HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8683 (Home Depot Project)RESOLUTION NO. 8 6 8 3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
APPROVING A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CH2M HILL TO
PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
SHORELINE BUSINESS PARK (HOME DEPOT) PROJECT
The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires
environmental review of the proposed Shoreline Business Park; and
WHEREAS, the City and the consultant, CH2M Hill, entered into an
agreement on September 3, 1991 for the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, comments received from State agencies in response to the Notice
of Preparation required revisions to the Scope of Work; and
WHEREAS, Section B.3(b) of the contract allows an amendment to
incorporate such changes; and
WHEREAS, the consultant has prepared a summary of cost breakdowns in
the amount of $31,535,00 to cover the additional costs associated with the
revised Scope of Work; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been reviewed and recommended for approval
by City Staff.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council
accepts the proposal from CH2M Hill for the preparation of the revised scope
of work.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute,
on behalf of the City of San Rafael, a Professional Services Agreement
Amendment, marked as Attachment "A", with CH2M HILL for said project.
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael on the Monday,
the 15th day of June, 1992 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer
and Mayor Boro
None
None
4. � '
M. LEONC , City Clerk
S Y
• � w � �' r
1
u
ATTACHMENT "A"
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
This Amendment to the contract Agreement is made and entered into on the
15TH day of JUNE , 1992, between the City of San Rafael, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and CH2M HILL, California,
Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").
A. RECITALS:
(i) WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into an
AGREEMENT on September 3, 1991, which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "D" and by reference made a part hereof; and,
(ii) WHEREAS, comments received from State agencies in response
to the Notice of Preparation required revisions to the Scope of
Work; and
(iii) WHEREAS, Section B.3.(b) of the Contract allows an
amendment to incorporate such changes; and
(iv) WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has prepared a summary of
additional Scope items and costs (Exhibit "A"), Cost Breakdowns
(Exhibit "B") and said revised Scope of Work (Exhibit "C") and
all attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT as
follows:
B. AGREEMENT
1. CONSULTANT AGREES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and perform
such services as necessary to complete an EIR prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the Consultant's
Proposal to prepare an EIR pursuant to the revised Scope
of Work (Exhibit "C") and in accordance with Federal,
State and City statutes, regulations, ordinances and
guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
2. CITY AGREES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) IN consideration of CONSULTANT's Agreement to
perform well and sufficiently and in a skillful and
professional manner the additional services contemplated
herein, CITY agrees to pay and CONSULTANT agrees to
accept the full payment of $101,950.00 as agreed to in the
contract entered into on September 3, 1991 for the
preparation of the EIR, and an additional Sum of
$31,535.00 payable as follows:
(1) Twenty percent (20%) of the Additional Costs
Agreement value ($6,307.00) within fifteen (15) days
of the execution of Additional Cost Agreement by
CITY and CONSULTANT.
(2) Forty percent (40%) of Additional Cost Agreement
value ($12,614.00) within fifteen (15) days of
delivery of an administrative draft EIR to CITY by
CONSULTANT.
(3) Twenty percent (20%) of Additional Cost
Agreement value ($6,307.00) within (15) days of
Planning Department approval of the Draft EIR.
(4) Ten percent (10%) of Additional Cost Agreement
value ($3,153.50) upon delivery of the
Administrative Final EIR to CITY by
CONSULTANT. The cost to prepare the Final EIR
is based upon the understanding that the Final EIR
shall not be required to include evaluation or
gathering of technical information not included in
the Draft EIR and the preparation of the Final EIR
will require approximately 68 hours of
CONSULTANT's time.
(5) Ten percent (10%) of Additional Cost Agreement
value ($3,153.50) within fifteen (15) days of both the
1) completion of CONSULTANT services; 2)
Certification of Final EIR by CITY.
2. ADDITIONAL COST AGREEMENT:
This Additional Cost Agreement supplements the Original
Agreement entered into on the 3rd day of September, 1991 and
both agreements supersede any and all other agreements, either
oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject
matter herein. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that
no representation by any party which is not embodied herein
nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained
in this Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification
of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing, and
signed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first set forth above:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CONSULTANT
4& �/tt�
Vice President and Regional Manager
CH2M HILL, California, Inc.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
U C:)
r`
'CITY
OF
SAN RAFAEL
1400 FIFTH AVENUE, P.O. BOX 151560, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-1560
'HONE: (415) 485-3100/FAX (415) 459-2242
July 2, 1991
MAYOR
LAWRENCE E MULRYAN
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ALBERT J.BORO
DOROTHY L. BREWER
MICHAEL A. SHIPPEY
JOAN C. THAYER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROTECT: Z90-5. SHORELINE BUSINESS PARK
The City of San Rafael is seeking proposals for the preparation of an Initial Study and
subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines and this Request for Proposals.
The Initial Study, and subsequent EIR, are to assess the potential environmental
impacts associated with a proposed zone change, tentative subdivision, use permit and
design review permit for the development of the Shoreline Business Park. The
business park is proposed to include 102,000 square feet of warehouse/ retail store space
with an outdoor garden center; 88,800 square feet of specialty retail space; 373,600 square
feet of light industrial space of which 93,400 square feet may be devoted to office use;
and, 45,900 square feet of office space. The 40+ acre site is located at the intersection of
Kerner Boulevard, Francisco Boulevard and Shoreline Parkway.
PROTECT BACKGROUND
The subject property, known as the Shoreline Business Park, formerly the San Quentin
Disposal Site, is located in East San Rafael and is approximately 40 acres of former
tideland area with approximately 80 feet of soft bay mud. The property fronts on the
1600 block of Francisco Boulevard East and extends to the San Rafael Bay. A 17 acre
City stormwater retention pond and an 83 acre seasonally flooded Canalways property
are located to the north. The Marin Municipal Water District storage yard and a
Federal Express facility are located to the south.
The San Quentin Disposal Site (SQDS) was developed on 42 acres of reclaimed bay and
marsh land. SQDS began accepting waste in 1968 and was open 7 days per week
accepting refuse such as brush clippings and demolition debris. In the eastern portion
of the site, the bay mud is covered with disposal wastes. The western portion of the
site is covered with clean earth fill. SQDS stopped receiving debris in February 1987,
however soil, concrete and asphalt rubble were accepted at the site until mid 1987.
There is an existing levee along the eastern edge of the property.
FILE NUMBER: Z io S
TITLE:
EXHIBIT:
-?z -.- /< -7
In anticipation of future development, the property was rezoned to PD -Planned
Development and PCM -Planned Commercial and Light Industrial, and subdivided
into 31 lots, ranging in size from .96 to 2.38 acres, to be developed as an Industrial Park.
Final maps for the project were filed in 1982. The site was to be developed in three
phases. Phase one improvements have been installed. No work has been done on
phase two or three. A 100 foot wide strip inboard from the mean Iower low water
level along the San Rafael Bay perimeter has been deeded to the City of San Rafael as a
part of the Shoreline Park Band. Debris has been prohibited from being disposed along
this strip. In addition, one lot of the subdivision, Lot 14, was also deeded to the City of
San Rafael for use as a public park.
The SQDS has been subject to conditions of the Solid Waste Facility Permit issued by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and also the conditions, criteria, and
requirements established by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the
City of San Rafael, Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, and the
California Integrated Waste Management Board (formerly the California Waste
Management Board).
The applicant is proposing to merge the existing lots and resubdivide the property for
development as a business park.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Due to the specialized nature of the impacts associated with the landfill site, the San
Rafael Planning Department is seeking a consulting firm to prepare all the necessary
CEQA documents. This will include preparing: 1) the Initial Study, 2) a Scope of
Work for the EIR for circulation and approval by the Planning Commission, 3) a Draft
EIR, 4) a Final EIR, and 5) a mitigation Monitoring Program. The draft EIR and Final
EIR must contain the information outlined in Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines. The
EIR is to provide an unbiased review and assessment of the reports that have been
submitted to date and to prepare new information for additional issues identified by
the Planning Commission in the initial scoping. All documents must fully comply
with CEQA requirements. Based on a preliminary review, Planning Department staff
anticipate the following items and environmental issues to be concerns to be included
in the review:
Plan Review
The project should be reviewed as to its consistency with the City of San Rafael
General Plan 2000, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance as well as
regional policies. -
Soils /Geoloev /Geotechnical
Geologic Hazards and Geotechnical Reports have been prepared by Harding Lawson
Associates in 1979 and 1981. These reports will need to be reviewed and updated as
necessary.
2 77
Hvdrologv/Drainage
Increased stormwater runoff could impact the adjacent wetlands. Drainage and
grading plans should be reviewed particularly as they relate to the existing wetlands,
protection of the wetlands, and wetland setback distances.
PIant/Animal Life
The proposed project may have an impact on native vegetation and habitats that exist
near the City storm water retention pond, the 83 acre seasonally flooded canalways
property and the Marin Municipal Water District storage yard. Appropriate vegetation
setbacks, and other mitigation should address any issues that arise.
Hazardous Waste
In compliance with regulatory mandates, reports specified on Attachment "A"
regarding the site, hazardous materials and dump closure have been prepared and are
available for review. Additional information as specified in Attachment "B" has also
been submitted.
Transportation /Circulation
The site is located in a traffic impacted area. Off-site as well as internal circulation
issues will need to be addressed. There is a possible need for the extension and
connection of Kerner Boulevard.
Public Services
The project will need to be reviewed in the context of the public services required,
including but not limited to, the ability of the Marin Municipal Water District and the
San Rafael Sanitation District to serve the project. The access for fire equipment to and
on the site and the impacts on parklands in relationship to the City's Parkland
dedication requirements should also be addressed.
Enerav Conservation
The project should be reviewed in context with the demands on existing sources of
energy and alternative energy sources.
Aesthetics
The project is adjacent to the City's Shoreline Park which is to be developed as a major
open space and recreational element for east San Rafael. Public uses will include
pedestrian, bicycle and other low intensity recreational uses. The project should be
sensitive to the pedestrian scale and also provide view corridors from the site to the
bay and from the Shoreline Park to Mt. Tamalpais located to the west.
3 q I
Other CEOA Mandated Topics
The EIR must contain sections discussing other CEQA mandated topics, including: 1)
the relationship between local short term uses . of man's environment and
maintaining and enhancing long term productivity 2) irreversible environmental
changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented;
3) the growth inducing impact of the proposed project; 4) effects not found to be
significant; 5) organizations and persons consulted; and 5) cumulative impacts.
Alternatives
Alternative for the proposed project should be analyzed.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
A Mitigation Monitoring Program, required by AB 3180, shall be prepared as part of the
EIR. The program should identify measures which must be satisfied prior to the
recordation of the map, measures which must be satisfied before permit issuance,
measures that must be satisfied during project construction, and measures which may
require ongoing monitoring. The consultant shall work with the Planning
Department staff to identify the agency or department responsible for verifying
compliance with each measure.
CONTACTS BY CONSULTANTS
As a minimum, the following agencies, groups, and individuals shall be contacted
during the preparation of the initial study and subsequent EIR. All required contacts
will be coordinated with the consultant and the Planning Department staff.
1. Cal Pox, Inc., owner
2. Speiker Partners, Vince Mulroy, representative
3. All neighborhood associations surrounding the subject property (lists and
contacts will be provided by the Planning Department).
4. California Department of Fish and Game
5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife service
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7. Bay Conservation and Development Commission
8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
9. Department of Conservation
10. Marin Audobon Society
11. Marin Wildlife Center
12. County of Marin Planning Department
13. Marin Municipal Water District
14. Department of Health Services
15. Pacific Gas and Electric
16. Pacific Bell
17. City of San Rafael Departments including Public Works, Planning, Fire, Police,
and Recreation
4 � I
REOUIRED CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL
Responses to this request for proposals shall include, as a minimum, the following
information.
1. The name of the project manager designated or assigned to this project.
2. The name and addresses of all persons, including their background and
qualifications, who will actually contribute to or work on this project. This
includes all subcontractors. Any substitutions of project staffing must be
approved by the City in advance. Material submitted in pre -qualification may be
referenced.
3. A detailed scope of work for preparing the Initial Study, Environmental Impact
Report scoping, and subsequent draft environmental Report.
4. A schedule indicating the proposed commencement and completion dates for
the various phases and progress reports for those phases of the Initial Study,
scoping, and draft EIR preparation. This schedule shall include submittal dates
for the administrative draft and camera ready draft EIR's.
5. An estimate of the costs involved in preparing the initial study and draft
environmental document. This estimate shall include:
a. All costs relating to survey work, research, photography, transportation,
communication, clerical work (including typing and reproduction, and
distribution including mailings (mailing list provided by the Planning
Department.
b. Attendance at 2 neighborhood meetings.
C. Attendance at a minimum of four public meetings (Planning Commission
and City Council).
d. Reproduction and submittal of five administrative draft EIR's for staff
review.
e. Reproduction and submittal of 75 draft reports with a camera-ready
original.
f. The proposal shall be broken down to include separate estimates for each
phase of the work. Given that it is unknown precisely how much time
will be needed to prepare a draft EIR and Final EIR, a base estimate shall be
given with the condition that the amount for the draft EIR can be adjusted
after the circulation of the Notice of Preparation and scope of work and the
amount for the Final EIR can be adjusted after the public review period on
the draft EIR. However, adjustments will require the approval of the
Planning Department based on additional tasks not identified in the
proposal. Itemize each task within the proposed budget. Indicate the
estimated hours and rates for each person participating on the project.
6. Evidence of Compliance with any and all additional specific requirements as set
forth in the Request for Proposal.
7. Samples of any similar reports prepared by the company/firm in the recent past.
8. Public Agency references.
5 -� -4
9. All consult4.as will be required to file a Statement of Economic Interest prior -to
finalization of a contract with the City of San Rafael.
10. Consultants shall have no ongoing work interests with the applicant of other
parties of interest.
11. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the
following types of insurance: General Liability - $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for
the bodily injury, personal injury and property damage; Automobile Liability -
$1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; Worker's
Compensation Insurance; and Errors and Omissions Liability - $1,000,000.00 per
occurrence.
SELECTION PROCESS
Proposals will be ranked by the Planning Department staff using the following criteria
and submitted to the City Council for final approval:
1. Ability to perform tasks as described.
2. Experience and expertise.
3. Technical approach, clarity and methodology.
4. Ability to complete the Initial Study and subsequent EIR in a timely manner.
5. Cost.
6. Interview (optional).
Deadline for Submittals:
Five copies of the proposal are to be submitted to the San Rafael Planning Department,
San Rafael City Hall, 3rd Floor, 1400 Fifth Avenue, no later that August 2, 1991.
Mailing address is: City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560.
Direct submittals and questions to Louise Patterson, Assistant Planner, phone 415-485-
3085.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A" - List of Reports & Investigations prepared for the San Quer.iin
Disposal Site
Attachment "B" - List of Limits of Debris and Environmental Control Systems
Attachment "C" - Location Map
Attachment "D" - Tentative Tract Map
Attachment "E" - Site Plan
Attachment "F" - Home Depot conceptual elevations
6 dZ -:�
CONSULTANT MAILING LIST
EIP Associates
150 Spear Street, #150
San Francisco, CA 94105-1661
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.
301 Brannan Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107-1811
Converse Environmental West
55 Hawthorne Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attention: Mr. Larry Wylie
Applied Geosciences Inc.
1735 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95131
Attention: Mr. Fred Cronwell
Roy F. Weston Inc.
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Attention: Kim Krajewski
Woodward Clyde
500 12th Street, Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94607-4014
Attention: Mr. Scott Moorehouse
Tetra Tech, Inc.
120 Howard Street, Suite 475
San Francisco, CA 94105-1661
CH2M HILL
6425 Christie Avenue, Suite 500
Emeryville, CA 94608
Attention: Ann Millican
7 q-�
-1 PROPOSAL
� Shoreline Business Park
Initial Study and
-� Environmental Impact Report
for the
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
ij
I
Prepared by
FILE NUMBER:.F- �6 " 5
CWHIL TITLE: LN21'1 1-�PxP,ovsAe- August 1991
EXHIBIT.• 6
P� i 3 6
CONTENTS
Page
1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ............................... 1-1
2 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................ 2-1
WORK PROGRAM .......................................
2-1
PHASE 1: PREPARE INITIAL STUDY ..................
2-1
PHASE 2: PREP/aE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE EIR ....
2-2
PHASE 3: PREPARE DRAFT EIR ......................
2-2
PHASE 4: PREPARE FINAL EIR .................... 2-5
TECHNICAL METHODOLOGIES ............................
2-6
PLAN REVIEW .....................................
2-6
SOILS/GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY ........................
2-6
HYDROLOGY/GRADING/DRAINAGE ..................
2-7
WATER QUALITY ..................................
