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