Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Marin ...docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/marin-sanitary-services...Marin Sanitary Services Facility (MSS) ... line adjustments

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Marin Sanitary Services Facility (MSS)

Master Use Permit, Development Plan, Zoning Amendments,

Jacoby Street Right-of-Way Vacation and Abandonment &

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District

Property Zoning Amendment Project

The MSS facilities are located at Andersen Drive and the terminus of Jacoby Street (1050

Andersen Drive and 535-565 Jacoby Street), San Rafael, CA.

Assessor’s Parcel No.’s: 018-180-72, -73, -74, -75 & -76

The subject Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District property lies west of

the MSS facilities, south of Jacoby Street and SMART rail right of way, San Rafael, CA.

Assessor’s Parcel No.: 018-141-03

Lead Agency:

City of San Rafael

Community Development Department

1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)

San Rafael, CA 94915-1560

Contact: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

Monday, May 18, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .....................................................................................................................27

EXHIBITS ...............................................................................................................................................................43

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .....................................................................45

DETERMINATION ...............................................................................................................................................45

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................46

I. AESTHETICS ..............................................................................................................................46 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES .........................................................................51 III. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................53 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................64 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................................68 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..............................................................................................................76 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS .........................................................................................79 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .........................................................................83 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................................86 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................................90 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................92 XII. NOISE ..........................................................................................................................................92 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................95 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................97 XV. RECREATION .............................................................................................................................99 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ...............................................................................................100 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................102 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.....................................................................105

SOURCE REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................108

PROJECT SPONSOR’S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................110

DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT ................................................................................................................110

Notice of Intent 3 Marin Sanitary Services Facility – Master Use Permit Amendment

DATE: Monday, May 18, 2015

TO: Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties

FROM: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Guidelines for Implementation of the

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department

of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following

project:

Project Name: Marin Sanitary Services Facility (MSS) Master Use Permit, Development Plan and Zoning

Amendments

Location: Marin Sanitary Services Facility (MSS) is located on Andersen Drive and at the terminus of

Jacoby Street (1050 Andersen Drive and 535-565 Jacoby Street), San Rafael, Marin County, California, APNs:

018-180-72, -73, -74, -75 & -76. A separate vacant parcel leased by MSS and owned by the Golden Gate

Bridge District is located west of the MSS site, south of Jacoby Street and separated from Jacoby Street by

SMART rail right of way, at APN 018-141-03.

Property Description: The MSS project site is comprised of five (5) adjoining parcels located at the end of

Jacoby Street with approximately 82.15 acres in total area. The five parcels were established through prior

review and action by the Planning Division in 1995, at which time the Planning Division approved several lot

line adjustments to consolidate MSS buildings and facility operations, and designate the upper portion of the

site as private hillside open space area. Four (4) parcels are developed and used for MSS operations (Parcels A

– D). These parcels are relatively level and comprise 31.28 acres. The fifth parcel (Parcel E) is a densely

forested, 50.87 acre, hillside site with an average cross-slope of 39%. The upper slopes of the site include a

visually significant ridgeline, San Quentin Ridge, which also provides a boundary line for the San Rafael

corporate limits with the City of Larkspur. MSS also leases a separate 2.78 acre parcel to the west from

Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. This property is undeveloped, subleased for storage

uses, and located across SMART rail right-of-way with access from Jacoby Street.

Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) has been providing municipal solid waste collection and recycling services to

the Marin community since 1948, currently serving over 33,000 residential and commercial accounts in nine

communities within Marin County. MSS provides residential and commercial trash pick-up, operates a transfer

station, recycling center, nonhazardous materials resource center, household hazardous waste collection

program, debris box rental, concrete and soil recovery, wood recovery, commercial food waste collection

program, and green waste composting operations. The MSS facility land use currently is permitted under


Master Use Permit UP96-8 issued by the City of San Rafael (amending prior UP92-7) and a Planned

Development (PD1580) zoning district. MSS waste management facility operations are also subject to strict

County and State regulations and permitting requirements, including those enforced by the California

Integrated Waste Management Board. Master use permit UP96-8, under which MSS is currently operating,

had consolidated 12 individual use permits which were previously issued by the City over the years for facility

operations and periodic expansions. The main buildings associated with MSS operations are located on Parcel

A, with additional operational activities and functions located on Parcels B through D.

Parcel B is primarily used for an interim public self-storage use; comprised of metal storage containers placed

on the open, paved and fenced yard area. This use is operated as “Rafael Storage”, and occupies work areas

that currently are not used or needed by MSS for its daily operations. There also is a small ancillary animal

keeping/husbandry area housing swine, which in the past has served as a method for disposing of food waste.

Wood storage has also been established in various outdoor site locations, which generally complement

recovery operations.

The current master use permit under which the site is operating (UP96-8) granted approval for up to 240

public storage containers to be placed on Parcel B, as an interim use of unused portions of the site. However,

additional public storage containers have been placed on both Parcel B and Parcel D, without benefit of

permits and approvals. This expansion of storage uses occurred between 1997 and 2005; resulting in a total of

797 containers installed on both parcels for the personal storage and contractor storage uses, as well as for

MSS facilities storage needs. There also is a permitted resource recovery and storage shed on Parcel D which

is used for MSS operations. Lastly, commercial sales of soils product transported to the site have been

permitted to occur on Parcel C, operated by A&S Landscape Materials, which complement MSS composting

and recovery operations (by providing supporting product sales to consumers).

Parcel E is a steep upsloping hillside area that terminates at a ridge to the south, which has been primarily

preserved and protected as a private open space. However, a maintenance shed has been previously permitted

in an area just south of Parcels C and D, which formerly was developed with an historic residential building.

The original house and site once were accessed from a stagecoach path that crossed the site from the east and

running west across the ridge, down toward the historic residence and then Jacoby Street. Over the past 15-20

years, the fire access roads and several large adjacent pad areas have been paved with concrete within Parcel

E. These areas were used to store and season cut wood, and other materials and equipment. Several storage

containers also encroached from Parcel B into Parcel E. There are several retaining walls that separate the

operational areas from the hillside open space areas. An unpermitted gabion constructed on Parcel C has been

subject to structural engineering review by the City Public Works Department (i.e., October 2006 plans and

engineering by Richard Jensen, engineer).

Following a minor upgrade to parking on Parcel A, the site provides parking spaces for 198 vehicles; with 158

spaces provided on Parcel A (Main operations office & industrial), 15 spaces on Parcel B (temporary mini-

storage uses), 18 spaces on Parcel C (soils products storage and sales), and 7 spaces on Parcel D (MSS

operations). The property also is crossed by right-of-way for a future extension of Jacoby Street. A small

portion of this right of way is improved, where it accesses the site from its west end. The remainder of this

right-of-way is not needed and has not been used for any public infrastructure. The roadway was previously

approved to be abandoned and vacated in 1984.

Project Description: The project involves a site rezoning and land use permit amendments to update the

existing Master Use Permit, Development Plan and Planned Development Zoning standards for the

approximately 82.15 acre Marin Sanitary Services (MSS) Waste Management facility; consisting of solid

waste disposal, transfer and resource and recovery operations, and open space lands. The project does not

propose to expand any of the current use areas of the site, but would update the current approvals, consolidate

boundary lines which would simplify any future development in existing work areas (which is anticipated to

respond to waste management industry needs and practices), and to legalize expanded interim storage uses.


The information provided with the amendment proposal includes A) a ‘Master Use Permit Amendment

Application’ packet (MSS, MUPA) which describes the project and operations in detail, and accompanying

technical reports that have been prepared to support the current amendment proposal, and B) project plans

titled ‘Marin Sanitary Service, Master Use Permit Amendment’ (MSS, MUP). Pertinent plan sheets have been

referenced within the Initial Study. A summary of project components and modified uses are as follows:

Golden Gate Bridge District Property Rezone. Remove property leased from Golden Gate Bridge

District, at APN 018-141-03 (across the SMART rail line, west of the MSS site) from the MSS

development plan and master use permit and rezone the site from PD 1580 to P/QP (see MSS, MUP Plan

Sheet A2.1). The District has indicated that it is not interested in pursuing a separate use permit for the

temporary outdoor storage uses on the site, and it intends to vacate the uses when the current leases expire

in 2015.

Marin Sanitary Service Rezoning. Rezone all five MSS facility parcels from Industrial “I” (Parcel A)

and Planned Development PD1580 (Parcels B through E) zoning designations to revised PD.

Marin Sanitary Service Development Plan & Use Permit. Re-designate the former lettered parcel areas

to use “Areas” A through E. Update the use permit to address the activities permitted within the lettered

use areas for MSS operational “work” Areas A through D, and open space uses in Area E. This includes

legalizing an increase in the number of public storage containers originally permitted on the site from 240

up to 682, resulting in a net reduction to the number of containers that have currently been placed and

occupied on the site by approximately 115 containers.

MSS is required to obtain additional building permits for construction of retaining walls built adjacent to

the open space boundary and make some minor physical site and infrastructure improvements, as follows;

a) install new fire lines and hydrants,

b) remove and relocate containers to maintain fire lanes,

c) install open space boundary fences and markers, and

d) install fencing and landscaping enhancements.

The master use permit amendment also recognizes the ongoing goals and need for MSS to address existing

and future waste reduction and resource recovery mandates and keep pace with industry innovation and

technology; which has been reflected in food waste diversion practices, change in onsite processing of

waste streams as well as curbside collection methods. As part of MSS ongoing recovery and waste

diversion efforts, MSS has realized a dramatic shift in the industry from waste hauling to conversion of

waste to energy (e.g., through Biomass Conversion and Anaerobic Digestion technologies). MSS recently

partnered with Central Marin Sanitation District to collect and deliver food waste to CMSD which convert

this material to energy on the CMSD site (which converted existing facility structures to food digesters

that produces methane which powers an on-site generator). MSS is also actively pursuing the ability in the

near future to divert and reduce waste sent to landfills by converting wood chips to energy on-site within

the existing permitted waste management facility areas using new technologies (e.g., Biomass

Conversion); that would be regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and

will be part of the current CalRecycle and County Health permits. A self-contained anaerobic digestion

unit to make renewable power from bio-methane generated from food and green waste will likely be

installed in the near future, which could supply up to 2.1 million kwh power per year to meet the entire

facility energy demand or up to 160,000 of gallons equivalents of renewable natural gas to fuel a fleet of

16 heavy-duty vehicles. The hours of operations of the Transfer Station and the proposed anaerobic

digestion facility will be harmonized to allow 24 hours activity to occur among the inter-related

technologies to allow the handling of organic feedstocks within the Transfer Station. The hours of

operations of MRRC and the proposed biomass conversion facility will also be harmonized to allow 24

hours activity to allow the handling of wood chips to the biomass conversion facility.


The operating hours are 24 hours per day and secure when the front gate is closed. The permitted hours of

Operation will be the following:

Waste Receipt: 12 a.m. to 4 p.m. 7 days per week

Site Operations: 5 a.m. to 12 a.m. 7 days per week

Transfer Station 24 hours 7 days per week

MRRC 24 hours 7 days per week

Anaerobic Digestion 24 hours 7 days per week

Biomass Conversion 24 hours 7 days per week

The Facility is open seven days a week year-round, and only closes on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New

Year’s Day and Easter.

The MSS proposed land use areas, including distribution and use of the storage containers (which is the

only change in existing permitted land use activities proposed as part of this amendment) would be as

follows (see MSS, MUP Plan Sheet A4):

Area A:

Approximately 12.2 acres at 1050 Andersen Drive containing the majority of the MSS waste

management facility buildings (i.e., recycling center, transfer stations, resource recovery, household

hazardous waste, metals and wood materials recovery, 16,173 square feet administrative and dispatch

offices including 6,466 square feet of office space and 9,707 square feet of warehouse, 72 covered

truck parking and loading docks, 8,400 square foot repair and maintenance shop and a truck washing

bay.)

Area B:

Approximately 5.12 acres south of Jacoby Street at the site entrance of Jacoby Street, proposing

legalization and expansion of public storage uses within this area (aka, Rafael Storage), , and an

existing interim small animal husbandry pen housing approximately 50 barnyard animals (pigs, goats,

horses) used for stripping yard waste. The animal keeping and public storage container uses include

the following characteristics:

Animal Keeping Use

The following operating conditions apply to the animal keeping activity:

o Animal waste is removed from the site, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.

o The area animal keeping area is maintained with fresh straw/woodchips and sawdust.

Public Storage Container Use

The modular public (and MSS facility private) container storage activities are considered a long-term

interim uses, and the areas used for container storage are reserved for future MSS facility operations;

including but not limited to inert processing, materials storage, recycling and ancillary sales of

materials. The existing baseline public container storage use in Area B:

Existing Public Storage (per current use permit): 240 containers (38,400 sf container area)

Proposed Public Storage (to legalize): 155 containers (25,234 sf container area)

Total: 395 containers (63,634 sf container area)

It should be noted that 75 containers (11,120 sf of container storage area) are currently located in Area

B, which are proposed to be removed as part of this request to legalize the expansion of public storage

use on the property.


Area C:

Approximately 5.92 acres just east of Area A and Area B, used for inert processing operations

including concrete recycling recovery and bulk storage of soil products, fire wood storage above a

gabion wall, and ancillary sales of materials associated with and in support of recovery operations.

Area D:

Approximately 8.03 acres used for inert processing operations including bulk storage and soil

recycling, legalization of modular container storage units for MSS and public self-storage/contractor,

and a 10,200 square foot Resource Recovery and Storage building. Container storage areas are

considered a long-term interim use and the area is reserved for future operational uses. Ancillary sales

of materials associated with and in support of recovery operations is also a part of operations. The

container storage in this area contain the following characteristics:

Storage Containers

Public Storage (to remain/legalize): 233 containers (37,120 sf container area)

MSS Operations: 54 containers (8,840 sf container area)

The project would include the removal of 40 containers that are currently being used for public storage

in this area (6,320 sf of container storage). Thus, the combined public storage use in both Area B and

Area D, if approved, would increase the permitted container use from 240 containers (38,400sf) to 682

containers. This translates into a net increase in total permitted public storage containers by 442

containers (62,354sf of container area).

Area E:

Approximately 50.87 acres as private hillside open space, south of the operational “work” areas A

through D. This parcel contains paved fire roads, limited grazing, bee and animal keeping, and a 1,886

square foot storage shed. Non-permitted seasonal fire wood storage has been eliminated.

Marin Sanitary Service Lot Consolidation & Open Space Boundary. Consolidate all five of the

adjacent MSS facility Parcels A through E as one legal lot of record (see MSS MUP Plan Sheet A3, C4.1

and C4.2) and adjust the open space boundary for Area E as shown on the development plan map to reflect

existing encroachments with no net change in open space area lands, remove unpermitted uses and

activities, and install gates and markers to clearly demarcate the open space boundary. The consolidation

would make the property consistent with floor area ratio standards contained in General Plan 2020. (see

MSS MUP Plan Sheet A3).

Open Space Improvements. Legalize 265,000 square feet of concrete paving placed on the fire roads and

creating excess paved areas throughout the private open space Area E (current Parcel E) (see MSS MUP

Plan Sheet C1.2). Potential for removal of 104,700 square feet of concrete paving has been identified and

evaluated (2,600 cubic yards) (see MSS MUP Plan Sheet C1.3). Several existing small animal keeping

operations and small structures would remain.

Parking Upgrades. Upgrade on-site parking from the current 198 spaces to 228 total spaces (see MSS

MUP Plan Sheet A5).

Jacoby Street Right of Way Abandonment & Vacation. Abandon a 60-foot wide improved portion of

Jacoby Street that extends past an existing gate access into the site and incorporate this roadway as part of

the PD, grant new utility easements, and vacate remaining 30-foot wide unimproved and unutilized Jacoby

Street right of way (see MSS MUP Plan Sheet C2.1).

