HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13478 (397-400 Smith Ranch Rd. EIR)RESOLUTION NO. 13478
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR TIDE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT RECREATIONAL
FACILITY PROJECT AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM (MMRP) TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, LOCATED SOUTH OF SMITH
RANCH ROAD AT 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD
(APN 155-230-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16)
ZC05-01, UP05-08, ED05-15
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2005, San Rafael Airport, LLC filed planning permit applications with
the City of San Rafael, Planning Division proposing development of a recreation facility at the San Rafael
Airport. The project proposes the development of: a) an 85,700 -square -foot multi-purpose recreational use
building with indoor sports fields, courts and associated ancillary support services; b) a lighted outdoor
soccer field for games and an un -lighted soccer warm-up area; and c) surface parking for visitor use. The
recreation facility is proposed on a 16.6 -acre portion of the 119.52 -acre airport property and would be sited
east of the airport support facilities and north of the runway, on that portion of the property identified as
APN 155-230-12; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2006, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the Community Development Department completed and published an Initial Study, which
recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A 30 -day public review period was
observed. On February 28 and March 28, 2006, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Following public testimony and comment, on June 21, 2006
the Community Development Director determined and directed that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be prepared. Further, the public hearings served as a public scoping session to identify issues to be studied
in the EIR. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), the EIR was to
address the following issues: Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise,
Transportation/Traffic, Cumulative Impacts, Growth -Inducing Impacts and Project Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the City Council authorized an agreement with Lamphier-
Gregory, Environmental Consultants to prepare the project EIR based on the scope of work developed and
reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 26, 2006. Work on the EIR commenced but was
suspended from December 2006 through July 2007 to allow for completion of California Clapper Rail
surveys in conformance with US Fish and Wildlife Draft Survey Protocol. On October 7, 2007, following
completion of the protocol surveys, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to
obtain updated comments from responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. The scope of work
was further expanded to include analysis of Climate Change; and
WHEREAS, in March 2009 the San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) was completed. The DEIR concluded that all significant impacts identified in the DEIR can
be mitigated to a less -than -significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended
in the DEIR. The Community Development Department published a Notice of Completion (NOC) and the
DEIR was circulated for a 60 -day public review period beginning March 12, 2009 and closing on May 12,
2009 (SCH # 2006-012-125). As part of this review, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public
hearing on May 12, 2009 to consider and accept comments on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, based on written and oral comments received from the public on the DEIR and its own
review of the DEIR, and following public comment and discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff
to review and respond to all comments on the DEIR and pursue preparation of a Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15088 and 15089, the City responded to all the environmental comments that were submitted on
the DEIR during the public review period and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was completed.
The San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) consists of
the DEIR published March 2009 (i.e., DEIR, DEIR Volume II: Technical Appendices) and the FEIR
published August 2011 (i.e., Chapter 1: Response to Comments, Chapter 2: Revisions, and FEIR
Appendices). The FEIR concludes that none of the comments and responses result in significant new
information or an increase in the severity of impacts from those assessed and determined in the DEIR. On
September 8, 2011 a Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to
Comments (FEIR) was mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 300 feet of
the property and written responses to comments were provided to agencies, organizations and interested
parties that commented on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011 the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing
on the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project FEIR. The FEIR includes responses to 78 separate
comment documents that include 6 comment letters received from public agencies, and oral comments from
the public and Planning Commission recorded at the May 12, 2009 hearing on the Draft EIR. The FEIR has
resulted in revisions to the Draft EIR (DEIR), identified on pages R-1 through R-90, which includes
information on FEIR Appendix A (Site Plan), FEIR Appendix B (Boring Report Supplement), and FEIR
Appendix C (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Tables), to augment information contained in the
DEIR. The FEIR includes edits in order to clarify discussion of project impacts and mitigation measures,
including MM AQ -la, MM Bio -la, MM Bio -lb, MM Bio -2a, MM Bio -2b, MM Bio -2c, MM Bio -2d, MM
Bio -3b, MM Bio -4c, MM Bio -5a, deletion of MM Bio 5b (due to redundancy and renumbering of
subsequent MM Bio 5 mitigation measures), MM Bio -5b, MM Bio -5c, MM Bio -6b, MM Bio -6c, MM Hyd-
la, MM Hyd-ld, correction to Impact Hyd-2 and MM Hyd-2a, MM Hyd-2b, MM N-1, MM N-2, deletion
of Impact Traf-1 and MM Traf-1 regarding bridge queuing, and augmentation to discussion of Chapter 14
Cumulative Impacts, Chapter 15 Climate Change, and Chapter 16, Alternatives. The FEIR Revisions
include a revised Table 2-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures). The Planning Commission
accepted the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and accepted additional oral
and written testimony on the information contained in staff's report and the FEIR. The Planning
Commission continued its decision on the FEIR with direction given to City staff to provide additional
further information addressing questions that had been raised by the Planning Commission and public at the
meeting; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on
the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project FEIR, continued from November 15, 2011. The
Planning Commission accepted the written report and supplemental information of the Community
Development Department staff addressing the questions and comments raised at the November 15, 2011
meeting. Further, the Planning Commission accepted additional oral and written testimony from the public
on the information contained in staff's report. This staff report and supplemental information addressed the
following topics:
1) Land Use and Airport Property Deed Restriction, including the facts surrounding the
original land use restriction, compatibility of ancillary uses including alcohol sales, impacts of
future change in uses, the list of proposed recreational uses, compliance of the airport with its
existing use permit, and compliance with wetland overlay standards;
2) Aesthetics, including clarification that the Design Review Board shall review the entire
site landscape plan and field lighting, that the visual impact of a 10' fence was considered,
discussion of private view impacts and impacts on boaters use of the waterway;
3) Biological Resources, including quantification of the conservation area, minor
modification to wording of mitigation measures, ball retrieval and impact on sensitive areas and
buffer zones, habituation of Clapper rail to the project, assessment of Salt Marsh harvest mouse and
potential bird strikes, consultation made with responsible and trustee agencies such as State
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Federal Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
impacts on nocturnal birds;
4) Geology and Soils, including analysis of Hayward fault and, adequacy of the levee
analysis including peer review conducted by Questa engineering, pile driving vibration analysis and
applicability of US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) standards;
5) Hazardous Materials, including resolution of State Department of Toxic Substances
Control concerns, artificial turf water quality impacts from runoff and cleaning, soils and water
quality characteristics, and analysis of lead gas in aviation fiiels;
6) Air Safety Hazards, including occupancy limits, safety reduction standards, potential
crash risk and crash history, required obstruction lights, parking area conflicts, stadium lights,
outdoor events, nighttime risks to flights, and size of planes based at the airport;
7) Hydrology and Water Quality, including levee system and flood protections, nearby
County dredging projects and levee study, flood datum used, cost of levee improvement and runoff
from grass fields;
8) Noise, including nighttime games, monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures,
interior noise impacts, cumulative noise of operations and pile driving, and clarification of existing
ambient noise levels measurements;
9) Transportation and Traffic, including impacts of project traffic on existing unsignalized
intersections including Yosemite Road, history regarding bridge deck, and status of response to
Department of Transportation comments;
10) Climate Change, including proposed green building, greenhouse gas reduction
modeling, consistency with City Climate Change Action Plan and Sustainability Element;
11) Alternatives, including that the alternatives provide sufficient information to allow
meaningful review, and
12) Discussion of mitigation measure enforcement, security, and that information presented
may be further considered as part of the project merits discussion; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (member Paul Absent, due
to a conflict of interest) adopted a Resolution No. 11-16 recommending that the City Council certify the San
Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR and the FEIR Errata sheet. The FEIR Errata sheet includes
fin-ther revisions to augment FEIR mitigation measures and discussion regarding, i) page C&R -534
discussion of lead in aviation gas, and ii) revisions to MM Aesth-1 b, MM AQ -2, MM Bio -2d, MM Bio -4b,
MM Bio -4c, MM Bio -9, Impact N-1 and MM N-1, addition of new MM Traf-1 to acknowledge the City
would continue to monitor US 101 intersections and work with Caltrans, MM Aesth-lb, add MM AQ -2
acknowledging that the applicant has agreed to implement the City Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies
for the project, MM Bio -2d, MM Bio -4b, MM Bio -4c, MM Bio -5a, and MM Bio -9 Impacts; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project FEIR shall be used as the
environmental document required under CEQA for discretionary actions required for this project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15091 requires
that the City adopt findings of fact for each of the significant effects of a project that have been identified in
the project FEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for
the project as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 to implement the Mitigation Measures
identified in the FEIR as required to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment,
and to assure compliance during project implementation, and the MMRP has been recommended as draft
conditions of project approval; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the
proposed planning applications for the San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility project, accepting all oral and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the May 29, 2012 public hearing and continued its
meeting to June 6, 2012 in order to conclude its deliberations on the San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility
project; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the Planning Commission concluded its deliberations and adopted
Resolution 12-08 on a 5-1-1 vote (Sonnet opposed; Paul absent) recommending to the City Council
adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program to support project approval; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2012, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the
proposed planning applications for the San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility project, accepting all oral and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, closed
the public hearing and voted to continue the matter for its deliberation on December 17, 2012 and directing
staff to provide responses to specific questions raised at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, the City Council received responses to its questions of staff
and the consultant and conducted its deliberations on the project FEIR and merits.
WHEREAS, the custodian of all documents which constitute the record of proceedings for this
project and upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the CEQA findings of
fact for the project impacts identified by the project FEIR, and MMRP to support the approval of San
Rafael Airport Recreation Facility project proposed at the San Rafael Airport, based on the following
findings:
I. FindinEs of Fact to Support Action on the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility
Proiect
The San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project FEIR, prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines,
evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from
approval of the project. The FEIR identifies and uses appropriate CEQA thresholds of significance criteria
to evaluate all potential environmental effects of the project. The impact categories were established based
on an Initial Study and public scoping meetings. The analysis of project impacts using the CEQA
Guidelines thresholds of significance were presented for public review, with comments on the DEIR
received during the 60 day public review period. Responses to all of the comments received during the
public review period are provided in the SRARF FEIR. Written comments have been received from six
responsible agencies, 71 individual letters, with public comments made at the Planning Commission
hearing. Responses to these comments resulted in 24 master responses to respond to similar comments
made on land use, aesthetics, biological resource, hydrology, noise, traffic, growth inducement, climate
change, and alternatives impact categories. Revisions in the FEIR have been made to the discussion of
traffic and transportation, cumulative impacts, climate change and alternatives impact categories.
Modifications have also been made to biological, hydrology, noise and traffic mitigation measures. These
revisions to the mitigation measures and impacts categories discussed in the DEIR, and the thresholds of
significance used to evaluate these impacts, have not resulted in identification of any new significant
impacts or required new mitigation measures.
Because the FEIR concludes that implementation of the project would result in potentially significant
environmental effects, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to such impacts (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091). The findings listed below describe the potential impacts based upon the CEQA
thresholds used to analyze each environmental topic area discussed in the EIR, and have been categorized
as follows: a) no impact or environmental impacts found to be less -than -significant after individual analysis
in the EIR; b) environmental impacts found to be significant but that can be avoided or reduced with
mitigation; c) project alternatives that were developed and studied as provided in the CEQA Guidelines.
There were no significant impacts identified in the FEIR that cannot be avoided, eliminated or reduced to a
less -than -significant level. Thus, additional findings are not required to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in order to approve the project.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City. Further
explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the DEIR and FEIR, and these
findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the
FEIR determinations regarding the projects impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those
impacts. In making these findings, the City 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. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS AND 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 (DEIR, March 2009) and FEIR (FEIR, August 2011), and all documents
relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) prepared for the project;
• The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 and FEIR;
• Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 14);
• Planned Development Zoning District for the San Rafael Airport (PD -1764 District);
• 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 Public Resources Code section
21167.6, subdivision (e).
2. 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 Department of Community Development, Planning Division. The Community Development
Department is the custodian of records for all matters before the Planning Commission.
B. NO IMPACT AND IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT
The following potential environmental effects analyzed in the DEIR were determined to result in no impact
or less -than -significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary or required. Findings to support
the no or less -than -significant impact determinations are provided. Environmental topic areas and/or
threshold categories that result in one or more potentially significant effects have been listed and discussed
in subsection C, below, accompanied by the findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a) to take an action on the project.
(1) Land Use & Planning — DEIR Chapter 4
a. Physically divide an established community
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 4-17 and 4-18, the project is
located at the northeasterly edge of the City, adjacent to airport, residential, recreational,
and open space lands uses, and would not divide an established community. As further
explained in FEIR page C&R -12 Master Response PD -2 and pages 3 through 6 of the
January 24, 2012 City of San Rafael Report to Planning Commission, the project has been
determined to be consistent with the City General Plan 2020 Airport/Recreation Land Use
Designation and the property deed restriction on land uses. No impact would result.
b. Conflict with Policy Adopted for Mitigating Environmental Effect
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 4-18 to 4-20 and in FEIR Master
Response PD -2, the land uses allowed on the project site are currently limited by a
covenant of restriction, General Plan Airport/Recreation land use designation and PD -1764 -
WO (Planned Development -Wetland Overlay) zoning district. No other environmental
plans or policies apply to the site that required further analysis. The project is requesting an
amendment to the PD -1764 -WO district to allow a private recreational use, which is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 land use designation and the property
covenant of restriction. The zoning amendment would provide zoning standards for the
recreational development and operation, and the project includes setbacks from wetlands in
compliance with the -WO district standards. For these reasons, project impacts in this
category would be less -than -significant.
(2) Aesthetics — DEIR Chapter 5
a. Scenic Vista and Public View
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 5-5 through 5-11 and FEIR
Master Response AES -1, the project would have a less -than -significant effect on scenic
vistas given that development of the proposed 39'6" tall, 350 foot long new recreational
building on the site would: a) not break nor silhouette above any significant ridgelines
including Mt. Tamalpais to the west and San Pedro Ridge to the south; b) be partially
screened from off-site view by the existing 9 -foot tall levees and perimeter landscaping;
and c) would not affect other protected public views except a small blockage of views to
the Civic Center from a 600 foot section of the public trail system along the north side of
Gallinas Creek. This view is already partially blocked by existing vegetation and the
majority of views to this area remain available from other vantages along the 2.1 mile trail
system. Further, when considered in view of other existing planned, approved and potential
future projects, this project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on
scenic vistas in the area. Impacts would be less -than -significant.
b. Scenic Resources
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 5-23, the project site is not
identified as a scenic resource under San Rafael General Plan 2020, Policy CD -5, and
neither includes nor is surrounded by any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings,
heritage trees, or a state scenic highway. The building would block a small portion of
public views of the distant hillsides to the south from pathways along Gallinas Creek.
However, this would occur on a relatively small portion of the 2.1 mile trail and would not
block more than the bottom 1/3`d of the distant views of these hillsides. Impacts would be
less -than -significant.
C. Visual Character
Facts in Support of Findine: As discussed on DEIR pages 5-23 and 5-24 and Master
Response AES -1, computer-generated visual simulations have been prepared to illustrate
the impacts of development on the site and surroundings. The computer-generated visual
simulations, building and site plans were reviewed by the Design Review Board, which
favorably recommended that the project would be consistent with applicable design review
criteria in SRMC Section 14.25.050; that encourage a hannonious relationship between the
placement, architecture, colors and materials of structures and the site, and the preservation
and enhancement of public views. The Design Review Board has recommended that the
building design, materials, colors and landscape treatments would be appropriate for the
site and setting. The design of the building has been evaluated and considered appropriate
for the proposed use and setting, and would not substantially adversely impact scenic
resources or vistas. Thus, the project's potential to degrade the visual quality or character of
the area has been determined to be less -than -significant.
(3) Air Quality — DEIR Chapter 6
a. Conflict or Obstruct Air Quality Plan
Facts in Supp_ ort of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 6-15 and 6-16, while the project
is consistent with the General Plan 2020 Airport/Recreation land use designation on which
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan 2000 (CAP)
was developed, assumptions used for the CAP were based on the current airport site
development without additional development. To address this void, operational emissions
associated with the facility were estimated using the BAAQMD's modeling program
(URBEMIS 2007 9.2.4). The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines applicable to this project
indicate that air quality impacts would be potentially significant if the project generated
more than 2,000 daily vehicle trips. In this case, the project would generate 1,701 daily
trips, which is below the BAAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not conflict with the applicable CAP and would result in a less -than -significant
impact.
b. Cumulative Construction Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As described on DEIR pages 6-20 to 6-21, and FEIR page R-
37, although URBEMIS modeling was conducted and has shown that the project impacts
would fall below the significance thresholds identified in the applicable BAAQMD
guidelines, development associated with the proposed project and related cumulative
projects could result in significant short-term cumulative air quality impacts. However,
compliance with Mitigation Measures AQla through AQlc mitigate potential impacts
because they require incorporation of BAAQMD's comprehensive control measures for
construction impacts. BAAQMD's comprehensive control measures will ensure that
particulate matter, dust, etc. is controlled and short term construction -related impacts of the
project would be less -than -significant (as discussed in Section C below). Thus, while there
are short-term construction impacts that would be mitigated there would be no cumulative
construction impacts from the project.
C. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutant Concentrations
Facts in Support of Finding: As described on DEIR pages 6-21 to 6-22, the site is located
near sensitive receptors within 0.125 to 0.25 mile, including single-family residences and a
skilled nursing facility. However, the project would not involve demolition of an existing
structure, therefore, would not result in potentially hazardous dust emissions and
construction would not use materials that would contain hazardous materials. Short-term
impacts are addressed through compliance with Mitigation Measures AQ -la through AQ -
lc that provide BAAQMD's comprehensive control measures for construction impacts
which will render the construction -related impacts of the project less -than -significant. No
significant impact on sensitive receptors would result from the project.
d. Creation of Odors
Facts in Support of Finding: As described on DEIR' page 6-22, the project would not
generate odors. However, project construction could result in dust emissions and other
temporary odors that may affect nearby residents and park users during grading and
construction. Compliance with Mitigation Measures AQla through AQlc, provide
BAAQMD's comprehensive control measures for construction impacts which will render
the construction -related impacts of the project less -than -significant. No significant odor
impacts would result from the project.