2-8
PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES ..................
2-9
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ...................
2-11
AIR QUALITY ....................................
2-13
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY .....................
2-14
PUBLIC SERVICES .................................
2-15
AESTHETICS ......................................
2-16
3 SCHEDULE ............................................. 3-1
4 PROJECT TEAM ......................................... 4-1
PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION .......................... 4-1
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ................................. 4-1
KEY TECHNICAL STAFF .................................. 4-3
5 COST
..................................................
5-1
COST PROPOSAL
........................................
5-1
COST ASSUMPTIONS
5-1
.....................................
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST, WORK INTERESTS, AND
INSURANCE ............................................
5-4
OPTIONAL TASKS
..................•....................
5-4
PHOTOMONTAGE
5-4
..................................
TRAFFIC MODELLING ..............................
5-5
6 PROJECT EXPERIENCE ................................... 6-1
SOLID WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS ............. 6-1
INITIAL STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS .. 6-3
PUBLIC AGENCY REFERENCES ........................... 6-6
sF0548.21 W26.51
ii
=6
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Appendix A. PROJECT TEAM RESUMES
Appendix B. SAMPLE PHOTOMONTAGE
Appendix C. BROCHURES
TABLES
5-1 Cost Proposal ............................................ 5-2
5-2 Itemized Expenses and Other Costs ............................ 5-3
5-3 Itemized Labor Hours and Rates .............................. 5-3
FIGURES
3-1 Schedule ................................................ 3-3
41 Project Team Organization .................................. 4-2
sF0549—'iw26.51 »>
3 .'26
PROPRIETARY NOTICE
CH2M HILL considers the data and information contained in this proposal to be
proprietary. This proposal and any information contained herein shall not be disclosed
outside the of the City of San Rafael and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in
whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal.
sF05Q211026-51
Z -/q 35
Section I
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Assessed in isolation, the proposed Shoreline Business Park may not represent a signifi-
cant impact on the environment. However, the project site is unique in that it includes
a closed Class II landfill. In light of this existing context, the proposed project requires
a thorough and comprehensive environmental assessment that recognizes the technical
issues associated with development on a landfill site.
Based on our knowledge of the sensitivity of landfill -related issues and the Environmen-
tal Impact Report (EIR) process, we believe that the proposed project could have
potential environmental impacts of concern to the community beyond those outlined in
the Response for Proposals (RFP). In consultation with City Staff and CH2M HILL
project team members, we have identified the following issues that should be consid-
ered during the Initial Study for inclusion in the EIR.
• The project site may represent a potential threat to human health and safety
and to elements of the environment, both onsite and in the surrounding arca.
The 1987 offsite explosion near the project site is an example of this
potential danger. However, the project site may also affect other ele-
ments of the environment, including biota, and groundwater and surface
water quality.
• There are a number of technical issues associated with development on a
closed landfill site. We have identified the following major issues to focus
our investigation of potential landfill -related impacts:
SF0548.21 W27S 1
Landfill Gas. Potential landfill gas issues include the potential presence
of landfill gas onsite and the extent of any lateral migration offsite, its
potential odor impacts, the risk of explosions resulting from accidental
releases of gas, and the need for appropriate building design for landfill
gas venting.
Water Quality. The potential for existing surface and groundwater con-
tamination at the site and in the surrounding project area and its effect
on water quality may be an issue. Construction activities associated with
project development may cause a release of leachate from the landfill
that could degrade existing water quality conditions.
Soils/Geology/Seismicity. Construction on top of a former landfill would
require excavation through the refuse material in order to stabilize the
building foundations. Due to the unstable nature of this underlying mate-
rial, the potential for settlement of the refuse and underlying bay mud, as
1-1
S� 6
well as slope stability are potential issues of concern during project con-
struction.
• Transportation and Circulation are additional key issues related to develop-
ment of the Shoreline Business Park. The projt:ct site is located in an area
currently impacted by traffic. Project development may generate addi-
tional traffic that could affect existing congestion and circulation project
area roadways.
• The issue of hazardous waste potentially dispersed at the site it a concern.
No known hazardous wastes were disposed of at the project site. How-
ever, the Class II designation resulted from the presence of a leachate
pond in the northeast corner. The public recognizes that hazardous
wastes may have inadvertently been placed in Class II and Class III land-
fills.
Given our understanding of the project and the potential technical issues, we have
prepared the scope of work presented in Section 2. We are assuming that the landfill
documents detailed in Attachment A of the RFP will contain sufficient information to
resolve whether the landfill -related ;slues need to be, and can be, addressed in the
EIR. The landfill -related issues may have been covered and resolved in the reports
already prepared, in which case the EIR will clearly reflect the fact.
sFO548.211027.51
1-2
�- ,., 3S
Section 2
SCOPE OF WORK
WORK PROGRAM
This section describes CH2M HILL's work program and methodology to assess the
environmental impacts of the proposed Shoreline Business Park. Our scope of work is
divided into four phases:
Phase 1: Prepare Initial Study (Task 1)
• Phase 2: Prepare Scope of Work for Draft EIR (Task 2)
• Phase 3: Prepare Draft EIR (Tasks 3 through 6)
• Phase 4: Prepare Final EIR (Tasks 7 and 8)
The scope of work prepared in Phase 3 will be reevaluated and refined during Phase 2
following results of the Initial Study and public comments. Phase 4 work will be evalu-
ated at the end of Phase 3, following receipt of comments on the Draft EIR. A de-
scription of tasks to be undertaken during each phase is described in detail below. This
scope of work is based upon our review of the RFP and available reports and investiga-
tions concerning the project site, our meeting with Associate Planner Louise Patterson,
and a visit to the site.
PHASE l: PREPARE INITIAL STUDY
Task 1 --Prepare Initial Study
An Initial Study will be prepared to help identify potentially significant issues and sup-
port the decision to prepare the EIR. The Initial Study will be prepared pursuant to
CEQA requirements and will address all environmental topics.
Ann Millican, the CH2M HILL project manager, will meet with San Rafael City Plan-
ning Staff to review the proposed scope of work, work products, schedule, and basic de-
scription of the project. CH2M HILL staff will obtain information and copies of rele-
vant project reports and plans, as well as reports, studies, plans, and other documents
concerning the closed onsite landfill. To expedite this process, we will provide the 1ity
with a list of data needs before the meeting.
During preparation of the Initial Study, and continuing throughout preparation of the
Administrative Draft EIR, CH2M HILL staff will contact local and regional agencies,
groups, and individuals to identify their concerns and requirements so that a technically
sound and responsive environmental analysis can be conducted. CH2M HILL will work
closely with City Staff to determine which agencies and groups should be contacted as
their input will provide us with a comprehensive understanding of the proposed project.
SF0548.: 110:5.51 2-1
7-,q, -36
Agencies, groups, and individuals identified in Attachment A of the RFP will be con-
tacted by the appropriate CH2M HILL project team staff.'
Preliminary assessments will be developed for each environmental topic in order to
identify potentially significant impacts to be further evaluated in the EIR. The Draft
Initial Study will be prepared and submitted to City Staff for review. After City review,
CH2M HILL will meet with City Staff to discuss comments on the Draft Initial Study.
CH2M HILL will then revise the Draft Initial Study, if necessary. The Initial Study will
be included as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that we will prepare and dis-
tribute locally and send to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to appropriate state
agencies.
During preparation of the Initial Study, the CH2M HILL project manager and com-
munity meeting facilitator will attend one neighborhood meeting to discuss the pro-
posed project and give the public an opportunity to communicate their concerns. This
neighborhood meeting will include local neighborhood groups and associations located
in the project area, including the East San Rafael Neighborhood Association. CH2M
HILL assumes that the neighborhood meeting will occur during the 30 -day public re-
view period for the Initial Study.
PRODUCT.- Initial Study and NOP
(Number of Copies to be Determined)
PHASE 2: PREPARE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE EIR
Task 2 --Prepare and Circulate Scope of Work for the EIR
Upon completion of the Initial Study, CH2M HILL technical staff will develop techni-
cal methodologies using our proposed scopes as a base. Based on the conclusions of
the Initial Study and public responses to the NOP, we will adjust .hese scopes accord-
ingly. These technical methodologies will focus on the significant environmental issues
identified in the Initial Study to be addressed in the EIR. CH2M HILL will submit the
Scope of Work to City Staff and will attend one public meeting before the Planning
Commission to present the proposed technical Scope of Work and to consult on the
Initial Study comments.
PRODUCT.- Scope of Work for the EIR
(Number of Copies to be Determined)
PHASE 3: PREPARE DRAFT EIR
Task 3 --Prepare Project Description and Alternatives
CH2M HILL will prepare a project description based on information from the City and
the project sponsor. As required by CEQA, the project description will contain the
following sections: project location; project history; project characteristics; implementa-
SF0548.2lW2551
2-2
tion schedule; project sponsor objectives; and required public agency actions. CH2M
HILL will also prepare a description of a maximum of three project alternatives, in-
cluding the No -Project alternative. CH2M HILL will submit the draft project descrip-
tion and alternatives to City Staff for review. Although -not required by CEQA, sign -off
of the project description and alternatives by the City will ensure that the City and
CH2M HILL have an accurate understanding of the project before conducting the
technical analyses. The revised project description and alternatives will be included in
the Administrative Draft EIR.
PRODUCT Draft Project Description and Alternatives
(Number of Copies to be Determined)
Task 4 --Conduct Environmental Analysis
Prepare Environmental Setting. Information on the existing environmental setting is
available from the existing technical reports and investigations addressing landfill clo-
sure, soil, gas, and groundwater assessments, and other regulatory mandates prepared
for the project site. These documents will be reviewed and assessed for their relevant
contributions to the existing setting section of each impact area. Additional research
may be conducted, as described in the technical methodologies section, to acquire nec-
essary background information to complete the environmental setting.
Conduct Environmental Impact Analyses. CH2M HILL will examine the effects of the
proposed project on all aspects of the physical, natural, and human environment.
Based on discussions with City staff and our preliminary review, we propose to focus on
the following environmental issues:
• Plan Review
• Soils/Geology/Seismicity
• Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
• Water Quality
• Plant and Animal Communities
• Transportation/Circulation
• Air Quality
• Human Health and Safety
• Public Services
• Aesthetics
This list of potential issues will be reevaluated during the Phase 2 scoping process.
Whenever possible, CH2M HILL staff will incorporate information from technical re-
ports and investigations into the impact analyses. CH2M HILL will conduct these
analyses as defined in the proposed methodologies described in the following section.
Environmental Issues That Are Less Than Significant. Based on our preliminary work,
environmental issues that are not expected to have a potentially significant impact will
be identified in the Initial Study. The Initial Study will be included as an EIR Appen-
SF0548.21102551
2-3
-T32C
dix and will document why there is no impact. We anticipate that there would be a less
than significant impact of the project in the following areas:
• Noise
• Light and Glare
• Population
• Housing
• Cultural Resources
Identify Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially
significant impacts will be clearly identified. CH2M HILL will identify measures that
satisfy the following conditions:
• Measures implemented prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map
• Measures implemented prior to permit issuance
• Measures implemented during project construction
• Measures requiring ongoing monitoring
Prepare Mitigation Monitoring Program. As required by AB 3180, CH2M HILL will
prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program that identifies appropriate measures to miti-
gate significant impacts. Mitigation measures will be clearly identified in a table within
the Summary section of the Draft EIR, along with the agency responsible for imple-
menting the mitigation and the timing of the implementation. This format will enable
the City to use the EIR Summary Table to monitor implementation of mitigation mea-
sures. Project impacts not considered significant or not requiring mitigation will also be
identified.
Analyze Alternatives. The three project alternatives identified in Task 3 will be asses-
sed and compared to the proposed project at a level of detail appropriate to the char-
acteristics of the alternatives. The alternatives analysis will include a discussion of the
No -Project alternative.
Prepare Other CEQA Mandated Topics. This section will address other issues defined
in CEOA Article 9, Section 15126 (e), (f), and (g), including:
• The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and
maintaining and enhancing long-term productivity
• Irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the pro-
posed project should it be implemented
• Growth -inducing impacts
• Organizations and persons consulted
• Cumulative impacts
SF054UA02551
2-4
17 7S
Task 5 --Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
Based upon the results of the environmental analysis conducted in Task 4, CH2M
HILL will prepare and deliver five copies of the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR) to
City Staff for review and comment. Upon receipt of the ADEIR, City Staff will com-
plete a review of the document. The CH2M HILL project manager and appropriate
technical staff will meet with City Staff to discuss the review comments and any project
revisions.
PRODUCT Five Copies of the ADEIR
Task 6 --Prepare Draft EIR
CH2M HILL will prepare a Draft EIR (DEIR) based on City Staff comments. CH2M
HILL will deliver one camera-ready original and 75 copies of the DEIR to the City.
CH2M HILL will also attend one neighborhood meeting and one public meeting some-
time during the 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR.
PRODUCT.- One Camera -Ready Original and 75 Copies of the DEIR
PHASE 4: PREPARE FINAL EIR
Task 7 --Prepare Administrative Final EIR
CH2M HILL will review and analyze all written and verbal comments of the DEIR by
agencies and the public -at -large and will meet with City Staff to discuss these com-
ments. CH2M HILL will then prepare and deliver the Administrative Final EIR for
City Staff review and comment.
PRODUCT Administrative Final EIR (Number of Copies To Be Determined)
Task 8 --Prepare Final EIR
Following review and comment by City Staff, the Final EIR will be prepared and sub-
mitted to the City for City Council and Planning Commission approval and certification.
CH2M HILL will attend the public meeting(s) before the City Council and Planning
Commission.
PRODUCT Final EIR (Number of Copies To Be Determined)
sF0548 ^.110'.5.51
2-5
// q36
TECHNICAL METHODOLOGIES
Y
The following technical methodologies describe CH2M HILL'S proposed scope of work
for evaluating the potentially significant issues we plan to address in the Shoreline Busi-
ness Park Initial Study and EIR.
PLAN REVIEW
The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael and
will involve a series of discretionary actions, including a Zone Change, Tentative and
Final Subdivision, Use Permit, and Design Review Permit. Because the project site
includes a closed Class II landfill, it has been subject to conditions of the Solid Waste
Facility Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Other local and
regional agencies with jurisdiction on this site include the Bay Conservation and Devel-
opment Commission, Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, and
the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The following steps will be taken
to evaluate the project's consistency with both local and regional plans and policies:
• Review the applicable plans, policies, objectives, and requirements of the
City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, City Zoning Ordinance, City Sub-
division Ordinance, and other local and regional plans and policies, in-
cluding the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan and San Rafael Shore-
line Park Master Plan.
• Compare the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 and other applicable
regional policies with the proposed project and prepare a table identify-
ing and discussing policy consistency.
• Compare the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance, Use Permit, and Design Review Permit with the proposed
project, evaluate their consistency, and identify potential conflicts.
• Identify any approved or foreseeable plans for future development on
adjacent or nearby properties in consultation with City Staff.
• Discuss appropriate measures to enhance the compatibility of the pro-
posed project with local and regional policies, including both changes to
the project and/or amendments to plans and policies.
SOILS/GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
An understanding of the geologic conditions at the project site is important because the
proposed Shoreline Business Park development will be constructed on top of a closed
landfill located in a former tideland area underlain by about 80 feet of soft bay mud.
These conditions will have a potentially significant effect on the design and construction
SF0548.21102531
2-6
methods used for the project. Because the site is situated in a seismically active area,.
seismic hazards such as fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence,
tsunamis, and ground spreading could be of concern. We assume that existing reports
concerning the project site will contain the necessary data that will be needed to assess
existing geologic conditions and potential impacts. To assess the project's relation to
soils, geology, and seismicity, we will perform the following tasks:
• Review the available soils, geology, and geotechnical reports to character-
ize the site geological, seismological, hydrogeological, and geotechnical
setting. Documents to be reviewed include:
Geologic Hazards Report (HLA, October 16, 1979)
• Geotechnical Services During Closure (HLA, February 8, 1987)
Responses to Comments from the CWMB and the LEA (HLA,
May 28, 1987)
Other potential reports containing relevant information
• Review additional available information about the landfill to assess po-
tential environmental, regulatory, and permitting issues that may be relat-
ed to past solid waste disposal at the site.
• After review of relevant documents, identify significant data deficiencies,
if any.
• Based on information developed from the document review, identify
potential geologic impacts that could result from project development
due to the proposed design and/or construction methods.
HYDROLOGY/GRADING/DRAINAGE
Increased stormwater runoff resulting from project development could have a potential
impact on the adjacent stormwater retention pond and other adjacent wetlands. In
order to assess the proposed project's potential effects on hydrology, grading and drain-
age, we propose to perform the following tasks:
• Determine existing drainage patterns during a site visit and through eval-
uation of topographic maps.
