HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 14774 (999 3rd Street - Adopting CEQA Findings)
1
RESOLUTION NO. 14774
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL: 1) ADOPTI NG CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (C EQA) FINDINGS OF FACT, 2) ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, 3) APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO
THE CITY-ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SAN RAFAEL
GENERAL PLAN 2020 CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY C-5, AND 4) APPROVING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE BIOMARIN / WHISTLESTOP /
EDEN HOUSING PROJECT AT 999 3rd STREET AND ADJACENT
SAN RAFAEL CORPORATE CENTER
(APN’s: 011-265-01, 013-012-38 and -39 and 013-021-50, -51, -52 -53, -54, -55)
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018, BioMarin Pharmaceutical (BioMarin) submitted
project applications to the City of San Rafael Community Development Department for a
General Plan Amendment (GPA18-001), Planned Development (PD) Rezoning (ZC18-002),
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZO18-003), Development Agreement (DA19-001), Master
Use Permit (UP18-034), Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED18-087), Small
Subdivision (S18-001) and Sign Program Amendment (SP18-18-006) for the development of
two 72-foot tall, four-story Research and Development buildings for BioMarin and a 67-unit, 70-
foot tall, six-story senior center and affordable senior housing building for Whistlestop/EDEN
Housing on a 133,099 sq. ft. parcel at 999 3rd Street and adjacent San Rafael Corporate Center
(the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2019, the Planning Commission held an appropriately noticed
public scoping hearing on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess the impacts of the Project. The Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to address the
following issues, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Greenhouse Gases, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Transportation/Traffic, Energy, Utilities, Cumulative
effects and a reasonable range of alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public
review period beginning August 9, 2019 and ending September 23, 2019 (SCH # 2019029046).
Following this review, on September 24, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider and accept comments on the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the
Project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts associated with Land Use and Planning
and Transportation. All other significant impacts identified in the DEIR were identified to be
mitigated to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures
recommended in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, based on written and oral comments received from the public on the DEIR
and its own review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132, the City responded to all the environmental
comments that were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a FEIR was
completed. On January 10, 2020, a Notice of Availability for the FEIR/Response to Comments
2
was mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the
Project property and to all responsible, trustee and other public agencies that commented on
the DEIR; A Notice of Availability was also published in the Marin Independent Journal on
January 11, 2020 and February 28, 2020; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared, which outlines the procedures
and requirements for implementing all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, and is
provided in attached Exhibit A of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR concludes that all impacts identified in the FEIR have been or can
be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, with the exception of one “Land Use and
Planning” impact and three “Transportation” impacts. The FEIR concludes that the project will
result in the following significant, unavoidable environmental impacts:
Land Use and Planning. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially conflict with
some of the applicable goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan 2020, which were
adopted by the City of San Rafael for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. This potential conflict is with the following General Plan policies:
LU-2, Development Timing. For health, safety and general welfare reasons, new
development should only occur when adequate infrastructure is available consistent with
the following findings:
a. Project-related traffic will not cause the level of service established in the Circulation
Element to be exceeded;
b. Any circulation improvements needed to maintain the level of service standard
established in the Circulation Element have been programmed and funding has
been committed;
c. Environmental review of needed circulation improvement projects has been
completed;
d. The time frame for completion of the needed circulation improvements will not cause
the level of service in the Circulation Element to be exceeded, or the findings set
forth in Policy C-5 have been made; and
e. Sewer, water, and other infrastructure improvements will be available to serve new
development by the time the development is constructed.
Transportation. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute potentially significant
project-related impacts involving conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system listed below:
Impact TRANS-2: Project-related traffic, under Cumulative-plus-Project conditions,
would contribute to continued LOS F conditions at the US 101 southbound off-ramp
to Mission Avenue, increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of the off-ramp by
0.033 during the AM peak hour. Traffic operations and safety at the highway ramp
diverge and along the offramp would worsen. This condition would conflict with
standards provided in the Marin County Congestion Management Plan.
Impact TRANS-3: Project-related traffic would contribute to continued LOS E (under
Baseline-Plus-Project) and LOS F (under Cumulative-Plus-Project) conditions along
westbound 3rd Street between Hetherton Street and D Street during the AM peak
3
hour, with an increase in the arterial roadway segment’s volume-to-capacity (V/C)
ratio of 0.067. This impact would result in a reduction in travel speeds that conflict
with the Marin County Congestion Management Plan and San Rafael General Plan
2020 Policy C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards).
Impact TRANS-4: Under Cumulative-Plus-Project conditions, project-related traffic
would worsen the service level at the 3rd Street and Tamalpais Avenue West
intersection from LOS E to LOS F during the AM peak hour, with average delays
increasing from 65.6 seconds to 96.7 seconds per motorist. During the PM peak
hour, the intersection’s service level would remain at LOS F with project-related
traffic, but the project would increase average delays from 86.4 to 94.0 seconds per
motorist. This impact would create conflicts with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy
C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards).
The FEIR concludes that there is no mitigation that can be imposed or required to
reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR has analyzed four
Alternatives. The FEIR identifies Alternative 2: “Reduced Scale project” as the Environmentally
Superior Alternative, which would reduce the overall BioMarin project size and would reduce
some of the overall impacts to Transportation in the Project Area. However, this Alternative
would not meet the identified laboratory and office space needs for BioMarin.
Whistlestop/EDEN housing would be unchanged from the proposed project; thus, the portion of
this objective addressing the Healthy Aging Center and affordable senior housing would be met.
If the BioMarin part of Alternative 2 were not developed because the project’s primary objective
could not be met, the Whistlestop/EDEN Housing part would also not occur; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the decision-making agency to
balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to
approve a project. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” and a statement of overriding
considerations may be adopted by the agency. The decision-making agency must state in
writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in
the record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial
evidence in the record; and
WHEREAS, in support of CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 the San Rafael General Plan
2020 includes Circulation Element Policy C-5D (Evaluation of Project Merits) and Program C-5c
(Exception Review), which permits the City to authorize an exception to the City-adopted traffic
standards by weighing the community benefits of a project against the potential for the project
to deviate from the City-adopted level of service (LOS) traffic standards; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the FEIR and Project merits, accepting all public testimony and the written report of
the Community Development Department staff. As part of this hearing process the Planning
Commission considered draft CEQA Findings of Fact and a draft Statement of Overriding
Considerations contained in this resolution, and a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). On a 5-0-2 vote (Commissioners Mercado and Schaefer absent), the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-02 recommending to the City Council
4
adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP); and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission in its consideration of the
FEIR and MMRP determined that there was additional clarity needed to Mitigation Measure
(MM) TRANS-1, and as part of their motion to pass Resolution No. 20-02 revised MM TRANS-1
to confirm that the ongoing monitoring would continue, past the annual reviews and updated the
text as follows:
TRANS-1: BioMarin, or any successive owner or lessor of the site, shall continue and
expand the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that
focuses on reducing vehicle trips and improving traffic flow. BioMarin, or any successive owner
or lessor of the site, shall generate at least 15 percent fewer vehicle trips on a daily, AM peak
hour, and PM peak hour basis (i.e., 1,584 daily, 173 AM peak hour, and 162 PM peak hour
trips) as compared to those projected by the project applicant. BioMarin and any successive
owner or lessor of the site shall monitor, on an annual basis, all traffic generated at the site,
including single-occupant vehicles, carpools, pedestrian and bicycle trips, and public transit use,
to gauge success and promote appropriate measures to retain vehicle trip rates at, or below,
the current trip rates. BioMarin, or any successive owner or lessor of the site, shall submit an
annual TDM monitoring report to the City of San Rafael for City review. This mitigation measure
shall continue in perpetuity for the project site until the 15% reduction is identified for three
consecutive years. After three consecutive years demonstrating 15% reduction each year, the
monitoring shall be done every three years to ensure maintenance of the 15% reduction unless
a violation occurs, or a new owner/lessor of the site applies. At that time, the monitoring shall
start anew to ensure successful 15% reduction for three consecutive years. This mitigation
measure would reduce the impact to less than significant.
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission, through the adoption of 1)
Resolution No. 20-01 recommended to the City Council certification of the FEIR and 2)
Resolution No. 20-02 recommended adoption of CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations and approval Exception of Level of Service standards and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2020, a Notice of Availability for the FEIR/Response to
Comments was mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 500
feet of the property and to all responsible, trustee and other public agencies that commented on
the DEIR, informing them of the City Council hearing for final action. A Notice of Availability was
also published in the Marin Independent Journal on Saturday, February 29, 2020 and the site
was posted with public hearing signs; and
WHEREAS, on March 23 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
review the proposed amendment to the 999 3rd Street BioMarin/Whistlestop/EDEN Housing
Project and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the
Community Development Department;
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2020, the City Council made further minor clarifying edits to
MM-TRANS-1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Rafael
hereby: a) approves the following CEQA Findings of Fact; b) adopts the following Statement of
5
Overriding Considerations; and c) approves the MMRP presented in Exhibit A, finding that the
MMRP has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
A. Final EIR
By separate Resolution, the City Council reviewed and certified the FEIR. As part of
this action and as outlined in this separate resolution, the City Council reaffirms the
findings made in the separate City Council Resolution that: a) supported the
certification of the FEIR; b) found that the FEIR has been prepared in accordance
with the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment
Procedures Manual; and c) found and concluded that the FEIR adequately assesses
the environmental effects of the Project and represents the independent judgment of
the City.
B. Incorporated Documents/ Record of Proceedings
The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record
supporting these findings:
• All Project plans and application materials, including supportive technical
reports;
• The DEIR and Appendices (August 2019) and FEIR (January 10, 2020), and
all documents relied upon, cited therein or incorporated by reference;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the
Project;
• The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 and General Plan 2020 FEIR;
• Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 14);
• Subdivision Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 15);
• City Council Ordinance No. 1772, City Council Resolution No. 10980 and the
City of San Rafael Archaeological Sensitivity map;
• BioMarin’s 999 3rd Street Project Development Agreement
• All records of decision, resolutions, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits,
letters, synopses of meetings, summaries, and other documents approved,
reviewed, relied upon, or prepared by any City commissions, boards,
officials, consultants, or staff relating to the Project;
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited
above; and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by caselaw and/or
Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials
that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City has based its decision
are located in and may be obtained from the City’s Department of Community
Development, Planning Division, at 1400 Fifth Street, Third Floor, San Rafael, CA
94901.
II. Findings of Fact in Support of Project Action
6
The FEIR, prepared in compliance with CEQA, evaluates the potentially significant and
significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from approval of the Project.
Because the FEIR concludes that implementation of the Project would result in adverse
impacts, the City is required by CEQA to make certain findings with respect to these
impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) These findings list and describe the following,
as analyzed in the EIR: a) impacts determined to be insignificant or less-than-significant in
the Notice of Preparation checklist; b) impacts found to be less than significant after
individual analysis in the EIR; c) significant impacts that can be avoided or reduced with
mitigation; d) significant impacts that cannot be avoided; and e) project alternatives that
were developed and studied as provided in the CEQA Guidelines.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the entirety of the record of
proceedings before the City, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Further
explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found, without
limitation, in the DEIR and FEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the FEIR determinations regarding
mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to
address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and
incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the DEIR and FEIR
relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such
determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND NOT
INDIVIDUALLY ANALYZED
During the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping period, the City
determined that a number of the Project’s potential environmental effects would be
insignificant, less-than-significant or would be adequately addressed through the City’s
environmental review process, including Agriculture Resources, Biological Resources,
Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Schools and Libraries (Public Services), and
Wildfire. For these topics, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, no need
for further environmental assessment was required for the preparation of the FEIR.
Finding: The Project’s DEIR contains brief statements identifying possible impacts that
were determined to be insignificant or less-than-significant, along with the reasons for
those determinations. The City Council adopts those statements and concludes that the
referenced environmental effects are insignificant or less than significant and no further
analysis in the FEIR is required.
B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT AFTER INDIVIDUAL
ANALYSIS.
The NOP and scoping period identified a number of potential environmental impacts to
be analyzed in the DEIR. Through that analysis, impacts relating to Aesthetics, Energy,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources,
and Utilities and Service Systems were determined to be less-than-significant and, thus,
no mitigation measures are necessary or required, as noted below.
7
Finding: The City Council adopts these statements and concludes that the referenced
environmental impacts would be less than significant for the reasons stated below and
contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings.
1) Aesthetics
a. The Project Will Not Result in Visual Character or Quality Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.1-11 to 4.2-22 of the DEIR
and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, the Project will not substantially change the character of the Project
site by constructing the new 72-foot tall buildings on an existing surface parking
lot. Further, visual simulations show that the Project will not obstruct views from
many viewpoints, will have less-than-significant impacts on views of Mt.
Tamalpais from public vantage points, and the use is consistent and compatible
with surrounding uses. In addition, the Project is consistent with design
guidelines in the General Plan 2020 and non-residential design guidelines. This
impact will therefore be less than significant.
b. The Project Will Not Increase Light and Glare
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.1-22 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the Project will not increase light and glare due to existing presence of
commercial lighting. Lighting on the Project site will be directed downward and
angled to reduce spillover of ambient light onto adjacent properties. In sum, the
Project's lighting will not be substantial in comparison to existing conditions and
will not affect nighttime views or cause potential “spillage” of lighting that may
affect nearby residents. This impact will therefore be less than significant.
c. The Project Will Not Result in Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.1-23 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the Project will not result in cumulative visual impacts. The Project is subject to
City of San Rafael Design Guidelines and formal Design Review to ensure high-
quality and compatible design. Lighting on the Project site will be directed
downward and angled to reduce spillover of ambient light onto adjacent
properties. The Project therefore will not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact, and thus this impact will be less
than significant.
