to Marin County. As a procedural device for reducing the size of the Initial Study document, relevant information sources cited and discussed in topical sections of the checklist evaluation are incorporated by reference into the checklist (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Each of these information sources has been assigned a number which is shown in parenthesis following each topical question and which corresponds to a number on the data base source list provided herein as Attachment 1. Other sources used or individuals contacted may also be cited in the discussion of topical issues where appropriate.

B. In general, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either the

Initial Study demonstrates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have one or more significant effects on the environment. A Negative Declaration shall also be prepared if the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the Negative Declaration for public review would avoid or reduce such effects to a level of less than significance, and there is no substantial evidence before the Lead County Department that the project as revised will have a significant effect on the environment. A signature block is provided in Section VII of this Initial Study to verify that the project sponsor has agreed to incorporate mitigation measures into the project in conformance with this requirement.

C. All answers to the topical questions must take into account the whole of the action involved,

including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Significant unavoidable cumulative impacts shall be identified in Section VI of this Initial Study (Mandatory Findings of Significance).

D. A brief explanation shall be given for all answers except "Not Applicable" answers that are

adequately supported by the information sources the Lead County Department cites in the

parenthesis following each question. A "Not Applicable" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "Not Applicable" answer shall be discussed where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

E. "Less Than Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is found to be less than significant based

on the project as proposed and without the incorporation of mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study.

F. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of recommended

mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead County Department must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced).

G. "Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the Lead

County Department lacks information to make a finding that the effect is less than significant. If there are one or more effects that have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, an EIR shall be required for the project.

H. This Initial Study checklist was prepared consistent with current California Environmental Quality

Act Guidelines and the Initial Study Checklist contained in those Guidelines. V. ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:

a) Conflict with applicable Countywide Plan designation or zoning standards?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4)

Significant Impact

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated

Less Than Significant Impact

Not Applicable

[ ] The determinations of policy consistency as discussed in this Initial Study section represent County staff interpretation of policies. However, this Initial Study does not determine policy consistency. The County decision-makers make the formal policy consistency determinations. Policy inconsistencies may not necessarily indicate significant environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b) states that “effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change in the environment.” Therefore, only those policy inconsistencies that would lead to a significant effect on the physical environmental are considered significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. Where potentially significant environmental impacts are raised in the discussion below, they have been mitigated to a less-than-significant impact and, therefore, project activities are determined to be consistent with the relevant policies cited. Mitigations are addressed further in the topical impact sections following plan policy analyses. LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS Land use designations, and consequently the development of the project site, are governed by the objectives and policies of the Marin Countywide Plan (CWP), the Sleepy Hollow Community Plan, and Title 22 (Development Code) of the Marin County Code. The Marin Countywide Plan

The proposed project would not require any land use designation amendments and the proposed Master Plan, Subdivision, Precise Development Plan, and Design Review for the future residences would be consistent with Marin Countywide Plan Land Use Designation. The subject property is located in the City-Centered Corridor, as established by the Marin Countywide Plan (CWP) and is designated with an MF2 (Multiple Family, one unit to four units per acre) land use designation. The proposal for a 6-lot Subdivision would be consistent with the MF2 land use designation in the Countywide Plan because the overall proposed density would be one unit per 1.8 acres. The existing RMP-1.33 zoning district is also consistent with this land use designation with one unit per 1.33 acres maximum density. Specific policies pertain to the proposed project, including those relating to: (1) natural systems protection and management; (2) species preservation and protection of trees; (3) scenic quality; (4) grading activities; (5) fire hazards and safe access; and (6) community character and access to public open space. Policy BIO-1.1 Protect Wetlands, Habitat for Special Status Species, Sensitive Natural Communities, and Important Wildlife Nursery Areas and Movement Corridors. Consistent. As discussed in Section V.7, “Biological Resources,” the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on all special-status species and communities. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. Policy BIO-1.3 Protect Woodlands, Forests, and Tree Resources. Consistent. Section V.7, “Biological Resources,” analyzes the potential effects of the project on existing sensitive species and habitats and concludes that the project would not directly or indirectly affect special status species or habitat diversity. Consequently the proposed project is consistent with Policy BIO-1.3. Please refer to Section V.7(a) “Biological Resources” of this Initial Study for a more detailed analysis of this issue. Policies BIO-4.1 through BIO-4.20 address the issue of streamside protection. Consistent: The proposed project is subject to the Streamside Conservation Area (SCA) policies in the Countywide Plan because the creek adjacent to the property contains woody riparian vegetation for more than 150 lineal feet. A portion of the area adjacent to the creek east of the culvert was delineated as wetlands and this determination was confirmed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Through a portion of the property runs a second order tributary to Corte Madera Creek, an intermittent watercourse identified as a dashed “blue line” on the USGS Quadrangle map that is located 200 feet away from the proposed common driveway development and 300 feet from the proposed Building Envelope on Parcel B. Policy WR-1.1 Protect Watersheds and Aquifer Recharge. Consistent. The project would contribute minimally to modifications to the watershed and aquifers. No significant effects (with mitigation) related to watersheds are identified. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy. Policy EH-4.3 Adopt and Implement a Fire Management Plan. Consistent. The project proposes a Vegetation Management Plan prepared by various professionals that would minimize hazards associated with wildland fire. Potentially significant effects can be mitigated to less than significant related to structural fire hazards. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this policy.

Policy AIR-4.1 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Consistent: As discussed in Section V.5 “Air Quality,” the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts on air quality relating to greenhouse gas emissions with implementation of development standards for energy conservation and use of renewable energy systems. Policy OS-1.2 Protect Open Space for Future Generations. Consistent: The project includes a proposal for a 9.2 acre remainder parcel which is not proposed for public or private open space use. Pursuant to the 2012 Settlement Agreement entered into between the County and the applicant, the remainder parcel could not be used for development, but could be used for private uses consistent with the RMP 1.33 zoning designation, including the applicant’s proposed agriculture, recreation, meditation, and memorial site uses. “Development” pursuant to MCC Section 22.130.030 includes “the placement or erection of any solid material or structure…”. The, the remainder parcel could be specifically designated as permanently undevelopable aside from the applicant’s above-proposed uses to ensure protection of open space for future generations. Policy TRL-1.2 Expand the Countywide Trail System Consistent: The County Open Space District has expressed an interest in utilizing a portion of the remainder parcel area for a segment of a public trail alignment along the northeast side of the property. The Community Development Agency will assist in exploring this trail option. Policy TRL-1.3 Facilitate Public Dedication of Trails. Consistent: Although the County Open Space District has expressed an interest in utilizing a portion of the remainder parcel area for a segment of a public trail alignment along the northeast side of the property, thus far the applicant has not expressed a voluntary willingness to offer any land for trail dedication. Marin County Code Title 22 (Development Code) The proposed project is consistent with the RMP-1.33 zoning district that allows for residential development with a maximum density of one unit per 1.33 acres. All proposed lots are in conformance with the zoning district and the proposed building envelopes would provide ample separation between developments while generally clustering development in the lower portion of the property. The upper 9.2 acre remainder parcel, with portions in the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Area along the ridge, would be encumbered with an Open Space Agreement to be owned and managed by the property owner. The proposed lots would be in conformance with the zoning district standards. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans

or policies adopted by Marin County? (source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Please refer to Section 1(a) of this Initial Study for a discussion of the project’s conformance with pertinent sections of the Environmental Quality Section of the CWP and related mitigation and monitoring measures. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project.

c) Affect agricultural resources, operations, or

contracts (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, impacts from incompatible land uses, or conflicts with Williamson Act contracts)?

(source #(s): 1)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The property is not under Williamson Act contract and the woodland property has not been used as a commercial agricultural resource. The development of six additional residences on the proposed lot will maintain the rural residential character and not affect agricultural resources. Due to the lack of a long-term commercially viable agricultural operation, there will be no significant loss of agricultural land. The woodland hillside property currently has no agricultural resource value and is not under Williamson Act contract. The development of the project would result in no significant impacts to agricultural land. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of

an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The small-scale nature of the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community because the proposed division of one parcel into six residential lots, a driveway and utility parcel, and an remainder parcel ranging from 3,539 square feet to 6,119 square for the residential lots and 30,730 square feet for the driveway and utility parcel, to 9.2 acres for the remainder parcel would be in substantial conformity with the surrounding area in terms of density and land use. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

e) Result in substantial alteration of the

character or functioning of the community, or present or planned use of an area?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project would not significantly alter the visual character of the surrounding community because the Subdivision is similar to development in the immediate area and is located low on the hill outside the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Area. The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the planned use of the area. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

f) Substantially increase the demand for

neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The development of six additional residences and a future project involving transferred development rights will result in a less-than-significant increase in the demand for park facilities or effects on recreational opportunities. The applicant proposes to restrict development of the 9.2 acre remainder parcel to personal use for agriculture, recreation, meditation, and memorial site uses via a transfer of development rights. The residential development rights from the remainder parcel would be transferred to another property in the County near transit to reduce vehicle miles travelled and concentrate development in energy efficient communities near transit stations. A standard condition of approval will require payment of in-lieu parkland dedication fees, before recordation of the Final Map. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:

a) Increase density that would exceed official population projections for the planning area within which the project site is located as set forth in the Countywide Plan and/or community plan?