• Estimate existing and post -project storm flows to determine potential
impacts on onsite and offsite drainages.
• Review proposed drainage and grading plans to determine the potential
impacts that increased storm flows may have on the existing adjacent
SF0543.21=5.51
2-7
.i
T
wetlands and other receiving waters. Impacts on the wetlands will be
addressed from a storm water runoff and flood control perspective and
will not involve seasonal flow analyses.
• Investigate qualitative changes in sedimentation and erosion during the
construction phase, qualitative changes in post -project water quality ex-
pected after project completion, and the qualitative effects of these chan-
ges on receiving waters. Review local grading ordinances as they apply to
potential mitigations during project construction.
• Investigate the status of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board's proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) storm water general permit for construction, along with
the expected impacts of the Board's actions on the proposed project.
WATER QUALITY
Because the project site includes a closed Class II landfill, we will evaluate potential
impacts to groundwater and surface water. Our assessment will focus on two aspects:
groundwater flow, and groundwater and surface water quality. Surface water flow,
including stormdrain runoff, will be addressed in the Hydrology/Grading/Drainage sec-
tion. We assume that existing reports concerning the landfill will contain the necessary
data and findings that will be needed to assess existing conditions and potential im-
pacts. The following steps will be taken to evaluate potential water quality issues:
• Describe the occurrence and flow of groundwater, the chemical quality of
the groundwater beneath and adjacent to the site, and the chemical quali-
ty of the adjacent surface water bodies. We will estimate local directions
and approximate rates of groundwater flow in the Bay mud, landfill de-
posits, and structural fill and describe existing groundwater and surface
water quality using data and findings from the following sources:
SF0548.211025.51
Amended Report of Disposal Site Information (HLA, August 11,
1986)
Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Report (water quality)
(HLA, February 12, 1988)
Site Assessment, Lots 2A and 213(HLA, February 10, 1988)
Site Assessment, Lots lA and 113(HLA, March 18, 1988)
Additional data from subsequent groundwater or surface water
monitoring at the site
Other potential reports containing relevant information
W.
• Summarize data in tables and a map.
• Estimate the maximum anticipated groundwater level using hydrographs
of water levels in monitoring wells. .
• Identify the actual and potential beneficial uses of the groundwater in the
vicinity of the site. Beneficial uses are typically stated by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the Waste Discharge Re-
quirements for landfills.
• Identify impacts associated with changes in the quantity or directions of
groundwater flow and degradation of groundwater and surface water
quality. Groundwater flow could be affected if seepage control measures
(ie: drains, cutoff walls) are used for the proposed project. Groundwater
and surface water quality could be affected by construction activity that
may cause releases of leachate from the landfill.
PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Several sensitive biological resources have been identified on the property immediately
adjacent to the proposed project site. These include: the northern coastal salt marsh
community bordering the north and northwestern portions of the lot proposed for de-
velopment; potential habitat for several special -status species including two endangered
species listed at the state and federal level, saltmarsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
raviventris) and California clapper rail (Rallcts loiigirostris obsoletus); and potential for
marsh endemic rare plants such as Marin knotweed (Polygonum marineltse) and Point
Reyes bird's beak (Cordylanthus marilimus ssp. paltcstris). Although these special -status
species are not known from the project site, the saltmarsh harvest mouse could poten-
tially use upland areas onsite.
Field
fomia
and literature surveys, as well as consultation with resource agencies, the Cali -
Native Plant Society (CNPS) and other local experts, will be conducted to evalu-
ate the potential occurrence of these sensitive species onsite and adjacent
Agencies and groups identified in the RFP that we will contact include:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Bay Conservation and Development Commission
• Department of Conservation
• Marin Audubon Society
• Marin Wildlife Center
to the site.
To evaluate the project's potential effects on plant and animal communities, CH2M
HILL will perform the following tasks:
sF0548.21 \025-5 l
2-9
15.1,W
• Review pertinent data concerning biological resources in the vicinity of
the project site, including the following: aerial photographs, topographic
maps and local environmental reports; vegetation and wildlife and other
field survey data; and records of occurrence of any special -status plants,
wildlife, and aquatic invertebrates, including the Natural Diversity Data
Base records. We assume that aerial photographs and project plans will
be provided prior to the field visits.
• Conduct field surveys to identify and map vegetation communities and
evaluate the potential occurrence of special -status species and habitats
onsite.
Wetland Habitats
• Evaluate the possible impacts of the project on channels, ponds, and
associated wetland vegetation. Identify potential wetland areas of Army
Corps of Engineer (COE) jurisdiction through Feld visits, review of cur-
rent and historic aerials of the site, National Wetland Inventory maps,
and Soil Conservation Service maps that cover the project site. It is
assumed that no seasonal wetlands occur onsite other than those that
may be associated with the drainage channel.
Wildlife Habitats
• Conduct an assessment of the potential for use of upland areas onsite by
the saltmarsh harvest mouse. The saltmarsh harvest mouse is known to
occur in the general vicinity of the project area (LSA, 1989 Shoreline
Park Negative Declaration). This endangered species, if present, may use
upland areas on the project site during tidal inundation and flooding of
the adjacent marsh lands. Trapping to determine the possible presence of
the saltmarsh harvest mouse is not included in this scope of work.
• Evaluate indirect offsite impacts to other wildlife species with special
status that use the adjacent saltmarsh community, such as the California
clapper rail, California black rail, saltmarsh wandering shrew, and the San
Pablo vole. This analysis will be based on existing information on offsite
resources. No new offsite surveys are included in this scope.
Special -status Species
• Review existing information concerning the distribution and abundance of
special -status species known to occur in the region. Evaluate the poten-
tial for occurrence of sensitive species onsite.
sF0548.211025s1 2-10
Agency Permit Requirements
• Determine the need for additional agency approvals such as a Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit and Corps of
Engineers Section 404 Permit, based on the likely extent of impacts on-
site. This scope of work does not include any permitting procedures.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
CH2M HILL will conduct a comprehensive traffic engineering study to evaluate the
impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system in the vicinity of
the project site, as well as internal circulation issues. CH2M HILL will contact Lloyd
Strom, Assistant Director of Public Works, and other appropriate City Staff to obtain
available information on existing and planned roadway and land use conditions. All
available data relating to historical, existing, and projected traffic volumes in the site
area will also be obtained. We will conduct the following tasks:
Traffic surveys and field reconnaissance
• Traffic generation characteristics of the proposed project
• Directional distribution of site -oriented traffic
Contact state and local officials to obtain available traffic volumes and
roadway data for existing and future years
• Develop the anticipated base traffic volumes
• Obtain data for other approved land development projects within the
study area of influence that could impact local traffic operations
• Traffic impact analysis
• Review the developed site plan relative to access
• Review the developed site plan relative to internal and offsite circulations
• Recommend necessary traffic and roadway improvements if required,
including the possible extension and connection of Kerner Boulevard.
• Coordinate with the City of San Rafael Public Works and Planning De-
partments
SF01r43.21102551
2-11
/ 7-g—W
Field Surveys
CH2M HILI. will conduct required field surveys to determine existing traffic
operations/characteristics and to identify existing traffic volumes and turning movements
on access roads in the study area. These surveys will be performed at key intersections
along the adjacent roadways to verify available traffic data, as well as provide an up-to-
date record of traffic volumes for typical peak periods. It assumes that the critical peak
hours will be during the weekday peak hour of highway operations and weekend peak
hour of site operations.
Any required manual turning movement traffic counting programs will be undertaken
on a typical peak weekday betwern 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. We currently expect that the
following 10 intersections, including the proposed site access drive, would need to be
evaluated:
• Bellam Boulevard/I-580 Onramp
• Bellam Boulevard/I-580 Offramp
• Bellam Boulevard/Francisco Boulevard
• Bellam Boulevard/Kerner Boulevard
• Kerner Boulevard/Irene Street
• Francisco Boulevard/Irene Street
• I-580 Offramp/San Quentin Terrace
• I-580 Onramp/San Quentin Terrace
• Francisco Boulevard/Shoreline Parkway
• Kerner Boulevard/Shoreline Parkway
If peak hours of operation at the proposed project are other than the above indicated
hours, we will adjust our field surveys and analyses time periods accordingly pursuant to
further consultation with appropriate City Staff.
Traffic Impact Analyses
Traffic impact analyses will be conducted to determine the magnitude of generated
traffic resulting from the development and to identify any problems which may result in
accommodating this traffic demand at key impact points in the study area and at the
proposed site access drives. Recommended workable solutions to these problems will
be incorporated in the overall planning for the project.
Generated daily and peak -hour traffic volumes of the site will be determined. Site
traffic will then be assigned to the local roadway network and its impact measured. In
this regard, an approach/departure distribution of site -oriented traffic will be deter-
mined by analyzing travel characteristics in the area.
Normal vehicular roadway traffic will be projected to the year when the proposed pro-
ject will be in full operation. Site traffic volumes and projected vehicular highway vol-
umes, including other approved but not yet operational developments, will be combined
SF0548.211025.51 2-12
o� A
and analyzed. A typical weekday and Saturday, when peak combined traffic volumes
are anticipated, will be utilized for our analysis.
We will estimate the capacity of the access roads, including the intersections which are
likely to be utilized by site traffic. These results will be compared to volume/capacity
relationships, indicating the degree of utilization of the roadway system under anticipat-
ed traffic conditions. The adequacy of the site access plan and impacted roadway sys-
tem will thus be determined for the design year roadway system under anticipated traf-
fic conditions. Geometric roadway constraints, such as horizontal and vertical align-
ment and land widths, sight distances, and safety standards will also be considered.
A circulation study will be conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the existing access
route and the proposed access plan. Based on these analyses, a site and functional
plan will be recommended. Analysis will indicate the impact of proposed development
on the adjacent roadways and types of improvements, if required, to accommodate the
projected additional traffic generated by the site.
AIR QUALITY
The proposed project could generate air pollutants in the short term during project
construction and indefinitely during project operations due to potential increases in
traffic. Potential odor impacts generated by onsite landfill gas will be addressed in the
Human Health and Safety section. In combination with existing sources of air pollu-
tion, additional air emissions may degrade local and regional air quality. We will con-
sult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to identify other
potential issues. To assess the project's potential effects on air quality, we will conduct
the following tasks:
SF0548.211025.51
Describe the environmental quality of the project site in relation to air
quality, including local and regional climate.
Using the CALINE-4 computer model, model carbon monoxide levels at
selected intersections affected by project -generated traffic. Compare pre-
dicted carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations with state and federal stan-
dards and determine the significance of CO based upon BAAQMD regu-
latory limits.
Using the URBEMIS-3 computer program, analyze regional changes in
emissions resulting from project traffic.
Evaluate the proposed project's conformance with local and regional air
quality plans, guidelines, and regulations, including the Bay Area Air
Quality Management Plan.
Identify potential construction impacts from equipment, vehicles, and
construction materials.
2-13
/513
• Discuss the cumulative impacts of the project in relation to other closely
related past, present, and future projects in the region.
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY
The presence of landfill gas at the project site represents a potential threat to the
health and safety of both temporary and permanent workers and visitors at the project
site. Future users of the adjacent Shoreline Park may also be exposed to potential
dangers associated with landfill gas. Landfill gas could also be currently affecting the
ambient air quality in the project area.
Landfill gas contains methane and trace amounts of toxic air contaminants. If buildings
on the project site are not adequately ventilated, landfill gas could migrate, accumulate
in the buildings, and lead to an accidental explosion. Landfill gas also poses a tempo-
rary threat to workers at the site during project construction if methane is accidentally
released during excavation activities. The following steps will be performed to assess
the existing and potential effects on human health resulting from development at the
project site:
• Review existing documents assessing the closed landfill to evaluate the
extent of landfill gas migration on- and offsite, the existing measures
taken to control this migration, and any evidence of odor problems.
Documents we will review include:
SF0548.21 WZ5.51
Response to Comments_ from the CWMB and the LEA (HLA,
May 28, 1987)
Request from Exemption from Regulation 8, Rule 34 (SQDS)
(July 9, 1987)
Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test (SWAT, Air) (HLA, July
29, 1987)
Monitorin Plan, Landfill Gas Monitoring Program (HLA, Octo-
ber 22, 19 7)
Site Assessment, Lots 2A and 2B (HLA, February 10, 1988)
Site Assessment, Lots 1A and 113 (HLA, March 18, 1988)
Site Safety Plan (HLA, revised July 27, 1987)
Other potential reports containing relevant information
2-14
• Consult with the State Department of Health Services and other appro-
priate agencies and groups to obtain further background information on
the project site.
• Review proposed building designs to assure that adequate ventilation is
included to prevent methane accumulation.
• Review and evaluate the Site Safety Plan to determine if the plan is ade-
quate to protect both temporary and permanent workers and visitors at
the site.
• Recommend measures, if necessary, to control and monitor the landfill
gas, such as an active control system and/or additional monitoring probes.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The project site is currently undeveloped and contains no public service or utility infra-
structure. Project development would require extension and/or expansion of public ser-
vices, including emergency services such as police and fire protection and ambulance
service, parks, and water and sewer service. The potential increased demand for these
services generated by project development could exceed the capacity of existing re-
sources, labor, and equipment. Appropriate agencies that service the project area,
including the City of San Rafael Departments of Public Works, Planning, Fire, Police,
and Recreation, the Marin Municipal Water District, and the San Rafael Sanitation D-
istrict will be contacted to evaluate the project's effect on public services. Our evalua-
tion will include the following tasks:
Emergency Services
Parks
• Identify the location and emergency response time of the local fire, po-
lice, and emergency (ie: ambulance) services responsible for serving the
project site.
• Project the demand for additional emergency service protection servicer
associated with development at the project site.
• Describe potential safety problems associated with the project, including
emergency access, and the potential for explosions resulting from the
accidental release of landfill gas.
• Determine the need for additional personnel and/or equipment necessary
in order to adequately serve the site.
• Determine the existing and proposed total acreage of parks in the project
area, including the adjacent Shoreline Park.
SF0548.211025.5 1
2-15
• Discuss the relationship of the project site and the lot deeded to the City
for use as a public park to the proposed uses of the adjacent Shoreline
Park.
• Identify any public access impacts to Shoreline Park resulting from pro-
ject development.
• Evaluate the relationship between the project's proposed public park and
the City's parkland dedication requirement.
Water Services
• Identify and describe existing water sources of the Marin Municipal
Water District in the project area.
• Qualitatively assess the water demands of the proposed project.
• Evaluate the capacity of the Marin Municipal Water District to meet
increased water demand generated by the proposed project.
• Describe the approval processes and methods for appropriating water.
• Identify water conservation measures for the project that could reduce
the amount of water consumed onsite.
Sanitary Sewers
• Describe the location, available capacity, and treatment system of the San
Rafael Sanitation District's existing wastewater services in the project
area.
• Estimate the amount of wastewater generated from the proposed land
uses at the project site and evaluate impacts of the proposed collection
system on existing wastewater services.
• Identify improvements necessary to service the project site.
AESTHETICS
Although the project site is currently vacant, it is located adjacent to the City's
Shoreline Park, which is to be developed as a major open space for pedestrian, bicycle,
and other low intensity recreational uses. The size and scale of the proposed retail,
light industrial, and office buildings at the project site, in comparison with the adjacent
Shoreline Park and the East San Rafael residential neighborhood to the northwest, are
a major visual concern. The provision of view corridors from the project site east to
San Rafael Bay and from Shoreline Park to Mt. Tamaipais to the west will also be
SF054&21WZ5.51
2-16
7 :7 -� l
considered and evaluated in the visual analysis. To assess the project's potential effects
on the visual environment, the following tasks will be conducted:
• Describe the existing visual character of the project site and the surroun-
ding project area in terms of development, location, structural type, and
natural and scenic qualities.
• Document with photographs the existing visual character of the project
site in terms of view corridors from the project site looking east toward
the Bay, and northwest toward the East San Rafael neighborhood, and
from Shoreline Park looking west toward Mt. Tamalpais.
• Discuss and assess the project's impacts on existing views from the identi-
fied view corridors.
• Review architectural and landscape plans for the proposed project, and
evaluate the project design in terms of color, materials, massing, architec-
tural style, and height.
• Discuss the aesthetic compatibility of the proposed project with the exist-
ing natural and undeveloped character of the surrounding project area.
• Compare the proposed project's design elements to any applicable City
design standards and/or guidelines, including the requirements of the
Design Review Permit.
• If appropriate, recommend design measures to enhance visual compatibil-
ity between the project and surrounding uses.