2) Air Quality
a. Consistency with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 4.2-10 to 4.2-14 and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
under CEQA, the project would result in an overall increase in local and regional
pollutant loads due to direct impacts from construction and operational emissions.
However, based on the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
and the associated air quality impact would be less than significant. The project’s
estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 during
construction were well below the applicable thresholds and, therefore, would have
8
a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality. The estimated emissions for
ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 during operation of the project were
below the thresholds and, therefore, would have a less-than-significant impact on
regional air quality.
b. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants and PM2.5
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 4.2-14 to 4.2-21 and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
under CEQA, project construction would generate DPM and PM2.5 emissions
primarily from the exhaust of off-road diesel construction equipment emissions
from testing and maintenance of an emergency generator. The emissions of DPM
and PM2.5 from diesel exhaust during project construction and operation could
pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Similarly, project operations
would generate DPM and PM2.5. In addition, the project has potential to create
individual TAC and PM2.5 emissions during construction and operation, the
potential cumulative health risks to sensitive receptors from existing and future
foreseeable sources of TACs and PM2.5. The excess cancer risk, chronic HI, and
annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the on-site MEIR were below the
BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds. Therefore, the cumulative impact on nearby
sensitive receptors from TAC and PM2.5 emissions during construction and
operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
c. Generation of Odors
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 4.2-21 and supported by
evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, under CEQA,
Project construction and operation would not be expected to generate significant
odors because the project would not include handling or generation of noxious
materials. Therefore, project impacts related to odors would be less than
significant.
d. Cumulative Operational Air Quality Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.2-22 and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
under CEQA, since construction and operation of the proposed project would not
exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants (including
ozone precursors), the cumulative impact on regional air quality would be less
than significant. The project would also not exceed the BAAQMD threshold
emissions of DPM and PM2.5 during construction and operation of the project.
3) Cultural Resources
a. Human Remains
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.3-8 and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
under CEQA the project would have less-than-significant impacts on human
remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. As noted under
“Pre-Contact Archaeological Resources and Human Remains,” Native American
human remains could be encountered below the engineered fill at the project
site. Should human remains be unearthed during project construction, these
would be treated in accordance with existing state laws, including California PRC
Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. With
9
enforcement and implementation of these state laws, project impacts on human
remains would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
4) Energy
a. The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction or operation.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed pages 4.4-4 to 4.4-7 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the Project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy. While energy consumption would increase (due to the proposed new
buildings and associated vehicle traffic), the net increase in overall per capita
consumption would not be considered substantial, for two reasons:
1. Downtown Infill Location. The project would be located on a downtown infill
site already served by roads, transit, and utilities. This type of infill
development tends to be more energy efficient than development on less
centrally located sites, as it offers opportunities for reusing existing resources
and encouraging use of public transit and other alternatives to private
vehicles.
2. Energy Efficiency Measures. The project includes energy efficiency
measures and would likely be subject to additional applicable state and local
requirements at the time of detailed project review. In addition, all project
buildings would be designed to accommodate solar roof systems at some
point in the future. As noted in the above analysis, the energy consumption
estimates for the project are considered conservative, because it was
assumed that no energy savings would result above current standards;
therefore, the project’s actual energy consumption might be less than the
estimates, since additional energy reduction measures will likely be
introduced at the state and local level over time and would be included in the
project. The project would be subject to City of San Rafael policies and
review procedures that would ensure that the project incorporates the latest
energy conservation measures. This impact will therefore be less than
significant.
b. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed page 4.4-7 of the DEIR and supported
by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, the
Project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency. The project applicants are proposing that the project be
designed with a variety of energy-saving features, which are described in detail
in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this DEIR. Through the local building permit
process, the project would be required to abide by all State of California
mandates for energy conservation. The project therefore would not conflict or
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
10
c. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed page 4.4-7 to 4.4-8 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects. The project site is already
served by PG&E electricity and natural gas facilities. It is generally expected that
the project would connect to existing PG&E utility lines serving the site. New gas
underground service would be installed for each building, with points of
connection and gas meters located immediately adjacent to each building. A new
electrical power underground service would be provided, with underground
feeders extended from existing vaults to the project site and ending at a new
pad-mounted transformer outside each building. A utility meter would be
provided at each main switchboard. A transformer would be provided to serve
BioMarin Building B. An on-site generator would be provided for emergency
power use (BioMarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing, 2019). A new PG&E gas
underground connection/service would be provided for the Whistlestop/Eden
Housing project, and a new electrical transformer would be installed at the
southwest corner of the site, next to the electrical room. A new gas meter would
be located at the southwest corner of the site.
d. The Project would not result in net increased energy demand and,
combined with other past, present, and probable future projects, would not
result in a significant cumulative impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed page 4.4-8 of the DEIR and supported
by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, the net
increased energy demand from the Project would be minimal and would not
require expanded or new energy facilities as a direct result of project
development. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on
energy services. The proposed project would realize transportation-related
energy savings compared to similar projects in a location at a distance from
urban areas. The proposed project and other projects have been and would be
required to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations. PG&E, which provides energy to the project site and vicinity,
produces much of its energy from renewable sources and has plans in place to
increase reliance on renewable energy sources. Because many agencies in
California have adopted policies seeking increased use of renewable resources
(and have established minimum standards for the provision of energy generated
by renewable resources), it is expected that PG&E would continue to meet future
demands for energy via a gradually increasing reliance on renewable resources,
including small-scale sources such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, in
addition to larger-scale facilities, such as wind farms. MCE also serves the San
Rafael area, providing additional alternatives for renewable electricity service.
The increase in demand would likely be met through the development of
renewable resources that would have fewer environmental effects than the
development of new conventional gas- or coal-fired power plants.
5) Geology and Soils
11
a. Surface Rupture
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.5-12 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Available mapping does
not identify a fault at or near the project site that would have the potential to
result in surface rupture (Miller Pacific Engineering Group, 2018). In a seismically
active area such as the San Francisco Bay region, a remote possibility exists for
future faulting to occur in areas where no faults previously existed. Because this
is unlikely to occur, the geotechnical report for the proposed project concluded
that the potential for fault surface rupture at the project site is low (Miller Pacific
Engineering Group, 2018). Therefore, the potential for substantial adverse
impacts to occur due to surface rupture is less than significant.
b. Landslides
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.5-12 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects involving landslides. The project site and surrounding areas are relatively
flat. The site-specific geotechnical investigation report did not identify any
potential slope stability or landslide hazards associated with the proposed project
(Miller Pacific Engineering Group, 2018). Therefore, the potential for the
proposed project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects
involving landslides is less than significant.
c. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.5-12 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would not result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. Potential
soil erosion impacts of the proposed project would be related to stormwater
runoff entraining soils exposed during construction, and are analyzed in Section
4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
d. Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.5-15 to 4.5-16 of the DEIR
and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, Geologic impacts do not extend far beyond a project’s boundaries
because geologic and soils conditions can vary widely over a short distance and
therefore potential impacts are typically confined to discrete spatial locations and
do not combine to create a significant cumulative impact. There are no large
landslide features or fault zones present in the vicinity of the project site. The
development of the proposed project and the nearby cumulative projects would
not alter the geologic or seismic hazards at any off-site location. Therefore, the
potential cumulative impact related to geologic hazards would be less than
significant. The proposed project and cumulative projects within San Rafael,
could affect unidentified paleontological resources. However, impacts on these
resources accidentally discovered during implementation of these projects would
be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through the use of appropriate
mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval. Collectively, the
proposed project and other projects would not result in a cumulative increase in
12
impacts on paleontological resources as these resources would be avoided or
otherwise removed, analyzed, and reported (i.e., by a qualified paleontologist).
Therefore, the potential cumulative impact would be less than significant.
6) Green House Gas Emissions
a. GHG Emissions from Project Operations
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.6-11 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
GHG emissions generated by the project would not have a significant impact on
the environment. In 2019, the City of San Rafael adopted the CCAP 2030 in
order to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate
change. The CCAP 2030 identifies strategies for reducing the City of San
Rafael’s GHG emissions 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, which is more
stringent than the statewide 2020 target under AB 32, and 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030, which is consistent with the statewide 2030 target under SB
32. These GHG reductions would also put the City on a trajectory to reduce
GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, which is consistent with
the statewide 2050 target under Executive Order S-3-05. Emissions reductions
related to transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water
conservation are estimated in the CCAP 2030 and show that the City would
surpass the City and statewide goals for 2020 and 2030 by reducing emissions
19 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (equivalent to 31 percent below 2005
levels) and 42 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. These GHG reductions would
primarily be achieved through low-carbon transportation, energy efficiency,
renewable energy, waste reduction, and water conservation. Therefore, the GHG
emissions generated by the project would have a less-than-significant impact on
the environment.
b. Consistency with San Rafael’s CCAP 2030
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.6-11 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would be consistent with the City of San Rafael’s CCAP 2030. As
discussed above, the project’s GHG emissions impact is considered less than
significant because the project is consistent with the CCAP 2030.
7) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-15 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
during project construction, hazardous materials (e.g., fuel, oils, solvents, paints)
would be routinely transported, stored, and used at the project site. Because the
proposed project would result in soil disturbance greater than 1 acre,
management of soil and hazardous materials during construction activities would
be subject to the requirements of the Stormwater Construction General Permit
which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes hazardous materials storage
requirements. The routine handling and use of hazardous materials by workers
would be performed in accordance with OSHA regulations, which include training
13
requirements for workers and a requirement that hazardous materials are
accompanied by manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). Cal/OSHA
regulations include requirements for protective clothing, training, and limits on
exposure to hazardous materials. Compliance with these existing regulations
would ensure that workers are protected from exposure to hazardous materials
that may be transported, stored, or used on-site. Compliance with the existing
regulations for hazardous materials discussed above would ensure that the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to the routine
transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. During construction, the project would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-16 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceeding,
the proposed project would not result in an accidental release of hazardous
materials (e.g., oils, fuels, solvents, and paints) during project construction. The
proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the Construction
General Permit, which require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and
best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the risk of spills or leaks from
reaching the environment, including procedures to address minor spills of
hazardous materials. Measures to control spills, leakage, and dumping must be
addressed through structural as well as nonstructural BMPs, as required by the
Construction General Permit. Construction activities that would disturb potentially
contaminated soil and groundwater at the project site would be subject to the
requirements of the Covenant and SGMP, including requirements for worker
health and safety, dust and odor control, stockpile management, stormwater
runoff and erosion control, soil and groundwater disposal protocols, and
protocols for the discovery of unanticipated conditions (e.g., subsurface features
or contaminated soil not identified during previous investigations). Compliance
with the requirements of the Covenant, SGMP, and the Construction General
Permit would ensure that the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials
during construction.
c. The project would not result in significant impacts related to emitting
hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-17 to 4.7-18 of the DEIR
and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceeding, the proposed project is located approximately 800 feet from Saint
Raphael Elementary, a private school located at 1100 Fifth Avenue north of the
project site. The project site is approximately one-quarter mile north of the
James B. Davidson Middle School public school located at 280 Woodland
Avenue. The proposed project would be designed, constructed, and operated in
accordance with the requirements of the CBC, CFC, and IFC for the storage and
handling of hazardous materials; and operation of the project would be required
to comply with existing hazardous materials regulations enforced by Marin
14
County. Compliance with the existing regulations discussed above would ensure
that the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to
potential hazardous emissions near schools during operation of the project.
d. The project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-19 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceeding,
although the project site is a known hazardous materials release site, the project
site is not included on any of the lists of hazardous materials release sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, also known as the
“Cortese List” (CalEPA, 2019). Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impact related to being included on a list of hazardous materials release sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e. The project is not located in the vicinity of an airport and therefore would
not result in airport-related safety hazards or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-19 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceeding,
the nearest airport to the project site is San Rafael Airport, approximately 3 miles
north of the project site. San Rafael Airport is a private use airport (AirNav, 2019)
and does not have a land use plan. The nearest public airport to the project site
is the Marin County Airport at Gnoss Field in Novato, approximately 12 miles to
the north. The project site is not located within the land use plan area for the
Marin County Airport at Gnoss Field (Marin County Planning Department, 1991).
There are no airports located within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impacts related to aviation hazards.
f. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-19 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceeding,
construction of the project could require temporary closure of portions of streets
adjacent to the project site. Traffic control requirements imposed by the City for
the permitting of temporary closure of street areas would ensure that appropriate
emergency access is maintained at all times during construction activities. The
proposed project would not permanently alter roadways in the vicinity of the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant
impact related to impeding or interfering with emergency response or evacuation
plans.
g. The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.7-19 and 4.7-20 of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceeding, the project site is within a highly urbanized area and is not located
near heavily vegetated areas or wildlands that could be susceptible to wild fires.
15
The project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE, 2008). The project site is not in or near
a Wildland-Urban Interface area mapped by the City of San Rafael (Wildland-
Urban Interface areas are areas where structures are built near lands prone to
wildland fire.) Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact
related to wildland fire hazards.
8) Hydrology and Water Quality
a. The project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.8-12 and 4.8-13 of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, Construction activities would involve excavation and grading, which
would temporarily alter drainage patterns and expose soil to potential erosion.