Drainage, Landscape and Utility Improvements. Install new drainage improvements, stormwater bio-

swales and landscape improvements (see MSS MUP Plan Sheets C1.1, C3.1, and L1A through L2.1).

Provide improved fire protection for the site, including a new 8” fire line extending from Andersen Drive

with three new fire hydrants in Area D, and installation of a four new fire hydrants and 8” fire line serving

Area C (see MSS MUP Plan Sheet A5). The use of the site as a waste management facility is also subject


to ongoing storm water monitoring of its industrial activities by the State Water Resources Control Board.

The project would include further upgrades to the site’s stormwater pollution prevention plan and program

as part of the local land use permit amendments.

Zoning Entitlements and Other Permits:

The project requires a PD Zoning District Amendment, Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit

and Subdivision (Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation) zoning entitlement actions, and a right of way

abandonment and vacation action by the City Council. Subsequent building, grading and encroachment

permits would be required to implement proposed site work proposed, which would be established as a

condition of project approval.

As noted, in addition to local Planning review of land use permits by the City Planning Division, and the City

Fire Department, Public Works and Building Division requirements, the waste management facility is also

subject to regulation and permitting by the following agencies:

State Water Resources Control Board

California Integrated Waste Management Board

CalRecycle

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Marin County Environmental Health

Environmental Issues:

Potentially significant impacts have been identified in Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,

and Hazards; which may occur as a result of the changes that have been made to existing facility use areas and

the site improvements required to address these changes. Traffic impacts also have been identified with

standard mitigation required for additional traffic trips generated from existing expanded public storage

container uses. All potentially significant project impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level

through implementation of recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with existing Municipal

Code requirements or City standards. Recommended measures are summarized in the attached Mitigation

Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial

Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document has been prepared in consultation with local, and state

responsible and trustee agencies and in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will serve as the

environmental compliance document required under CEQA for any subsequent phases of the project and for

permits/approvals required by a responsible agency.

A thirty-day (30-day) public review period is required for this project which is subject to local permit

authority for the updates to the current zoning entitlements and for regional and state permits from Responsible

Agencies. The public review period shall commence on Monday, May 18, 2015. Written comments must be

sent to the City of San Rafael, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1400 Fifth Avenue,

San Rafael CA 94901 through Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 5:00 PM. The City of San Rafael Planning

Commission will hold a public hearing on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and project merits

on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 7:00 PM in the San Rafael City Council Chambers at City Hall (address listed

above). Correspondence and comments can be delivered to Kraig Tambornini, project planner, phone:

(415) 485-3092, email: [email protected].

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Marin Sanitary Services Facility - Master Use Permit Amendment

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Marin Sanitary Services Facility Rezone and Use Amendments Project

Mitigation Measure Implementation

Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date)

I. Air Quality

Impact AIR1: Although the project would not generate

emissions during construction that would exceed the

BAAQMD thresholds, the BAAQMD recommends that

projects implement a set of Basic Construction Mitigation

Measures (BAAQMD, 2011) as best management

practices (BMPs) regardless of the significance

determination. Implementation Mitigation Measure AIR-1

would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

AIR-1 Mitigation: During active construction, the

applicant shall require construction contractors to

implement all the BAAQMD's Basic Construction

Mitigation Measures, listed below:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging

areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access

roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more

often if needed to control fugitive dust.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other

loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public

roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum

street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry

power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited

to 15 mph.

Condition of approval

Planning Division

Grading permit issuance and site inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date)

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved

shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads

shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless

seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting

equipment off when not in use or reducing the

maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the

California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,

Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations

[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for

construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and

properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's

specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a

certified mechanic and determined to be running in

proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the applicant's

telephone number and person to contact regarding dust

complaints. This person shall respond and take

corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's

phone number shall also be visible to ensure

compliance with applicable regulations.

Impact AIR2: MSS is a facility regulated by CalRecycle

(e.g. landfill, composting, etc.) and required to have Odor

Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) in place and have

procedures that establish fence line odor detection thresholds.

No impacts would result. A copy of the OIMP is provided in

Attachment A.





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) The OIMP includes two major components, a Complaint

Response Protocol and an Odor Complaint Reporting Format.

The Odor Complaint Response Protocol describes the

procedures to follow upon receiving a complaint. The

protocol includes measures to identify the odor and requires

appropriate adjustments to storage, process control, and

facility improvements to reduce odors. Implementation of

Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would apply odor control

measures to the project, which would reduce impacts to a

less-than-significant level

AIR-2 Mitigation: The applicant shall develop and comply

with an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) pursuant

to the requirements of the California Code of Regulations,

Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3.1, Article 3, Section

17863.4. Once complete, the OIMP shall be submitted to

the LEA for a 30-day period for review and comment.

(Performance-based mitigation measure)


Planning Division/Marin County Env. Health (Local Enforcement Agency)


Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation

IV. Biological Resources

Impact BR1: While no special status wildlife species were

observed within the study area during the assessment site

visits, four (4) special status wildlife species have a

‘moderate’ potential to occur within the Study Area (no

special status wildlife species have a ‘high’ potential to occur

within the Study Area). Two (2) of the potential special

status wildlife species are bats (the Long-eared Myotis and

the Pallid Bat) in which the Study Area provides suitable

roost habitat. The other two (2) potential special status

wildlife species are migratory birds (the White-tailed Kite

and the Loggerhead Shrike) in which the Study Area provide

a suitable breeding habitat.





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) Though the biological resource assessment determined the

grassland and woodland habitat within the Study Area

provides a low-quality habitat to support the four (4) special

status wildlife species, compliance with recommended

Mitigation Measures Biological Resource-1 through

Biological Resource-4 would reduce the potential threat to

roosting bats or breeding birds to a less-than-significant

level.

BR-1 Mitigation: Any tree removal or trimming work shall

take place between September 1st and October 31

st, which

falls outside the breeding bird window and avoids both the

maternity and hibernation period for bats. Tree removal can

take place during this period without a breeding bird or bat

roost survey. This does not include removing fallen trees,

which can be removed at any time.


Planning Division


Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation

BR-2 Mitigation: If brush clearing or ground disturbance is

required within the Study Area, these activities shall be

conducted outside of the breeding bird season which begins

February 1st and lasts through August 31

st.The exception is

for clearing weedy brush, such as French broom, that

overhangs existing fire roads. Brush may be removed to the

outer extent of the road at any time of the year without pre-

construction surveys, if the road is regularly disturbed by

active traffic. Removal of brush outside the outer edge of the

road or on roads not regularly disturbed by active traffic

should have pre-construction surveys.

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation

BR-3 Mitigation: In the event that initial ground

disturbance, vegetation removal or construction cannot be

scheduled outside the breeding bird season (February

through August), a wildlife biologist shall conduct a breeding

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) bird survey at least fourteen (14) days prior to the onset of

the activity to determine if nesting birds are present. In the

event that nesting birds are identified to be present, further

mitigation may be required as recommended by the biologist,

including establishing buffers no less than fifty (50) feet

from active nest until young birds have fledged the nest.

Larger buffers may be required for nesting birds of prey or

special status species. The consulting biologist will provide a

specific buffer based on agency guidelines, which species

has been identified as nesting within the area and the

presence of natural visual and auditory buffers (such as large

stands of trees or hillsides).

BR-4 Mitigation: If ground disturbance or tree removal

occur during the bat roosting season (November 1st through

August 31st), potential bat roosts shall be inspected for the

presence of bats prior to the start of work. Potential bat

roosts include cavities in trees, exfoliating bark, snags, and

cracks in large rocks. If a maternity roost is detected, up to a

two-hundred (200) foot buffer shall be placed around the

maternity site, and once the roost is clear for removal, a

replacement structure such as a ‘bat box’ should be created

within the vicinity, as recommended by the wildlife

biologist. In the event that bats are detected using a non-

maternity roost site, one possible mitigation measure would

be the placement of exclusion devices to potential entrance

and exit hole after dusk once the bats have left the roost to

forage.

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation

V. Cultural Resources

Impact CR1: The project proposes minor trenching

necessary for the installation of the new “fire flow” waterline





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) from Andersen Drive to Area D. While no site

improvements, including grading or excavation, are proposed

within Area E, the project’s proposed minor trenching

operations may disturb unknown cultural resources. Based

on the cultural resource evaluation for the project, it is

recommended that standard mitigation measures should be

incorporated. Compliance with recommended Mitigation

Measures Cultural Resources-1, -2, -3 and -4 would ensure

that disturbance of recorded or unknown cultural resources

during project’s excavation, grading and construction

activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

CR-1 Mitigation: To mitigate potential damage to any

recorded cultural resource during grading, excavation or soil

disturbance activities in the vicinity of any recorded cultural

resource, including activities to remove concrete

improvements to the existing fire road network,

archaeological investigation should be undertaken to

determine the exact boundary of the remaining deposit, the

condition of the remaining deposit and the potential for

significance of the archaeological site. A Native American

monitor should also be present. The procedures to follow for

archaeological and Native American monitoring of a cultural

resource site are presented in Cultural Resources mitigation

measures CR-2 and CR-3.

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Public

Works

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation




resource, archaeological monitoring shall occur, based on the

following procedures:

Monitoring will consist of directly watching the

major excavation process. Monitoring will occur

during the entire work day and will continue on a

daily basis unit the depth of excavation has been

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Public

Works

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) reached at which the cultural resource no longer is

present. This depth is estimated as usually five feet

(5’) below existing grade but may require

modification as determined by the monitoring

archaeologist and the observed soil conditions.

Spot checks will consist of partial monitoring the

progress of excavation over the course of the

project. Monitoring all spoils materials, open

excavation, recently grubbed areas, and other soil

disturbances will be inspected. The frequency and

duration of spot checks will be based on the relative

sensitivity of the exposed soils and active work

areas. The monitoring archaeologist shall determine

the relative sensitivity of the cultural resource site.

If prehistoric human interments (human burials) are

encountered within the native soils of the cultural

resource site, all work shall be halted in the

immediate vicinity of the find. The County Coroner,

project superintendent, and the project planner (or a

representative of the Lead Agency, the City of San

Rafael Community Development Department,

Planning Division) shall be contacted immediately.

The procedures to be followed at this point are

prescribed by law.

If significant cultural deposits other than human

burials are encountered, the project shall be

modified to allow the artifacts or features to be left

in place, or the archaeological consultant shall

undertake the recovery of the deposit or feature.

Significant cultural deposits are defined as

archaeological artifacts or features that associate

with the prehistoric period, the historic era Mission

and Pueblo Periods and the American era up to

1900.





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date)

Whenever the monitoring archaeologist determines

that potentially significant remains or human burials

have been encountered, the piece of equipment that

encounters the suspected deposit will be stopped,

and the excavation inspected by the monitoring

archaeologist. If the suspected remains prove to be

non-significant or non-cultural in origin, work shall

recommence immediately. If the suspected remains

prove to be part of a significant deposit, all work

shall be halted in that location until removal has

been completed. If human remains are found, the

County Coroner (or designated representative) shall

be contacted to evaluate the discovered remains and

implement proper contacts with pertinent Native

American representatives through the Native

American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Equipment stoppages shall only involve those

pieces of equipment that have actually encountered

significant or potentially significant deposits, and

should not be construed to mean a stoppage of all

equipment on the site unless the cultural resource

deposit covers the entire site.

During temporary equipment stoppages brought

about to examine suspected remains, the monitoring

archaeologist shall accomplish the necessary tasks

in due speed.




resource, Native American monitoring shall occur whenever

archaeological monitoring is required or whenever

prehistoric Native American cultural deposits are

encountered or discovered. As recommended by the Native

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Public

Works

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the Native

American monitoring consultant shall have the following

knowledge and abilities:

Knowledge of local historic and prehistoric Native

American village sites, culture, religion, ceremony

and burial practices.

Knowledge and understanding of California Health

and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California

Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 et al.

Ability to effectively communicate the meaning of

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public

Resources Code Section 5097.9 et al. to Marin

Sanitary Services (MSS) representatives, including

property owners, site managers, contractors and

subcontractors, Native Americans, City of San

Rafael Planning staff, and archaeological

monitoring representatives.

Ability to work well with local law enforcement

officials and the NAHC to ensure the return of all

associated grave goods taken from a Native

American grave during grading, excavation or soil

disturbance activities.

Ability to travel to known cultural resource sites

within the traditional tribal territory.

Knowledge and understanding of California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,

Section 15064.5 and Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as

amended.

Ability to advocate for the preservation in place of

Native American cultural features through

knowledge and understanding of CEQA mitigation

measures, as stated in CEQA Guidelines Section

15126.4(b)(A)(B), and through knowledge and





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) understanding of Section 106 of the NHPA.

Ability to read topographic maps and be able to

locate known cultural resource sites and reburial

locations for future inclusion in the NAHC Sacred

Lands Inventory.

Knowledge and understanding of archaeological

practices, including the phases of archaeological

investigation.

The Native American monitoring consultant is required to:

Ensure the presence of a Native American monitor

during all earth disturbing activities in the vicinity

of any recorded cultural resource or whenever

prehistoric Native American cultural deposits are

encountered or discovered.

Communicate orally and in writing with the

archaeological monitoring consultant, City of San

Rafael Planning staff, representatives for MSS

representatives, including property owners, site

managers, contractors and subcontractors, and any

Native American organizations. The Native

American monitoring consultant will be responsible

for communicating any observations or

recommendations to any Native American

organizations, neighborhood groups, or individuals

that have contacted the City of San Rafael to request

listing. The contact list will be supplied to the

Native American monitor.

Maintain a daily log of activities and file a report

with the MSS representatives on each day that a

Native American monitor is present.

Prepare progress reports on any ‘findings’ and

summarize the observations and recommendations

made in the daily reports (i.e., human remains,





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) associated grave goods, non-human bone fragments,

beads, arrow points, and other artifacts). The

progress reports will be submitted monthly or at the

completion of all approved earth disturbing

activities.

Prepare a final written report at the completion of

all approved earth disturbing activities,

summarizing the observations and recommendations

of the daily and monthly reports and making

recommendations for future activities and

procedures on the MSS site, as appropriate. The

final report should describe the monitoring process,

the discovery any Native American human remains

and associated grave goods, and their final

disposition. This report shall contain, at a minimum,

the following information for each discovery of

human remains and associated grave goods:

o Date of each find

o Description of remains and associated grave

goods

o Date of reburial, and the geographical located

of reburial, including traditional site name if known

The final report shall include a discussion of

mitigation measures taken to preserve or protect

Native American cultural features and shall be

submitted to the archaeological monitoring

consultant, MSS representatives, the City of San

Rafael Planning staff, and the NAHC at the

completion of all approved earth disturbing

activities. Information from the report may be

included in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory.

Demonstrate the ability to identify archaeological

deposits and potential areas of impact.





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date)

Work with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) if

human remains are encountered. A MLD will be

chosen by the NAHC if human remains are

encountered. There is no guarantee that the Native

American monitoring consultant will be named as

the MLD. The chosen Native American monitoring

consultant must be able to communicate with the

MLD effectively, and to aid in carrying out any

procedures or tasks undertaken or recommended by

the MLD.

CR-4 Mitigation: In the absence of specific

recommendations made by the archaeological monitoring

consultant, the following general procedures shall be

implemented during the finding of an artifact (i.e., any item

or object over fifty years of age):

All contractors and subcontractors shall be required

to inform all of their employees that no artifacts are

to be removed from the area of the ‘find’ except

through authorized procedures.

Any artifacts found at or near a recorded cultural

resource are to be turned over to, or brought to the

immediate attention of, the archaeological

monitoring consultant. In the absence of the

archaeological monitoring consultant, the artifact

shall be delivered to the Native American

monitoring consultant, MSS representatives (i.e.,

property owners, site managers, contractor and

subcontractor supervisors) or the City of San Rafael

Planning staff.