(4) Geology and Soils — DEIR Chapter 9
a. Loss of Unique Geologic Feature
Facts in Support of Findine: As discussed in DEIR Chapter 3 Project Description, the site
consists of flat lands that were formerly tidally influenced, reclaimed as farmlands through
construction of levees/dikes, and currently developed as a private airport. The DEIR page
8-14 explains that there are no geologic features on this flat, previously graded site. There
are no unique geologic features or landforms associated with the site that would be altered.
No impacts would result.
b. Seismic Event Risks
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 9-27 and 9-28, the site is flat, is
not subject to significant threats due to liquefaction, landslide or ground fault rupture. The
structure would be constructed on driven piles and in compliance with the California
Building Code seismic safety standards. Thus, seismic groundshaking impacts would also
be less -than -significant.
C. Soil Erosion
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 9-28, the project is flat and
requires a limited amount of grading to import and place fill on the site. Short term
construction impacts would be addressed through project implementation of best
management practices that are required during construction. These practices would be
enforced through issuance of a grading permit, routine site inspections, and submittal and
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Department of
Public Works. SWPPP measures are imposed as standard requirements by City to address
erosion control and water quality impacts during construction, and would ensure that
impacts are less -than -significant.
d. Mineral Resources
Facts in Support of Findina: As discussed in DEIR page 14-2, according to the City of San
Rafael General Plan 2020, mineral resources in the San Rafael Planning Area are limited to
non-metallic construction materials (such as gravel and stone). There is only one rock
quarry, the San Rafael Rock Quarry, located near Point San Pedro that remains active in
San Rafael, although other quarries were formerly operated elsewhere in the City. The
Project site is not currently identified as a mineral resource area. Therefore, no impacts to
mineral resources would result frorn the project.
(5) Hazards — DEIR Chapter 10
a. Exposure to Hazardous Materials and Substances
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 10-14 and 10-15, the airport
property is not a listed or documented hazardous materials site and the recreational facility
use would not generate nor involve handling, transport, storage or use of hazardous
materials. Further, concerns with lead in aviation gas were discussed and assessed (see
FEIR page C&R -534, pages 23 and 24 of the January 24, 2012 City of San Rafael Report to
Planning Commission and meeting audio and video testimony available online at
httn:/hvww.citvofsanrafael.orL/meetines/. The potential for airborne lead to have an
adverse affect on the site was found to be insignificant. The region is not a non -attainment
area for airborne lead, and there are no undue risks identified based on proximity to a small
private airport facility. Therefore, there would be no impacts in this topic area.
b. Emergency 'Response Plan
Facts in Support of Findina: As discussed on DEIR pages 10-15 and 10-16, access to the
site is adequate for ernergency responders, and would not conflict with designated
evacuation routes, such as major arterials and highways. The existing single access bridge
is adequate to accommodate emergency access to the site. Therefore, impacts in this topic
area would be less -than -significant.
C. Wildland Hazards
Facts in Support of Findina: As discussed on DEIR page 10-16, the building would be
required to install fire sprinklers and extend a fire hydrant. The majority of the site consists
of grasslands that are mowed regularly for aviation safety, and is not located within or
adjacent to a high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the project would not increase the
potential for wildland fires. No impact would result.
(6) Hydrology and Water Quality — DEIR Chapter 11
a. Groundwater recharging
Facts in Suoport of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 11-25 and 11-26, the project is in
a low lying area and does not rely on groundwater resources. The site would continue to
drain into nearby channels that flow and pump directly into Gallinas Creek. There would
remain ample opportunity for groundwater to recharge the aquifer with implementation of
tine project. Further, grading and pile driving activities would not require significant
excavation or siltation that would impede or impact water supplies or water quality.
Impacts would be less -than -significant.
C. Flood Hazards and Excessive Runoff
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 11-27 and 11-29 the project would
add 4.6 acres of new impervious surfaces (building coverage and pavement), a 3.8%
increase in impervious surfaces from current site conditions, which would generate runoff
into the existing drainage systems on-site. This would increase the maximum depth of the
water during a 100 year storm by approximately 1/8'x' of an inch, an increase from 0.12 feet
to 0.13 feet, which is insignificant in relation to the 3.5 million square feet of water storage
capacity that would remain on the site. Drainage would continue to be pumped from the
site into Gallinas Creek, and based on the calculations of the project drainage analysis the
existing pump house is capable of handling all additional drainage from this site for
conveyance and disposal to the creek.
As discussed on DEIR page 11-29 the site which is located at 0 to 1 foot NGVD elevation
is below the +6 foot NGVD FEMA flood elevation and protected from flooding by a 9 -foot
tall levee. The site is separated from Contempo Marin along the western boundary by the
SMART railroad tracks which are raised at least 4 feet above the site. Under project
conditions, maximum depth of 100 -year stormwaters on site would be 1.13 feet. The
project site would be raised I foot and the building is required to be flood proofed tip to +7
feet NGVD (9.67 NAVD) to meet FEMA requirements. Thus, the project structure would
not be impacted by nor impede floodwaters, and floodwaters are not expected to reach the
nearby Contempo Marin residential neighborhood. Impacts would be less -than -significant.
d. Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow Impacts
Facts in SUDDort of Findine: As discussed on DEIR page 11-35, potential impacts from
water run-up from strong winds (seiche) are less -than -significant given that the site lies
along a short east -west axis of the San Francisco inland bay estuary. Likewise, the low
lying lands are not subject to mudflows. Lastly, given the location of the site within the bay
estuary, there exists a low potential impact from a tsunami generated by a high magnitude
earthquake on the nearby faults; which would be more likely to occur in the low waters of
the Pacific Ocean outside the Golden Gate.
(7) Noise — DEIR Chapter 12
a. On-site Noise Compatibility of Uses
Facts in Suo_ Dort of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 12-15, the ambient noise levels at
the airport range from 53dBA to 58dBA with occasional loud events from aircraft
operations. Noise levels of 60dBA or less are compatible with outdoor recreation. Noise
levels up to 80dBA would be conditionally compatible. Aircraft at the site generate noise
between 70dBA and 100dBA at the Project site, for relatively short (5 to 18 seconds) and
infrequent (2 to 11 events per day) periods. The US EPA found that hearing loss would
occur from exposure to noise levels of 100dBA for 15 minutes per day over many years.
The duration of loud noise event impacts on outdoor field users would be well below this
threshold, and worst case scenario noise levels would be unlikely to occur, thus resulting in
less -than -significant impacts.
FEIR page C&R -26 Master Response 11 (HYD -1) clarifies the recent change in FEMA flood elevation datum
from NGVD to NAVD. This datum corrects the method of measurement, but is not the result of any new
hydrology, thus physical flood elevation levels would not be materially changed.
B
(8) Traffic — DEIR Chapter 13
a. Level of Service
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages13-21 and 13-22, and FEIR
Revisions of the DEIR Pages R-26 through R-33, the threshold of significance established
by the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy CD -5 is intersection level of service. Traffic
analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers (DEIR Appendix K) indicates that the project would
result in 1,701 new daily vehicle trips, with 135 new vehicle trips to the site and 133
departures occurring during the 4-6PM peak hour. The affected intersections include:
• Smith Ranch Road & Silveira Park wy
• Smith Ranch & Red0ood Highit,ay
• Smith Ranch & USI 01 Ramps
• Lucas Valley & Las Gallinas
None of the affected signalized intersections would drop to or below the citywide LOS D
standard with the addition of project traffic. Thus, traffic generated by the project can
sufficiently be accommodated along the Smith Ranch Road and Lucas Valley Road
segments that would be affected by project traffic. Payment of traffic mitigation fees in the
amount of $1.138M is required to fund traffic improvements for buildout under the San
Rafael General Plan 2020, which addresses the increase in traffic generated by the project.
There are no project related traffic impacts that would trigger the need for immediate
roadway, stop control or signal upgrades.
The project would not exceed LOS standards and would provide its fair share of traffic
mitigation fees for improvements required to accommodate future growth in the area.
However, in response to concerns from Caltrans reflected in their November 18, 2011 letter
to staff, Caltrans maintains concern with the potential that exists for traffic to queue at the
freeway ramps in the area onto the mainline of US Highway 101. Specifically, Caltrans
notes that under existing and future conditions the queues at Smith Ranch Road/US 101
Northbound Ramps study intersection #3 and Lucas Valley Road/US 101 Southbound
Ramps study intersection #4 exceed available storage capacity for the turn lanes. The City
Engineer has confinned that these intersections are routinely monitored by the City, and the
City will continue to work with Caltrans to assure signal timing adjustments are made to
adequately reduce potential queuing impacts at these intersections, until such time as the
City and Caltrans implement improvements for these roadways and intersections.
To address the comment from Caltrans on the FEIR, staff has included Mitigation Measure
Traf-1 into the project and MMRP (attached), which confirms that the City shall continue
to work with Caltrans and assure any potential operational impacts would be addressed
through adjustment of signal timing, until Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
improvements are made by the City and Caltrans to the US101 onramps. LOS and queuing
impacts remain less -than -significant.
b. Emergency Access / Design Hazards
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 13-27 and 13-28, and FEIR
Chapter 2: Revisions of the DEIR pages R-31 through R-33, the project would provide a
new two-lane bridge deck that would accommodate vehicular traffic and eliminate potential
queuing impacts on-site. Analysis of the site by the traffic consultant, City Traffic Engineer
and Fire Division concludes that the existing single -lane bridge access is adequate for the
project and would not result in inadequate emergency access issues. Thus, the proposed
11
widening of the bridge deck to two lanes would not impair but would enhance emergency
access. The roadway is proposed to be raised to 3 -feet elevation which would assure
emergency vehicles could access the site in the event of flooding following a potential
levee breach. The project has no impact on air traffic patterns. Further, the condition of the
levees and potential hazard as a result of breach of the levees have been analyzed by John
Hom & Associates and Lee Oberkamper, which have concluded that the levee system has
completed settlement, thus is not subject to failure as a result of ground shaking, and that
any breach in the levee would not result in immediate flooding of the site, but would take
over three hours to rise to +3 NGVD, at which time the velocity of the flow would
significantly diminish.
Furthennore, additional traffic generated by the project has been evaluated to determine
whether it would have an adverse impact on any of the existing side streets that intersect
with Smith Ranch Road, including the intersection of Yosemite Road and Smith Ranch
Road. The DEIR analysis Appendix K includes a traffic signal warrant study to determine
whether traffic controls would be needed at any of the existing side street intersections with
Smith Ranch Road. The City Public Works Department continuously monitors City
roadways in the area, and agrees with the conclusions of the traffic signal warrant study
that the existing side street intersections do not warrant traffic controls, and that the
additional project traffic would not increase safety hazards at any of the existing
unsignalized intersections with Smith Ranch Road. Thus, the project would not result in
any significant impacts as a result of roadway design hazards or access issues; for either
existing or proposed project improvements.
Parking Impacts
Facts in Support of Findings: As explained in the DEIR on page 13-29 through 13-34, a
traffic analysis was prepared to analyze peak demand for the facility, which would occur
during weekend noon hours when the multi -use courts and fields would be in operation.
The uses to evaluate parking demand consisted of youth gymnastics, dance and youth/adult
soccer games which generate high recreational traffic, occupancy and parking demands.
Parking was calculated for this highest and best mix of uses as follows:
• 1 space per 300sf for gymnastics use
• 1 space per 240sf for dance studio use
• 32.5 parking spaces required per indoor field
• 57 spaces required for the outdoor field use.
The parking study established that 222 parking spaces would be sufficient for the type and
mixture of recreational uses, including demand for the ancillary support facilities on the
mezzanine level. The project calls for construction of 270 parking spaces (184 paved
spaces and 86 unpaved spaces) and sizable pickup/drop off areas, which have been found
by the City Traffic Engineer and EIR consultant to be adequate to serve peak anticipated,
highest parking demand. Consequently, parking impacts would be less -than -significant.
dr Alternative Transportation
Facts in Support of Findings: As discussed in DEIR page 13-43, with revisions on FEIR
page R-26 and R-27, there are no plans for improvements to bring bus service to the area.
The project would provide a pedestrian and bicycle walkway to the site from Smith Ranch
Road. Thus, the project would not conflict with existing bus, pedestrian or bicycle plans.
12
(9) Other Environmental Effects — Chapter 14
a. Agricultural Resources
Facts in Su000rt of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 14-1 and 14-2, the property is not
being used for agriculture so development of the project would not involve changes that
could result in conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to a non-agricultural
use. Also, the project does not conflict with the zoning for agricultural use or the provisions
of a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would result
from the project.
b. Population & Housing
Facts in SUDDort of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 14-2 and 14-3 and Master
Response 21 (GI -1) on FEIR page C&R -42, the recreational facility development would
occur within the City Urban Services boundary and does not result in extension of utilities
to an area that previously lacked services, nor require an increase in any existing services.
Rather, the project proposes a land use anticipated and encouraged by the General Plan to
serve recreational needs of existing residents, and would not increase demand for housing
or affect population growth. Further, the project would not require existing housing to be
displaced and its location would not separate or divide an existing established community.
No impacts would result.
C. Public Services & Recreation Facilities
Facts in SnDDort of Finding: As discussed on DEIR pages 14-4 through 14-7, the project
would not require any new or altered public facilities in order to serve the site within
established response and service levels. The site is presently served by San Rafael Fire
Department Civic Center Station #7, 2.5 miles to the south. The site is accessible to
emergency vehicles, and is not in an area that has significant unusual levels of calls for
service from the Police Department, both routine patrols and traffic. The recreational use is
not anticipated to significantly increase calls for service. The project would not increase
demand for school, parks or other public facility use. Rather, it would provide supplemental
fields for existing sports tearns that currently use existing school and park
recreational/sports fields.
e. Wastewater Impacts
Facts in Su000rt of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 14-7 and 14-8, the project will not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and will be served by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary Sewer District which provides
wastewater treatment for the area; which is within the City's urban services boundary.
LGVSD has an existing agreement with the property owner to provide wastewater service.
LGVSD has adequate capacity to serve this site and the project is within the capacity
allocated under the current agreement. No significant impacts would result.
f. Water Supply Impacts
Facts in Su000rt of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 14-8 and 14-9, Marin Municipal
Water District (MMWD) has sufficient capacity to serve the site, which would require
existing pipelines serving the airport to be extended to the new building. Although MMWD
is beginning to experience a deficit during dry years, it is seeking new supplies and would
not consider the project to be a significant incremental impact to overall supply. The project
would also comply with State plumbing requirements, use of recycled water in the area for
landscape and facilities not requiring potable water, and undergo a landscape plan review
by MMWD. Further, MMWD requires use of reclaimed water where available, and would
IN
review the final plans for compliance with their water efficient landscape requirements. No
significant impacts would result.
g. Solid Waste Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on DEIR page 14-10, the Redwood Sanitary
Landfill (and recycling center) that serves the project site has sufficient capacity to
accommodate the solid waste generated by the project. No significant impacts would result.
(10) Cumulative Impacts — Chapter 14
a. Air Quality
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in the FEIR page R-37, the project would
conform to the General Plan, the Bay Area Clean Air Plan and would not result in
incremental considerable cumulative air quality impacts in the project area. The project
would implement construction management methods intended to reduce dust and fumes
from vehicle emissions. Additionally, the project would utilize solar and achieve a certified
LEED green building rating to reduce energy consumption and comply with Title 24 for
energy efficiency standards. Cumulative air quality impacts would be less -than -significant.
b. Land Use
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in the FEIR page R-37 and R-38, the project
would be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan Airport/Recreation land use
designation. The project when considered in conjunction with the projects listed in Table
14-1 titled "Cumulative Projects Considered" would not have incremental land use impacts
that would be individually or cumulatively considerable. Further, the land use is
encouraged under General Plan 2020 Policies PR -4, PR -13, and PR -14 which support
establishment of private recreational uses in suitable areas that would serve recreational
needs of all residents. No significant land use impacts would result.
C. Population and Housing
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed in the FEIR on page R-38, the project is
consistent with the General Plan and is not a housing project. No cumulative population,
growth or housing issues would result.
d. Traffic
Facts in Support of Finding: FEIR pages R-38 and R-39 explain that the traffic analysis in
Chapter 13 of the DEIR determined that the project would not have any cumulative traffic
impacts under the General Plan + Project conditions. Level of service standards at
intersections along the Smith Ranch Road and Lucas Valley road segments would remain
within the level of service standard LOS D threshold established by General Plan Policy
CD -5. Further, the project must contribute $1.138 million dollars toward traffic
improvements required for buildout under the General Plan 2020, which addresses traffic
impacts.
e. Climate Change
Facts in Support of Finding: Chapter 15 of the DEIR analyzes the projects climate change
impacts. Page R-39 of the FEIR explains that a project's climate change impacts are
inherently cumulative. The project contribution would be considered too small to have a
measurable impact on global climate change, including its contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions and sea level rise impacts. However, a qualitative assessment of the project's
impacts on climate change was prepared to detennine whether the project would conflict
14
with the goals and strategies of AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act; which is the
applicable threshold used for this project as determined by the City and confirmed by SF
BAAQMD resolution which stated projects in process would not be subject to the new air
district GHG emissions thresholds. As a result, the FEIR concludes that the project will not
conflict with the goals and strategies of A1332, and thus its impacts on climate change are
not cumulatively considerable. Nevertheless, in November 2010 the City adopted the 2009
Climate Change Action Plan, and in 2011 the City updated its 2009 Climate Change Action
Plan (CCAP) and required strategies to meet the plan (i.e., CCAP Appendix E), which the
applicant has agreed to meet, and adopted the Sustainability Element amendment to its
General Plan 2020. Therefore, the project's required compliance with the City of San
Rafael GHG reduction strategy shall also be included as a mitigation measure.
f. Aesthetics
Facts in Support of Findinss: FEIR Page R-39 explains that the analysis of the project
provided in the EIR, when considered in conjunction with other projects in the area, would
not result in incremental impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. There are no
other projects in the area that together with this project would affect the scenic views, vistas
or contribute additional light and glare to the area.
g. Biological Resources
Facts in Support of Finding_: FEIR page R-40 explains that "biological impacts in the area
are localized to the site, and none of the past, present or foreseeable fixture projects
identified in the area, as listed in Table 14-1, would have incremental impacts on the
sensitive environmental resources identified onsite. Thus, the project, as proposed and
conditioned, would not make a cumulative considerable contribution to any significant
biological impacts." All impacts associated with the project will be mitigated. Further, a
conservation area is proposed that would establish a significant buffer zone of at least 150 -
feet from the top of creek bank (top of the 9 foot tall levee benn located between the
development and outboard face of the Gallinas Creek bank, where Clapper rail species and
habitat would potentially occur).