SFO548.',110SS 1
2-17
-23 1, 36
Section 3
SCHEDULE
The CH2M HILL project team can begin work on the Shoreline Business Park Initial
Study and EIR immediately upon contract approval. We propose to prepare the Initial
Study in a 3 -week period after contract approval and the project kickoff meeting. After
City Staff review of the Initial Study, CH2M HILL will scope the EIR for four weeks.
We will begin the scoping process during the 30 -day public review for the Initial Study
in order to incorporate public concerns on the project. After completing the EIR
scoping, we will prepare the Administrative Draft EIR in a 10 -week period. The
proposed schedule for completing the tasks identified in Section 2, Scope of Work,
including City Staff review is presented below and shown on Figure 3-1. Progress
reports tracking the schedule status will be included in our monthly invoices. The
schedule assumes that City Staff selects CH2M HILL and we receive authorization to
proceed work upon finalizing the contract on or about August 19, 1991.
Target Target
Commencement Completion
Event Date --1991 Date --1991
Contract Approval/
Kickoff Meeting August 19
CH2M HILL Prepares
Initial Study
August 26 September 16
City Reviews
Initial Study
September 16 September 30
30 Day Public Review
September 30 October 30
CH2M HILL Scopes
EIR
October 14 November 4
CH2M HILL Prepares
Project Descriptions/
Alternatives November 4 November 11
City Reviews
Project Description/
Alternatives November 11 November 25
SF054MIX074S1
3-1
sF054M1\024s1 3-2
.2,gag3r-
Target
Target
Commencement
Completion
Event
Date --1992
Date -1992
CH2M HILL Prepares
Admin. Draft EIR
November 4 (1991)
January 13
City Reviews
Admin. Draft EIR
January 13
January 27
CH2M HILL Prepares
Draft EIR
January 27
February 10
45 Day Public Review
February 10
March 26
CH2M HILL Prepares
Admin. Final EIR
March 26
April 16
City Reviews
Admin. Final EIR
April 16
April 30
CH2M HILL
Prepares Final EIR
April 30
May 14
sF054M1\024s1 3-2
.2,gag3r-
— N
Qf
T
ME
m
C.) Q
W W
=a D ?
ao
La
0
N
eLr
Qep
W W
r
D
=ZILx
s�°w
T
g
— N
Qf
T
ME
m
C.) Q
W W
=a D ?
ao
La
0
cc
W
G
(A —
r-
C4 J
Wo _¢
p `e c
zW a
C7 C.) a `o
!L !n m �"
7 U
m
m
C
O
t
N
N
m
O
LL
V
N
=
Qep
W a
D
r
s�°w
T
H
O
W C
C Z
�EL\
UiR
_Q
ci) N
AL
W
h
m L
o
e
cc
W
G
(A —
r-
C4 J
Wo _¢
p `e c
zW a
C7 C.) a `o
!L !n m �"
7 U
m
m
C
O
t
N
N
m
O
LL
V
Qep
In
W
er
W C
C Z
_Q
m L
e_Wepp
C
.d
r O
Q
Q
LL.
i
m
p`
a d
o
=
LLS
PI
cc
W
G
(A —
r-
C4 J
Wo _¢
p `e c
zW a
C7 C.) a `o
!L !n m �"
7 U
m
m
C
O
t
N
N
m
O
LL
V
Qep
In
W
er
W C
C Z
_Q
m L
e_Wepp
C
.d
r O
Q
Q
LL.
i
m
p`
a d
o
=
LLS
o Q
z W
—w
CL d
v C
m
W
m
L
m
_Q
YJ
z
0
m
9
M
¢
'f0
C
'
C
v
G v
n
n
d
�.
CL
G
-�
acs
Co
CL CL n
J J 2
#°
Q
a
a Q
d
JLu—�
U
U
Gi
c
N=
=
P
N¢
N
U Ub
U U(
U
�
S
U U
S
U
cc
W
G
(A —
r-
C4 J
Wo _¢
p `e c
zW a
C7 C.) a `o
!L !n m �"
7 U
m
m
C
O
t
N
N
m
O
LL
V
Section 4
PROJECT TEAM
PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION
Our team is a highly qualified group of planners, engineers, and environmental
scientists who can prepare all the necessary CEQA documents for this Initial Study and
EIR. All of our team members have worked on similar projects and have extensive
background in solid and hazardous waste projects, as well as preparing EIRs. Our
proposed assigned staff members are available full time for their respective project
tasks. Our project organization is shown on Figure 4-1. Brief biographies follow for
the key team members, and detailed resumes of all team members are in Appendix A.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CH2M HILL's work will be managed by Ann Millican. She will be responsible for
regular contact with the City of San Rafael and manage the activities of the project
team. She will supervise report preparation and the CEQA process documentation to
enable compliance with requirements and participate as CH2M HILL'S lead
representative at neighborhood and public meetings.
Ms. Millican brings 16 years of public and private sector planning experience to the
project and considerable talent in managing complex, controversial projects. She is
project manager for the Benecia Lead Remediation Initial Study which involves
assessing the environmental impacts associated with building on a site remediated for
lead contamination. She was formerly Planning Director of the City of South Lake
Tahoe and Community Development Director for the City of Lawndale. Ms. Millican
has direct project management experience in major development projects and planning
policies and is extremely well versed in CEQA as it applies to planning projects.
Dr. Jill Shapiro will act as senior consultant and provide senior review of the
document. She has managed more than 200 environmental studies under federal and
state environmental laws in the last 16 years. She brings to this project a depth of
experience in environmental analyses, hazardous and solid waste issues, and the
management of environmental studies.
Sharon Weinberg will coordinate and facilitate neighborhood meetings. Ms. Weinberg
is a community relations planner who is experienced .in implementing full-scale public
involvement programs for the private sector and government agencies. She has
extensive experience coordinating and facilitating public meetings, hearings, and
workshops and producing public information materials such as flyers and fact sheets.
SF0548%21%01151
4-1
-2;z: 93,;
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
CH2M HILL
PROJECT MANAGER
Ann Millican
INITIAL STUDY AND
EIR PREPARATION
.� PLAN REVIEW
Terry Babich
SOILS/GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
Richard Mitchell
— HYDROLOGY/GRADING/DRAINAGE
Mark Johnson
— WATER QUALITY
Tun Bray
Mike Concannon
-- PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Dr. Kathy Freas
Beth Hussey
TRANSPORTATIO WCIRCULATION
David Yazhari
AIR OUALITY
Candice Hatch
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY
Tom Kraemer
Susan Keydel
PUBLIC SERVICES
Connie Thoman
AESTHETICS
Terry Babich
—. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Terry Babich
SENIOR CONSULTANT
Dr. Jill Shapiro
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
FACILITATION
Sharon Weinberg
FIGURE 41
PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION
Shoreline Business Park Initial Study and EIR
City of San Rafael
C!r 'fPILL
}548.21
KEY TECHNICAL STAFF
Terry Babich will review the project plan and evaluate its consistency with the City of
San Rafael General Plan 2000, the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, as well as
regional policies. Ms. Babich will also be responsible for the aesthetics section of the
EIR. Ms. Babich specializes in land use and public service planning for environmental
documents. She has prepared visual and policy analyses for a variety of CEQA
documents. Ms. Babich also prepared technical sections for the City of Benecia Lead
Remediation Study which involves assessing the environmental impacts associated with
building on a site remediated for lead contamination.
Richard Mitchell will review existing geologic hazard and geotechnical reports prepared
for the project site and evaluate potential soils, geology, and seismicity impacts. Mr.
Mitchell is experienced in the management of geologic, solid waste, environmental, and
engineering projects. He has managed and prepared investigation of slope failures,
general geologic studies, and seismic risk assessments.
Mark Johnson will review existing drainage. and grading plans and analyze the
hydrological impacts of increased stormwater runoff on adjacent wetlands. Mr. Johnson
has extensive experience in managing master drainage plan projects and performing
hydrologic/hydraulic analyses for EIRs.
71m Bray will address potential impacts to groundwater and surface water quality. Mr.
Bray is a hydrogeologist with experience in hazardous waste site investigations, water
supply assessments, and municipal landfill siting and design. He has managed
numerous field programs and subsurface investigations for major groundwater remedial
investigations on feasibility studies. Mr. Bray has extensive experience in water quality
Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) work for municipal landfills.
Mike Concannon will address surface water quality issues. Mr. Concannon is a senior
environmental scientist who has managed numerous water quality studies and
environmental assessments. He specializes in water quality investigations related to
commercial and industrial siting, hazardous waste sites, and permitting projects.
Dr. Kathy Freas and Beth Hussey will be responsible for determining impacts on native
vegetation and habitats onsite and in the surrounding vicinity, including the storm water
retention pond, the 83 -acre seasonally flooded canalways property, and the Marin
Municipal Water District storage yard. Dr. Freas will recommend any appropriate
mitigation measures required. Dr. Freas has experience in the identification and
management of the biological factors that determine the survival of endangered plant
and mammal species. She has participated in the production of several EIRs, including
assessing the impacts of residential and industrial development on native flora and
fauna.
SF05481211011.51
43
.29, cf.36
Beth Hussey will be responsible for determining the impacts on adjacent wetlands from
the proposed project. Ms. Hussey is an environmental scientist specializing in coastal
and wetland ecology, including wetlands and waters delineation, management, and
permitting. She is experienced with CEQA procedures and has participated as a
technical writer and/or manager for various environmental impact analyses.
David Yazhari will address offsite and internal circulation transportation issues and
evaluate the possible need for extension and connection of Kerner Boulevard. Mr.
Yazhari has over 16 years of diversified transportation engineering experience in
planning, design, and operation of transportation systems and facilities. He has been
project manager for numerous traffic impact studies for residential, commercial, and
industrial developments, both in t} a Bay Area and throughout the U.S.
Candice Hatch will be responsible for air quality issues including landfill gas odors. She
is an environmental engineer with experience in air quality and hazardous waste
assessments. Ms. Hatch has prepared air quality sections for environmental documents
for a variety of sources. She has evaluated solid waste landfills, transportation projects,
and commercial and industrial developments under national and individual state
environmental requirements.
Tom Kraemer and Susan Keydel will be responsible for analyzing the potential
presence and extent of landfill gas at and surrounding the project site and its related
human health and safety impacts. Tom Kraemer will be responsible for analyzing the
potential presence and extent of landfill gas onsite and in the surrounding vicinity. Mr.
Kraemer is an environmental engineer with experience in the design, development,
closure, and remediation of solid waste landfills. He is an expert in designing gas
collection and control systems and has designed numerous systems throughout the
United States. Ms. Keydel is an environmental scientist and toxicologist with
experience in human health and environmental risk assessments. She specializes in fate
and transport of chemicals in soil, air, and water, and toxicity of chemicals to humans,
wildlife, and vegetation.
Connie Thoman will be responsible for public service issues. She will evaluate potential
water and sewer needs to serve the project as well as emergency services and impacts
on parklands. Ms. Thoman is an environmental planner with a variety of experience in
environmental science, planning, and community relations. She is familiar with CEQA
requirements and has experience in land use and public service planning for the
preparation of environmental documents.
SF054=lwl lsl
4-4
-:2 A n- -�i
Section 5
COST
COST PROPOSAL
CH2M HILL's estimated costs for the four phases of the proposed project are:
• Phase 1: Prepare Initial Study $26,000
• Phase 2: Prepare Scope of Work for EIR $ 4,200
• Phase 3: Prepare Draft EIR $56,500
• Phase 4: Prepare Final EIR $ 9,500
TOTAL COST $96,200
The estimated price of the Final EIR assumes no more than 68 hours of technical and
support service efforts will be required to respond to public and agency comments on
the Draft EIR. A cost summary for the four project phases is shown in Table 5-1, Cost
Proposal. Project phase subtotals include expenses and other costs itemized in Ta-
ble 5-2, Itemized Expenses and Other Costs. Costs listed in Table 5-2 cover all four
phases of the project, and include word processing and graphics, reproduction, meeting
attendance, and other expenses. Table 5-3, Itemized Labor Hours and Rates, lists each
task and indicates hours and labor rates for each member of the proposed project
team.
COST ASSUMPTIONS
CH2M HILL proposed scope of work, schedule, and cost proposal are based upon the
following assumptions:
• The City of San Rafael will be the Lead Agency and will provide the
project's distribution mailing list. CH2M HILL will distribute the Initial
Study and NOP, and Draft EIR to the appropriate agencies.
• All project plans and technical reports, studies, plans, and other docu-
ments assessing the former landfill site and listed in Attachment A of the
RFP are technically correct and at an adequate level of detail to analyze
environmental impacts.
• Data will be available through the City and other public sources. No new
data or testing will be required for purposes of the Initial Study and EIR
analysis.
SFOS4&211012.51
5-1
30 rg 36
Table 5-1
Cost Proposal
PHASE 1: PREPARE INITIAL STUDY
Task 1 --Initial Study
PHASE 1 SUBTOTAL:
PHASE 2:PREPARE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE EIR
Task 2--EIR Scope of Work
PHASE 2 SUBTOTAL:
PHASE 3: PREPARE DRAFT EIR
Task 3 --Project Description and Alternatives
i
Task 4 --Environmental Analysis
Technical Sections
• Plan Review
$ 1,200
• Soils/Geology/Seismicity
3,000
• Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
5,300
• Water Quality
3,000
• Plant and Animal Communities
6,300
• Transportation/Circulation
13,000
• Air Quality
4,400
• Human Health and Safety
3,000
• Public Services
1,800
• Aesthetics
1,200
Task 5 --Administrative Draft EIR
Task 6 --Draft EIR
PHASE 4: PREPARE FINAL EIR
TASK 7 --Administrative Final EIR
(Assumes technical hours of effort)
TASK 8 --Final EIR
SF0548.211021 S 1
5-2
PHASE 3 SUBTOTAL:
PHASE 4 SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL COST:
$26,000
$26,000
$4,200
$4,200
$ 1,500
$42,200
$ 7,500
$ 5,300
$56,500
$8,000
$1,500
$9,500
$96,200
Z q 36
Table 5.2
Itemized Expenses and Other Costs
Word Processing and Graphics
Reproduction
• 5 Copies of the ADEIR
• One Camera -Ready Original and
75 Copies of the DEIR
Meeting Attendance
• 2 Neighborhood Meetings
• 4 Public Meetings
• 4 Project Meetings
Expenses*
SUBTOTAL:
*Including transportation, computer, word processing equipment, copying,
communications, supplies, and other expenses.
SF0548.211022.51
5-3
$ 4,200
$ 100
1,700
$ 2,000
1,400
1,400
$ 2,000
$12,800
3:14 .3(-
Table 5-3
Itemized Labor Hours and
Rates
Project Team
1991
Estimated
Member
Labor Rate*
Labor Hours
Millican
$ 91.25
118
Shapiro
138.00
8
Weinberg
64.75
28
Babich
54.75
116
Mitchell
91.25
92
Johnson
91.25
94
Bray
91.25
60
Concannon
104.25
54
Freas
79.50
58
Hussey
64.75
72
Yazhari
104.25
165
Hatch
91.25
60
Kraemer
79.50
68
Keydel
64.25
20
Thoman (
54.75
40
rates are an average hourly per diem and are subject
I*These
to change December 25.
1991.
SF0548.211022.51
5-3
$ 4,200
$ 100
1,700
$ 2,000
1,400
1,400
$ 2,000
$12,800
3:14 .3(-
• The project description and alternatives will not be substantially changed
as a result of City Staff review of the ADEIR.
• Public meeting attendance by CH2M HILL after two neighborhood
meetings and four public meetings before the City Council and Planning
Commission will be at the request of City Staff and will be charged on a
time -and -expense basis.
• The estimated cost of the Draft and Final EIR can be adjusted after
circulation of the Notice of Preparation, preparation of the Scope of
Work for the EIR, and public review on the Draft EIR. Any cost adjust-
ments will require the approval of the Planning Department based on
additional tasks not identified in this proposal.
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST,
WORK INTERESTS, AND INSURANCE
CH2M HILL will file a Statement of Economic Interest before finalizing a contract
with the City. We have no ongoing work interests with the project applicant or other
parties of interest. CH2M HILL will provide and maintain for the duration of the
contract the following types of insurance:
• General Liability in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bod-
ily injury, personal injury, and property damage
• Automobile Liability in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage
• Worker's Compensation Insurance
• Errors and Omissions Liability in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per occur-
rence
OPTIONAL TASKS
PHOTOMONTAGE
Prepare a photomontage to support the visual im-
pact analysis showing before and after views of the
project site from up to four locations (see
Appendix B, Sample Photomontage).
sFosas.ztwiut 5-4
Cost
$750
TRAFFIC MODELLING
Perform traffic modelling to support the transporta-
tion analysis using the City's existing model. This
task assumes that we will not have to change or
upgrade the traffic model.
