Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 12330 (Loch Lomond Marina)RESOLUTION NO. 12330 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 110 LOCH LOMOND DRIVE AND POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APNS 016-070-020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 009-141-050, 070, 080 AND 009-142-070) The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, in February 2005, Thompson/Dorftnan, the project sponsor submitted planning applications to the City of San Rafael requesting approval of the Village at Loch Lomond Marina, a planned, mixed-use development of marina uses, neighborhood commercial use buildings, 84 residential units and associated park and recreation improvements on a 29+ acre portion of the 131+ acre Loch Lomond Marina site located at Point San Pedro Road and Loch Lomond Drive, herein referred to as "the initial project design;" and WHEREAS, planning applications include a request to amend the General Plan 2020, a Rezoning (amendment to the adopted PD -W/O District), Master Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, upon a review of the subject applications, in February 2005 an Initial Study was prepared consistent with the requirements of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, finding that the proposed development had the potential to result in significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and published in February 2006, which was subject to a 60 -day public review period from February 10, 2006 through April 11, 2006, which included a Planning Commission public hearing to accept oral comments on the DEIR on April 11, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City received and evaluated numerous comments from public agencies, utilities, organizations, special interest groups and persons who reviewed the DEIR and has prepared responses to comments received during the 60 -day public review period; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2006 and October 24, 2006, the Planning Commission held two public study sessions on the topics of traffic and parking, respectively. The study sessions were held to provide a focused review and discussion of the numerous traffic and parking studies prepared for the DEIR; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared and published on January 26, 2007. The FEIR consists of an edited Draft Environmental Impact Report volume (Volume 1), a Response to Comments volume (Volume 4) and appendices containing technical background studies (Volumes 2 and 3). Volume 4 contains all written and verbal comments and recommendations received on the DEIR, either verbatim or in summary, and an inventory of agencies, organizations, special interest groups and persons commenting on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, as a result of numerous public meetings with the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and the Park & Recreation Commission and recommendations made hereto, and in response to recommendations identified in the DEIR, the project sponsor prepared a `Mitigated Plan,' which reflected some changes to the general layout and distribution of land uses and a reduction in the number of residential units (from 84 to 82 units total). Volume 4 (Response to Comments), pages 2.0-60 through 2.0-137 includes a detailed assessment of the Mitigated Plan, comparing the potential environmental effects with the project plans submitted in February 2005. The FEIR concludes that the Mitigated Plan would not result in any new, significant environmental effects that were not previously identified, and that the Mitigated Plan responds to a number of recommendations in the FEIR intended to eliminate or reduce environmental effects; and WHEREAS, in March 2007, the planning applications for the initial project design were amended to reflect the Mitigated Plan. In response to the Planning Commission review and recommendations for this project (May 8, 2007) and City Council review and recommendations for this project (July 16, 2007), further amendments were made to the Development Plan in July 2007, herein referred to as "the project, as amended," which address the following changes to the layout, scope and design of the project and have resulted in a reduction in the number or residential units (from 82 to 81 units total): ➢ Full compliance with the 50 -foot development -free wetland setback along the eastern edge of the residential area ➢ Filling Wetland E, the 278 -square -foot, geographically isolated drainage ditch located in the eastern portion of the residential area ➢ Widening the plaza between the grocery store/market and the Loch Lomond Yacht Club building by 15 feet. ➢ Architectural revisions to the town home cluster located immediately east of the main project entrance to reduce building bulk and mass. ➢ Architectural and building height revisions to four single-family residential units fronting the marina boardwalk and green for the purpose of maintaining views to the San Pedro Ridge from the marina boardwalk ➢ Provisions for monitoring the main project access and accommodating a second project vehicle access located east of the main project entrance (parking court designed with emergency vehicle access) that could be installed in the future if warranted. ➢ Incorporation of 16 dry dock boat storage spaces in the day use vehicle + trailer parking lot. The project, as amended is presented in the architectural and civil engineering plans prepared by BAR Architect (plan Sheets A-1 through A-61), The Gazzardo Partnership, Landscape Architects (plan Sheets L-1 through L.6-5) and CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. (plan Sheets C- 1 through C-13) dated August 6, 2007 and on file with the Department of Community Development; and WHEREAS, following publication of the FOR, the City: a) determined that one document was not included in the published FOR document, which is a memorandum addressing a parking survey of several City of San Rafael parks; and b) several of the written responses to comments on the DEIR required additional response. Furthermore, it was determined that some minor edits were needed to three (3) FEIR mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 3.1-2b, 3.6- 2 and 3.7-1a), and at the direction of the Planning Commission, a letter was prepared by TRC (formerly TRC-Lowney Associates) to provide clarifying information regarding on-site contaminants and remediation measures. Lastly, in response to questions posed by the City Council at a June 18, 2007 public hearing on FEIR: 1) additional computer-generated visual 2 simulations were prepared to supplement the simulations published in the FEIR; and 2) TRC prepared and submitted a letter clarifying technical information about the potential for compression and migration of bay mud associated with the site filling and surcharge process. As a result, an errata/supplement has been prepared to address the above issues, which is provided in attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MIVIRP) has been prepared to outline the procedures for implementing all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. The MMRP, dated revised June 2007 is provided in attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City desires and intends to use the FEIR for the Village at Loch Lomond Marina Development as the environmental document required by CEQA for each phase of discretionary action required for this project by the City; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 07-02, recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, accepting all public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development. Following closure of the public hearing, the City Council posed specific questions and requested clarifying information, which has been incorporated into the FEIR errata/supplement provided in Exhibit A. The revised FEIR errata/supplement was reviewed by the City Council on July 16, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby certify the FEIR inclusive of the errata/supplement presented in Exhibit A, dated July 2007 (revised) and approves the MMRP presented in Exhibit B, dated June 2007, based on the following findings: A. California Environmental Oualitv Act (CEOA) Findings 1. The FEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. 2. The FEIR was published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual and constitutes an accurate, adequate, objective and complete FEIR. The City observed a 60 -day public review period on the DEIR and the FEIR (Response to Comments and DEIR text edits) was made available for over 90 days prior to certification. 3. The City has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the FEIR and has considered the information combined with the FEIR, including comments received during the public review period on the DEIR. 4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15092, the City Council hereby adopts Findings of Fact and an MMRP, which has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 to ensure that all reasonably feasible mitigation measures are implemented. B. Findings of Fact Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Village at Loch Lomond Marina Development The FEIR, prepared in compliance with the CEQA, evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from approval of the Village at Loch Lomond Marina Development Project, which proposes the development of a 131+ acres bay front site with retention of the existing marina and most of the marina support uses, redevelopment of neighborhood commercial use, development of new residential units, development of recreation and park uses for public use and preservation of seasonal wetlands and a conservation area. The project, as amended is designed to construct one- and two-story buildings that would be accessed and served by Point San Pedro Road, an improved public street. As the FEIR concludes that implementation of the project, as amended (and the project alternatives) would result in adverse impacts, the City is required under the State CEQA Guidelines to make certain findings with respect to these impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). The required findings appear in the following sections of this resolution. This resolution lists and describes the following, as analyzed in the FEIR: 1) potential impacts determined to be less -than -significant in the FEIR; 2) significant impacts that can be avoided, minimized, mitigated, or substantially lessened with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures; 3) impacts determined to be insignificant or less -than -significant in the Initial Study Checklist; and 4) project alternatives that were developed and studied consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR has determined that the project, as amended to reflect the Mitigated Plan analyzed in FEIR Volume 4, Section 2.2 will not result in any significant, unavoidable impacts for which there is no feasible mitigation. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City as stated below. 1. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT IN THE FEIR a. Impact 3.1-4: San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) Policy Consistency Facts in SuDDort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.1-32 of the Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended has been evaluated for consistency with the Bay Plan, as implemented by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The project, as amended would not be in conflict with any of the applicable policies of the Bay Plan that would result in physical, significant impacts. Therefore, approval of the project, as amended would not result in significant Bay Plan policy impacts and no mitigation is required. b. Impact 3.2-2: Scenic Vistas Facts in SUDDort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.2-56 and 3.2-57 of the Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), in Volume IV (Response to Comments) and in the FEIR errata/supplement, the proposed project structures and landscaping would not substantially eliminate, block or obstruct an existing scenic view or vista through the site from surrounding vantage points. While elements of the project would block portions of views of the marina and Bay from Point San Pedro Road, the project, as amended reflecting the Mitigated Plan would create a new and improved view of the marina and waterfront at the project entrance. Further, the development of the marina green, enhanced boardwalk and recreation improvements along the waterfront would improve public access and public views of the marina and Bay. Therefore, the project, as amended would not result in significant impacts to scenic resources and no mitigation is required. c. Impact 3.2-3: Scenic Resources Facts in Suvnort of Findine As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.2-57 and 3.2-58 of Volume I, (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project site is relatively level and does not include any visually distinctive ridgelines, rock outcroppings, or other special features. While the project, as amended would reduce and obscure existing views from and through segments of the site, it would not impact any significant on-site visual amenities. In addition, the project site does not contain any historic structures, rock outcroppings, topographic features, or other scenic resources. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to scenic resources and no mitigation is required. d. Impact 3.2-4: Visual Character of Site and Surroundings Facts in Suunort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.2-58 and 3.2-59 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume IV (Response to Comments), the initial project design and the project, as amended would change the visual character of the site by introducing new, one- and two story residential, neighborhood commercial and mixed- use buildings. However, the project, as amended would enhance the view of the marina and waterfront at the project entrance and would include the development of a marina green, enhanced boardwalk and recreation improvements along the waterfront, which would improve public access and public views of the marina and Bay. For these reasons, the change in visual character has been determined to be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. e. Impact 3.2-6: Conflicts with Policies Applicable to Aesthetic and Visual Quality Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.2-60 through 3.2-67 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume IV (Response to Comments), the initial project design and the project, as amended would change the visual character of the site by introducing new, one- and two story residential, neighborhood commercial and mixed- use buildings. However, the project, as amended would not conflict with aesthetic and visual quality -related General Plan policies pertinent to the project site, specifically Policy NH -118, H-3, LU -14 and CD -2 in that: 1) the project is designed to enhance the view of the marina and waterfront at the project entrance; 2) the project would include the development of a marina green, enhanced boardwalk and recreation improvements along the waterfront which would improve public access and public views of the Bay; and 3) the project proposes one -and two-story buildings that are generally in scale and compatible with the existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. For these reasons, the change in visual character has been determined to be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. f. Impact 3.3-1 Potential for Directly Inducing Population Growth Facts in Suunort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.3-3 through 3.3-5 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would be well within the residential density and marina and neighborhood commercial intensity limits adopted in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Further, the population that would be generated by this project would be within the population forecasts anticipated by the San Rafael General Plan 2020. For this reason, the project would not directly induce population growth and project impacts would be less -than - significant. g. Impact 3.3-2 Potential for Indirectly Inducing Population Growth Facts in Suuuort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would generate new employment as a result of the new office and commercial building area. This building area combined with the retention of the existing marina and commercial (Loch Lomond Market) uses would generate an estimated 56 employees at the project site, which amounts to 1.4% of the projected job growth for San Rafael to 2020. The amount of growth that would be generated by the project would be minimal and would not induce growth or trigger substantial migration to the City. For this reason, the project, as amended would not indirectly induce significant population growth and project impacts would be less -than -significant. h. Impact 3.3-3: Impacts to Citywide Jobs -Housing Ratio Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.3-6 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would generate additional housing and some employment opportunities. As more housing is proposed than the employment opportunities, the project would result in a beneficial impact to the community as the City currently provides more jobs and employment than housing. For this reason, the project, as amended would not result in any adverse impacts to the citywide jobs -housing ratio and no mitigation is required. i. Impact 3.4-1: Construction -Related Traffic Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.4-16 through 3.4-18 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would cause an increase in construction -related traffic. However, the amount of traffic that would be generated as a result of importing soil/fill material and construction through project build -out would not exceed the traffic capacity of the street system or the City -adopted level of service standards at local intersections. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. j. Impact 3.4-2: Project Traffic Generation and Impacts to Capacity and Level of Service Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.4-18 through 3.4-33 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume 4 (Response to Comments), two independent traffic analyses were prepared for the FEIR. One traffic analysis was prepared by the project traffic engineer and an updated traffic study prepared by the City Traffic Engineer. Both analyses conclude that the initial project design and the project, as amended would cause an increase in traffic but finds that this increase in traffic would not result in a significant environmental impact because of the following reasons: 1) While the project would increase trip generation at the project site with the introduction of residential use, the Point San Pedro Road/Lochinvar Road/Loch Lomond Drive intersection would continue to operate at level of service (LOS) A. 2) The addition of traffic from the initial project design to local intersections under current (baseline) conditions west of the project site would increase delay but the increase would not be significant. At the Yd Street/Union Street intersection, project build -out would increase delay by 2.9 seconds in the AM peak hour (from 30.4 to 33.3 seconds) and by 3.9 seconds in the PM peak hour (from 45.9 to 49.8). Similarly, the Mitigated Plan (the project, as amended) as described in Volume 4 (Response to Comments) would result in an increase delay at this intersection by 6.1 seconds in the AM peak hour (from 30.4 to 36.5 seconds) and by 1.0 second in the PM peak hour (from 45.9 to 46.9 seconds). However, with the addition of traffic from either the initial project design or the Mitigated Plan (the project, as amended,) under current intersection conditions, this intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D condition in the AM and PM peak hours. 3) Consistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway Design), pedestrian safety improvements are planned for the 3rd Street/Union Street intersection, which would necessitate a change in the level of service standard to LOS E. Under baseline conditions, the addition of the safety improvements would cause this intersection to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. The addition of traffic from either the initial project design or the Mitigated Plan (the project, as amended) would contribute to an increase in delay at this intersection during the AM peak hour by 6.5 seconds and 8.3 seconds, respectively. However, the addition of this traffic would not substantially impact the operation of level of service at this intersection. The addition of traffic from either the initial project design or the Mitigated Plan (the project, as amended) would contribute to an increase in delay at this intersection during the PM peak hour by 1.9 seconds and 2.5 seconds, respectively. However, the addition of this traffic would not substantially impact the operation of level of service at this intersection. Under cumulative conditions (General Plan growth projected to 2020) the addition of the safety improvements would cause the intersection to operate at LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic from the initial project design and the project, as amended would contribute to cumulative traffic conditions at this intersection by approximately 0.015% in the AM peak hour and 0.006% in the PM peak hour, which is negligible. 4) To provide a broad and comprehensive assessment of traffic, an arterial analysis was completed to determine impacts along the Yd Street arterial. The arterial analysis prepared by the City Traffic Engineer assessed 14 arterial segments finding that the project would not change the level of service along these arterials and would reduce travel speed, on average by approximately 0.1 miles per hour. Along the Yd Street arterial segment from Union Street to Lincoln Avenue, the City Traffic Engineer estimated that the initial project design and the project, as amended would reduce travel speeds by 0.2 to 0.5 miles per hour during the AM and PM peak hour. 5) Given concerns expressed about travel time along the Third Street corridor between the US 101 on- and off -ramps and the project site, the City Traffic Engineer completed a series of vehicle travel `runs' from the project site to the US 101 southbound on -ramps during AM, PM and midday peak periods. The travel `runs,' which have been documented by video camera, estimate travel time range of 5-12 minutes during the AM peak hour, 6-11 minutes during the PM peak hour and 5-8 minutes during the midday peak. Given the travel speeds along the 3'd Street corridor and the estimated speed reductions that would be caused by the project, the City Traffic Engineer has concluded that travel time to/from US 101 would not be significantly impacted by the project, as amended. 6) The project, as amended would be subject to the payment of City -adopted traffic mitigation fees, which are applied to transportation improvements recommended in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. As this fee is adopted and applied as a condition of project approval, it is not necessary to require this fee as an FEIR mitigation measure. For the above reasons, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. k. Impact 3.4-3: Potential Traffic Hazards Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.4-33 and 3.4-34 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended proposes internal roadways that are reduced in width and length, which could cause an increase in traffic hazards and reduce safety to residents within the project site and the surrounding area. However, road turning radii and reduced road widths have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Marshal who have concluded that the road design is safe and maneuverable for emergency vehicles. Further, the City Traffic Engineer determined that the reduced road widths would promote traffic calming within the project, which conversely increases safety to drivers and pedestrians, thus reducing the potential for hazards. For these reasons, this impact would be less -than - significant and no mitigation is required. 1. Impact 3.4-4: Emergency Access Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.4-34 through of 3.4- 36 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), as designed, the initial project design and the project, as amended would be accessed by a single, signalized intersection (Point San Pedro Road/Lochinvar Road/Loch Lomond Drive and one emergency vehicle access (EVA) designed to connect to Point San Pedro Road, which sited within the residential area. The site access and EVA have been reviewed and approved as adequate and safe by the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Marshal. For these reasons, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. Although, not required, a second vehicle access to the project site is conditionally supported by the City. The project, as amended proposes an EVA that is designed to allow conversion to a full-service second access to the project site. The City will monitor use of the primary, signalized intersection over a period of time following project build- out to determine if conversion of this EVA for a second access is warranted or desired. m. Impact 3.4-5: Adequacy of Parking Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.4-36 and 3.4-60 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) in Volume IV (Response to Comments) and in the FEIR errata/supplement presented in Exhibit A of this resolution, the project, as amended proposes on-site parking that: 1) meets the parking requirements set forth in the San Rafael Municipal Code for the residential, neighborhood commercial and grocery store/market uses; and 2) meets the Marina use and recreation parking demand for peak use periods. These findings are based on two, independent parking studies prepared by licensed traffic engineers, which analyzed parking over a period of 2.5 years. Nonetheless, the project sponsor has proposed to impose a valet parking program for marina day -use parking during peak holidays and implement a parking reserve as contingency measures for the marina use in the event additional parking is warranted. For these reasons, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. n. Impact 3.4-6: Conflicts with Alternative Transportation Plans and Policies Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.4-60 and 3.4-62 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project, as amended proposes internal roadways and pedestrian paths that provide access through the development and access to the waterfront and shoreline. This system or roads and pedestrian paths would not conflict with City - adopted transportation policies. While at present, there is no transit service provided along the San Pedro Peninsula by Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (Golden Gate Transit), the population projected by this project would not trigger the need for new service and the project, as designed would not conflict with future opportunities to expand service to this area. For this reason, this impact would be less - than -significant and no mitigation is required. o. Impact 3.5-2: Increase in Local and Regional Pollutant Load Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-23 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), while the proposed land uses within the project, as amended would slightly increase the local and regional pollutant load, the increase would be insignificant and would not exceed the State -adopted thresholds that would result in a significant impact to air quality. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. p. Impact 3.5-3: Conflicts with Applicable Air Quality Plans and Policies Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.5-23 through 3.5-24 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would be well within the residential density and marina and neighborhood commercial intensity limits adopted in the San Rafael General Plan 2020, and thus would be consistent with and within the air quality limits set by the Bay Area Air Quality Plan. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. q. Impact 3.7-2: Disturbance of Nesting Shore Birds Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.7-28 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), a detailed biological assessment of the project site was prepared by a qualified biologist and `peer' reviewed by a City -hired biological consultant. The biological assessment concludes that the project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for shorebirds. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. r. Impact 3.7-5: Removal of Wildlife Habitat Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.7-32 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), a detailed biological assessment of the project site was prepared by a qualified biologist and `peer' reviewed by a City -hired biological consultant. The biological assessment concludes that the project would remove existing habitat, thereby reducing its availability to local wildlife populations. Removal of this habitat would occur primarily during construction and grading phases of the project. However, the biologists have concluded that the loss would be limited to habitat for common species and the amount of loss would be negligible. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. s. Impact 3.7-6: Altering of Wildlife Movement Corridors Facts in Supuort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.7-32 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), a detailed biological assessment of the project site was prepared by a qualified biologist and `peer' reviewed by a City -hired biological consultant. The biological assessment concludes that the project would have no impact on wildlife movement or corridors as the areas of the project site that are proposed for development are partially developed and disturbed, and bordered by existing development. For this reason, this impact would be less -than - significant and no mitigation is required. t. Impact 3.7-7: Mortality of Wildlife During Project Construction Facts in Suvnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.7-33 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), a detailed biological assessment of the project site was prepared by a qualified biologist and `peer' reviewed by a City -hired biological consultant. The biological assessment concludes that project construction could result in the direct loss of a small amount of wildlife. However, the amount wildlife loss during construction would be negligible in that the areas proposed for development are presently: 1) disturbed, developed or graded; or b) undeveloped but bordered by active marina and neighborhood commercial uses. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. u. Impact 3.8-2: Increase in Storm Water Flows Facts in Sunvort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.8-25 and 3.8-29 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project would not alter the course of a stream or river but would increase the amount of storm water flows generated on the site. However, the project, as amended incorporates a re-routing of all storm water runoff within the on-site storm water drainage system, which would provide an opportunity for longer periods of runoff concentration. By extending the period of storm water concentration within the storm water system, a slower, overall flow rate from the site during peak 25 -year and 100 -year storm events would occur. For these reasons, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. v. Impact 3.8-4: On-site Hazards Associated with Flooding and Rise in Sea Level Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.8-30 through 3.8-32 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended is designed to import fill and raise portions of the site proposed for development to meet and exceed FEMA 100 -year flood hazard standards. Finished grade elevations of +7.0 mean sea level and higher are proposed, and first floor building elevations are +8.0 10 and higher, which would exceed the FEMA 100 -year flood hazard elevation requirement of +6.0 mean sea level, thus providing one -foot or more of freeboard. As reported in the DEIR, in 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published predictions for potential rise in sea level. EPA found that sea levels are projected to rise due to continued global warming, and it is expected that a 0.5 foot rise in the level of San Francisco Bay would occur by 2050. In response to comments on the DEIR, additional research was conducted on global warming and potential rise in sea level to determine the availability of more current data and information. FEIR Master Response HYD -2 (Volume IV, pages 2.0-53 through 2.0-58) cites more current studies and reports on climate change, including Bay level model predictions ranging from 0.5 meters to 5.0 meters by year 2100. Further, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), in conjunction with a planning study on global warming, has published aerial photographs of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays showing areas that would be effected by a one -meter rise in the Bay levels. BCDC has indicated that given the wide range of predictions in the rise of Bay levels, the aerial photographs should not be used for planning purposes. The BCDC aerial of the San Rafael area shows that some of the upland portions of the project site would be inundated with a one -meter rise in Bay waters. However, this aerial is based on existing topographic conditions and does not assume the planned filling of the site. The additional elevations proposed by the project site filling (discussed above) would address this projected rise. In conclusion, given the wide range of sea level predictions and uncertainties beyond year 2050, this topic has been determined to be too speculative for CEQA evaluation (Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). Based on the information that is available to date, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. w. Impact 3.8-5: Exposure of People or Structures to Hazards Related to Tsunamis Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.8-32 and 3.8-33 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project site is along the San Francisco Bay front, which has exposure to significant hazards related to tsunamis. Based on historic information prepared and gathered by a licensed geotechnical engineer, the occurrence of a tsunami exceeding a height of 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) along the shoreline of the Loch Lomond Marina is considered low. As the project, as amended proposes to fill and raise the developed areas to elevations of +7.0 to 9.8 mean sea level, the risk of flooding due to a potential tsunami event is considered low. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. x. Impact 3.9-1: Exposure of People or Structures to Fault Rupture Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.9-20 and 3.9-21 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo zone, which contains active faults such as the San Andreas and Hayward Faults. Therefore, the potential for ground surface rupture caused by active faults has been determined to be low. For this reason, this impact would be less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. y. Impact 3.9-5: Potential Hazards Related to Erosion Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.9-27 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project has the potential to result in soil erosion and the loss of 11 topsoil. The implementation of a Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), which is required as mitigation for other impacts, would reduce the potential of erosion to a less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. z. Impact 3.10-1: Increased Demand for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Services Facts in Support of Findina As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.10-8 and 3.10-9 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), development of the project site would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medial response services. However, the population projected by this project, as amended would not substantially impact the ability to provide this service nor would it impact response time. Further, the project, as amended would be required to install standard fire prevention measures including fire sprinkler systems and fire retardant roof materials, which would reduce fire service demands. For these reasons, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. aa. Impact 3.10-3: Increased Demand for Public Education Services Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.10-10 and 3.10-11 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project would increase population in this area, thus generating new student enrollment within the San Rafael City School District. While the FEIR concludes that the San Rafael City School District has adequate capacity in their elementary, middle and high schools to accommodated new students, the project, as amended would be subject to the State - mandate school impact fees. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. bb. Impact 3.10-4: Increased Demand for Library Services Facts in Support of Findina As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.10-12 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would increase population in this area, thus generating increased demand for library services. However, the increase in demand for this service is not considered substantial nor would the project generate the need for additional library space or staff. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. cc. Impact 3.10-5: Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities Facts in Support of Findina As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.10-12 through 3.10- 15 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would increase population in this area, thus generating new increased demand for recreation and park facilities. The City parkland dedication requirement for this project is 0.63 acres. However, the project, as amended has been designed to provide 2.0-2.5 acres of recreation and park improvements and facilities that would be accessible to the public, which would exceed the parkland dedication requirements. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. dd. Impact 3.10-6: Increased Use of Off -Site Public Park Facilities Facts in Support of Finding 12 As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.10-16 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project would increase population in this area, thus generating new increased demand on recreation and park facilities. However, the project, as amended has been designed to provide 2.0-2.5 acres of recreation and park improvements and facilities that would be accessible to the public, which would reduce the demand for resident use of off-site public parks. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. ee. Impact 3.11-1: Increased Demand for Natural Gas and Electric Services Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.11-5 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would increase population in this area, thus generating new increased demand for natural gas and electricity. However, PG & E has determined that that there is adequate service available to serve the project. Further, the project is within the estimated density and intensity limits projected for this site under the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and accompanying EIR. The General Plan 2020 EIR concluded that adequate gas and electrical service is available to accommodate projected growth within the community. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. ff. Impact 3.11-2: Increased Demand for Water Supply Facts in SUDDort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.11-6 through 3.11-8 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would increase population in this area, thus generating an increased demand for water service. However, the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) has determined that that there is adequate service available to serve the project (confirmed via letter dated October 25, 2006 and per verbal communication on June 22, 2007). Further, the project, as amended is within the estimated density and intensity limits projected for this site under the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and accompanying EIR. The General Plan 2020 EIR concluded that adequate water service is available to accommodate projected growth within the community. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. gg. Impact 3.11-3: Increased Demand for Wastewater Services Facts in Sunnort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.11-8 through 3.11- 10 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would increase population in this area, thus generating an increased demand on wastewater treatment and transporting services and facilities. However, the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) has determined that that there is adequate service available to serve the project. The San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) transports wastewater to the CMSA facilities. The project, as amended would be responsible for contributing to the upgrade of SRSD Loch Lomond Pump Station. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. hh. Impact 3.12-3: Potential Impacts to Integrity as a Historic Recreation Area Facts in SuDDort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.12-13 and 3.12-14 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project site was reviewed to determine its status as a historic recreation area. The FEIR concludes that the project site does not meet the 13 criteria as a historic resource, as defined by the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. For this reason, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. ii. Impact 3.12-4: Potential Impacts to Integrity as a Nautical Resource Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.12-13 and 3.12-14 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project site was reviewed to determine its status as a nautical resource. The FEIR concludes that the project site does not meet the criteria as a historic resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. Further, the project proposes to retain the full-service marina use. For this reason, this impact is less - than -significant and no mitigation is required. jj. Impact 3.13-10: Potential to Impair or Interfere with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.13-29 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would not impair or physically interfere with the City -adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. kk. Impact 3.13-11: Potential for Exposure to Wildland Fires Facts in Support of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-29 and 3.13-30 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project site is not located in the vicinity of a wildland area that would be subject to wildfires. Therefore, this impact is less -than -significant and no mitigation is required. 2. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR REDUCED WITH MITIGATION In this section of the Findings of Fact, the City, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section Sections 15091 and 15092, identifies the significant impacts that can be eliminated or reduced to a less - than -significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated into the description of the project and their implementation will be tracked through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. a. Impact 3.1-1: General Plan 2020 Policy Consistency Significant Impact As described on pages 3.1-9 through 3.1-17 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the initial project design has the potential to be in conflict with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policies CON -3 (Unavoidable Filling of Wetlands) and CON -4 (Wetland Setbacks), as well as the General Plan 2020 vision statement for the Loch Lomond neighborhood in that the project proposes: 1) to fill 622 square feet of jurisdictional wetlands; and 2) wetland setbacks of less than 50 -feet. The project, as amended would fill Wetland E, a 278 square foot, geographically isolated drainage ditch and would result in wetland setbacks that are less than 50 feet and would be potentially in conflict with Policies CON - 3 and CON -4. 14 Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Suunort of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1a and 3.1-1b, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1a requires that the wetland fill be avoided or mitigated if it is determined that filling cannot be avoided. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1b recommends that if the City decision -makers determine that the wetland setback encroachments are major, the project should be redesigned to comply with the 50 -foot wetland setback requirement. Should the decision -makers determine that the wetland setback encroachments are minor, the encroachments would be permitted with proper buffer design and the expansion of the larger seasonal wetlands, as recommended by Mitigation Measure 3.1-1a and 3.1-1b. . The project, as amended has reduced wetland impacts by: 1) limiting wetland fill to one, 278 square -foot drainage ditch and mitigating this fill with a 9,500 square -foot expansion and connection of the two large seasonal wetlands (Wetlands A and B) located southeast of Wetland E; and 2) reducing the amount of improvements and structures within the 50 - foot development free wetland setback. b. Impact 3.1-2: Conflicts with General Plan 2020 Land Use Designation Significant Impact As described on pages 3.1-17 through 3.1-21 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), the project has the potential to be in conflict with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 `Conservation' land use designation in that jurisdictional wetlands are proposed to be re -designated for `Neighborhood Commercial' use. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityf nds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-2a and 3.1-2b (amended herein), as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measures 3.1-2a and 3.1-2b (amended herein) require that the Conservation area boundaries be adjusted to incorporate those jurisdictional wetlands having natural resource significance. One minor edit to Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b 15 (amended herein) has been incorporated into the FEIR Errata and Supplement (Exhibit A), which clarifies that Wetland E, a small drainage ditch is exempt from this measure as it does not meet the criteria for designation as a Conservation area. c. Impact 3.1-3: Conflicts with Zoning Ordinance Significant Impact As described on pages 3.1-21 through 3.1-31 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended has the potential to be in conflict with the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding wetland fill and wetland setbacks. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition ofproject approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-3a, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure 3.1- 3a requires implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1a, 3.1-1b and 3.1-2b (amended herein), as described above to address wetland fill and wetland setbacks. The project, as amended has reduced wetland impacts by limiting wetland fill to one, 278 square -foot, geographically isolated wetland (Wetland E) which is mitigated by the 9,500 square -foot expansion and connection of two, large seasonal wetlands (Wetlands A and B); and reducing the amount of improvements and structures within the 50 -foot development free wetland setback. d. Impact 3.2-1: Construction Related Aesthetic Impacts Significant Impact As described on pages 3.2-55 and 3.2-56 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended has the potential to create temporary aesthetic nuisances associated with construction and grading, which would temporarily alter the visual character and quality of the project site. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding 16 The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires site screening (fencing) during grading and construction and recommendations for the siting and maintenance of construction staging areas. e. Impact 3.2-5: Light and Glare Significant Impact As described on pages 3.2-59 and 3.2-60 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended has the potential to create and increase sources of light and glare, which could adversely impact adjacent properties. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-5a and 3.2-5b, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require the preparation of a detailed lighting plan and compliance with specific performance standards for lighting design and intensity to reduce light and glare. L Impact 3.5-1: Temporary Construction -Related Air Quality Impacts Significant Impact As described on pages 3.5-16 through 3.5-19 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended has the potential to result in temporary construction -related air quality impacts. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a, 3.5b, 3.5-1c and 3.5-1d, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require the implementation of specific techniques and activities to control dust and emissions during grading and construction phases of the project. 17 g. Impact 3.6-1: Temporary Construction -Related Noise and Vibration Impacts Significant Impact As described on pages 3.6-16 through 3.6-19 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended has the potential to result in temporary construction -related noise and vibration impacts. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1a, 3.6-1b, 3.6-1c and 3.6-1d, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures set forth noise and vibration attenuation requirements to implement during the grading and construction phases of the project. Recommendations include limiting hours of construction and providing notice to property owners within 1,000 feet from the project site when certain noise generating activities are initiated. h. Impact 3.6-2: Increase in On-site Noise Associated with Project Activities and Uses Facts in SuDDort of Finding As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.6-20 through 3.6-22 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would generate on-site noise associated with the residential units and commercial activities, which include loading and unloading activities, mechanical equipment operation and parking. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 (amended herein), as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that mechanical equipment and loading areas for the commercial buildings be located away from sensitive noise receptors and that these areas be shielded and screened to reduce noise. Further, this measure requires that noise insulation Is measures be incorporated into the design of the residential units to ensure that interior noise levels are within City standards, as well as exterior living areas. i. Impact 3.6-3: Increase in Noise Associated with Vehicular Activity Significant Imuact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.6-23 through 3.6-28 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended may significantly increase noise associated with vehicular activity with the project area and within the project site. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Sunnort of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-3, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that residential units within 220 feet of the centerline of Point San Pedro Road be equipped with mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning or equivalent ventilation system), which provides the resident the option of keeping windows closed to reduce exposure to excessive road noise. j. Impact 3.7-1: Disturbance of Nesting Special -Status Birds or Other Breeding Birds Significant Imvact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-25 through 3.7-28 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume 4 (Response to Comments) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended may significantly disturb the nesting of special -status bird species and other breeding birds. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within die jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Sunnort of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a (amended herein), 3.7-1b and 3.7-1c, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require: 1) that vegetation removal be limited to the 19 non-nesting/breeding season (September through February); 2) that pre -construction nesting surveys of the site be conducted to determine the presence of bird nesting and requirements in the event bird nests are present; and 3) that the wetland mitigation and management plan be implemented, which proposes to expand and enhance the large seasonal wetlands in the eastern portion of the project site. k. Impact 3.7-3: Disturbance of Migratory Fish Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-28 through 3.7-30 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), certain project construction activities (repair of breakwater and pier repair at the Loch Lomond Yacht Club) may significantly disturb migratory fish. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-3b, as presented in the FOR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires the use of pier repair techniques that do not generate acoustical noise levels in excess of 180 decibels. 1. Impact 3.7-4: Disturbance of Migratory Waterfowl Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-30 and 3.7-31 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume 4 (Response to Comments), project grading and construction would potentially disturb waterfowl. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-4, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that all construction and grading work conducted below the mean high water mark be 20 conducted at low tide during the summer only in order to avoid disturbing waterfowl during winter foraging periods. m. Impact 3.7-8: Indirect Impacts to Wildlife and Wetlands Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-33 through 3.7-40 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume 4 (Response to Comments), during project construction and during operational activities (proximity of new residential units to wildlife habitat) indirect significant impacts to wildlife and wetlands would occur. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-8a, 3.7-8b, 3.7-8c and 3.7-8d, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures requires: 1) that informational signs be posted bordering the conservation and wetland areas explaining the biological value of the area and limitations on pets; 2) that certain adjustments to the site plan be made to reduce encroachments into the 50 -foot required wetland setbacks and improve the buffer; 3) that the bird watching platform be installed between the two large seasonal wetlands, which is to be designed to minimize human intrusion into the wetland areas. The project, as amended, complies with these measures by: 1) reducing the amount of improvements and structures within the 50 -foot development free wetland setback; and 2) relocating the bird watching platform to an area along the southern edge of the large seasonal wetlands, which is accessed by the breakwater. n. Impact 3.7-9: Direct Impacts to Wetlands Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-40 through 3.7-45 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), the initial project design proposed to fill 622 square feet of seasonal wetlands. The project, as amended reduces wetland fill to Wetland E, a 278 square -foot, a geographically isolated drainage ditch. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is 21 within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in SUDDort of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-9, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that the wetland fill be avoided or mitigated if it is determined that such filling cannot be avoided. As indicated above, the project, as amended, has reduced wetland impacts by limiting wetland fill to one, 278 square -foot, geographically isolated wetland (Wetland E), which would be mitigated by the proposed 9,500 square -foot expansion and connection of the two larger seasonal wetlands (Wetlands A and B). This mitigation represents a 31:1 ratio of wetland replacement, which far exceeds the 2:1 replacement ratio mandated by General Plan 2020 Policy CON -3. o. Impact 3.7-10: Degradation of Wetlands by People and Pets Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-45 and 3.7-46 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would increase the activity of people and pets adjacent to the seasonal wetlands, which may degrade wetland habitat. Facts in SuDDort of Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Sumort of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-8a, 3.7-8b, 3.7-8c and 3.7-8d, as presented in the FOR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures requires: 1) that informational signs be posted bordering the conservation and wetland areas explaining the biological value of the area and limitations on pets; 2) that certain adjustments to the site plan be made to reduce encroachment into the 50 -foot required wetland setbacks and improve the buffer; 3) that the bird watching platform be installed between the two large seasonal wetlands, which is designed to minimize human intrusion into the wetland areas. As indicated above, the project, as amended complies with these measures by: 1) reducing the amount of improvements and structures within the 50 -foot development free wetland setback; and 2) relocating the bird watching platform to an area along the southern edge of the large seasonal wetlands, which is accessed by the breakwater. p. Impact 3.7-11: Impact to Water Quality in Adjacent Surface Waters and Wetlands Significant Impact 22 As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-47 through 3.7-49 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project grading and construction activities could degrade water quality in the adjacent surface waters and seasonal wetlands. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in SUpport of Finding, The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-11a, 3.7-1 lb, 3.7-11c, 3.7-11d and 3.7- 1 l e, 3.7-11f and 3.7-11g, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require: 1) installation of silt fences around the border of the development area to contain silt and runoff; 2) covering stockpiles of material and dirt for containment; 3) hydro seeding exposed slopes during the grading phases; and 4) implementing erosion and sediment control measures. q. Impact 3.7-12: Impact to On -Site Trees Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.7-49 through 3.7-53 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would result in the removal and/or impacts to native oak trees and mature ornamental trees. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-12, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires preservation of native oaks to the extent feasible with replanting at a 3:1 ratio where removal of such trees is proposed. Further, this measure requires the installation of tree protection measures around certain native oaks to be preserved during site grading and construction, and the transplanting one ornamental Canary Island date palm tree. The project design, as amended, would preserved all Coast live oak trees located on the project site with the exception of three, Coast live oak trees located in the area of Wetland E, which is proposed to be filled. 23 r. Impact 3.8-1: Construction -Related Erosion and Non -Point Source Pollution into the San Rafael Bay Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.8-21 through 3.7-25 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would result in construction -related erosion and non -point pollution of the San Rafael Bay. Although initially identified as a significant, unavoidable environmental effect in the DEIR, this impact was re-evaluated during the preparation of the FEIR. This impact was reduced to less -than -significant given that the project site is currently developed and runoff leaving the site under existing conditions is untreated. With the imposing of water quality measures and adherence to applicable regulations and Best Management Practices (BMPs), the project, as amended would improve the quality of storm water runoff from the current, untreated conditions. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. the City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1a, 3.8-1b, 3.8-1c, 3.8-1d, 3.8-1e and 3.8 - If, as presented in the FOR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require, among others: 1) the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP); 2) the installation of water quality control measures in the drainage plan, which could include the use of pervious pavers, grassy swales, and Vortechnics storm water treatment units to filter and treat runoff before it enters the Bay; and 3) implementation of property maintenance measures such as regular street sweeping. s. Impact 3.8-3: Exposure of People to Flood Hazards Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.8-29 and 3.7-30 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would expose people to flood hazards as a majority of the project site is located within the FEMA 100 -year flood hazard zone. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. Tlie City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is 24 within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-3, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that the final drainage plan be designed to accommodate storm water storage during high tide conditions, so that storm water runoff is time -released into the Bay as the tide subsides. t. Impact 3.9-2: Exposure of People or Structures to Hazards Related to Ground Shaking Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on page 3.9-21 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended may expose people and structures to hazards related to ground shaking. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-2, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that the project be designed to follow and meet the seismic requirements of the latest Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. u. Impact 3.9-3: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Ground Failure or Liquefaction Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.9-22 through 3.9-24 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments), the project, as amended would expose people and structures to adverse effects associated with ground failure and liquefaction. Given the current soil conditions and the location of the project site, the potential for liquefaction is high. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. 77ie City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is 25 within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-3a, 3.9-3b and 3.9-3c, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require: 1) that the grading and soil import material and compaction follow the specific recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigations that have been prepared for the project site; 2) appropriate foundation design; and 3) testing be performed by a licensed geotechnical engineer during the grading and construction phases to ensure that the surcharge material is appropriately placed and settled. v. Impact 3.9-4: Exposure of People or Structures to Hazards Associated with Landslides Sip-nificant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.9-24 through 3.9-27 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), Volume IV (Response to Comments) and in the FEIR errata/supplement, the project, as amended would expose people and structures to hazards associated with landslides (slope failure). Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Findine The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-4, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that all site grading and slope design be completed in accordance with the design criteria cited in this mitigation measure and detailed in the geotechnical investigation, prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Mitigation design criteria include: 1) limits for the thickness, placement, and timing of surcharge and permanent fill; 2) limiting the maximum fill slope to 3:1 (horizontal: vertical); 3) establishes a static factor of safety of 1.5 or greater for stock piles within 50 feet of the shoreline; 4) requirements that all heavy construction equipment working within 40 feet of the shoreline be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer or representative of the engineer; 5) specific criteria for finished fill slope angles and distance of slope toe from the shoreline; 6) a requirement for site specific analysis of any fill material in excess of one foot thickness placed within 30 feet of the top of the marina shoreline slope, and 7) requirement that no buildings within 60 feet of the top of marina shoreline slope be constructed with shallow foundations. TRC Geotechnical Engineers provided written confirmation that the application of these measures would minimize the potential for migrating bay mud and development of silt in the slough located east of the project site (see Exhibit A for letter). 26 w. Impact 3.9-6: Potential Hazards Related to Development on Expansive Soils Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.9-28 and 3.9-29 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments)„ the project, as amended would expose people and structures to adverse effects associated with expansive soils. Given the current soil conditions and the location of the project site, the potential for expansive soils (soils expanding and contracting based on the extent of moisture) is high. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-6a, 3.9-6b, 3.9-6c and 3.9-6d, as presented in the FOR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require: 1) that the grading and soil import material and compaction follow the specific recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigations that have been prepared for the project site; 2) soil imported to the site be limited to an expansion index of 50 or less; and 3) that a cap of competent soil be placed over fill to further reduce exposure to soil expansion. x. Impact 3.10-2: Increased Demand for Police Services Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.10-8 and 3.10-9 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments)„ the project, as amended would increase the demand for law enforcement services. While the project would not increase the demand or need for Police Department staffing or new facilities, it would increase the number of enforcement responses. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2, as presented in the FOR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires 27 specific crime prevention measures to be included in the design of the project to reduce the potential for crimes, through increased natural surveillance, thus reducing the amount of calls for police response. y. Impact 3.12-1: Potential Impacts to Prehistoric or Historic Resources Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.12-11 and 3.11-12 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project grading and demolition could encounter and/or disturb unidentified prehistoric or historic resources. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-1, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that prior to commencement of grading or demolition, a qualified archaeologist be hired to train construction workers on methods for identifying cultural resources. z. Impact 3.12-2: Potential to Uncover Human Remains Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.12-12 and 3.11-13 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project grading and demolition could encounter and/or uncover human remains. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-2, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure establishes the necessary steps and protocol required by State law to address human remains, if uncovered during site grading and construction. 28 aa. Impact 3.13-1: Potential Hazard to Public Health and Environment Due to Impaired Fill Material Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-16 through 3.13- 18 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), areas of fill on the project site may contain hazardous materials, which may pose as a health risk if exposed to people. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-1a and 3.13-1b, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These measures require the preparation and implementation of a Phase H Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been prepared and incorporated into the FEIR, as recommended by these mitigation measures. The Phase H ESA discloses the type and extent of hazards, recommending measures for clean-up and remediation. bb. Impact 3.13-2: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Due to Transport and Handling of Contaminated Soil Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-18 and 3.13-19 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), the project, as amended could result in the transport and handling of hazardous materials associated with the historic on-site chemical storage and use. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared and incorporated into the FEIR, as recommended by Mitigation Measures 3.13-1a and 3.13-1b. 29 cc. Impact 3.13-3: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Due to History of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater from Former Fueling Station Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-19 through 3.13- 22 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), areas of fill on the project site may contain contaminated soil and groundwater associated with the former fueling station use at the southeast corner of Point San Pedro Road and Lochinvar Road, which may pose as a health risk if exposed to people. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within die jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-3, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A Phase H Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared and incorporated into the FEIR, as recommended by Mitigation Measures 3.13-1a and 3.13-1b. dd. Impact 3.13-4: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Due to History of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater from Underground Storage Tanks on the West Jetty Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-22 and 3.13-23 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and in Volume 4 (Response to Comments), the project, as amended could create hazards to the public and the environment due to the site history of contaminated soil and groundwater associated with the underground storage tanks on the west jetty. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-4, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A Phase H Environmental 30 Site Assessment has been prepared and incorporated into the FEIR, as recommended by Mitigation Measures 3.13-1a and 3.13-1b. ee. Impact 3.13-5: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Through the Release of Asbestos -Containing Materials Associated with Demolition Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-24 and 3.13-25 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project demolition and grading activities could create hazards to the public and the environment through the release of asbestos -containing materials. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-5, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires that a pre -demolition asbestos survey be conducted by a licensed asbestos abatement inspector, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The survey is to include specific measures for removing asbestos in a safe manner. ff. Impact 3.13-6: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Through the Release of Lead -Based Paint Associated with Demolition Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-2 and 3.13-26 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project demolition and grading activities could create hazards to the public and the environment through the release of lead-based paint. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.13-6a and 3.13-6b, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This 31 measure requires that a licensed lead-based paint inspector be hired to implement specific steps for evaluating, removing, containing and disposing of paint containing lead. gg. Impact 3.13-7: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Through the Release of PCBs and/or Mercury Associated with Demolition Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-26 and 3.13-27 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project demolition and grading activities could create hazards to the public and the environment through the release of PBCs and mercury associated with the handling of fluorescent lighting. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-7, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires the removal and disposal of fluorescent lighting that potentially contains PCBs and mercury at an approved landfill or recycling center. hh. Impact 3.13-8: Potential Hazard to Public and Environment Through the Release of Transformer Oil Associated with Construction Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-27 and 3.13-28 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments)„ the project, as amended could create a hazard to the public or the environment through release of transformer oil from the PG & E transformer and the single-phase transformer located north of the marina docks. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-8, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires 32 that if the transformers are removed during construction and grading, they are required to be tested for PCB levels and remediated, if necessary. ii. Impact 3.13-9: Potential for Emission of Hazardous Materials That May Impact Students at San Pedro Elementary School Significant Impact As presented in and determined by the analysis contained on pages 3.13-28 and 3.13-29 of Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), project demolition and grading activities could result in the emission or handling of hazardous materials that may adversely affect students at the nearby San Pedro Elementary School. Finding As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above, and as identified in the FEIR. The City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible. Facts in Support of Finding The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-9, as presented in the FEIR and provided in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This measure requires implementing Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, which recommends the preparation and implementation a Soil Management Work Plan (SMWP). The SMWP is required to include measures for containing and controlling dust generated during grading and construction phases of the project. 3. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT OR LESS-THAN- Mwil1101cv.W11 Q&1 1as41IIElW-3-0-DY&O1 1019)114 P f-1( During the preparation of the Initial Study Checklist, it was determined that a number of possible environmental effects of the project would be insignificant, less -than -significant or would be adequately addressed through the City review process. For these topics, no need for further environmental assessment was required for the preparation of the FEIR. Finding Consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15128, FEIR Volume 1 (DEIR, Edited), Section 1.7 contains a statement as to why such effects were determined to be insignificant or less - than -significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Initial Study Checklist prepared and published on January 6, 2005 and revised and republished on February 15, 2005 determined that the initial project design and, subsequently, in the FEIR assessment of the Mitigated Plan (the project, as amended) presented in Volume IV (Response to Comments) would result in insignificant environmental affects related to the following Initial Study topics: • The project will not cause the conversion of farmland or conflicts with agricultural use zoning (e.g., Williamson Act contract) 33 • The project will not involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use • The project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan • The project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature • The project is not located within a designated Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, so development improvements and uses would not be exposed to a fault rupture • The project would use existing City wastewater infrastructure and would not incorporate use of septic tanks for the disposal of wastewater • The project would permit land uses where hazardous materials would be limited to small quantities of household cleaners, pesticides and fertilizers, which if used or transported would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment • The project would not deplete or make use of ground water. Domestic and irrigation water service would be provided by the Marin Municipal Water District; this District prohibits the use of well water for any new development • The project would not physically divide an established community in that the project site is currently developed and surrounded by residential communities to the north, east and west, and the San Rafael Bay to the south • The project site is not within the boundaries of an adopted airport land use plan, nor within 2 miles of a public airport • The project would not involve changes in air traffic patterns and would not conflict with or affect air traffic • The project would not result in the use of mineral resources or impacts to a designated, known mineral resource or resource recovery site • The project would not displace people or housing • The project would not impact solid waste service and landfill capacity, as it is within the density and intensity limits studied for the project site in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and accompanying General Plan FEIR In summary, these topics related to the initial project design and the project, as amended, has been determined to be insignificant or less -than -significant for the following reasons: The project site is level, is developed, and is located in a suburban area that is developed. b. The project site represents urban infill as it is bordered by developed properties. The project site is designated in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 for marine - related, neighborhood commercial/residential and conservation land uses. The Initial Study Checklist, which is contained in FEIR Volume I (DEIR Edits), Appendix A, provides further details and rationale for this conclusion. 4. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 34 As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Sections 15091 and 15092, the FEIR is required to identify the significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level through mitigation measures. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The DEIR found that the initial project design could result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the potential to exceed water quality standards and non -point pollution of San Rafael Bay (DEIR Volume 1, Chapter 4, Impact 3.8-1, pages 3.8-21-25; Chapter 5, page 5-1). However, a quantitative analysis of water quality impacts was not included in the Draft EIR. A quantitative water quality analysis was prepared for incorporation in the FEIR. The water quality analysis found that project compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the treatment of surface water runoff will effectively reduce constituent loads that currently are discharged from the site into the Bay's waters and the seasonal wetlands. Incorporation of BMPs into the site plan will improve the surface water quality being discharged to San Pablo Bay from the Loch Lomond Marina site with a net beneficial impact on Bay water quality compared to the existing condition. The FEIR impact concluded that the project, as amended would result in fewer water quality impacts than under current site conditions, provided that recommended Mitigation Measures 3.8-1a through 3.8-1f are implemented. At present, urban runoff from the project site is untreated and the implementation of these mitigation measures into the project design would improve the quality of runoff. Accordingly, the water quality impacts of the project were found to be less -than -significant level with mitigation in the FEIR. 5. REVIEW AND REJECTION OF ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 mandates that every FEIR evaluate a no -project alternative, plus a feasible and reasonable range of alternatives to the project or its location. The Alternatives were formulated considering the Objectives of the City of San Rafael and the Project Sponsor Objectives outlined on pages 6-1 through 6-3 of FEIR Volume I (DEIR Edited). Alternatives provide a basis of comparison to the project in terms of beneficial, significant, and unavoidable impacts. This comparative analysis is used to consider reasonable feasible options for minimizing environmental consequences of a project. Typically, where a project causes significant impacts and an EIR is prepared, the findings must discuss not only how mitigation can address the potentially significant impacts but whether project alternatives can address potentially significant impacts. But where all significant impacts can be substantially lessened, in this case to a less -than -significant level, solely by adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility that project alternatives might reduce an impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed project, as mitigated (Public Resources Code Section 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 730-733; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403). Nevertheless, as explained below, these findings describe and reject, for reasons documented in the FEIR and summarized below, each one of the project alternatives, and 35 the City finds that approval and implementation of the initial project design or the "Mitigated Plan" (the project design, as amended) as described and assessed in FEIR Volume 4 (Responses to Comments) is appropriate. The evidence supporting these findings is presented in Chapter 6 of the Volume I DEIR Edited, pages 6-1 through 6-65. a. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative This alternative assumes that the proposed project would not occur and that the project site would remain in its present condition operating with marina neighborhood commercial and medical office uses. Findiniz Specific economic and other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative identified in the FEIR and described above. Facts in Support of Finding 1) The No Project Alternative would not meet the project sponsor's objectives in that no development would occur on the project site. 2) The No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118, which encourage a mixed-use development on the project site that retains the marina and neighborhood commercial uses, promotes expanded waterfront recreation and park opportunities and introduces residential use with a variety of housing types. 3) The No Project Alternative would not promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would not provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site or permanently protect of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 4) While most of the potential impacts associated with the project would be avoided under this alternative, this alternative would not achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project, as amended would: a) not remove the site from the 100 -year floodplain; and b) not provide any new housing that would be affordable to low- and moderate -income households. b. Alternative 2: No Project -Development per General Plan 2020 Alternative This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with nine acres of neighborhood commercial (15,000 square feet) and residential (59 cottage and detached single-family residential units) uses, approximately 14.9 acres of the upland would be reserved for marina and marine -related land uses and approximately 5.6 acres of the site would remain as open space and conservation area. Finding Specific economic, legal and other considerations make Alternative 2, identified in the FEIR and described above, a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael. Facts in Support of Finding 1) Alternative 2 would not meet the project sponsor's objectives as residential development would be limited to 59 detached single-family and cottage units, which would not provide the density and the range of housing types and sizes proposed with the project. 