There are no other projects in the study area that would result in additional impacts on
biological resources. However, since the publication of the FEIR, it was confirmed that the
Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Project (SMART) includes the re -building of the existing
bridge crossing at Gallinas Creek, which is in close proximity to the project site and
proposed project bridge crossing. It is projected that the SMART bridge will be built in the
next two years. The biological resource impacts of the SMART bridge crossing are
analyzed in the SMART FEIR (2006). The SMART FEIR includes adequate mitigation for
construction impacts to the California Clapper Rail habitat. However, the project sponsor
has agreed and the project is conditioned so that the timing for the project bridge is not
simultaneous to the SMART bridge construction. As simultaneous construction would be
avoided, no biological impacts would be realized. Therefore, no cumulative biological
resource impacts would result.
h. Cultural Resources
Facts in Support of Finding: FEIR page R-40 explains that no cultural resources have been
identified on site or in the study area. Therefore, the project would result in cumulative
impact on cultural resources.
119
i. Geotechnical (Soils/Geology)
Facts in Support of Findiniz: FUR page R-40 explains that no significant geotechnical
impacts have been identified in the DEIR or in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Program
EIR for the study area. There are no other projects identified that would have contributing
geological or geotechnical impacts in the study are and/or affecting the site. Therefore, the
projects impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
j. Hazards
Facts in Support of Finding: The FEIR page R-40 concludes that neither the project nor
those listed in Draft Table EIR 14-1 (Cumulative Projects Considered) would involve
storage or use of hazardous materials, be located near a hazardous waste facility, site or
generator, or create any objectionable odors. Airport hazards associated with the project
have been identified and mitigated. No cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous
materials would result.
k. Hydrology and Water Quality
Facts in Support of Finding: FEIR page R-41 concludes that the discussion in DEIR
Chapter 11 and in Appendix E identify the drainage enhancements and controls that would
be implemented for project construction and operations in compliance with RWQCB
mandates implemented by the City and Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program (MCSTOPPP). Neither the project nor the list of projects in the study area would
result in incremental cumulative hydrologic or water quality impacts.
1. Noise
Facts in Support of Finding: FEIR page R-41 concludes that noise impacts discussed in
DEIR Chapter 12 would not be significant, provided that specific mitigation is
implemented. None of the projects listed in DEIR Table 14-1 either would contribute
additional noise or sensitive receptors in the area. Noise associated with the SMART train
discussed in FEIR Page C&R 40 and C&R 41, concludes the occasional potential
occurrence of train horn soundings or crossing signals would not interfere with activities
on-site. The certified SMART FEIR addresses potential noise impacts of the train
operations, and noise levels associated with the outdoor field use would not be
cumulatively considerable in conjunction with infrequent and occasional SMART train
operations.
M. Other Project Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: FEIR page R-41 concludes the environmental impact
categories discussed in DEIR Chapter 14, most of which result in a no detennination,
would not be cumulatively considerable when considered in conjunction with the projects
identified in Table 14-1 in the study area. These include agricultural, mineral, public
resources, wilities, schools, parks, in fi-astructure, cmd public facilities. The project and
cumulative development are consistent with the General Plan 2020 and within areas
receiving urban services. The proposed Project would not result in incrementally
cumulative significant impacts in these categories.
(11) Climate Change — Chapter 15
a. Sea Level Rise
Facts in Support of Finding: The DEIR pages 11-34 through 11-35, pages 15-11 through
15-12 and FEIR Master Response 14, Sea Level Rise, conclude that impacts associated
with sea level rise would be less -than -significant through 2050, based on potential and
16
projected increase in sea level rise of six -inches projected by the US EPA (1995). Further,
sea level has more recently been predicted to rise 12 to 18 inches before 2050, above the
+6NGVD (+8.67 NAVD) flood elevations. In the event this level of increase occurs, the
existing flood control features would be expected to remain in place and would be
sufficient to protect the site from sea level rise. This includes the 9 -foot tall levee (at 8 foot
NGVD/10.67 NAVD), and the pump station that pumps flood waters into Gallinas Creek.
There are no cumulatively considerable impacts associated with Sea Level Rise.
h.. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Facts in Support of Findinsz: The DEIR pages 15-1 through 15-16, and FEIR Master
Response 22, Climate Change, explain that at the time the DEIR was published the
BAAQMD had not yet adopted guidelines or thresholds to implement State AB 32 (The
Global Wanning Solutions Act). The project on its own would be considered too small to
have a measurable impact on global climate change, including its contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions and sea level rise.
Qualitative assessment of the project's impacts on climate change was prepared to
determine whether the project would conflict with the goals and strategies of AB32 Global
Warming Solutions Act; which is the applicable threshold used for this project as
determined by the City and confirmed by SF BAAQMD resolution which stated projects in
process would not be subject to the new air district GHG emissions thresholds. Staff also
prepared a quantitative assessment of the project's climate change impacts, discussed in
Master Response 22 of the FEIR. The BAAQMD adopted new modeling software to assess
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and in June 2010 established new CEQA thresholds to be
used for evaluating project impacts on global climate change. However, these changes
occurred after publication of the DEIR in March 2009. Updated analysis using the new
modeling software was prepared for informational -only purposes and would not trigger
requirements for additional mitigation or adoption of a statement of overriding
considerations in order to approve the project.
The DEIR threshold for analysis considered whether the project would impede
implementation of AB 32. The DEIR table 6-6 identifies that the project would generate
2,240.95 metric tons (MT of CO.)e) of GHG emissions per year (using the BAAQMD's
URBEMIS modeling software). DEIR page 15-14 identifies features that would be used to
reduce emissions during construction and operation; including proposal to achieve LEED
certification, including use of solar energy efficient lighting systems. The DEIR concludes
that the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on climate change
by implementing strategies to reduce GHG emission, consistent with AB 32. FEIR Table
15-1, page R-45 provides a list of the measures available to reduce project related GHG
emissions. Project conformance with the applicable Global Climate Change Strategies is
discussed in FEIR Table 1. This qualitative analysis concludes that the project would not
impede the compliance with GHG emissions reduction mandated by AB 32. While
predominantly addressing vehicle emissions standards, there are criteria for improving
building efficiencies and reducing waste. The project would incorporate operational
strategies in its design approaches to achieve US Green Building LEED certification, and
be required to comply with waste reduction standards for construction and post -consumer
waste. Therefore, the project's GHG impacts have been identified as less -than -significant
using the applicable standard of review.
The updated assessment shows that the proposed facility would produce greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) in the amount of 2,203 metric tons of CO,e annually (MT/yr). This would
M
exceed the 1,100 MT/yr threshold established by BAAQMD's newly established
thresholds. Even with the project incorporated components (such as solar, energy efficient
lighting, green building techniques, water conservation and use of artificial turf) that would
reduce the GHG emissions of the project by an estimated 386 metric tons, the geographic
location and relative isolation from transit, and inefficient multi -modal transportation
network make it infeasible to reduce project related traffic and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) to meet the new BAAQMD thresholds. The constraints applicable to this site are
characteristic of the region, thus would affect any similarly sized projects in Marin County.
Furthermore, the new analysis does not consider any net change in VMT regionally that
might occur as a result of the project. Thus, the analysis assumes that all project -generated
traffic would result in new VMT in the region, which may or may not be true.
The FEIR concludes that the project will not conflict with the goals and strategies of AB32,
and thus its impacts on climate change are not cumulatively considerable. Nevertheless, in
November 2010 the City adopted a qualified Climate Change Action Plan, required
creation of strategies to meet the plan and adopted a Sustainability Element amendment to
its General Plan 2020. Therefore, the project's required compliance with the City of San
Rafael GHG reduction strategy shall also be included as a mitigation measure. Given that
the project was in process during the time the City's GHG Reduction Strategy was adopted,
the applicant has agreed to incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ -2 into the MMRP
(attached), to make this requirement a part of the project, ensure that the project would
mitigate operational greenhouse gas emissions to a less -than -significant level through its
required compliance with the City of San Rafael November 2012 qualified Climate Change
Action Plan, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Checklist, as enacted to satisfy the new
BAAQMD air quality thresholds and guidelines.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED
Tile City, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and
15092, identifies the significant impacts that can be eliminated or reduced to a less -than -significant level
with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR. These mitigation measures are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the description of the project and their implementation will be
monitored through the MMRP. Findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and
15092 to support action to approve the project which results in one of more significant effects are provided
for each of the potentially significant effects identified in the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility
Project EIR, as follows:
(1) Aesthetics — DEIR Chapter 5
a. Impact Aesth-1 Light and Glare
Sianificant Impact: Project lighting may exceed the light intensity standards of the
surrounding community, particularly the inclusion of exterior field lighting. Unless subject
to proper review and approval, the impact of the Project's proposed exterior lighting on the
surrounding community is considered to be potentially significant.
The City has determined that lighting levels need to be limited not to exceed a 1.0 -foot-
candle average light intensity established by City policy for this area; given that it is
located at the edge of urban development and near open Bay lands and park space. Lighting
should also be contained so that it would not spillover onto any adjacent properties, creek
or adjacent airport runway improvements. As discussed on DEIR pages 5-24 through 5-34,
the project would introduce new lighting into this area, particularly the inclusion of field
V
lighting, which may exceed the light intensity standard identified as compatible for the
surrounding community. Lighting would be focused onto the parking lot, adjacent to the
building walkways and field areas, with the majority of light intensity focused on the
outdoor field and providing some illumination of the overflow parking area south of the
field.
DEIR Figure 5-6 demonstrates that lighting levels would range from 0- to 12.2 -foot-candles
with an average of 1.84 -foot-candles for the parking lot and building area. DEIR Figure 5-7
shows that the outdoor soccer field illumination would range from 0- to 71 -foot-candles,
with an average of 2.0 foot-candles. Spillover of 0.1 foot-candles would encroach onto the
creek near the site. The field lighting further has the potential to be an annoyance to nearby
residential development; Santa Venetia to the south, and Captains Cove and Contempo
Marin to the west. Thus, the 1.84 -foot-candle average level of lighting associated with the
project is considered potentially significant as it exceeds the established City 1.0 foot-
candle standard by 0.84 -foot-candle, and potentially creates a source of glare, hazard or
annoyance to adjacent properties or residential areas. As further discussed in FEIR Master
Response 4, there would also be a substantial increase in the number of vehicles using the
private roadway to the site. This would result in an increase in the frequency of vehicle
headlights that would shine toward windows of the residential townhouse unit at 37
Sailmaker Court. This was not identified as a potentially significant impact that warranted
analysis in the DEIR. However, the applicant has previously agreed to install a four -foot
fence or hedge along the access roadway as a condition of the project, which would block
the majority of vehicle headlights entering and exiting the site. Thus, implementation of a
four foot tall fence or hedge would effectively block vehicle headlights entering and exiting
the site from shining directly into windows at 37 Sailmaker Court.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fin -then finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in SuDDort of Finding. The significant impact above would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures Aesth-la and Aesth-lb,
as presented in the FEIR on pages R-52 and R-53 (as further modified by the FEIR Errata
Exhibit A to PC Resolution 11-16, adopted January 24, 2012) and provided in the attached
MMRP. These measures require a maximum 1 -foot -candle -intensity to be achieved at the
edge of the project boundary/property line and conservation area proposed between the
building and Gallinas Creek; shielded lighting fixtures to limit casting light and glare off-
site; exterior lighting on a master photoelectric cell to control operating during hours of
darkness, with outdoor field lighting set to turnoff by 10:00 p.m. and all other exterior
facility lighting to turn off by 12:30 a.m.; requiring final review of the lighting, colors and
materials details by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of permits and a 90 day
post -construction period to ensure finishes would be non -reflective, that landscape
screening is implemented, and to allow adjustments to be required in direction and/or
intensity of lighting if necessary.
19
These measures will reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level because the maximum
1 -foot-candle intensity is below the limit established by the City for this area, and shielding
would eliminate potential view of light sources and resulting glare from off-site,
particularly by nearby residential areas and aircraft pilots.
(2) Air Quality — D�EIR Chapter 6
a. Impact AQ -1 Construction Impacts
Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would involve substantial grading
activities that could affect air quality, particularly regarding emissions of PM10. This
impact is considered potentially significant.
As described on DEIR pages 6-18 to 6-19, the project would involve temporary grading
activities for placement of 35,000 cubic yards of fill and 3,000 cubic yards of cut. This
could generate short-term air quality impacts during grading operations, particularly
emissions of small particulate matter less than ten microns (PMio) for which the Bay Area
is considered a non -attainment area.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City fids 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 further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. The significant impact above would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQla, AQlb and AQlc,
as presented in the EIR on pages 6-19 and 6-20 and provided in the attached MMRP.
These measures require the implementation of specific techniques and activities to control
dust and emissions during grading and construction phases of tile project. MM AQ -la sets
forth dust control measures to be included during construction to reduce PMIO emissions per
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) recommendation. MM AQ -
lb requires that final improvement plans and specifications submitted for permits shall
stipulate that ozone precursors from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled per
BAAQMD's recommendations. MM AQ -lc requires that the construction contract
specifications shall include a written list of instructions specifying measures to minimize
heavy equipment emissions to be carried out by the construction manager.
(3) Biological Resources — Chapter 7
a. Impact Bio -1 Listed Anadromous Fish Species — Pile Driving
Significant Impact. Project construction or operations would not result in any direct impacts
to federally listed fish species; however, activities during bridge construction could result in
indirect impacts to federally listed anadromous fish species that may occur in the North
Fork of Gallinas Creek.
DEIR page 7-34 and DEIR Appendix E (Monk & Associates) note that the professional
qualified biologists found no special status plants mapped on or adjacent to the project site.
Special status plant species known to occur in the region would not be expected to occur on
20
the project site. However, as described on DEIR pages 7-34, 7-61 through 7-79, and FEIR
pages C&R -20 through C&R -26, the construction and operation of the project could result
in direct and indirect adverse impacts on sensitive fish and wildlife species including
special status fish (Coho salmon and steelhead), raptors, California Clapper Rail, pallid bat,
or the federally -listed Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. The potential adverse impacts include
disturbance, loss of habitat, habitat alteration or habitat degradation. DEIR page 7-61
explains that the likely occurrence of anadromous fish species in the area is low. However,
a conservative approach has been taken in evaluating potential project biological impacts
and therefore mitigation has been included to protect against the low, unlikely occurrence
of protected fish species. The potential impact on listed fish species would be potentially
significant.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herei17, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City ftn•ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio -1 a and MM
Bio -lb described in FEIR pages R-56 to R-58, and set forth in the MMRP (attached). These
measures include requirements limiting pile -driving activities to specific time -periods to
avoid protected species breeding periods, prohibit work in the streambed or bank,
developing and implementing stormwater management plans for the project work, and
compliance with requirements of the State Department of Fish and Game Streambed
Alteration Agreement issued for the bridge replacement work.
b. Impact Bio -2 California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail — Perimeter Fence
Significant Imp_ act. The proposed project will not impact marsh habitats or adjacent upland
habitats along the North Fork of Gallinas Creek; therefore, there will be no direct impacts
to the California clapper rail. However, indirect impacts to California clapper rails, and
possibly to California black rails, could result from noise generated during Project
construction ad as part of Project operation. Unless mitigated, these impacts would be
potentially significant.
DEIR pages 7-63 through 7-66 explain that construction and operation of the project could
result in indirect adverse impacts on the California clapper rail which has been identified on
the site.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alteratiol7s have
been required herei17, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City f rther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is ivithin the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
21
Facts in Support of Finding. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio -2a, Bio -2b,
Bio -2c, Bio -2d and Bio -2e as described in DEIR pages 7-66 to 7-69, FEIR pages R-58 to
R-63, and set forth in the MMRP (attached). These measures would reduce impacts to less -
than -significant by requiring conduct of pre -construction surveys before starting work,
establishing pre and post construction barrier fencing to protect wildlife and habitat from
construction, limiting pile -driving activities to specific time -periods to avoid breeding and
nesting periods, requiring a permanent conservation buffer that would exceed minimum
100 -foot creek buffer setbacks and include a permanent barrier fence separating
development from habitat and buffer areas, and restricting the duration of outdoor events
that would generate nighttime noise and light impacts by establishing a 10:00 p.m. event
curfew. These measures would assure that sensitive Clapper Rails would not be disturbed
by either construction or operations of the facility in a manner that would cause them to
flee the area.