SF0548 2I W12-51 5-5
3.!F-5 36
A copy of the original proposal which includes Section 6 and
Appendices A, B and C are available for review in the .City Clerk's office.
;6J7 -;�5
Revised Table S.
Cost Proposal
PHASE 1: PREPARE INITIAL STUDY
Task 1—Initial Study
i
$3,400
Technical Sections
$22,600
• Soils/Geology/Seismicity
$ 4,300
• Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
2,200
• Water Quality
6,200
• Plant and Animal Communities 2,000
• Transportation/Circulation
2,800
• Air Quality
500
• Human Health and Safety
2,800
• Public Services
500
• Aesthetics
500
• Other Sections
800
PHASE 1 SUBTOTAL:
$26,000
PHASE 2:PREPARE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE EIR
Task 2--EIR Scope of Work
$4,200
PHASE 2 SUBTOTAL:
$4.200
PHASE 3: PREPARE DRAFT EIR
Task 3 --Project Description and Alternatives
$ 1.500
Task 4 --Environmental Analysis
$47,950
Technical Sections
• Plan Review
$ 1,200
• Soils/Geology/Seismicity
3,000
• Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
5,300
• Water Quality
3,000
• Plant and Animal Communities 6,300
• Transportation/Circulation
13,000
• Air Quality
4,400
• Human Health and Safety
3,000
• Public Services
1,800
• Aesthetics
1,200
• Photomontage
750
• Traffic Modelling
5,000
Task 5—Administrative Draft EIR
$ 7,500
Task 6 --Draft EIR
$ 5,300
PHASE 3 SUBTOTAL:
$62,250
PHASE 4: PREPARE FINAL EIR
TASK 7 --Administrative Final EIR
(Assumes 68 technical hours of effort)
$8.000
TASK 8 --Final EIR (Assumed 16 technical hours of effort)
$1,500
PHASE 4 SUBTOTAL:
$9,500
TOTAL COST: $101,950
Including noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset,
population, housing, energy, utilities, recreation, and cultural resources.
FILE NUMBER:
SF0548.21\02.8.51
TITLE: �rncx�Iytt�x�s 7v ;D,P P6LAz
EXHIBIT.- �' 1
02x / q -;
INITIAL STUDY TECHNICAL SECTIONS
COST JUSTIFICATION
Many technical sections of the Initial Study will use the existing documents detailed
in Attachment A of the Request for Proposals to review and assess existing
environmental conditions and evaluate potential impacts from the proposed project.
Technical sections that will heavily rely upon this information include:
• Soils/Geology/Seismicity
• Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
• Water Quality
• Human Health and Safety
The estimated costs for these technical sections reflects document review and
analysis. The conclusions reached from this document review will determine the
scope of work for the EIR, to be prepared during Phase 2 of the project. It is
assumed that all project plans and technical reports, studies, plans, and other
documents assessing the project site are technically correct and at an adequate level
of detail to analyze environmental impacts.
In addition to those technical sections listed above, other sections, including plant
and animal communities and aesthetics, will require a field visit during preparation
of the Initial Study to document existing site conditions. This field visit will provide
information on existing drainage patterns, vegetation and wildlife habitat, and views.
The labor effort involved to visit the site is included in Revised Table 5-1, as well as
Revised Table 5-3, Itemized Labor Hours and Rates for Project Tasks.
Those sections that will not require extensive document review to prepare the Initial
Study are air quality, public services, aesthetics, and other environmental elements,
including noise, light and glare, land use, natural resources, risk of upset,
population, housing, energy, utilities, recreation, and cultural resources. These
sections will qualitatively assess existing and expected conditions at the project site
as a result of the proposed development. In addition, consultation with local and
regional agencies, groups, and individuals will commence during this phase and will
be incorporated into the Initial Study analyses.
a
Pa- Se- 3Q3
Scope of Work
Shoreline Business Park EIR
May 26, 1992
Work Program
This Work Program describes the tasks and technical methodologies to prepare the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed Shoreline Business Park. Our
remaining scope of work is divided into two phases:
• Phase 3: Prepare Draft EIR (Tasks 3 through 6)
• Phase 4: Prepare Final EIR (Tasks 7 and S)
Phase 4 work will be evaluated at the end of Phase 3, following receipt of comments on
the Draft EIR. A description of tasks to be undertaken during each phase is described
in detail below.
Phase 3: Prepare Draft EIR
Task 3 -Prepare Project Description and Alternatives
A project description will be prepared based on information from the City and Cal -Pox,
Inc. for the Home Depot project site. A detailed description of the development
which could take place on the remaining sites will be based on the Master Plan for the
entire project plus a combination of the worst-case scenarios for each environmental
topic. This description will serve as the proposed project on the remaining sites. If the
worst-case scenarios for technical sections are added together, the description will
probably not be internally consistent. For example, the worst-case scenario for visual
impacts would be a tall building with internal parking and low lot coverage. The worst-
case scenario for drainage would be very high lot coverage. The worst-case scenario
for biological resources may be locating the parking lot next to potential saltmarsh
harvest mouse habitat. A combination of these worst-case scenarios would be a tall
building with a large parking lot in back of the building. This is probably not a
reasonable scenario. As a result, the worst-case scenario assumptions for each
technical section will need to be balanced to create the proposed project for the
remaining sites. Following input from technical team members on the worst-case
scenario for each technical section, the worst-case scenario for the proposed project on
the remaining sites will be developed in consultation with City Staff.
As required by CEQA, the project description will contain the following sections:
project location; project history; project characteristics; implementation schedule; pro-
ject sponsor objectives; and required public agency actions. The project history section
will contain the full history of the site as a Class III landfill, including the types of
materials dumped and other relevant information. A description of a three project
_ SF032727\BB\005.51 +T , T
FILE NUMBER: Z?O -S
1
TITLE. rQP u Sec+ SLo a ►N ng�
G
EXH/BI T:
�Ga.� lab 31
alternatives, including the No -Project alternative and one alternative site, will be
prepared based on consultation with City Staff. One alternative site will be assessed
because of the very limited availability of other suitable sites in the City. The draft
project description and alternatives will be submitted to City Staff for review. Although
not required by CEQA, sign -off of the project description and alternatives by the City
will ensure that the City and EIR consultant have an accurate understanding of the
project before conducting the technical analyses. The revised project description and
alternatives will be included in the Administrative Draft EIR.
PRODUCT.- Draft Project Description and Alternatives (S copies)
Task 4—Conduct Environmental Analysis
Prepare Environmental Setting. Information on the existing environmental setting is
available from the existing technical reports and investigations addressing landfill clo-
sure, soil, gas, and groundwater assessments, and other regulatory mandates prepared
for the project site. These documents have been reviewed and assessed for the Initial
Study. Additional research will be conducted, as described in the technical methodolo-
gies section, to acquire necessary background information to complete the environmen-
tal setting.
Conduct Environmental Impact Analyses. The EIR consultant will examine the effects
of the proposed project on all aspects of the physical, natural, and human environment.
The three project alternatives will be assessed qualitatively and compared with the
proposed project, as noted on page 3 under "Analyze Alternatives. Based on
discussions with City Staff and the Initial Study, the EIR will focus on the following
environmental issues:
• Plan Review
• Soils/Geology/Seismicity
• Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
• Water Quality
• Plant and Animal Communities
• Transportation/Circulation
• Air Quality
• Human Health and Safety and Landfill Gas
• Public Services
• Aesthetics
Because site plans and elevations are not available for sites other than the Home De-
pot site, the impact analysis will be presented in two levels:
• Home Depot site—Project Level impact analysis
• Remaining sites—Worst-Case Scenario impact analysis
SF032727\BB\005.51 2 %3/
The EIR will provide the environmental analyses required for Home Depot, since the
site plans and other supporting plans are available. For the remaining sites the impact
analysis will be based on the worst-case scenario developed in Task 3. When detailed
plans for the remaining sites are submitted to the City for . review, they will be com-
pared to worst-case scenario assumptions in the EIR. If the plans fall within these
assumptions, no further environmental review would be required. If elements of the
project are not consistent with the worst-case scenario, additional project -specific envi-
ronmental review would be required.
Information from technical reports and investigations will be incorporated into the
impact analyses. Analyses will be conducted as defined in the proposed methodologies
described in the following section.
Environmental Issues That Are Less Than Significant. Based on the Initial Study,
several environmental issues would not have a potentially significant impact. The Initial
Study will be included as an EIR Appendix and will document why there is no impact.
There would be a less than significant impact of the project in the following areas:
• Noise
• Land Use
• Natural Resources
• Housing
• Population
• Energy
• Cultural Resources
Identify Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially
significant impacts will be clearly identified. Measures that satisfy the following condi-
tions will be identified:
• Measures implemented before recordation of the Final Subdivision Map
• Measures implemented before issuance of the building permit
• Measures implemented during project construction
• Measures requiring ongoing monitoring
Prepare Mitigation Monitoring Program. As required by AB 3180, A Mitigation Mon-
itoring Program will be prepared that identifies appropriate measures to mitigate signif-
icant impacts. Mitigation measures will be clearly identified in a table within the
Summary section of the Draft EIR, along with the agency responsible for implementing
the mitigation and the timing of the implementation. This format will enable the City
to use the EIR Summary Table to monitor implementation of mitigation measures.
Project impacts not considered significant or not requiring mitigation will also be identi-
fied.
SF032727M\005-51 3 11,
Analyze Alternatives. The three project alternatives identified in Task 3 will be
qualitatively assessed and compared to the proposed project. The alternatives analysis
will include a discussion of the No -Project alternative.
Prepare Other CEQA Mandated Topics. This section will address other issues for a
project EIR defined in CEQA Article 9, Section 15126 including growth -inducing im-
pacts, organizations and persons consulted, and cumulative impacts.
Task 5—Prepare Administrative Draft EIR
Based upon the results of the environmental analysis conducted in Task 4, the EIR
consultant will prepare and deliver five copies of the Administrative Draft EIR (ADEI-
R) to City Staff for review and comment. Upon receipt of the ADEIR, City Staff will
complete a review of the document. The EIR project manager and one additional
technical project team member, as appropriate, will meet with City Staff to discuss the
review comments and any project revisions.
PRODUCT.- Five Copies of the ADEIR
Task 6—Prepare Draft EIR
The EIR consultant will prepare a Draft EIR (DEIR) based on City Staff comments.
One camera-ready original and 75 copies of the DEIR will be delivered to the City.
The project manager plus one technical project team member will also attend one pub-
lic meeting sometime during the 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR.
PRODUCT.- One Camera -Ready Original and 75 Copies of the DEIR
Phase 4: Prepare Final EIR
Task 7 --Prepare Administrative Final EIR
The EIR consultant will review and analyze all written and verbal comments on the
DEIR by agencies and the public -at -large and will meet with City Staff to discuss these
comments. A revised estimate of the cost to prepare the Final EIR will be provided.
The Administrative Final EIR will be prepared and delivered for City Staff review and
comment.
PRODUCT.- Administrative Ficial EIR (5 copies)
Task 8 -Prepare Final EIR
Following review and comment by City Staff, the Final EIR will be prepared and sub-
mitted to the City for City Council and Planning Commission approval and certification.
SF032727\BB\005.51 4 1 -j/
The project manager and one technical project team member will attend the public
meeting(s) before the City Council and/or Planning Commission.
PRODUCT.- One camera-ready original of the Final EIR
Technical Methodologies
The following technical methodologies describe the EIR consultant's proposed scope of
work for evaluating the potentially significant issues in the Shoreline Business Park
EIR.
Plan Review
The following steps will be taken to evaluate the project's consistency with both local
and regional plans and policies:
• Review the applicable plans, policies, objectives, and requirements of the
City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, City Zoning Ordinance, City Sub-
division Ordinance, and other local and regional plans and policies, in-
cluding the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan and San Rafael Shore-
line Park Master Plan. Regional plans and policies applicable to
technical sections other than land use will be addressed in the
appropriate section. For example, consistency with Bay Area Air Quality
Management District regulations will be addressed in the Air Quality
section as stated in the scope of work for that section.
• Compare the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 and other applicable
regional policies with the proposed project and prepare a table identify-
ing and discussing policy consistency.
• Compare the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Ordinance, Use Permit, and Design Review Permit with the proposed
project, evaluate their consistency, and identify potential conflicts. City
Staff will also do a detailed plan review when the project is submitted for
plan review after the EIR is certified.
• Identify any approved or foreseeable plans for future development on
adjacent or nearby properties in consultation with City Staff.
• Discuss appropriate measures to enhance the compatibility of the pro-
posed project with local and regional policies, including both changes to
the project and/or amendments to plans and policies.
SF032727\BB\005.51 5 6� 31
Soils/Geology/Seismicity
An understanding of the geologic conditions at the project site is important because the
proposed Shoreline Business Park development will be constructed on top of a closed
landfill located in a former tideland area underlain by about 80 feet of soft bay mud.
These conditions will have a potentially significant effect on the design and construction
methods used for the project. Because the site is situated in a seismically active area,
seismic hazards such as fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence,
tsunamis, and ground spreading could be of concern. Existing reports will be used to
assess existing geologic conditions and potential impacts. To assess the project's relation
to soils, geology, and seismicity, we will perform the following tasks:
• Review the available soils, geology, and geotechnical reports to character-
ize the site geological, seismological, hydrogeological, and geotechnical
setting. Documents to be reviewed include:
Geologic Hazards Report (HLA, October 16, 1979)
Geotechnical Services During Closure (HLA, February 8, 1987)
Responses to Comments from the CWMB and the LEA (HLA,
May 28, 1987)
Other potential reports containing relevant information, as listed
in Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Review additional available information about the landfill to assess po-
tential environmental, regulatory, and permitting issues that may be relat-
ed to past solid waste disposal at the site.
• After review of relevant documents, identify significant data deficiencies,
if any.
• Based on information developed from the document review, identify
potential geologic impacts that could result from project development
because of the proposed design and/or construction methods.
• Develop mitigation measures for the proposed project, including
construction, to address seismic and geotechnical constraints.
Hydrology/Grading/Drainage
Increased stormwater runoff resulting from project development could have a potential
impact on the adjacent stormwater retention pond and other adjacent wetlands. In
S17032727\1313\005.51 6 13/
order to assess the proposed project's potential effects on hydrology, grading and drain-
age, we propose to perform the following tasks:
• Determine existing drainage patterns during a site visit and through eval-
uation of topographic maps.
• Estimate existing and post -project storm flows for the worst-case scenario
to determine potential impacts on onsite and offsite receiving waters.
• Review proposed grading and drainage plans to determine the potential
impacts that increased storm flows may have on the existing adjacent
wetlands and other receiving waters. Impacts on the wetlands will be
addressed from a stormwater runoff and flood control perspective and
will not involve seasonal flow analyses.
• The project site is shown on the 1986 Flood Emergency Management
Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps as being within the 100 -year flood-
plain. However, the site elevations are currently above the 100 -year
floodplain elevation. Investigate whether site settlement will place the
site below the 100 -year floodplain elevation. Investigate the status of the
FEMA Letter of Map Revision which would document the site's removal
from the floodplain.
• Investigate the relationship between project drainage and landfill drain-
age requirements.
• Investigate qualitative changes in sedimentation and erosion during the
construction phase and the qualitative effects of these changes on receiv-
ing waters. Review local grading ordinances as they apply to potential
mitigations during project construction.
• Investigate the status of the State Water Resources Control Board's pro-
posed NPDES stormwater general permit for construction. The expected
requirements for permit content will be outlined.
Water Quality
Because the project site includes a closed Class III landfill, we will evaluate potential
impacts to groundwater and surface water. Our assessment will focus on two aspects:
groundwater flow, and groundwater and surface water quality. Surface water flow,
including stormdrain runoff, will be addressed in the Hydrology/Grading/Drainage sec-
tion. The existing reports concerning the landfill appear to contain the necessary data
S17032727M\005 51 7 b"
and findings that will be needed to assess existing conditions and potential impacts.
The following steps will be taken to evaluate potential water quality issues:
• Describe the occurrence and flow of groundwater, the chemical quality of
the groundwater beneath and adjacent to the site, and the chemical quali-
ty of the adjacent surface water bodies. We will estimate local directions
and approximate rates of groundwater flow in the Bay mud, landfill de-
posits, and structural fill and describe existing groundwater and surface
water quality using data and findings from the following sources:
Amended Report of Disposal Site Information (HLA, August 11,
1986)
Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Report (water quality)
(HLA, February 12, 1988)
- Site Assessment, Lots 2A and 2B (HLA, February 10, 1988)
Site Assessment, Lots 1A and 1B (HLA, March 18, 1988)
Additional data from subsequent groundwater or surface water
monitoring at the site
Other potential reports containing relevant information, as listed
in Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Summarize data in tables and a map.