Compliance with the Construction General Permit and City of San Rafael BMPs
for construction activities would ensure that erosion of exposed soil and
sedimentation of receiving waters or the combined sewer system would not
occur during construction of the proposed project. During operation of the
project, the site would be covered by buildings, pavement, and landscaped
areas, with no ongoing soil exposure or disturbance that could result in erosion
and siltation. For these reasons, the potential of project construction and
operation to change drainage patterns in a manner that would result in erosion or
siltation on- or off-site would be less than significant.
b. The project would not impede or redirect flood flow.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.8-13 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the majority of the proposed project is located within the 100-year flood hazard
zone. The project site is not located in a regulatory floodway. Any proposed
development of modification of the regulatory floodway is subject to the special
study requirements of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 15.50.060. The
flooding at the project site and vicinity is mapped as shallow flooding of 1 to 3
feet that usually consists of areas of ponding. The development of the project
site would not alter this existing flooding pattern, which is controlled by the
properties of San Rafael Creek. In addition, the project would be required to
comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the San Rafael Municipal Code
and acquire a development permit in accordance with Section 18.40.010.
Therefore, after development of the buildings, the flood water surrounding the
project site would continue to consist of shallow flooding with areas of ponding,
and the potential of the proposed project to redirect or impede flood flows would
be less than significant.
c. The project would not result in a substantial release of pollutants during
inundation of the project site by flood waters.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.8-13 to 4.8-15 of the DEIR
and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, the project site is not located in an area subject to flooding due to
tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation. The construction of the proposed project
would be required to implement a SWPPP and to comply with City of San Rafael
16
BMPs for construction activities, including measures for managing hazardous
materials used on construction sites and for keeping the construction site
maintained in a clean and orderly state, and hazardous materials storage
requirements. Once constructed, the project buildings would be subject to
inundation during the 100-year flood, as well as to inundation due to sea level
rise. Urban pollutants associated with the proposed land uses include oils, fuels,
and metals associated with motor vehicle traffic; fertilizers and pesticides used to
maintain landscaped areas; and trash generated by new site occupants. In
addition, some contamination would likely be present in the soil and groundwater
on the project site even after remediation is complete. The maintenance of the
site cap would prevent contaminants in the soil and groundwater on the site from
coming into contact with floodwaters. Therefore, the risk of the release of
pollutants from these flood hazards would be less than significant during both
project construction and operation.
d. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.8-15 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
no significant groundwater resources are located at the project site, and there is
no groundwater management plan for the area of the project site. The Basin
Plan is the master policy document that establishes the water quality objectives
and strategies needed to protect designated beneficial water uses in the San
Francisco Bay region. The State Water Board and Regional Water Board
enforce compliance with the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan through
the issuance of NPDES permits. The project would comply with the Construction
General Permit and Small MS4 Permit. Compliance with these permits would
ensure that the proposed project would not have the potential to conflict with the
Basin Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
9) Land Use and Planning
a. The project would not divide an established community.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.9-10 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
no land uses are currently present on the project site. The project would allow
development of office, R&D, multi-family housing, and retail uses that would be
generally compatible with surrounding uses in the downtown area. Thus, the
project would not divide an established community, and the impact would be less
than significant.
10) Noise
a. Airport Noise
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.10-14 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive airport noise levels. The nearest private airstrip to the project site is
the San Rafael Airport, approximately 3 miles to the north. A heliport is located
approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is located
outside of the 60 dBA Ldn contour line of both San Rafael Airport and the
heliport (City of San Rafael, 2017). The project site is not located within the
17
vicinity of any other private airstrip (Federal Aviation Administration, 2019).
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people in the project area to
excessive noise levels from any private airstrips. The nearest public use airport
to the project site is the Marin County Airport (also known as Gnoss Field) in
Novato, approximately 12 miles to the north. The project site is not located in a
land use plan for Marin County Airport (Marin County Planning Department,
1991). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people at the project
site to excessive noise levels from any public use airports.
b. Operational Noise Related to Increased Traffic
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.10-15 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
Project-related traffic would not generate a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in San Rafael General
Plan 2020 or the noise ordinance. The proposed project would increase vehicle
trip generation during operation but below the 3 dBA significance threshold for
project-generated traffic noise. Consequently, the proposed project would not
result in a significant increase in traffic noise along local area roadways.
c. Land Use Compatibility
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages 4.10-15 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating a noise effect. According to the traffic noise level contours of the
General Plan, existing noise levels range from 65 dBA Ldn to 69 dBA Ldn in the
northern portion of the project site and from 68 dBA Ldn to 72 dBA Ldn in the
southern portion of the project site. A typical building façade with windows closed
would also reduce the interior noise levels for the BioMarin project to 40 to 47
dBA Ldn, which is consistent with the interior noise levels requirements of 50
dBA Ldn in 2016 California Building Standards Code for buildings containing
non-residential uses. Therefore, impacts related to land use compatibility would
be less than significant.
11) Public Services
a. The project would increase the demand for fire protection services, but not
to the extent that new or physically altered fire stations would be needed.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.11-14 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the completed Project could generate new demand for fire protection services,
including increased calls for service. This new demand would not be large
enough to require new or physically altered fire protection facilities or equipment,
however. The project would not require the hiring of any additional firefighters,
and no new or upgraded facilities would be necessary. As such, the impact is
considered less-than-significant.
b. The project would increase the demand for police services, but not to the
extent that new or physically altered police stations would be needed.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.11-15 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
18
the completed Project could generate new demand for police services, including
increased calls for service and response to traffic-related issues. This new
demand would not be large enough to require new or physically altered police
facilities or equipment, however. The project would not require the hiring of any
additional officers, and no new or upgraded police facilities would be necessary.
In addition, at the time of building permit issuance, the project applicants would
pay development impact fees of $0.12 per square foot of commercial space,
$0.06 per square foot of industrial space, and $128.50 per bedroom for
residential uses. The City of San Rafael would use these funds to cover the
costs of the project’s impact on public facilities and services within the city,
including on-going costs of police services. As such, the impact is considered
less-than-significant.
c. The Project Will Not Result in Significant Cumulative Public Services
Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.11-5 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the completed Project will not service demands from the project would not affect
these services enough to create the need for new or expanded facilities. The
project would be subject to Fire Code requirements and other standard
requirements for features such as emergency access, signage, lighting, and
security. Other projects in the San Rafael city limits would also be subject to
these standard requirements, along with development impact fees that are used
by the City to cover the cost of project impacts on public facilities and services.
As such, the impact is considered less-than-significant.
12) Recreation
a. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated or such that new
or altered facilities would be needed.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.12-3 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the proposed on-site recreational facilities and services are expected to be
adequate to serve the needs of the on-site population. While the project could
result in an increase in use of nearby parks and recreational facilities, this
increase would not be large enough to result in the need for new or altered parks
or cause deterioration of existing parks or recreational facilities. The project
would not create any conflicts with San Rafael General Plan 2020 policies for
recreational facilities. The impact would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is necessary.
b. The project would include recreational facilities and would not require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.12-4 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would include on-site recreational facilities. The environmental
impacts of constructing these facilities are evaluated throughout this DEIR as
part of the analysis of the project as a whole. The proposed on-site recreational
19
facilities would not have any specific adverse physical effects on the
environment. The recreational needs of the project’s population would be met
on-site, and the project would not create a need for construction or expansion of
other recreational facilities. As such, the impact is considered less-than-
significant.
c. The Project Will Not Result in Significant Cumulative Recreation Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.12-5 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and probable future projects,
could result in a cumulative increase in demand for recreational facilities in the
area. The cumulative increase in demand would result from the project along
with existing and future development in the area, particularly residential
development. As discussed in the above analysis, however, demand from the
project would not result in a significant impact on recreational facilities or create
the need for new or expanded facilities, because the recreational needs of
residents, employees, and other project occupants would be met on-site. In
addition, anticipated residential projects in San Rafael and other cities would be
subject to each city’s respective standard requirements for parkland dedication
or in-lieu payment of fees to fund parks and recreational facilities. For these
reasons, the project would not result in or contribute to any significant cumulative
recreation impacts.
13) Transportation
a. The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing transit facilities or bicycle facilities.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.13-20 to 4.13-21 of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings the proposed project will increase potential public transit ridership
but the level of added transit ridership would not have a significant impact on the
SMART, Golden Gate Transit, or Marin Transit routes serving downtown San
Rafael. Therefore, project impacts on transit facilities are considered less than
significant. The project will include provisions for bicycle parking and storage are
included in both the BioMarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing projects. Therefore,
project impacts on bicycle facilities are considered less than significant.
14) Tribal Cultural Resources
a. The Project would not potentially cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is Geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.14-4 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) has requested consultation with
the City to address potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. Based on a
discussion between the City and the FIGR Tribal Historic Preservation Officer,
Buffy McQuillen, the tribe neither provided specific information regarding the
presence of tribal cultural resources at the project site nor requested specific
20
mitigation measures be implemented. The NWIC records search did not identify
Native American archaeological deposits or ancestral remains at or adjacent to
the project site. The proposed project would have no impact on known tribal
cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or a local register of historical resources. The City has not
identified substantial evidence to indicate the presence of a tribal cultural
resource.
b. The Project Will Not Result in Significant Cumulative Tribal Resource
Impact.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.14-4 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
based on a review of project and CEQA documentation available on the City of
San Rafael website, no recent past, current, or probable future projects under
review by the City include reported tribal cultural resources as defined under
PRC Section 21074. When the City considers future development proposals,
these proposals would undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA and,
when necessary, mitigation measures would be adopted as appropriate.
Measures to mitigate or avoid impacts on tribal cultural resources would be
drafted in consultation with FIGR. In most cases, this consultation would ensure
that significant impacts on tribal cultural resources would be avoided or
otherwise mitigated to less-than-significant levels. For these reasons, the
proposed project would not result in or contribute to any significant cumulative
impacts on tribal cultural resources.
15) Utilities and Services
a. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or other facilities; the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.15-8 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would not result in the construction of new off-site water facilities or
expansion of existing facilities. No extension of MMWD pipelines would be
necessary to serve the project. The BioMarin project would require one water
meter per structure, and the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project would likely
require a single meter for the building at the street with private submeters for
each living unit. These water facilities would not have any specific significant
environmental impacts requiring mitigation. The project applicants would pay
appropriate development impact and utility connection fees toward ongoing
improvements and maintenance of the water system. Water system
improvements to be funded by the project applicants may include installation of a
new fire hydrant at the corner of 3rd Street and Brooks Street. The San Rafael
Fire Department is planning to require this new hydrant as part of an MMWD
water main replacement along the portion of 3rd Street that adjoins the project
site. The environmental impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation
is necessary.
b. Water supplies would be sufficient to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry or multiple dry years.
21
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.15-10 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would require compliance with MMWD conservation requirements
that would help reduce the project’s water use, in compliance with San Rafael
General Plan 2020 and Climate Change Action Plan policies and programs for
water conservation. Water supplies would be sufficient to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry or multiple dry
years. The project’s impact on water supplies would therefore be less than
significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
c. The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves the project site that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.15-11 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the CMSA Wastewater Treatment Plant would have adequate capacity to handle
this increase (Dow, 2019). The project’s impact would therefore be less than
significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
d. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The project would
comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.15-12 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the project would be subject to the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code), which has been adopted as Chapter 12.23 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code. The CALGreen Code contains requirements for waste reduction
and recycling, including requirements that a minimum of 50 percent of
construction waste be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse, that a construction
waste management plan be prepared, and that readily accessible areas be
provided to allow recycling by project occupants The City of San Rafael would
review the project to verify compliance with the CALGreen Code. The impact
would therefore be less than significant, and no mitigation measure is necessary.
e. The Project will not have Cumulative Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste
Disposal Impacts.
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on page 4.15-13 of the DEIR and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
the the project’s water consumption would not result in a significant impact on
water supply or create the need for new or expanded water facilities. Individual
projects proposed within the MMWD service area will need to calculate precise
water demands and facilities needed to provide adequate long-term water
supply. For these reasons, the effect of the project on water service, in
combination with other past, present, and probable future projects, would be less
than significant. The project would not result in or contribute to any significant
cumulative water service impacts. For wastewater service, the geographic scope
for assessing cumulative impacts is the service area of the San Rafael Sanitation
22
District and the CMSA Wastewater Treatment Plant. The service demand from
the project would not result in a significant impact on wastewater treatment plant
capacity or create the need for new or expanded wastewater facilities. While
sewer lateral connections would not be identified until projects are in the design
stage, the existing lift station is expected to have adequate capacity to serve the
additional flow. For these reasons, the effect of the project on wastewater
service, in combination with other past, present, and foreseeable projects, would
be less than significant. The project would not result in or contribute to any
significant cumulative wastewater service impacts. For solid waste disposal
service, the geographic scope for assessing cumulative impacts consists of the
service area of Redwood Landfill through 2024. Comprehensive implementation
of state and local waste reduction and diversion requirements and programs has
and would continue to reduce the potential for exceeding existing landfill
capacity. For these reasons, the project’s effect on solid waste disposal service,
in combination with other past, present, and probable future projects, would be
less than significant. The proposed project would not result in or contribute to
any significant cumulative solid waste disposal service impacts.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE AVOIDED OR REDUCED WITH MITIGATION
The City Council, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15092, identifies the following significant impacts that
can be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. As summarized in Chapter 2 (pages 2-5
– 2-15) of the DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, these mitigation measures are hereby adopted and incorporated
into the description of the Project and their implementation will be monitored through the
MMRP.
1) Air Quality
a. Impact AIR-1: Fugitive dust emissions during project construction could
adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.2-21 to 4.2-22 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-
5) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, grading and construction activities on the Project site will
create a temporary potentially-significant Air Quality impact, which can be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the preparation, approval and
implementation of a basic measures to control dust and exhaust during
construction (Attachment A: Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1).