The project biologist, Monk & Associates has confirmed that the Clapper Rail would
become acclimated to additional human activity in the area, and continue to thrive in the
habitat along the creek bank, which is located on the outward face of the site perimeter
levee. This is further discussed and confirmed on FEIR page C&R 20 through C&R 23
Master Responses Bio -1 and Bio -2, the City of San Rafael January 24, 2012 Report to the
Planning Commission discussion commencing on page 11, and hearing testimony found on
the audio and video minutes of the meeting available online at:
httn://www.citvofsan rafael.or2/meetings/.
Impact Bio -3 Nocturnal Lighting
Significant Impact. Lighting of the outdoor soccer field at the proposed recreational facility
at night for evening games could result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife species
and habitat in the North Fork of Gallinas Creek.
DEIR pages 7-69 through 7-71 explain nighttime lighting could intrude into wildlife
habitats mimicking extended daylight conditions. Disruption of nocturnal wildlife species
inhabiting or migrating through the North Fork of Gallinas Creek would be potentially
significant.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(x)(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 further fiords that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Sup_ port of Finding. The potential significant impact from nighttime lighting would
be reduced to less -than -significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures
MM Bio -3a and Bio -3b, as described on FEIR pages R-63 and R-64. DEIR page 7-69 and
7-70 explain that the project proposes to use state of the art `Musco Lighting' or equivalent
which uses 50 percent less electricity and results in 50 percent less spill and glare than
traditional fixtures, and allows for shorter poles to be used. The tallest poles proposed
would be 31.5 feet, which is half the height used at neighboring facilities. The mitigation
measures would assure impacts would be less -than -significant by requiring all fixtures to
22
have hood cutoffs so that light would not trespass onto sensitive habitat. The City
establishes a lighting level review to assure lighting has been installed properly. Further,
the facility must turn off the field lights by 10 pm which the project biologist, Monk &
Associates, has confirmed would assure sufficient hours of darkness are provided that will
not disrupt nocturnal wildlife activity patterns and migration after that time (see FE1R page
C&R 23 Master Response Bio -3 , City of San Rafael January 24, 2012 Report to the
Planning Commission discussion commencing on page 11, and hearing testimony and
audio and video minutes of the meeting which can be found at
http://www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetinLsf).
d. Impact Bio -4 Nesting Raptors
Sienificant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Project could result in
disturbance of nesting raptors, possibly resulting in death of adults and/or young raptors.
The site contains tall trees on-site and in the area, and open lands that provide for potential
nesting and foraging. DEIR pages 7-71 through 7-73 explain that white-tailed kite, northern
barrier and red-tailed hawk have been observed and may nest in the area. Other species
could conceivably nest in the area. Construction noise establishment of operations during
nesting periods could result in significant impacts. After tine facility is in operation, any
wildlife species that establishes a breeding territory or nest site near the facility would have
been subject to elevated levels of disturbance and acclimated to this condition.
Findiniz
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, Califof-nia
Code of Regulations Section 15091(x)(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 fia-ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is wither the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Findine. Tine potential impacts above would be mitigated to less than
significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Bio -4a, Bio -4b and
Bio -4c (as further amended by the FEIR Errata Sheet, Exhibit A to the Planning
Commission Resolution 11-16 adopted January 24, 2012). These measures limit bridge
construction to occur between August and October 15, pile driving to occur between
September and February 1, which are outside the breeding season of raptors and other
sensitive species, and facility exterior construction work to occur between July through
February 1, when most raptors are expected to have completed nesting cycles. (No
limitation is required for interior work). Further, preconstruction surveys are required to be
conducted to assure that work would not commence during any active or delayed nesting
period. Thus, the project would not have the potential to disturb nesting raptors when
limited to these avoidance windows. (see FEIR page C&R 23 and C&R page 25 Master
Responses Bio -2 and Bio -4, City of San Rafael January 24, 2012 Report to the Planning
Commission discussion commencing on page 11, and hearing testimony and audio and
video minutes of the meeting which can be found at
httn://w-,v-,v.citvofsanrafael.o rL,/meetines/).
99
e.. Impact Bio -5 Western Burrowing Owl
Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Project could result in
disturbance of the western burrowing owl, possibly resulting in death of adults and/or
young owls.
DEIR page 7-73 explains that the burrowing owl is a rare species of special concern,
protected under state and federal regulations. Thus, this species is assumed to be present.
However, the biological assessments prepared for the site (DEIR Appendix E) conclude a
low potential for this owl to nest in the ruderal grasslands on the Project site or immediate
vicinity due to frequent mowing of open fields to control vegetation. Further, Monk &
Associates did not identify any suitable burrows in the area.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further frauds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. Due to the fact that the owl must be assumed to be present,
Mitigation Measures MM Bio -5a, Bio -5b and Bio -5c have been identified (FEIR pages R-
66 through R-70). These measures require that a "qualified biologist" shall conduct pre -
construction nesting surveys to determine if owls are present on-site, prior to
commencement of any work. If evidence of nesting is discovered, measures shall be
implemented to protect active nests during breeding season, conduct passive relocation
during non -breeding season in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Game
(DFG), and provide habitat mitigation as recommended by DFG. The specified measures
conform to wildlife biologist protocols and DFG requirements, to reduce potential impacts
in this category to a less -than -significant level.
f. Impact Bio -6 Impacts to Common and Special -Status Nesting Birds
Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Project could adversely
impact common and special -status nesting passerine birds, their eggs, and/or young.
Common and special -status nesting passerine birds are protected under the California Fish
and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
DEIR page 7-76 explains that passerine (perching) birds and special status birds that may
be nesting on site, such as the San Pablo song sparrow and saltmarsh common
yellowthroat, could be affected by the project. Impacts to unoccupied nesting habitats
would not be significant as there are other local and regional nesting habitats.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City funds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incw porated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, ivhich mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further frauds 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.
24
2
Ir.
Facts in Support of Finding. FEIR pages R-70 and R-71 identify Mitigation Measures MM
Bio -6a, Bio -6b and Bio 6c, which would reduce potential project impacts from construction
to a less -than -significant level. This would be achieved through restrictions placed on
bridge construction and requiring preconstruction nesting surveys conducted by a qualified
biologist, to avoid work during nesting periods, if active nests are found to be on-site. With
these measures implemented, the project would preclude work during nesting periods, thus
would not adversely impact these species during nesting periods.
Impact Bio -7 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Suisun Shrew and San Pablo Vole
Significant Impact. Indirect impacts to Suisun shrew, the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and
the San Pablo vole could result from implementation of the proposed Project.
DEIR pages 7-77 and 7-78 explain that these native rodents reside in and along marsh
vegetation, located on the outward face of the 9 -foot tall perimeter levee. Further, a 100 to
150 foot buffer zone would be established in the uplands areas, from the top of levee/creek
bank to the proposed developed site area. Thus, the project would not have direct impacts
on these species. However, indirect impacts from construction and operation of the project
could result in indirect adverse impacts on these species.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. FOR pages R-71 and R-72 identify Mitigation Measure MM
Bio -7, which would reduce potential project impacts to a less -than -significant level. This
shall be achieved through placement of a perimeter fence to prohibit human intrusion or
access into the uplands buffer area, located between the developed lands and Gallinas
Creek bank. This will preserve and protect the marsh habitats and uplands and reduce
potential impacts to special status rodents and other wildlife species to a less -than -
significant level.
Impact Bio -8 Pallid Bat (and other Bat species)
Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed Project could result in
adverse impacts to the Pallid bat (California species of special concern) and other bat
species.
DEIR page 7-79 explains that, while this species is unlikely to roost on the site, the trees
on site could be used for roosting by bats in general (although extremely unlikely,
according the biological assessment contained in the DEIR Chapter 7, and DEIR Appendix
B).
Findin
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, inco porated into the project, or required as a condition of project
25
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
Cityfin•ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is -within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Findina. FEIR page R-72 identifies Mitigation Measure MM Bio -8,
which would reduce potential project impacts to a less -than -significant level. This would be
achieved by conducting pre -construction surveys perfonned by a qualified biologist prior to
any tree removal and following specified appropriate procedures and protocols in the event
roosting bats are found.
i. Impact Bio -9 Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction — Banks of the North Fork of Gallinas
Creek
Sianificant Impact. Construction activities at the top of the bank of the North Fork of
Gallinas Creek associated with the proposed improvements to the bridge crossing may
result in potentially significant impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas.
As discussed on DEIR page 7-80, the project would potentially impact the banks of the
North Fork of the Gallinas Creek waterway as a result of improvements proposed to the
existing bridge crossing. Specifically, the bridge improvements would include removing
the existing bridge decking and rail, driving new piers into paved areas at the top of bank in
order to support the new clear span bridge deck and pouring an 8 inch concrete driving
surface across the bridge deck. A crane would be used to lower the new deck in place. No
work in the creek channel is proposed. Existing wood piers would remain in place, and
support existing utility lines crossing under the bridge. Without proper prior authorization,
these activities at the top of bank would be regarded as a significant impact to CDFG
jurisdictional areas, which would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
Findina
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fi rther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Findina. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio -9 as
described in FEIR pages R-72 and R-73 (as further amended by the FEIR Errata Sheet,
Exhibit A to the Planning Commission Resolution 11-16, adopted January 24, 2012), and
set forth in the MMRP (attached). These measures include requirements to limit work on
the bridge to occur during summer and early fall periods of low stream flow and dry
weather, that no work be allowed below the creek high water mark, and compliance with
the conditions of the California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration
Agreement (SBAA). The SBAA Notification Number 1600-2006-0266-3 is valid until
December 31, 2013 with construction period limited to occur between July 15 and October
15. Implementation of the terms and conditions of the SBAA as required by MM Bio -9 will
reduce the impacts to CDFG jurisdictional areas to a level considered less than significant
under the SBAA, and therefore, CEQA.
26
(4) Cultural Resources — Chapter 8
a. Impact CR -1 Discovery of Resources
Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to disturb unidentified
Prehistoric, Archaeological or Historic resources on the Project site.
As described on DEIR pages 8-14, although the potential to find culturally or
archaeologically significant resources on this site is low (considering its fonner tidally
influenced baylands condition and fill) accidental discovery of cultural resources during
development must be anticipated to occur pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(x)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, innconporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, ~-Which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City firrther funds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. Tile significant impact listed above
would be reduced to a less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation
Measure CR -1 as described in FEIR page R-73, and set forth in the MMRP (attached). This
measure includes requirements to have a qualified archaeologist monitor the site during
pre -construction and construction activities, and evaluate any potential discovery of
archaeological features. This is a standard mitigation measure found in the CEQA
Guidelines.
(5) Geology and Soils — Chapter 9
a. Impact Geo 1 Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil
Significant Impact. Soils on the project site are composed of highly compressible Bay
Mud, which is not suitable for at -grade foundation support. Additionally, the geotechnical
report concludes additional fill is not appropriate for the foundation support because of the
potential for additional fill to induce settlement. Construction of the proposed Project
without proper engineered foundation design is considered a potentially significant impact.
As described on DEIR pages 9-28 through 9-30, the soil underlying the project is composed
of highly compressible Bay Mud, to a depth of 28 -feet, which is not suitable for at -grade
foundation support. Further, additional fill is not appropriate for the foundation support
because of the potential for new fill to induce further settlement. Fill is proposed for
parking lot, driveway and site improvements around the new building. This fill would be
subject to six inches of long-term differential settlement for each foot of new fill.
Construction of the project without proper engineered foundation design is a potentially
significant impact. As described on DEIR pages 9-32 through 9-33, the on-site Clay soils
are considered to be expansive soils. However, the depth of the soils would not pose a
significant impact. Fills placed on-site would not support proposed slab parking lot, field
and walkways due to the potential for differential settlement to occur.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Sections 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
27
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, tivhich mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City firrther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo -1, as
described on FEIR pages R-73 through R-77, and set forth in the MMRP (attached). This
measure requires support of the structure on driven piles. It also requires certain pavement
quality criteria to be designed to accommodate the potential long-term differential
settlement that is projected to occur. Mitigation Measure Geo -I requires the submittal of a
grading plan and design plans to incorporate hinge joints reinforced to structurally span the
settlement and flexible utility lines with sufficient slack to accommodate settlement, which
reduces this impact to less -than -significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo -1 specifies the design requirements necessary to address
differential settlement for poured slab walkways and utility lines, as further discussed in
Section I.C(5)a finding above, which would reduce this impact to less -than -significant.
(6) Hazards — Chapter 10
a. Impact Haz-la Exceedance of Single -Acre Criterion
Significant Impact. The highest estimated concentration of people in a single -acre area of
the project site would be 216, which slightly exceeds the single -acre criterion of 200 people
for Airport Safety Zone 5 -Sideline Zone (Table 10-1). Although the actual occupancy level
is likely to be lower than the estimate, this is considered a potentially significant impact and
risk reduction design features should be incorporated into the design of the facility.
As described on DEIR pages 10-17 through 10-20 the project site is located near an active
private airport which poses potential risk to occupants using the facility. Analysis of airport
hazard impacts prepared by Mead & Hunt DEIR Appendix H, identifies that 216 users
would be on-site during peak usage of the recreational facility which would slightly exceed
the single -acre criterion of 200 people for Airport Safety Zone 5 -Sideline Zone (DEIR
Table 10-1). Further, the facility would attract youth and elderly users and spectators that
may find it difficult to move out of harms way if an aircraft accident should occur. This
would be potentially significant if risk -reduction design features were not incorporated into
the building design. These measures would satisfactorily reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
Findin
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fia•ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is tivithin the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
28
Facts in Supuort of Finding. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1, described
in FEIR page R-77, and set forth in the MMRP (attached). This measure requires that the
project incorporate risk reduction design features for the building and warm-up field, such
as requiring enhanced fire sprinkler systems and increased exits for the building, ensuring
structures and landscape improvements would not violate the 7:1 Transitional Surface
(ascending clear zone) for aircraft in flight, installing safety lighting on tall points of
structures, and limiting occupancy within the warm-up field to 50 persons. These measures
would satisfactorily reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level.
b. Impact Haz-lb Expose People to Hazards
Sienificant Impact. The proposed Project will likely attract users and spectators that will
include young children and the elderly. These groups of people may find it difficult to
move out of harm's way if an aircraft accident should occur. Therefore, this is considered a
potentially significant impact and risk -reduction design features should be incorporated into
the design of the facility.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been rewired 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 further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1, described
in FEIR page R-77, and set forth in the MMRP (attached). This measure requires that the
project incorporate risk reduction design features for the building and warm-up field, such
as requiring enhanced fire sprinkler systems and increased exits for the building, ensuring
structures and landscape improvements would not violate the 7:1 Transitional Surface
(ascending clear zone) for aircraft in flight, installing safety lighting on tall points of
structures, and limiting occupancy within the warm-up field to 50 persons. These measures
would satisfactorily reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. This has been
further documented in the January 24, 2012 Report to Planning Commission commencing
at page 24.
Further, a letter was received from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics dated March 9, 2012
that recommended that the City should consider recent changes made to the Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, revised April
2011, and published for the purpose of evaluating development near public use airports for
safety and noise compatibility. Specifically, Caltrans noted that the project is in airport
safety zones 2 and 5 and that the 2011 Handbook recommends prohibiting group
recreational uses in the subject safety zones. Caltrans asked that the City of San Rafael
consider this information in its decisions regarding this project. In response, staff had its
airport safety consultant Mead & Hunt review and address the Caltrans letter. Mead & Hunt
was the consultant that prepared the 2002 Handbook and advised on the 2011 Handbook.
Mead & Hunt had considered these changes prior to its supporting the recommendation
made by the City of San Rafael Planning Commission to certify the FEIR on January 24,
29
2012, and concluded that this change to the Handbook did not alter Mead & Hunt's
conclusions with regard to safety impacts for users of the facility. In its letter of May 16,
2012, Mead & Hunt concluded that the principal concerns with group recreation are
spectator -oriented facilities that draw large groups of people within confined spaces and the
presence of young children who may not respond appropriately to get out of harm's way.
The primary factor used to evaluate safety is whether the project would exceed the
occupancy standards contained in the Handbook, and create confined spaces that would
restrict ability of occupants to get out of harms way.
The project maintains a low to moderate risk level based on the Handbook guidelines, and
there have been no physical changes to the site or manner in which the airport operates that
would materially alter the original airport safety assessment. Thus, the project would
remain conditionally compatible with the airport; i.e., physical and operational constraints
associated with the airport result in a low risk level to occupants on the site and to aircraft
in flight. Nevertheless, augmented airport safety measures have been recommended and
would be incorporated into the project to address the heightened concern expressed by
Caltrans, including posting of occupancy signage, clearly marking exit paths of travel,
installing FAA compliant barrier fencing, prohibiting fixed seating and special events that
would create confined spaces or draw larger than anticipated crowds.
C. Impact Haz-2 Hazards to Flight
Significant Impact. Based on a review of the site plan, elements of the Project have heights
that would extend into the navigable air -space above the San Rafael Airport, as defined by
Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Any object which penetrates this volume of
airspace is considered to be an obstruction.
As described on DEIR pages 10-21 through 10-25 the project could encroach slightly
within navigable air -space, creating an obstruction to flight which would be potentially
significant.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fun-ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. Mitigation Measure Haz-2 as described on FEIR pages R-77
and R-78, and incorporated into the MMRP (attached) would eliminate flight hazards by
ensuring the height of structures and landscaping would remain clear of the 7:1 Transitional
Surface (ascending clear zone) for aircraft in flight, add obstruction lights to specific points
on the building and fencing and field lighting, shield light sources, restrict parking to
compact spaces along the parking row nearest the airstrip, lower construction cranes at the
end of each day, file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the FAA and obtain
a determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. These measures would reduce impacts to
a less -than -significant level.
30
(7) Hydrology and Water Quality — Chapter 11
a. Impact Hyd-1 Water Quality and Waste Discharge
Significant Impact. Project construction and operational activities may result in increased
pollution of receiving waters, including the North Fork of Gallinas Creek and San Rafael
Bay. This impact is considered potentially significant.