• Estimate the maximum anticipated groundwater level using hydrographs
of water levels in monitoring wells.
• Identify the actual and potential beneficial uses of the groundwater in the
vicinity of the site. Beneficial uses are typically stated by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the Waste Discharge Re-
quirements for landfills.
• Assess the potential for increased groundwater flows into the landfill
owing to the weight of buildings and increased consolidation of bay mud,
which may create more leachate in the landfill.
• Identify impacts associated with changes in the quantity or directions of
groundwater flow and degradation of groundwater and surface water
quality. Groundwater flow could be affected if seepage control measures
(ie: drains, cutoff walls) are used for the proposed project. Groundwater
and surface water quality could be affected by construction activity that
may cause releases of leachate from the landfill.
SF032727\BB\005.51 8 131
Plant and Animal Communities
Several sensitive biological resources have been identified on the property immediately
adjacent to the proposed project site. These include: the northern coastal salt marsh
community bordering the north and northwestern portions of the lot proposed for de-
velopment; potential habitat for several special -status species including two endangered
species listed at the state and federal level, saltmarsh harvest mouse (Reithrodauomys
raviventris raviventris), and California clapper rail (Rallers longirostris obsoletus); and
potential for marsh endemic rare plants such as Marin knotweed (Polygonum marinelt-
se) and Point Reyes bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris). Although these
special -status species are not known from the project site, the saltmarsh harvest mouse
could potentially use upland areas onsite.
Field and literature surveys, as well as consultation with resource agencies, the Cali-
fornia Native Plant Society (CNPS) and other local experts, will be conducted to evalu-
ate the potential occurrence of these sensitive species onsite and adjacent to the site.
Agencies and groups identified in the RFP that we will contact include:
• California Department of Fish and Game
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Bay Conservation and Development Commission
• Department of Conservation
• Marin Audubon Society
• Marin Wildlife Center
To evaluate the project's potential effects on plant and animal communities, CH2M
HILL will perform the following tasks:
• Review pertinent data concerning biological resources in the vicinity of
the project site, including the following: aerial photographs, topographic
maps, and local environmental reports; vegetation and wildlife and other
field survey data; and records of occurrence of any special -status plants,
wildlife, and aquatic invertebrates, including the Natural Diversity Data
Base records. We assume that aerial photographs and project plans that
indicate precise project boundaries on a topographic map will be provid-
ed before the impact analysis.
• Conduct field surveys to identify and map vegetation communities and
evaluate the potential occurrence of special -status species and habitats
onsite.
SFO32727\BB\005.51 9 �)
5
Wildlife Habitats
• Conduct an assessment of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the
project to wildlife species expected to occur within the Shoreline Business
Park property and in the surrounding areas. A description of the activi-
ties needed to assess potential impacts to special -status species, and for
the salt marsh harvest mouse specifically, are described below.
Special -Status Species
• Review existing information concerning the distribution and abundance of
special -status species known to occur in the region. Evaluate the poten-
tial for occurrence of sensitive species onsite.
• Evaluate indirect offsite impacts to other wildlife species with special
status that use the adjacent salt marsh community, such as the California
clapper rail, California black rail, saltmarsh wandering shrew, and the
San Pablo vole. This analysis will be based on existing information on
offsite resources. No new offsite surveys are included in this scope.
Saltmarsh Harvest Mouse
The saltmarsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris) is known to
occur in the vicinity of the project area (LSA, 1989 Shoreline Park Negative
Declaration). This endangered species, if present, may use upland areas on the project
site during tidal inundation and flooding of the adjacent marsh lands.
The 1983 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Types Map included in the 1984 Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Canalways City of San Rafael Project shows
approximately 40 percent of the marsh area north of the project site as seasonal
mudflat which supports little vegetation. Inspection of the site on November 13, 1991,
revealed that approximately one-half of this mudflat area has been colonized by
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), which now occurs in high densities, increasing the
amount of habitat in the marsh area immediately adjacent to the project site for the
saltmarsh harvest mouse, an endangered species.
In 1982 Howard Shellhammer found the saltmarsh harvest mouse in the marsh at the
end of Kerner Boulevard. This marsh was at that time heavily vegetated with
pickleweed and was adjacent to upland habitat. In 1983 the area immediately adjacent
to the north side of the proposed Shoreline Business Park was trapped again by Mr.
Shellhammer. Identification of the harvest mouse trapped at that time was, to some
degree, equivocal: 11 individuals were identified as western harvest mice
(Reithrodontomys megalotis), which is not a protected species, and 3 could not be
identified but were presumed to be western harvest mice. These two species are
sympatric, however, and usually occur together. Trapping of the western harvest mouse
SFO32727\BB\005.51 10 q 3 (
without trapping of the saltmarsh harvest mouse does not indicate that the latter is not
present.
Preliminary consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Sorenson, 1991) indicates that fur-
ther trapping is not necessary for an environmental impact assessment, so that trapping
to determine the existing distribution of harvest mice in the project area is not included
in this scope of work. It is anticipated that State Fish and Game will concur with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife. The EIR must assume that the endangered mouse is present in the
marshes adjacent to the proposed business park. The additional activities needed to
address potential impacts to this endangered species are listed below:
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures:
• Review newly available information
• Conduct one (nontrapping) field survey for the saltmarsh harvest mouse
• Coordinate analysis with water quality and drainage assessment
• Identify and assess potential impacts to saltmarsh harvest mouse and
identify appropriate mitigation
• Report writing, word processing, graphics, coordination
Wetland Habitats
• Evaluate the possible impacts of the project on channels, ponds, and
wetland vegetation associated with salt marsh habitat surrounding the
project site. Identify potential wetland areas of Army Corps of Engineer
(COE) jurisdiction through field visits, review of current and historic
aerials of the site, National Wetland Inventory maps, and Soil Conserva-
tion Service maps that cover the project site. Based on the Initial Study
site visit, it appears that no seasonal wetlands occur onsite other than
those that may be associated with the drainage channel.
Agency Permit Requirements
• Determine the need for additional agency approvals such as a Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit and Corps of
Engineers permits, based on the likely extent of impacts onsite. No work
will be conducted outside of the mapped limit of landfill debris. Based
on the Initial Study site visit, it appears that no wetlands that are
considered jurisdictional by the Corps of Engineers or California
Department of Fish and Game exist within the mapped limit of landfill
SF032727\BB\005.51 11 3'
debris. This scope of work does not include a jurisdictional wetland
delineation or preparation of any wetland or stream alteration permits.
Transportation/Circulation
CH2M HILL will conduct a comprehensive traffic engineering study to evaluate the
impact of the proposed development on the adjacent roadway system in the vicinity of
the project site, as well as internal circulation issues. CH2M HILL will contact Lloyd
Strom, Assistant Director of Public Works, and other appropriate City Staff to obtain
available information on existing and planned roadway and land use conditions. All
available data relating to historical, existing, and projected traffic volumes in the site
area will also be obtained. We will conduct the following tasks:
• Traffic surveys and field reconnaissance
• Directional distribution of site -oriented traffic
• Contact state and local officials to obtain available traffic volumes and
roadway data for existing and future years
• Develop the anticipated base traffic volumes
• Obtain data from the City for other approved land development projects
within the study area of influence that could impact local traffic opera-
tions
• Traffic impact analysis
• Review the developed site plan relative to access
• Review the developed site plan relative to internal and offsite circulations
• Recommend necessary traffic and roadway improvements if required,
including the possible extension and connection of Kerner Boulevard
• Coordinate with the City of San Rafael Public Works and Planning De-
partments
SF032727\BB\005.51 12 b 51
Background Trac Conditions
To generate "Background" traffic conditions, it is necessary to have projected traffic and
proper distribution of trips from approved projects to all - 10 study intersections. The
following work will be performed:
• Distribute and assign or allocate the projected
approved projects to all 11 study intersections
projects as indicated on your April 14, 1992, memo
Spinnaker on the Bay Phase I
- Spinnaker on the Bay Phase II
- ILM
- Bayview Business Park
- Office Club
- Toys R Us
- Harbor Marine
- Honda Car Dealership
trips from the eight
and eight approved
. These are:
• Incorporate results of the traffic analysis into the TRAFFIX Model we
are developing to evaluate the project and in the traffic report.
• Optimize all signalized study intersections and conduct a level of service
analyses based on 1985 Highway Capacity Manual's methodology.
Field Surveys
CH2M HILL will conduct required field surveys to determine existing traffic opera-
tions/characteristics and to identify existing traffic volumes and turning movements on
access roads in the study area. These surveys will be performed at key intersections
along the adjacent roadways to verify available traffic data and provide an up-to-date
record of traffic volumes for typical peak periods. It is assumed that the critical peak
hours of traffic will be during the weekday peak hour of highway operations.
Therefore, any required manual turning movement traffic counting programs will be
undertaken on a typical peak weekday between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. We currently
expect that the following 11 intersections, including the proposed site access drive,
would need to be evaluated:
• Bellam Boulevard/I-580 Onramp
• Bellam Boulevard/I-580 Offramp
• Bellam Boulevard/Francisco Boulevard
• Bellam Boulevard/Kerner Boulevard
• Kerner Boulevard/Irene Street
• Francisco Boulevard/Irene Street
• I-580 Offramp/San Quentin Terrace
SF032727\BB\005.51 13 � 51
• I-580 Onramp/San Quentin Terrace
• Francisco Boulevard/Shoreline Parkway
• Kerner Boulevard/Shoreline Parkway
• Anderson Drive/Bellam Boulevard
If peak hours of operation at the proposed project site are other than the above indi-
cated hours, we will adjust our field surveys and analyses time periods accordingly pur-
suant to further consultation with appropriate City Staff.
Trac Impact Analyses
Traffic impact analyses will be conducted to determine the magnitude of generated
traffic resulting from the development and to identify any problems which may result in
accommodating this traffic demand at key impact points in the study area and at the
proposed site access drives. Recommended workable solutions to these problems will
be incorporated in the overall planning for the project.
Generated daily and peak -hour traffic volumes of the site will be determined. Site
traffic will then be assigned to the local roadway network and its impact measured. An
approach/departure distribution of site -oriented traffic will be determined by analyzing
travel characteristics in the area and by using TRAFFIX, an interactive computer pro-
gram with the following capabilities:
• Illustrating trip distribution and assignments
• Calculating level of service at critical intersections
• Interactively testing different mitigation measures
Normal vehicular roadway traffic will be projected to the year when the proposed pro-
ject will be in full operation. Site traffic volumes and projected vehicular highway vol-
umes, including other approved but not yet operational developments, will be combined
and analyzed. A typical weekday when peak combined traffic volumes are anticipated
will be utilized for our analysis.
We will estimate the capacity of the access roads, including the intersections which are
likely to be utilized by site traffic. These results will be compared to volume/capacity
relationships, indicating the degree of utilization of the roadway system under anticipat-
ed traffic conditions. The adequacy of the site access plan and impacted roadway sys-
tem will thus be determined for the design year roadway system under anticipated
traffic conditions. Geometric roadway constraints, such as horizontal and vertical
alignment and land widths, sight distances, and safety standards will also be considered.
A circulation study will be conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the existing access
route and the proposed access plan. Based on these analyses, a site and functional
plan will be recommended. Analysis will indicate the impact of proposed development
SF032727\BB\005.51 14 d� 3/
on the adjacent roadways and types of improvements, if required, to accommodate the
projected additional traffic generated by the site.
Air Quality
The proposed project could generate air pollutants in the short term during project
construction and indefinitely during project operations due to potential increases in
traffic. These air emissions may impact local and regional air quality. Potential odor
impacts generated by onsite landfill gas will be addressed in the Human Health and
Safety section. We will consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) to identify other potential issues. To assess the project's potential effects
on air quality, we will conduct the following tasks:
• Describe the setting of the project as it relates to air quality. Climate,
existing air quality, and applicable air quality policies will be discussed.
• Using the CALINE4 computer model, estimate maximum current and
future ambient carbon monoxide concentrations from roadways in the
project vicinity. A maximum of six roadways will be modeled; roadway
selection will be based on regulatory guidelines and results of the traffic/
circulation study. Composite vehicle emission factors will be calculated
using the most recent publicly available version of the computer model
EMFAC7PC.
• Using the URBEMIS3 computer program, estimate regional changes in
emissions of total organic gases, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (less
than 10 microns in aerometric diameter), and sulfur dioxides resulting
from project -generated traffic.
• Discuss the potential for construction impacts from equipment, vehicles,
and construction materials on a qualitative level.
• Qualitatively discuss the potential for additional air emissions related to
light industry locating in the project and increased influent to the local
wastewater treatment plant.
• Determine the significance of air quality impacts from the project. CO
impacts will be compared to ambient air quality standards. Project -gen-
erated emissions of other pollutants will be compared to significance
criteria.
• Discuss the cumulative impacts of the project in relation to other closely
related past, present, and future projects in the region.
SF032727\BB\005.51 15o) 51
• Evaluate the proposed project's conformance with local and regional air
quality plans, guidelines, and regulations, including the 1982 Bay Area Air
Quality Plan and the 1991 draft Clean Air Plan.
• Identify appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce adverse
air quality impacts from the project.
Human Health and Safety and Landfill Gas
The presence of landfill gas at the project site represents a potential threat to the
health and safety of both temporary and permanent workers and visitors at the project
site. Future users of the adjacent Shoreline Park may also be exposed to potential
dangers associated with landfill gas. Landfill gas could also be currently affecting the
ambient air quality in the project area.
Landfill gas contains methane and trace amounts of toxic air contaminants. If buildings
on the project site are not adequately ventilated, landfill gas could migrate, accumulate
in the buildings, and lead to an accidental explosion. Landfill gas also poses a tempo-
rary threat to workers at the site during project construction if methane is accidentally
released during excavation activities. The following steps will be performed to assess
the existing and potential effects on human health resulting from development at the
project site:
Landfill Gas
• Review existing documents assessing the closed landfill to evaluate the
extent of current landfill gas migration on- and offsite, the existing mea-
sures taken to control this migration, and any evidence of odor problems.
Documents we will review include:
Response to Comments from the CWMB and the LEA (HLA,
May 28, 1987)
Request from Exemption from Regulation 8, Rule 34 (SQDS)
(July 9, 1987)
Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test (SWAT, Air) (HLA, July
29, 1987)
Monitoring Plan, Landfill Gas Monitoring Program (HLA, Octo-
ber 22, 1987)
Site Assessment, Lots 2A and 2B (HLA, February 10, 1988)
Site Assessment, Lots 1A and 1B (HLA, March 18, 1988)
SF032727\BB\005.51 16 "( 31
Site Safety Plan (HLA, revised July 27, 1987)
Other potential reports containing relevant information, as listed
in Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Evaluate the potential for future landfill gas production and migration
using information obtained from the review of available documents.
• Consult with the State Department of Health Services and other appro-
priate agencies and groups to obtain further background information on
the project site.
• Review and evaluate the Site Safety Plan for its adequacy to address
potential impacts of landfill gas on persons on the site during site investi-
gations and during construction.
• Review applicable local (Uniform Building Code), state, and federal
regulations that address construction on or near waste disposal sites.
• Review existing geotechnical reports and available geologic data and
evaluate the impacts of the site conditions on gas migration and venting
from the landfill.
• Discuss existing data and typical data for condensate quantity and quality
and discuss treatment options.
• Review the preliminary site grading plan and discuss potential impacts of
landfill gas release caused by excavation of buried waste materials
associated with minor grading and installation of pilings for foundations.
Describe measures that can be taken to mitigate these impacts, including
requirements for temporary cover of excavated waste materials and
permanent replacement and repair of landfill cover after excavation.
• Evaluate the proposed barrier and ventilation system designed to protect
structures built on or near solid waste landfills from gas infiltration.
• Evaluate the proposed gas collection and control system used to control
migration and venting of combustible gas from solid waste landfills. To
the extent possible based on the available site grading plan detail, discuss
the suitability of the proposed system.
• Evaluate the risk of upset if the gas collection and control system fails.
• Review scope of work for a site investigation plan developed by the pro-
ject sponsor in coordination with any geotechnical investigation planning
SF032727\BB\005.51 17 dt 3 f
Odor
to characterize the composition and pressure of gases generated in the
landfill beneath locations where construction is proposed.
• Review and evaluate gas emissions data produced during the site
investigation conducted by the developer and make recommendations
regarding appropriate concepts for mitigation.
• Contact appropriate agencies including the Bay Area Air Quality Man-
agement District to determine if any odor complaints related to the for-
mer landfill have been received.
• Identify potential sources of odor in the project vicinity, such as the
wastewater treatment plant.