23
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM AIR-1 will reduce this impact to
a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
2) Cultural Resources
a. Impact CULT-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of archaeological deposits that qualify as
historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Archaeological deposits could be unearthed or otherwise displaced during
project ground disturbance below fill at the project site.
Significant Impact
As summarized in Chapter 2 (pages 2-5 – 2-6) of the DEIR and supported by
evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, although
construction of the Project would have no impact on known archaeological
resources, there is a possibility that previously unidentified archaeological
resources and subsurface deposits are present within the project area, and
Project construction could potentially disturb such resources and subsurface
deposits within the Project area. This potential Cultural Resources impact can
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if archaeological resources are found
during construction, construction is halted and the project sponsor retains a
qualified archaeologist to assess the previously unrecorded discovery and
provide recommendations. (Attachment A: Mitigation Measure MM CULT-1).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM CULT-1 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required
herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of Project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed
above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the Project
or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project approval is
within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is appropriate
and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will be less
than significant.
b. Impact CULT-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource, as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Archaeological resources could be
24
unearthed or otherwise displaced during project ground disturbance below
fill underlying the project site.
Significant Impact
As summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-6) of the DEIR and supported by evidence
contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, there are no formal
cemeteries or known interred human remains within the Project area and no
evidence of human remains was identified within the Project area. However, the
potential for their presence cannot be entirely ruled out, since construction-
related excavation could expose and disturb or damage previously undiscovered
human remains. This Cultural Resources impact can be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level if previously unknown human remains are found during
construction, construction is halted and the project sponsor retains a qualified
archaeologist to assess the previously unrecorded discovery and providing
immediate notification to the Marin County Coroner and the notification to the
NAHC if the remains are Native American. (Attachment A: Mitigation Measure
MM CULT-2).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM CULT-2 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
3) Geology and Soils
a. Impact GEO-1: During its design life, the project would likely be subject to
strong ground shaking from a seismic event, seismic-related ground
failure, and unstable soils, creating the potential for a significant risk to
structures and human lives.
Significant Impact
As discussed on page 4.5-13 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-7) of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, the project would likely be subject to strong ground shaking from a
seismic event, seismic-related ground failure, and unstable soils, creating the
potential for a significant risk to structures and human lives. This Geology and
Soils impact can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if the project
applicants implement all of the recommendations of the design-level
geotechnical investigation, including design criteria, plan review, and
construction period monitoring recommendations. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit and building permit, the applicants shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the recommendations of the design-level
25
geotechnical investigation have been incorporated into the project grading plans
and building plans. (Attachment A: Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM GEO-1 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
b. Impact GEO-2: Expansive, unstable, and/or corrosive soils at the project
site could result in structural damage to project facilities, creating the
potential for a significant risk to structures and human lives.
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.5-14 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-7) of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, Expansive, unstable, and/or corrosive soils at the project site could
result in structural damage to project facilities, creating the potential for a
significant risk to structures and human lives. This Geology and Soils impact can
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if the project applicants implement all
of the recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation, including
design criteria, plan review, and construction period monitoring
recommendations. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and building permit,
the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation have been
incorporated into the project grading plans and building plans. (Attachment A:
Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM GEO-2 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
26
c. Impact GEO-3: The project could result in damage to, or destruction of, an
as-yet unknown unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.5-14 to 4.5-15 and summarized in Chapter 2 (pages 2-
7 to 2-8) of the DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of
the record of proceedings, the project could result in damage to, or destruction
of, an as-yet unknown unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature. This Geology and Soils impact can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level if, during construction, paleontological resources are
encountered during project subsurface construction activities located in
previously undisturbed soil and bedrock, all ground-disturbing activities within 25
feet shall be halted and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the
situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for
the treatment of the discovery. (Attachment A: Mitigation Measure MM GEO-3).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM GEO-3 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Impact HAZ-1: Future occupants of the project site could be exposed to
hazardous materials in indoor air from vapor intrusion during operation of
the project.
Significant Impact
As discussed on page 4.7-20 and 4.7-21 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-
8) of the DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, the project could expose future occupants of the project
site to hazardous materials in indoor air from vapor intrusion during operation of
the project. This Hazards and Hazardous Materials impact can be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level if, prior to the approval of building permits, the
applicants provide the City of San Rafael with a letter from the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) indicating that the project site has been
appropriately remediated and appropriate engineering controls have been
incorporated into the project design, as necessary, to ensure that future
occupants of the project site would not be exposed to unacceptable health risks
from hazardous materials in the subsurface of the project site. The Covenant
and Agreement to Restrict Use of Property (Covenant) and Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the project site shall be amended to account for
27
post-remediation conditions of the project site and ensure the engineering
controls are operated and maintained such that conditions at the project site
remain protective of human health and the environment. (Attachment A:
Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM HAZ-1 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
5) Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Impact HYDRO-1: Development of the proposed project could substantially
degrade surface and groundwater quality.
Significant Impact
As discussed on page 4.8-25 and 4.8-17 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-
9) of the DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, the development of the project could substantially
degrade surface and groundwater quality. This Hydrology and Water Quality
impact can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if, prior to the approval of
building permits, the applicants shall provide the City of San Rafael with a letter
from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) indicating that the
infiltration proposed by the post-construction stormwater management plans
would not lead to the spread of existing groundwater contamination or
interference with the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction and treatment
system located adjacent to the south and southeast of the project site. If DTSC
indicates that restrictions to infiltration are necessary, then the post-construction
stormwater management plan shall be modified, as appropriate, to limit
infiltration. For example, the pervious pavements and bioretention facilities could
be underlain by a low permeability liner that would limit infiltration to the
subsurface. Any changes to the post-construction stormwater management plan
must be approved by DTSC and the City Engineer prior to approval of building
permits for the project. (Attachment A: Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM HAZ-1 will reduce this impact
to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources. Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
28
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact will
be less than significant.
6) Noise - Temporary/Construction Related Noise
a. Impact NOISE-1: Heavy equipment used in project construction could
generate noise in excess of standards established in San Rafael General
Plan 2020 or the noise ordinance.
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.10-15 to 4.10-19 and summarized in Chapter 2 (pages
2-10 to 2-11) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the
entirety of the record of proceedings, construction noise related to grading and
construction activities on the site related to the Project will create a temporary,
potentially-significant Noise impact by exposing sensitive receptors and adjacent
residences to construction noise that exceeds limits allowed by the City’s Noise
Ordinance. This Noise impact can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
requiring the applicant (BioMarin and Whistlestop) to use of noise-reducing
measures included in the specifications and that shall be described and included
inapplicable contract specifications: After the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project
is completed and housing residents, require that the construction contractor for
BioMarin Building A and BioMarin Building B not operate more than one piece of
noise-generating equipment (listed in Table 4.10-10) within 40 feet of the
Whistlestop/Eden Housing project. This would ensure that the 90 dBA Lmax is
not exceeded at the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project; the BioMarin and
Whistlestop/Eden Housing project applicants shall require use of noise-reducing
measures that may include the following and that shall be described and
included in applicable contract specifications: (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure
MM NOISE-1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM NOISE-1 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
b. Impact NOISE-2: The project’s mechanical equipment could generate
operational noise in excess of standards established in San Rafael General
Plan 2020 or the noise ordinance.
Significant Impact
29
As discussed on pages 4.10-19 to 4.10-20 and summarized in Chapter 2 (pages
2-10 to 2-11) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the
entirety of the record of proceedings, the project’s mechanical equipment could
generate operational noise in excess of standards established in San Rafael
General Plan 2020 or the noise ordinance. The operation of the new buildings
would include the use of new mechanical heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems. Information regarding the noise-generating
characteristics and locations of the equipment was not available at the time this
analysis was conducted. Without standard controls in place, noise from
mechanical equipment could potentially exceed 60 dBA Lmax/50 dBA Leq during
daytime or 50 dBA Lmax/40 dBA Leq during nighttime at the nearest residential
receptors and could exceed 65 dBA Lmax/55 dBA Leq during both daytime and
nighttime at the nearest commercial land uses. The potential impact can be
reduced to less than significant levels shall use mechanical equipment selection
and acoustical shielding to ensure that noise levels from the installation of
mechanical equipment do not exceed the exterior noise standards of 60 dBA
Lmax/50 dBA Leq during daytime or 50 dBA Lmax/40 dBA Leq during nighttime
at the nearest residential land uses, and do not exceed the exterior noise
standards of 65 dBA Lmax/55 dBA Leq during both daytime and nighttime at the
nearest commercial land uses. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-
2).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM NOISE-2 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
c. Impact NOISE-3: Project construction could expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration levels.
Significant Impact
30
As discussed on pages 4.10-20 to 4.10-22 and summarized in Chapter 2 (pages
2-10 to 2-12) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the
entirety of the record of proceedings, Construction activities associated with the
proposed project would result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration,
depending on the equipment, activity, and soil conditions. Once constructed, the
operation of the proposed project would not cause any vibration or result in
excessive vibration impacts because no vibration-generating activities or land
uses would occur on the project site. Implementation of the mitigation measures
would further reduce the potential vibration impacts by ensuring that any affected
sensitive receptors would have the ability to lodge complaints and that responses
to the complaints would be provided. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this
impact will be less than significant. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM
NOISE-1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM NOISE-1 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
7. Transportation
a. Impact TRANS-1: The project would generate approximately 2,453 daily
vehicle trips, with 236 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and
236 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. Most of the vehicle trips would be
generated by the BioMarin project (1,863 daily, 203 AM peak hour, and 191
PM peak hour trips). The project would increase single-occupancy
vehicular travel and vehicular traffic along key roadways and intersections,
as well as US 101. Maintaining the existing BioMarin travel mode shares
would conflict with citywide policies and programs established to manage
congestion and improve mobility as documented in San Rafael General
Plan 2020.
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-22 to 4.13-22 and summarized in Chapter 2 (pages
2-14 to 2-15) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the
entirety of the record of proceedings, any successive owner or lessor of the site
shall monitor, on an annual basis, all traffic BioMarin, or any successive owner or
lessor of the site, shall continue and expand the implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that focuses on reducing
vehicle trips and improving traffic flow. BioMarin, or any successive owner or
lessor of the site, shall generate at least 15 percent fewer vehicle trips on a daily,
AM peak hour, and PM peak hour basis (i.e., 1,584 daily, 173 AM peak hour, and
162 PM peak hour trips) as compared to those in the Transportation Impact
31
Study for BioMarin 999 3rd Street San Rafael Campus Expansion Revised.
BioMarin and generated at the site, including single-occupant vehicles, carpools,
pedestrian and bicycle trips, and public transit use, to gauge success and
promote appropriate measures to retain vehicle trip rates at, or below, the
current trip rates. BioMarin, or any successive owner or lessor of the site, shall
submit an annual TDM monitoring report to the City of San Rafael for City
review. This mitigation measure shall continue in perpetuity After three
consecutive years demonstrating 15% reduction each year, the monitoring shall
be done every three years to ensure maintenance of the 15% reduction unless a
violation occurs, or a new owner/lessor of the site applies. At that time, the
monitoring shall start anew to ensure successful 15% reduction for three
consecutive years. This mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than
significant. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-1).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-1 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
b. Impact TRANS-5: The project would add construction-related vehicle trips
to City of San Rafael and other jurisdictional roadways, creating temporary
traffic hazards. These conditions would conflict with San Rafael General
Plan 2020 Program C-4a (Street Pattern and Traffic Flow).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-23 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-13) of the
DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, Project construction would generate trips by trucks and other
construction-related vehicles. During the construction period, construction would
occur between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and between
9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, and would be based on City of San Rafael
restrictions. No construction would be allowed on Sundays or holidays or outside
the weekday and Saturday hours described above, unless a request is made and
approved by the Chief Building Official. Implementation of mitigation measure for
Project construction shall abide by the City of San Rafael’s provisions regarding
transportation and parking management during construction activities. In
addition, the project applicants shall develop a demolition construction traffic
management plan defining hours of operation, specified truck routes, and
construction parking provisions. This plan shall be prepared by the applicants
and approved prior to issuance of a building permit by the City of San Rafael
Department of Public Works. The project applicants shall ensure that any
parking losses associated with construction vehicles do not affect parking
32
availability on downtown streets. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-
5).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-5 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
c. Impact TRANS-6: Construction traffic would be staged and would use the
roadway lanes adjacent to the site. This traffic would cause deterioration of
pavement on 3rd Street, Brooks Street, 2nd Street and Lindaro Street.