Whenever any artifact is found or reported, a tag

should be included that indicates the following

information:

o The identity of the finder and the date of

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Public

Works

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) discovery

o The identify of the responsible individual to

who the artifact is given

o A description of the location where the artifact

was found, the approximate distance and

direction to the nearest measuring point,

identification point on the project plans, or

other reliable, accurate method of locating.

o A description of the artifact that will allow it to

be identified if the tag and the artifact are

separated.

The artifact, if portable, should be transported to a

safe location where it can be kept until it can be

inspected by the archaeological monitoring

consultant.

CR-5 Mitigation: In the event of the accidental discovery of

historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally

discovered during construction or recognition of any human

remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery,

there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site

or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent

human remains until:

1. In the event of accidental discovery of potential

resources an immediate evaluation of the find shall be

conducted by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is

determined to be an historical or unique archaeological

resource, contingency funding and a time allotment

sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance

measures or appropriate mitigation should be available.

Work could continue on other parts of the building site

while historical or unique archaeological resource

mitigation takes place.

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Public

Works

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) 2. In the event of discovery of human remains, the coroner

of the county in which the remains are discovered must

be contacted to determine that no investigation of the

cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the

remains to be Native American:

a. The coroner shall contact the Native American

Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

b. The Native American Heritage Commission

shall identify the person or persons it believes

to be the most likely descended from the

deceased Native American.

c. The most likely descendent may make

recommendations to the landowner or the

person responsible for the excavation work, for

means of treating or disposing of, with

appropriate dignity, the human remains and any

associated grave goods as provided in Public

Resources Code Section 5097.98, or

d. Where the following conditions occur, the

landowner or his authorized representative shall

rebury the Native American human remains

and associated grave goods with appropriate

dignity on the property in a location not subject

to further subsurface disturbance.

i. The Native American Heritage

Commission is unable to identify a

most likely descendent or the most

likely descendent failed to make a

recommendation within 24 hours after

being notified by the commission.

ii. The descendant identified fails to

make a recommendation; or

iii. The landowner or his authorized

representative rejects the

recommendation of the descendant,





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) and the mediation by the Native

American Heritage Commission fails

to provide measures acceptable to the

landowner.

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact HAZ1: Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are

not explosive; however, a flammable concentration within

an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can

explode. Methane is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures

and disperses rapidly in air. Unintentional releases of

biogas from the facility could pose risks to human health

and safety. For example, biogas could be released from a

leak or rupture at the digester facility. If the gas reaches a

combustible mixture and an ignition source is present, a

fire and/or explosion could occur, resulting in possible

injuries and/or deaths.

Compliance with existing safety regulations and widely-

accepted industry standards would minimize the hazard to

the public and the environment. With respect to the flaring of

biogas and potential fire hazards associated with the storage

and transport of methane and small quantities of other

materials used in operations, the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) has established standards for fire

protection which would be applicable to the construction of

the AD facilities. These standards have been successfully

implemented by numerous waste water treatment facilities

across the country. Construction and operation of the project

would be required to comply with the California fire code

and local building codes (including requirements for the

installation of fire suppression systems). Standard safety

measures for anaerobic treatment facility construction and

operation that would minimize the potential for risks from





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date) unintentional releases of biogas include leak detection

systems, warning signals, and safety flares to reduce excess

gas capacity. If released to the environment, methane would

be dispersed rapidly in air, minimizing the hazards of

exposure.

HAZ-1 Mitigation: Prior to project approval, the

applicant shall prepare and implement a Fire Safety Plan

that outlines fire hazards, describes facility operations

procedures to prevent ignition of fires, requires regular

inspection of fire suppression systems, and provides

worker training in safety procedures as well as protocols

for responding to fire incidents. The Fire Safety Plan

shall be reviewed and approved by the local fire

enforcement agency.

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Fire

Prevention

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation

XVI. Traffic

Impact TR1 The project generates up to 234 additional

trips above the 1992 baseline existing traffic condition

(162 AM and 72PM). The project must pay required

traffic mitigation fees in order to legalize the additional

storage containers placed and to remain on-site to fund

traffic improvements anticipated for build-out in the

area pursuant to the General Plan 2020, and avoid a

significant cumulative traffic impact.

TR-1 Mitigation: Payment of required traffic mitigation

fees in the current amount of $4,246 per new vehicle

trip shall be required at time of permit issues or

Condition of

approval

Planning

Division,

Building, Public

Grading permit

issuance and site

inspections

Issue stop work

order/Notice of

violation





Procedure

Monitoring

Responsibility

Monitoring /

Reporting

Action & Schedule

Non-Compliance

Sanction/Activity

Monitoring

Compliance

Record

(Name/Date)

commencement of operations.

Works


[This page intentionally left blank]

Environmental Checklist Form 27 Marin Sanitary Services Facility – Master Use Permit Amendment

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project Title Marin Sanitary Services Facility, Master Use Permit and

Development Plan Amendment

2. Lead Agency Name & Address City of San Rafael

Community Development Department, Planning Division

1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)

San Rafael, California 94915-1560

3. Contact Person & Phone Number Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

Phone number: # (415) 485-3092

Email: [email protected]

4. Project Location The site is located in the City of San Rafael, Marin County,

California at the end of Jacoby Street (1050 Andersen Drive and

535-565 Jacoby Street), Assessor’s Parcel No’s. (APN) 018-180-

72, -73, -74, -75 and -76. A separate parcel that is leased by MSS

from Golden Gate Transit District is located west of the MSS site,

south of Jacoby Street and separated from Jacoby Street by

SMART rail right of way, at APN 018-141-03. (Refer to Exhibit

A, “Vicinity Map”).

5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address

Project Sponsor

Marin Sanitary Services, Inc.

565 Jacoby Street

San Rafael, CA 94901

Sponsor’s Representative

Fred Divine

Fredric C. Divine Associates, Architects

1924 Fourth Street

San Rafael, CA 94901

6. General Plan Designation Industrial (APNS: 018-180-72, -73, -74 & -75 / APN 018-141-03)

; and,

Conservation (APN: 018-180-76)

7. Zoning Industrial (APN: 018-180-72); Planned Development (APNS:

018-180-73, -74 & -75 and 018-141-03); and, Public/Open Space

(APN: 018-180-76)

8. Description of Project

Setting and Background

The Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) site is comprised of five (5) adjoining parcels located at the terminus of

Jacoby Street, with approximately 82.15 acres in total area. Four (4) of the parcels (Parcels A – D) are developed

and used by MSS for its facility operations. These parcels are flat and comprise 31.28 acres. The fifth parcel

(Parcel E) is a densely forested, approximately 50.87 acre hillside site with an average cross-slope of 39%. The

mailto:[email protected]


MSS site is generally located at Jacoby Street, south of Andersen Drive, east of highway 101 and south of I-580.

In addition, MSS leases a long and narrow 2.78 acre sloped parcel parallel to highway 101 from the Golden Gate

Bridge Highway & Transportation District (GGBHTD), to the west of its primary operations that it uses for

outdoor storage (APN 018-141-03) which is currently a part of the MSS Master Plan. This property is

undeveloped land which is separated from the MSS facility by the SMART railroad right-of-way, and accessed

from Jacoby Street. See Initial Study Source Reference 6 - MSS MUP Amendment plan sheets A1 & A2.1 and

Source Reference 7 - Project Description.

Jacoby Street is a short, 60’-wide, city-maintained, surface street accessed by Andersen Drive, which terminates

directly at the site. The public right-of-way (ROW) for Jacoby Street currently continues from the end of

improved Jacoby Street through the site before returning to Andersen Drive east of the site. In 1984, the San

Rafael City Council (Resolution No. 6780) approved vacation of the unimproved portion of this public ROW,

which was never executed.

Since 1948, Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) has been providing municipal solid waste collection and recycling

services on the site serving over 33,000 residential and commercial accounts in nine communities within the

County. MSS provides residential and commercial waste pickup, operates a transfer station, recycling center, non-

hazardous materials resource center, household hazardous waste collection program, debris box rental, concrete

and soil recovery, wood resource recovery, commercial food waste program, and green waste composting

operations. The MSS site has a current land use approval from the City (UP96-8) and Planned Development

(PD1580) zoning district. In addition to local requirement for land use and building permits, the waste

management facility operations are further regulated by State, Regional and County agencies (i.e., State Water

Resources Board, California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Regional Water

Quality Control Board and Marin County Environmental Health Services, acting as the Local Enforcement

Agency (LEA) for CalRecycle, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District). These agencies establish

requirements to protect the public health and safety, as well as enforce mandates for the operator to effect

reductions in waste streams (through reuse, recycling and other efforts). MSS actively pursues innovations to

comply with waste recycling and landfill diversion mandates imposed by the State.

All of the buildings for the MSS operation are located on Parcel A, though some operational activity also occurs

on Parcels B through D. Parcel E is undeveloped and protected private open space. In 1993, the San Rafael

Planning Commission conditionally approved a Master Use Permit (UP92-007) that consolidated 12 separate Use

Permits issued for MSS operations. In 1996, this Master Use Permit was amended (UP96-008). The

characteristics and uses on each of the MSS parcels are provided below (see Source Reference 6, MSS MUP plan

sheets A2 through A5.3 and Source Reference 7, Project Description).

Parcel A (APN: 018-180-72)

Parcel A is approximately 12.2 acres in size, located between Andersen Drive and Jacoby Street, north of the

entrance to the MSS facility site. Currently, Parcel A has an Industrial (I) District zoning classification and an

Industrial (I) General Plan land use designation. The existing Master Use Permit allows concentration of MSS

facility structures and operations on this parcel, including the ‘Marin Recycling Center’, ‘MSS Transfer Station’,

‘Marin Resource Recovery Center’, ‘Marin Household Hazardous Waste Facility’, the former bio-gest machine,

food waste recycling, administrative offices, covered truck parking and repair services canopies or ports, a

machine and/or repair shop, storage, and on-site parking. These permanent building work areas total

approximately 237,716 square feet of gross floor area (not including 54,307 square feet of covered parking area);

resulting in a 0.45 floor area ratio (FAR) for this current parcel area). The buildings provide 2,770 square foot

administrative and dispatch office area, 72 covered truck parking and loading docks, 8,400 square foot shop and

maintenance building and truck wash bay. Current uses on the parcel are in substantial compliance with the

existing Master Use Permit. See MSS MUP Amendment Sheet A2 – Site Plan Existing Conditions. The Solid

Waste Facility Permit boundary of 8.5 acres includes the portions of Parcel A that encompasses all of the MSS


Transfer Station and the Marin Resource Recovery, as well as the Jacoby Street access road, and a sliver of land

along Parcel B that includes portions of the animal husbandry facility.

Parcel B (APN: 018-180-73)

Parcel B is approximately 5.12 acres in size, located south of Jacoby Street, south of the vehicular entrance to the

MSS facility site. Currently, Parcel B has a Planned Development (PD 1580) District zoning classification and an

Industrial (I) General Plan land use designation. The existing Master Use Permit allows a 48-space parking lot, a

five-acre, fenced animal husbandry facility with pens and shelters for approximately 50 ‘barnyard animals,’

primarily, domestic pigs and fowl, and storage uses, including material storage, container storage, and contractor

storage. In 1997, the San Rafael Zoning Administrator through Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED96-

109) allowed 240 shipping containers for public self-storage use on the parking lot and surrounding contractor’s

storage area, with eight (8) parking spaces and street front fence and landscape screening. Current uses on the

parcel include 470 shipping containers used for public self-storage use. A 25’-wide Marin Municipal Water

District (MMWD) access and pipeline easement is located along the entire western property boundary line of

Parcel B, which connects to a 2.93-acre, MMWD parcel located upslope, immediately west and south of Parcel E.

Parcel C (APN: 018-180-74)

Parcel C is approximately 5.92 acres in size, located south of Parcel A and east of Parcel B, where Jacoby Street

terminates into the MSS site. Currently, Parcel C also has a Planned Development (PD 1580) District zoning

classification and an Industrial (I) General Plan land use designation. The existing Master Use Permit allows

primarily material composting and bulk storage, including inert or concrete processing. Current uses on the parcel

are in substantial compliance with the existing Master Use Permit. No structures exist on Parcel C.

Parcel D (APN: 018-180-75)

Parcel D is approximately 8.03 acres in size, located east of Parcel C, on the vacated or abandoned portion of the

Jacoby Street ROW. Currently, Parcel D also has a Planned Development (PD 1580) District zoning classification

and an Industrial (I) General Plan land use designation. Like Parcel C, the existing Master Use Permit allows

primarily material composting and bulk storage, and storage of equipment and debris off-haul containers or boxes.

In 2001, the San Rafael Zoning Administrator approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED01-

134) to allow the construction of a storage shed, approximately 10,200 square feet in size, for use as storage for

the owner, housing historic military equipment, and as a resource and recovery building. Current uses on the

parcel include 327 shipping containers for public self-storage use/MSS use, and the resource recovery and storage

building. A 25’-wide, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) overhead transmission line easement bisects Parcel D in a

north-south direction and continues upslope through Parcel E.

Parcel E (APN: 018-180-76)

Parcel E is approximately 50.87 acres in size, located upslope and south of Parcels A-D. Currently, Parcel E has a

Public/Open Space (P/OS) District zoning classification and a Conservation (C) General Plan land use

designation. It is listed in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 as a site once prioritized for open space purchase.

Parcel E is an undeveloped, forested, private open space hillside with a network of historic fire roads. The upper

slopes of Parcel E include a visually significant ridgeline, San Quentin Ridge (Bartel Ridge), which also provides

a southern boundary line for the San Rafael corporate limits with the City of Larkspur. The existing Master Use

Permit prohibits all development on Parcel E, except for animal grazing and small ancillary animal keeping

structures. Current uses on the parcel are in substantial compliance with the existing Master Use Permit, which

includes an existing legal nonconforming maintenance/storage structure approximately 1,886 square feet in size

located just above the border of Parcels C and D. This area as formerly occupied by an historic home that was

removed prior to issuance of the previous use permit and design approvals. Unpermitted container, dirt and wood


storage has been removed from the site over the past several years, with a few remaining containers to be removed

near Parcel B. The network of existing fire roads have been improved with concrete and widened significantly in

portions of Parcel E. These are proposed to remain as paved access roads. Storage of materials and containers had

also occurred on this site, in conflict with zoning approvals, which since have been removed. A 25’-wide, Pacific

Gas & Electric (PG&E) overhead transmission line easement bisects Parcel E in a north-south direction. A 25’-

wide, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) access and pipeline easement is located along the western

property boundary line of Parcel E, which provides vehicular connection from Parcel B to the MMWD parcel

located immediately west and south of Parcel E.

Project Details

The project proposes to update the existing Master Use Permit 96-8 to allow MSS to continue to provide state-of-

the-art municipal solid waste collection and recycling services on the site while making needed site

improvements. The permitted daily tonnage and daily traffic amounts will not be increased as part of this project.

The site uses include waste management operations and interim public storage and soils sales uses, which are

compatible with or complement the existing site uses. The PD rezoning and use permit amendment would remove

the 2.78 acre Golden Gate Bridge District property, approved as separate outdoor storage site, from the MSS

facility operations and master use permit.

The PD zoning changes consist of text edits, with adjustment of the boundary to incorporate Parcel A, and move

the Golden Gate Bridge District property from PD to conventional zoning.