As described on DEIR pages 11-21 through 11-22, and page 11-28, project grading,
construction and operational activities may result in increased pollution entering North
Fork of Gallinas Creek and San Rafael Bay. As described on DEIR page 11-26, the grading
activities could increase potential for siltation and erosion. Site runoff is carried into
drainage ditches on-site to a holding pond that pumps drainage to the Gallinas Creek. Any
reduction in water quality would have potential adverse impacts on the waterway, and
would be considered potentially significant if not properly treated in compliance with local
and state regulations.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fun•ther funds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Su000rt of Finding. The significant impact listed above would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures Hyd-la, Hyd-
1 b, Hyd-1 c, Hyd-1 d, Hyd-1 e and Hyd-1 f, as described on FEIR pages R-78 through R-83
and incorporated in the MMRP (attached). These measures require the following plans and
documents to be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
issuance of a grading pen -nit: an Erosion Control Plan, NPDES Permit, Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Stormwater Management Plan. In addition, plans
shall include construction of grassed drainage swales to filter runoff, and maintenance of
paved road shall be required for the duration of the facility operations. Implementation of
these measures would reduce construction -related water quality impacts to less than
significant levels by preventing construction -related erosion and reducing pollutants in
storunwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Further, operation -related water
quality impacts on the Bay from non -point source pollutants would be reduced to less -than -
significant because construction and structural and non structural devices that filter or treat
pollutants in stormwater would be implemented, including implementation of best
management practices pre and post construction, bioswales and drain inlet filters.
FEIR Master Response Hyd-5 further discusses the water quality impacts of the project.
The January 24, 2012 Report to Planning Commission, pages 21 through 23 explains that
field turf and grass fields would not create additional, unanticipated impacts. The
mitigation measures in the FEIR adequately address all potential water quality impacts,
including runoff from paved surfaces, grass fields and artificial field turf.
a
b. Impact Hyd-2 Flooding as a result of Levee Failure
Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a 100 -year flood zone. The Project
site is protected by nine foot levees on the north, south and east; however, the site itself
would be graded to a finished ground elevation of +1.0 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Unless FEMA -established flood -proofing standards are implemented to protect the
buildings in the event of flooding, this impact is considered potentially significant.
As described on DEIR pages 11-30 through 11-32, the project is located within a 100 -year
flood zone, below the +6 foot NGVD flood level, and is protected from flood waters by
nine -foot high levees that surround the site. The project site area would be raised to +1 foot
NGVD elevation. However, failure to implement FEMA -established flood proofing
standards to protect the building in the event of flooding would be potentially significant.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(x)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incoiporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fi rther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Finding. The potential significant impact listed above would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures
Hyd-2a and Hyd-2b, as listed on FEIR pages R-83 through R-86 and incorporated in the
MMR'" (attached). These measures require implementation of the FEMA approved flood
proofing for the building, and preparation of finalized hydrology report and grading and
drainage plans. This would reduce project's impact associated with risk of loss, injury or
death as a result of levee failure to a level of less -than -significant. Further, as discussed in
FEIR Master Response Hyd-2 and Hyd-3, the condition of the levee has been assessed and
confirmed the earthen levee compaction has completed, thus the levee would respond as
anticipated during an earthquake and is not considered to be susceptible to ground failure.
(8) Noise — Chapter 12
a. Impact N-1 Long-term (Operational) Noise Impacts
Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed recreational facility would have the potential
to increase noise levels on the Project site, which could adversely affect nearby residential
uses.
As described on DEIR pages 12-15 through 12-21, FEIR pages C&R -37 through C&R -39,
and FEIR Errata page 4, operation of the facility would have the potential to increase noise
levels on the project site, which could adversely affect nearby residential uses.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incoiporated into the project, or required as a c017dition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fi rther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
M
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant impact described above
would be mitigated to a less -than -significant level by implementing Mitigation Measure N-
1, described in FEIR pages R-86 and R-87 (as revised by the FEIR Errata Sheet Exhibit A
to the Planning Commission Resolution 11-16 adopted January 24, 2012), and incorporated
in the MMRP (attached). This measure would mitigate evening noise by requiring outdoor
fields to close at 9pm weekday nights and lOpm weekend nights (Friday and Saturday) if
noise levels at the closest residential boundary are increased by I decibel above the 40dBA
nighttime noise threshold as a result of field usage.
b. Impact N-2 Short-term (Construction) Noise Impacts
Significant Impact. Construction activities could disrupt softball practices or games on the
closest field, a potentially significant impact.
As described on DEIR pages 12-22 through 12-26, noise and vibration associated with
construction activities could disrupt recreational use, practices or games on the closest
fields in McInnis Park, which is considered potentially significant. Annoyance from
vibration may also occur, but would not be significant.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fi rther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Less -Than -Significant Finding. Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-3 as
discussed in FEIR pages R-87 through R-89 and incorporated in the MMRP (attached)
mitigate construction related noise impacts to a less -than -significant level. These measures
require that construction be limited to the hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance,
equipment use best available noise controls, work scheduled to avoid set practice and game
times on the closest field, predrilling of holes for piles to minimize the duration of pile
driving, use of available technologies to minimize power equipment noise and
identification of a site noise disturbance coordinator to respond to any local complaints
about construction noise.
Impact N-3 Pile Driving
Significant Impact. Pile driving -related noise levels could result in speech interference
effects at recreational uses in McInnis Park. Speech interference effects could disrupt
soccer or softball practices or games, a potentially significant impact.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14, California
Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have
been required herein, incorporated into the project, or required as a condition of project
approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
33
Cityfia-ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the requirement to impose
the mitigation as a condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to
require, and that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Findins. Mitigation Measure N-3 as discussed in FEIR page R-89
would require use of predrilled holes to reduce pounding required for pile driving. This
would eliminate duration of noise (as well as vibration, which would not be significant).
Restriction on pile driving to daytime hours would reduce potential impacts from noise and
vibration. This is further mitigated by pre -drilling holes which will substantially lessen the
amount of time required to drive piles.
D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
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 mitigation measures. The FEIR has concluded that the project will not result in
any significant impacts that are unavoidable and/or cannot be mitigated. Thus, there are no significant and
unavoidable impacts of the project that would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
pursuant to Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines in order to approve the project.
E. REVIEW AND REJECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 mandates that every EIR evaluate alternatives including a no -project
alternative, plus a feasible and reasonable range of alternatives to the project or its location.
The alternatives in the FEIR were formulated considering the objectives of the City of San Rafael and the
Project Sponsor Objectives outlined on DEIR Chapter 16 pages 16-1 through 16-28 and FEIR pages R-46
through R-51. Alternatives provide a basis of comparison to the project in terms of beneficial and
significant impacts. However, since the FEIR has concluded that the proposed project would not result in
significant, unavoidable environmental impacts, the alternatives analysis focuses on project alternatives that
would have the potential to further decrease or eliminate significant project impacts that can be mitigated.
This comparative analysis is used to consider reasonable, feasible options for minimizing environmental
consequences of a project.
These findings describe and reject, for reasons documented in the FEIR and summarized below, each of the
project alternatives, and the City finds that approval and implementation of the initial project design as
described and assessed in the FEIR is appropriate. The evidence supporting these findings is presented in
Chapter 16 of the DEIR, FEIR Master Responses 23 and 24 (Alt -1 and Alt -2), and pages R-46 through R-
51 of the FEIR.
(1) Alternative 1A: No Project/Recreation use that conforms to existing PD District and Master
Use Permit
This alternative examined impacts resulting from development of an outdoor soccer field and
warn -up area only without any building and significant site improvements being required. It was
assumed that this level of development would substantially conform to the existing San Rafael
Airport Master Plan (PD 1764 District) and Master Use Permit and that the existing airport access
bridge would remain as a single -lane bridge. Under this scenario, the proposed recreation building
would be replaced by an additional, fill -sized outdoor sport field, and the area proposed for the
building's dance and gymnastics area would be replaced by a playground. Under this alternative,
34
field lighting would still be allowed; however, only where it is currently proposed. The facility
would close at I0:00pm, similar to the neighboring McInnis Park facilities.
Findine
Specific economic, social and environmental considerations make this alternative a less desirable
alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael.
Facts in SUDDort of Findine
1. This alternative would not meet the basic project objectives to provide a needed multi -sport
athletic facility for the City of San Rafael and Marin County consistent with San Rafael
General Plan 2020 Park and Recreation Element Policies PR -13 and PR -14.
2. This alternative and the proposed project would have comparable similar or less intense
potentially significant impacts to land use, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, exposure to hazards, hydrology and water quality,
noise, traffic and circulation, agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and
housing, public services, recreation, utilities and services, cumulative and growth inducing
impacts.
3. The elimination of the building would reduce the number of site users and be a lower
intensity use of the site. However, it would not avoid or significantly reduce a potentially
significant unavoidable impact as the project would result in none. This alternative would
lessen aesthetic impacts from partial view blockage of hills to the south, reduce biological
impacts from construction noise, eliminate construction noise and geological issues from
pile driving activities, reduce potential flooding impacts and energy consumption that
would be associated with the building, reduce number of occupants that could potentially
be exposed to aircraft hazards, than under the proposed project.
(2) Alternative 1B: No Project/No Build (Status Quo)
This alternative would result in no physical or operational changes to the project site. Existing
conditions at the project site would remain unchanged with the implementation of this alternative.
Additionally, amendments to the San Rafael Airport Master Plan would not occur.
Finding
Specific economic, social and other considerations make Alternative 1, identified in the EIR and
described above, an infeasible alternative.
Facts in Su000rt of Findine,
1. The No Project Alternative would not provide a needed multi -sport athletic facility for the
City of San Rafael and Marin County consistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Park
and Recreation Element Policies PR -13 and PR -14.
2. This alternative would not fulfill the objective to provide equal recreational opportunities
for all family members, as called for in policy PR -4 of the San Rafael General Plan.
3. While all of the potential impacts associated with the project would be avoided under this
alternative, the recreation needs would not be met.
4. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project sponsor's objectives in that no
development would occur on the project site.
(3) Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Recreation Facility
This alternative examined impacts resulting from development of a reduced -intensity recreation
facility. Under this alternative, a smaller indoor sports facility would be developed (elimination of
35
the 26,000 -square -foot dance and gymnastics area). Under this alternative, no field lighting would
be proposed and evening lighting would be limited to road, parking lot and security lights. The
facility would close at 10:00pm similar to the neighboring McInnis Park facilities.
Findina
Specific eco1701)1ic, social and envirownental considerations make this alternative a less desirable
alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael.
Facts in Support of Findina
1. This alternative would partially fulfill the objective to provide a multi -sport athletic facility
for the City of San Rafael and Marin County consistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020
Park and Recreation Element Policies PR -13 and PR -14. The reduced facility would not
meet the further objective to serve a broad cross section of the community and minimize
chances for failure of the facility use should any single operator cease business.
2. This alternative would not fulfill the objective to provide equal recreational opportunities
for all family members, as called for in policy PR -4 of the San Rafael General Plan. Adult
teams could not be accommodated on the outdoor field for nighttime use, which would
limit availability for adult and/or youth play.
3. This alternative and the proposed project would have comparable similar or less intense
potentially significant impacts to land use, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, exposure to hazards, hydrology and water quality,
noise, traffic and circulation, agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and
housing, public services, recreation, utilities and services, cumulative and growth inducing
impacts.
4. The elimination of indoor court uses in the building and nighttime field use would reduce
the number of site users and provide a lower intensity use of the site. However, it would not
avoid or significantly reduce a potentially significant unavoidable impact because the
project would result in none. It would lessen aesthetic impacts from partial view blockage
of hills to the south and nighttime light and glare, reduce biological impacts from nighttime
noise and lighting, lessen construction noise and geological issues frorn pile driving
activities, reduce potential flooding impacts and energy consumption that would be
associated with the building, and reduce number of occupants that could potentially be
exposed to aircraft hazards, than under the proposed project.
(4) Alternative 3: Alternative Location
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) requires that alternative locations for the project be
considered if potential impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened. The DEIR included a
review of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Land Use Map finding that there are few, if any, areas
or sites within San Rafael that could accommodate the project. The DEIR also considered a list of
14 alternative sites in Marin County that were compiled by the project sponsor which were
considered and rejected by the sponsor prior to filing planning applications for the proposed project.
The alternative site list is provided in DEIR Appendix B. None of the alternative sites proved to be
suitable in meeting the basic objectives of the project sponsor. Further, the project sponsor does not
possess development rights on other sites within the City, which would make it feasible to consider
another location.
Finding
Specific economic, social and environmental considerations make this alternative a less desirable
alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael.
W
Facts in SUDDort of Finding
I. This alternative would not meet basic project objective to provide a multi -sport athletic
facility for the City of San Rafael and Marin County consistent with San Rafael General
Plan 2020 Park and Recreation Element Policies PR -13 and PR -14. None of the other sites
identified proved suitable to attain the project's basic objectives for providing a multi -use
recreational facility. Additionally, the site is located near other complementary recreational
facility uses located at McInnis Park.
2. Impacts associated with another site would likely result in a similar level of environmental
review, and all impacts associated with this site can be reduced to a less -than -significant
level.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e), an environmentally superior alternative must be
identified among the alternatives that were studied. The FEIR concluded that Alternative IA (No
Project/Recreation use that conforms to the PD and Master Use Permit) and Alternative IB (No Project/No
Build (Status Quo)) are the environmentally superior alternatives, followed by Alternative 2 (Reduced
Intensity Recreation Facility). However, alternatives I and 1B would not meet the basic project objective
of constructing a frill -service recreation facility. Alternative 2 would meet some of the basic project
objectives, but it would preclude evening use by adults, which is necessary in order to make the facility
commercially viable, as the children -only soccer use would not generate sufficient revenue to economically
support the facility.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the MMRP presented in attached
Exhibit A in order to facilitate monitoring of the project mitigation measures consistent with the provisions
of CEQA, finding that the MMRP has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.
Furthermore, following certification, the City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the
Marin County Clerk within five working days after deciding to approve the project, accompanied by all
required filing fees which shall be paid by the Project applicant, and effect disposition of the FEIR in
compliance with the CEQA Guidelines.
I, ESTHE'R C. BEIRNE, 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 Council of said City on the 17'x'
day of December, 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Councilmembers:
Heller, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES:
Councilmember:
Connolly
ABSENT:
Cotmcilmembers:
None
STHER C. B� R 1E, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
37
[This page intentionally left blank]
RI
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRPI
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
AESTHETICS
MM Aesth-la: Design Review Board Lighting Approval. Prior to issuance of
building permits, the Project Proponent shall prepare a final exterior lighting plan
and photometric analysis for all areas of the Project site subject to review and
approval by the Design Review Board. The plan shall meet the following
performance standards, and include the following information:
• Sufficient exterior lighting to establish a sense of well-being to the
pedestrian and one that is sufficient to facilitate recognition of persons at a
reasonable distance. Type (lighting standard) and placement of lighting shall
be to the satisfaction of the Police Department and Department of Public
Works;
• A minimum of one foot-candle at ground level overlap provided in all
exterior doorways and vehicle parking areas, and on outdoor pedestrian
walkways presented on a photometric plan;
• A maximum of one (1) foot-candle intensity at the property line and edge of
conservation area;
• Vandal -resistant garden and exterior lighting;
• A lighting standard that is shielded to direct illumination downward and to
limit casting light and glare on adjacent properties:
• Exterior lighting on a master photoelectric cell. which is set to operate
during hours of darkness;
• The plan shall include a note requiring a site inspection 90 days following
installation and operation of the lighting. The post construction inspection
by the City shall allow adjustments in the direction and/or intensity of the
lighting, if necessary,
• Outdoor field lighting shall be set to turn off 15 minutes after the last
scheduled game, or by 10 p.m. at the latest:
• Security level lighting shall be set to turn off in parking areas and pedestrian
walkways one-half hour after close of the facility. e.g. by 12:30 a.m.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY
Project sponsor
obtains final
approvals of
details from
Design Review
Boardrip for to
issuance of
building permits.
Conduct site
inspection to
confirm
installation
pursuant to plans
Planning
Division
MONITORING /
REPORTING
ACTION & SCHEDULE
Incorporate as
condition of project
approval
Planning Division
confirms appropriate
approvals have been
obtained prior to
issuance of
building permit
Planning Division
Planning confirms details have
Division been implemented per
approved plans prior
to building occupancy
Monitor site for Code
duration of use for Enforcement
ongoing Division
compliance
Verify compliance in
response to
complaints or reports
of noncompliance
EXHIBIT A
NON-CONIPLIANCE
SANCTION/
ACTIVITY
Deny issuance of
building permit until
approvals have been
obtained.
Deny final inspection
for occupancy
Issue citation(s) and
pursue Code
enforcement, as
appropriate
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NADIE & DATE
Page 1 of 28
_MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM fMMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ -1a: Construction Impacts. The Project Contractor shall implement the
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
MONITORING /
REPORTING
NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
MITIGATION MEASURE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY
ACTION & SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY RECORD
emissions per the BAAQMD's recommendation.
requirements on
(NAME & DATE)
MM Aesth-lb: Design Review Board Materials and Colors and Landscape
Project sponsor Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
Plan Approval. Consistent with the recommendations of the Design Review
obtains approvals Division
condition of project
building permit
Board subsequent to an earlier review, the DRB shall also review and approve the
from Design
approval
and/or occupancy
proposed building materials to ensure that the proposed Project is designed with
Review Board
Division
approvals obtained
prior to issuance of
non -reflective and/or tinted glass to minimize potential daytime glare impacts
prior to issuance of
Planning and Building
Grading/building
permit
pursuant to the Design Review Permit criteria established in the San Rafael
building permits
Division's verify
Municipal Code Title 14 (zoning), Chapter 25 (Design Review). Additionally. the
information prior
appropriate approvals
DRB shall review and approve the Project final landscape plans for the entire
Planning Division
obtained prior to
site. The plan shall show the area where the DRB requested the gap in the
conducts final
issuance of
building permit and
Eucalyptus row to be filled in. Replacement species shall be consistent with City
inspection
prior to occupancy
tree guidelines.
signage prior to
AIR QUALITY
MM AQ -1a: Construction Impacts. The Project Contractor shall implement the
Project sponsor
Planning
Incorporate as Deny issuance of
;
following control measures during construction activities to reduce PM,,
incorporates
Division
condition of project building permit
emissions per the BAAQMD's recommendation.
requirements on
approval
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. A water
grading plans prior
Issue stop work
truck or equivalent method shall be in place prior to commencing grading
to issuance of
Building Division notice for violations
operations.
grading/building
Building
verifies appropriate during construction
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered and
permits
Division
approvals obtained
prior to issuance of
maintain at least one foot of freeboard.