• Identify prevailing wind conditions and sensitive receptors to odors in the
vicinity of the project site.
• Based on the updated gas monitoring data, identify the types of com-
pounds and toxics which cause odor.
• Compare concentrations of compounds in the landfill gas with odor per-
ception thresholds.
• Qualitatively assess potential odor impacts due to site disturbance associ-
ated with the proposed project.
Public Services
The project site is currently undeveloped and contains no public service or utility
infrastructure. Project development would require extension and/or expansion of public
services, including emergency services such as police and fire protection and ambulance
service, and water and sewer service. The potential increased demand for these
services generated by project development could exceed the capacity of existing
resources, labor, and equipment. Appropriate agencies that service the project area,
including the City of San Rafael Departments of Public Works, Planning, Fire, Police,
and Recreation, the Marin Municipal Water District, PG&E, and the San Rafael
Sanitation District will be contacted to evaluate the project's effect on public services.
Our evaluation will include the following tasks.
SF032727\BB\00551 18 13/
Emergency Services
Parks
• Identify the location and emergency response time of the local fire, po-
lice, and emergency (ie: ambulance) services responsible for serving the
project site.
• Project the demand for additional emergency service protection services
associated with development at the project site.
• Determine the existing and proposed total acreage of parks in the project
area, including the adjacent Shoreline Park.
• Discuss the relationship of the project site and the lot deeded to the City
for use as a public park to the proposed uses of the adjacent Shoreline
Park.
• Identify any public access impacts to Shoreline Park resulting from pro-
ject development.
• Evaluate the relationship between the project's proposed public park and
the City's parkland dedication requirement.
Water Services
• Identify and describe existing water sources of the Marin Municipal
Water District in the project area.
• Qualitatively assess the water demands of the proposed project.
• Evaluate the capacity of the Marin Municipal Water District to meet
increased water demand generated by the proposed project.
• Describe the approval processes and methods for appropriating water.
• Identify water conservation measures for the project that could reduce
the amount of water consumed onsite.
Sanitary Sewers
• Describe the location, available capacity, and treatment system of the San
Rafael Sanitation District's existing wastewater services in the project
area.
SFO32727\BB\005.51 19 dl_ 3
• Estimate the amount of wastewater generated from the proposed land
uses at the project site and evaluate impacts of the proposed collection
system on existing wastewater services.
• Identify improvements necessary to service the project site.
Power or Natural Gas
• Assess increased demand for power or natural gas to serve project.
• Assess the potential for extension and installation of utility lines to break
through the landfill cap.
• Assess the need for substantial alterations to utilities with full project
buildout.
Solid Waste
• Determine the amount of solid waste generated at full buildout and the
potential impact to Marin Sanitary Service.
Stormwater Drainage
• Assess the potential for extension of drainage facilities to cause a release
of landfill gas.
Maintenance
• Determine the extent of maintenance service that may be required at full
project buildout and the potential for a decrease in the level of overall
maintenance service provided by the City.
Communication
• Determine the need for underground infrastructure required to provide
telephone service.
Aesthetics
Although the project site is currently vacant, it is located adjacent to the City's Shore-
line Park, which is to be developed as a major open space for pedestrian, bicycle, and
other low intensity recreational uses. The size and scale of the proposed retail, light
industrial, and office buildings at the project site, in comparison with the adjacent
Shoreline Park and the East San Rafael residential neighborhood to the northwest, are
a major visual concern. The provision of view corridors from the project site east to
SFO32727\13B\005.51 20 � 51
San Rafael Bay and from Shoreline Park to Mt. Tamalpais to the west will be
considered and evaluated in the visual analysis. In addition, the Community Design
Map B in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 identifies views along Francisco
Boulevard north past the project site toward San Rafael Bay as an important
community design attribute. These views will also be documented in the visual analysis.
To assess the project's potential effects on the visual environment, the following tasks
will be conducted:
• Describe the existing visual character of the project site and the
surrounding project area in terms of development, location, structural
type, and natural and scenic qualities.
• Document with photographs the existing visual character of the project
site in terms of view corridors from the project site looking east toward
the Bay, northwest toward the East San Rafael neighborhood, from
Shoreline Park looking west toward Mt. Tamalpais, and from Francisco
Boulevard looking north toward the project site.
• Prepare a photomontage to support the visual impact analysis showing
before and after views of the project site from up to four locations.
• Use the design standards described in the project Master Plan to develop
a worst-case design scenario to assess the project's visual impacts at full
buildout.
• Discuss and assess the project's impacts on existing views from the
identified view corridors.
• Review architectural and landscape plans for the proposed project, in-
cluding the design standards identified in the project Master Plan, and
evaluate the project design in terms of color, materials, massing,
architectural style, and height. Obtain the sign program for the entire
project cited in the Master Plan for development of the Shoreline
Business Park.
• Discuss the aesthetic compatibility of the proposed project with the exist-
ing natural and undeveloped character of the surrounding project area.
• Compare the proposed project's design elements to any applicable City
design standards and/or guidelines, including the requirements of the
Design Review Permit.
• If appropriate, recommend design measures to enhance visual
compatibility between the project and surrounding uses.
SF032727\BB\005.51 p� 21 Q 51
• Obtain the lighting program described in the Master Plan for the Shore-
line Business Park.
• Evaluate the lighting plan to determine impacts from light and glare at
full project buildout.
Cumulative and Growth -Inducing Impacts
Cumulative and growth -inducing impacts will be assessed as part of the CEQA-mandat-
ed topics, as described on page 3 under Task 4 of the Work Program.
SF032727\BB\005.51 pl. 22 � -j(
ATTACHMENT 1 (5pgs)
MASTER RESOURCE LIST
SHORELINE BUSINESS PARK INITIAL STUDY & EIR
GENERAL REPORTS
• Geologic Hazard Study - San Quentin Disposal Site. HL.A, October 16, 1979.
• San Rafael Shoreline Park Master Plan. MPA Design, September, 1989.
• Shoreline Enhancement Plan. MPA Design, et. al., August, 1991.
• City of San Rafael, General Plan 2000 & General Plan Map.
• City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 Final EIR. Certified July 18, 1988.
• General Plan Amendments to the Revised Housing Element (July, 1990) &
Miscellaneous General Plan Amendments (August, 1990).
• General Plan Amendments to the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan. May
7, 1990.
• City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance. June 1, 1988.
• City of San Rafael Draft Zoning Ordinance & Maps. September 16, 1991.
• City of San Rafael Subdivision Ordinance
• City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures. July 6, 1981.
• Project Site Title Report. October 1, 1990.
• Master Plan for Development of the Shoreline Business Park. March 25,
1991, Revised July 15, 1991.
• Environmental Information Form, July 15, 1991
pa,,� 23 % 5I
LANDFILL -RELATED DOCUMENTS
Geologic Hazard Study, San Quentin Disposal Site. HLA, October 16, 1979.
Shoreline Industrial Park, Historic Report File. HLA: Volume I -'July 31, 1981 - April 6,
1987
• Geotechnical Report, .San Quentin Disposal Site (July 31, 1981)
Illustrations: Site Plan Bay Park Develop.
-- Appendix A: Revised Geologic Hazard Study
-- Appendix B: Revised Site Closure Plan
-- Appendix C: Boring Logs from Previous Investigation
• Amended Closure and Post -Closure Maintenance, Plan San Quentin Disposal
Site (April 14, 1986)
-- Illustrations: Final Grading Plan, Typical Roadway Excavation &
Backfill, Cut-off Collar Detail
-- Appendix A: Declaration of Protective Covenants & Restrictions
-- Appendix B: Grading Plans & Improvements, Shoreline Industrial
Park, (Hoffman & Albritton, submitted under separate cover)
• Supplementary Report Closure Plan (July 15, 1986)
• Amended Report of Disposal Site Info. (August 11, 1986)
-- Appendix A: Parcel Map
-- Appendix B: San Rafael Use Permit Waste Discharge Requirements
• Progress Report - Geotechnical Services During Closure (February 11, 1987)
-- Tables: Summary of Field Density Test Data
-- Illustrations: Site Plan, Log of Wells, Compaction Test Data,
-- Appendix A: Field Construction Inspection Reports, 6/83 - 12/86
-- Appendix B: Field Logs for Wells GU, GIA, G5 & G6
-- Appendix C: Time Function vs. Infiltration Rate
• Solid Waste Assessment Test Proposal, San Quentin Disposal Site (April 6,
1987)
-- Illustrations: Location Map
-- Appendix A: Resume of R. Stoufer
-- Appendix B: Drilling Logs of Monitoring Wells
-- Appendix C: Results of Chemical Analyses of Leachate
Shoreline Industrial Park, Historic Report File. HLA: April 20, 1987 through July 29, 1987.
• Monitoring Plan, Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test (April 20, 1987)
-- Illustrations: Calderon Monitoring Points, Final Grading Plan,Landfill
Gas Sampling Well, Integrated Surface Sample Grid, Landfill
Perimeter Monitoring Probe.
-- Appendix A: HLA's Sample Data Forms for Solid Waste Air Quality
Assessment Test
— Appendix B: Instrumentation & Equipment
-- Appendix C: Analytical Protocol for Internal Gas and Ambient Air
Samples
Appendix D: Meteorological Data
• Responses to Comments of the California Integrated Waste Management
Board and Local Enforcement Agency (May 28, 1987)
-- Appendix A: Memorandum Prepared by the California Waste
Management Board, December 4, 1987
-- Appendix B: Draft Letter Prepared by the County of Marin
Environmental Health Services, January 29, 1987
-- Appendix C: Monitoring Well Logs
-- Appendix D: Proposed Revised Declaration of Protective Covenants
& Restrictions
• Request for Exemption from the BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 34 (Emission
of Organic Compounds from Solid Waste Disposal Sites) (July 9, 1987)
-- Illustrations: Cross -Section Areas
• Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test (July 29, 1987)
-- Tables
-- Illustrations
-- Appendix A: Equipment & Instrumentation
-- Appendix B: Internal Landfill Gas Sampling - Filed Data Sheet &
Laboratory Analytical Results
-- Appendix C: Integrated Surface Sampling - Filed Data Sheet
-- Appendix D: Ambient Air Monitoring - Field Data Sheets and
Laboratory Analytical Results
-- Appendix E: Meteorological Data
-- Appendix F: Landfill Gas Migration Monitoring - Field Data Sheets 7
Laboratory Analytical Results
p,Le,,p24db31
Shoreline Industrial Park, Historic Report File. HLA: September 29, 1987 through
December 18, 1987.
• Monitoring Plan, Landfill Gas Monitoring Program (October 22, 1987)
-- Tables: Calderon Air Contaminants
-- Illustrations: Location of Landfill Gas Monitoring Points, Typical
Landfill Gas Exploration Well, Typical Landfill Perimeter Monitoring
Probe
-- Appendix A: Equipment and Instrumentation
-- Appendix B: HLA's Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Forms
• Responses to Comments from the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), DHS,
and County of Marin (November 6, 1987)
-- Appendix A: Makdisi-Seed Deformation Analysis
-- Appendix B: Storm Drainage Criteria, Letter, Plans, Calculations
Appendix C: Description of Field Permeability Test Method
-- Appendix D: Declaration of Protective Covenants & Restrictions
Appendix E: Water Balance Analysis
• Progress Report No. 2, Geotechnical Services During Closure (December 8,
1987)
-- Tables: Summary of Field Density Test Data, Summary of Field and
Laboratory Permeability Test Data
-- Illustrations: Log Borings, Well Completion Details, Soil Classification
Chart and Key to Test Data, Compaction Test Data, Permeability Test
Report
-- Appendix A: Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions
-- Appendix B: Field Permeability Test for Soils with Saturated
Permeabilities Around 10' cm/sec
• Tidal Influence Study (part of SWAT, December 14, 1987)
-- Tables: Water Level Responses to Tidal Fluctuations
• Landfill Gas Analysis (December 18, 1987)
-- Tables: EPA Priority Pollutant Substances, EPA Non -Priority Pollutant
Substances, Other Organic Compounds Identified by GC/MS Scan
-- Appendix A: Laboratory Analytical Results
Shoreline Industrial Park, Historic Report File. HLA: February 10, 1988 through May 31,
1988
• Site Assessment Lots 2A and 2B (February 10, 1988)
-- Tables: Field Measurements of Temperature, Conductivity, and pH,
Organic Priority Pollutants and Metals Detected in Composite Soil
Sample, Organic Chemical Concentrations Detected in Groundwater
Samples, Metals in Groundwater Samples, Inorganic Parameters
Detected in Groundwater Samples
-- Illustrations: Monitoring Well Logs, Well Completion Details.
-- Appendix A: Laboratory Results
• Solid Waste Assessment Test (February 12, 1988)
-- Tables
-- Illustrations
-- Appendix A: Boring Logs and Completion Details of Monitoring Wells
-- Appendix B: Laboratory Reports of Chemical Analyses
-- Appendix C: Elevation Surveying Report
• Site Assessment Lots 1A & 1B (March 18, 1988)
-- Tables
-- Illustrations
-- Appendix A: Laboratory Results
FIGURES/BLUE LINES
• Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan (1"= 100') October 9, 1990.
• Tentative Parcel Map (1"= 80') October 1990.
• Home Depot Site Diagram (1"= 40') October 4, 1990.
• Master Plan Limits of Debris & Environmental Control Systems (1"= 100')
March 22, 1991.
• Home Depot Building Elevations (1/16th"= 1').
PHOTOGRAPHS
• 8 Views at the Project Site. October, 1990.
• Numerous Onsite Color Photographs. July, 1991.
PI -It zG 12 31
October 17,1991
BRUNSING ASSOCIATES, INC.
1607 Industrial Way, Belmont, CA 94002
(415) 637-0170 FAX (415) 637-1196
Ms. Ann Millican
CH 2 M Hill
6425 Christie Avenue, No. 500
Emeryville, CA 94608
RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
SAN QUENTIN DISPOSAL SITE
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Millican:
196.2
At the request of Susan Kirby of the San Quentin Disposal Site (SQDS), I am
forwarding a copy of the November 19, 1990, Report of Findings, Clay Barrier
Permeability Testing Program prepared by Brunsing Associates, Inc. (BAI). Louise
Patterson of the San Rafael City Planing Department asked that this report be sent to
you.
Additionally, I am including a follow-up to this report entitled Response to
February 13, 1991 Comments from (CIWMB), Clay Barrier Permeability Testing
Program, prepared by BAI and submitted to SQDS on March 22, 1991. Final approval
of the landfill cap by the California Integrated Waste Management Board was based
on the March 22, 1991 report.
The two reports differ in the statistical treatment of the laboratory and field
permeability data. The actual data used in both reports are identical.
If you have any questions, please call me at (415) 637-0170.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Velzy
Regional Manager
Enclosures: Report: Response to February 13, 1991 Comments from CIWMB,
Clay Barrier Permeability Testing Program
(March 22, 1991)
Report: Report of Findings
Clay Barrier Permeability Testing Program
(November 19, 1990)
E 41 7,1- -q 3 )
January 20, 1992
ATTACHMENT 3 (2pgs )
BRUNSING ASSOCIATES, INC.
1607 Industrial Way, Belmont, CA 94002 .
(415) 637-0170 FAX (415) 637-1196
Ms. Ann Nf; l l i can
CH2M Hill
6425 Christie Avenue, Suite 500
Emeryville, CA 94608
RE: INFORMATION AS REQUESTED:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION
SAN QUENTIN DISPOSAL SITE
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Millican:
196.2
The following information is provided by Brunsing Associates, Inc. (BAI) as
discussed during our January 6, 1992 meeting, held at the San Rafael City Planning
Department concerning "the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the San Quentin Disposal Site (SQDS) (i.e., Shoreline Business Park). The
project site is located in San Rafael, California. The information discussed in this
correspondence includes the following (reference to the organization of information
as provided in the January 6, 1992 meeting agenda, Shoreline Business Park Initial
Study, Comment Letters: California Integrated Waste Management Board):
1. Operating procedures and occupational safeguards;
2. Complete geotechnical analysis (update);
3. Historical high level of groundwater vs. current groundwater levels;
4. Chemical nature of landfill gas condensate/analytical testing results;
5. Landfill Gas Extraction System and disposal methods;
6. Landfill Gas Control System (LGCS) compliance with CCR regulations;
7. Emergency LGCS measures to provide public health, safety, and on-site
security;
8. Types of waste removed,, method of transport, etc,
9. Detail on proposed fill;
10. Soils analysis (update);
11. Extent of soil contamination and proposed remediation method;
12. Potential for disposal of hazardous substances;
13. Operations and emergency plans to protect worker and public health
and safety;
Ms. Ann Millican
January 20, 1992
Page 2
14. Water conservation measures for project;
15. Solid Waste Facilities Permit (possibly required by LEA);
16. Report of Facility Information (potential revision).
Each of the 16 requested information items are discussed individually below. If
applicable, support data [attachment numbers refer to information item number (i.e.