Physical changes that would occur as a result of the amendment and update to the MSS waste management

facility site and operations would include:

a) Adding an anaerobic digestion facility of up to 12,500 tons per year of food waste and green waste within

the footprint of MSS Transfer Station or as a stand-alone facility in the existing outdoor operations yard Parcel

C.

b) Adding a 1 mega-watt wood chip biomass conversion facility as a stand –alone facility in Parcel D.

c) Minor trenching for new fire lines and hydrants through the existing permitted work areas.

d) Removal of several of the unpermitted storage containers with adjustment made for containers proposed to

remain to provide adequate fire access lanes through the site.

e) Installation of permanent open space boundary markers to clearly delineate work areas from the open space

boundary. And,

f) Installation of minor fencing and landscaping enhancements to respond to changed conditions.

No other significant operational uses or expansion to the existing work areas are proposed or anticipated.

Subsequent local approvals would be required for issuance of grading and building permits would also be

required. Also, the local water district (MMWD) would require the applicant to obtain approval for extension of

water and fire suppression lines to serve those areas of the property currently not being adequately served. The

Solid Waste Facility Permit will need to be revised by County Environmental Health Services and concurred with

by CalRecycle to add the anaerobic digestion facility. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) will need to issue an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate the food waste and green waste

anaerobic digestion facility and the wood chip biomass conversion facility, and also permits equipment and

machinery individually to mitigate potential air pollution from activities on the site with the issuances of Permits

to Operate, which are renewed annually.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit to demonstrate how non-point source discharge is handled on the property so that it won't pollute

the State's water resources. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared and is located

on-site, with an Annual Report filed with the RWQCB.


Applications submitted to the City for review and approval include the following:

1) PD Amendment. Rezone and approve an overall development plan for the entire MSS site (the San

Rafael General Plan 2020 requires Planned Development zoning for sites larger than five acres), and

separate the satellite parcel owned by the GGBHTD from the current PD zoning and master use permit.

2) Master Use Permit. Master Use Permit Amendment to add, update and revise the existing conditions of

approval for the operation of the MSS site and add the anaerobic digestion facility and the biomass

conversion facility. The GGBHTD parcel would not require any separate approvals or permits (existing

outdoor storage uses on this site would not be continued after the current lease expires in May 2015).

3) Environmental and Design Review Permit. Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow for the

site improvements proposed by the project, including parking and landscape improvements;

4) Lot Line Adjustment. Lot Line Adjustment to reflect consolidation of Parcels A, B, C, D and E;

5) Right of Way Abandonment & Vacation. Right of way vacation and abandonment for a portion of

Jacoby Street that lies beyond the main access gate to the facility, and for the remaining unused portion of

right of way; and

6) Utilities, Grading and Landscaping. Fire line and hydrant upgrades and utility easements and new

water line connections. Transmission lines are proposed to connect to the AD Facility and the biomass

conversion facility to the grid. A feed-in tariff is available for selling excess electricity back to utility

during off-peak periods.

The details of each zoning entitlement and the related site improvements are further described as follows:

Zoning Amendment (ZC09-001)

Currently, Parcel A is zoned Industrial (I) while the remaining Parcels B through E are regulated by an adopted

Planned Development District zoning (PD 1580). The amendment would bring the entire site within the same

zoning classification and subject to a single updated Master Use Permit that would regulate operational and open

space uses for the entire 82.15-acre MSS site. The project would essentially incorporate Parcel A into the current

PD District established for MSS. This would also help facilitate desired consolidation of the property and provide

for regulation of the entire site under a single zoning classification.

As part of the zone change, and consolidation of lots, the current ‘Parcel’ areas are proposed to be re-designated

on the land use plan as specific use ‘Areas’. The draft PD rezoning would replace the current PD 1580

development plan text and map designating the permitted industrial and open space uses of the site and areas, and

implementing the following development standards for the MSS site:

Floor Area:

Industrial use Areas A through D shall be subject to a 0.38 industrial floor area limitation for storage and

industrial facility operations, including up to twenty-five percent (25%) administrative office space

allowance.

The open space/conservation use Area E shall be subject to a 0.0 floor area allowance; except that one

existing legal non-conforming 1,886 square maintenance/storage structure may be maintained in good repair

and condition consistent with the nonconforming use and structure provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

Yards:

The minimum required front yard setback from Andersen Drive shall be 10 feet. This setback shall be

landscaped.


Maximum Building Height:

Thirty-six feet (36’)

Minimum Landscaping:

Ten-percent (10%) of site area

Parking Requirements:

Parking for uses shall be established by the Master Use Permit, based on the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance

Parking Tables.

Other Development Standards:

Development of the site with additional structures, uses or improvements shall be reviewed based on the San

Rafael Zoning Ordinance requirements (i.e., Site and Use Regulations, Performance Standards, Signs, and

Environmental and Design Review). Should any conflicts arise between the provisions of this PD district and

the additional Zoning Ordinance development standards, the community development director shall which

standard is appropriate.

The above development standards are consistent with the existing level of development anticipated for and

permitted on the MSS facility site.

In addition, the satellite and landlocked vacant parcel located to the west of the property, and south of Jacoby

Street and the SMART rail right of way would be removed from the current PD (1580). The property does not

contain any MSS facility operations, and lies between highway 101 and railroad rights of way. A P/QP

designation or other conventional zoning designation is recommended. Currently, the GGBHTD owns this parcel

and the City historically allowed outdoor storage as an interim use of the property. P/QP is deemed appropriate

for the current and future anticipated uses of the property for highway or rail transportation purposes, and

adjoining parcel zoning. The land use plan for MSS is shown on Source Reference 6, sheet A4. The map for the

area including the GGBHTD parcel is also provided as an attachment to the draft PD document. No

intensification in land uses would result from the PD rezoning incorporating the developed Parcel A.

Amendment to Master Use Permit (UP09-020)

The MSS site currently operates under the existing Master Use Permit (UP96-8). MSS also operates under a Solid

Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) issued by the Marin County Community Development Agency, Environmental

Health Services Division (EHS), No. 21-AA-0005. The SWFP is a permit reviewed every five years by the EHS

and concurred with by the State agency, CalRecycle, for solid waste handling activity or operations. The SWFP is

currently limited to the 8.5-acre area incorporating the MSS Transfer Station and Marin Resource Recovery

Center operations on Parcel A and portions of Parcel B but could be expanded by 0.5 acres to add the stand-alone

anaerobic digestion facility in Parcel C. Household hazardous and electronic waste operates under funding by the

Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with oversight by the San Rafael Fire

Department. Net building floor area associated with the one and two story industrial and administrative waste

facility uses is approximately 237,716 square feet, with an additional 54,307 square feet of covered parking area.

A copy of the SWFP is provided and attached as Source Reference 20.

The project proposes to amend the existing Master Use Permit for the MSS site to reconcile various uses and

activities associated with the MSS waste management facility operations, including some encroachments made

into the private hillside open space lands, and to legalize an increase in the permitted number of eight foot (8’)

high shipping containers established on the site for public self-storage use. As part of the project, the current

‘Parcel’ numbers would be re-established on the development plan as use ‘Areas’. The GGBHTD parcel is would

be permitted to continue outdoor storage as interim use of the property, until such time as the uses ceases which is


anticipated to occur when the current lease expires in May 2015. The master use permit amendment proposal is

listed as Source Reference 7 of this initial study.

As part of the MSS amendment, an expansion of storage containers permitted in Area B (current Parcel B) is

requested to increase the permitted number of containers from 240 containers to 395 containers. The project also

requests approval to legalize 233 containers on Area D for public and private storage and another 54 containers

used by MSS operations. There would be a net reduction in the number of existing container storage units in the

site, which as noted exceeds the current use permit allowance. Additionally, fire lane and hydrant improvements

are required for both container storage areas. The maximum number of containers may vary slightly, subject to

payment of traffic mitigation fees for the total number of the permitted expansion. However, the storage areas

shall be limited to the specified locations with drive aisles and fire lanes maintained as proposed. As a result, the

site would add 388 containers for public storage/contractor storage; totaling approximately 63,634 square feet of

container storage, 25,234 square feet on Area B, and 37,120 square feet on Area D. The 54 containers for MSS

operations would provide approximately 8,840 square feet of industrial storage area for existing facility

operations. The ancillary public storage use to remain/legalize would result in 62,354 square feet of net new

public/contractor storage area.

The master use permit amendment also recognizes the ongoing goals and need for MSS to address existing and

future waste reduction and resource recovery mandates and keep pace with industry innovation and technology;

which has been reflected in food waste diversion practices, change in onsite processing of waste streams as well

as curbside collection methods. As part of MSS ongoing recovery and waste diversion efforts, MSS has realized a

dramatic technological shift in the industry from waste hauling to conversion of organics to energy through the

biomass conversion of clean wood chips, and the anaerobic digestion of food waste and green waste. MSS

recently partnered with Central Marin Sanitation District to collect and deliver food waste to CMSD which

converts this material to energy on the CMSD site (which converted existing facility structures to food digesters

that produces methane which powers an on-site generator). MSS is now seeking to divert and reduce waste sent

to landfills by converting organics to energy on-site within the existing permitted waste management facility areas

using new technologies (e.g., biomass conversion and anaerobic digestion); that would be regulated under

CalRecycle and County Health permits as well as the BAAQMD.

Anaerobic Digestion Facility for food waste and green waste

A self-contained anaerobic digestion facility generates renewable power from bio-methane (also known as

“biogas”) from the digestion of food waste and green waste will be installed in the near future within the existing

MSS Transfer Station area or as a stand-alone unit on Parcel C that would include 8,500 square feet on new

structures. Food waste and green waste may be sourced from both commercial, multi-family, and residential

sources. The facility which could supply up to 2.1 million kilo-watt power per year to meet the entire facility

energy demand or up to 160,000 of gallons equivalents of renewable natural gas to fuel a fleet of approximately

16 heavy-duty vehicles. The hours of operations of these facilities will be harmonized to allow 24 hours activity

to occur among the inter-related technologies where food waste and green waste may be processed in-door the

MSS Transfer Station of the stand-alone AD Facility 24 hours per day. Anaerobic digestion is considered a form

of composting in the Public Resources Code where the material will count as 100% landfill diversion and the

energy generated would be considered renewable. Composting is a permitted activity on the site. The facility

would not expand the daily tonnage or daily traffic of the existing operations, and expects to continue providing

service for its nine (9) Marin communities within the existing operational site areas. The Solid Waste Facility

Permit will need to be revised to accommodate operating this facility and possibly increasing the permitting area

from 8.5 acres to 9.0 acres.

The anaerobic digestion (AD) facility would be capable of processing up to 12,500 tons per year of food waste and

green waste, or an average of 50 tons per day, into bio-methane (gaseous product generated by the degradation of

organic matter under anaerobic conditions) that would be cleaned and converted into renewable compressed natural

gas (RNG) or generate renewable energy from a combined heating and power (CHP) unit. A detailed Project

Description for Anaerobic Digestion Emissions Facility with Site Map and renderings for this equipment is


provided as an Attachment (Source Reference Exhibit 17) The Anaerobic Digestion Emissions Estimate Report

and Odor Impact Minimization Plan has also been prepared and provided as an Attachment (Source Reference

Exhibit 19).

The smaller stand-alone AD facility on Parcel C option would only process 5,000 tons per year and includes an

Access Hall (acting as an enclosed mixing area with aeration) of 6,800 square feet where the food waste and green

waste is received and stored, 4 anaerobic digesters with a percolate tank of 1,500 square feet, an environmental

control device, an emergency generator. This would generate 15 million cf/yr of methane that would then be

harnessed to produce combined heating and power (CHP) to generate 832,200 kilo-watt hours per year of

renewable energy and would be used to power on-site operations.

The larger stand-alone AD facility option within the MSS Transfer Station option includes an Access Hall and has

8 anaerobic digesters instead of 4, allowing up to 12,500 tpy of material to be processed annually. This would

generate 41 million cf/yr of methane that would then be harnessed to produce combined heating and power (CHP)

to generate 2,080,000 kilo-watt hours per year of renewable energy and would be used to power on-site operation.

The amount of CHP generated annually at the increased capacity would be enough to support the electricity needs

of the entire facility with the balance being sold to the electricity grid

The larger stand-alone AD facility option of 12,500 tpy could converted the biogas into a transportation fuel

instead of renewable energy where the biogas would enter a biogas upgrade system and would produce renewable

compressed natural gas (RNG).The amount of RNG generated annual would be 160,000 diesel gallon equivalent

(DGE) that could be used to supply approximately 16 collection vehicles or other CNG vehicles in the

community.

The overview of system operations is as follows as shown in the figure below:

The source-separated organic waste will be delivered to an enclosed building on negative air pressure

aeration bay, or access hall, to control odors and emissions.

The food waste and green waste is mixed at a ratio of 2:1 and loaded into one of the digesters.

The fermentation process begins in which feedstock is inoculated with percolate to begin the digestion

process.

Electrical power would be supplied by a combination of the boiler system, micro-turbine and/or grid-

supplied power.

A biofilter is used to clean the exhaust gases to reduce emissions by 90% and minimize odors.

The biogas rendered from the upgrading process is submitting to a combined heating and power (CHP)

process rendering renewable electricity and thermal energy that will feed back into the anaerobic

digestion process.

Alternatively the biogas generated is purified to transportation fuel quality CNG using a biogas upgrade

to produce carbon negative renewable CNG. The compression and fueling system is designed to integrate

with the AD Facility to provide the transportation fuel.

The solid digestate would be transported to a permitted compost facility for maturation.


The AD system uses a Zero Waste Energy (ZWE) Smartferm design, where received feedstock is subject to an

inoculated percolate to promote anaerobic digestion. The Smartferm system utilizes a sub-grade percolate tank,

motors and fans to promote the decomposition process. Each of the digester cells are fabricated from steel to

avoid erosion and minimize cost of manufacturing over using pour-in-place concrete cells.

The purpose of aeration (for up to one day) of the blended materials would be to initiate aerobic composting

and rapidly increase the temperature of the material to between 120 to 130°F. Then, heated liquid percolate

would be circulated through the organics to initiate and promote anaerobic digestion. The liquid percolate

would be the liquid by-product of previous AD cycles and serves to inoculate and increase the moisture

content. The organics would then be loaded into the AD system for the recovery of biogas. Biogas would be

recovered and sent to a BioCNG system that would upgrade the biogas to fuel quality (about 99% methane)

and produce a waste gas of 40% methane. The waste gas would be used to operate a microturbine or boiler

unit. The heat from the microturbine or boiler unit would be used to heat the percolate and maintain the

organics at thermophilic (>122°F) temperatures. The fuel quality biogas would be compressed and stored.

Air would be drawn through the material through negative aeration to strip ammonia. This off -gas would be

passed through an acid scrubber to remove ammonia, and then passed through a biofilter to oxidize emissions

and minimize odors, trace ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Exhaust air streams that would

be treated in the biofilter include aeration bay exhaust air, digester start -up and termination air, and acid

scrubber exhaust air. After a retention time of about 21 days, biogas generation would be exhausted and the

digestate would be removed from the AD system and immediately hauled to a nearby permitted compost

facility for further curing as a compostable material.

There would also be an enclosed lean gas flare (LGF), which would destroy low quality lean biogas (methane

content below 20% and higher than 1%) generated towards the termination of the AD process cycle, when the

majority of the biogas generation has been exhausted. The LGF would be intermittently operated 3 to 4 hours per

digester termination, which would occur every 2.5 to 3 days.

In June 2011, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) adopted the

Anaerobic Digestion Initiative (AD Initiative) , a comprehensive program to foster the development of anaerobic

digestion facilities (AD facilities) which convert organic solid wastes into sources of energy and can produce

valuable compost feedstocks, soil amendments and other products. A statewide Program Environmental Impact

Report (Program EIR) was prepared for the AD Initiative, evaluating impacts of the development of AD facilities

and requiring mitigation to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, and the EIR was certified by

CalRecycle. The Program EIR and associated documents can be found and downloaded at:


http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig

The Program EIR determined that on a programmatic level all the impacts of AD facilities could be mitigated to a

less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures. Individual projects could result in

localized impacts that would need to be analyzed in a tiered CEQA document. The Program EIR was used as a

reference to mitigate the impacts of this project.