These conditions would be inconsistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020
Policy C-4 (Safe Road Design).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-23 to 4.13-24 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page
2-13) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, the project’s construction traffic would lead to further
deterioration of roadways near the project site, including along 3rd Street
between Lindaro Street and Brooks Street, Brooks Street between 3rd Street
and 2nd Street, 2nd Street between Brooks Street and Lindaro Street, and
Lindaro Street between 2nd Street and 3rd Street. Implementation of mitigation
measures shall require the project applicants to improve the pavement sections
of the roadways peripheral to the project site to a condition acceptable to the City
Engineer. The applicants shall complete a “pre-construction” study, followed by a
“post-construction” survey to determine what road improvements would be the
responsibility of the applicants. These studies shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-6).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-6 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
33
d. Impact TRANS-7: Access to the project would be provided from six
unsignalized driveways. Motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist sight lines to
and from these driveways would be constrained if parking is allowed next
to the driveways or landscaping blocks views. These conditions would be
inconsistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy C-4 (Safe Road
Design).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-24 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-13) of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, the project applicants shall maintain landscaping at project
driveways to avoid sight distance conflicts. Shrubs shall not be higher than 30
inches and tree canopies shall be at least 7 feet from the ground. The City of
San Rafael shall prohibit parking at least 20 feet in advance and 20 feet behind
each of the project’s six driveways. The implementation of these two mitigation
measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. (Attachment A;
Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-7a and 7b).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-7 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
e. Impact TRANS-8: The project would increase the number of pedestrians
using nearby sidewalks and curb ramps, including at the corners of the
following intersections peripheral to the project site where curb ramps are
not Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant: 3rd Street and
Lindaro Street, 3rd Street and Brooks Street, 2nd Street and Brooks Street,
and 2nd Street and Lindaro Street. These conditions are inconsistent with
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Program C-4b (Street Design Criteria to
Support Alternative Modes) and Policy C-11 (Alternative Transportation
Mode Users).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-24 to 4.13-25 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page
2-14) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, the curb ramps at the four intersections adjacent to the
project site are not in compliance with ADA design guidelines, presenting
challenging travel conditions for mobility-impaired persons. The project would
increase the number of pedestrians using nearby sidewalks and curb ramps,
including the existing non-compliant ramps at the four intersections peripheral to
the project site. The project applicants shall fund the design and construction of
34
curb ramp improvements at all corners of the following intersections: 3rd Street
and Lindaro Street, 3rd Street and Brooks Street, 2nd Street and Brooks Street,
and 2nd Street and Lindaro Street. The implementation of this mitigation
measure would reduce the impact to less than significant. (Attachment A;
Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-8).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-8 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
f. Impact TRANS-9: Currently a marked crosswalk, with curb ramps and
pedestrian signals, is not present on the west leg of the 3rd Street and
Lindaro Street intersection. The project would increase the number of
pedestrians crossing 3rd Street at this location. Pedestrians walking to or
from the project site may be inclined to cross the unmarked west leg
instead of taking the more circuitous marked route (i.e., crosswalks across
the intersection’s south leg and east leg, as well as across the Walgreens
driveway on the north leg). By increasing the number of pedestrians at this
location, the project would worsen hazards by creating greater potential
for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. These conditions would be
inconsistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Program C-4b (Street
Design Criteria to Support Alternative Modes) and Policy C-11 (Alternative
Transportation Mode Users).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-24 to 4.13-25 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page
2-14) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the
record of proceedings, the provision of a marked crosswalk on the west leg of
the intersection would create a more direct connection to downtown for
pedestrians walking to or from the project site. The intersection’s level of service
would not degrade with the provision of the crosswalk. Peak hour vehicular
speeds along 3rd Street would remain the same with or without the western
crosswalk. The project applicants shall fund the design and construction of
improvements related to the provision of a crosswalk across the western leg of
the 3rd Street and Lindaro Street intersection. These improvements shall
include, but not be limited to, curb and roadway infrastructure work, as well as
traffic and pedestrian signal modifications. They may include revisions to or
removal of the driveway on the north side of the intersection. The design of these
improvements would be approved by the City Engineer. (Attachment A;
Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-9).
35
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-9 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
g. Impact TRANS-10: Currently, pedestrian crossings of 3rd Street at Brooks
Street are prohibited. The closest signalized crossing is located at A Street,
which is about 240 feet to the west. The Whistlestop/Eden Housing project
is expected to increase pedestrian crossing demands across 3rd Street at
Brooks Street, as this route would offer the most direct path to and from
dow ntown from the project site. Potential conflicts could arise as
pedestrians use this unmarked location to cross 3rd Street’s three
westbound vehicular travel lanes. These conditions would be inconsistent
with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Program C-4b (Street Design Criteria to
Support Alternative Modes) and Policy C-11 (Alternative Transportation
Mode Users).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-25 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-14) of the
DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, the Transportation Impact Study concluded that, considering
current illegal pedestrian crossings, project-related demand, and a shift of some
of the pedestrians who currently cross at A Street, the warrant for the installation
of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon across the east leg of 3rd Street and Brooks
Street would be met during the weekday PM peak hour. The Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon would operate at LOS A. The project applicants shall fund the design
and construction of improvements related to the provision of a Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon, or other pedestrian crossing enhancements as deemed appropriate by
the City of San Rafael Department of Public Works, at the 3rd Street and Brooks
Street intersection. These improvements could include, but not be limited to,
curb and roadway infrastructure work, as well as traffic and pedestrian signal
modifications. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-10).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-10 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
36
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
h. Impact TRANS-11: Vehicles turning left from southbound Brooks Street to
eastbound 2nd Street currently have limited visibility to eastbound vehicles
at this side-street stop sign controlled intersection due to the siting of the
building at the northwest corner of the intersection. Southbound vehicles
must proceed into the crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection,
blocking pedestrian crossings, to increase the motorist’s view of
oncoming eastbound traffic. This condition would be exacerbated by the
addition of project-related traffic, resulting in an increased potential for
vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. This condition would be
inconsistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway
Design).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-26 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-15) of the
DEIR, and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, by prohibiting egress from southbound Brooks Street onto 2nd
Street, the limited visibility condition for vehicles turning left from southbound
Brooks Street to eastbound 2nd Street would be eliminated. Some traffic would
have to make additional turns, but overall impacts on adjacent intersections
would be minor, with no level of service violations and with some improvements
due to one-way flows. Travel speeds on 2nd Street would be negligibly affected.
Vehicle travel on Brooks Street at 2nd Street shall be limited to one-way
northbound/outbound only. Brooks Street at 3rd Street shall allow both inbound
and outbound traffic to the driveway just south of the Whistlestop/Eden Housing
project. The project applicants shall modify the project, as needed, to enable
sufficient sight distance between westbound motorists on 3rd Street and
northbound motorists, stopped behind a future marked crosswalk, on Brooks
Street. Modifications may include, but not be limited to, building design changes,
roadway curb extensions, or revisions to proposed hardscaping and/or
landscaping. Any changes shall be approved by the City of San Rafael
Department of Public Works. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-
11).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-11 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
37
i. Impact TRANS-12: The two proposed exit driveways to Brooks Street, one
from the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project and the other from the
BioMarin project access road, would provide limited sight lines to Brooks
Street. This condition could lead to increased conflicts between egressing
vehicles and other travelers on Brooks Street, including vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. This condition would be inconsistent with San
Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway Design).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-26 and summarized in Chapter 2 (page 2-15) of the
DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of
proceedings, both egressing driveways would have limited sight lines due to the
proposed buildings. The project applicants shall install systems that provide
vehicle-activated audible and visual warnings for vehicles egressing the
driveways on Brooks Street. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-12).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-12 will reduce this
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
j. Impact TRANS-13: Emergency vehicles would have access to the project
site via the Lindaro Street driveways, the 3rd Street driveway, and the
southernmost Brooks Street driveway. The project applicants propose to
install sliding gates across the 3rd Street and southernmost Brooks Street
driveways. The gates could affect emergency vehicle access if emergency
services personnel could not open the gates. These conditions would be
inconsistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Program C-4a (Street
Pattern and Traffic Flow).
Significant Impact
As discussed on pages 4.13-26 and 4.13-27 and summarized in Chapter 2
(pages 2-15) of the DEIR and supported by evidence contained within the
entirety of the record of proceedings, the sliding gates across the 3rd Street and
southernmost Brooks Street driveways would need to be accessible by
emergency service providers. The sliding gates at the 3rd Street driveway and
the southern Brooks Street driveway shall be approved by the City of San Rafael
Fire and Police Departments and shall enable access by emergency service
providers. (Attachment A; Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-13).
Finding
The City Council finds that implementation of MM TRANS-13 will reduce this
38
impact to a level of less than significant. As authorized by Public Resources.
Code Section 21081(a)(1), Title 14, and California Code of Regulations Section
15091(a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been
required herein, incorporated into the Project, or required as a condition of
Project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact
listed above. The City Council further finds that the change or alteration in the
Project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of Project
approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible. Therefore, with the identified mitigation, this impact
would less than significant.
D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091 and 15092, the FEIR is required to identify the significant impacts that
cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the incorporation of mitigation
measures. The FEIR concluded that although specific mitigation measures have been
identified for the following Project Transportation and Circulation impacts, the impacts
would nonetheless be considered significant and unavoidable, since the roadway
intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service standards in excess of those
established by the General Plan and there are no feasible mitigation measures to
reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City Council adopts
a statement of overriding considerations included below:
1) Land Use & Planning
a. Impact LAND-1: The project could result in a conflict with San Rafael
General Plan 2020 Policy LU-2, which specifies that new development
should only occur when adequate traffic conditions and circulation
improvements are available. Refer to Impacts TRANS-2, TRAN-3, and
TRANS-4 (see Section 4.13, Transportation, of this DEIR). As shown for
these three potential impacts, no mitigation measure would be available to
reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Thus, this potential
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (PS)
Significant Impact.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, the project would add a significant
number of daily vehicle trips to this area of San Rafael, and levels of service at
nearby intersections would be degraded. At the projected traffic levels, no
mitigation measures would be able to reduce impacts to less-than-significant
levels. The project would have to be significantly reduced in scale to reduce the
number of projected trips, and this reduction would possibly conflict with the
City’s desire to increase downtown development for the purposes of infill
development and economic development. Thus, such a reduction in scale was
not considered feasible for the project, and the impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
Finding: As discussed on pages 4.9-9 of the DEIR and supported by evidence
contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, the Project is currently
within the 2/3 MUE land use designation per the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
39
The project could result in a conflict with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy
LU-2, which specifies that new development should only occur when adequate
traffic conditions and circulation improvements are available. Refer to Impacts
TRANS-2, TRAN-3, and TRANS-4 (see Section 4.13, Transportation, of the
DEIR). As shown for these three potential impacts, no mitigation measure would
be available to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Thus, this
potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable
2) Transportation
a. Impact TRANS-2: Project-related traffic, under Cumulative-plus-Project
conditions, would contribute to continued LOS F conditions at the US 101
southbound off-ramp to Mission Avenue, increasing the volume-to-
capacity (V/C) ratio of the off-ramp by 0.033 during the AM peak hour.
Traffic operations and safety at the highway ramp diverge and along the
offramp would worsen. This condition would conflict with standards
provided in the Marin County Congestion Management Plan.
Significant Impact.
The number of employees at the BioMarin site would need to be reduced by 80
percent (from 550 employees to 112 employees) compared to the proposed use
to alleviate this impact. A more aggressive TDM program (see Mitigation
Measure TRANS-1) than is currently undertaken at BioMarin could help reduce
traffic volumes and this impact, but not to an acceptable level. Provision of a
second off-ramp lane and southbound auxiliary lane on US 101 would be
impractical.
Project-related traffic would contribute to continued LOS E (under Baseline-Plus-
Project) and LOS F (under Cumulative-Plus-Project) conditions along westbound
3rd Street between Hetherton Street and D Street during the AM peak hour, with
an increase in the arterial roadway segment’s volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of
0.067. This impact would result in a reduction in travel speeds that conflict with
the Marin County Congestion Management Plan and San Rafael General Plan
2020 Policy C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards).
Finding
As discussed in Chapter 4.13 (pages 4.13-22) of the DEIR and supported by
evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, there is no
feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this significant and unavoidable
Transportation impact to a less-than-significant level that can be
implemented/authorized by the City of San Rafael.
b. Impact TRANS-3: Project-related traffic would contribute to continued LOS
E (under Baseline-Plus-Project) and LOS F (under Cumulative-Plus-Project)
conditions along westbound 3rd Street between Hetherton Street and D
Street during the AM peak hour, with an increase in the arterial roadway
segment’s volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.067. This impact would result
in a reduction in travel speeds that conflict with the Marin County
Congestion Management Plan and San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy C-5
(Traffic Level of Service Standards).
40
Significant Impact.
The project would increase traffic along 3rd Street between Hetherton Street and
D Street, exacerbating vehicular delays and reducing travel speeds along this
key arterial roadway segment. The number of employees at the BioMarin site
would need to be reduced by 28.5 percent (from 550 employees to 393
employees) compared to the proposed use to alleviate this impact. A more
aggressive TDM program (see Mitigation Measure TRANS-1) than is currently
undertaken at BioMarin could help reduce traffic volumes and this impact, but
not to an acceptable level. Widening 3rd Street to provide an additional travel
lane would be impractical due to public right-of-way limitations.
Finding
As discussed in Chapter 4.13 (pages 4.13-22) of the DEIR and supported by
evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, there is no
feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this significant and unavoidable
Transportation impact to a less-than-significant level that can be
implemented/authorized by the City of San Rafael.
c. Impact TRANS-4: Under Cumulative-Plus-Project conditions, project-
related traffic would worsen the service level at the 3rd Street and
Tamalpais Avenue West intersection from LOS E to LOS F during the AM
peak hour, with average delays increasing from 65.6 seconds to 96.7
seconds per motorist. During the PM peak hour, the intersection’s service
level would remain at LOS F with project-related traffic, but the project
would increase average delays from 86.4 to 94.0 seconds per motorist.
This impact would create conflicts with San Rafael General Plan 2020
Policy C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards).
Significant Impact.
Under Cumulative-Plus-Project conditions, the project would result in added
traffic back-ups along westbound 3rd Street at Tamalpais Avenue West.
Implementing more aggressive TDM measures (see Mitigation Measure TRANS-
1) could assist in reducing the increased traffic demand, but the impact would
still be significant. Widening 3rd Street to provide an additional travel lane would
be impractical due to public right-of-way limitations. The number of employees at
the BioMarin site would need to be reduced by 58.3 percent (from 550
employees to 229 employees) compared to the proposed use to alleviate this
impact.
Finding
As discussed in Chapter 4.13 (pages 4.13-22 to 4.13-23) of the DEIR, and
supported by evidence contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings,
there is no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce this significant and
unavoidable Transportation impact to a less-than-significant level that can be
implemented/authorized by the City of San Rafael.