Attachment lA refers to - Information Item No. 1)] is included with this
correspondence on an item by item basis.
1 OPERATING PROCEDURES AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFEGUARDS
a) Operating Procedures Conceptually
The operating plan for the Shoreline Business Park (SBP) should address
methane gas generation, odors, and leachate control in the 30 -year, past -
closure period. It is estimated that SBP generates less than ten pounds of
methane per day. This small quantity of methane gas generation for the
approximately 40 acre site is the result of the nature of the debris used to fill
the landfill. Methane 'gas is proposed to be passively vented through the
walls of the buildings constructed on-site. The subsurface gas collection
system is currently in-place. This system consists of three-inch diameter
perforated PVC pipe placed below the landfill cap in a three-foot thick bed
of gravel. The material above the gravel is constructed to match the soil
specifications and compaction requirements of landfill caps. The
perforated pipe is connected to vertical vent pipes through the cap, and will
be connected to the building vents which will run up through the walls
and exit above the roof. Wind propelled turbines attached to the pipe
would create a suction to move the gas.
Buildings at the SBP will be built on either piles or slab/footing
foundations. Each building will be equipped with a synthetic liner system
unique to its foundation which complies with CCR Title 14 Section 17796
for post -closure land use. All structures will include a geomembrane liner
system such that methane gas and hydrogen sulfide gas can'be detected
below the subfloor level. A copy of the conceptual design, entitled
Foundation Protection Conceptual Design Drawings and Preliminary Cost
Estimate (January 31, 1990), is included with this correspondence as
Attachment 1A.
An automatic methane gas and hydrogen sulfide gas detection system will
be employed to detect landfill gas (LFG) underneath structural foundations
and within certain confined spaces. However, all buildings will be
designed to provide greater than normal ventilation. This will include
additional vents in the ceiling and roofs, mechanical rooms, utility closets,
interiors, and garage/warehouse space to promote positive ventilation.
.►Ahk
BRUNSING ASSOCIATES, INC. V_`N�
p",k zg ,� 31
January 21, 1992
Ms. Ann Millican
CH2M Hill
6425 Christie Avenue, St. '500
Emeryville, CA 94608
ATTACHMENT 4 (2pgs'
`BRUNSING ASSOCIATES, INC.
1607 Industrial Way, Belmont, CA 94002
(415) 637-0170 FAX (415) 637-1196
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 1992
CHZIVI r hic- r
SAN ' FRANCiSCC
RE: INFORMATION AS REQUESTED (COMPLETED):
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION
SAN QUENTIN DISPOSAL SITE
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA'
Dear Ms. Millican:
196.2
The following discussion is intended to provide you with the final response to your
request for additional information concerning the Shoreline Business -Park (SBP),
formerly the San Quentin Disposal Site, 'relative to the preparation of the Draft
Environmental.Impact Report. Specifically, this response refers to Information Item
No. 14 as referenced in the -letter prepared by Bruning Associates, Inc. (BAI), and
submitted to you on January 20, 1992.
Information Item No. 14 referred to the, "Water Conservation Measures at the Site."
The ' proposed daily consumptive rate of water for this project has not been
determined. However, a water balance was calculated for the site in 1987 by Harding
Lawson Associates (HLA) using two different closure scenarios. These scenarios
included no irrigation or irrigating during summer months. It was anticipated that
85 percent of the site would be covered by buildings and asphalt with 15 percent
remaining open to landscaping. The results indicated an increase in leachate on the
order of 0.68 inches per year to 0.85 inches per year based on the use of zero to ten
inches of irrigation water per year, respectively. The actual leachate increase will
vary according to actual size of landscape areas and water requirements.
To maintain control over leakage in underground water pipes, flowmeters should
be placed at the point of entry into the, site, all building locations and irrigation
areas, such that, a regularly scheduled (i.e., weekly, monthly) water balance can be
performed to determine if leakage is occurring. Landscape areas should emphasize
foliage indigenous to the area and which have minimal irrigation water demands.
P"l-3° 6L 5�
Ms. Ann Millican
January 21, 1992
Page 2
All utilities will be placed -.in clean fill corridors. Utilities requiring deeper
embedment than three feet will require verification : of cap thickness. If the day
barrier layer is breached •replacement of .this -material will be required or an
engineered alternative must be proposed and approved by the CIWMB.
The HLA water balance report addresses leakage in underground utility trenches on
Pages 4 and 5.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (415) 637-0170.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Velzy-
Regional Manager
MEV:ptp
enclosures: , Correspondence to Mr..Martin Bramante from HLA,
November 6, 1987, entitled, "Closure Plan Water Balance Analysis"
cc Louise Patterson w/o enclosure
Martin Bramante w/o endosure
Vince Mulroy- w/o enclosure
Tom Brunsing w/o enclosure
Robert Pendoley w/o enclosure
BRUNSING ASSOCIATES, INC. ��`�'�
%W 3),q 31
Attachment "A"
)FESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEME f
This agreement is made and entered into this 3rd day of Sentember, 1991,
between the City of San Rafael, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "CITY") and CH2M Hill. California, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
"CONSULTANT").
A. RECITALS:
(i) WHEREAS CITY has heretofore issued its Request for Proposal
pertaining to the performance of professional services with
respect to the preparation of a full, true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part
hereof.
(ii) WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has submitted its proposal for the
performance of services, which are attached as EXHIBIT "B" and
amendment EXHIBIT "B-1" and incorporated by reference
hereto; and
(iii) WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform
professional services necessary to render advice and assistance to
CITY, CITY'S Planning Commission, City Council and staff in
the preparation of an Initial Study and Environmental Impact
Report; and
(iv) WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to
perform such services and is willing to perform such
professional services as hereinafter defined.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT as
follows:
B. AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS: The following definitions shall apply to the
following terms, except where the context of this Agreement
otherwise requires:
(a) Project: The project includes a zone change (Z90-5),
subdivision (TS91-5), use permit (UP91-36), and
environmental and design review permit.
The project includes the development of the Shoreline
Business Park. The business park is proposed to include
102,000 square feet of warehouse/retail store space with an
outdoor garden center; 88,800 square feet of specialty retail
space; 373,600 square feet of light industrial space of which
93,400 square feet may be devoted to office use, and, 45,900
square feet of office space. The 40+ acre site is located at the
intersection of Kerner Boulevard, Francisco Boulevard
and Shoreline Parkway.
(b)Services: Such professional services as are necessary to
be performed by CONSULTANT in order to complete an
Initial Study, Scoping and Environmental Impact Report
for said "project" which complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR
URIGINAL
FILE NUMBER:
TITLE: 1/0/
EXHIBIT:
�G�mc�sr
Guidelines as currently Amended, the City's
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures and the
provisions of this Agreement.
(c) Commencement of Services: CONSULTANT agrees to
commence work upon execution of this agreement.
(d) Comvletion of Services: The date of completion of all
phases of the EIR, including any and all procedures, maps,
surveys, attendance by CONSULTANT at public hearings
regarding the EIR as set forth in the Schedule outlined in
Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated by reference
hereon.
2 CONSULTANT AGREES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and perform
such services as necessary to complete an Initial Study and
EIR prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
Consultant's Proposal to prepare an Initial Study and
Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit "B" and
amendment Exhibit "B-1") and in accordance with
Federal, State and City statutes, regulations, ordinances
and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
(b) CONSULTANT shall supply copies of all maps, surveys,
reports, plans and documents (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "documents") including all supplemental
technical documents, as described in Exhibit "B" and
amendment Exhibit "B-1"to CITY within the time
specified in the Schedule, Exhibit "C". Copies of the
documents shall be provided in such numbers as are
required by this Agreement. CITY may thereafter review
and forward to CONSULTANT comments regarding said
documents and CONSULTANT shall thereafter make
such revisions to said documents as are deemed necessary.
CITY shall receive revised documents in such form and in
the quantities required by this agreement. The time limits
set forth pursuant to this Section B2.(b) may be extended
upon written approval of CITY.
(c) CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANTS sole cost and
expense, secure and hire such other persons as may, in the
opinion of CONSULTANT, be necessary to comply with
terms of this Agreement. In the event any such other
persons are retained by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT
hereby warrants that such persons shall be fully qualified
to perform services required hereunder. CONSULTANT
further agrees that no subcontractor shall be retained by
CONSULTANT except upon the prior written approval of
CITY.
(d) CONSULTANT shall attend meetings and provide
qualified staff as specified in Exhibit "B" and amendment
Exhibit "B-1".
(e) CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with monthly
reports indicating the current amount of time and charges
assessed to each task performed during that month as well
as the total amount of time and charges assessed to each
task from date of this Agreement.
!4VI G .: 01-0101
(a) IN consideration of CONSULTANTs Agreement to
perform well and sufficiently and in a skillful and
professional manner the services contemplated herein,
CTTY agrees to pay and CONSULTANT agrees -to accept as
full payment for the preparation of the EIR, a total Sum of
$101,950.00 payable as follows:
(1) Twenty percent (20%) of the Agreement
value ( $20,390.00) within fifteen (15) days of the
execution of Agreement by CITY and
CONSULTANT.
(2) Five percent (5%) of the Agreement value
($5,097.50) within fifteen (15) days of delivery of an
Initial Study to the City by the Consultant.
(3) Five percent (5%) of the Agreement value
($5,097.50) within fifteen (15) days of the Scoping of
the EIR by the Consultant.
(4) Thirty percent (30%) of Agreement value
($30,585.00) within fifteen (15) days of delivery of an
administrative draft EIR to CITY by
CONSULTANT.
(5) Twenty percent (20%) of Agreement value
($20,390.00) within (15) days of Planning
Department approval of the Draft Elk
(6) Ten percent (10%) of Agreement value ($10,195.00)
upon delivery of the Administrative Final EIR to
CITY by CONSULTANT. The cost to prepare the
Final EER is based upon the understanding that the
Final EIR shall not be required to include
evaluation or gathering of technical information
not included in the Draft EIR and the preparation of
the Final EER will require approximately 68 hours
of CONSULTANTS time.
(7) Ten percent (10%) of Agreement value ($10,195.00)
within fifteen (15) days of both the 1) completion of
CONSULTANT services; 2) Certification of Final
EIR by CTTY.
(b) Cost adjustments necessary due to comments received
after circulation of the Notice of Preparation and scope of
work will require the approval of the Planning
Department based on a detailed work program which
identifies additional tasks, costs and hours not identified
in the proposal attached as Exhibit "B" and amendment
Exhibit "B-1".
(c) Additional services: Payment for additional services
requested, in writing, by CITY, and not included in
CONSULTANTS proposal as set forth in Exhibit "B" and
amendment Exhibit "B-1" hereof, shall be paid on a
reimbursement basis in accordance with the fee schedule
set forth in said Exhibit "D". Charges for additional
services shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall be
paid by CITY within a reasonable time after said invoice
are received by CITY.
4. grY AGREES TO PROVIDE TO CONSULTANT:
(a) Information and assistance as set forth in Exhibit "A"
hereto.
(b) Such information as is generally available from CITY files
applicable to the project.
(c) Assistance, if necessary, in obtaining information from
other governmental agencies and/or private parties.
However, it shall be CONSULTANTS responsibility to
make all initial contact with such agencies and/or private
parties with respect to the gathering of such information.
5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS:
All documents, originals, graphic exhibits and correspondence
developed or received during the course of the EIR's preparation
shall become the property of the QTY. At the CITY'S discretion,
the documents will either be delivered to the CITY immediately
after certification of the EIR or retained by the CONSULTANT
for a period of five (5) years. If the CITY elects to have the
CONSULTANT retain the documents, then the CONSULTANT
agrees to maintain them for five (5) years and shall allow the
CITY access to them whenever the CITY so requests.
6. STATUS:
CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and shall not be
deemed, directly or indirectly, to be an officer or employee of the
CITY.
7. AFFILIATION:
During the length of this Agreement, no member or affiliate of
the CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT team shall be an
employee by the project applicant or any principal or affiliate of
the applicant.
8. TERMINATTOh1:
(a) The CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement
at any time by providing CONSULTANT thirty (30) days
written notification. Should said notification be received
by the CONSULTANT, all work under this Agreement
shall terminate, except for what minor work is required to
provide the CITY with a clear understanding of work
completed and work remaining.
(b) CITY shall pay CONSULTANT all sums then due and
unpaid under this Agreement, including sums for work
not completed, but in preparation. Payment by CITY of
such compensation shall be considered full and final
settlement for all work performed by the CONSULTANT
under this Agreement.
(c) Upon receipt of final payment, all materials and
documents, whether finished or not, shall become the
property of and shall be delivered to the CM.
(d) It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement
shall be binding upon the CITY and upon the
CONSULTANT, their successors, executors, or
administrators. Neither this Agreement not any part
thereof, nor any monies due or to become due under this
Agreement may be assigned by the CONSULTANT
without the written consent of the CITY.
9. NOTICES OF DESIQNATED REPRESENTATIVES;
Any and all notices, demands, invoices and written
communications between the parties hereto shall be addressed as
set forth in this paragraph 9. The below named individuals,
furthermore, shall be those persons primarily responsible for the
performance by the parties under this Agreement:
CITY: City of San Rafael
Planning Department
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
CONSULTANT: CH2M HILL, California, Inc.
6425 Christie Avenue, Suite 500
Emeryville, CA 94608
Any such notices, demands, invoices and written
communications, by mail, shall be deemed to have been
received by the addressee forty-eight (48) hours after deposit
thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly
addressed as set forth above.
10. INSURANCE:
With respect to performance of work under this agreement,
CONSULTANT shall not commence work until it has obtained
all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies
acceptable to the CITY. All insurance required by express
provisions of this agreement shall be carried only in responsible
insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of
California. CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY with copies
of all policies promptly upon receipt of them, or certificate
evidencing the insurance. CONSULTANT may effect for its
own account insurance not required under this Agreement. The
CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all times during
the term of this Agreement the following policies of insurance:
(a) General Liabilitv Insurance: Commercial or
Comprehensive General Liability insurance covering
bodily injury and property damage utilizing an occurrence
policy form, in an amount no less than $1,000,000.00
combined single limit for each occurrence. Said insurance
shall include, but not be limited to: premises and
operations liability, property damage liability, and
personal injury liability.
(b) Automobile Liabilitv Insurance: Insurance covering
bodily injury and property damage in an amount no less
than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each occurrence.
Said insurance shall include coverage for owned, hires
and non -owned vehicles.
(c) Worker's Comvensation Insurance: CONSULTANT
shall be required to maintain full Workers'
Compensation Insurance for all persons employed directly
in carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance
with provisions of the State of California Labor Code.
(d) Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance: Consultant
shall be required to maintain Errors and Omissions
Liability Insurance in the amount no less than
$1,000,000.00 for each occurrence.
(e) Endorsements: Each said comprehensive or commercial
general liability and automobile liability insurance policy
shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
1) The insurer waives the right of subrogation against
the CTTY's elected officials, officers, employees, and
agents.
2) The policies are primary and noncontributing with
any insurance that may be carried by the CITY.
3) This policy shall not be cancelled or materially
changed without first giving thirty (30) days prior
written notice by the insurer to the CITY by certified
mail.
4) The CITY, Its elected officials, officers, employees,
and agents are named as additional insureds for all
liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf
of the named insured in the performance of this
Agreement.
11. INDEMNIFICATION:
CONSULTANT agrees to hold CITY harmless from and against
liability arising out of CONSULTANT negligence in connection
with the performance of the work described in Exhibit "B" and
Amendment Exhibit "B-1" of the Agreement.
12. ASSIGNMENT:
No Assignment of this Agreement or of any part or obligation of
performance hereunder shall be made, either in whole or in
part, by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of
CITY.
13. GOVERNING LAW:
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Associatio; inducted in Marin County under the laws c to
State of Cah.urnia. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final
and binding on the parties. In interpreting the provisions of this
Agreement, the arbitrator may make an award of costs and fees,
including attorney's fees necessitated by the arbitration.
15. ALTERATIONS:
This Agreement may be modified, as necessary for the successful
and timely completion of the services to be provided. Any
alteration or variation shall be expressed in writing, as an
amendment to this Agreement, and shall be approved by both
parties.
16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT:
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either
oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject
matter herein. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that
no representation by any party which is not embodied herein
nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained
in this Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification
of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing, and
signed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first set forth above:
CONSULTANT
4k,44�
Vice President and Regional Manager
CH2M HILL, California, Inc
ATTEST:
ly-- C lerk City -manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City jAttorney