The City of South San Francisco adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH #2012092007) for the

Blue Line Biogenic CNG Facility project in December of 2012. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

(IS/MND) evaluated the impacts of developing an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility that would be capable of

processing 10,000 tpy of food waste and green waste into biogas (gaseous product generated by the degradation

of organic matter under anaerobic conditions) that would be cleaned and converted into biogenic compressed

natural gas (CNG). The IS/MND indicated that the other CEQA Checklist environmental resources areas had no

potential for significant impacts. The IS/MND was used as a reference to mitigate the impacts of this project.

Biomass Conversion Facility using wood chips

A stand-alone biomass conversion facility may be placed inside of the MRRC or on Parcel C and would operate

24-hour per day and utilized up to 40 tons per day of clean wood chips processed within MRRC. The hours of

operations will be 24 hours per day. The biomass conversion facility would generate up to 7,500 kilo-watt hour

per year and is rated at 1 megawatt of renewable energy for sale off-site after all on-site needs are met. The

proposed biomass conversion facility would be constructed of metal and would feature colors and materials

similar to the current color scheme.

The facility would utilize proven gasification technologies

that convert biomass into a synthetic natural gas (“syngas”)

through the process of thermo-chemical conversion. This

syngas would then be used to fuel a specially modified

natural gas Genset that would provide renewable electricity

and heat to the structures and equipment on-site. The

biomass gasification process is a thermo-chemical one that

“cooks” biomass in an oxygen-starved environment. By

depriving the fuel of sufficient oxygen, the biomass does not

burn but rather gives off a hydrogen-rich syngas. As the

biomass gives off the syngas, it is transformed into bio-char

and ash of approximately 3 to 7 percent of the volume of

biomass fuel. The syngas is then captured, cleaned by a

series of scrubbers and filters, and cooled before being sent

as fuel to the Genset. The power units are based on a spark-

ignited engine Genset. Depending on the model chosen, the

engines are capable of providing up to one megawatt (net)

operating on syngas. The applicant would customize the

system to allow syngas carburetion for this engine and

provide standard paralleling switchgear for electrical output

with up to one megawatt per hour. A detailed Project

Description with Site Map and renderings is provided in

Attachment A. The Emissions Estimate Report has also been prepared and provided in Attachment A. A photo of

the Merced facility is shown in the adjacent figure.

Bio-char and ash would be removed from the conversion chamber using pumped slurry. This slurry is cooled and

then filtered. The resulting char byproduct is separated out using a special mechanical separator. The water is

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Compostables/AnaerobicDig


again filtered, cooled and recirculated. Biochar is used as a soil amendment, sequestering carbon in the soil for up

to 1,000 years.

This type of project is defined as a “biomass conversion facility” in Public Resources Code 40106 (a) with the

passage of SB 498 (Lara, 2014) which means biomass conversion is the production of heat, fuels, or electricity by

non-combustion thermal conversion technologies, such as gasification, using specific biomass feedstocks.

Biomass conversion of these specific feedstocks allows the facility to be California renewable power eligible and

count towards 100% landfill diversion. Biomass conversion facilities are not required to obtain a solid waste

facility permit from the local health department or the State. However, any solid waste facility, such as MRRC,

that sends wood chips to a biomass conversion facility must report the amount of tons to the State. The solid

waste facilities may be inspected by the LEA to ensure that reporting occurs. The biomass conversion facility

operator shall file an annual report to the state on where the wood chips are received from. Operating biomass

conversion systems using gasification technologies have experience qualifying electricity as renewable power by

the California Energy Commission.

Transmission lines are proposed to connect to the AD Facility and the biomass conversion facility. A feed-in tariff

is available for selling excess electricity back to utility during off-peak periods. As such, the project includes

construction of transmission lines.

Permits, Design and Approvals

The summary of existing operations, proposed operations, including ancillary activities, overall capacities and

materials processing, and regulatory oversight is summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Overview of Operations and State Permit Status

Processing Facilities Activity Permit

Marin Sanitary Service

Transfer Station

(MSSTS)

Solid waste transfer and

food waste processing with

the potential addition of the

anaerobic digestion facility

for food waste and green

waste on Parcel A or Parcel

C.

Solid Waste Facility Permit Revision permit

boundary may increase from 8.5 acres to 9.0

acres. Bay Area Air Quality Management

District – Authority to Construct and Permit to

Operate

Marin Resource

Recovery Center

(MRRC)

Commercial and

construction and demolition

processing.

Solid Waste Facility Permit Revision permit

boundary may increase from 8.5 acres to 9.0

acres.. Bay Area Air Quality Management

District – Authority to Construct and Permit to

Operate.

Marin Recycling

Center

Processes residential and

commercial recyclables and

drop-off and buy-back

located on Parcel A.

California Department of Conservation

certified Buy-Back Center. Title 14 Recycling

Center exempt from state permit with a

residual rate of under 10%.

Marin Household

Hazardous Waste

Facility

Collects household

hazardous waste universal

wastes, and electronic

wastes located on Parcel A.

Permanent Household Hazardous Waste

Collection Facility (PHHWCF) permitted by

California Department of Toxic Substances

Control and regulated by the County Certified

Unified Program Agency (CUPA).

American Soils

Products (aka, A&S

Landscape Materials)

Stores fines, composts,

mulches, and landscape

products located on Parcel

Excluded from Title 14.


C.

Metal Recovery and

Wood Processing

Recovers and bales metals

and processes cord wood

under the Canopy located on

Parcel A.

Title 14 Recycling Center exempt from state

permit with the processing of source-separated

material with less than 1% residual.

Concrete and Soil

Resource Recovery

Operations

Processes clean concrete and

asphalt, and mixed soil and

concrete located on Parcel C

and Parcel D.

Inert Recycling Center is exempt from state

permit. The Type A Inert Debris Processing

Operation has filed an Enforcement Agency

Notification to the LEA.

Biomass Conversion

Facility

Converts wood chips to

renewable energy on Parcel

A, C or D.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District –

Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate

Facility Design Capacity

The Solid Waste Facility Permit activity has a total capacity of 3,700 tons per day (TPY) as shown in Table 2

where the SWFP permitted limits are only 2,640 TPD. The Facility has adequate equipment and capacity to

process the permitted amounts of materials. The tonnage will stay at 2,640 TPD

Solid Waste Facility Permit

A Full Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) is required by state law. The SWFP No. 21-AA-0005 was issued by

Marin County Environmental Health Services Division, which is the Local Enforcement Agency for the State, and

is issued with the concurrence of the CalRecycle (copy of the current SWFP is provided in Appendix A) dated

April 13, 2009, with a SWFP Permit Review Due Date in May 2015 which is underway on a separate

administrative pathway with the LEA. The hours of operations will change to harmonize hours for 24 hours per

day, and the Solid Waste Facility Permit boundary may increase from 8.5 acres to 9.0 acres to include portions of

Parcel C should the stand alone anaerobic digestion facility be placed there.

There will be no changes in the tons or traffic and the permit limits will remain the same as noted in Table 2

below, where the organic material will be part of the current permit limits. The tonnage amount daily tonnage has

averaged between 700 tons per day to 900 tons per day over the last decade, as noted in Table 3, well below the

2,640 tons per day permit limit. The recycling rate has averaged in the mid-60% over the last decade, where the

facility is adding technology and updating equipment to achieve a facility recycling rate of 80% to assist the

County to reach a zero waste goal. The possible locations of the anaerobic digestion facility and the biomass

conversion facility is noted in Table 21 and shown on the Site Maps in Attachment A. The storage time of the

organic material is limited to less than 48 hours holding time or less to minimize odors, as noted in Table 4.

Table 2 – Facility Permit Limits

Operations Design Capacity Permit Limits

Traffic 800 vehicles per day (VPD) limited by the Bellam intersection per

City of San Rafael mitigation measure

SWFP Permit

limits of

800 VPD

MSSTS Design capacity of 1,980 TPD based upon 22 tons per load-out

every 10 minutes limited by the operating hours over 15 hours per

day and the receiving landfill operating hours. The anaerobic

digestion facility may be placed within the MSSTS or stand-alone on

Parcel C, and will use an average of 50 TPY of food waste and green

waste that would have normally gone on MSSTS for transfer and


disposal.

SWFP Permit

limits of 2,640

TPD MSSTS with

food waste

processing

15 tons per hour limited by the hammer-mill capacity and the

operations hours of the MSSTS from one shift is 120 TPD. The

actual operations amount will start at 15 to 20 TPD

MRRC 100 tons per hour (TPH) of processing capacity over a 16 hours of

operations:

20 TPH Demo Line A-H

20 TPH Self-Haul Line K-M

20 TPH on wood/green/food grinding

40 TPH floor sort for bulky

100 TPD total over 16 hours

Design capacity of 1,600 tpy

The biomass conversion facility may be placed within MRRC or

stand alone on Parcel C or Parcel D and will use up to 40 TPY of

clean wood chips from MRRC.

Total Capacity

Design Capacity of 3,700 TPD

Table 3. Facility Tonnage and Diversion Rates 1989 to 2013

Total Tons

Received

Average TPD Tons Tons Recycling Rate

(%)

Year (360 days) Recovered Landfill

1989 205,407 571 46,053 159,407 22.4

1990 216,148 600 84,558 161,590 39.1

1992 200,933 558 107,108 93,825 53.3

1993 191,038 531 103,824 87,214 54.3

1994 176,286 490 87,740 88,545 49.8

1995 199,401 554 63,808 135,683 31.0

1996 213,740 594 111,472 102,269 52.1

1997 214,479 596 114,821 99,658 53.6

1998 255,644 710 148,075 107,569 57.9

1999 265,584 738 143,016 122,567 53.9

2000 300,354 834 189,972 110,382 63.3

2001 313,787 872 206,161 107,626 65.7

2002 327,097 909 218,529 108,568 66.8

2003 318,043 883 203,257 114,786 63.9

2004 330,485 918 211,360 119,125 63.9

2005 353,184 981 219,880 133,304 62.2

2006 353,994 983 220,711 133,283 62.3

2007 334,633 930 208,440 126,193 62.3


2008 314,485 874 195,640 118,845 62.2

2009 244,607 680 148,008 96,599 60.5

2010 256,758 713 158,428 98.331 61.7

2011 271,666 755 174,631 97,035 64.3

2012 272,661 757 173,016 99,645 63.5

2013 277,354 770 180,276 97,078 65.0

Table 4 - Storage Time of Materials

Material Type Location Holding time

MSW MSSTS 48 hours

Commercial food waste MSSTS 8 hours

Self-haul MRRC 48 hours

Mixed C&D/Debris boxes MRRC 48 hours

Green Waste MRRC 48 hours

Co-collected green waste and

food waste

MRRC 24 hours

All current state and local permits specific to the Facility are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5: State Permits and Local Entitlements for MSSTS and MRRC

Permit/Agency Update

Land Use/City of San Rafael Master Use Permit - UP 96-8 adopted on June 27, 1996.

Master Use Permit Amendment applied for on May 29,

2009 for land use issues that are non-solid waste related.

CEQA Compliance/City of San Rafael Mitigated Negative Declaration filed with the State

clearinghouse (SCH #92103067) certified by the City of

San Rafael Planning Commission in January 1993.

General Plan/City of San Rafael Consistency with the City of San Rafael General Plan on

January 12, 1993 by Resolution.

CoIWMP/County of Marin County Integrated waste Management Plan (CoIWMP) was

adopted by the CIWMB on April 10, 1997 where the

Facility was identified.

Solid Waste Facility Permit/ Marin County

Environmental Health Services Division of

the Community Development Agency,

acting as the LEA for the CIWMB.

Solid Waste Facility (SWFP) Permit No. 21-AA-0005, was

concurred by the CIWMB with on March 30, 2004, and

was issued by the LEA on April 7, 2004. A Five-Year

SWFP Review was completed by the LEA on April 13,

2009.

State Water Resources Control

Board/Stormwater Pollution prevention

Plan (SWPPP)

WDID No. 2-21I000154 filed in February 1992. Annual

Reports filed every July 1st.


Permit to Operate Plant #2111 solid waste transfer station,

wood hogger, soil screen and soil pile, debris sort system,

custom commercial sort system, renewed annually.


Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED09-031)

The project proposes an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow for the site improvements proposed

by the project, as shown on the plans provided as Source Reference 6, sheets A-2 through A5.4, C1.1 through

C4.2, DS1 through DS3, BH, RV, and L1-A through L-2.1, which include the following:

1. Container Storage: Approval for the design and layout of the eight foot (8’) high storage containers

proposed as interim uses in future operational yard areas.

2. Grading, Drainage, Utility and “Fire Flow” Waterline: Site improvements would include trenching and

installation of hydrants for “fire flow” water service throughout the MSS site, and in lieu of installing fire

sprinklers within the mini-storage facilities. An existing, private 8” waterline extension, located on Area A, off of

the 12” MMWD water main within the Andersen Drive ROW, is proposed to be connected to another existing,

private 8” waterline extension, also located on Area A. One (1) new fire hydrant is proposed on Area B, where

currently none exist, and two (2) new fire hydrants on Area C where none currently exists. In addition, a new

private 8” waterline extension is proposed on Area D. The project proposes to install three (3) new fire hydrants

on Area D where none currently exist in order to provide fire protection to existing structures approved on Area

D. In addition, the project proposes to provide adequate fire lanes between the storage containers to meet fire

separation and accessibility per code requirements.

Additionally, the project proposes to legalize the concrete improvements to the network of fire roads located

throughout the open space Area E. The widths of these improved fire roads are from 10’ up to 200’ at portions of

the ridgeline, though vast majorities are approximately 20’-wide. Many of these improved fire roads include

curbing. Future MSS facility uses would be subject to the master use permit and development plan, or subsequent

amendment. Minimal grading work is required, only as necessary to remove any concrete work if pursued, and

minimal trenching and site work to install landscape, drainage and utility line improvements shown on plans and

discussed herein.

4. Retaining Walls: The project proposes to legalize existing “bulkhead” and “gabion” retaining walls on Area

C (aka, Parcel C), which have a combined height of approximately 41’ above finished grade. The “gabion”

retaining wall is approximately 24’ in height, setback 21’ and constructed above, a “bulkhead” retaining wall,

approximately 21’ in height.

5. Parking: The project proposes to increase on-site parking from 198 spaces to 228 spaces (see Sheet A5).

New parking spaces meeting ‘compact’ parking and standard dimensions (8’ x 16’ compact and 9’ x 19’ standard)

are located in Area A along Andersen Drive, with additional spaces on Area B and Area D for the expanded

ministorage uses. These new parking spaces would primarily be created through new pavement striping of

existing paved areas and maintain minimum required 20’ drive aisle width and 26’ backup space dimensions.

6. Fencing, Landscaping and Grading: The project proposes to install separation fencing, gates and posts to

demarcate the open space boundary (see Source Reference 6, sheet A3). Storage areas on Area B are also fenced

with 6’-high, chain-link and privacy slat’ inserts, and perimeter fencing exists between the site and adjacent

properties.

Landscape and grading improvements are shown on the civil sheet C1.1 and landscape plans. Engineered

bioswale treatment areas covered predominantly with native grasses are proposed to meet SWPPP (Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Program) requirements. Sheet C3.1 shows new drainage inlet improvements along the main

access road at the terminus of Jacoby Street. An engineered bioswale treatment is also proposed at the top of the

existing gabion wall and new landscaping adjacent to this bioswale area. A mixture of mostly native trees

(California Bay, California Buckeye, Catalina Ironwood, Holly Oak and Coast Redwood) and shrubs (Point Reyes

Ceanothus, Bottlebrush, Euryops, Common Myrtle, Climbing Fig, Rosemary, Madrone and Xylosa) are proposed

to be planted in a random pattern, drip-irrigated and staked, where necessary. Landscaping that includes native


and compatible trees is included above the gabion wall in Area C to conceal fire wood storage located adjacent to

open space, and restore public views of the area.