E. IMPACT OVERVIEW
1) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
41
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21100(b)(2)(B), an EIR shall include a
discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from
implementation of a project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) describes irreversible environmental changes
in the following manner: “Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and
continued phases of the Project may be irreversible since a large commitment of
such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and,
particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides
access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to
similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents
associated with the Project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be
evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
As discussed in Chapter 6.1 (page 6-1) of the DEIR, and supported by evidence
contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, construction activities
associated with the proposed structures at the site of the BioMarin and
Whistlestop/Eden Housing Project would be permanent buildings; therefore, their
installation would constitute an irreversible use of these lands, as it is unlikely that
the buildings would be removed. The proposed project would irretrievably commit
materials to the construction and maintenance of the new buildings. Nonrenewable
resources such as sand, gravel, and steel, and renewable resources such as
lumber, would be consumed during project construction. In addition, the construction
and operation of the proposed project would result in the use of energy, including
electricity and fossil fuels. While the consumption of such resources associated with
construction would end upon completion of the proposed construction, the
consumption of such resources associated with operation would represent a long-
term commitment of those resources.
Based on the preceding and on the entirety of the record of proceedings, the City
Council consequently finds that no significant irreversible effects will result from
implementation of the Project.
2) Growth Inducement
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), a project is considered growth-
inducing if it would directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-indicting impacts
include extensions of expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed
to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions
or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developer or are
undeveloped. Typically, redevelopment projects on infill sites that are surrounded by
existing urban uses are not considered growth-inducing because redevelopment by
itself usually does not facilitate development intensification on adjacent sites.
As discussed in Chapter 6.3 (page 6-2) of the DEIR and supported by evidence
contained within the entirety of the record of proceedings, the Project would be
developed on an existing disturbed but vacant site in downtown San Rafael.
Services are readily available in this area. The project site is surrounded by existing
commercial and residential development. The proposed project would not require
42
wastewater or water lines that would cross undeveloped lands and create the
potential for new development. No major road improvements would be associated
with the proposed project except that, over the long term, some local improvements
to vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation may occur. The significant amount of
proposed on-site commercial development, with 207,000 square feet of laboratory
and office space for BioMarin and 18,000 square feet of health services-related
facilities for Whistlestop/Eden Housing, could result in an increased demand for
housing within San Rafael. According to the Marin County Community Development
Agency, the rental vacancy rate in Marin County is currently below 3 percent, when a
“healthy” rate is closer to 6 or 7 percent (City of San Rafael, 2019). Thus, the
demand for a limited number of housing units tends to drive up prices for local
housing. According to the most recent San Rafael General Plan Housing Element,
more than 87 percent of those employed in San Rafael reside in other cities,
implying an imbalance of jobs and housing (City of San Rafael, 2019). This
imbalance leads to increased commuting demands and associated traffic, air quality,
and noise impacts. Recently, the City of San Rafael approved a project at 703-723
3rd Street that will add 120 residential units within three blocks of the project site.
This residential development would help to offset the increased non-residential
development of the proposed project. However, there could remain a need for more
housing for project employees. In this sense, the project would have growth-inducing
impacts related to the need for more local housing.
Based on the preceding and on the entirety of the record of proceedings, the City
Council consequently finds that no significant growth-inducing effects will result from
implementation of the Project.
F. REVIEW OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must “describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives.” (Guidelines§ 15126.6[a].)
The Project Alternatives selected for this EIR were formulated considering the
Objectives of the City of San Rafael and BioMarin/Whistlestop/Eden Housing’s
Objectives stated in Chapter 3 (pages 3.9 to 3.10) and outlined in Chapter 5 of the DEIR
(pages 5-1 - 5-28). Alternatives provide a basis of comparison to the Project in terms of
beneficial, significant, and unavoidable impacts. This comparative analysis is then used
to consider reasonable, feasible options for minimizing environmental consequences of
a project.
The Project Alternatives analyzed in the following sections include:
• No Project/No Medical Office Uses
• Reduced Scale Alternative
• Code-Compliant BioMarin and Off-Site Whistlestop/Eden Housing Project
Alternative
• Code-Compliant BioMarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing Project Alternative
1. Alternative 1: No project: (as required by CEQA). Alternative 1, the No Project
Alternative, would leave the project site unchanged. No drainage, access, parking,
43
or other improvements would be made to the vacant site, which was once occupied
by PG&E facilities. The No Project Alternative would leave this central San Rafael
location unimproved.
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed
project.
Finding
The City Council (1) rejects this No Project Alternative on the basis that it fails to
meet basic project objectives and is infeasible for social and policy reasons; and (2)
finds that each and any of these grounds separately and independently provide
sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project Alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives, specifically:
• This Alternative would not improve the site, which would remain as
undeveloped.
• No new infrastructure or traffic improvements would be included in this
Alternative.
• This Alternative would not allow Whistlestop/Eden Housing to develop 67
units of much needed senior affordable housing.
• The No Project Alternative is also infeasible for policy reasons, as it fails to
comply with the intent of the City’s General Plan 2020, which promotes
economic vitality (Policy EV-2 Seek, Retain, and Promote Businesses that
Enhance San Rafael) and an overarching vision for the Downtown Area (NH-
55. Design Excellence).
• From a policy and social perspective, without development of the proposed
Project, redevelopment of the Project site would likely be postponed
indefinitely, new laboratory and office facilities would not be created on-site,
and BioMarin would be required to find an alternate location(s) for the
Project. In addition, Whistlestop / Eden Housing would not be able to build
the Healthy Aging Campus as a result of this No Project Alternative, and,
therefore would continue to experience the same operational loads and
space challenges with regard to future modernization.
2. Alternative 2: Reduced Scale Alternative: Alternative 2 would consist of a project
that is similar to the proposed project but reduces the amount of overall proposed
laboratory and office space of the BioMarin project, thereby reducing the anticipated
peak hour traffic trips and other impacts. This alternative would reduce the overall
number of employees at BioMarin from 550 to 229 employees, or by 58.3 percent.
This reduction in employees could result in the project’s significant, unavoidable
traffic impacts at the following locations becoming less-than-significant impacts:
• 3rd St/Tamalpais Ave West intersection (cumulative-plus-project
condition during AM and PM peak hour).
• 3rd St between Hetherton St and D St (westbound during AM peak hour).
This alternative assumes the total square footage for the two BioMarin buildings
under Alternative 2 would be 120,240 square feet, compared to the 207,000 sq. ft.
under the proposed project. The office portion would be reduced by a slightly larger
44
amount than the laboratory and retail space. The alternative would include two
stories for Building A (reduced to 52,340 sq. ft.) as compared to the proposed
project’s four stories for Building A. Building B (67,900 sq. ft.) would be three stories
with the top floor set back and with reduced square footage (as compared to the
project’s four stories for Building B). Otherwise, the site plan for the overall project
would be similar to that of the proposed project.
Impacts
Alternative 2 would meet all of the project objectives except the primary objective.
Compared to the proposed project, the size of Alternative 2 would be significantly
reduced, which would not meet the identified laboratory and office space needs for
BioMarin. Whistlestop/Eden housing would be unchanged from the proposed
project; thus, the portion of this objective addressing the Healthy Aging Center and
affordable senior housing would be met. However, if the BioMarin part of Alternative
2 were not developed because the project’s primary objective could not be met, the
Whistlestop/Eden Housing component of the project would also not occur.
Finding
The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet basic
project objectives, is infeasible for social and policy reasons; and (2) finds that each
and any of these grounds separately and independently provide sufficient
justification for rejection of this Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
• This Alternative achieves some, but not all, of the Project objectives,
including failing to achieve the primary Project objective for the required
laboratory/office space for BioMarin.
• In order to address the remaining 60% of laboratory/office space removed
from this Alternative, BioMarin would be required to find alternative locations
that may not be as centrally located or have ease of access or available
parking.
• General site improvements included as part of the Project would be included
in this Alternative.
• BioMarin would continue to require additional laboratory/office space
throughout San Rafael and Marin County and, therefore, would continue to
experience the same space shortfall with regard to company needs.
• BioMarin would not feasibly be able to build this Alternative, and would
therefore not donate the site the Whistlestop/Eden Housing. No Healthy
Aging Campus would be developed as a result of this Alternative.
From a social and policy perspective, BioMarin would continue to have a space
shortage and would therefore continue to investigate other areas in San Rafael and
Marin County and no Healthy Aging Campus would be developed. Both BioMarin
and Whistlestop / Eden Housing would not be able to develop the Project in
downtown San Rafael.
3. Alternative 3: Code-Compliant BioMarin and Off-Site Whistlestop/Eden
Housing project: This alternative would assume a reduced height BioMarin project
that would not require General Plan amendments for FAR, height bonuses, or
parking modifications;
45
BioMarin Project under Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would reduce the building height of the BioMarin project to 54 ft. to
comply with existing General Plan provisions and zoning for the site, with no bonus
exemptions and no rezoning to Planned Development for the BioMarin portion of the
site. The FAR would be increased from the proposed 0.90 to 1.50, as allowed by
existing General Plan provisions and zoning, allowing a total of 199,649 sq. ft. for
BioMarin on the site. The FAR limit would not consider combining the site with other
nearby BioMarin facilities (as addressed in Table 3-3 of Chapter 3 of the DEIR). This
Alternative assumes a total of 220 parking spaces would be required to be provided
on the site. This would be in addition to public parking that is assumed to allow the
height bonus.
Whistlestop/EDEN Housing Project under Alternative 3
This alternative assumes that the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project would be
located off the project site at 930 Tamalpais Avenue, where Whistlestop is currently
located. It is assumed that 41 units of affordable senior housing (one of these would
be a manager’s unit) would be provided in a five-story building similar to the design
proposed in 2016. This project assumes residential units on the third through fifth
floors and the Whistlestop Active Aging Center, with classrooms, offices, and
meeting rooms on the second and third floors. The ground level would contain
parking and utility uses, along with the Jackson Café. Access to transit would be
available via (1) van service (Marin’s Whistlestop Wheels Para Transit) with access
at the ground-level garage, (2) buses at the adjacent San Rafael Transit Center, and
(3) regional rail at the SMART station located at the east edge of the site. A total of
20 parking spaces would be provided in a street level garage for use by Whistlestop
employees and guests.
Impacts
Alternative 3 would meet all of the project objectives except four objectives (1, 2, 3,
and 12). Alternative 3 would have reduced square footage for the BioMarin buildings
and would not meet BioMarin’s needs for R&D and laboratory infrastructure. The
relocation of the Whistlestop/EDEN Housing project to its Tamalpais Avenue site
would conflict with the second objective above. This alternative would also have
fewer senior housing units and thus would conflict with the goal of providing 67
affordable rental housing units for seniors.
Finding
The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet basic
project objectives, is infeasible for social and policy reasons; and (2) finds that each
and any of these grounds separately and independently provide sufficient
justification for rejection of this Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
• This Alternative achieves some, but not all, of the Project objectives,
including failing to achieve the primary Project objective for the required
laboratory/office space for BioMarin.
• In order to address the remaining 10% of laboratory/office space removed
from this Alternative, BioMarin would be required to find alternative locations
46
that may not be as centrally located or have ease of access or available
parking.
• Whistlestop/Eden Housing would not be able to develop the Healthy Aging
Campus and would not develop 67 units of senior affordable housing.
• BioMarin would continue to require additional laboratory/office space
throughout San Rafael and Marin County and, therefore, would continue to
experience the same space challenges with regard to future expansion and
space needs at the main SRCC campus.
From a social and policy perspective, BioMarin would continue to have a space
shortage and would therefore continue to investigate other areas in San Rafael and
Marin County. Whistlestop / EDEN Housing would be required to develop a
problematic project at the original location with fewer units.
4. Alternative 4: Code-Compliant BioMarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing
project: Under Alternative 4, the FAR would be increased from the proposed 0.90 to
1.50, allowing a total of 199,649 square feet for both BioMarin (181,649 sq. ft.) and
the non-residential portion of Whistlestop/Eden Housing (18,000 sq. ft.). The
Whistlestop/Eden Housing project would occupy 0.34 acre of the project site under
this alternative and is assumed to be approximately the same as the proposed
project in scale and height, given that the height bonuses allowed by the provision of
affordable housing. It is assumed that the BioMarin portion of the site would consist
of two buildings similar in scale to proposed Building B, or about 235 ft. long by 108
ft. wide (or 23,380 sq. ft.). With 181,649 sq. ft. for BioMarin, both Buildings A and B
would be four stories in height. This alternative may have reduced square footage
for laboratory space.
Unlike Alternative 3, Alternative 4 is not assumed to have public parking on the site.
The project site is located within the Downtown Parking District which waives parking
requirements for the first 1.0 of FAR. With this alternative having an FAR of 1.50,
parking required for BioMarin would be approximately 210 parking spaces. It is
assumed that an eight-story parking structure of about 150 ft. by 170 ft. could be
constructed on the corner of 2nd St. and Lindaro St.. The parking structure height
results from the fact that only 35 cars can be provided on each floor, given
circulation requirements. Assuming 10 feet per floor, this parking structure would be
about 60 ft. in height, or about the same size as the proposed BioMarin building
height for the proposed project.
Alternative 4 would meet all of the project objectives as listed at the beginning of this
chapter except the provision of the same square footage for laboratory space and
the following objective “Use of larger parking structures on the perimeter of the
BioMarin campus to keep the visible bulk away from major views and to reduce car
trips along 2nd and 3rd Streets, while creating an environment more easily
navigated by employees and visitors.”