• All unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
Project sponsor
Grading/building
permit
sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or applied with non-toxic soil
provides contact
stabilizers.
information prior
• All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction
to issuance of
site shall be swept daily with water sweepers and adjacent public streets
building permits
shall be swept if visible soil material is carried onto them. This shall also
and installs
include Smith Ranch Road (from the entrance to the site west ! � mile daily
signage prior to
(with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
construction
streets. All inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for
ten days or more) shall be treated with hydroseed or non-toxic soil
stabilizers.
• Any exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered and
Page 2 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRPI
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
watered twice daily or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied to any exposed
stockpiles
• All construction traffic on unpaved roads shall be limited to speeds of 15
mph. Prior to the commencement of any grading, appropriate signs shall be
placed on site to identify the maximum speed.
• Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when wind gusts exceed
25 miles per hour.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of
all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• The Project sponsor shall inform the contractor, general contractor or site
supervisor of these requirements and shall be responsible for informing
subcontractors of these requirements and for implementing these measures
on the site.
• A dust control coordinator shall be designated for the Project. The name,
address and telephone number of the dust coordinator shall be prominently
posted on site, and shall be kept on file at the Planning Division. The
coordinator shall respond to dust complaints promptly (within 24 hours) and
shall have the authority to take corrective action.
• The above requirements shall be noted on the grading plans or building
permit plans prepared for the Project prior to issuance of any permit.
MM AQ -1 b: Plan Notations. Prior to approval of the final improvement plans
and specifications, the City of San Rafael shall confirm that the plans and
specifications stipulate that, ozone precursor emissions from construction
equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good
condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction
of the City. The City inspector shall be responsible for ensuring that contractors
comply with this measure during construction.
MM AQ -lc Construction Contract Specifications. Prior to issuance of grading
permits or approval of grading plans, the Applicant shall include in the
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING /
NON-COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
SANCTION /
COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
RECORD
(NI iitE & DATE)
Project sponsor
Planning
Incorporate as condition
Deny issuance of
incorporates on
Division
of project approval
building permit
plans prior to
issuance of
Planning Division
Issue stop work order
building permits
Building
verifies prior to
Division
issuance of building
permit
Planning Division Planning Incorporate as Deny issuance of
verifies prior to Division condition of project building permit
Page 3 of 28
MITIGATION MEASURE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP3
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY
construction contract standard specifications a written list of instructions to be prior to issuance of
carried out by the construction manager specifying measures to minimize building permits
emissions by heavy equipment. Measures shall include provisions for proper Building
maintenance of equipment engines, measures to avoid equipment idling more Division
than two minutes and avoidance of unnecessary delay of traffic on off-site access
roads by heavy equipment blocking traffic.
MM AQ -2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Compliance. The applicant
shall implement all of the City of San Rafael November 2010 BAAQMD
Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy checklist's Required Elements: as
indicated in the checklist prepared and submitted by the project applicant.
Additionally, the applicant shall implement the GHG Reduction Strategy
checklist's Recommended Elements, as proposed by the project applicant and
required as a condition of approval to comply with City Municipal Code
Requirements. Additional strategies shall be implemented, to the extent feasible,
as determined by City of San Rafael Building, Planning and Public Works in
order to further reduce the project generated GHG emission.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MONITORING /
REPORTING
ACTION & SCHEDULE
approval, and verify
prior to issuance of
building permit
NON-COMPLIANCE
SANCTION /
ACTIVITY
MM Bio -la: Listed Anadromous Fish Species — Pile Driving. Bridge
Project sponsor Planning
Incorporate as Deny issuance of
construction shall proceed according to the following:
obtains approvals Division
condition of project building permit
• All work associated with the new bridge, including the demolition of
from appropriate
approval
existing bridge deck, installation of the new deck, and other bridge
agencies prior to
issuance Building
Building Division
improvements, shall be restricted to August 1 to October 15:
• Pile -driving work shall be further restricted to between the dates of
of
building permits Division
verifies appropriate
September 1 and October 15, when migrating anadromous fish would not be
approvals obtained
prior to issuance of
expected to be in Gallinas Creek. This "avoidance window" was selected to
Project sponsor
building permit
avoid the breeding season of several other special -status species as well, as
specifies work
detailed below.
• As required by CDFG in the Streambed Alteration Agreement (SBAA),
limitations on
project plans
Planning and Building
require compliance as
work activities associated with the pile -driving shall not begin unless there is
condition and verify
no rain in the forecast, and all erosion control measures are in place pursuant
prior issuance of
to a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for
building/grading
n
the project.
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(MiAiE & DATE)
Page 4 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
• Any conditions of the SBAA imposed by the CDFG shall also become
conditions of the Project approval.
• Compliance with Best Management Practices for sediment and erosion
control as detailed in the SWPPP and ECP prepared for the project shall be
taken to prevent silt -laden or contaminated runoff from entering the stream.
Measures to control runoff from entering the stream could include the
placement of fiber rolls and silt fences. containing wastes, dry sweeping
instead of washing down impervious surfaces, and providing proper washout
areas for the construction contractor.
• Sandbags shall be installed at the top of bank to prevent fluids, sediment, or
construction related debris from entering Gallinas Creek.
• A hammock, or similar material, shall be deployed over the creek during
reconstruction of the bridge to capture any construction debris that could fall
into the creek during the proposed bridge work.
• All construction debris shall be removed from the work area following
completion of the bridge improvements.
MM Bio -1 b: Listed Anadromous Fish Species — SWPPP & SWMP. The
SWPPP and SWMP required under MM Hyd-1 in Chapter 10 of this EIR shall
ensure the following specifications are met:
The SWPPP and SWMP will be designed to ensure that there are no
significant impacts to water quality in the North Fork of Gallinas Creek
resulting from Project construction or post -construction storm water
discharges.
• Prior to being discharged, storm water generated on the Project site.
including the parking lots, shall be treated via a comprehensive set of onsite
treatments BMPs to remove urban contaminants from the runoff.
Since the proposed Project will increase the amount of impervious surface on the
Project site, the SWMP shall also address storm water detention and shall ensure
that the volumetric flow rate of water discharged into the North Fork of Gallinas
Creek does not exceed the pre -project rate. Treated storm water will continue to
be discharged at constant rates up to the existing pump station capacity of
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
permits
Post Permit Issuance Post Permit
Building Division Issue stop work order
monitors during site for violations
inspections
Project sponsor
Planning
Incorporate as Deny issuance of
submits plans and
Division
condition of project building permit
obtains approvals
approval
from prior to
issuance of
Building
Building Division
building permits
Division
verifies appropriate
approvals obtained
prior to issuance of
Public Works
building permit
Post Permit Issuance Port Permit
Building Division Issue stop work order
monitors during site for violations
inspections
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA A/E & DSI TE)
Page 5 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCR 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
500,000 gallons per hour/] 8.5 cubic feet per second.
MM Bio -2a: California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail — Perimeter
Fence. To ensure that the marsh habitat and the upland buffer along the North
Fork of Gallinas Creek is protected, a fence shall be installed around the
perimeter of the proposed Project area, and human access into this buffer area
will be prohibited except as required by maintenance/operation personnel for
continued levee maintenance and other required airport operational tasks that are
routinely practiced today (see following paragraphs). The exact location and size
of the fence shall be determined by a qualified biologist. The fence will be a
minimum of ten -feet tall (which may consist of a standard 6 -foot tall cyclone
fence with a 4 -foot netting extension) for the purpose of preventing balls from the
soccer fields from entering the marsh. Retrieval of items from the fenced area
shall be done by authorized recreation facility personnel only. In addition, signs
will be posted stating that public access into the buffer area is strictly prohibited
owing to the sensitivity of the marsh habitat and to ensure the continued use of
this habitat by special -status wildlife species. Without a fence, there is no realistic
expectation that the marsh habitat along the North Fork of Gallinas Creek and the
adjacent upland areas will remain protected.
MM Bio -2b: Permanent Conservation Area. The Project Applicant shall
designate the 100 -foot upland buffer area on the Project site adjacent to the North
Fork of Gallinas Creek as a permanent "conservation area" that will be protected
through recordation of a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions on
the property. A deed restriction shall be recorded that specifies the prohibited and
allowed uses of the buffer areas. The allowed uses would include the continued
maintenance of the fields and levees, while the prohibited uses would prohibit
any future development or land disturbance (outside of that required for routine
maintenance and levee repairs) within the 100+ -foot creek protection buffer that
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Planning Division
Planning
Incorporate as condition
Deny issuance of
requires as
Division
of approval
building permits
condition of
approval
Deny issuance of
Post Permit Issuance
occupancy
Project sponsor
Building Division
indicates
monitors during site
improvements on
inspections
plans submitted for
building permit
Planning Division
confirms details are
shown on plans prior to
issuance of building
permit and verifies
Past -Permit
construction in field
issuance: Issue stop
prior to occupancy
work order for
violations
Post -Permit Issuance:
Building Division
monitors during site
inspections
Project sponsor
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
submits deed
Division
condition of project
building permit
restriction for
approval
recordation prior to
issuance of
Building
Planning Division
building permit.
Division
confirms deed
restriction has been
recorded prior to
issuance of
building permit
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA_ItE & Dpi TE)
Page 6 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(Nmmr & Di TE)
is designated as a conservation area. The deed restriction will become a condition
of Project approval.
MM Bio -2c: California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail — Levee
Require as a Planning
Incorporate as
Issue stop work
Maintenance. Maintenance of the levees along Gallinas Creek must be allowed
condition of Division
condition of project
notice for violations
to continue for airport safety purposes (i.e., aviation safety and flood control).
approval
approval
during work
Any scheduled maintenance by the airport operator along the North Fork of
Project sponsor
Gallinas Creek, other than vegetation control, should occur in August through
adheres to
Post-Coa7sh•:retiou
January when rails are not expected to be nesting. Mowing of vegetation along
maintenance
Post -Construction
Issue citation(s) and
levees has occurred for many years pursuant to FAA guidelines, and should
schedule
Verify compliance in
pursue Code
continue. To ensure that clapper rails in the area have necessary vegetative cover
response to
enforcement, as
to escape predators during high tide events, no mowing should be allowed on the
complaints or reports
appropriate
slopes of the levees that face the creek.
of noncompliance
MM Bio -2d: California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail — Avoidance
Project sponsor Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
Measures. Disturbances to clapper rails and black rails can be minimized during
specifies work Division
condition of project
building permit
the construction of the proposed recreational facility by implementing the
limitations on
approval
following avoidance measures:
project plans
Building
Division
Post -Permit
Pile driving associated with the recreational facility building shall not commence
Project sponsor
Planning/Building
Issumnce: Issue stop
5�
until September 1Sc and shall be completed by February I". Outside of pile
obtains nesting
Division verifies
work order for
driving, exterior construction of the recreational facility shall be allowed between
surveys prior to
compliance prior to
violations
July I" and February I". Interior work shall be allowed without timing
issuance of
issuance of
limitations. Construction shall not commence on the recreational facility Project
building permits
building permit &
on July I" until a qualified biologist determines that there are no nesting
monitors during site
California Clapper Rails or California Black Rails within 200 feet of the Project
construction.
construction envelope. In the event nesting rails are found within 200 feet of the
Project site on or after July I", construction shall be delayed until the nesting
attempt is completed and the nest is abandoned or a qualified biologist
determines that the nesting would not be adversely affected by commencement of
the project. If California Clapper Rails or California Black Rails are determined
to be nesting between 200 feet and 500 feet from the Project construction
Page 7 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
envelope on July I", the Project may proceed if a qualified biologist determines
that the nesting rails would not be affected by the proposed construction
activities. Under all circumstances any nest identified within 500 feet of the
Project construction envelope would be monitored by a qualified biologist while
construction activities were in progress. The monitoring biologist would have the
right to shut down any and all construction activities immediately in the event
that such activities were determined to be disturbing the nesting attempt. Nests
greater than 500 feet away would not require biologist monitoring.
To account for California clapper rails or black rails, and other special -status
birds, that -occur and nest in the marsh habitats along the creek in the immediate
area of the bridge, all work associated with the new bridge, including the
demolition of existing bridge deck. installation of the new deck, and other bridge
improvements, shall be restricted to August 1 to October 15. The bridge pile -
driving dates shall be further restricted to September 1 and October 15 when
potentially occurring anadromous fish would not be expected to occur in the
channel. This "avoidance window" is outside of the California clapper rail.
California black rail, and other special -status birds breeding seasons, thereby
eliminating the potential that bridge reconstruction activities would disrupt
breeding attempts. This mitigation measure provides conservation measures that
are consistent with the ISP Best Management Practices."
Noise abatement measures shall include restricting construction to the daylight
hours and limiting the use of high decibel construction equipment (70-90 dBA) to
areas at least 200 feet from the North Fork of Gallinas Creek. This restriction
does not apply to bridge pile -driving activities, provided these activities occur
during the "avoidance window" provided above. Consequently, noise from the
Project site construction will not disrupt nocturnal wildlife species' activity
patterns, and daytime high decibel construction noise will be buffered by the
established noise abatement zone along the North Fork of Gallinas Creek.
Finally, four -foot black mesh exclusion fencing shall be installed along the
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA D/E & DArE)
Page 8 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
outside edge of the creek buffer zone (100 feet from the North Fork of Gallinas
Creek) to prevent sensitive species, such as clapper rails and black rails, from
entering the work areas. The exact location of this fence shall be determined by a
qualified biologist. The fence shall be installed prior to the time any site grading
or other construction -related activities are implemented. The fence shall remain
in place during site grading or other construction -related activities.
MM Bio -2e: California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail — Event
Curfew. In order to ensure that Project operational noise does not significantly
disrupt normal nocturnal wildlife species activity patterns, outdoor evening
events, including soccer games and any other outdoor events that attract large
numbers of spectators, shall end by 10:00 p.m. When there are evening soccer
events, the 10:00 p.m. end time will ensure that noise generated from the
recreational facility will not disrupt normal nocturnal wildlife species' activity
patterns, allowing nocturnal movements through the project area over the
duration of most of the night on the nights of the year affected by events.
MM Bio -3a: Nocturnal Lighting. Lighting of the outdoor soccer field located
near the North Fork of Gallinas Creek will be designed to have focused
illumination areas that will ensure that there is no direct lighting of off-site areas,
such as the North Fork of Gallinas Creek. All lighting fixtures on the perimeter of
the Project shall be outfitted with hoods and cut-off lenses so that the light source
itself is not visible to the naked eye from neighboring properties, thereby
avoiding indirect light "trespassing" into adjacent habitat areas. This shall be
verified by the Design Review Board when it reviews the final lighting plans
prior to the issuance of building permits, and verified again at the Project site
during the inspection occurring 90 days following lighting installation, as
required by MM Aesth-la.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Require as a
condition of
approval
Require as a
condition of
approval
MM Bio -3b: Lighting Curfew. The recreational facility shall set a 10:00 p.m. Require as a
outdoor event lighting restriction. While safety lighting allowing visitors to safely condition of
leave the site may be illuminated as late as 12:30 p.m., all outdoor field lighting approval
shall be terminated no later than 10:00 p.m. When there are evening outdoor
soccer events, the 10:00 p.m. end time will ensure that light generated from the
Planning
Division
Code
Enforcement
Police
Department
Planning
Division
Code
Enforcement
Police
Department
Planning
Division
Code
Incorporate as
condition of project
approval
Respond to reports of
noise violations
Incorporate as
condition of project
approval
Respond to reports of
noise violations
Incorporate as
condition of project
approval
Deny issuance of
building permit
Issue citations for
violation and obtain
compliance
Deny issuance of
building permit or
site occupancy permit
Post -Construction
Issue citations for
violation and obtain
compliance.
Issue citations for
violation and obtain
compliance
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA Am & DATE)
Page 9 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IMMRPI
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FUR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
use of the recreational facility's outdoor fields will not disrupt nocturnal wildlife
species' activity patterns, allowing nocturnal migration movements through the
project area after that time.
MM Bio -4a: Nesting Raptors — Bridge Construction. The bridge
reconstruction component of the project shall occur between the dates of August
1 and October 15, and the pile -driving activities shall be restricted to September I
to October 15, as otherwise specified above. This "avoidance window" is outside
of the raptor breeding season, thereby eliminating the potential that bridge
reconstruction activities would disrupt nesting raptors in the area.
MM Bio -4b: Nesting Raptors — Recreation Facility Construction. Exterior
construction of the recreational facility shall be allowed between July 1 and
February I", when most raptors are not expected to be nesting. In cases where a
nest fails during egg -laying or early incubation , adults may recycle, laying a
second set of eggs. In such cases the completion of the nesting season may be
delayed until August. While this is rare, it can occur and thus out of an abundance
of caution, a mitigation measure is provided to account for late nesting raptors.