Minimal grading will be required for trenching required to install new water lines for fire suppression.

Erosion control practices are indicated on sheet BH-1 and RV-1.

Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation (S09-002)

The proposed a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) would consolidate all MSS parcels, with Area E open space

boundary to be maintained on the grant deed as a restricted private open space area. The revised deed would

include adjustment of a portion of Area to adjust for encroachments and deviations in the boundary. This includes

an area located at the top of the gabion wall extending approximately 175’ south behind the gabion that contains

an existing firewood storage area. The operational and open space use areas shall remain as designated by the PD

zoning map and established by the PD district standards and Master Use Permit.

Jacoby Street Right of Way Abandonment and Vacation

Abandonment and vacation is requested for a 60-foot wide portion of Jacoby Street approximately 400 feet long

located at the westerly terminus of the MSS facility site (APN18-180-73), and a 30-foot wide unimproved portion

of Jacoby Street right of way extending approximately 2,400 feet from the terminus of Jacoby Street improved

right of way to the easterly boundary of the MSS facility property.

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required

The proposed amendments will require subsequent review and approval of easements and water service upgrades

by the local water agency Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). The revised MSS facility project

improvements require new water hookups and utility easements associated with abandonment of a portion of the

improved Jacoby Street right of way. Additionally, the project proposes new landscaping, which may need to

comply with MMWD’s most recent Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance, adopted by the City of San Rafael by

reference in its zoning regulations Chapter 14.16.

The amendments to the current zoning entitlements for this facility, including the off-site private storage uses on

the GGHBTD site, do not require any new or additional permits from the other permitting agencies that have

regulatory oversight of the MSS facility.

The changes to the sanitary service facility operations, including addition of Bio-mass and Anaerobic digestion

waste conversion equipment, would require further reviews, permits and oversight by the following agencies:

State Water Resources Control Board

California Integrated Waste Management Board

CalRecycle


Regional Water Quality Control Board

Marin County Environmental Health

The project could also require oversight by the Native American Heritage Commission in the event grading

impacts uncovered cultural resources.


EXHIBITS

Vicinity Map


Site Plan


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one

impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous

Materials

Hydrology / Water Quality

Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population / Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Finding of

Significance

DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially

significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the

effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER

EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have

been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,

including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing

further is required.

Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

____________________________________ May 11, 2015__________

Signature Date


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS

Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista?

Discussion:

The San Rafael General Plan 2020, Community Design Map Exhibits 17 and 18 do not identify the MSS

site as a ‘scenic vista’. However, the ridgeline portion of Area E, the private open space hillside, which is

commonly known as Bartel Ridge or San Quentin Ridge, is identified as “Visually Significant Hillsides,

Ridgelines and Landforms”. The project proposes minor site improvements, including legalizing a 45’-

tall, gabion and bulkhead retaining wall primarily on Area C and legalizing at-grade concrete

improvements (i.e., base and curbing) made to the network of existing historic fire roads within Area E.

These fire road improvements also include the creation of a level, concrete storage pad, approximately

22,500 square feet in size, located above the gabion and bulkhead retaining wall at approximately the ‘65-

foot’ contour line. Due to height of the buildings on the MSS site and the dense canopy foliage of the

forested hillside, these existing improvements are essentially screened from all public view off-site.

The project additionally proposes to adjust the property boundaries between the developed operation site

areas (Area B through D) and the open space Area E, to principally eliminate minor encroachments by

existing retaining walls into Area E. As a consequence of this proposed adjustment of these areas, Area C

would be altered to include the concrete storage pad from area E. The project proposes to cure firewood

material, in piles with a maximum height of 20’, on this concrete storage apron, located above the gabion

and bulkhead retaining wall. The project proposes to install landscaping, at the top of the gabion/bulkhead

retaining wall, to help screen the firewood storage area from all public view off-site. This landscape

screening is proposed to be a combination of native tree and shrub species, planted in an irregular pattern

and drip-irrigated. Both the firewood storage pad and its underlying gabion/bulkhead retaining wall are

located approximately 160 vertical feet below the ridgeline, which runs parallel to approximately the 225-

foot contour line.

Area C – Walls and Wood Storage Visual Impacts Discussion

The project does not propose any development or change in use along the upper ridgeline portion of Area

E on the MSS site. Rather, the project would continue to support protection of the highly visible and

wooded hillside area of this site with added protection through installation of boundary fences and

markers which should help assure future encroachments and storage in this area would not recur. Further,

landscaping enhancements are proposed that would restore vegetation and screen areas above Area C,

which were altered by previous grading and construction of the gabion wall and wood storage placed in

the open space Area E. The landscape improvements would restore the pre-existing vegetated appearance

of the area as viewed from a distance, from Hwy 580 to the north. Installing this landscaping as shown on

project plans would be required as a condition of the project design approval. Therefore, the visually

significant hillside would remain protected as private open space, the project would not adversely affect

this existing scenic resource, and impacts would be less-than-significant. See Figures I-1 through I-3

below. No further study is necessary.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

47

Figure I-1. Before Trees

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

48

Figure I-2. After Trees

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

49

Figure I-3. Limits of View

Area D – Future Biomass Equipment Visual Impacts Discussion

Additionally, the yard area to the east of Area C (aka Area D) is proposed as a location for future biomass

equipment that would likely include tall narrow structures that would exceed the building height limit of

36 feet established for the area. At the back of this outdoor work area is a 21ft high concrete retaining

wall supporting a cut in the open space Area E hillside. A vertical conveyor associated with future

biomass equipment would potentially rise 20’ above the top of the wall, or 41 feet overall height. The

biomass conversion chamber (e.g., tower) would be approximately at 33’ tall, thus would rise 13’ above

the existing wall. All other machinery would below the top of the wall.

Structures over the height limit may be considered through review of an Environmental and Design

Review Permit pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section14.25.040; which includes specialized

equipment and/or screening purposes. The location anticipated for placement of future biomass

machinery is would be significantly screened from view off-site and is a future potential installation only.

No significant visual impacts are anticipated and design issues should be sufficiently addressed through

the City’s normal design review process.

In 2010 the City reviewed modifications to add two new membrane covers over two existing biodigester

tank facilities at the Central Marin Sanitation District, located to the east at 1301 Andersen Drive, for its

energy conversion tank facilities (City File ED10-081). These elements were approved as design

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

50

modifications that would extend above the base district building height limits. They consist of floating

digester covers that increased the digester height by about 20 feet. The digester tanks are approximately

48 feet high and the site is similar in its location and use to MSS property.

(Sources: 1, 6)

b. Substantially damage scenic resources,

including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a

state scenic highway?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a) above. Interstate 580 (I-580), located approximately 400’ northeast of the MSS

site, is an officially-designated “State Scenic Highway” by Caltrans (California Department of

Transportation). It is a heavily-travelled, 80-mile east–west Interstate Highway; a spur route of Interstate

80, connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to Interstate 5 and the Central Valley with U.S. Highway 101

and the North Bay. This segment of I-580 was previously constructed as part of the California Highway

69 route prior to its inclusion in the Interstate Highway system. Area E, the forested private opens space

on the MSS site, is visible from I-580. The project proposes to legalize a material storage pad, located

above the gabion and bulkhead retaining wall, in which the proposed, 20’-high, piles of firewood would

be partially visible from I-580. The proposed firewood storage area would not significantly damage a

scenic resource given that the project also proposes to install landscaping, at the top of the

gabion/bulkhead retaining wall, to help screen the firewood piles from public view off-site.

There are no remaining historic buildings or any visible rock outcroppings within the MSS site that, or

any scenic resources that would be affected. The San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey lists a single-

family residence (the ‘Bartel House’) located within Area E on the site (aka 524 Jacoby Street) as a

locally-protected cultural resource. This ‘listed’ historic building was demolished sometime after 1977. Its

remaining foundation has been incorporated into an existing metal equipment storage shed and remains

the only structure in Area E with the exception of a small water storage tank. The dense canopy foliage of

the forested hillside essentially screens the existing metal equipment storage shed from public view off-

site. The only change as a result of the project involves increased landscaping above the gabion wall,

which would blend in with the natural setting and provide screening of an existing work area. Therefore,

impacts on scenic resources or historic buildings would be less-than-significant. No further study is

required.

(Sources: 1, 6)

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the site and its

surroundings?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a) and (b) above. The project proposes to legalize a material storage pad, located

above the gabion and bulkhead retaining wall, in order to store and cure 20’-high piles of firewood. The

proposed firewood storage area would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the MSS

site given that the project also proposes to install landscaping, between the top of the gabion/bulkhead

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

51

retaining wall and the firewood piles, to help screen the firewood piles from public view off-site,

particularly visibility along westbound I-580. The gabion and bulkhead retaining wall itself cannot be

seen from off-site due to the height of existing buildings developed along southern elevation of Andersen

Drive. Impacts on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less-than-

significant. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

d. Create a new source of substantial light or

glare which would adversely affect day or

nighttime views in the area?

Discussion:

MSS currently provides, and will continue to provide, municipal solid waste collection and recycling

services on site. It operates 24-hours a day, seven days a week; though, it is open to the public on a

limited basis, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily. No additional lighting sources are proposed for the MSS site.

New parking spaces, located both immediately south of the Marin Resource Recovery Center (MRRC)

building in Area A and east of the relocated storage container facility on Area C, are not proposed to be

illuminated since the hours of operation in which MSS is open to the public are limited to daytime only.

The project would not create any new sources of light or glare. No impacts would result. No further study

is necessary.

(Sources: 6, 7)

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

Would the project: {In determining whether

impacts to agricultural resources are significant

environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to

the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and

Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the

California Dept. of Conservation as an optional

model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture

and farmland.} In determining whether impacts

to a forest resources, including timberland, are

significant environmental effects, lead agencies

may refer to information compiled by the

California Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection regarding the state’s inventory of

forest land, including the Forest and Range

Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy

assessment Project; and forest carbon

measurement methodology provided in Forest

Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource

Board.

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,

or Farmland of Statewide Importance

(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

52

pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program of the California

Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion:

The General Plan land use designation for the MSS site is Industrial (I) on the developed parcels (Areas A

through D) and Conservation (C) on the private open space hillside (Area E). Agricultural uses are

currently not identified as a land use category allowed in either General Plan land use designation. The

zoning classification for the MSS site is Industrial (I) for Area A and Planned Development (PD 1580) for

Areas B through E. Agricultural uses are also currently not identified an allowable land use in either

zoning districts. The City of San Rafael, including the MSS site, does not contain Prime Farmland or

other land of significant agricultural value, nor are there such lands with the City’s Sphere of Influence or

Urban Service Area. The project does not propose to convert any farmlands designated on State maps to

non-agricultural use. No impact would result. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural

use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Discussion:

Refer to (a) discussion above. The MSS site is not zoned for agricultural use. No agricultural use current

exists on the site, with the exception of the animal husbandry facility located on Area B. Further, the

property is not subject to any Williamson Act of 1965 contracts established to preserve agricultural and

open space lands. No impact would result. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause

rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public

Resources Code section 12220(g)),

timberland (as defined by Public Resources

Code section 4526), or timberland zoned

Timberland Production (as defined by

Government Code section 511104(g))

Discussion:

Refer to (a) discussion above. Areas A through D are the developed portion of the MSS site, while Area E

is the undeveloped, open space forest hillside. While the project proposes to rezone the MSS site and

consolidate parcels it does not propose to modify or alter the current open space land use protections on

Area E. The entire existing, 50.87 acre, oak woodland forest on Area E would continue to be preserved by

the project as private open space. No impact would result.

(Sources: 1, 6)

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

53

of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (c) above. The project would not result in any expansion of existing MSS areas of

operations. No impact on existing forest lands, including the native hillside vegetation contained in Area

E would result.

(Sources: 1, 6)

e. Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of

Farmland, to non-agricultural use or

conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion:

Refer to (a), (c) and (d) discussion above. No farmland exists on the MSS site and no farmland exists in

the immediate vicinity of the site. The project proposes a minor adjustment of the boundary of MSS

operation site areas (Area D) and the open space Area E, that will result in the protection of an additional,

approximately 16,000 square feet (approximately 40’ in width and 400’ length) of existing oak woodland

habitat as private open space. Impacts would be less-than-significant, with a net increase in protected

woodland habitat.

(Sources: 1, 6)

III. AIR QUALITY

Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of

the applicable air quality plan?

Discussion:

The project would continue an existing sanitary service facility use, including the legalization of ancillary

mini-storage uses which would be reduced in scope. A 12,500 ton per year anaerobic digestion facility

and a 1.0 mega-watt biomass conversion facility are proposed as new components as part of the existing

waste facility operations. The new facility would be within existing yard and facility areas of the site.

A self-contained anaerobic digestion facility to generate renewable power from bio-methane generated by

digesting food and green waste will likely be installed in the near future. Food waste and green waste may

be sourced from commercial, multi-family, and residential sources. The facility could supply up to 2.1

million kilo-watt power per year to meet the entire facility energy demand or up to 160,000 of diesel

gallons equivalents (dge) of renewable natural gas to fuel a fleet of approximately 16 heavy-duty vehicles.

A stand-alone biomass conversion facility may utilize up to 40 tons per day of clean wood chips

processed within MRRC. The biomass conversion facility would generate up to 7,500 kilo-watt hour per

year and is rated at 1 megawatt of renewable energy for sale off-site after all on-site needs are met.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

54

These proposed waste facility operational activities would remain subject to County and State oversight

of waste management operations which assure the facility is operated in compliance with health and

safety regulations intended to avoid adverse impacts to air quality, odor, and water quality impacts.

Further, the project has been subject to evaluation to ensure project activities would comply with the

City’s climate change action plan.

On July 18, 2011 the City Council adopted a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy. This

strategy serves as a technical appendix to the 2009 adopted Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), i.e.,

Appendix E of the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan (P11-009). Concurrently, General Plan

Amendment GPA11-001 was adopted to include the General Plan 2020 Sustainability Element policies.

These amendments were adopted in response to SB97 and changes to rules implemented by the regional

air district that covers San Rafael (the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)), which in

2010 to update its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for the Bay Area; requiring that projects address new

state climate change and GHG reduction requirements (consistent with AB32 goals). As an alternative to

conducting a project-by-project GHG analysis, the BAAQMD Guidelines allow the preparation and

adoption of a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan to examine emissions and reduction strategies at a

community-wide level. This is encouraged by BAAQMD as a more proactive means of achieving desired

air quality changes. The amended CCAP GHG Reduction Strategy plan was reviewed by BAAQMD, and

meets its requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.

The CCAP and accompanying strategy are intended to be updated from time to time to report out change

and process on achieving GHG reductions. This document was prepared to meet the BAAQMD

standards as a “Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy”. As a “qualified” strategy, it limits the need to

prepare a quantified GHG assessment for projects that are consistent with the San Rafael General Plan

2020. A GHG Reduction Strategy Checklist was also prepared that identifies required elements that

projects must satisfy in order be compliant with the CCAP. This document is expected to be updated

frequently as programs are completed, others added and emission data is refined. The City meets the

BAAQMD requirement, as a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, because it includes; an

emission inventory and projections required by SB375, target reductions, application of GHG reduction

measures, a checklist to require implementation of measures in a project, monitoring and updating the

GHG inventory and reduction measures every 3-5 years before 2020, requires the annual reporting on

progress of implementation of CCAP / GHG Reduction Plan programs, and regular monitoring of

community-wide GHG levels to assure that Plan objectives are being met. Compliance with the GHG

Reduction Strategy Checklist ensures compliance with the General Plan Sustainability Element and the

CCAP and ordinances adopted to implement these policies.

Amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code have also been made, and are currently being pursued, to

provide legislative standards that implement the Sustainability Element and the CCAP (this has included

updates to adopt City water-efficient landscaping standards, parking paving, design and landscape

requirements, a ban on foam containers and plastic bags, among others). Compliance with the CCAP

assures that the Sustainability Element policies would be addressed, and that a development project would

satisfy regional air quality and GHG reduction requirements enforced by the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District (BAAQMD).

A project is also subject to an initial screening to ensure that the project that complies with the GHG

strategy would not still result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all the screening criteria are

met by the project then the City would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of the project

air pollutant emissions. The screening criteria are used for non-stationary sour emissions. Stationary

source emissions (e.g., backup generators) are not included in the screening estimates provided by

BAAQMD, and for criteria pollutants must be added to the indirect mobile and area source emissions

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

55

generated by the land use development and sources should not be combined with operational emissions

but compared to separate stationary source greenhouse gas threshold. The screening criteria developed for

criteria pollutants and precursors, and greenhouse gases were derived using the default emissions

assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model (URBEMIS) and using off-model GHG

estimates for indirect emissions from electrical generation, solid waste and water conveyance. If the

project has other significant sources of GHG emissions not accounted for in the methodology described

herein, then the screening criteria should not be used. Projects below the applicable screening criteria

shown in the BAAWMD Table 3-1 would not exceed the 1,100 MT of CO2e/year GHG threshold of

significance for projects other than permitted stationary sources.

If a project including stationary sources is located in a community with a qualified GHG reduction

strategy, the project may be considered less than significant if it consistent with the GHG reduction

strategy. A project must demonstrate its consistency by identifying and implementing all feasible

measures and policies from the GHG reduction strategy into the project. Furthermore, as noted in the

BAAQMD 2012 CEQA Guidelines, due to an existing court order1 on the District’s adopted 2010 CEQA

Thresholds of Significance, the Air District cannot recommend specific thresholds of significance for use

by local governments at this time. Lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds

to use for each project they review based on substantial evidence that they should include in the

administrative record for the project. Lead agencies may still rely on the Air District’s CEQA Guidelines

for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of

air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. The Final BAAQMD Ceqa Guidelines can

be found online at the following location:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-

CEQA-Guidelines.aspx

The May 2010 Draft guidelines and screening criteria proposed on pages 3-2 and 3-2 of the draft

document, and used by City staff for purposes of this review, can be found at the following location

online:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_

CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en

In this instance, the project has requested approval of zoning permits to increase the ancillary general

public storage facility use as a continued interim use of the Marin Sanitary Service facilyt site. This use

would occupy space not currently included in the solid facility operating permits issued by the state.

Staff has previously determined the interim public storage use is similar to private general warehouse use.

Thus, using the draft 2010 thresholds a project would need to propose at least 64,000 square feet of new

warehouse space to be subject to additional operational GHG screening.

As noted in the application and project description above (specifically in the description of the

Amendment to Master Use Permit UP 09-020), the project would increase the number of ancillary

public/contractor storage containers permitted on the site from 240 containers to 477 containers, which

would be on Areas B and D. The square footage for permitted public storage container use would increase

by approximately 62,354 square feet (storage container use available for general public - personal storage

and contractors). The ancillary industrial storage containers used by MSS operations are included as part

of the existing operations and do not generate new sources of activity or use of MSS operations.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

56

Further the use permit amendment description includes the waste facility industrial operations would

expand the current state permitted boundary from 8.5 acres of current site area to 9 acres, to incorporate a

potential stand-alone anaerobic digester “AD” facility on Area C (this area currently is used as an interim

landscape soils sales use area). Area D is already contained within the SWFP permitted by the regulatory

permitting agencies. While this is within existing permitted use areas under the master use permit, a

conservative analysis has been applied to the project for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) analysis, as

required by the state for its review of modifications to the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP).

The draft 2010 BAAQMD thresholds provide a standard that may be used to determine whether

operational changes would trigger a separate GHG analysis. Based on continuation of the existing uses,

and compliance with the City of San Rafael’s climate change action plan, the project impacts including

the additional bio-mass and anaerobic digestion waste management facility improvements would not

trigger an operational level GHG analysis, would remain consistent with the existing facility intensity and

uses, and result in impacts that would be less than significant.

See also Section VII Greenhouse Gas Emissions discussion.

(Sources: 1, 5, 6, 7, 16, 20)

b. Violate any air quality standard or

contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation?

Discussion:

Setting and Impacts:

The proposed draft master use permit (UP09-020) would incorporate current requirements referencing the

Bay Area Air Quality District approvals required for facility operations, the anaerobic digestion facility,

and the biomass conversion facility (i.e., proposed to be incorporated as draft Condition of Approval 3

“The applicant shall obtain all required permits(s) from local and state agencies as required prior to

construction of any additional facility improvements and for ongoing operations of the waste

management facility; including but not necessarily limited to the Marin County Environmental Health,

State Water Resources Control Board, Ca Integrated Waste Management Board, Regional Water Quality

Control Board and Bay Area Air Quality Management District” and draft Condition of Approval 14e. to

f. “The following noise, odor and hazardous materials controls shall apply to the use: e) On-site

composting activities shall be governed by state regulatory authorities including Regional Water Quality,

Regional Air Quality, and subject to best management practices; f) All required local or state permits

from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall be maintained as required for the site. A “risk

screen” which analyzes potential toxic emissions for the household hazardous waste collection center

shall be prepared/maintained/updated, as required”).

The waste management facility is subject to continuous oversight by several agencies to assure

compliance with regional water quality, air quality and waste management practices. As discussed in

Section XVII of this initial study, MSS operates under state permitting authority CalRecycle. Additional

concurrent permitting and oversight is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board and

Regional Water Quality Control Board (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPP), the California

Air Resource Board (Portable Equipment Registration Program), the regional Bay Area Air Quality

Management District, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Permanent Household

Hazardous Waste Facility, Marin County Certified Unified Program Agency or CUPA), Cal Recycle and

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

57

the Marin County Environmental Health Services Division (Solid Waste Facility Permit; Enforcement

Agency Notification for Inert Debris Processing Facility and Green Waste Composting).

MSS is a “waste stream processor” or transfer station providing solid waste collection and recycling

services. Waste that cannot be recycled is transported to the local Redwood Landfill and other permitted

landfill in the region, as permitted under the local Joint Powers Agreement and state permit. The project

does not propose improvements or operational changes to MSS that would increase solid waste disposal

needs. To the contrary, MSS continues to operate an aggressive recycling program, helping the public and

the municipalities it serves to decrease waste production with the goal of reaching “zero waste”.

Consistent with the MSS program, the facility intends to pursue an anaerobic digestion facility and a

biomass conversion facility that would convert food waste and green waste into biomethane, and convert

clean wood chips recycled at the facility to syn-gas fuel for a generator on the site. This would

considerably reduce the amount of organic waste that might otherwise be transported to Redwood

Landfill, converting it to energy, compost and carbon. AB 1826 (Chesbro, 2014) mandates the collection

of commercial organic waste and will limit the amount of organic waste that can be landfilled. A low

emission syn-gas electrical generator with proven low emissions history would be used to convert the

biomethane and the syn-gas into energy. As an option, the biomethane may be converted to renewable

natural gas which has less emissions than converting the biomethane to energy as provided in the

Emissions Estimate Report. A similar operation has been successfully implemented at the nearby Central

Marin Sanitation District (CMSD) for conversion of food waste to energy, in partnership with MSS which

collects and transfers clean food waste to CMSD for conversion to energy.

Because of the current recycling operations and the proposed facilities, the project would not impede

implementation of the 2009 City of San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan. MSS supports the 2009 City

of San Rafael CCAP through its local waste reduction and recycling strategies. The City also has adopted

a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy as Appendix E to the 2009 CCAP, along with General Plan 2020

Sustainability Element policies and related zoning code amendments in response to SB 97, and changes

by the (BAAQMD) in 2010 to update its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for the Bay Area; requiring that

projects address new state climate change and GHG reduction requirements (consistent with AB32 goals).

The GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy plan provides an opportunity to revisit and recalculate the

numerous programs contained in the City’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The GHG Emissions

Reduction Plan has been adopted as an alternative to conducting a project-by-project GHG analysis,

consistent with the BAAQMD Guidelines, to examine emissions and reduction strategies at a community-

wide level. This is encouraged by BAAQMD as a more proactive means of achieving desired air quality

changes. The amended CCAP GHG Reduction Strategy plan was reviewed by BAAQMD, and meets its

requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. The City meets the BAAQMD

requirement, as a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, because it includes; an emission

inventory and projections required by SB375, target reductions, application of GHG reduction measures,

a checklist to require implementation of measures in a project, monitoring and updating the GHG

inventory and reduction measures every 3-5 years before 2020, requires the annual reporting on progress

of implementation of CCAP / GHG Reduction Plan programs, and regular monitoring of community-

wide GHG levels to assure that Plan objectives are being met.

A project that is consistent with and covered by the City adopted GHG Reduction Strategy Checklist

ensures compliance with the local Air Quality Plan, the General Plan Sustainability Element and the

CCAP and ordinances adopted to implement these policies. No further analysis of air quality impacts is

required for a project that is consistent with the CCAP and GHG reduction strategy. Thus, the subject

project impacts would be less-than-significant given that the land use remains compliant with the local

Air Quality Plan, and the project would not conflict with the City 2009 CCAP and GHG reduction

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

58

strategy. However, additional information is provided below, for informational purposes. The MSS

Climate Action Management Plan is provided as an attachment and further discussed in Section VII –

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The AD Facility may only be built to 5,000 TPY to make electricity in a CHP unit to run the MSS

facility, or up to 12,500 TPY to make electricity or renewable natural gas (RNG) to run a carbon negative

fleet of 16 CNG vehicles. The emissions from each option are presented below, where one or the other

will be built. For the purposes of the analysis, the highest emission amount will be used to present a worst

case emissions scenario.

Organic material used for anaerobic digestion would be off-loaded in the enclosed Access Hall for mixing

prior to being loaded into an enclosed anaerobic digestion bunker within 48 hours of receipt. The Access

Hall will be enclosed, subject to negative aeration pressure and designed to capture all emissions

generated during short-term storage of the organic feedstock. The ventilation system would then

discharge the air to a biofilter for cleaning prior to being emitted to the atmosphere.

Biofiltration is a well-known treatment technology that has consistently documented destruction

efficiencies of over 90% for VOCs as referenced in the studies noted below. A pilot-scale experiment

done at California State University, Fresno, demonstrated a 99% destruction efficiency for VOCs1

(O’Neil, 2010). Tests conducted at the Inland Empire Regional Compost Facility resulted in a measured

VOC destruction efficiency of 94% 2(IERCF, June 2009)). Additionally, the South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) published a list of operational biofilters and estimated destruction

efficiencies that can be found at:

http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/doc/r1133/app_c_biofilter.pdf3 (SCAQMD, 2011).

Likusta, a manufacturer of odor control/biofilter systems, provides guaranteed control efficiencies of 90%

for VOCs.

Additionally, very high destruction efficiencies for methane and nitrous oxide have also been

demonstrated. A pilot-scale experiment done at California State University, Fresno, demonstrated 99.7%

destruction efficiency for methane and 97.1% for nitrous oxide.

For this analysis, the following biofilter destruction efficiencies are used:

VOCs: 90%

Methane: 90%

Nitrous Oxide: 90%

1 A Comparative Study: Air Emissions from Three Composting Methods, Tim O’Neil, Engineered Compost Systems,

Biocycle West Coast Conference, 2010.

2 Compliance Source Test Report: Biofilter and Co-Composting Enclosure, Inland Empire Regional Composting

Facility, prepared by AirKinetics for the Inland Empire Regional Composting Authority, June 2009.

3 South Coast Air Quality Management, Rule 1133.3, Emission Reduction from Green Waste Composting

Operations, July 8, 2011.

http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/doc/r1133/app_c_biofilter.pdf

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

59

AD Facility – 5,000 TPY to CHP option: The installation of an anaerobic digestion facility will process

up to 5,000 tons per year of food waste and green waste to generate combined heating or power (CHP) to

be utilized as electricity within the physical plant. Anaerobic digestion significantly reduces contaminant

concentrations associated with decomposing material because emissions are managed in a controlled

environment and passed through a biofilter. This facility, as proposed at 5,000 tons per year, would emit

the following estimated criteria pollutants annually4:

0.3 tons of volatile organic compounds (ROG)

2.2 tons of carbon monoxide (CO)

1.4 tons of NOx (nitrogen oxides)

0.08 tons of PM10 (coarse dust particle pollution)

0.08 tons of SOx (sulphur oxides)

AD Facility – 12,500 TPY to CHP option: The installation of an anaerobic digestion facility will

process up to 12,500 tons per year with similar biofilter controls, and would emit the following estimated

criteria pollutants annually:






AD Facility – 12,500 TPY to CNG option: The installation of an anaerobic digestion facility would

process up to 12,500 tons per year of food waste and green waste to generate either combined heating or

power (CHP) to be utilized as electricity within the physical plant or compressed natural gas (CNG) for

use as fuel for collection vehicles. Anaerobic digestion significantly reduces contaminant concentrations

associated with decomposing material because emissions are managed in a controlled environment and

passed through a biofilter. This facility, as proposed at 12,500 tons per year producing CNG, would emit

the following estimated criteria pollutants annually:






Biomass Conversion Facility: The addition of a biomass conversion facility would convert an estimated

annual 14,600 tons of clean wood material (40 tons per day) to char and ash through a thermo-chemical

process, and generate 1 megawatt of electricity; with a net (excess) of 0.75 Megawatts above that required

to operate the system itself (0.75MW * 24 hours = 18 MWh.day)5. The biomass conversion facility, using

Phoenix Energy gasification technology, is designed to recover gases in tars given off in the heating

4 Source reference, Cornerstone Engineering report, September 2012 for SmartFerm Anaerobic Digestion Facility

at Agromin’s Oxnard Facility 5 A megawatt (Mw) is a unit of measuring power that is equivalent to one million watts. One megawatt is equivalent

to the energy produced by 10 automobile engines. A megawatt hour (Mwh) is equal to 1,000 kilowatt hours (Kwh).

It is equal to 1,000 kilowatts of electricity used continuously for one hour. It is equal to the amount of electricity

used by 330 homes during one hour.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

60

process, which substantially lessen gas contaminant concentrations that would potentially be emitted as a

result of the conversion process. The facility, as proposed, would emit the following estimated criteria

pollutants annually:




0.8 tons of PM10 (coarse dust particule pollution)


MSS would use the energy generated by the biomass conversion facility to offset its energy consumption.

As proposed, this facility would offset an estimated 1,826 MTCO2/metric tons of carbon dioxide

emissions annually (e.g., avoided emissions). Conversion of wood waste to energy also reduces the

volume of waste that is sent to landfills and reduces potential greenhouse gas emissions that may be

generated from decomposition of these materials if deposited in the landfill. The biochar from the

biomass conversion facility, averaging 1,000 tons per year, will be used as a soil amendment and be

sequestered in the soil for up to 1,000 years. Any additional offset amount that might be realized by

biochar sequestration and the diversion of wood waste from the landfill has not been quantified as a part

of this analysis.

Pursuant to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines Updated May 2011 (Page

2-1 of the Guidelines) if a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level established in

the guidelines Tables 2-1 (Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance), it would be considered to

contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.