Impacts
Alternative 4 would meet most of the project objectives as listed at the beginning of
this chapter except two main objectives (1 and 12). Alternative 4 would have
reduced square footage for the BioMarin buildings and would not meet BioMarin’s
needs for R&D and laboratory infrastructure and would require a large parking
47
structure constructed on site. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Land Use and
Planning and Transportation would continue to exist under this Alternative
Finding
The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to meet basic
project objectives, is infeasible for social and policy reasons; and (2) finds that each
and any of these grounds separately and independently provide sufficient
justification for rejection of this Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
• This Alternative achieves some, but not all, of the Project objectives, including
failing to achieve the primary Project objective for the required laboratory/office
space for BioMarin.
• In order to address the remaining 30% of laboratory/office space removed from
this Alternative, BioMarin would be required to find alternative locations that may
not be as centrally located or have ease of access or available parking.
• BioMarin would continue to require additional laboratory/office space throughout
San Rafael and Marin County and, therefore, would continue to experience the
same space challenges with regard to future expansion and space needs at the
main SRCC campus.
• Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Land Use and Planning and
Transportation would occur under this Alternative
From a social and policy perspective, BioMarin would continue to have a space
shortage and would therefore continue to investigate other areas in San Rafael and
Marin County. Whistlestop / EDEN Housing would be required to develop a
problematic project at the original location with fewer units.
Environmental Superior Alternative
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), an environmentally superior
alternative must be identified among the alternatives that were studied. The DEIR
concludes (Chapter 5; page 5-26) that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is
the Alternative 2: Reduced Scale project for the following reasons:
• The smaller scale BioMarin Buildings A and B would reduce some of the local
traffic congestion.
• The reduction in building height for Buildings A and B would also result in slightly
reduced visual impacts for the project when viewed along 2nd Street and 3rd
Street.
• Alternative 2 would retain the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project on the project
site, which is a preferred site compared to its existing location at 930 Tamalpais
Avenue.
• Alternative 2 would meet all of the project objectives as listed at the beginning of
this chapter except the following primary objective:
o Development of an underutilized vacant site in close proximity to
BioMarin’s existing San Rafael headquarters to accommodate BioMarin’s
planned expansion of its campus through the addition of a new laboratory
and office space flexible in design and built in a manner that can
accommodate the necessary square footage and building heights to
support the R&D and laboratory infrastructure requirements needed for
48
BioMarin’s planned expansion, while also accommodating the needs of
Whistlestop/Eden Housing and its use of a portion of the project site for
its Healthy Aging Center and affordable senior housing.
Rejection of Environmentally Superior Alternative:
Compared to the proposed project, the size of Alternative 2 would be significantly
reduced, which would not meet the identified laboratory and office space needs for
BioMarin. Whistlestop/Eden Housing would be unchanged from the proposed
project; thus, the portion of this objective addressing the Healthy Aging Center and
affordable senior housing would be met. This alternative would not meet one of the
primary objectives of BioMarin However, if the BioMarin part of Alternative 2 were
not developed because the project’s primary objective could not be met, the
Whistlestop/Eden Housing project would also not occur.
G. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Although the Environmental Superior Alternative would reduce a majority of the
significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels, it would not achieve
the primary objective for BioMarin:
Development of an underutilized vacant site in close proximity to BioMarin’s existing San
Rafael headquarters to accommodate BioMarin’s planned expansion of its campus
through the addition of a new laboratory and office space flexible in design and built in a
manner that can accommodate the necessary square footage and building heights to
support the R&D and
laboratory infrastructure requirements needed for BioMarin’s planned expansion, while
also accommodating the needs of Whistlestop/Eden Housing and its use of a portion of
the project site for its Healthy Aging Center and affordable senior housing.
As such, BioMarin would not build the project which would in turn prevent the
Whistlestop/EDEN Housing project from occurring. Therefore, the project as proposed,
will require the City of San Rafael City Council adopts the following Statement of
Overriding Considerations based on information in the FEIR and all other information in
the record, including the proposal of public benefits outlined in the January 10, 2020
Development Agreement Term Sheet from BioMarin to the City of San Rafael (on file
with the Department of Community Development). The City Council recognizes that
significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the Project.
Pursuant to Section F of this Resolution, the City Council determines that the Proposed
Project provides benefits that outweigh the any of the environmental superior
alternative. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, it has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable
environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the
State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
49
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed significant
effects which may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the
Mitigation Measures discussed in the EIR and adopted by this Resolution, these effects
can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the two unavoidable
significant impact discussed in Section F of this Resolution.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project. The
City Council hereby declares that to the extent any Mitigation Measures recommended
in the EIR would not be incorporated, such Mitigation Measures are infeasible because
they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that all alternatives set forth in the EIR are rejected as
being either inconsistent with project objectives, infeasible because they would prohibit
the realization of specific policy, social and other benefits that this City Council finds
outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives, or are otherwise not
environmentally superior.
The reasons discussed below summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the
Project, and provide, in addition to the findings, the detailed rationale for adoption of the
Project. Collectively, these overriding considerations are sufficient to outweigh the
adverse environmental impacts of the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effect of the Project to the extent feasible by recommending adoption of
the Mitigation Measures contained in this Resolution, having considered the entire
administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project
against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council finds that each
of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately
and individually outweigh the single potential unavoidable adverse impact and render
that potential adverse environmental impact acceptable based upon the following
overriding considerations:
The City Council adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations based on
information in the FEIR, other information in the record including the proposal of public
benefit outlined in the January 10 Development Agreement terms sheet from BioMarin
(on file with the Department of Community Development). The City Council recognizes
that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the project.
The City has imposed all feasible mitigation to reduce the project’s significant impacts to
a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that except for the project, all
other alternatives set forth in the Draft EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit
the realization of the project objectives of providing needed retail services.
Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures and recognized the significant,
unavoidable environmental effects, the City Council hereby finds that the benefits
outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effects for the reasons stated below.
The reasons discussed below summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the
proposed project, and provide, in addition to the findings, the detailed rationale for the
50
project. Collectively, these overriding considerations would be sufficient to outweigh the
adverse environmental impacts of the project.
1. Furtherance of City Goals and Policies
The proposed project will implement, and is consistent with, City goals, objectives,
policies and programs for the Project Site described in the following City General
Plan Elements: Land Use, Neighborhood, Sustainability, Circulation, Economic
Vitality, and Safety, as thoroughly analyzed in the Project DEIR. The project will also
support San Rafael’s Objectives and Design Guidelines for the Downtown by
proposing a design that provides an entry and focal point for the 2nd/3rd Street
corridor, advances the “Alive after Five” policy, and allows expansion of a major
downtown employer. Lastly the BioMarin development will allow the relocation and
development of a new Whistlestop Healthy Aging Center and 67 affordable units for
seniors in the downtown
2. Development of an Existing Infill Site
The project will facilitate the development of an infill site in an existing urbanized
area in San Rafael and will result in regional environmental benefits because it will
not require the extension of utilities or roads into undeveloped areas, is convenient
to major arterials, services and transit, including the SMART station, and will not
directly or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites in the San Francisco
Bay Area.
3. Voluntary donation of development area
BioMarin is donating the Northwestern Portion of their site to Whistlestop/EDEN
housing for development of a healthy aging campus and affordable senior housing.
This donation, along with a land swap to BioMarin of another property owned by
Whistlestop in San Rafael yields a net donation by BioMarin of approximately $1.2
million as of June 2018, in its then current as-is condition. This obligation shall be
required prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for development on the
R&D Development Property.
4. Voluntary monetary contribution for Shuttle Service
BioMarin will contribute, $400,000 ($100,000 each year commencing on the first
anniversary of the DA for four years) to the City of San Rafael for purposes of
implementing a first mile/last mile shuttle service or for other
traffic/circulation/parking improvement measures as determined by the City.
5. Voluntary monetary contribution for Signal Synchronization
BioMarin will contribute $500,000 ($125,000 each year commencing on the first
anniversary of the DA for four years) to the City of San Rafael towards the
synchronization of traffic lights along the 2nd and 3rd Street corridors to improve
traffic flow or for other traffic/ circulation/parking improvement measures as
determined by the City.
6. Development opportunity for Whistlestop/EDEN Housing
The remediation performed by PG&E of this site was not performed on the entire
site. In addition, the level of cleanup was not such that would met the State DTSC
standards for residential use of the property. For the benefit of development of a
healthy aging campus and affordable senior housing, BioMarin is currently
51
conducting the second phase of the soil remediation for the 999 3rd Street Property
by performing an investigation and cleanup under the DTSC’s Voluntary Cleanup
Program. Following this cleanup, the site would be able to accommodate residential
use. BioMarin shall complete such second phase of remediation prior to
commencement of construction and development activities for the 999 3rd Street
Project and the development of the Whistlestop component of the project.
7. Leaseback donation for Whistlestop/Eden Housing
BioMarin to conduct a land exchange as part of the donation of the parcel to
Whistlestop/Eden Housing. BioMarin shall donate to Whistlestop a leaseback of 930
Tamalpais Avenue for three (3) years, valued at approximately $256,000 as of May
2019.
8. Provide Public Meeting Space and urban open space
BioMarin provides a portion of the 999 3rd Street Project consisting of approximately
3,500 square feet of retail space and approximately 6,000 square feet of landscaped
plaza and located at the corner of 3rd Street and Lindaro Street, shall be open to the
public during daytime hours (from 9 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).
9. Contributions to Pedestrian/Bicycle safety
BioMarin shall develop a class II bike lane on Lindaro Street from 3rd Street to
Anderson Dr prior to completion of Phase I. BioMarin shall also contribute to City’s
enhancement of pedestrian safety by improving the sidewalks and crosswalk design
at the corner of Lindaro Street and 2nd Street prior to completion of Phase I.
10. Public Parking
Allow the City to utilize up to 70% of the 999 Third Street parcel (the exact layout to
be reasonably negotiated so as to maximize the utility of each portion) retained by
BioMarin for public parking and ancillary uses (such as food truck market, etc.) until
such time as commencement of construction activities for either building on the
parcel, so long as City is responsible for all liability related to the public’s use of
parcel, including, without limitation, all security, sanitation and janitorial.
H. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, to
be made a condition of approval of the Revised Project. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
shall control.
I. STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Marin and the State
Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council approves an Exception to the City-
adopted level of service traffic standards set forth in San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation
Element Policy C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards) per Circulation Element Policy C-5D
52
(Evaluation of Project Merits) and Program C-5c (Exception Review). The Exception is
warranted and substantiated based on the finding that the project provides significant
economic, social, and/or other benefits to the community that substantially outweigh the
project’s impacts on circulation network. The specific benefits found to outweigh the impacts
are identified in the Statement of Overriding considerations section above. Furthermore, the
City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been required of the project.
I, Lindsay Lara, 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, held on Monday, the 23rd of March 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit A-1
EXHIBIT A: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
AIR QUALITY
AIR-1: During project construction, the contractor shall implement a
dust control program that includes the following measures
recommended by the BAAQMD:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-
site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once
per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per
hour.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon
as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number
and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
The above measures shall be included in contract specifications. In
addition, an independent construction monitor shall conduct periodic
site inspections, but in no event less than four total inspections,
during the course of construction to ensure these mitigation
measures are implemented and shall issue a letter report to the City
of San Rafael Building Division documenting the inspection results.
Reports indicating non-compliance with construction mitigation
Both applicants’
contractors
City Prior to start of
construction and
at time of contract
specifications
Exhibit A-2
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
measures shall be cause to issue a stop work order until such time as
compliance is achieved.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce potentially
significant impacts of fugitive dust emissions during project
construction to a less-than-significant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CULT-1: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during
project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing
activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the
situation, determine if the deposit qualifies as a historical resource,
consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for
the treatment of the discovery. If the deposit is found to be significant
(i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources), the applicant shall be responsible for funding and
implementing appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures
may include recordation of the archaeological deposit, data recovery
and analysis, and public outreach regarding the scientific and cultural
importance of the discovery. Upon completion of the selected
mitigations, a report documenting methods, findings, and
recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City for
review, and the final report shall be submitted to the Northwest
Information Center at Sonoma State University. Significant
archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate curation
facility and used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in
coordination with a local Native American tribal representative.
The applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the
project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the
following directive has been included in the appropriate contract
documents:
“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for Native
American archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are
encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-
disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified
Both applicants’
contractors
City At time of
contract
specifications and
at time of deposit
encounter, as
applicable
Exhibit A-3
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, determine if the
deposit qualifies as a historical resource, consult with agencies as
appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the
discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any
archaeological materials. Archaeological deposits can include
shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian,
chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles. Contractor acknowledges
and understands that excavation or removal of archaeological
material is prohibited by law and constitutes a misdemeanor under
California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.”
CULT-2: Mitigation Measure CULT-1 shall be implemented.
See CULT-1 See CULT-1 See CULT-1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: The project applicants shall implement all of the
recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation,
including design criteria, plan review, and construction period
monitoring recommendations. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit and building permit, the applicants shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the recommendations of the
design-level geotechnical investigation have been incorporated into
the project grading plans and building plans.
Both applicants City Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
GEO-2: The project applicants shall implement Mitigation Measure
GEO-1. See GEO-1 See GEO-1 See GEO-1
GEO-3: Should paleontological resources be encountered during
project subsurface construction activities located in previously
undisturbed soil and bedrock, all ground-disturbing activities within 25
feet shall be halted and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess
the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make
recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of
this mitigation, a “qualified paleontologist” shall be an individual with
the following qualifications: 1) a graduate degree in paleontology or
geology and/or a person with a demonstrated publication record in
peer-reviewed paleontological journals; 2) at least two years of
professional experience related to paleontology; 3) proficiency in
recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance; 4)
Both applicants’
contractors
City At time of
encounter of
paleontological
resources, as
needed
Exhibit A-4
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and 5)
experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field.