(source #(s): 1, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project complies with the CWP density and population standards. Additionally, the small nature of this project and its consistency with the land use and density standards established by the CWP for this property will neither individually nor cumulatively affect growth rates projected for the Sleepy Hollow planning area. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either

directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?

(source #(s): 1, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

This project will not individually, nor cumulatively, adversely affect growth rates projected for the planning area in which the project is located because the proposed development is an infill project consistent with the density and land use contemplated by the CWP, as discussed in Section 2(a) of this Initial Study. Furthermore, the project would not create any growth-inducing or cumulative effects due to the following factors: (1) the owner owns only one other property in the immediate vicinity of the project site; and (2) the project would not entail the extension of water or sewer service with capacity to service additional development beyond that contemplated by this project. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?

(source #(s): 2)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project would not affect existing housing because it is a vacant property, and would not affect any areas of affordable housing. This applicant will be required to comply with the current standards in Marin County Code Section 22.22.020 and proposes one residence to be an affordable unit. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:

a) Location in an area of geologic hazards, including but not necessarily limited to: 1) active or potentially active fault zones; 2) landslides or mudslides; 3) slope instability or ground failure; 4) subsidence; 5) expansive soils; 6) liquefaction; 7) tsunami ; or 8) similar hazards?

(source #(s): 1, 5, 8, 26)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Site visits and review of resource maps maintained by the Marin County Community Development Agency indicate that the subject property is not located in a seismic hazard area, is not located in proximity to bay fronts or ocean fronts and, based upon field investigation, reveals no evidence of mudslides. The site is located within two soil complexes: the Xerorthents-Urban land with 0% to 9% slopes along the valley floor and the toe of the hills, and the Tocaloma-Saurin Association with 50% to 75% slopes on the hills. The soil formed from the erosion of the Franciscan Formation and is derived from sandstone or shale. Permeability is moderate and runoff is very rapid with very high hazard for water erosion. The slope stability is rated a 1 – very stable along the valley and base of the hills, but the stability is rated a 4 on the hills with high risk for instability. The soils are moderately expansive on the hill and very shallow along the valley and toe of the slope. The project site is located in a general region of high seismicity and is within 8-9 miles of the San Andreas, and Hayward Fault Zones. Review of resource maps maintained by the Marin County Community Development Agency determined that the subject property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone or other seismic hazard area. The property is not located in proximity to bay fronts or ocean fronts and, based upon field investigation by the civil engineer, displays no evidence of surficial landslides. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

The proposed project would not cause impacts that expose people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, tsunami, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Substantial erosion of soils due to wind or

water forces and attendant siltation from excavation, grading, or fill?

(source #(s): 8, 26)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Due to the development of the access driveway through areas of gradual slopes up to 10% within the Xerorthents-Urban land soil complex, and the proximity to Sorich Creek downslope and through a small portion of the subject property, there is a potential impact related to soil erosion due to grading and construction of the driveway and future residences. Uniformly applied standards to prevent substantial erosion are codified in Marin County Code sections 24.04.625 (Erosion and Sediment Control) and 24.04.627 (Surface Runoff Pollution Control Plan). These regulations require erosion control plans for construction during the wet season and the implementation of best management practices for storm water management. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to soil erosion.

c) Substantial changes in topography from excavation, grading or fill, including but not necessarily limited to: 1) ground surface relief features; 2) geologic substructures or unstable soil conditions; and 3) unique geologic or physical features?

(source #(s): 8, 26)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The project would not result in substantial changes in topography because the proposed excavation would be limited to the construction of an access driveway, development of six residences set into the base of the hill, and trenching for utilities. As noted in 3(a) above, the area proposed for development is underlain by relatively stable soils. One unique physical feature is a culverted creek through 140 feet of the property and adjacent to the northwest, known as Sorich Creek and a tributary of San Anselmo and Corte Madera Creeks. The project would minimize any disturbance to the creek. The only work being proposed is the replacement of two existing 24-inch diameter concrete culverts (6.28 square feet) for the existing driveway crossing with a 15 square foot rectangular concrete, gravel bottom culvert that will improve flows during peak storm events and reduce the likelihood of flooding upstream. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:

a) Substantial changes in absorption rates,

drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?

(source #(s): 19, 26)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The development of the access driveway and six residences will increase the impervious surface area and could potentially increase surface runoff. Project components include vegetated bioswales and a portion of the driveway at the downslope end near the creek to have a pervious concrete surface that will allow for water percolation. The Department of Public works staff reviewed this potential increase in runoff, and based upon their engineering expertise, determined that the increased runoff will not be significant.

b) Exposure of people or property to water

related hazards, including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) flooding; 2) debris deposition; or 3) similar hazards ?