36 2) Alternative 2 would meet most of the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118 as it would provide a mixed-use development consisting of marina and neighborhood commercial uses, expanded waterfront recreation and park opportunities and preservation of open space and conservation areas. However, the residential use component is limited to two similar housing types and would result in a density that is at the low-end of the General Plan density range established for this site, which would not meet the objectives of the City or the mix of housing types encouraged by Policy NH -118. 3) Alternative 2 would be legally infeasible, as the City would be unable to make the findings required by California Government Code Section 65589.50), since the housing project as proposed by the project sponsor has no specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, which would be negated by project approval at a lower density. 4) Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site and would result in permanent protection of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 5) Alternative 2 would generate impacts that are comparatively similar to the project, as amended with reduced impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, water quality, traffic, air quality and noise. However, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact of the project that would be cause for selection as a preferable plan. Alternative 2 would achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project, as amended and would remove the site from the 100 -year floodplain. While Alternative 2 would provide new housing, it would result in fewer market -rate and below-market rate units than the project, which would be further from meeting the City's housing development goals. c. Alternative 3: Medium Density -Low Range General Plan 2020 Alternative This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 9.6 acres of neighborhood commercial (21,785 square feet) and residential (59 cottage and detached single-family residential units) uses, approximately 14.1 acres of the upland would be reserved for marina and marine -related land uses and approximately 5.8 acres of the site would remain as open space and conservation area. Finding Specific economic, legal and other considerations make Alternative 3, identified in the FEIR and described above, a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael. Facts in Sunnort of Findins 1) Alternative 3 would not meet the project sponsor's objectives as residential development would be limited to 59 detached single-family and cottage units, which would not provide the density and range of housing types and sizes proposed with the project. 2) Alternative 3 would meet most of the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118 as it would provide a mixed-use development consisting of marina and neighborhood commercial uses, expanded waterfront recreation and park 37 opportunities and preservation of open space and conservation areas. However, the residential use component is limited to two similar housing types that would be developed at the low-end of the General Plan density range established for this site, which would not meet the objectives of the City or the mix of housing types encouraged by Policy NH -118. 3) Alternative 3 would be legally infeasible, as the City would be unable to make the findings required by California Government Code Section 65589.50), since the housing project as proposed by the project sponsor has no specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, which would be negated by project approval at a lower density. 4) Similar to the project, Alternative 3 would promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site and would result in permanent protection of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 5) Alternative 3 would generate impacts that are comparatively similar to the project, as amended with reduced impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, water quality, traffic, air quality and noise. However, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact of the project that would be cause for selection as a preferable plan. Alternative 3 would achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project, as amended and would remove the site from the 100 -year floodplain. While Alternative 3 would provide new housing, it would result in fewer market -rate and below-market rate units than the project, which would be further from meeting the City's housing development goals. d. Alternative 4: Medium Density -High Range General Plan 2020 Alternative This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 11.3 acres of neighborhood commercial (37,300 square feet) and residential (99 cottage, detached single-family and town home residential units) uses, approximately 12.4 acres of the upland would be reserved for marina and marine -related land uses and approximately 5.8 acres of the site would remain as open space and conservation area. Finding While City housing goals would be met with the implementation of Alternative 4, specific environmental considerations make this alternative, identified in the FEIR and described above, a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael. Facts in SuDUOrt of Finding 1) Alternative 4 would meet the project sponsor's objectives as residential development would result in 99 residential units, which would provide the range of housing types and sizes proposed with the project. 2) Alternative 4 would meet most of the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118 as it would provide a mixed-use development consisting of marina and neighborhood commercial uses, expanded waterfront recreation and park opportunities and preservation of open space and conservation areas. The residential use component would meet the 99 -unit housing goal established for this housing opportunity site by the San Rafael General Plan 2020, which would include a broad mix of housing types encouraged by Policy NH -118. 38 3) Similar to the project, Alternative 4 would promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site and would result in permanent protection of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 4) Alternative 4 would generate impacts that are comparatively similar to the project, as amended with increased impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, water quality, public services, public utilities and noise. However, this alternative would: a) result in greater traffic and air quality impacts than those generated under Phase II of the project, as amended (build -out); and b) not eliminate a significant impact of the project that would be cause for selection as a preferable plan. Alternative 4 would achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project and would remove the site from the 100 -year floodplain. e. Alternative 5: Expanded Commercial Alternative This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 7.9 acres of neighborhood commercial (36,300 square feet) and residential (59 cottage, detached single-family and town home residential units) uses, approximately 13.6 acres of the upland would be reserved for marina and marine -related land uses and approximately 8.0 acres of the site would remain as open space and conservation area. Findiniz Specific economic, legal and other considerations make Alternative 5, identified in the FEIR and described above, a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael. Facts in Sunnort of Findine 1) Alternative 5 would not meet the project sponsor's objectives as residential development would be limited to 59 units, but would provide the mix of housing types and sizes proposed with the project. 2) Alternative 5 would meet most of the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118 as it would provide a mixed-use development consisting of marina and neighborhood commercial uses, expanded waterfront recreation and park opportunities and preservation of open space and conservation areas. However, the residential use component would be developed at the low-end of the General Plan density range established for this site, which would result in fewer housing units on a housing opportunity site that is capable of accommodating a greater number of housing units. 3) Alternative 5 would be legally infeasible, as the City would be unable to make the findings required by California Government Code Section 65589.50), since the housing project as proposed by the project sponsor has no specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, which would be negated by project approval at a lower density. 4) Similar to the project, Alternative 5 would promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site and would result in permanent protection of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 39 5) Alternative 5 would generate impacts that are comparatively similar to the project, as amended, with reduced impacts in the areas of hydrology/drainage, water quality, geology/soils and seismicity, public services and utilities. However, this alternative would not eliminate a significant impact of the project that would be cause for selection as a preferable plan. Alternative 5 would achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project, as amended and would remove the site from the 100 -year floodplain. While Alternative 5 would provide new housing, it would result in fewer market -rate and below-market rate units than the project, which would be further from meeting the City's housing development goals. f. Alternative 6: 36 -Unit Loch Lomond Homeowner's Association Alternative This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 9.6 acres of neighborhood commercial (28,000 square feet) and residential (36 cottage, detached single-family and town home residential units) uses, approximately 14.1 acres of the upland would be reserved for marina and marine -related land uses and approximately 7.5 acres of the site would remain as open space and conservation area. Finding Specific economic, legal and other considerations make Alternative 6, identified in the FEIR and described above, a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael. Facts in Sunnort of Finding 1) Alternative 6 would not meet the project sponsor's objectives as residential development would be limited to 36 units, but would provide the mix of housing types and sizes proposed with the project. 2) Alternative 6 would meet most of the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118 as it would provide a mixed-use development consisting of marina and neighborhood commercial uses, expanded waterfront recreation and park opportunities and preservation of open space and conservation areas. However, the residential use component would be developed well below the General Plan density range established for this site, which would result in fewer housing units on a housing opportunity site that is capable of accommodating a greater number of housing units. 3) Alternative 6 would be legally infeasible, as the City would be unable to make the findings required by California Government Code Section 65589.50), since the housing project as proposed by the project sponsor has no specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, which would be negated by project approval at a lower density. 4) Similar to the project, Alternative 6 would promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site and would result in permanent protection of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 5) Alternative 6 would generate impacts that are comparatively similar to the project with reduced impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, water quality, geology/soils and seismicity, public services, utilities, traffic and air quality impacts. Alternative 6 would achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project, as amended and would remove the site 40 from the 100 -year floodplain. While Alternative 6 would provide new housing, it would result in far fewer market -rate and below-market rate units than the project, which would be further from meeting the City's housing development goals. g. Alternative 7: Density Bonus Alternative This alternative would implement the California Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) by proposing to develop the project site with 11.3 acres of neighborhood commercial (38,085 square feet) and residential (182 detached single-family, town home and apartment/condominium residential units) uses, approximately 12.4 acres of the upland would be reserved for marina and marine -related land uses and approximately 5.8 acres of the site would remain as open space and conservation area. Finding While City housing goals would be met with the implementation of Alternative 7, specific environmental considerations make this alternative, identified in the FEIR and described above, a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael. Facts in Sunnort of Finding 1) Alternative 7 would exceed the project sponsor's objectives for residential development density but would not provide the housing types and sizes proposed with the project. 2) Alternative 7 would meet most of the City's objectives and General Plan 2020 Policy NH -118 as it would provide a mixed-use development consisting of marina and neighborhood commercial uses, expanded waterfront recreation and park opportunities and preservation of open space and conservation areas. The residential use component would exceed the 99 -unit housing goal established for this housing opportunity site by the San Rafael General Plan 2020, which would include a broad mix of housing types encouraged by Policy NH -118. 3) Similar to the project, Alternative 7 would promote long -needed improvements to an underdeveloped site, would provide an opportunity to expand public access and use of the site and would result in permanent protection of on-site resources (wetlands and conservation areas). 4) Alternative 7 would generate impacts that are comparatively similar to the project, as amended with increased impacts in the areas of aesthetics, traffic, biological resources, hydrology/drainage, water quality, geology/soils and seismicity, public services, public utilities, air quality and noise. Alternative 7 would achieve the water quality treatment measures proposed with the project, as amended and would remove the site from the 100 -year floodplain. The foregoing Resolution No. 12330 was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of August 2007, and ordered for a second reading by the following vote to wit: 41 AYES: Councilmembers: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None M. LEONCINI, City Clerk Attachments: EXHIBIT `A': FEIR Errata/Supplement, May 2007/Revised July 2007 EXHIBIT `B': Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; revised June 2007 cAIchlmnd. ccres(FEIR)(8-6-07) 42 EXHIBIT A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT May 2007 (Revised July 2007) This exhibit serves as an errata and supplement to the Village at Loch Lomond Marina Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The following information was either not included or referenced in the FEIR or is being edited for correction: Expand FEIR Volume IV, Section 2.0, Master Response TRF -3 (Parking). This master response addresses parking for recreation and park use, concluding that this use component was considered and reflected in the parking demand studies prepared for the project by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., traffic engineers (KHA). This response did not include a memorandum from Paul Jensen, Contract Planner to KHA, which provides supplemental information on parking demand for recreation and public park use (November 24, 2006). This memorandum (attached) summarizes a survey of parking standards for public parks adopted in other cities; summarizes the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) source for determining parking standards for parks, and provides the results of a parking survey conducted at three City of San Rafael neighborhood parks. This memorandum was intended to reinforce the conclusions presented in this master response that the publicly -accessible recreation and park use component did not warrant a separate study or determination for parking supply. 2. Expand FEIR Volume IV, Section 2.0, Master Response TRF -1 (Traffic), addressing average vehicle travel time between the project site and the US 101 on -ramps and off - ramps (Volume IV, page 2.0-14). This response did not include an estimate on how the addition of project traffic would impact the estimated travel time. The City Traffic Engineer has been consulted and has provided the travel time charts that were prepared for the September 12, 2006 Planning Commission study session (attached). The City Traffic Engineer reported that based on tested `travel runs' between the project site and US 101, the travel time is 5-12 minutes in the AM peak hour 6-11 minutes in the PM peak hour. As presented on the time charts, the addition of project traffic (Phase I and Phase II) would not measurably increase travel time between US 101 and the project site during the AM or PM peak hours. Expanded FEIR, Volume IV, Section 2.0, Master Response TRF -1 (Traffic), addresses the contribution of traffic at the 3rd Street/Union Street intersection from San Rafael High School, Whole Foods Market and the Montecito Shopping Center. This master response does not address the contribution of traffic by Whole Foods or Montecito Shopping Center. The City Traffic Engineer has been consulted and has reported: a) the impact of Whole Foods Market and the Montecito Shopping Center are included in the intersection turning movement counts included in the baseline conditions; and b) given that each use has multiple driveways, the contribution of each use cannot be determined without conducting a specific traffic study of these uses. 4. Edits to FEIR Volume I (DEIR Edited), Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, Impact 3.4-6. The following edits clarify that the San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in 2002, identifies Point San Pedro Road as a proposed Class II-III route. The current text notes that this road is designated as a Class II route in the San Rafael General Plan 2020: Edit DEIR page 3.4-9, Alternative Transportation, Bicycle - A -1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT May 2007 (Revised July 2007) "Bicycle There are currently no bicycle lanes on Point San Pedro Road adjacent to the Project site. Bicyclists share the roadway with motorized traffic. The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in February 2002 City Genwn'. Nav. 248 identifies Point San Pedro Road as a stFeet proposed Class II-III oft stfeet bieyele lanes are planned in the future bicycle route. The San Rafael General Plan 2020 has adopted this master plan by reference." Edit DEIR page 3.4-60, Impact 3.4 -6 - "Bicycle There are currently no developed or constructed bicycle lanes on Point San Pedro Road adjacent to the project site. Bicyclists share the roadway with motorized vehicles. The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which is adopted by reference in the City San Rafael General Plan 2020 identifies Point San Pedro Road as a stFeet where a proposed Class II-III bicycle route. on stFeet bieyele lanes ^ e planned 1 in the fidtH a In order to achieve implementation of the City's Bieyele Plan master plan, either Class III bicycle route sianaae or Class II bicycle lanes and signage are needed on Point San Pedro Road along the project's frontage..." Revisions to FEIR Volume I (DEIR Edited), Section 3.6, Noise, Impact 3.6-1. Pages 3.6- 17 and 3.6-18 do not incorporate a correction in the assessment of construction -related noise, which is appropriately documented in Volume IV (Response to Comments). Edit DE1R page 3.6-17, Impact 3.6-1, third full paragraph, commencing at second sentence- "... The nearest residential property lines are approximately 2-50 125 feet (north of Point San Pedro Road) from the proposed residential units for Phase I, which corresponds to 14 dBA of attenuation. Construction activities for the commercial area and office building would take place approximately 7-7-0 385 feet from the nearest residential homes (north of Point San Pedro Road), which corresponds to approximately 24 dBA of noise attenuation." Edit DEIR page 3.6-18, bottom of the page - "Construction -Related Noise Construction of the commercial/office buildings (approximately 7-7-0 385 feet from the closest residential building north of Point San Pedro Road) may require pile driving for the foundation piles -_&sign•" Edit DEIR page 3.6-18, second full paragraph following Table 3.6-4, last sentence- "... Table 3.6-5 indicates that the proposed pile driving activities would result in noise levels at Q1 dBA at the r sidenti! lI71 a®. 87 dBA at the A-2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 11"ACT REPORT (FEIR) ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT May 2007 (Revised July 2007) closest residential building north of Point San Pedro Road, which is a distance of 385 feet from the commercial/office building." 6. Revisions to FEIR Volume I (DEIR Edited), Section 3.8, Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality, sub -section 3.8.1.1, Page 3.8-2 to correct the referenced drainage areas on the project site. Second and third paragraphs are corrected as follows: "The existing storm drainage facilities on the Loch Lomond site consist of seven independent storm drain lines around the Marina that discharge directly to the Bay; refer to Exhibit 3.8-2, Existing Conditions Drainage Map. The area drained by these pipelines is approximately eight acres encompassing drainage areas 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 and 13. as shown on Exhibit 3.8-2. Currently, no treatment of the storm water occurs, so untreated storm water and runoff are immediatelv deposited into the Bay. A northern five -acre portion of the parking and boat storage areas and road drain toward the storm drain facilities on Point San Pedro Road. The area covers drainage areas 4-5� 67,8, 9, 10 and 13 1. 2, and 3 as shown on Exhibit 3.8-2. The remaining 16 -acre portion of the project site consists mainly of wetland and unimproved areas, with some parts of the boat storage area and roads draining directly to the bay as surface runoff. This area covers drainage areas 4, -S, ,--� 8, 9, 10 and 13 11 and 12 as shown on Exhibit 3.8-2." Minor revisions to the following Mitigation Measures as they appear in FEIR Volume I (DEIR Edited) and Volume IV (Response to Comments): "3.1-2b: The project proponent shall adjust the General Plan Land Use Boundary to ensure that the Conservation area designation is retained in such areas that include jurisdictional wetlands, with the exception of Wetland E. For these areas, ..." As presented in the record, two biological consultants have determined that Wetland E, while linked hydrologically to other wetlands, is isolated and does not meet the criteria and definition for Conservation designation, as defined by the San Rafael General Plan 2020. "3.6-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the electrical and mechanical equipment... and verifying that all feasible noise attenuation measures have been incorporated into the construction design of the commercial buildings and the residential units. " This revision merely ensures that noise attenuation measures are required for the commercial buildings. "3.7-1a: All planned vegetation removal within the Project footprint, shall occur during the non -breeding season (September through February), unless, as recommended by Mitigation Measure 3.7-1b, a pre -construction survey is completed." A-3 EXHIBIT A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT May 2007 (Revised July 2007) As presented in the record, two biological consultants have confirmed that the breeding and nesting season for the studied bird species are generally the same time period. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1b requires that a pre -construction survey of bird nesting be performed if construction is planned during the bird nesting season. Application of this pre -construction survey requirement for addressing bird breeding is appropriate. Incorporate into FEIR Volume IV (Response to Comments): a) new Appendix B.1, Letter from TRC (formerly TRC-Lowney Associates) to Thompson Residential Partners, LLC which provides clarification regarding the status of hazardous materials and remediation issues addressed in the Phase H Environmental Site Assessment; May 2, 2007; and b) New Appendix B.2 Letter from TRC to Thompson Residential Partners, LLC which provides a response to the potential for bay mud migration and associated with the site filling and surcharge process; July 2007. 9. Revisions to Volume IV (Responses to Comments), FEIR Master Response AES -2 (Private Views) to provided corrected information on the background of the private view assessment. Text revisions to first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of this response provided on pages 2.0-3 through 2.0-5 are provided as follows: First paragraph of response, page 2.0-3- "A number of comments expressed concern about blockage of their private view of the Bay. The Draft EIR studied the impacts of the proposed Project on public views because of the City's adopted policy that impacts to private views are not environmental impacts that trigger CEQA analvsis. Therefore, typically private views are not considered or assessed as part of the environmental review process for a development project, but rather are considered during the site design and review process and/or merits evaluation. The Ci 's decision to review and assess private vantage points as part of this process was intended—to—affifmatively respond—te the speei€ie—rzgA� -�the —;een beffiend OA. done at the reauest of the public, which was initiated prior to the commencement of the environmental review process.in the eff-eFt The purpose of the private view assessment is to provide as much information as possible to the public and the City policy makers." Third paragraph of response, page 2.0 -3 - "Prior to the EIR preparation process, reauests to assess private views were made by the Loch Lomond Marina Committee and San Pedro Cove HOA. Given these earlv reauests. the Citv agreed to assess private views. F4Fst, it io iM. pe ant to nese that the Subseauent to these initial reauests and as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and EIR scoping process, a request for private view simulations was made by the Loch Lomond Homeowner's Association (HOA) (August—April 25, 288E 2005). This request was accompanied by a list of 16 properties,"—all lee ated within the Loch Lomond neighborhood. This r-equestwas not made by the P ✓ . Padre -mead Coalition, the representatives of the Be.3,side Aer-es or- the f tkz G&r,. Pedro Cove neighbor -heed. It was determined that a private view would be assessed from San Pedro Cove. as this is a gated. private community, in that this community has direct views of the marina site. For this reasefi3 However. most of the Fevieiv of these private views focused on those properties specifically requested by the Loch Lomond HOA. *11hcr. Ais r3quest made by the r a_ai Lvrw :a ung City staff made i ell r thatall A-4 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVIPACT REPORT (FEIR) ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT May 2007 (Revised July 2007) 16 viewpoints would be r-eviewed as paft ef the wient pegeess, but that eemputer- geneFated visual—simulations -A Veli ✓ pnapared—fm a n: r//.irnetdrf 3 n of these viewpoints. Fell,,.. ing the request oft e Leeh Leer nd HOA,., fifth,pr-ivate view ffem San Pedro Gove was seleeted f -alation l:, m. t is 4 gated eemmunity and the - ads aate. As there -A,ere--&trY_,r p'. vli peints fife.. the other- P. -Carl's sites, the n:a, dete ed that simulatien cr.: ✓a. D. ." Fourth paragraph of response, page 2.0 -4 - "The following process and methods were employed in determining which of the 16 view check points (submitted by the Loch Lomond HOA) were selected for computer- generated visual simulations:..." Fifth paragraph of response, page 2.0 -5 - "It should be noted that as part of the Draft EIR public review process a request was made by Julian and Sue Lifschiz, Loch Lomond residents, for preparation of an additional computer-generated simulation from their home located at 27 Dunfries Terrace (Comment letter No. 22). This viewpoint is one of the 16 viewpoints selected wand requested for review by the Loch Lomond HOA. An additional private -view simulation was prepared for 27 Dunfries Terrace. Refer to response to comment 22.1, which presents this additional simulation." Sixth paragraph of response, page 2.0 -5 - Typically, private views are not considered or assessed as part of the environmental review process for a development project. The decision to review and assess private vantage points as part of this process was intended to respond to the spesffie-requests made by the public, in an effort to provide as much information as possible to the public and City policy makers as part of its review of Project merits." 10. Incorporate into Volume IV (Response to Comments), Section 2.2 (Mitigated Plan), the following computer-generated visual simulations of public and private vantage points: a. Dunfries Terrace/Allensby Lane (Public View No. 5) b. Beach Drive, Bayside Acres (Public View No. 7) C. Westbound Point San Pedro Road near Bayview Drive (Public View No. 8) d. 32 Bonnie Banks Way (Private View No. 4A, second level view) None of the above corrections or the additional information presented above and attached herein result in any changes to the FEIR conclusions or the recommended mitigation measures. C:/1ch1mnd.feirerrata(7-07) A-5 C/TY OF Meyer Albert J. Baro Council Members Paul M. Cohen Barbara Heller Gyr N. Miller Gary Q Phillips COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION. P.O. BOX 151560. SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915 TEL. (415) 485-3085 • FAX (415) 485-3184 MEMORANDUM Date: November 24, 2006 To: Deborah Fehr, Kimley-Horn and Associates From: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Subject: Village at Loch Lomond Marina; parking demand for recreation use component As you know, on October 24, 2006, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the parking studies prepared for the Village at Loch Lomond Marina development project. At this study session, the Planning Commission requested that staff provide additional data/information on and expanded assessment of selected topics relating to parking. The Planning Commission agreed that the proposed enhancement of the recreation use areas within this project will likely increase public usage and that parking demand will increase. It was requested that this parking demand be further studied. In response to the request for additional information on parking demand for recreation use, the following information has been collected: 1. Municipal codes of other cities (small and large) were reviewed for specific parking standards adopted for public parks. 2. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) sources were reviewed to obtain information on parking standards for public parks. 3. A parking use survey of three similar -sized public parks in San Rafael was conducted to determine park use and demand. A summary of the information that was collected is provided below. Parking Standards for Public Parks Adopted by Other Cities Municipal codes of 11 Bay Area cities were reviewed to determine if there is a specific parking standard that has been adopted for public parks. Nearly all of the municipal codes that were reviewed did not contain any parking standard or requirement for a public park use. Most ordinances include parking standards for public recreation facilities such as a community center or gymnasium. The results are presented in the following table: AN _—q_ Deborah Fehr, KHA November 24, 2006 Page 2 City/Municipality City of Oakland City of Santa Rosa City of Richmond City of Vallejo City of Petaluma Town of Tiburon City of Mountain View City of Walnut Creek City of San Mateo City of Novato City of Vallejo Ordinance Requirements for Public Parks No parking standards/requirements for public park use Determined by Use Permit Determination of the Development Services Director As reported in the Village at Loch Lomond DEIR, a parking standard of 4.5-5.0 spaces per acre was used as a base for determining parking for a public park use. This parking standard is not adopted in the San Rafael Municipal Code, but had been obtained from and used for accessing parking in the Redwood Village Mixed -Use Development Environmental Impact Report (certified in 2002). The Redwood Village project is designed to provide 13 parking spaces, which is a parking ratio of 4.3 parking spaces per park acre. Review of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Sources The ITE Parking Generation Manual, 3rd Edition, was reviewed for park -use parking standards. The manual shows only one entry that corresponds to or specifically addresses parks: Land Use 411- Citv Park. This land use is describes as follows: "City parks are owned and operated by a city and may contain athletic fields (soccer, baseball, basketball courts, etc.), outdoor group areas, children play areas/structures and pathways. Administrative offices may also be located on the park site." The information provided for this one park entry that was studied is as follows: ➢ The park consists of 25 acres located in Santa Barbara, CA. ➢ Uses in this park include three softball fields, an outdoor group areas and an administration building. ➢ The ITE study was performed on a Saturday during the summer. ➢ Parking counts were conducted for six non-consecutive hours between 9:OOam and 7:Opm in 2001. ➢ Parking supply ratio: 15 spaces per acre ➢ Peak period parking demand ratio: 5.1 parked vehicles per acre ➢ Peak parking demand occurred between 1:00 and 2:OOpm. As presented in this data, the park that was studied by ITE is significantly over parked. The park provides three times more spaces than the parking demand observed during peak use periods. Deborah Fehr, KHA November 24, 2006 Page 3 Parking Demand Survey of Similar -Sized Parks A survey of three similar -sized public parks in San Rafael was conducted to determined park demand. The three parks that were surveyed are Redwood Village Park, Santa Margarita Park and Peacock Gap Park. These parks were selected for the following reasons: The parks are located in residential neighborhoods similar to the residential neighborhoods where the parks are used by the residents of the neighborhood but also draw users from outside the neighborhood. 2. The parks offer similar recreation facilities and uses to those proposed at the Village at Loch Lomond Marina project. These facilities and uses include active play equipment, sports court, tennis, picnic tables a turf -surfaced field and public restrooms. Further, Santa Margarita Park includes direct trail access to communitywide public open space. The parks include off-street parking designated for park use. Three weekend days were selected for the purpose of counting parked cars and users of the park. The counts were taken in the midday/early afternoon period, which would typically be a peak period for park use. It should be noted that the counts were taken in November, which is not a peak use period for park use. However, the weather on the three survey days was fair and the temperature was moderate. The highest amount of parked vehicles observed was seven (7) at Redwood Village on Sunday, November 5, 2006. The lowest amount of parked vehicles observed was one (1) space at Santa Margarita Park on Sunday, November 12, 2006. These counts may not be representative of the parking demand during peak summer use; however, if park demand doubled during the summer months, there would still be adequate parking in each park to supply demand. Enclosure C:/lchlmnd.parkprkmmo WKS xt is 167 Filbert Street . Oakland, CA 94607 51 0 2f? 1970 -KN TIF 519.2u?.1972 Fwx www Muflulmn,.rorn Mr. Keith Bloom. THOMPSON RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS, LLC One Harbor Drive, Suite 108 Sausalito, CA 94965 May 2, 2007 1645'-2E RE: RESPONSES TO THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION LOCH'.LOMOND MARINA SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 1) Based on previous environmental investigations of the Loch Lomond Marina property, there are currently three areas of concern: the drycleaning facility, the former gas station, and the fuel storage area near the jetty: Phase 11 investigations were conducted by TRC at all three areas. Results of the Phase II investigation identified petroleum hydrocarbons in the jetty fuel storage area, impacting both soil and ground -water at concentrations significantly above the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) environmental screening levels (ESL). To date no remediation has occurred in this area. Remediation has been completed at -the former gas station (extensive soil removal and ground water treatment) and the CRWQCB granted closure for this area. However, subsequent soil vapor investigations by TRC detected the presence of benzene in soil vapor slightly above the ESL, likely due to minor residual hydrocarbons still present in soil. The Phase Ii detected PCE and other chemicals generally associated with drycleaning activities at concentrations slightly below ESL's. No remedial activities have occurred at the drycleaner to date. 2) TRC's report does not state that the site is not safe for pregnant women, children and people with cancer. Instead our report's results are compared to Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) and California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs). ESLs are published by the San Francisco Bay CRWQCB to address environmental protection goals presented in the Water Qualify Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (CRWQCB, 2005). ESLs were developed to protect human and ecological health and to be protective of beneficial uses of ground water. The presence of a chemical at a concentration above an ESL does not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are occurring; exceeding ESLs indicates that the potential for impacts may exist and that additional evaluation is needed. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and California EPA have published California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) that were developed to provide a preliminary evaluation of potential risk and A-0 Thompson Residential Partners, LLC Loch Lomond Marina hazard to human health. Chemical concentrations above the ESLs or CHHSLs would not necessarily designate the site as a health threat or trigger a response action. 3) Based on TRC's findings to date, the CRWQCB will likely require remedial actions, possibly including soil removal and ground water treatment at the jetty site, and engineering controls at the former gas station to reduce the likelihood of vapor migration into future residential spaces (e.g. soil gas barriers and/or subfloor ventilation beneath residential units). At the dry cleaner additional investigations are still needed to evaluate if remedial actions are even required. Cleanup goals for the residential portion of the site will be evaluated and determined by the CRWQCB. Once remediation activities and mitigative measures under the guidance of the CRWQCB are successfully implemented and the cleanup goals are achieved to the satisfaction of CRWQCB, the CRWQCB will issue a "no further action" letter that allows development of the site for residential use. 4) TRC did not perform the environmental investigations of the Fairchild Semiconductor site and the PG&E site, and as such has no specific knowledge of the contamination levels encountered at these sites. . However, based our experience and on the quantity and types of hazardous materials likely used and stored at both these industrial facilities, one would expect a much higher degree of impact at both sites when compared to the subject site involving only a normal-sized, commercial -gas station and a drycleaner. 5) Based on TRC's findings to date, some excavation and off-site disposal will likely be required at the jetty area where -our borings encountered significant (free product) petroleum hydrocarbon impact. Per appropriate handling protocols, the excavated soil will be hauled -off to an appropriate disposal facility and the excavation will be tested and subsequently backfilled with clean soil. Extracted/pumped ground water from the excavation would also require appropriate off-site disposal. Very truly yours, TRC ( g d_ Charles Mettler, P.G. Principal Geologist CCM:dw Copies: Addressee (1) OK/1645-2E Loch Lomond 050207.doc CopydghtC2007 TRC FR Page 2 T 1645-2E 'A -1L4 167 Elbert Street Oakland, CA 94607 510.267.1970 pore 510.267.1972 FAX www.TRCsolutions.com Mr. Keith Bloom. THOMPSON RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS, LLC One Harbor Drive, Suite 108 Sausalito, CA 94965 Dear Mr Bloom: June 29, 2007 Project No.: 1645-2E RESPONSES TO THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL LOCH LOMOND MARINA SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA As requested, we present the following response to comment Number 10 on the List of Questions and Requested Information from the City Council dated June 18, 2007. Comment No. 10 reads as follows: What are the effects of the site filling and surcharge process on bay mud? Could the weight of the fill potentially force horizontal movement of the bay mud, which could fill in the sloughlinlet? Response: San Francisco Bay Mud is a naturally -occurring sedimentary deposit frequently found around the margins of San Francisco Bay. When fill is placed on top of the Bay Mud, the weight of the fill causes this silty clay soil to reduce in volume due to the expulsion of water from within the soil. The reduction in volume causes settlement of the ground surface. This process, called consolidation, normally takes several years due to the low permeability of the Bay Mud. A very common procedure for development on Bay Mud is to place excess fill on top of the soil to accelerate consolidation then to remove the excess fill after a period of time (usually several months). This process is called surcharging. Through this process, the future settlement under the remaining permanent fill will be negligible. As the clay soil is surcharged, it tends to initially reduce in strength as the pore water pressure increases. Over time the pressure dissipates and the clay regains its original strength. However, if initially too much surcharge is placed on the clay, slope failure and lateral movement could occur. For this reason, the amount of surcharge placed on the clay must be to be controlled. This is done by limiting the thickness of surcharge fill at any given time. As described in detail in TRC Lowney's geotechnical investigation (dated May 2005 and included in the project's EIR), we have recommended that the thickness of surcharge fill placed at the Loch Lomond Marina site be limited to 8 feet. TRC will monitoring the surcharge process with onsite observation, which will include placing instrumentation at the surface and within the bay mud that will monitor settlement and pore water pressures. Only when the pressures have sufficiently decreased, and the Bay Mud has regained its strength, will additional A-I�✓ Thompson Residential Partners, Inc. Loch Lomond Marina surcharge fill be placed. Following these recommendations will best avoid slope failure along the property's waterfront. Please feel free to call if we can provide any additional information TRC ENGINEERING, INC. Scott R. Huntsman, Ph.D., G.E, CPESC Director of Engineering Services Senior Principal Engineer Copies: Addressee (by email) TRC Page 2 1645-2E Computer -Generated Visual Simulations Of Mitigated Plan (Project Design as Revised) From Vantage Points Dunfries Terrace.Allensby Lane (Public View No. 5) Beach Avenue, Bayside Acres (Public View No. 7) Westbound Point San Pedro Road near Bayview Drive (Public View No. S) 32 Bonnie Banks Way (Private View No. 4A, second level view) A-n- EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NOW MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI RECORD (NAMEIDATE) $ SCHEDULE ACTMTY LAND USE 3.1-1a: Should the City policy makers determine that fill of wetlands can be Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting avoided, the proposed site plan shall be redesigned to avoid filling the approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract roadside drainage swale located directly north of the road serving the Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master marina, and a human made drainage ditch connection to San Rafael Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Bay that is located east of the Loch Lomond Market areas C and E Application identified in Section 3.7 on Exhibit 3.7-1, Biological Resources Map. If the City s determine that fill of wetlands is unavoidable, then the Project Proponent shall implement the Wetlands Mitigation Plan as described in Section 2, Project Description, Appendix E of the Draft EIR, and as recommended by Mitigation Measures presented in Chapter 3.7 (Biological Resources). Refer to Exhibit 3, Wetland Setback Encroachment, and Exhibit 4, Wetland Setback Encroachment Detail in Volume IV, Responses to Comments, of this Environmental Impact Report. 3.1-1 b: Should the City determine that encroachment within the required Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting wetlands setbacks is major, then the proposed site plan shall be approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract redesigned to avoid encroachment into the 50 -foot development free Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master setback from wetlands provided for in General Plan 2020 Policy CON- Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit 4, Wetland Setbacks. If the City s determine that encroachment within Application the wetlands setbacks is minor, then the Project Proponent shall implement the Wetlands Mitigation Plan as described in Section 2, Project Description, Appendix E of the Draft EIR, and as recommended by mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.7 (Biological Resources) The Project Proponent proposes to expand existing seasonal wetland habitat by creating three mitigation wetlands in the southeastern portion of the Project area. Implementation of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan shall be monitored for ten years to ensure proper hydrologic function and establishment of wetland vegetation. 3.1-2a: Please refer to Mitigation Measures 3.7 -8a -d and 3.7-11 a -g identified in Please refer to Mitigation Please refer to Please refer to Please refer to Section 3.7, (Biological Resources), and Mitigation Measure 3.8 -1a -f Measures 3.7 -Ba -d and 3.7- Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Mitigation identified in Section 3.8, (Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality). 11 a -g identified in Section 3.7 -8a -d and 3.7-11a- 3.7 -8a -d and 3.7- Measures 3.7 -8a -d 3.7, (Biological Resources), g identified in Section 11 a -g identified in and 3.7-11 a -g and Mitigation Measure 3.8- 3.7, (Biological Section 3.7, identified in 1 a -f identified in Section 3.8, Resources), and (Biological Section 3.7, (Hydrology, Drainage, and Mitigation Measure Resources), and (Biological Water Quality). 3.8-1 a -f identified in Mitigation Measure Resources), and Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-1 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE I IMPLEMENTA'T'ION MONITORING I MONITORING/ NOW MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTWITY Section 3.8, 3.8-1 a -f identified in Mitigation Measure (Hydrology, Drainage, Section 3.8, 3.8 -1a -f identified and Water Quality). (Hydrology, in Section 3.8, Drainage, and (Hydrology, Water Quality). Drainage, and Water Quality). 3.1-2b: The Project Proponent shall adjust the General Plan Land Use Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting Note: boundary to ensure that the Conservation area designation is retained approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract Latest plan revisions propose in such areas that include jurisdictional wetlands, with the exception of Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master to expand the Conservation Wetland E. For these areas, the current Conservation area designation Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit area boundaries to shall be retained. If the City's policy makers determine that the filling of Application incorporate all but one small approximately 622 square feet of seasonal wetland is unavoidable and drainage ditch (Wetland E). appropriate mitigation has been provided, then the map land use boundary adjustment would not be required to mitigate the underlying physical impact on the environment. 3.1-3a: Please refer to Mitigation Measures 3.1-1a, 3.1-1b, and 3.1-2b, Please refer to Mitigation Please refer to Please refer to Please refer to identified above, as well as, Mitigation Measures 3.7 -Ba -d and 3.7-11 a- Measures 3.1-1 a, 3.1-1 b, and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Mitigation g identified in Section 3.7, Biological Resources, and Mitigation 3.1-2b, identified above, as 3.1-1 a, 3.1-1 b, and 3.1-1 a, 3.1-1 b, and Measures 3.1-1 a, Measures 3.8 -1a -f identified in Section 3.8, Hydrology, Drainage, and well as, Mitigation Measures 3.1-2b, identified 3.1-2b, identified 3.1-1 b, and 3.1-2b, Water Quality. 3.7 -8a -d and 3.7-11 a -g above, as well as, above, as well as, identified above, identified in Section 3.7, Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures as well as, Biological Resources, and 3.7 -8a -d and 3.7-11a- 3.7 -8a -d and 3.7- Mitigation Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 a -f g identified in Section 11 a -g identified in Measures 3.7 -8a -d identified in Section 3.8, 3.7, Biological Section 3.7, and 3.7-11 a -g Hydrology, Drainage, and Resources, and Biological identified in Water Quality. Mitigation Measures Resources, and Section 3.7, 3.8 -1a -f identified in Mitigation Measures Biological Section 3.8, 3.8 -1a -f identified in Resources, and Hydrology, Drainage, Section 3.8, Mitigation and Water Quality. Hydrology, Measures 3.8 -1a -f Drainage, and identified in Water Quality. Section 3.8, Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality. AESTHETICS 3.2-1: During the construction phase of the Project, the construction contractor I Require as a condition of Planning Division I Draft and I Deny Vesting I shall be required to implement the following mitigation measures: approval for Vestir incorporate Tentative Tract Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-2 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING ACTION & SCHEDULE A screened security fence, approved by the City of San Rafael, shall be installed and maintained around active construction areas to screen views of debris, equipment, and work staging areas. The screen security fence shall be removed immediately following completion of construction work authorized by the Building Permits. Dumpsters shall be regularly emptied, The construction site and construction staging areas shall be kept clear of trash, weeds, and construction debris. Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic inspections by the City of San Rafael. 3.2-5a: Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare an exterior lighting plan for the review and approval of the Design Review Board. The plan shall include the following: • Sufficient exterior lighting to establish a sense of well-being to the pedestrian and one that is sufficient to facilitate recognition of persons at a reasonable distance. Type (lighting standard) and placement of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of the Police Department and Department of Public Works; • All areas of the Project site; • Vandal resistant garden and exterior lighting; • A lighting standard that is shielded to direct illumination downward and to limit casting light and glare on adjacent properties; • Exterior lighting on a master photoelectric cell, which is set to operate during hours of darkness; • A minimum of one foot-candle at ground level overlap provided in all exterior doorways and vehicle parking areas, and on outdoor pedestrian walkways presented on a photometric plan; • Exterior lighting for residential dwellings within 100 feet of the eastern wetlands shall not exceed 10 foot-candle and should be mounted low to reduce glare into the adjacent sensitive areas; and • The plan shall include a note requiring a site inspection 30 days following installation and operation of the lighting. The post construction inspection by the City shall allow adjustments in the Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Measures to be installed by Building Division Project Sponsor Public Works Implement control measures Project Sponsor Require as a condition of Building Permit approval Review lighting plan as part of the Design Review Permit application process Incorporate into final construction plans Construction drawings reviewed by City staff Lighting is installed Planning Division Planning Division Project Sponsor condition as part of project approval Complete site inspection during construction During grading and construction activities Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval Prior to approval of Design Review Permit Prior to filing an application for a Building Permit NOW COMPLIANCE SANCTION/ ACTMTY Map and Master Use Permit Application Halt grading and construction until measures are installed Halt grading and construction until measures are installed Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application Deny Design Review Permit application Reject Building Permit application Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue Building & Safety Building Permit Building Permit Division Project Sponsor City staff completes Occupancy of Planning Division site inspections Buildings is denied until lighting is installed and tested MONITORING I COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-3 MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Note: Latest plan revisions replace rear alleys with parking courts Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-4 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI lli SCHEDULE ACTMTY direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. • Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Project Proponent shall submit a photometric analysis to the Design Review Board for review and approval. 3.2.5b: Consistent with the Design Review Permit criteria established in the Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting San Rafael Municipal Code Title 14 (zoning), Chapter 25 (Design Building Permit approval incorporate Tentative Tract Review), the proposed Project shall be designed with non -reflective condition as part of Map and Master and/or tinted glass to minimize potential daytime glare impacts. project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate into final Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Reject Building construction plans application for a Permit application Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division Building Permit Building Permit Glass is installed Project Sponsor City staff completes Occupancy of Planning Division site inspections Buildings is denied until glass is installed and reflectivity is verified TRAFFIC AND PARKING 3.4-4a: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first Building, the Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting proposed Project shall provide "No Parking" signs, pavement markings approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract and appropriate garage setback standards (setbacks shall be either 5 Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master feet or less or, alternately, 20 feet or more) along rear -alleys to provide Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit adequate emergency access to residential areas. Application Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor City Staff completes Occupancy of Project Sponsor Building Division site inspections Buildings is denied until measures are installed 3.4-4b: Prior to approval of the Project, the proposed Project shall redesign the Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting rear -alley serving the cluster of townhouses at the southwest comer to approval for Vesting Fire Marshal incorporate Tentative Tract include a vehicle turnaround, secondary emergency access, orthrough Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Note: Latest plan revisions replace rear alleys with parking courts Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-4 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING ACTION & SCHEDULE alleyway designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal AIR QUALITY 3.5-1a: The Project Contractor shall implement the following control measures during construction activities to reduce PMio emissions per the BAAQMD's recommendation. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads up to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, orwash off the tires or racks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Install windbreaks, or plant trees/vegetative windbreaks at windward side(s) of construction sites. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. 3.5-1 b: Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications, the City of San Rafael shall confirm that the plans and specifications stipulate that, ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City. The City inspector shall be responsible for ensuring that Master Use Permit Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Incorporate measures into final construction plans Construction drawings reviewed by City staff Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Planning Division Planning Division Planning Division Building & Safety Division Project Sponsor Building & Safety Division Implement control measures Project Sponsor Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Planning Division project approval Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval NOW COMPLIANCE SANCTION/ ACTIVITY Use Permit Application Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application Prior to issuance of Do not issue a Building Permit Building Permit Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Complete site inspections during construction During grading and construction activities Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval Do not issue Building Permit Halt grading and construction until measures are implemented Halt grading and construction until measures are implemented Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) that comply with the City cul- de-sac standards, which would eliminate this impact. Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-5 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING contractors comply with this measure during construction. Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Building & Safety Division ACTION & SCHEDULE Complete site inspections during construction NOW COMPLIANCE SANCTIONI ACTMTY Halt grading and construction activities until measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.5-1 c: Prior to issuance of Grading Permits or approval of grading plans, the Require as a condition of Planning Division Applicant shall include in the construction contract standard approval for Vesting specifications a written list of instructions to be carried out by the Tentative Tract Map and construction manager specifying measures to minimize emissions by Master Use Permit heavy equipment. Measures shall include provisions for proper maintenance of equipment engines, measures to avoid equipment idling more than two minutes and avoidance of unnecessary delay of traffic on Measures to be included in Project Sponsor off-site access roads by heavy equipment blocking traffic. the construction contract by Building & Safety Project Sponsor Division Implement control measures Project Sponsor Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application Prior to approval of Deny Grading Grading Permits Permit application During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.5-1d: Should asbestos be determined to be present within the existing Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting structures of the Project, the Project Proponent/Project Contractor shall approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation II, Rule 2, Hazardous Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing during Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit the demolition process or any Building renovation process. Application Conduct an Asbestos Survey Licensed Asbestos Prior to issuance of Deny issuance of Abatement Inspector Demolition Permits Demolition Permits Engineering Services Division Monitor grading, demolition, Building Division Inspect site during Halt grading, and construction activities grading, demolition, demolition, and MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY and construction construction activities activities if asbestos is found. Implement control measures Project Sponsor Inspect site during Halt grading, grading, demolition, demolition, and and construction construction activities activities if asbestos is found. NOISE 3.6-1a: Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant must demonstrate, to Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting the satisfaction of the City of San Rafael, that the Project complies with approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract the following: Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master 1) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit with properly operating and maintained mufflers; Application 2) Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around Prepare and submit plans Project Sponsor Prior to filing Reject application stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance and specifications addressing application for for Grading Permit between construction equipment staging areas and occupied attenuation of noise during Grading Permit until plans and residential areas, and use of electric air compressors and construction specifications are similar power tools (rather than diesel equipment) must be submitted used when feasible; 3) During construction, stationary construction equipment must be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and noise receivers; Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction 4) During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas must construction activities until be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors; measures are 5) Earthmoving equipment operating on the construction site, implemented must be as far away from vibration -sensitive sites as possible; and 6) Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the telephone number of the job noise disturbance coordinator must be clearly posted at all construction entrances to enable surrounding owners and residents to contact the job coordinator. If the City or the job coordinator receives a complaint, the coordinator shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) Lch1mnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-7 MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-8 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING! NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTMTY 3.6-1b: Residences within 1,000 feet of a construction area shall be notified of Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction as well as a approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract telephone number of the Project noise disturbance coordinator. The Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction Application noise. The coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and ensure that reasonable measures are implemented. A contact number Proof of mailing provided as Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of Do not issue for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously placed on demolition, grading, and Planning Division demolition, grading, demolition, construction site fences and written into the construction notification Building applications and Building grading, or Building schedule sent to nearby residences. applications applications Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor City Staff completes Halt demolition, Project Sponsor Building Division site inspections grading, and construction until measures are implemented 3.6.1c: For projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, impact equipment Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract construction shall be hydraulically or electrical powered wherever Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatically Application powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-8 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING[ NOW MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION[ RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTMTY 3.6-1d: For projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, sonic or vibratory Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting pile drivers shall be used instead of impact pile drivers (sonic pile approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract drivers are only effective in some soils) whenever possible. If sonic or Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master vibratory pile drivers are not feasible, acoustical enclosures shall be Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit provided as necessary to ensure that pile-driving noise does not exceed Application speech interference criterion at the closest sensitive receptor. Engine and pneumatic exhaust controls on pile drivers shall be required as Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue necessary to ensure that exhaust noise from pile driver engines is final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit minimized to the extent feasible. Where feasible, pile holes shall be pre- drilled to reduce potential noise and vibration impacts. Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.6-2: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits the Applicant shall Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting demonstrate that electrical and mechanical equipment (i.e., ventilation approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract and air conditioning units) for commercial buildings shall be located as Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master far away as possible from residential areas. Additionally, the following Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit shall be considered prior to installation: proper selection and sizing of Application equipment, installation of equipment with proper acoustical shielding, and incorporating the use of parapets into the building design. In the Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue event there are significant changes to the proposed project site plan final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit prior to approval of a Building Permit, a subsequent noise analysis may be prepared, in addition to the WIN report, to the satisfaction of the city Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue of San Rafael, demonstrating and verifying that all feasible noise reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit attenuation measures have been incorporated into the construction design of the commercial buildings and the residential units. The acoustical analysis must be performed to demonstrate and verify that Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and the noise levels do not result in exceeding the City standards within Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-9 Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction Occupancy of Buildings is denied until measures are installed MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-10 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING I MONITORING/ NOW PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ & SCHEDULE _ACTMiY exterior living areas. construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.6-3: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting demonstrate to the City of San Rafael that proper noise attenuation is approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract provided to residential units within 220 feet of the centerline of Point Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master San Pedro Road. In order to meet the California Building Code Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit acoustical design requirements and the City's interior noise standards, Application residents must have the option to keep the windows permanently closed, requiring alternate means for ventilation that does not Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue compromise the acoustical integrity of the Building shell. The alterative final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit ventilation shall be incorporated in exterior walls of every habitable room within 220 feet from the centerline of Point San Pedro Road that Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue does not have at least one window facing away from the road. reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction Occupancy of Buildings is denied until measures are installed MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-10 *411NZ fl MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON. PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTMTY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-1 a: All planned vegetation removal within the Project footprint, shall occur Require as a condition of only during the non -breeding season (September through February), approval for Vesting unless, as recommended by Mitigation Measures 3.7-1b, a pre- Tentative Tract Map and construction survey is completed. Master Use Permit 3.7-1 b: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permits, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within a 100 -foot radius of the proposed Project by a qualified biologist approved by the City in order to identify any nesting birds on or near the Project site. In the event no nesting birds are present during the survey, no buffer is required. If nesting birds are present, a 50 -foot buffer shall be established and maintained throughout the breeding season and will be subject to periodic inspection by the Project Proponent or designee by the City around any active nest of a migratory species that is found. A 50 -foot buffer shall also be established around any San Pablo song sparrow nesting colony or salt marsh yellowthroat nest found. These buffers shall remain in effect until the young have fledged. It should be noted that surveys are not required if vegetation removal is initiated during non -nesting season. Incorporate into demolition, grading and/or construction plans Construction drawings reviewed by City staff Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract condition as part of Map and Master project approval Use Permit Map and Master Application Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Do not issue application for demolition, grading demolition, grading or building permit or building Do not issue Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue Building Division demolition, grading, demolition, grading and Building or building permit Permits Project Sponsor City Staff completes Building Division site inspections Do not issue demolition, grading, and Building Permits Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate into demolition, Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Do not issue grading and/or construction application for demolition, grading plans demolition, grading or building permit or building Incorporate results into Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of Do not issue grading and final construction demolition, grading, demolition, Permits and Building grading, and Permits Building Permits MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division demolition, grading, demolition, and Building grading, and Permits Building Permits Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor City Staff completes Halt demolition, Project Sponsor Building Division site inspections grading, or construction 3.7-1c: The existing seasonal wetland habitat shall be expanded and enhanced Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting pursuant to the proposed Wetland Management Plan to create a larger approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract more complex habitat capable of supporting a higher diversity of wildlife Tentative Tract Map and Use condition as part of Map and Master species and greater plant density for nest building relative to the Permit project approval Use Permit existing conditions. Implementation of the Wetlands Management Plan Application would create a larger, more diverse, higher functioning seasonal wetland than the former smaller, low value seasonal wetlands by Review plan as part of the Planning Division Prior to approval of Deny Design combining the two largest seasonal wetland areas, and by replacing Design Review Permit Design Review Review Permit non-native vegetation with vegetation native to the area. In addition, the application process Permit application newly restored/created wetlands would be fenced off in order to reduce human and pets from intruding into the sensitive habitats, which could Incorporate into final Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Reject Building cause special -status birds to abandoned their nests. The newly construction plans application for a Permit application restored/created seasonal wetland would increase the amount of high Building Permit quality nesting habitat for special status species and other birds. The Wetlands Mitigation Plan shall fully monitor the expanded wetlands for Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue five years to ensure proper hydrologic function and establishment of reviewed by City staff Building Division Building Permit Building Permit wetland vegetation. Wetlands are constructed Project Sponsor City staff completes Occupancy of Planning Division site inspections Buildings is denied until wetlands are constructed Wetlands are monitored to Project Sponsor Periodic inspections Revoke Use Permit ensure proper function Planning Division by City Staff if wetlands fail to function and are not maintained MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-12 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) 3.7.3a: All breakwater repair work below the MHWM shall be conducted during Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting a low tide. Both breakwater repair and yacht club piling replacement approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract work shall be undertaken during the season when migratory fish are Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master absent or, in the case of some salmonid species, when only adults are Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit present (i.e., between early August and early November). All grading Application and Building Permits issued by the City for work in this regard shall reflect these restrictions. Implementation of these provisions by the Incorporate measures into Project sponsor Prior to application Do not accept Project Proponent shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City. construction plans filing applications The Project Proponent shall conduct pile -driving activities only within one of the work windows established by NCAA and CDFG to avoid Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Halt demolition, impacts on protected fish species. Construction of the proposed Project reviewed by City staff Building Division demolition, grading, grading, or in these biologically sensitive areas would occur between the work and Building construction windows of 7 AM -6 PM Monday through Friday, and only during the Permits NOAA and CDFG approved months of August to November (refer to Section 3.6, Noise). The combination of conducting work below the Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor City Staff completes Do not issue MHWM during low tide and during a NOAA/CDFG work window would Project Sponsor Building Division site inspections demolition, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Prior to the grading, and issuance of Building Permits for the yacht club, the Project Proponent Building Permits shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer that proposed pile -driving techniques Incorporate into demolition, Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Halt demolition, would not generate acoustic levels above 180 decibels. grading, and construction application for grading, or plans demolition, grading, construction and Building Permits 3.7-3b: The Project Proponent shall utilize pile repair techniques that do not Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting generate acoustic levels above 180 decibels. Decibel levels under 180 approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract are considered below the threshold in which significant impacts to Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master migratory fish can occur. Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate measures into Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of Do not issue permit final construction plans a demolition, grading, or building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue permit reviewed by City staff Building & Safety a Building Permit Division Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-13 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLElatk t At tuns MONITORING MONITORINGI NOW MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTMTY Public Works Department Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7-4: All work below the MHWM shall be conducted only at low tide and only Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting during June through October to avoid disturbing waterfowl during winter approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract foraging periods. All grading and Building Permits issued by the City Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master shall illustrate these restrictions. Work in this regard shall be subject to Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit periodic inspections by the City. Application Incorporate into demolition, Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Do not issue grading, and construction application for demolition, plans demolition, grading, grading, and and Building Building Permits Permits Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division demolition, grading, demolition, and Building grading, and Permits Building Permits Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor City Staff completes Halt demolition, Project Sponsor Building Division site inspections grading, or construction 3.7-8a: Prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting Proponent shall install weather resistant signs in common areas near approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract the onsite wetlands explaining the importance of keeping pets away Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master from wildlife and maintaining the tidal marsh and wetland habitats for Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-14 3.7 -Sb: EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON. MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTMTY native species such as the California clapper rail and other sensitive Application species. In addition, the Project's proposed Property Owners Association (POA) shall be responsible maintaining these signs. These Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor City Staff completes Occupancy of signs should: Project Sponsor Building Division site inspections Buildings is denied 1) Communicate the prohibition of allowing dogs or cats to roam until measures are freely and explain why; installed 2) Explain the importance of keeping all cats indoors, especially those living near the marsh; and 3) Communicate the prohibition of feeding wild animals that may draw predators to marsh birds. Furthermore, the CC&Rs or bylaws of the HOA shall incorporate language that prohibits dogs from being off leash while on common areas belonging to the HOA. The HOA may establish areas where dogs are allowed off leash; however, these areas must be located away from the onsite tidal and seasonal wetlands. The CC&Rs or bylaws shall also restrict any homeowner from allowing their cat to roam free outside. In addition, the CC&Rs or bylaws shall allow the board of directors to assess fines for any homeowner not abiding by the above requirements. Should the City determine that the proposed improvements that Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting encroach within the 50 -foot wetland setback are not minor and would be approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract inconsistent with General Plan 2020 Policy CONN, then these Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master proposed improvements should be removed and the current conditions Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit shall be retained. Should the City determine that the proposed Application improvements that encroach within the 50 -foot wetland setback are minor and consistent with General Plan 2020 Policy CON -4, then Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue Project Proponent shall be required to implement a landscape and final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit fencing buffer designed by a qualified biologist. However, the cul-de- sac located at the eastern terminus of the marina parking area should Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue be reconfigured to increase and improve the buffer zone in this area to reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit the extent feasible, while maintaining minimum requirements for emergency vehicle access and maneuvering. The cul-de-sac reconfiguration, however, would not be required if the City finds that the Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Do not issue proposed cul-de-sac encroachment to the wetland setback is minor. Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during Certificate of The wetland buffer shall include the installation of a protective vinyl -clad construction Occupancy fence and vegetative screening to reduce the potential for wildlife disturbance by humans, dogs, and cats. The vinyl fence shall be constructed around the perimeter of the seasonal wetland to protect Implement control measures Owner's Association Periodic inspections Consider fine and these areas. The vinyl fence shall be constructed in accordance with by City Staff revocation of Use Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-15 3.7-8c: 3.7-8d: EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING ACTION $ SCHEDULE the existing wetland setbacks and encroachments, unless otherwise decided by the City, and shall be maintained by the Property Owners' Association in perpetuity. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first Building, the Project Proponent shall install fencing and vegetative screening to the satisfaction of the City to further reduce potential impacts on foraging shorebirds. Vegetative screening shall be capable of attaining six feet in height in order to provide the most effective visual barrier. Fencing and screening shall be installed along the eastern edge of the proposed pedestrian nature trail from Point San Pedro Road to the parking lot just southwest of the existing seasonal wetlands. The fencing and screening can be a combination of native vegetation and physical barriers. The fencing and screening shall extend along the western and southern boundaries of the seasonal wetlands tojust north of the eastern arm of the breakwater. In addition, access to the existing eastern levees shall be prohibited through the placement of barriers at access points and/or planting of dense native wetland buffer shrubs along the top of the levees. All fencing and screening shall be maintained in perpetuity by the Property Owners' Association. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Building, permanent, all-weather signs shall be strategically posted by the Project Proponent along the pedestrian nature trail and along the parking lot directly adjacent to the created seasonal wetlands that contain information to: 1) Educate the public about the sensitive habitat and wildlife that are within the Project vicinity; 2) Inform the public that intrusions into the wetlands by people and pets can be very harmful to wildlife; and 3) Notify the public to keep out of the wetland areas and put their dogs on leashes. These signs shall be maintained in perpetuity by the Property Owners' Association. Prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, a platform viewing location shall be provided for birdwatchers, near the newly restored/created wetlands, in order to further discourage human intrusion into prohibited wetland areas. Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Use Permit Incorporate into final Planning Division Project Sponsor Building Division Planning Division Project Sponsor Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval City Staff completes site inspections Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval Prior to filinq an NOW MONITORING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE SANCTIONI RECORD (NAMEIDATE) ACTMTY Permits Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application Occupancy of Buildings is denied until measures are installed Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application Reject Buildinq MMRP-16 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON- PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY construction plans application for a Permit application Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division Building Permit Building Permit Platform is installed Project Sponsor City staff completes Occupancy of Planning Division site inspections Buildings is denied until platform is installed 3.7.9: Should the City policy makers determine that the wetland fill is Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting unavoidable consistent with Policy CON -3, then prior to the issuance of approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Proponent shall be required to Tentative Tract Map and Use condition as part of Map and Master implement a Wetlands Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the City Permit project approval Use Permit of San Rafael. This plan shall be required to mitigate the loss of the up Application to 622 square feet of wetlands (minimum 2:1 ratio for creation of new wetlands) and to preserve and protect the two large valuable non -tidal Review plan as part of the Planning Division Prior to approval of Deny Design seasonal wetlands on the Project site. In addition, the Property Owners Design Review Permit Design Review Review Permit Association will be responsible for maintaining the Wetlands application process Permit application Management Plan to ensure that exotic plant species do not invade the wetlands areas. If the City policy makers determine that fill of wetlands Incorporate into final Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Reject Building is avoidable, the proposed site plan shall be redesigned do avoid filling construction plans application for a Permit application the roadside drainage swale located directly north of the road serving Building Permit the marina parking lot, and a human made drainage ditch connection to San Rafael Bay that is located southeast of the Loch Lomond Market Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue (wetland areas C and E) identified on Exhibit 3.7-1. reviewed by City staff Building Division Building Permit Building Permit Wetlands are constructed Project Sponsor City staff completes Occupancy of Planning Division site inspections Buildings is denied until wetlands are constructed Wetlands are monitored to Project Sponsor Periodic inspections Revoke Use Permit ensure proper function Planning Division by City Staff if wetlands fail to function and are not maintained MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-17 MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-18 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTMTY 3.7.11a: Before beginning construction the Project Proponent shall install a Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting stabilized construction entrance/exit at the site access to reduce the approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto adjacent roadways. Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7-11b: Before beginning construction the Project Proponent shall install silt Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting fences around or down slope of disturbed areas not immediately under approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract construction. Most importantly, silt fencing must be placed around the Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master northern, western, and southern boundaries of the seasonal wetlands. Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-18 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Require as a condition of The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 approval for Vesting MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7-11 c: During construction, the Project Proponent shall cover soil stockpiles Require as a condition of and surround them with berms or gravel bags, and shall not locate them approval for Vesting within 50 feet of the high tide line of San Francisco Bay, seasonal Tentative Tract Map and wetlands, any drainage facility, or any roadway, Master Use Permit Incorporate measures into final construction plans Construction drawings reviewed by City staff Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Planning Division Planning Division Planning Division Building Division Project Sponsor Building Division Implement control measures Project Sponsor 3.7.11d: Upon completion of final grading of Phase I and upon completion of final Require as a condition of grading of Phase 11, all disturbed areas shall receive a final seeding and approval for Vesting mulching in accordance with a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Tentative Tract Map and to be developed by the Project Proponent. Master Use Permit Incorporate measures into final construction plans Planning Division Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract condition as part of Map and Master project approval Use Permit Application Prior to issuance of Do not issue a Building Permit Building Permit Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Complete site inspections during construction During grading and construction activities Draft and incorporate condition as part of project approval Do not issue Building Permit Halt grading and construction until measures are implemented Halt grading and construction until measures are implemented Deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Application Prior to issuance of Do not issue a Building Permit Building Permit MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-19 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLcmrA i m iun I MONITORING MONITORINGI NOW MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ RECORD (NAMEMATE) & SCHEDULE ACTMTY Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7-11e: Upon completion of final grading of Phase I and upon completion of final Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting grading of Phase II, all soil slopes shall be protected from erosion by approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract top hydro seeding or soil binders as much as is feasible. Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7-11f. All soil erosion and sediment control measures shall be kept in place Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting until construction is complete and the disturbed areas are stabilized. approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-20 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Planning Division The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 Tentative Tract MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON. PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Application Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Project Sponsor Implement control measures During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7-11g: The discharge of untreated stormwater into the adjacent waters (San Francisco Bay and seasonal wetlands) shall be minimized, and shall not exceed the standards set forth by the NPDES Permit guidelines. Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Planning Division Incorporate measures into Planning Division final construction plans Tentative Tract Construction drawings Planning Division reviewed by City staff Building Division Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Building Division Draft and Deny Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract condition as part of Map and Master project approval Use Permit Application Prior to issuance of Do not issue a Building Permit Building Permit Prior to issuance of Do not issue a Building Permit Building Permit Complete site Halt grading and inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-21 Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-22 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING I MONITORINGI NON- MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION! RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented 3.7.12: Preservation of significant trees in and around seasonal wetlands area Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting is required. These trees can be preserved by Building chain link tree approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract protection fencing along the grading limits near lots 40B and 41 B. Tree Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master number 28 shall be transplanted to another area that is not disrupted by Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Project construction. Numbers 43,44, 45, and 73 shall be removed and Application 43, 44, and 45 will be replaced with box -sized plantings of coast live oak. Incorporate measures into Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue final construction plans a Building Permit Building Permit Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue reviewed by City staff Building Division a Building Permit Building Permit Trees to be transplanted and Project Sponsor Complete site Do not issue replaced by Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during Certificate of construction Occupancy 3.8 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY 3.8-1a: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project Proponent shall Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application prepare and submit a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) and narrative approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and to the Stormwater Program Manager of the City of San Rafael for review Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit and approval. The ECP shall be designed to mitigate erosion and Master Use Permit VTTM and Master sedimentation impacts during construction. At a minimum, the ECP Use Permit and written narrative shall include the following: Approval • A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure milestones in chronological format; Prepare and submit an Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of Reject Application • Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or Erosion Control Plan City Stormwater Grading Permit for grading permit unstable slopes; Program Manager • Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading; Install erosion and sediment Project Sponsor Prior to or during Halt construction • Identification of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and control measures City Stormwater grading and until measures are streets, based on recommendations contained in the Erosion and Program Manager construction phase installed Sediment Control Field Manual published by the San Francisco Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-22 3.8-11b: 3.8-1c: EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ & SCHEDULE ACTMTY Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Association Maintain erosion and Project Sponsor Perform and Halt construction of Bay Area Governments' Manual of Standards for Erosion and sediment control measures City Stormwater complete site until measures are Sediment Control, or equivalent document, as required by the through all phases of Program Manager inspections during installed City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy S-19 (Erosion); construction. grading and • Soil stabilization techniques (such as short-term biodegradable construction erosion control blankets and hydroseeding) to be utilized; • The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated sediment, and the cleaning of these drainage structures of debris and sediment; and • Treat the first'/." of runoff from the first 1 inch of rainfall. Prior to issuance of a grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, and following the preparation of Project site grading plan, the Project Proponent shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the Clean Water Act (CWA), including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall identify specific types and sources of stormwater pollutants, determine the location and nature of potential impacts, and specify appropriate control measures to eliminate any potentially significant impacts on receiving water quality from stormwater runoff. In addition to complying with the standards established by the CWA for preparation of a SWPPP, the SWPPP shall also comply with the directions for preparing a SWPPP contained in the latest edition of the Guidelines for Construction Projects, published by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB). Furthermore, in conjunction with the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP), and as required by the City's General Plan 2020 Policy S-21 (RWQCB Requirements), the Project Proponent shall consult with City staff and implement recommended measures that would reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, prior to preparation of the SWPPP, the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District shall be consulted to ensure that the measures do not have the potential to promote mosquito breeding. Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit Master Use Permit VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prepare and submit a Storm Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of Reject Application Water Pollution Prevention City Stormwater grading/ Building for grading or Plan Program Manager Permit Building Permit Consult with the Marin/ Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of Reject application Sonoma Mosquito & Vector City Stormwater Grading Permit for Grading Permit Control District Program Manager Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and Project Sponsor Building Division inspections during construction until construction measures are implemented Implement control measures Project Sponsor During grading and Halt grading and construction construction until activities measures are implemented Prior to issuance of a grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, Require as a condition of and following the preparation of the Project site grading plan, the approval for Vesting Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 Planning Division Draft and Deny application Incorporate for VTTM and MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) limW71>321 M EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASUREI IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING Project Proponent shall submit to the City Engineer for review a draft Tentative Tract Map and copy of the Notice of Intent (NO1) and SWPPP. After approval by the Master Use Permit City, the NO1 and SWPPP shall be sent to the State Water Resources Control Board. (The SWPPP follows the preparation of the Project site grading plan because Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control are selected to meet the specific site requirements.) Submit a Storm Water Project Sponsor Pollution Prevention Plan to City Stormwater the State Water Resources Program Manager Control Board 3.8-1 d: Prior to issuance of a grading or Building Permit, whichever comes first, Require as a condition of Planning Division the Project engineer shall incorporate into the final site plan features approval for Vesting that would clean site waters in accordance to RWQCB and MCSTOPPP Tentative Tract Map and standards before they enter San Rafael Bay. Features that could be Master Use Permit used to clean site waters include, but are not limited to, bioswales, Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) or Vortechnics stormwater treatment units (which may need to be modified to accommodate backwater effects), filters inserted into the site drainage inlets to filter Incorporate features within Project Sponsor runoff, and landscaped and unimproved areas that would act as bio- the site plan that clean site City Stormwater swales to allow microorganisms in the soil to clean and filter site waters waters in accordance with Program Manager before release into San Rafael Bay. In addition, prior to preparation of RWQCB and MCSTOPPP the SWPPP, the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District shall standards. be consulted to ensure that the measures do not have the potential to promote mosquito breeding. Consult with the Marin/ Project Sponsor Sonoma Mosquito & Vector City Stormwater Control District Program Manager 3.8-1e: Where grassed swales are to be used to filter pollutants from runoff, Require as a condition of Planning Division they shall consist of a dense, uniform growth of fine -stemmed approval for Vesting herbaceous plants best suited for filtering pollutants and tolerant to the Tentative Tract Map and water, climatological, and soil conditions of the development area. In Master Use Permit addition, the swale design shall include, but not be limited, to the following: 1) Design methods for increasing detention, infiltration, and uptake by wetland -typed plants. Prepare and submit a final Project Sponsor 2) A flow path adequate to provide for efficient pollutant removal site plan, design, construction Engineering Services in accordance with the standards of the RWQCB and details, and maintenance Manager ACTION & SCHEDULE condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to issuance of grading/ Building Permit Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to issuance of grading/ Building Permit NOW COMPLIANCE SANCTIONI ACTMTY Master Use Permit Reject Application for grading or Building Permit Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Reject Application for grading or Building Permit Prior to issuance of Reject application Grading Permit for Grading Permit Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Reject Application for grading or Building Permit MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-24 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING MCSTOPPP. 3) The Project Proponent shall submit a final site plan, design, construction details, and maintenance program for the proposed grassed swale(s) to the City's Engineering Services Managerfor review and approval prior to issuance of a grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs first. 3.8-1f: After Project completion, the Project Proponent shall properly maintain parking lots and other paved areas, by sweeping or other appropriate means, to prevent the majority of litter from washing into storm drains. 3.8-3: Prior to issuance of a grading or Building Permit, whichever comes first, the Project engineer shall incorporate into the final site plan features that would store site waters, where necessary, while tide levels are too high to allow flap gates to open and release water into the San Rafael Bay (i.e,, during the 2.37 -year storm event v. highest estimated tide [6.0 NGVD]). Features that would be used to store site waters include the storm drain system itself and/or additional underground pipes for increased storage capacity. The storm drain system shall be subject to review and approval by the City. program for proposed grass swales Install grass swale improvements within the project site Maintain grass swale improvements within the project site through all phases of construction. Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Implement parking lot/ paved area maintenance plan. Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Prepare and submit a final site plan for proposed site water storage facilities during high tide Install water storaqe ACTION & SCHEDULE Project Sponsor Prior to or during Engineering Services grading and Manager construction phase Project Sponsor Engineering Services Manager Planning Division Project Sponsor Planning Division Project Sponsor Engineering Services Manager Project Sponsor Complete site inspections during grading and construction Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval During operation of development Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to issuance of Grading Permit Prior to or during NON- MONITORING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE SANCTION/ RECORD (NAMEIDATE) ACTIVITY Halt construction until measures are installed Halt construction until measures are installed Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Consider revocation of Use Permit if project is not in compliance with approved maintenance plan Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Reject Application for grading or Building Permit Halt construction Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-25 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION I MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ & SCHEDULE ACTMTY improvements within the Engineering Services grading and until measures are project site Manager construction phase installed Implement water storage Project Sponsor Complete site Do not issue improvements inspections during Certificate of construction Occupancy 3.9 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.9-2: During construction, the Project contractor shall follow the seismic Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application requirements stipulated in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and Zone 4, the zone of highest seismic risk. These requirements are listed Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit in Table 3.9-1, 1997 UBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients for Master Use Permit VTTM and Master the Project Site. Use Permit Approval Construction drawings Planning Division Prior to filing an Reject Application designed to comply with Engineering Services application for a for grading or latest provisions of the Division Grading Permit building permit Uniform Building Code Project improvements are Planning Division Complete site Halt grading and constructed to comply with Engineering Services inspections during construction until approved plans and Uniform Division grading and appropriate Building Code provisions construction measures are implemented 3.9-3a: Prior to commencement of grading, a certified geotechnical engineer Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application shall be retained by the City to review the geotechnical aspects of the approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and final Project design plans for conformance with the recommendations of Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit the Project's geotechnical investigation prepared by Lowney Associates Master Use Permit VTTM and Master (May 2005) regarding fill materials, compaction, grading, and foundation Use Permit design. A letter report summarizing findings and recommendations Approval shall be submitted by the geotechnical engineer to the City Engineerfor review and approval, as well as incorporation into grading plans. Prepare and submit a City -retained Prior to filing an Reject Application detailed peer review of the Geotechnical application for a for grading or geotechnical investigation Consultant Grading Permit Building Permit prepared by the Project Engineering Services Sponsor. Division MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-26 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON- MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION/ RECORD (NAMEMATE) & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY Project improvements are City -retained Complete site Halt grading and constructed to comply with Geotechnical inspections during construction until approved plans and Consultant grading and appropriate geotechnical Engineering Services construction measures are recommendations Division implemented 3.9.3b: Prior to commencement of grading, additional exploration shall be Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application performed for townhouses planned to be constructed on shallow mat approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and foundations in the area of the former Chevron gas station to identify the Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit presence and extent of potential fill variability as a result of past Master Use Permit VTTM and Master excavation and backfilling. If differences in fill material is found and Use Permit determined to likely cause problems for buildings spanning the two Approval materials, additional excavation and re -compaction and/or alternative foundation types (i.e., deep foundation) that would tolerate variable Prepare and submit Final Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Reject Application settlement shall be considered and implemented where appropriate in grading and/or foundation Engineering Services application for a for grading or order to ensure structures would not be susceptible to ground failure. plans. Division Grading Permit Building Permit Final grading plans and/or foundation designs shall be (a) developed by a certified geotechnical engineer and (b) reviewed and approved by the Conduct additional Project Sponsor Review exploratory Reject Application City prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. exploratory borings and/ or Engineering Services information and for grading or trenches to locate Division grading plans prior Building Permit undocumented artificial fill to approval of deposits Grading Permit 3.9-3c: During construction and grading activities, the geotechnical engineer Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application shall provide observations and testing services to confirm that the approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and surcharge material is appropriately placed and settled and, thus, Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit conditions are similar to those assumed for design and to verify that Master Use Permit VTTM and Master construction and grading are performed in accordance with the Project Use Permit plans. Approval Monitor grading and Planning Division Complete site Halt grading and construction Engineering Services inspections during construction until Division grading and appropriate construction measures are implemented 3.94: Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, a California -Certified Geotechnical Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application Engineer shall be retained by the Project Proponent to evaluate the final approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and Project plans for conformance with the recommendations of the Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit Project's geotechnical investigation. A final design -level geotechnical Master Use Permit VTTM and Master investigation shall be prepared to develop specific recommendations for Use Permit Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-27 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIOW & SCHEDULE ACTMTY the proposed surcharge program that will minimize the effects that the construction activities (including surcharge program, fill placement, and Building loads) will have on the stability of the supporting soils and nearby shoreline slopes. The final geotechnical investigation shall include the following: 1. Soils used as surcharge or permanent fill shall be placed in a controlled manner. During surcharge, the placement of the soils shall be limited to a maximum of eight feet thick during any single phase of filling. In areas where the total fill thickness will exceed eight feet, the fill shall be placed in multiple phases, with sufficient time in between phases to allow for pore pressure dissipation in the supporting clay soils. The pore pressures will be monitored by the Geotechnical Engineer during the fill placement and surcharge period, and subsequent filling shall not be allowed until the Geotechnical Engineer concludes that the pore pressures have dissipated sufficiently. 2. The fill soils used during the surcharge program shall be placed at a maximum slope of 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) extending from the top of the marina slope. 3. A site-specific assessment of slope stability shall be completed for the marina shoreline slopes under the influence of stockpile loading. The height and configuration of stockpiles placed within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be limited such that a static factor of safety of 1.5 or greater is demonstrated by limit equilibrium slope stability analyses. All stockpiling within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be done under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. 4. A site-specific assessment of slope stability shall be completed for the marina shoreline slopes under the influence of heavy construction equipment. The size of equipment and the operating procedures shall be limited such that a static factor of safety of 1.5 or greater is demonstrated by limit equilibrium slope stability analyses. All use of heavy construction equipment within 40 feet of the shoreline shall be done under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. 5. The final Project slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 and the hinge point of permanent fill slopes shall be a minimum of 60 feet away from the top of the marina shoreline slopes, unless Approval Prepare and approve a final Project Sponsor Prior to filing an Reject Application geotechnical investigation for City -Retained application for a for grading or the proposed project. Geotechnical Grading Permit Building Permit Consultant Engineering Services Division Prepare and submit a City -retained Prior to filing an Reject Application detailed peer review of the Geotechnical application for a for grading or geotechnical investigation Consultant Grading Permit Building Permit prepared by the Project Engineering Services Sponsor. Division Project improvements are City -retained Complete site Halt grading and constructed to comply with Geotechnical inspections during construction until approved plans and Consultant grading and appropriate geotechnical Engineering Services construction measures are recommendations Division implemented Provide monthly status Project Sponsor Complete site Halt grading and reports on the grading City -Retained inspections and construction until activities occurring within the Geotechnical review status appropriate project site. Consultant reports during measures are Engineering Services grading and implemented Division construction MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-28 3.9-6a: EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING ACTION & SCHEDULE site-specific slope stability evaluations demonstrate a static factor of safety of 1.5 or greater. 6. Site-specific analyses shall be performed for any fill materials in excess of one foot thick placed within 30 feet of the top of the marina shoreline slopes, including the harbor peninsulas and jetties. The analyses shall demonstrate that the static factor of safety against slope instability is 1.5 or greater. The analyses shall also include an evaluation of the expected amount and rate of settlement. 7. Buildings constructed on shallow foundations shall have a minimum setback of 60 feet from the top of the marina shoreline slopes. 8. In addition, during surcharging and grading activities, the Geotechnical Engineer shall provide regular monitoring, inspection and testing services to verify that the conditions are similar to those assumed for the Project design, that the construction activities are being performed in accordance with the Project plans and specifications, and that the performance of the supporting soils and nearby marina shoreline slopes are within acceptable limits. All plans, reports, monitoring, inspection, and testing for the proposed Project will be reviewed by an independent Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist retained by the City (at the expense of the Project Proponent). This third party consultant will review all plans, reports, monitoring, inspection, and testing data prior to appropriate approvals and/or certifications. During excavation activities and prior to the placement of fill on the site, a certified geotechnical engineer shall be retained by the City to evaluate subgrade soils for the extent of their expansive potential. For areas found to contain soft, potentially expansive clays—and in areas where excavation activities extend into the underlying bay mud—the soil shall be removed (i.e., over excavated) and/or stabilized priorto the placement and compaction of fill. Stabilization techniques include, but are not limited to, the placement of 18 inches of '/cinch to 'h -inch crushed rock over stabilization fabric (such as Mirafi 50OX or equivalent), placement of larger, angular stabilization rock (1 -inch to 3 - inch, clean) and use of chemical treatments such as lime to reduce the soil's expansive potential. In addition, building construction alternatives, such as the use of alternative foundation types (i.e., post- Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 NOW COMPLIANCE SANCTIONI ACTMTY Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit Master Use Permit VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Monitor grading and Planning Division Complete site Halt grading and construction Engineering Services inspections during construction until Division grading and appropriate construction measures are implemented MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEIDATE) MMRP-29 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION I MONITORING MONITORING/ NON- MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY tension, piles, etc.) versus end -bearing foundations, shall be considered and implemented where appropriate. Final techniques shall be (a) developed by a certified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and (b) reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 3.9-6b: The Project contractor shall only import soils with an expansion index of Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application 50 or less. In addition, imported fill material shall be inorganic and have approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and a plasticity index of 15 or less. Bay mud is not suitable for site fill. A Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit certified geotechnical engineer shall be retained by the Project Master Use Permit VTTM and Master Proponent to test and verify that the imported soils do not have an Use Permit expansion index greater than 50 or a plasticity index greater than 15. Approval Monitor grading and Planning Division Complete site Halt grading and construction Engineering Services inspections during construction until Division grading and appropriate construction measures are implemented 3.9-6c: All proposed Buildings shall be built on at least six feet of competent Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application soil between the base of the town home mats and the top of any bay approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and mud layers. During the reworking of the top three feet of the existing fill, Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit .proof rolling" of the subgrade shall be observed to confirm that the soil Master Use Permit VTTM and Master is firm and unyielding before placement of any fill. ("Proof rolling' tests Use Permit the stability and uniformity of the sub -grade compaction.) If the soil is Approval found to be soft and/or consists of non-uniform sub -grade stability, then excavation shall extend to a depth of seven feet and horizontally ten Monitor grading and Planning Division Complete site Halt grading and feet beyond the mat foundation footprint (excavation pit side slopes construction Engineering Services inspections during construction until shall not be steeper than 2:1). Division grading and appropriate construction measures are Across most of the Project site, the ground surface shall be raised implemented several feet for flood control purposes. Therefore, there should be an adequate amount of engineered fill beneath structures. Existing or imported soils can be used as engineered fill provided that it meets requirements for fill (e.g., an expansion index of less than 50 and a plasticity index 15 or less). 3.9.6d: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application grading report to the City for its approval and verification that all Building approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and envelopes, which are the areas demarcated by the edges of the Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit proposed Building plus a five-foot radius, are underlain by a minimum of Master Use Permit VTTM and Master Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-30 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING six feet of competent soil. Should the applicant choose alternative construction techniques, such as deeper foundations, rather than construct pads underlain by a minimum of six feet of competent soil, the applicant shall provide a subsequent geotechnical report prepared by a certified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist that documents the expansion indices of proposed building areas. Accordingly, the application for building permits shall clearly identify the documented expansion indices and propose foundation designs appropriate for those expansion indices as suggested by the UBC. 3.10 PUBLIC SERVICES 3.10-2: Prior to approval of the final improvement plans, these plans shall be submitted to, and subject to the approval of, the San Rafael Police Department. The Police Department shall review the Project's light schematic to ensure that adequate lighting is provided along streets, in parking lots, at building entrances, pedestrian walkways, public spaces, and recreational areas in the Project. Emergency call boxes shall be installed near the docks, along waterfront trails, and in public spaces. The design of each phase shall incorporate Police Department recommendations to maximize natural surveillance of areas vulnerable to crime. Additionally, refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a in Section 3.2 (Aesthetics), which requires the preparation of a detailed lighting plan. 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.12-1: Prior to the issuance of Demolition Permits a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the Project Proponent to train the construction crew on mechanisms used to identify cultural resources. If buried cultural resources (such as chipped or ground stone tools, historic debris, building foundations, or nonhuman bone) are discovered during ground - disturbing activities, the construction contractor shall stop work in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of San Rafael. Treatment measures shall include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs such as excavation or detailed documentation. Prepare and submit a final grading summary report detailing the extent of grading activities during project construction. Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Project Sponsor City -retained Geotechnical Consultant Engineering Services Division Planning Division ACTION & SCHEDULE Use Permit Approval Prior to filing an application for a Building Permit Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prepare and submit final Planning Division Prior to filing an improvement plans to the San Rafael Police application for a Police Department for review Department Building Permit Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Implement cultural resources training program for construction personnel Planning Division Qualified Archaeologist Project Sponsor Planning Division Engineering Services Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval NON- COMPLIANCE SANCTION/ ACTIVITY Reject Application for Building Permit Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Reject Application for Building Permit Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Prior to issuance of Deny issuance of Demolition Permits Demolition Permits MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-31 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NOW MONITORING PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI RECORD (NAMEIDATE) & SCHEDULE ACTMTY Division Monitor grading and Planning Division Complete site Halt grading and construction Engineering Services inspections during construction until Division grading and appropriate construction measures are implemented 3.12-2: If human remains are encountered at any time during earth disturbing Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application activities, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit contacted to evaluate the remains. If the remains are deemed to be Master Use Permit VTTM and Master Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Use Permit Commission shall be contacted by the Coroner within 24 hours. The Approval Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Monitor grading and Qualified Complete site Halt grading and Native American. The most likely descendent may make construction Archaeologist inspections during construction until recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the Planning Division grading and appropriate excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate Engineering Services construction measures are dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as Division implemented provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or; Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or the landowner's authorized representative(s) shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: 1) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; 2) The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or 3) The landowner or an authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. 3.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.13-1a: In accordance with the Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application the Registered Environmental Assessor shall present the results of the approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and ESA to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-32 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING (or appropriate agency) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) prior to remediating the site. If contamination is found and contamination levels exceed hazardous waste limits or human health screening levels that are above Federal and/or State limits for residential areas, the soil shall be treated and/or disposed of in accordance with the standards of the City of San Rafael Fire Department, RWQCB, and DTSC 3.13-1b: Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the Registered Environmental Assessor shall develop a Soil Management Work Plan, which would define the extent of soil to be excavated at the Project site. To limit potential impacts associated with soil and fill excavation, this Work Plan shall establish management guidelines for handling any presently unknown contaminated soil, in accordance with the Phase II ESA. The plan shall also present recommended risk management protocols during and after construction, including management of excavated soil, management of in-place soil, excavation dewatering, and long-term compliance with the Soil Management Work Plan. In particular, the Plan would contain a description of the following items, which are typically required by the DTSC for areas of contaminated soils: • The methods to be used for site preparation, grading, excavation, trenching, backfilling, and management of chemically affected soil; • A map showing the location of areas proposed for grading, excavation, and trenching; • An estimate of the quantity of soil to be excavated and placed in the soil depository (note that DTSC may approve cappinq Master Use Permit Preparation and submittal of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to RWQCB and DTSC Preparation of Soil Management Work Plan Monitor grading and construction Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Preparation and submittal of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to RWQCB and DTSC Preparation of Soil Management Work Plan Monitor grading and Qualified Registered Environmental Assessor Qualified Registered Environmental Assessor Engineering Services Division Qualified Registered Environmental Assessor Engineering Services Division Planning Division Qualified Registered Environmental Assessor Qualified Registered Environmental Assessor Engineering Services Division Qualified Registered ACTION & SCHEDULE VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to remediation of project site and issuance of Demolition Permits Prior to filing an application for a Grading Permit Complete site inspections during grading and construction Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to remediation of project site and issuance of Demolition Permits Prior to filing an application for a Grading Permit Complete site NON- COMPLIANCE SANCTION/ ACTIVITY Deny issuance of demolition permits Deny issuance of a grading permit Halt grading and construction until appropriate measures are implemented Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Deny issuance of demolition permits Deny application for Grading Permit Halt grading and MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAME/DATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-33 3.13-2: 3.13-3: EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING ACTION & SCHEDULE contaminated soil onsite in non-residential areas, which would require a deed restriction and management plan for the capped soil); • The methods to be used for handling chemically affected soil; • The air monitoring procedures, on-site and off-site; • The dust control measures to be implemented for earthwork activities; • The procedures for soil sampling and chemical testing; • The methods for transporting soil; • The procedures for training workers in the provisions of the Soil Management Work Plan; • The record-keeping and inspection procedures to monitor compliance with the Soil Management Work Plan; and • A discussion of the resources to be allocated to implement the Soil Management Work Plan. • The Soil Management Work Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City of San Rafael Public Works Department. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, a Registered Environmental Assessor shall be retained by the Project Proponent to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard E1903, the Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process for the dry cleaning and AST portions of the Project site to verify the presence or absence of hydrocarbons and/or tetrachloroethylene. If soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling indicates and laboratory analyses detects the presence of any contaminants in hazardous concentrations above Federal and/or State limits for residential areas, the Registered Environmental Assessor shall contact the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) prior to remediating the site according the procedures identified in the Soil Management Work Plan (see Mitigation Measure 3.13-1). Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 b. 3.134: Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 b. Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 construction Require as a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Master Use Permit Preparation and submittal of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to RWQCB and DTSC Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b. Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b. Environmental Assessor Engineering Services Division Planning Division Qualified Registered Environmental Assessor Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b. Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 b. inspections during grading and construction Draft and Incorporate condition as part of VTTM and Master Use Permit Approval Prior to remediation of project site and issuance of Demolition Permits Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b. Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b. NON- MONITORING COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE SANCTION/ RECORD (NAMEIDATE) ACTMTY construction until appropriate measures are implemented Deny application for VTTM and Master Use Permit Deny issuance of Demolition Permits Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 b. Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.13-1b. MMRP-34 MONITORING ` COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-35 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING! NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTION! & SCHEDULE ACTWI TY 3.13-5: Prior to issuance of Demolition Permits, a licensed asbestos abatement Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Vesting inspector shall be retained by the Project Proponent to conduct an approval for Vesting incorporate Tentative Tract asbestos survey in compliance with the National Emissions Standards Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Map and Master for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Bay Area Air Quality Master Use Permit project approval Use Permit Management District's Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Application Renovation and Manufacturing) to determine the presence or absence of asbestos, and submit the results of the survey to the City of San Conduct an Asbestos Survey Licensed Asbestos Prior to issuance of Deny issuance of Rafael. If asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) are found, any Abatement Inspector Demolition Permits Demolition Permits demolition activity that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne Engineering Services asbestos hazard shall be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement Division contractor under the supervision of a certified asbestos consultant. Monitor grading, demolition, Building Division Inspect site during Halt grading, and construction activities grading, demolition, demolition, and and construction construction activities activities if asbestos is found. Implement control measures Project Sponsor Inspect site during Halt grading, grading, demolition, demolition, and and construction construction activities activities if asbestos is found. 3.13.6a: If any paint is separated from Building materials (chemically or Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application physically) during demolition of structures, the Project Proponent shall approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and retain a licensed lead-based paint inspector to implement the following Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit steps: Master Use Permit VTTM and Master 1) Evaluate paint waste independently from the Building material Use Permit to determine whether or not lead-based paint (LBP) is present Approval and to specify its proper management. 2) If LBP is found, complete abatement prior to any demolition Conduct a Lead based paint Licensed Lead -Based Prior to issuance of Deny issuance of activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Survey Paint Inspector Demolition Permits Demolition Permits 3) Remove LBP in accordance with California Code of Regulation Engineering Services Title 8, Section 1532.1, which regulates and specifies exposure Division limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Implement measures Planning Division Prior to issuance of Deny issuance of 4) Provide evidence by any contractor performing LBP paint Building Division Demolition Permits Demolition Permits removal to the City Building Official and County Environmental Health Department of the contractor's certified training for lead - related construction work. MONITORING ` COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-35 EXHIBIT B MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-36 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON - PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE ACTION SANCTIONI & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY 3.13.6b: If paint is not removed from the Building material during demolition (and Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application is not flaking or peeling), the material shall be disposed of as approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and construction debris (i.e., as a nonhazardous waste). The Project Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit Contractor shall contact the landfill operator in advance to determine Master Use Permit VTTM and Master whether the landfill has any specific requirements regarding the Use Permit disposal of lead-based paint materials. Approval Contact landfill regarding Project Contractor Complete site Halt grading and disposal of Building materials Engineering Services inspections during construction until Division grading and appropriate construction measures are implemented 3.13-7: Prior to the issuance of Demolition Permits, the type of ballasts and Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application capacitors in fluorescent light fixtures shall be identified to determine approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and the appropriate remedial activities (i.e., proper disposal, if necessary). Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit Fluorescent lighting known to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Master Use Permit VTTM and Master or mercury shall be removed off-site and properly disposed of at an Use Permit approved landfill or recycling facility. In the event PCBs or mercury Approval from fluorescent light fixtures are accidentally released into the environment, work shall be stopped, the City shall be notified, and the Conduct a survey of lighting Qualified Registered Prior to issuance of Deny issuance of spilled PCBs and/or mercury shall be cleaned up per recommendations fixtures Environmental Demolition Permits Demolition Permits of the Fire Department. Assessor Engineering Services Division 3.13-8: During grading and construction activities, if a transformer is to be Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny application removed, the transformer oil shall be tested for PCBs and any remedial approval for Vesting Incorporate for VTTM and activities (e.g. proper disposal) determined to be necessary by the Tentative Tract Map and condition as part of Master Use Permit City's Fire Department shall be implemented. Transformers known to Master Use Permit VTTM and Master contain PCBs shall be removed off-site and properly disposed of at an Use Permit approved landfill facility. In the event PCBs from a transformer are Approval accidentally released into the environment, work shall be stopped, the City shall be notified, and the spilled PCBs shall be cleaned up per Monitor grading and Qualified Registered Complete site Halt grading and recommendations of the Fire Department. construction Environmental inspections during construction until Assessor grading and appropriate Engineering Services construction measures are Division implemented 3.13.9: Refer to Mitigation 3.13-1. Refer to Mitigation 3.13-1. Refer to Mitigation Refer to Mitigation Refer to Mitigation 3,13-1. 3.13-1. 3.13-1. MONITORING COMPLIANCE RECORD (NAMEMATE) Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-36 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Village at Loch Lomond Marina, San Rafael, California; Revised June 2007 Lchlmnd.MMRP7-07 MMRP-37