If the paleontological resources are found to be significant and project
activities cannot avoid them, measures shall be implemented to
ensure that the project does not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of the paleontological resource. Measures may
include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and
analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and
technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon completion of
the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and
recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City for
review. If paleontological materials are recovered, this report also
shall be submitted to a paleontological repository such as the
University of California Museum of Paleontology, along with
significant paleontological materials. Public educational outreach may
also be appropriate.
The project applicants shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of
the project site for paleontological resources and shall verify that the
following directive has been included in the appropriate contract
specification documents:
“The subsurface of the construction site may contain fossils. If
fossils are encountered during project subsurface construction, all
ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be halted and a
qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult
with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the
treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or
move any paleontological materials. Fossils can include plants and
animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks or
plant imprints. Marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils
such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and
vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones.
Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel,
saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Contractor acknowledges and
understands that excavation or removal of paleontological material
is prohibited by law and constitutes a misdemeanor under California
Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.”
Exhibit A-5
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicants shall
provide the City of San Rafael with a letter from the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) indicating that the project site has
been appropriately remediated and appropriate engineering controls
have been incorporated into the project design, as necessary, to
ensure that future occupants of the project site would not be exposed
to unacceptable health risks from hazardous materials in the
subsurface of the project site. The Covenant and Agreement to
Restrict Use of Property (Covenant) and Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) Plan for the project site shall be amended to account for post-
remediation conditions of the project site and ensure the engineering
controls are operated and maintained such that conditions at the
project site remain protective of human health and the environment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, compliance with the
requirements of the Covenant and O&M Plan as required by DTSC,
and compliance with existing regulations related to hazardous
materials that would be handled during operation of the project would
ensure that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to accidental releases of hazardous materials during
operation.
Both applicants City Prior to approval
of building
permits
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYDRO-1: Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicants
shall provide the City of San Rafael with a letter from the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) indicating that the infiltration
proposed by the post-construction stormwater management plans
would not lead to the spread of existing groundwater contamination or
interference with the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction and
treatment system located adjacent to the south and southeast of the
project site. If DTSC indicates that restrictions to infiltration are
necessary, then the post-construction stormwater management plan
shall be modified, as appropriate, to limit infiltration. For example, the
pervious pavements and bioretention facilities could be underlain by a
low permeability liner that would limit infiltration to the subsurface.
Both applicants City Prior to approval
of building
permits
Exhibit A-6
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
Any changes to the post-construction stormwater management plan
must be approved by DTSC and the City Engineer prior to approval of
building permits.
HYDRO-2: The project applicants shall incorporate the
recommendations of the preliminary hydrology study into the project
design, and shall complete a final hydrology study based on the final
design of the proposed project. The final hydrology study shall verify
that peak flows to individual points of drainage around the project site
would be limited to at or below existing levels under the final project
design, or shall provide recommendations to achieve these limits.
The project applicants shall implement all of the recommendation of
the final hydrology study. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
and building permit, the applicants shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the recommendations of the final
hydrology and hydraulic study have been incorporated into the project
grading plans and building plans.
Both applicants City Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits
LAND USE AND PLANNING
LAND-1: No feasible mitigation measures are available, and therefore
this impact would be significant and unavoidable on both a project
and cumulative basis.
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
NOISE
NOISE-1a: After the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project is completed
and housing residents, the BioMarin project applicant shall require
that the construction contractor for BioMarin Building A and BioMarin
Building B to implement a noise monitoring program during
construction. The details of the construction noise monitoring
program (described further below) shall be included in applicable
contract specifications and be submitted to the City of San Rafael
Building Division for approval before construction.
A noise monitoring program shall include collecting noise level
measurements at the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project during all
phases of construction of the BioMarin project. A qualified acoustical
consultant shall collect the noise level measurements, and shall
select the timing and location of the measurements to be as close to
future residents of the Whistlestop/
Both applicants City During
construction
Exhibit A-7
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
Eden Housing project as possible. Consistent with the San Rafael
Municipal Code, noise levels shall be measured on an A-weighted
scale with a sound level meter (Type 1 or 2). For constant noise
sources, the meter shall be set for slow or fast response speed and
Leq shall be used. For intermittent sound, the meter shall be set for
fast response speed and Lmax shall be used.
The monitoring results and the associated data interpretation that
focuses on whether the construction activity is in compliance with
applicable thresholds shall be reported to the City of San Rafael
Building Division. If construction noise exceeds 90 dBA Lmax at the
Whistlestop/Eden Housing project, additional noise attenuation
measures shall be implemented to reduce construction noise and to
ensure the operation of all construction equipment (listed in DEIR
Table 4.10-10) to be below 90 dBA Lmax at the Whistlestop/Eden
Housing project. The noise attenuation measures may include, but
are not limited to, the erection of a Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rated wall or a plywood wall around the construction site. The
BioMarin project applicant shall implement the approved monitoring
program during construction.
NOISE-1b: The BioMarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing project
applicants shall require use of noise-reducing measures that may
include the following and that shall be described and included in
applicable contract specifications:
1. Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake
and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and are
appropriate for the equipment.
2. Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air
compressors and portable power generators, as far away as
possible from noise-sensitive land uses. Muffle the stationary
equipment, and enclose within temporary sheds or surround by
insulation barriers, if feasible.
3. To the extent feasible, establish construction staging areas at
locations that would create the greatest distance between the
construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
during all project construction.
Both applicants
and contractors
City During
construction
Exhibit A-8
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
4. Use "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.
5. Construct or use temporary noise barriers, as needed, to shield
on-site construction and demolition noise from noise-sensitive
areas to the extent feasible. To be most effective, the barrier
should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the
sensitive receptor. Examples of barriers include portable
acoustically lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g.,
jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the loudest
noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or
portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or
acoustical blankets, as feasible.
6. Control noise levels from workers’ amplified music so that sounds
are not audible to sensitive receptors in the vicinity.
7. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
NOISE-1c: The BioMarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing construction
contractors shall develop a set of procedures that are described and
included in applicable contract specifications for tracking and
responding to complaints received pertaining to construction vibration
and noise, and shall implement the procedures during construction.
At a minimum, the procedures shall include:
1. Designation of an on-site construction complaint and enforcement
manager for the project.
2. Protocols specific to on-site and off-site receptors for receiving,
responding to, and tracking received complaints. The construction
complaint and enforcement manager shall promptly respond to
any complaints and work cooperatively with affected receptors to
ensure that the source of the noise- or vibration-generating activity
is discontinued or determine an acceptable schedule to resume
the activity when the receptor is not present in the residence.
3. Maintenance of a complaint log that records what complaints were
received and how these complaints were addressed.
Both applicants’
contractors
City Prior to and
during
construction
NOISE-1d: Nearby residents shall be informed by posting
informational notices on the fence line of the construction site. The Both applicants
and contractors
City At time of
developing
Exhibit A-9
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
notice shall state the date of planned construction activity and include
the contact information of the construction complaint and disturbance
coordinator identified in Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b.
The above measures shall be included in contract specifications. In
addition, an independent construction monitor shall conduct periodic
site inspections, but in no event fewer than four total inspections,
during the course of construction to ensure these mitigation
measures are implemented and shall issue a letter report to the City
of San Rafael Building Division documenting the inspection results.
Reports indicating non-compliance with construction mitigation
measures shall be cause to issue a stop work order until such time as
compliance is achieved.
The combination of the four mitigation measures above would reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level.
contract
specifications and
during
construction
NOISE-2: The project applicants shall use mechanical equipment
selection and acoustical shielding to ensure that noise levels from the
installation of mechanical equipment do not exceed the exterior noise
standards of 60 dBA Lmax/50 dBA Leq during daytime or 50 dBA
Lmax/40 dBA Leq during nighttime at the nearest residential land uses,
and do not exceed the exterior noise standards of 65 dBA Lmax/55
dBA Leq during both daytime and nighttime at the nearest commercial
land uses. Controls that would typically be incorporated to attain this
outcome include locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas,
when feasible; selecting quiet equipment; and providing sound
attenuators on fans, sound attenuator packages for cooling towers
and emergency generators, acoustical screen walls, and equipment
enclosures.
Both applicants City Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
NOISE-3: Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a through NOISE-1d shall be
implemented. Both applicants City Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
TRANSPORTATION
TRANS-1: BioMarin, or any successive owner or lessor of the site,
shall continue and expand the implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program that focuses on reducing
vehicle trips and improving traffic flow. BioMarin, or any successive
owner or lessor of the site, shall generate at least 15 percent fewer
BioMarin City Annually during
operation
Exhibit A-10
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
vehicle trips on a daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour basis (i.e.,
1,584 daily, 173 AM peak hour, and 162 PM peak hour trips) as
compared to those in the Transportation Impacts Study for BioMarin
999 3rd St San Rafael Campus Expansion Revised. BioMarin and any
successive owner or lessor of the site shall monitor, on an annual
basis, all traffic generated at the site, including single-occupant
vehicles, carpools, pedestrian and bicycle trips, and public transit use,
to gauge success and promote appropriate measures to retain
vehicle trip rates at, or below, the current trip rates. BioMarin, or any
successive owner or lessor of the site, shall submit an annual TDM
monitoring report to the City of San Rafael for City review. This
mitigation measure shall continue in perpetuity. After three
consecutive years demonstrating successful 15% reduction, the
monitoring shall be done every three years to ensure maintenance of
the 15% reduction unless a violation occurs, or a new owner/lessor of
the site applies. At that time, the annual monitoring shall start anew to
ensure successful 15% reduction for three consecutive years. This
mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant.
TRANS-2: No feasible mitigation is available. This impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
TRANS-3: No feasible mitigation is available. This impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
TRANS-4: No feasible mitigation is available. This impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
TRANS-5: Project construction shall abide by the City of San Rafael’s
provisions regarding transportation and parking management during
construction activities. In addition, the project applicants shall develop
a demolition construction traffic management plan defining hours of
operation, specified truck routes, and construction parking provisions.
This plan shall be prepared by the applicants and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit by the City of San Rafael Department of
Public Works. The project applicants shall ensure that any parking
losses associated with construction vehicles do not affect parking
availability on downtown streets.
Both applicants City Prior to and
during
construction
Exhibit A-11
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
TRANS-6: The project applicants shall improve the pavement
sections of the roadways peripheral to the project site to a condition
acceptable to the City Engineer. The applicants shall complete a “pre-
construction” study, followed by a “post-construction” survey to
determine what road improvements would be the responsibility of the
applicants. These studies shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval.
Both applicants City Engineer Prior to and after
construction
TRANS-7a: The project applicants shall maintain landscaping at
project driveways to avoid sight distance conflicts. Shrubs shall not be
higher than 30 inches and tree canopies shall be at least 7 feet from
the ground.
Both applicants City During operation
TRANS-7b: The City of San Rafael shall prohibit parking at least 20
feet in advance and 20 feet behind each of the project’s six
driveways.
The combination of these two mitigation measures would reduce the
impact to less than significant.
Both applicants City During operation
TRANS-8: The project applicants shall fund the design and
construction of curb ramp improvements at all corners of the following
intersections: 3rd Street and Lindaro Street, 3rd Street and Brooks
Street, 2nd Street and Brooks Street, and 2nd Street and Lindaro
Street.
Both applicants City Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
TRANS-9: The project applicants shall fund the design and
construction of improvements related to the provision of a crosswalk
across the western leg of the 3rd Street and Lindaro Street
intersection. These improvements shall include, but not be limited to,
curb and roadway infrastructure work, as well as traffic and
pedestrian signal modifications. They may include revisions to or
removal of the driveway on the north side of the intersection. The
design of these improvements would be approved by the City
Engineer.
Both applicants City Engineer
and City
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
Exhibit A-12
Mitigation Measure
Party
Responsible
for Ensuring
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Timing
Compliance Verification
Initial Date
Project/
Comments
TRANS-10: The project applicants shall fund the design and
construction of improvements related to the provision of a Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon, or other pedestrian crossing enhancements as
deemed appropriate by the City of San Rafael Department of Public
Works, at the 3rd Street and Brooks Street intersection. These
improvements could include, but not be limited to, curb and roadway
infrastructure work, as well as traffic and pedestrian signal
modifications.
Both applicants City Department
of Public Works
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
TRANS-11: Vehicle travel on Brooks Street at 2nd Street shall be
limited to one-way northbound/outbound inbound only. Brooks Street
at 3rd Street shall allow both inbound and outbound traffic to the
driveway just south of the Whistlestop/Eden Housing project. The
project applicants shall modify the project, as needed, to enable
sufficient sight distance between westbound motorists on 3rd Street
and northbound motorists, stopped behind a future marked
crosswalk, on Brooks Street. Modifications may include, but not be
limited to, building design changes, roadway curb extensions, or
revisions to proposed hardscaping and/or landscaping. Any changes
shall be approved by the City of San Rafael Department of Public
Works.
Both applicants City Department
of Public Works
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
TRANS-12: The project applicants shall install systems that provide
vehicle-activated audible and visual warnings for vehicles egressing
the driveways on Brooks Street.
Both applicants City Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits
TRANS-13: The sliding gates at the 3rd Street driveway and the
southern Brooks Street driveway shall be approved by the City of San
Rafael Fire and Police Departments and shall enable access by
emergency service providers.
BioMarin only City Fire and
Police
Departments
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits