Bahia Executive Summary

Since 1977, Debra Management Company has worked to design a development plan for the Bahia site that is compatible with the existing community and its residents, while meeting the requirements of the City of Novato and local, regional, state, and federal agencies, and addressing the concerns of other interested parties. To meet these goals the company has also proposed measures to avoid, reduce, and mitigate environmental impacts identified in three Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).

Over the course of 22 years, the Master Plans submitted by Debra Management have successively reduced the number of proposed residential units—from 1500 in 1982, to 729 in 1990, and to 424 in 1995 (see Figures 1-5). In each case these reductions have been made to respond to newly identified concerns. The reductions have removed proposed homes from peninsulas to avoid wetlands impacts and avoid human exposure to electric and magnetic fields, and removed proposed homes from highland areas to reduce tree loss, provide for wildlife movement, and avoid impacts on airport operations and potential airport impacts to new residents.

In 1994, the City of Novato directed Debra Management to redesign the project in line with the Mitigated Project Alternative in the 1994 Certified EIR. As such, the current project is the environmentally superior alternative, as defined by the City’s own ER consultants, various commentators on the EIR, and the City itself through both its Planning Commission and City Council.

The current plan, as described in the Revised 1995 Master Plan, consists of 424 single-family and townhouse units, as well as a community center complex and public park.

Beyond direct avoidance of environmental impact through reduction of the project, Debra Management also has proposed a number of mitigation measures that offer far greater mitigation value than legally required or typically seen in similar cases. For example, for wetlands mitigation, the current plan calls for preservation and dedication of the entire 333 acres of the Central Lowlands and Western Marsh. In all, 531 of the 650 total acres at the site—81% of the site—are to be dedicated to open space and deeded to those entities having most interest in them. In addition, the project proposes to create 36.5 acres of seasonal marsh on the Twin House Ranch site directly across the Petaluma River from the project and an additional 33 acres of native prairie at that site as a buffer habitat to the marsh. For oak woodland mitigation, the project preserves 196 of 224 acres of woodland on-site and has proposed to fund off-site planting of native tree species at several open space areas in the vicinity of Bahia.

The history of Debra Management’s successive proposals for reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts represents a determined effort by the developer to be environmentally sensitive, and to meet the myriad and sometime conflicting requirements of different agencies and authorities—even as regulations, jurisdictions, and agency management have changed many times during the course of the development planning process.

Unfortunately, the history also reveals an approval process that resembles an endless loop. In each of the years 1980, 1990, and 1995, the project was revised to respond to the City’s most recent ER. However, each time, as the developer subsequently sought approval from regional, state, and federal regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the site, and further revised the plan to meet their requirements, local authorities, in turn, have requited a new ER because the Plan had been changed. This occurred even though each time the revised Plan reduced development and associated environmental impacts.

In addition, even as the project has addressed the environmental issues that have been raised, the terms and conditions under which the project’s environmental impacts are being evaluated were changed and new issues raised. In 1995, while the developer was awaiting approval of its latest Master Plan, the Army Corps of Engineers determined that new seasonal “emergent wetlands” had formed on engineered fill on several peninsulas and on a former site of dredged spoils. These areas (or “putative wetlands”), which cover approximately 14 acres, had not been designated as wetlands by the Corps in previous determinations in 1983 and 1986.¹ As a result of the new determination, the emergent wetlands required additional study and mitigation.²

Issues that had been resolved in one compliance cycle have also been re-visited in later EIRs. Although the loss of oak woodlands had been reduced below the threshold of significance in the 1995 Master Plan, the 2000 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) required new mitigation.

Issues related to the project now include a multitude of biologic, geologic, transportation, and other land-use concerns (the 2000 SEIR lists 61 separate issues). Studies to investigate these issues have been conducted for more than 20 years by two teams of ER consultants employed by the City as well as consultants hired by the developers, including some of the leading biologists, botanists, geologists, hydrologists, meteorologists, architects, civil engineers, and traffic and noise engineers.