(source #(s): 10, 19, 26)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Map (FIRM) Community Panel Number 06041C0456D on file with the Marin County Department of Public Works, the subject property is not located in an area of known flood hazard. The site is located within Zone X, and area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. Additional site runoff is minimized through clustered design on the lower portions of the site.

c) Discharge of pollutants into surface or

ground waters or other alteration of surface or ground water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?

(source #(s): 16, 17, 19, 22)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project and future single-family residential and open space-type uses for agriculture, recreation, meditation, and memorial site uses of the subject property would not generate any unusual quantities of pollutants which would affect the quality of surface or subsurface waters in the area. Further, all future residential developments would be required to connect to the Ross Valley Sanitary sewage disposal system in compliance with Marin County Code Title 18. Ross Valley Sanitary District staff reviewed the project and indicated that the proposed residences can be served with an extension to the existing sewer main and compliance with all district specifications and payment of connection fees for each new residence. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect surface or ground water quality in the vicinity.

d) Substantial change in the amount of surface

water in any water body or ground water either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through intersection of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?

(source #(s): 17, 22)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The domestic water supply for future development of six single-family residences resulting from the project would be provided by the Marin Municipal Water District. Water service can be provided with a pipeline extension within the development, as well as completion of a looped system to connect to the existing water main in Los Angeles Boulevard and San Francisco Boulevard. Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities the project will be eligible for water service upon request and submittal of a Low-Pressure Water Service Application, a copy of the Building Permit, required fees, and compliance will meet all District regulations in effect at the time service is requested. Compliance with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 213 – Water Conservation is a condition of water service. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

e) Substantial changes in the flow of surface or

ground waters, including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) currents; 2) rate of flow; or 3) the course or direction of water movements?

(source #(s): 17, 19, 22)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The project would not rely on groundwater wells or surface flows for water supply.

f) Substantial reduction in the amount of water

otherwise available for public water supplies?

(source #(s): 22)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of public water supplies because the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) determined that the project would result in no specific impacts to the public water supply properly designed and maintained fixtures and landscaping.

5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:

a) Generate substantial air emissions that could

violate official air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 23, 24)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The incremental increase in emissions for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project would contribute very minor amounts of reactive organic gases, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur oxides, and other pollutants into the atmosphere, as is typical for residential construction. None of these pollutants would be emitted in cumulatively considerable amounts. Due to the small-scale nature of this project, it would not cause a significant degradation of air quality in the region.

b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,

such as noxious fumes or fugitive dust?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 19, 24)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The small-scale nature of this residential project would not expose sensitive receptors to noxious fumes or fugitive dust, and the amount of dust generated during construction grading would be minimal and short-term. Standard fugitive dust control measures are required for grading and construction activities as regulated by the Department of Public Works through Grading Permits and Building Permits. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 19, 24)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed Subdivision and eventual development of six additional residences would not significantly influence or cause alteration of air movements, temperature or change local or regional climates except incrementally and with cumulative impacts as noted in Section 5(a) above.

d) Create objectionable odors?

(source #(s): 24)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

No specifics about the proposed project would require use or storage of unusual quantities of objectionable odor-producing products. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:

a) Substantial increase in vehicle trips or traffic

congestion such that existing levels of service on affected roadways will deteriorate below acceptable County standards?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 19)

Significant Impact

Less Than SignificantImpact

Not Applicable

The proposed Subdivision would not significantly alter the levels of service on local streets because there is sufficient capacity to handle the minimal increase in the number of vehicle trips associated with six additional single-family residences. This level of traffic generation would not alter existing levels of service on roadways in the vicinity. The total amount of traffic generation for six residences is anticipated to be 60 average daily trips (ADT) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Trip Generation Manual”, and six PM peak hour trips. The Countywide Plan establishes Level of Service (LOS) D or better as the minimally acceptable LOS for all streets in the unincorporated areas of the County. The streets in the close vicinity of the project are operating at LOS A. The maximum potential traffic increase from this project of 60 ADT would not have the potential of significantly increasing traffic and would not reduce the LOS on the streets serving the property. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Traffic hazards related to: 1) safety from

design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections); 2) barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists; or 3) incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The maximum potential traffic increase from this project of 60 ADT would not have the potential of significantly increasing traffic hazards at the intersection of Sacramento Avenue and San Francisco Boulevard and the common driveway to the existing and proposed residences. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) Inadequate emergency access or access to

nearby uses? (source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed common driveway would have 16-foot width and a dedicated turnaround area that was reviewed and approved by the Marin County Fire Department as being adequate for emergency access. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The size and topography of the project site are such that future development could provide construction of off-street parking to satisfy current Marin County Title 24 standards and requirements. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

e) Substantial impacts upon existing transportation systems, including rail, waterborne or air traffic systems?

(source #(s): Not Applicable)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Due to the location of this project in the suburban-rural area of the San Francisco Boulevard-Sorich Park neighborhood, it will have no positive or adverse effect on existing or proposed transit systems or services. The construction of six new residences would not substantially modify the demands on transportation systems and would have no adverse effect on existing or proposed transit systems or services. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:

a) Reduction in the number of endangered,

threatened or rare species, or substantial alteration of their habitats including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) plants; 2) fish; 3) insects; 4) animals; and 5) birds listed as special-status species by State or Federal Resource Agencies?

(sources #(s): 7, 12, 14, 15)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Review of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Maps reveals that there are no sensitive, threatened, or endangered species in the vicinity of the subject property. The project would result in the removal of three trees. The applicant proposes to plant 126 trees to compensate for the tree removal that would satisfy the requirement for a tree replacement plan. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as mitigated.

b) Substantial change in the diversity, number,

or habitat of any species of plants or animals currently present or likely to occur at any time throughout the year?

(source #(s) 7, 12, 14)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The subject property proposed for Subdivision is an infill parcel located at the edge of existing suburban-rural development near the upper extent of the valley at the base of the hills between Sleepy Hollow and San Rafael. The project would result in the removal of three trees and replacement with 126 trees and numerous shrubs and groundcovers, annuals, perennials, and ornamental grasses. The maintenance of the mandatory defensible space around the residences for fire safety and prevention may result in minor improvements to foraging habitat for raptors. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as mitigated.

c) Introduction of new species of plants or

animals into an area, or improvements or alterations that would result in a barrier to the migration, dispersal or movement of animals?

(source #(s): 7, 12, 14)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project would result in the potential development of six residences. The proposal would not serve as a barrier to the dispersal or migration of an animal species because the proposed lots are

clustered in the northern portion of the property in an area of approximately one acre. The remainder parcel would be 9.2 acres and would provide large areas to accommodate movement of animals in wildlife corridors. The residential developments may result in the introduction of domesticated pets, such as dogs and cats, onto the subject property; however, the introduction of domesticated animals into a semi-rural area that adjoins existing development, and Sorich Ranch Park Open Space, where such animals are normally found, is not deemed to be a significant environmental impact. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

8. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:

a) Substantial increase in demand for existing energy sources, or conflict with adopted policies or standards for energy use?

(source #(s): 1, 2)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The relatively small scale of the project would not require substantial amounts of energy for either construction or maintenance purposes. The future residential construction aspect of the project shall comply with the Marin County Green Building Checklist, and the Energy Efficiency Standards if the size of the residence exceeds a floor area of 3,500 square feet. As proposed each of the residences would be 1,500 square feet and of straw-bale energy efficient designs. The project development components shall utilize local renewable resources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and the impacts of their use on global warming. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?

(source #(s): 1, 2)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Building materials for the proposed project are readily available from numerous sources in Marin County and will not represent an unusual decrease in the availability of natural resources. Furthermore, the small-scale nature of this project to subdivide an infill property will not require substantial amounts of energy for either construction or maintenance purposes. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) Loss of significant mineral resource sites

designated in the Countywide Plan from premature development or other land uses which are incompatible with mineral extraction?

(source #(s): 1, 2)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The Marin CWP does not designate the subject property as an actual or suspected repository of mineral resources that merit protection from development. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:

a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) oil, pesticides; 2) chemicals; or 3) radiation)?

(source #(s): 14, 16, 17, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

As no major or unusual quantities of explosive or hazardous materials will be present on the project site during construction or when improvements are completed, the likelihood of hazard is extremely remote and deemed less than significant. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Possible interference with an emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

(source #(s): Not Applicable )

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The small-scale nature of the project would not interfere with the County’s emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?

(source #(s): 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The project would not result in the creation of a health hazard. The site grading would be controlled by the Department of Public Works with standard measures of the Grading Permit to prevent fugitive dust. Although paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials are likely to be used in the future construction of the six single-family residences and for residential household cleaning purposes, use of such products would be in relatively small quantities typical of a single-family residence, and would not require storage, use, or disposal of any significant quantities of hazardous materials. Consequently, this project would not create any health hazard or potential health hazard. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

d) Exposure of people to existing sources of

potential health hazards? (source #(s): 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The project site is located in a medium-density suburban-rural residential community that does not contain potential health hazards. The adjacent Town of San Anselmo Corporation Yard to the north may have diesel heavy equipment and trucks in operation, but the magnitude of the emissions from these uses is not considered a health hazard for the residents due to the rapid dispersion of the exhausts before reaching the closest residence approximately 120 feet away. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable

brush, grass, or trees? (source #(s): 12, 14, 15)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The Marin County Community Development Agency staff, in consultation with the Marin County Fire Marshal, reviewed the proposal and found it would not significantly increase the danger of fire hazard in the area if high fire hazard building and fire codes are implemented. These standards include implementation of an approved Vegetation Management Plan, automatic fire protection sprinklers in new residences, stucco or hardiplank siding, tile roofs, sealed eave vents, on-site water storage for fire flow, spark arrestors on all fireplace chimneys, Class A non-combustible roof, and a Vegetation Management Plan including non-pyrophytic landscaping and hardscape near the residences. These measures shall be included in all subsequent Building Permit applications for the proposed residences on the lots. Implementation of these standards will be required during the Building Permit review process for each new residence to ensure that potential impacts are less than significant. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:

a) Substantial increases in existing ambient

noise levels? (source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Construction of the common driveway and six new residences will result in the periodic generation of noise associated with construction activities and residential uses. Vehicles traveling to and from the site will also generate intermittent low levels of noise. The noise associated with construction in a predominantly rural community with large lots would not result in a significant environmental impact.

Noise levels within the area can be expected to increase during construction of the residential improvements. Because construction-related noise for each single-family residence is a temporary increase of a limited duration, it is not considered a significant environmental impact. In addition, all construction activity will be regulated by the County’s noise regulations and Building Permit process, in compliance with standard regulations controlling permitted hours of activity and permitted noise levels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposal would adversely impact single noise event levels or create alterations in ambient noise levels in the surrounding community. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Exposure of people to significant noise

levels, or conflicts with adopted noise policies or standards?

(source #(s): 1)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The distance of the site from to the San Anselmo Corporation Yard, combined with the yard’s limited noise generation and duration of such generation, results in only moderate noise exposure to future residents. Please also refer to Section 10(a) of this Initial Study. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government service in any of the following areas:

a) Fire protection? (source #(s): 14, 15)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The Marin County Fire Marshal reviewed the proposal and indicated availability of adequate fire protection for the proposed project. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Police protection?

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The Marin County Sheriff’s Department currently provides adequate police protection to the subject property. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) Schools?

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project is located within the Ross Valley and Tamalpais Unified School Districts that have adequate capacity to serve the children that might reside in the proposed six residences. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

d) Maintenance of public facilities, including

roads? (source #(s): Not Applicable)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The small-scale nature of this project in an existing suburban-rural neighborhood would not result in a substantial increase in the maintenance needed for public facilities. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

e) Other governmental services?

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The small-scale nature of this project would not have a significant effect on other governmental services. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:

a) Power or natural gas? (source #(s): Not Applicable)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Pacific Gas and Electric Company has adequate facilities in the project vicinity to provide service to the residence. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Communications systems?

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Normal communication systems are available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

c) Local or regional water treatment or

distribution facilities? (source #(s): Not Applicable)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The project would rely on water from the Marin Municipal Water District and have no significant effect on local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. MMWD has indicated that they will provide water service to the site. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

d) Sewer or septic tanks?

(source #(s): 16)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposal would provide adequate sewage treatment systems through extension of facilities of the Ross Valley Sanitary District. The District staff reviewed the plans and found the proposed sewer systems acceptable for the six residences. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

e) Storm water drainage? (source #(s): 1, 19)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Although alteration to the site and increased runoff will result from this project, the clustered design and downslope location indicate that no significant effects to the existing storm water drainage facilities will occur. Please refer to Section 4(a) of this Initial Study for a more detailed discussion of storm water drainage. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

f) Solid waste disposal?

(source #(s): 1)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Existing solid waste collection and disposal systems are available and adequate to service the project. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

13. AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Substantially reduce, obstruct, or degrade a

scenic vista open to the public or scenic highway, or conflict with adopted aesthetic or visual policies or standards?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4,)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The proposed project would not conflict with the suburban-rural aesthetic or create visual impacts on surrounding areas because it involves residential development low on the hill well out of the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Areas and well below the ridgeline in an existing suburban-rural residential neighborhood. The property is located adjacent to Sorich Ranch Park where trail users will have moderate distance views of the residences. Due to the location of the development at the base of the hill, the visual appearance of six new residences would be typical of the visual appearance of existing residences and the San Anselmo Corporation Yard facilities in the neighborhood. The property is not located on or near a scenic vista or scenic highway and will not conflict with adopted visual policies or standards. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic

effect by causing a substantial alteration of the existing visual resources including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) an abrupt transition in land use; 2) disharmony with adjacent uses because of height, bulk or massing of structures; or 3) cast of a substantial amount of light, glare, or shadow?