MM Bio -4c: Nesting Raptors — Pre -construction Nesting Surveys. Pre -
construction nesting surveys shall be conducted by a "qualified biologist' as
follows:
• A pre -construction nesting survey shall be conducted -during the breeding
season (February through July) of the year construction of the project will
commence. The nesting survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to
commencing of construction work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include
examination of all habitats and trees within 500 feet of the entire Project
site, including near the bridge. not just eucalyptus trees on the northern
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Require as a
Enforcement
Respond to reports of
condition of
Division
lighting violations
approval
Police
approval
Department
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
condition of
Division
condition of project
approval
approval
agencies prior to
Building
Respond to reports of
Project sponsor
Division
Monitor during
obtains approvals
construction
from appropriate
agencies prior to
Respond to reports of
issuance of
violations
building permits
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
condition of
Division
condition of project
approval
approval
Building
Project sponsor
Division
Monitor during
obtains approvals
construction
from appropriate
agencies prior to
Respond to reports of
issuance of
violations
building permits
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
condition of
Division
condition of project
approval
approval
Building
Project sponsor
Division
Monitor during
obtains approvals
construction
from appropriate
agencies prior to
Respond to reports of
issuance of
violations
building permits
Issue stop work order
Issue citations for
violation and obtain
compliance
Issue stop work order
Issue citations for
violation and obtain
compliance
Deny issuance of
building permits
Issue stop work order
Issue citations for
violation and obtain
compliance
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA AiE & DA TE)
Page 10 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4MMRP),
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NA LI/E & DATE)
boundary of the Project site.
If a nesting raptor species is identified, a 300 -foot radius buffer around any
active nest site that is located on or within 300 feet of the Project site shall
be fenced with orange construction fencing. If the nest is off the Project site.
the Project site shall be fenced where this buffer intersects the project area.
This 300 -foot buffer may be reduced in size if a qualified raptor biologist
determines that the nesting raptors are acclimated to people and disturbance,
and/or otherwise would not be adversely affected by construction activities.
At a minimum, however, the non -disturbance buffer shall be a radius of 100
feet around the nest site. When construction buffers are reduced from the
300 foot radius, a qualified raptor biologist shall monitor distress levels of
the nesting birds until the young fledge from the nest. If at any time the
nesting raptors show levels of distress that could cause nest failure or
abandonment, the raptor biologist shall have the right to re -implement the
full 300 -foot buffer. Instances when the buffer could be reduced in size
would be if the raptors were well acclimated to disturbance and/or if there
were physical barriers between the nest site and the construction project that
would reduce disturbance to the nesting raptors.
No construction or earth -moving activity shall occur within the non -disturbance
buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones. This typically occurs by July 1. Regardless, the
resource agencies consider September I the end of the nesting period unless
otherwise determined by a qualified raptor biologist. Once the raptors have
completed the nesting cycle, that is the young have reached independence of the
nest, no further regard for the nest site shall be required and no other
compensatory mitigation is required.
MM Bio -5a: Western Burrowing Owl — Nesting Surveys. Pre -construction
nesting surveys for Western burrowing owl shall be conducted by a "qualified
biologist"' as follows:
• Pre -construction Survey. A preconstruction survey of the Project site shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to any ground
Require as a Planning
condition of Division
approval
Building
Division
Incorporate as
condition of project
approval
Monitor during
Deny issuance of
building permits
Issue stop work order
Issue citations for
Page 11 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
disturbing activities to confirm the absence or presence of burrowing owls.
If more than 30 days lapse between the time of the preconstruction survey
and the start of ground -disturbing activities, another preconstruction survey
must be completed. This process should be repeated until the Project site
habitat is converted to non -habitat (e.g.. developed for recreational uses). If
western burrowing owls are not present, no further mitigation is required.
• If burrowing owls are found on the Project site during the non -breeding
season (September 1 through January 31), impacts to burrowing owls shall
be avoided by establishing a fenced 160 -foot buffer (50 meters) between the
nest site (i.e., the active burrow) and any earth -moving activity or other
construction -related disturbance on the Project site.
If burrowing owls are detected on the site during the breeding season and
appear to be engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250 -foot buffer (75
meters) shall be installed between the nest site (i.e. the active burrows or
ground nests) and any earth -moving activity or other disturbance on the
Project site. This 250 -foot buffer may be removed once it is determined by a
qualified raptor biologist that that young have fledged (that is. left the nest).
Typically, the young fledge by August 31 st. This fence removal date may be
earlier than August 31 st, or later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified raptor biologist. Once the qualified raptor biologist confirms that
there are no owls inside any active burrows, these burrows may be
collapsed.
MM Bio -5b: Western Burrowing Owl — Passive Relocation. If occupied
western burrowing owl burrows are found within 160 feet of the proposed Project
work area during the non -breeding season, and may be impacted, passive
relocation measures shall be implemented according to the Burrowing Owl
Consortium Guidelines (BOC 1993) and as recommended by a qualified
biologist. Rather than capturing and transporting burrowing owls to a new
location (which may be stressful and prone to failure), passive relocation is a
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-CONIPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
construction
Respond to reports of
violations
violation and obtain
compliance
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA & DATE)
Page 12 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP).
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
method where the owls are enticed to move on their own accord. The biologist
shall consult with CDFG prior to initiating passive relocation measures. Passive
relocation shall not commence before September 30th and shall be completed
prior to February I st of any given year. After passive relocation, the Project site
and vicinity will be monitored by a qualified biologist daily for one week and
once per week for an additional two weeks to document where the relocated owls
move. A report detailing the results of the monitoring will be submitted to CDFG
within two months of the relocation.
MM Bio -5c: Western Burrowing Owl — Habitat Delineation. If burrowing
owls are found occupying burrows on the Project site, a qualified raptor biologist
shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. To mitigate for
impacts to burrowing owls, the applicant shall implement mitigation measures
recommended by the CDFG which state that six and a half acres (6.5 acres) of
replacement habitat must be set-aside (i.e., protected in perpetuity) for every
occupied burrow, pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. Protecting
burrowing owl habitat in perpetuity will off -set permanent impacts to burrowing
owl and their habitat. For example, if two pairs of burrowing owls are found
occupying burrows on the Project site. 13 acres of mitigation land must be
acquired. Similarly, if one pair and one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of
mitigation land must be acquired. The protected lands shall be adjacent to
occupied burrowing owl habitat and determined to be suitable in consultation
with CDFG. Land identified to off -set impacts to burrowing owls must be
protected in perpetuity either by a conservation easement or via fee title
acquisition. A detailed mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed for the
burrowing owl mitigation area. This plan shall be prepared by the project
biologist in consultation with CDFG. The applicant will provide an endowment
fund to the Grantee of the Conservation Easement for the long-term management
of the burrowing owl mitigation lands.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NA A/E & DSI TE)
MM Bio -6a: Common and Special -Status Nesting Birds — Bridge Require as a
Construction. The bridge reconstruction component of the project shall occur condition of
between the dates of August 1 and October 15, and the pile -driving activities will approval
be restricted to September I to October 15, as otherwise specified above. This
Planning Incorporate as Deny issuance of
Division condition of project building permit
approval
Issue stop work order
Page 13 of 28
MITIGATION MOIN WRING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
"avoidance window" is outside of the breeding season, thereby eliminating the
potential that bridge reconstruction activities would disrupt nesting birds.
MM Bio -6b: Special -Status Nesting Birds — Nesting Surveys. A nesting
survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to commencing construction
work. If special -status birds, such as saltmarsh common yellowthroat and San
Pablo song sparrow, are identified nesting near the bridge reconstruction
component of the Project, a 50 -foot radius buffer must be established around the
nest site by installing bright orange construction fencing. Similarly, if great blue
herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, or black -crowned night herons are found
nesting near the bridge or near the Project site area, a 200 -foot radius around the
nest site(s) must be fenced with bright orange construction fencing. If nests are
found off the Project site but within the anoronriate buffer, the portion of the
buffer on the Project site shall be fenced with bright orange construction fencing.
No construction or earth -moving activity shall occur within a buffer until it is
determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the
nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones.
This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1, or
later, and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist.
MM Bio -6c: Common Nesting Birds — Nesting Surveys. If common (that is,
not special -status) passerine birds (that is, perching birds such as western scrub
jays and northern mockingbird) are identified nesting within the project area or
immediately adjacent to the Project site, a 50 -foot buffer demarcated by orange
lath staking installed every 20 feet around the buffer shall be established. No
grading/construction activities shall occur in the established buffer until it is
determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged and have attained
sufficient flight skills to leave the area. Typically, most passerine birds can be
expected to complete nesting by July 1, with young attaining sufficient flight
skills by early July. Swallows species are the exception typically fledging and
attaining sufficient flight skills in mid-July.
IMPLENIENTATION MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY
Project sponsor Building
obtains approvals Division
from appropriate
agencies prior to
issuance of
building permits
MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NAME & DfITE)
Building Division
verifies appropriate
approvals obtained
prior to issuance of
building permit
MM Bio -7: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Suisun Shrew and San Pablo Vole — Require as a Planning Incorporate as Deny issuance of
Page 14 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP).
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA,1/E & Det T—r)
Page 15 of 28
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING /
REPORTING
NON-COMPLIANCE
SANCTION /
MITIGATION MEASURE
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
ACTION & SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Perimeter Fence. To ensure that the buffer along the North Fork of Gallinas
condition of
Division
condition of project
building permit
Creek is protected, a fence will be installed around the perimeter of the proposed
approval
approval
recreational facility to prohibit human access to this area except as otherwise
Issue stop work order
allowed for maintenance activities associated with the airport. A four -foot black
Project sponsor
Building
for non-compliance
mesh exclusion fencing shall be installed along the outside edge of the creek
obtains approvals
Division
Building Division
buffer zone (100 feet from the North Fork of Gallinas Creek) to prevent the
from appropriate
verifies appropriate
Suisun shrew, the salt marsh harvest mouse and the San Pablo vole from entering
agencies prior to
approvals obtained
the work areas. The exact placement of the fence shall be determined by a
issuance of
prior to issuance of
qualified biologist. In addition, signs will be posted stating that public access into
building permits
building permit &
monitors during
the marsh and adjacent uplands is strictly prohibited to ensure the continued use
construction
of the protected area by sensitive wildlife species.
MM Bio -8: Pallid Bat (and Other Bat Species). In order to avoid impacts to
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
roosting bat habitat, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted prior to any tree
condition of
Division
condition of project
building permit
removal on the Project site to ensure that direct take of this species would not
approval
approval
occur. A biologist with experience conducting bat surveys shall conduct this
Issue stop work order
survey. If no bats are found during the survey, tree removal shall be conducted
Project sponsor
Building
Building Division
for non-compliance
within one month of the survey. If a maternity colony is found during the
obtains approvals
Division
verifies appropriate
surveys, no eviction/exclusion shall be allowed during the breeding season
from appropriate
approvals obtained
(typically between April 15 and July 30). If a non -reproductive group of bats are
agencies prior to
prior to issuance of
found, they shall be passively evicted by a qualified biologist and excluded from
issuance of
building permit &
the roost site prior to work activities during the suitable time frame for bat
building permits
monitors during
construction
eviction/elusion (i.e., February 20 to April 14 and July 30 to October 15). CDFG
shall approve any and all bat eviction activities prior to implementation of such
activities. Any conditions for the project imposed by CDFG as a condition for
removal of bats would become a condition of project approval.
Revised MM Bio -9 Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction — Banks of the North Fork
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
of Gallinas Creek: Construction of the proposed bridge shall be restricted to the
condition of
Division
condition of project
building permit
terms and activities consistent with the approved CDFG 1602 Lake and
approval
approval
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Notification Number: 1600-2006-0266-3),
Issue stop work order
including but not limited to the following:
Project sponsor
Building
Building Division
for non-compliance
• All work associated with the new bridge, including the demolition of
obtains approvals
from appropriate
Division
verifies appropriate
approvals obtained
existing bridge deck, installation of the new deck, and other bridge
agencies prior to
prior to issuance of
improvements, shall be restricted to August 1 through October 15 to account
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA,1/E & Det T—r)
Page 15 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
for California clapper rails or black rails, and other special -status birds, that
could nest in the marsh habitats along the creek in the immediate area of the
bridge. This "avoidance window" is outside of the California clapper rail,
California black rail, and other special -status birds breeding seasons, thereby
eliminating the potential that bridge reconstruction activities would disrupt
breeding attempts. The work on the bridge deck may be extended beyond
the October 15`h date allowed in the SBAA to February I` under the
condition that CDFG and the City provide approval for this extension and
appropriated weather related BMPs are implemented. Work up until
February I" is likewise outside of the Clapper rail, California black rail, and
other special -status bird breeding seasons.
The bridge pile -driving dates shall occur from September 1 through October
15`h when potentially occurring anadromous fish are not expected to occur in
the channel. While as permitted by CDFG, bridge decking work may
continue after October 15`' until February I", no work shall be allowed
including pile driving, constructing abutments, or any other construction
related activities that could otherwise negatively affect fish habitats between
October 15`h and September I".
No work shall occur below the top -of -bank or the normal high-water mark
(i.e., the mean higher high tideline) of the stream.
All conditions in the authorized SBAA shall also be made a condition of the
project
CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY
issuance of
building permits
MM CR -la: Monitoring. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present Require as a
during pre -construction and construction activities that involve earth disturbance, condition of
such as land clearing, excavation for foundations, footings, and utilities. Land approval
clearance and soil excavation shall occur only under the direction of the project
archaeologist, and soil shall not be removed from the site without the approval of
the project archaeologist.
MM CR -1b: Discovery. In the event that archaeological features, such as
concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits
Planning
Division
Building
Division
MONITORING /
REPORTING
ACTION & SCHEDULE
building permit &
monitors during
construction
Incorporate as
condition of project
approval
Building Division
monitors during
construction
NON-COMPLIANCE
SANCTION /
ACTIVITY
Issue stop work order
for non-compliance
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA A/E & DATE)
Page 16 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP),
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
older than fifty years of age. are discovered at any time during grading. scraping,
or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the
find, the Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall
be contacted immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the
concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, further work in the discovery area
shall be monitored by an archaeologist.
GEOLOGY and SOILS
MM Geo -1: Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations. Prior to the Require as a Planning
Incorporate as Deny issuance of
issuance of the building permit or grading permit, the following condition of Division
condition of project building permit
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report prepared by John C. Hom approval
approval
& Associates, dated May 9, 2005 and November 23, 2005, shall be incorporated
Withhold further
into the Project design. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, written Building
Building Division inspections and
verification of conformance with these recommendations shall be submitted by Division
verifies prior to permits until
the Project geotechnical engineer to tileissuance
City of San Rafael:
of engineering
g g review is
building permit & satisfied during
a) A soil profile Type Se in accordance with the 2006 International Building
during inspections construction.
Code shall be used in the design of the proposed Project.
b) All areas to be graded should be stripped of any debris and organic
materials. The organic material should be removed off-site and disposed of
Excavation should then be performed to achieve any finished grades.
c) Where fill is required, the exposed surface should be scarified to at least 6
inches, moisture -conditioned and compacted to at least 90 -percent relative
compaction per ASTM D-1557 test procedure. Where soft soils are
encountered, treatment of the soft soils with lime maybe required. The fill
should be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less in loose thickness, moisture
conditions and compacted to at least 90 percent compaction. The fills
materials should be should have a plastic index of 15, or less, and be no
larger than 6 inches.
d) Finished slopes are to be no steeper than 2 -horizontal to I -vertical (2:1). If
steeper slopes are necessary, they should be retained. The finished slops
should be planted with deep-rooted ground cover.
e) The proposed structure should be supported by 10-12 inch square driven
piles which are pre-cut and pre -stressed concrete or steel piles. These piles
should be driven continuously through the Bay Mud, the stiff soils and to
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA Am & DATE)
Page 17 of 28
MITIGATION MEASURE
0
g)
h)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
refusal in bedrock (penetrate into bedrock no more than 10 feet). Ten and
12 -inch piles should be driven with a hammer and maintained in good
operating condition with a minimum rated energy of 20,000 and 30,000 -foot
pounds per blow, respectively. The piles should not deviate from vertical by
more than '. inch per foot. Indicator piles should be driven near the corners
of the building and interior of the building to determine pile depths and
production piles should be ordered based on the indictor piles. The refusal
blow count would depend on the hammer that is utilized and the structural
capacity of the pile. The piles should be driven at least 5 feet into bedrock.
The pile driving subcontractor should submit to the Soils Engineer
specification of the pile hammer and equipment to be used.
Down draft would occur on the piles due to consolidation of Bay Mud. The
down drag forces should be deducted from the structural capacity of the
piles. For 10 and 12 -inch concrete piles, drag loads should be 22 and 28 tons
respectively. For different sized piles. the down draft should be
proportionate with the cross sectional perimeter of the pile.
To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure of 250 pcf should be used.
Slab on grade should not be used for the mezzanine structure. Instead,
supported slabs should be used. The slab subgrade should be firm and non -
yielding. In areas where slab on grade is used, such as exterior walkways,
the slab on grade should be tied to foundations and reinforced to span from
grade beam and/or pile to grade beam and/or pile. The upper 6 inches of slab
subgrade should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
Slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean, free -draining crushed
rock or gravel. If migration of moisture through the slabs would be
objectionable, a vapor barrier should be installed between the slab and the
rock. Two inches of sand may be provided above the vapor barrier.
Expansive soils shall be maintained at an elevated moisture content of at
least two (2) percent above optimum until the slab is poured. Exterior slabs
should be separated from foundations because of potential differential
settlement.
Areas outside the structural envelope that receive fill will experience
differential settlement and utilities from the structure to the street shall be
designed to accommodate this. Sewer lines shall be provided with swing
points. Gas, water and electrical lines shall be provided with flexible lines
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NA:uE & Di TE)
Page 18 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP),
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
with sufficient slack to accommodate anticipated settlement.
j) Driveway and ramp approaches from the street to the building will also
experience settlement. Driveway slabs shall be provided with hinge joints
and reinforced to structurally span the settlement.
k) Surface water drainage should be diverted away from slopes and
foundations. Gutters should be provided on the roofs and downspout should
be connected to closed conduits discharging into the landscaped area where
possible, per City standards.