Over the years these issues have been examined and re-examined in extraordinary detail. For example? to precisely determine the number of trees that might be lost to installation of roadways and utilities, an actual field count of trees was made in 1994. This survey plotted 1,628 individual trees by size, location, and species.³ To determine the presence of, and possible adverse impact on, the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, five separate live trapping surveys were conducted in 1982, 1987, 1991, Spring 1996, and Fall 1996, involving more than 3,000 trap nights.⁴ This level of survey and scientific research is far beyond what is normally conducted prior to a Master Plan or a Precise Development Plan.

The result of these studies is that the Revised 1995 Master Plan and subsequent supplementary proposals have outlined measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the environmental impacts raised to date in the ER. For example, the following areas have all been addressed:

• Oak Woodlands. The current project reduces tree loss to approximately 2,880 trees, or about 12% of the more the 23,500 trees estimated to exist on the site. This level is well below the25% threshold of significance used as a rule-of-thumb by the California Department of Fish and Game.⁵ At the same time, more than 196 of 224 acres of oak woodland will be preserved.

• Wetlands. The Revised 1995 Master Plan calls for preservation and dedication

of the majority of wetlands, including all 333 acres of on-site diked salt marsh (Central Lowlands and Western Marsh). In the Plan, all impacts on tidal wetlands are avoided and overall impacts have been reduced from 26 acres to 18.5 acres. Proposed mitigation for impacted wetlands includes creation of 37 acres of seasonal wetlands on the Twin House Ranch site.⁶

• Rare and Endangered Species. Direct effects on state and federal-listed species of plants and animals have been avoided. Where indirect effects are possible, mitigation measures have been proposed. For example, possible direct effects of the project on the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (SMHM) in the Central Lowlands and Western Marsh have been avoided by elimination of development in those areas. Extensive mitigation measures have been proposed for possible indirect effects on the California clapper rail.⁷

• Wildlife Movement. Wildlife movement is not expected to be impacted by the planned development. The Revised 1995 Master Plan protects the most sensitive habitats (wetlands, diked and tidal marshes, dense oak woodlands), and protects the avenues, such as draws and canyons, where local movements by large mammals are likely to occur.⁸

• Geotechnical Issues. Analysis shows that geogrid mats used to reinforce slope fills can avoid earthquake-induced damage, destabilized slopes can be mitigated through avoidance or the use of deepened spread footings, and construction fills can be added to compensate for settlement.⁹

• Hydrologic Issues. A storm water drainage system included in the project is designed to reduce peak runoff flows and reduce the potential of pollutants to enter the system.1⁰

• Traffic Impacts. The reduced level of development in the 1995 Plan enables high levels of service on all related traffic thoroughfares, and in one case the Plan agrees to contribute to construction of a recommended measure to improve service)¹¹

In each instance, the issues raised in the EIRs have been studied and solutions found.

The development plan has also long had the approval of the majority of current residents of the Bahia area, as represented by the Bahia Homeowners Association (BHA). From its earliest plans in the 1980s, the developer has tried to design a plan acceptable to this community. The 1990 Master Plan included a navigational lock that would eliminate the need for the continuous dredging of the lagoon to remove silt and provide the navigational waterways that had been planned for the Bahia community since its inception. However, due to the difficulties this portion of the Plan encountered at state, regional, and federal levels, it was withdrawn from later plans. At present, the BHA is independently seeking solutions to the community siltation problems. Nonetheless, the current development plan does demonstrate its continued commitment to the BRA through a proposal to pay the Association $10,000 per unit or lot sold, to be applied to Association-sponsored siltation solutions.

The bottom line is that this project takes into account all of the possible consequences of development, then resolves them in the manner proposed by leading experts in each of the relevant disciplines. At the same time, the size of the development has been reduced dramatically from 2,250 residential units to 424 units. It has taken some 35 years to reach this point, but Debra management is now fully prepared to move ahead.