(source #(s): 1, 2, 3, 4)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

As discussed in Section 13(a) of this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in very modest visual effects. The development of low-density residential uses on the lots would not result in an abrupt transition in land use from the low-density suburban-rural character of nearby properties that include apartments, single-family residences, and a corporation yard. Secondly, the project would not result in impacts relating to height, bulk, or massing of structures, because existing and proposed trees would adequately screen the development from views. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Disturb paleontological, archaeological, or

historical sites, objects, or structures? (source #(s): 6)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Review of cultural resource maps maintained by the Marin County Community Development Agency indicates that the subject property is not located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity. Given the project’s location, it is unlikely that resources would be found during the construction of the project. However, uniformly applied standards related to protecting cultural resources are codified in Marin County Code section 22.20.040 (Archaeological and Historic Resources) and chapter 5.32 (Excavating

Indian Middens). These regulations require that if cultural resources are discovered during excavation, that the construction cease until a means to protect the resources in conformance with State law is implemented. Therefore, the proposed project would result in any potentially significant impacts.

b) Have the potential to cause a physical change that would adversely affect unique ethnic cultural values, or religious or sacred uses within the project area?

(source #(s): 6)

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

Neither site visits nor review of the Marin County Community Development Agency resource maps indicate the presence of unique ethnic, cultural values, or religious or sacred uses within the project area. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

15. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS. Would the proposal result in:

Any physical changes which can be traced through a chain of cause and effect to social or economic impacts.

(source #(s): Not Applicable )

Significant Impact

Not Applicable

The project would not result in direct or indirect adverse physical impacts from social or economic effects related to this project. There are no economic effects of this project that would result in physical impacts on the environment. The costs of providing limited County services to the project are not expected to result in adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, no significant effects would result from this project as proposed.

VI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Pursuant to Section 15065 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if any of the following are true:

(Please explain your answer after each question)

Yes No Maybe a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described in Section V of this Initial Study, there would be no potentially significant environmental impacts from the proposed project.

[ ] [ X ] [ ]

Yes No Maybe b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to

the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? As described in Section V of this Initial Study, there would be no potentially significant environmental impacts from the proposed project.

[ ] [ X ] [ ]

Yes No Maybe c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,

but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). There would be no cumulatively considerable impacts from the proposed project.

[ ] [ X ] [ ]

Yes No Maybe d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? There would be no potentially significant environmental impacts from the proposed project.

[ ] [ X ] [ ]

ATTACHMENT 1

Karuna Land LLC Master Plan, Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map, Precise Development Plan, and Design Review

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following is a list of relevant information sources that have been incorporated by reference into the foregoing Initial Study pursuant to Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The number assigned to each information source corresponds to the number listed in parenthesis following the incorporating topical question of the Initial Study checklist. These documents are both a matter of public record and available for public inspection at the Planning Division office of the Marin County Community Development Agency (CDA), Room 308, Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael. The information incorporated from these documents shall be considered to be set forth fully in the Initial Study. 1. Marin Countywide Plan, CDA - Planning Division (2007) 2. Marin County Development Code, Title 22, CDA - Planning Division (amended 2012) 3. Marin County Development Standards, Title 24, Marin County Department of Public Works -

Land Use & Water Resources Division 4. Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map (1974) 5. Marin County Archaeological Sites Inventory Map, CDA - Planning Division (undated)

confidential 6. Natural Diversity Data Base Map (San Rafael 7.5’ Quadrangle), California Department of Fish

and Wildlife (periodically updated) 7. Soil Survey of Marin County, USDA Soil Conservation Service (1985) 8. Mineral Resources, CDA - Planning Division (1987) 9. Flood Insurance Rate Map Series of Marin County, California, prepared by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Community Panel Number 06041C0275 D (2009) 10. U.S.G.S. Topographic Map, San Rafael 7.5’ Quadrangle. 11. Vegetation Management Plan, Moritz Arboricultural Consulting et al. (November 2008) 12. Karuna Land Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map, Precise Development Plan, and Vegetation

Management Plan, Oberkamper & Associates Civil Engineers, Inc. (November 21, 2012) 13. Karuna Land LLC, Preliminary Residences – Lots 1 through 6, Ruth Hyndman Design

(September 20, 2012) 14. Response Letter for Vegetation Management Plan Requirements, Scott Alber, P.E., Battalion

Chief/Fire Marshal, Marin County Fire Department (December 2008) 15. Response E-mail, James Raives, Marin County Parks (October 29, 2012) 16. Response Inter-Office Memorandum, Cara E. Zichelli, Marin County Department of Public

Works, Land Use and Water Resources Division (October 17, 2012 17. Response E-mail, Scott Alber, Marin County Fire Department (October 23, 2012) 18. Plan Review Deficiency Report, Scott D. Alber, Marin County Fire Department (August 24,

2012) 19. Response Letter, Randell Y. Ishii, Ross Valley Sanitary District (October 4, 2012) 20. Water Availability Letter, Joseph Eischens, Marin Municipal Water District (August 23, 2012) 21. Response E-mail, Diane Henderson, Town of San Anselmo (August 10, 2012) 22. Climate Change 2007, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers,