1) Roof downspouts and surface drains must be maintained entirely separate
from sub -drains and foundation drains. The outlets should discharge onto
erosion resistant areas of the landscaping where possible, per City standards.
The Project geotechnical engineer shall conduct inspections during construction
of the Project to confirm that the recommendations are properly incorporated.
Prior to final occupancy of the building, the Project geotechnical engineer shall
submit written verification that the Project was constructed in accordance with
the recommendations identified in the geotechnical reports.
HAZARDS
MM Haz-1: Risk -reduction design features. In order to ensure that the
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
proposed Project does not expose users to hazards associated with the operations
condition of
Division
condition of project
building permit
at the San Rafael Airport, the Project Applicant shall:
approval
approval
Confirm during site
• Limit the intensity of use to a maximum of 200 people per single acre or, at
Project sponsor
Building
Building Division
inspections and prior
a minimum, incorporate the following risk -reduction building design
obtains approvals
Division
verifies prior to
to occupancy
features into the design of the recreational building:
from appropriate
agencies prior to
issuance of
building permit
• Add one additional emergency exit beyond the number required by the
issuance of
California Building Code.
building permits
• Provide enhanced fire sprinkler system (e.g., designed in a manner that the
entire system would not be disabled by an accident affecting one area
Add a sign at the entrance of the warm-up field indicating the maximum
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA AiE & DATE)
Page 19 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
• Outdoor parking lot lights and outdoor soccer field lights, in particular,
should be shielded so that they do not aim above the horizon. Additionally,
outdoor lights should be flight checked at night to ensure that they do not
create glare during landings and takeoffs.
• Construction cranes and other tall construction equipment should be lowered
at the end of each day
Prior to issuance of building permits or authorization to construct, the applicant
Page 20 of 28
MONITORING /
NON-COD'IPLIANCE MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCEDURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY RECORD
(NA jiiE & DATE)
occupancy of the field is 50 people.
MM Haz-2: Elimination of Flight Hazards. In order to ensure that the proposed
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
Project does not expose aircraft to hazards associated with the operations of the
condition of
Division
condition of project
building permit
proposed Project, the Project Applicant shall:
approval
approval
Confirm during site
• Limit height of proposed structures to assure clearance of the 7:1
Project sponsor
Building
Building Division
inspections and prior
Transitional Surface
obtains approvals
Division
verifies prior to
to occupancy
from appropriate
issuance of
• Design the row of parking stalls nearest to airfield for compact vehicles
agencies prior to
building permit
and/or add signs along the fence -line notifying drivers not to back -in their
issuance of
vehicles
building permits
• Add obstruction lights to the following features to make them more
conspicuous to pilots:
Southwesterly and southeasterly corners of building
o Southwesterly and southeasterly ends of the fence fronting the
airfield
o Most easterly field light along the southeastern edge of the
outdoor soccer field
• Tall trees should be trimmed to ensure that they do not constitute an airspace
obstruction (or, alternatively, shorter species can be planted).
• Outdoor parking lot lights and outdoor soccer field lights, in particular,
should be shielded so that they do not aim above the horizon. Additionally,
outdoor lights should be flight checked at night to ensure that they do not
create glare during landings and takeoffs.
• Construction cranes and other tall construction equipment should be lowered
at the end of each day
Prior to issuance of building permits or authorization to construct, the applicant
Page 20 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
should submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and obtain from the FAA a
determination of "No Ila=ard to Air Navigation. " Construction cranes and other
tall construction equipment should be noted on the form.
HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY
MM Hyd-1 a: Erosion Control Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a
California Registered Civil Engineer retained by the Project Applicant shall
prepare and submit a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) and narrative to the
Stormwater Program Manager of the City of San Rafael for review and approval.
The ECP shall be designed to control and manage erosion and sediment, control
and treat runoff, and promote infiltration of runoff from new impervious surfaces
resulting from construction activities in order to minimize erosion and runoff to
the maximum extent feasible. At a minimum, the ECP and written narrative shall
include the following:
• A proposed schedule of grading activities, monitoring, and infrastructure
milestones in chronological format.
• Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable
slopes; contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after
grading;
• Identification and description of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and
streets, based on recommendations contained in the Erosion and Sediment
Control Field Manual published by the San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Association of Bay Area
Governments' dfanual of Standards far• Erosion and Sediment Control, or
equivalent document, as required by the City of San Rafael General Plan
2020 Policy S-22 (Erosion). Measures could include, but are not limited to
stabilizing the entrances, using straw wattles, installing silt fences, using
erosion control blankets, and covering all exposed soil with straw mulch or a
trackifier;
• The location, implementation schedule, and maintenance schedule of all
erosion and sediment control measures, including measures to control dust;
• Identification and description of soil stabilization techniques (such as short-
term biodegradable erosion control blankets and hydroseeding) to be
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny issuance of
condition of
Division
condition of project
building permit
approval
approval
Building
Issue stop work for
Project sponsor
Division
non-compliance
obtains approvals
Building Division
from appropriate
Public Works
verifies appropriate
Deny permit final
agencies prior to
approvals obtained
inspections"
issuance of
Code
prior to issuance of
withhold further
building permits
Enforcement
building permit &
permits until
verifies compliance
compliance is
during construction
achieved
Public Works verifies
Verify pertinent
requirements in
during construction
recorded in CC&R's
Establish pertinent
prior to occupancy
requirements as
ongoing condition of
approval
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(MmiE & DATE)
Page 21 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
utilized;
• A description of the location and methods of storage and disposal of
construction materials;
• The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated
sediment, and the cleaning of these drainage structures of debris and
sediment:
• The first 3/4 —inch of runoff from the first 1 -inch of rainfall must be treated:
and
• A copy of the City's Best Management Practices sheet included within
project plans.
The ECP shall limit the areas of disturbance, designate restricted -entry zones, and
provide for revegetation or mulching. The Project Applicant shall ensure that the
construction contractor is responsible for securing a source of transportation and
deposition of excavated materials. The construction contractor employed by the
Project Applicant shall retain a copy of the ECP on-site and shall implement the
ECP during all earth -moving activities.
MM Hyd-1 b: NPDES Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first, and following the preparation of Project site grading plan,
the Applicant shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm
Water Permit Requirements established by the Clean Water Act (CWA),
including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The SWPPP shall identify specific types and sources of stormwater pollutants.
determine the location and nature of potential impacts, and specify appropriate
control measures to eliminate any potentially significant impacts on receiving
water quality from stormwater runoff. In addition to complying with the
standards established by the CWA for preparation of a SWPPP, the SWPPP shall
also comply with the directions for preparing a SWPPP contained in the latest
edition of the Guidelines for Construction Projects, published by the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB). Furthermore, in conjunction
with the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP),
(NAA/E & D,ITE)
Page 22 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
and as required by the City's General Plan 2020 Policy S-21 (RWQCB
Requirements), the Project Applicant shall consult with City staff and implement
recommended measures that would reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges
from the site to the maximum extent practicable.
MM Hyd-1 c: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, and following
the preparation of the Project site grading plan, the Project Applicant shall submit
to the City Engineer for review a draft copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and
SWPPP. After approval by the City, the NOI and SWPPP shall be sent to the
State Water Resources Control Board. (The SWPPP follows the preparation of
the Project site grading plan because Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
erosion control are selected to meet the specific site requirements.)
MM Hyd-ld: Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). Consistent with the
requirements of the City of San Rafael NPDES Permit, prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever comes first, the Project engineer shall
prepare a post -construction Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and
incorporate into the final site plan features that would clean site waters in
accordance to RWQCB and MCSTOPPP standards before they enter San Rafael
Bay, to the maximum extent feasible. Features that could be used to clean site
waters include, but are not limited to, bioswales, filters inserted into the site
drainage inlets to filter runoff, and landscaped and unimproved areas that would
act as bio-swales to allow microorganisms in the soil to clean and filter site
waters before release into Gallinas Creek. In addition, prior to preparation of the
SWPPP, the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District shall be
consulted to ensure that the measures do not have the potential to promote
mosquito breeding.
MM Hyd-le: Drainage Swales. Where grassed swales are to be used to filter
pollutants from runoff, they shall consist of a dense, uniform growth of fine -
stemmed herbaceous plants best suited for filtering pollutants and tolerant to the
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-CONIPLIANCE MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NADIE & DATE
Page 23 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
water. climatological, and soil conditions of the development area. In addition,
the Swale design shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Design methods for increasing detention, infiltration, and uptake by
wetland -typed plants.
• A (low path adequate to provide for efficient pollutant removal in
accordance with the standards of the RWQCB and MCSTOPPP.
The Project Applicant shall submit a final site plan, design, construction details,
and maintenance program for the proposed grassed swale(s) to the City's
Engineering Services Manager for review and approval prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
MM Hyd-1f. Maintenance of Paved Areas. After Project completion, the
Project Applicant or successor shall properly maintain parking lots and other
common paved areas, by sweeping or other appropriate means, to prevent the
majority of litter from washing into storm drains. Parking lots and paved areas
shall be swept once per week. Should the Project Applicant or successor fail to
maintain this schedule, the City shall sweep the parking lots and paved areas at
the expense of the Project Applicant or successor. This mitigation measure shall
also be included in the Owner's Association CC&R's.
MM Hyd-2a: Flood -proofing. In order to provide for one foot of freeboard
elevation above the base I00 -year flood elevation of+6.0 NGVD (+8.67 NAVD),
the portions of the building below +7.0 NGVD (+9.67 NAVD) shall be flood
proofed according to the following specifications per FEMA Technical Bulletin
3-93 (see Appendix I):
• The building must be watertight to the floodproof design elevation of +7
NGVD (9.67 NAVD). Floodproofing to any elevation less than 1 foot above
the BFE will have a serious negative impact on the flood insurance rating for
the building. Generally a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard is recommended.
Additional freeboard is warranted for sites where predicted flood depths may
be inaccurate, such as sites within large drainage areas and rapidly
urbanizing areas.
• The building's walls must be "substantially impermeable to the passage of
water." FEMA has adopted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS)
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION /
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as Deny issuance of
condition of
Division
condition of project building permit(s)
approval
approval
Building
Project sponsor
Division
Building Division
obtains approvals
and Public Works
from appropriate
Public Works
verify compliance
agencies prior to
prior to issuance of
issuance of
building permit &
building permits
prior to occupancy
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NAmr & Di TL.:)
Page 24 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FE1R (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-CONIPLIANCE MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
definition of substantially impermeable from the ACOE publication "Flood
Proofing Regulations." This document states that a substantially
impermeable wall "shall not permit the accumulation of more than 4 inches
of water depth during a 24-hour period if there were no devices provided for
its removal. However, sump pumps shall be required to control this
seepage." Flood resistant materials, described in Technical Bulletin 2,
"Flood -Resistant Materials Requirements," must be used in all areas where
such seepage is likely to occur.
The building's utilities and sanitary facilities, including heating, air
conditioning, electrical, water supply, and sanitary sewage services, must be
located above the BFE, completely enclosed within the building's watertight
walls, or made watertight and capable of resisting damage during flood
conditions.
All of the building's structural components must be capable of resisting
specific flood -related forces. These are the forces that would be exerted upon
the building as a result of floodwaters reaching the BFE (at a minimum) or
floodproofing design level.
The construction plans must be signed and stamped by either a registered
engineer or architect, certifying that the building and materials are designed
to comply with the requirements and guidelines of the flood proofing
methods established by FEMA.
MM Hyd-2b: Finalize Hydrology Report and Grading and Drainage Plans.
A final hydrologic report and final grading and drainage plans shall be prepared
by the Applicant and submitted for review and approval by the Building Division
and Department of Public Works prior to issuance of permits authorizing grading,
construction and installation of on-site improvements. The final construction
plans shall be prepared based on the preliminary hydrologic report, grading plan
and drainage plans that have been submitted for the project zoning entitlements
and which have been reviewed by Building and Public Works for the purpose of
identifying their respective requirements that would apply to this project, and
confirm that their respective requirements could be satisfied based on the
preliminary plans and reports submitted for zoning review. Tile final plans shall
incorporate responses required to address requirements of the Building and
(NAmE & Dfl m)
Page 25 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM tMMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FUR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
Public Works Department; as necessary to assure construction plans and details
shall comply with all codes, standards, and requirements currently imposed and
enforced by the Building Division and Department of Public Works. This shall
include submittal of the following:
• Preliminary drainage calculations shall be verified and confirmed by the
project Civil Engineer with plans submitted for final construction documents.
The final hydrology report shall contain updated pre- and post -construction
runoff calculations to support the final improvement plan details shown on
the final construction documents.
• Final grading and drainage plans shall be prepared by a registered engineer
and the final building pad/finished floor grade shall be verified and certified
by a licensed surveyor to assure the required finish grade and building flood
proofing elevations are achieved.
NOISE
MM N-1: Evening Noise. To address the potential that noise from late evening
games becomes an annoyance to neighbors to the south due to the potential of a I
decibel increase over maximum allowable nighttime noise levels, the following
measures shall be implemented:
• During the first full year of operations, the project sponsor shall monitor
noise levels during a minimum of five games to determine whether the use of
outdoor fields and warm-up areas would result in exceedance of the 40 dBA
exterior residential nighttime noise threshold at the closest residential
property boundary. The City shall approve the monitoring schedule, to
ensure monitoring occurs during times when outdoor fields are in full usage.
A copy of the noise consultant's analysis shall be submitted to the City. If
the analysis demonstrates that the Noise Ordinance nighttime threshold
would be exceeded, the outdoor facilities shall remain closed by 9 p.m.,
Sundays through Thursdays, and 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. If the
noise analysis demonstrates that the Noise Ordinance nighttime noise
threshold would not be exceeded, the outdoor facilities may extend the hours
of operation to 10 p.m., Sundays through Thursdays.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NAA/E & DATE)
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
Deny extended hours
condition of
Division
condition of project
of operation.
approval
approval
Building
Enforce hours of
Project sponsor
Division
Planning Division
operation
obtains approvals
reviews noise study
from appropriate
Police
agencies prior to
Department
issuance of
building permits
Code
enforcement
Page 26 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
MITIGATION MEASURE
MM N-2: Construction Time Restrictions and Engine Controls. The Project
sponsor shall implement the following engine controls to minimize disturbance at
McInnis Park recreational facilities during Project construction:
• Construction activities on the site shall be limited to the hours specified in
the San Rafael Noise Ordinance.
• Construction equipment shall utilize the best available noise control
techniques (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures
and acoustically—attenuating shields or shrouds) in order to minimize
construction noise impacts. These controls shall be used as necessary to
reduce heavy equipment noise to 72 dBA (Leq) at 100 feet to ensure
acceptable noise levels are maintained at the closest (southernmost) softball
field. If such equipment noise levels cannot be achieved, the Project sponsor
shall coordinate operation of heavy equipment to avoid hours when the
closest (southernmost) softball field is being used for practices or games to
the maximum extent feasible.
• The applicant shall contact the County Parks and Open Space Director and
General Manager to obtain game and practice field schedules and schedule
work to avoid games and practices on the closest field, to the maximum
extent feasible. In addition, the applicant shall contact the program manager
for McInnis Park to advise them of the pending construction project in order
to help facilitate a schedule that would avoid most game and practice times.
• If impact equipment such as jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock
drills is used during construction, hydraulically or electric -powered
equipment shall be used to avoid the noise associated with compressed -air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of
pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed -air exhaust shall be used. External jackets on the tools
themselves shall also be used, where feasible.
A Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be designated to respond to any local
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine
the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and
shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be
implemented. The construction schedule and telephone number for the Noise
NON-COMPLIANCE
SANCTION /
ACTIVITY
Deny issuance of
building permit
Issue stop work order
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA Am: & DATE)
Page 27 of 28
MONITORING /
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
REPORTING
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
ACTION & SCHEDULE
Require as a
Planning
Incorporate as
condition of
Division
condition of project
approval
approval
Applicant
Building
Building Division
incorporates on
Division
verifies during
plans and submits
construction.
contact
information
NON-COMPLIANCE
SANCTION /
ACTIVITY
Deny issuance of
building permit
Issue stop work order
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD
(NA Am: & DATE)
Page 27 of 28
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IMMRP)
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility FEIR (SCH 2006-012-125)
Reviewed: 08.06.2012
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING / NON-COMPLIANCE MONITORING
MITIGATION MEASURE PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING SANCTION / COMPLIANCE
ACTION & SCHEDULE ACTIVITY RECORD
(NADfE & D,I TE)
Disturbance Coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the Project construction
site.
MM N-3: Pile Driving Noise. For proposed pile driving, quieter procedures shall Require as a Planning
Incorporate as Deny issuance of
be used such as pre—drilling holes to the maximum depth feasible and using more condition of Division
condition of project building permits
than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration. To minimize approval
approval
Issue stop work order
disruption of recreational activities on the closest (southernmost) field at McInnis
Building
Park, the applicant shall contact the County Parks and Open Space Director and
Division
Building Division
General Manager to obtain game and practice field schedules and schedule work
verifies during
to avoid games and practices on the closest field, to the maximum extent feasible.
construction
In addition, the applicant shall contact the program manager for McInnis Park to
advise them of the pending construction project in order to help facilitate a
schedule that would avoid most game and practice times. The applicant shall also
provide the County with contact information for noise complaints.
TRAFFIC
MM:Traf-1: The City shall monitor the signal timing at study intersections #3
(Smith Ranch Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps) and #4 (Lucas Valley Road/US
101 Southbound Ramps) to ensure traffic flow is optimized and that there are no
significant impacts to traveler safety as a result of queuing impacts, and that the
City will continue to work with Caltrans in these efforts:'
Page 28 of 28