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (February 2007) 23. Emissions Estimate Report for the Karuna Land LLC Subdivision Tentative Map and Precise

Development Plan, Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 (May 2009) 24. Geotechnical Re-observation-Update, Earth Science Consultants (March 9, 2012) 25. Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Earth Science Consultants (November 9,

2007) 26. Biological Resources Assessment Addendum, WRA Environmental Consultants (December 10,

27. Biological Resources Assessment and Rare Plant Surveys, WRA Environmental Consultants (October 2006)

28. Delineation of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas, WRA Environmental Consultants (October 2006)

29. Preliminary Biological Resources Assessment, Zander Associates (June 30, 2005) 30. Traffic Impact Study for 1 Sacramento Avenue, w-trans -- Whitlock & Weinberger

Transportation, Inc., (April 30, 2012) 31. Proposed Building Exterior Stucco Color Palette, Proposed Roof Shingle Palette, Proposed

Retaining Wall Designs, Proposed Window Casing Color, Draper Planning Group, (2005) 32. Karuna Land Subdivision, San Anselmo, California, Drainage Analysis, Oberkamper and

Associates Civil Engineers, Inc. (November 7, 2011) 33. A Cultural Resources Study of 1 Sacramento Avenue, San Anselmo, Marin County California,

Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University (June 2005) 34. One Sacramento Avenue (Karuna Land Subdivision) Tree Evaluation and Construction Impact

Assessment, MacNair and Associates Consulting Arborists and Horticulturalists (September 12, 2008)

35. Karuna Land Subdivision –Lot 2 Tree Screening Recommendations, MacNair and Associates Consulting Arborists and Horticulturalists (December 4, 2008)

36. Karuna Land Subdivision – Lot 2 Fire Protection Turnaround Tree Impact, MacNair and Associates Consulting Arborists and Horticulturalists (February 3, 2009)

KarunaIS 8-19-13 fnl · 2013-09-11 · A. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jerome Draper...

Documents

Guidance for Industry - MIT OpenCourseWare · 1.16 Confidentiality: Prevention of disclosure, to other than authorized individuals, of a sponsor's proprietary information or of a

Source: ... · 2 ACT 213A Requirements for sponsor's affidavit of support. ACT 214 Admission of nonimmigrants. ACT 215 Travel documentation of aliens and citizens

Mce 2015 sponsor's memo

2017 BizWeek Business Lunch - Bathurst Business Hub › wp-content › ... · Sponsor's logo to be featured in Business Lunch marketing including eNewsletters (to a database of approximately

Claimant Identification Form - mof.gov.kw · 2018-11-21 · Claimant Identification Form Male Female Date of Birth Single Married Divorced Widowed Sponsor's Civil ID Number Nationality

Sponsor's Package

Street Workout Sponsor's Book

E6: Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guideline · accurately reported according to the protocol, sponsor's standard operating procedures (SOPs), Good Clinical Practice (GCP),

A Cooperating Sponsor's Field Guide to USAID Environmental Compliance Procedures

NL Envirothon 2012 Sponsor's Handbook

Toilet Room INTERIOR FINISHES...2011/05/06 · Las Positas College Interior Finishes Matrices 237 CRESCENT ROAD, SUITE 4 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960 T: 415.485.1196 F: 415.485.1192 DOVETAIL

REPORT OF RECEIPTS FEC AND DISBURSEMENTSdocquery.fec.gov/pdf/300/14960750300/14960750300.pdfmarianne williamson for congress 97520 transaction id : inca22 94960 mount pleasant sc ashland

Retirement Plan Accounting: A Sponsor's Perspective

Environmental Management [No. 12 of 2011 87 THE ...ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/MONOGRAPH/94960/132985/F... · Environmental Management [No. 12 of 2011 87 THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Sponsor's 2010 Quarter 1 Report

COMPUTER MUSIC PLAYER MODEL FOUR / MODEL THREE … · San Anselmo, CA USA 94960-2552. Model Three and Model Four Audio Interface ... One IEC Power Cord appropriate for your area:

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES F GOOD CLINICAL …. TOC Glossary References.pdf · recorded, analyzed, and accurately reported according to the protocol, sponsor's standard operating

Tibet Humanitarian Project - GlobalGiving › pfil › 10275 › projdoc.pdf · 2019-09-29 · Tibet Humanitarian Project 186 The Alameda, San Anselmo, Ca, 94960 thproj@yahoo.com

Illinois' Landmark Tort Reform: The Sponsor's Policy

San Francisco Theological Seminarysfts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Chimes-2013_1.pdf · San Francisco Theological Seminary SAN ANSELMO INSIDE ... San Anselmo, California, 94960