Pollutant Threshold

ROG 10 tons per year

NOX 10 tons per year

PM10 15 tons per year

Local CO 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)

GHGs –Stationary Sources 10,000 MT of CO2e/yr

A project would have a cumulative considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and

foreseeable future sources within a 1,000 foot radius from the fence line of a source, or from the location

of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the following:

Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or

An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard

index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or

0.8 μg/m3 annual average PM2.5.

The project total emissions are below using the higher number – shaded in grey below - from either the

AD-5,000 TPY to CHP, the AD-12,500 TPY to CHP, or the AD-12,500 TPY to CNG, added to that of

the biomass conversion facility.

Pollutant Threshold Project AD – 5,000

TPY

CHP

AD – 12,500

TPY

CHP

AD – 12,500

TPY

CNG

Biomass Conversion

ROG 10

tons per year

3.57 0.3 1.74 0.47 1.83

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

61

NOX 10

tons per year

5.97 1.4 4.2 0.36 1.77

PM10 15

tons per year

0.08 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.08

The proposed addition of either size of anaerobic digestion facility and the biomass conversion facility

falls below thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD. Further, it is reasonably anticipated

that MSS will continue to comply all required state and local permitting requirements and local policies

including the City’s GHG reduction strategies would remain applicable to development within the City

that is consistent with the City General Plan 2020. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant due

to compliance with the BAAQMD guidelines, City CCAP and GHG strategy and ongoing regulatory and

permitting oversight of multiple state, regional and local agencies.

Public Storage Containers

As noted in the project description, specifically the discussion of Use Permit Amendment

UP09-020 in the project description above, retroactive approval of expanded public storage use

that has occurred on the property from 1997 through 2005 has been requested. While a net

reduction in the number of existing public storage containers would be realized, the use permit

amendment would potentially permit continued public storage as an interim use of the

property, which contributes to ongoing operational traffic and air quality impacts. See

discussion in Section III.a above. Impacts would be less than significant from legalization of

existing storage uses on the site, along with a net reduction (removal) of remaining and

unpermitted public storage container use.

The following construction activities would occur to remove and provide separation of containers:

1. Removal of containers from the site and repositioning of several containers to remain by crane and

truck.

2. Construction of fire separation walls (CMU) as noted on the plans.

3. Seismic anchoring of containers to existing concrete with welded plates and epoxy anchors.

Construction

It is anticipated that there will be air quality issues during the construction phase of the project that will

need to be mitigated. The demolition of paved areas and the subsequent redevelopment into the AD

facility would result in emissions primarily from construction related vehicles. Construction would

involve use of equipment and materials that would emit ozone precursor emissions (i.e., reactive organic

gases or ROG, and nitrogen oxides, or NOx). Construction activities would also result in the emission of

other criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity, and construction

worker automobile trips. Emission levels for these activities would vary depending on the number and

type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Criteria

pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the

regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project development. Emissions were estimated

using the Ca1EEMod model and are depicted below in Table 1 as determined for a similar AD Facility in

South San Francisco in a mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared by ESA Associates. The City

of South San Francisco adopted this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH #2012092007) for the

Blue Line Biogenic CNG Facility project in December of 2012. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative

Declaration (IS/MND) evaluated the construction impacts of developing a similar size Anaerobic

Digestion (AD) Facility.

TABLE 1

PEAK DAY CONSTRUCTION-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (Pounds/Day)a

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

62

Exhaust Exhaust

Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10b PM2.5b

2013 (Unmitigated Emissions) 3 18 15 <1 8 1

BAAQMD Construction Threshold 54 54 None None 82 54

Significant Impact? No No No No No No

a. Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod and assumes pavement removal and export of approximately 2,230 cubic yards of excavated soils,

as well as the substantially modular development of the project. Construction activities were assumed to occur for a duration of three months.

Additional information is included in Appendix B.

b. BAAQMD's construction-related significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 apply to exhaust emissions only and not to fugitive dust.

Recommended Mitigation Measures:

Although the project would not generate emissions during construction that would exceed the

BAAQMD thresholds, the BAAQMD recommends that projects implement a set of Basic

Construction Mitigation Measures (BAAQMD, 2011) as best management practices (BMPs)

regardless of the significance determination. Implementation Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would

reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

AIR-1: During active construction, the applicant shall require construction contractors to implement

all the BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed below:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved

access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more often if needed to control fugitive dust.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power

vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are

used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the

maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure

Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided

for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with

manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and

determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the applicant's telephone number and person to contact regarding

dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air

District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

63

Operations

The proposed project would generate pollutant emissions from operations through the following sources:

on-road mobile, a front end loader, an internal combustion energy associated with the anaerobic digestion

process, energy generation, and the lean gas flare. These sources are described in more detail below.

For on-road mobile sources, the project would not result in any additional truck travel as yard waste

trucks are already servicing bins that will later be converted for food and yard waste co-collection. For

off-road equipment, the front end loader is assumed to be 125 horsepower and would operate 3.5 hours

per day, 5 days per week. The lean gas flare is only operated for 3 to 4 hours per digester termination

which occur every 2.5 to 3 days. Emission factors for these sources were incorporated (Edgar and

Associates, 2012a) and stationary source emissions specifications (Edgar and Associates, 2012b Volatile

organic compounds (VOCs, also called reactive organic gases [ROG]) from composting of the digestate

were determined using the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) emission factors

for windrows6 (SCAQMD, 2011), with a 90% reduction applied due to pile enclosure and pumping the

off-gas to the biofilter. Operational emissions were estimated and are depicted below in Table 2. As

shown in Table 2, long-term operational emissions of the project would be less than significant.

TABLE 2

PEAK DAY OPERATION-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (Pounds/Day)a

Sources ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

On-road Mobile (CNG Trucks + Employees) 0 0 0.4 0.1 0.1

Off-road Equipment (Front End Loader) 0.2 1.9 1.2 0.1 0.1

Microturbine 0.2 0.8 0.7 0 0

Composting 6.3 0 0 0 0

Lean Gas Flare 0 0.8 1.2 0 0

Total Pollutants 7 4 4 0 0

BAAQMD Operational Threshold 54 54 None 82 54

Significant Impact? No No No No No

a Assumptions and specific emission factors are from the South San Francisco AD Facility prepared by ESA Associates

(Sources: 1, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase any criteria pollutant for which the

project region is non – attainment under an

applicable federal or state ambient air

quality standard (including releasing

emissions which exceed quantitative

thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Discussion:

See discussion of item (b) above. Less-than-significant impacts would result.

6 South Coast Air Quality Management, Rule 1133.3, Emission Reduction from Green Waste Composting

Operations, July 8, 2011.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

64

(Sources: 1, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

Discussion:

See discussion of item (a) and item (b) above. There are no sensitive receptors within 1 mile of the

facility.

No impacts would result.

(Sources: 1, 6, 7)

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people?

Discussion:

Setting and Impact:

See discussion of item (a) and (b) above. There are no sensitive receptors within 1 mile of the facility.

Further, MSS is a facility regulated by CalRecycle (e.g. landfill, composting, etc.) and required to have

Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) in place and have procedures that establish fence line odor

detection thresholds. No impacts would result. A copy of the OIMP is provided in Attachment A.

The OIMP includes two major components, a Complaint Response Protocol and an Odor Complaint

Reporting Format. The Odor Complaint Response Protocol describes the procedures to follow upon

receiving a complaint. The protocol includes measures to identify the odor and requires appropriate

adjustments to storage, process control, and facility improvements to reduce odors. Implementation of

Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would apply odor control measures to the project, which would reduce

impacts to a less-than-significant level.


AIR-2: The applicant shall develop and comply with an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP)

pursuant to the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3.1,

Article 3, Section 17863.4. Once complete, the OIMP shall be submitted to the Local Enforcement

Agency (LEA) for a 30-day period for review and comment. (Performance-based mitigation measure)

(Sources: 1, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20)

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either

directly or through habitat modifications, on

any species identified as a candidate,

sensitive, or special status species in local or

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

65

regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by

the California Department of Fish and Game

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Discussion:


A biological resource assessment and “protocol-level” focused rare plant survey was prepared by WRA,

Inc., in May 2010, focusing on the eastern portion of Area D and Area E. The study area for the biological

resource assessment excluded Area A, B, C and most of Area D, due to their urbanized/developed

condition which made these areas unsuitable to support special status wildlife species and/or sensitive

plant habitats.

The study confirmed the presence of two (2) sensitive plant communities: coast live oak woodland and

purple needlegrass grassland. Coast live oak woodland is the dominant plant community with the Study

Area, though additional species present included California bay, valley oak and California Buckeye trees

and an understory predominantly consisting of poison oak and French broom. Purple needlegrass

(Nassella pulchra) was designated the official state grass of California in 2004. This sensitive community

was documented towards the top of the ridge, in patches interspersed with non-native grassland and often

surrounded by invasive species. While no special status plant species were observed within the Study

Area during the assessment site visits, the Study Area has the potential to support ten (10) special status

plant species, nine (9) of these special status plant species have a ‘high’ (1) or ‘moderate’(8) potential to

occur within the Study Area. One of these special status plant species most likely (‘moderate’ potential)

to occur within the Study Area is the White-rayed Pentachaeta, which is an annual herb in the sunflower

family that blooms March through May. The San Rafael General Plan 2020 identifies the Study Area as

providing a suitable habitat suitable for the White-rayed Pentachaeta. The biological resource assessment

found that, although its historic range was from Marin to San Mateo Counties, the White-rayed

Pentachaeta has been locally extinct in Marin County since the 1980s. The only two remaining

populations of the White-rayed Pentachaeta currently known are located in San Mateo County.

While no special status wildlife species were observed within the study area during the assessment site

visits, four (4) special status wildlife species have a ‘moderate’ potential to occur within the Study Area

(no special status wildlife species have a ‘high’ potential to occur within the Study Area). Two (2) of the

potential special status wildlife species are bats (the Long-eared Myotis and the Pallid Bat) in which the

Study Area provides suitable roost habitat. The other two (2) potential special status wildlife species are

migratory birds (the White-tailed Kite and the Loggerhead Shrike) in which the Study Area provide a

suitable breeding habitat.

Though the biological resource assessment determined the grassland and woodland habitat within the

Study Area provides a low-quality habitat to support the four (4) special status wildlife species,

compliance with recommended Mitigation Measures Biological Resource-1 through Biological Resource-

4 would reduce the potential threat to roosting bats or breeding birds to a less-than-significant level.


BR-1: Any tree removal or trimming work shall be restricted to take place between September 1st and

October 31st, which falls outside the breeding bird window and avoids both the maternity and hibernation

period for bats. Tree removal can take place during this period without a breeding bird or bat roost survey.

This does not include removing fallen trees, which can be removed at any time.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

66

BR-2: If brush clearing or ground disturbance is required within the Study Area, these activities shall be

conducted outside of the breeding bird season which begins February 1st and lasts through August

31st.The exception is for clearing weedy brush, such as French broom, that overhangs existing fire roads.

Brush may be removed to the outer extent of the road at any time of the year without pre-construction

surveys, if the road is regularly disturbed by active traffic. Removal of brush outside the outer edge of the

road or on roads not regularly disturbed by active traffic should have pre-construction surveys.

BR-3: In the event that initial ground disturbance, vegetation removal or construction cannot be

scheduled outside the breeding bird season (February through August), a wildlife biologist shall conduct a

breeding bird survey at least fourteen (14) days prior to the onset of the activity to determine if nesting

birds are present. In the event that nesting birds are identified to be present, further mitigation may be

required as recommended by the biologist, including establishing buffers no less than fifty (50) feet from

active nest until young birds have fledged the nest. Larger buffers may be required for nesting birds of

prey or special status species. The consulting biologist will provide a specific buffer based on agency

guidelines, which species has been identified as nesting within the area and the presence of natural visual

and auditory buffers (such as large stands of trees or hillsides).

BR-4: If ground disturbance or tree removal occur during the bat roosting season (November 1st through

August 31st), potential bat roosts shall be inspected for the presence of bats prior to the start of work.

Potential bat roosts include cavities in trees, exfoliating bark, snags, and cracks in large rocks. If a

maternity roost is detected, up to a two-hundred (200) foot buffer shall be placed around the maternity

site, and once the roost is clear for removal, a replacement structure such as a ‘bat box’ should be created

within the vicinity, as recommended by the wildlife biologist. In the event that bats are detected using a

non-maternity roost site, one possible mitigation measure would be the placement of exclusion devices to

potential entrance and exit hole after dusk once the bats have left the roost to forage.

(Sources: 6, 13)

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community identified in local or regional

plans, policies, regulations or by the

California Department of Fish and Game or

US Fish and Wildlife Service?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a) above. The biological resource assessment evaluated the Study Area for the

presence of sensitive biological communities, including riparian areas. It identified two (2) sensitive

biological communities within the Study Area: coast live oak woodland and purple needlegrass grassland.

It also determined that these sensitive plant communities were poorly developed and interspersed by

invasive, non-native, plant species, and particularly French broom. The Study Area was also surveyed to

determine if any wetlands or waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the U.S. Army Corp of

Engineers (Corps), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG) were present. An intermittent, isolated drainage is located between two sections

of paved fire road at the 125-170’ elevation on Area E, above Area B. It is less than 100’ in length and

flows onto the lower section of paved fire road. The project does not propose any improvements in Area

E, and limited site work in Area D, due to minor trenching required for installation of a new “fire flow”

waterline extension from Andersen Drive. These proposed site improvements do not include removing or

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

67

modifying the existing improved (concrete) network of fire roads, organized tree removal or grading, or

altering or interrupting the existing hydrological drainage pattern on Area E. Based on the limited site

improvements proposed, staff concluded that a wetlands delineation report suitable for submission to the

Corps was unwarranted. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6, 13)

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on

federally protected wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal

pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,

filling, hydrological interruption, or other

means?

Discussion:

Refer to discussions (a) and (b) above. Potential impacts from the project would be less-than-significant.

(Sources: 6, 13)

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of

any native resident or migratory fish or

wildlife species or with established native

resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or

impede the use of native wildlife nursery

sites?

Discussion:

Refer to discussions (a) and (b) above. No special status wildlife species were observed within the Study

Area during the biological resource assessment site visits. The project would not result in any new fences

or barriers that would impede movement of wildlife, and the site is not an existing or proposed wildlife

nursery site. Thus, the project would have a no impact as it would not result in any change to existing

migration corridors nor establish any new barriers.

(Sources: 1, 6, 13)

e. Conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources,

such as a tree preservation policy or

ordinance?

Discussion:

The City of San Rafael currently has not adopted a tree preservation ordinance. However, guidelines for

development and tree removal in hillsides require “significant” trees to be replaced on a 3:1 ratio. The

hillside guidelines define a “significant” tree as any tree species in good condition greater than 12” in

diameter or any oak tree greater than 6” in diameter as measure 4.5’ above the root crown. The project

proposes limited trenching for installation of new fire line site improvements that would impact the study

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

68

area, installation of new landscape areas adjacent to the open space Area E, construction of bioswales

adjacent to the relocated container storage facility and above the existing bulkhead/gabion wall, and

installation of a new stormdrain inlet. The proposed new landscape areas include a mixture of

replacement trees and shrubs that would be compatible with native vegetation. The City’s hillside

guidelines require that new replacement trees and shrubs be consistent with the surrounding native

vegetation (predominantly Coast live oak trees with California bay, valley oak or California buckeye).

Implementation of the landscape plan would be required as a condition of approval. With project

conditions of approval, the impacts would be less-than-significant.

(Sources: 2, 4, 6)

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural

Community Conservation Plan, or other

approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan?

Discussion:

The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural

Community Conservation Plan or any other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.

No such conservation plans have been adopted encompassing the MSS site. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as

defined in §15064.5?

Discussion:

As per Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, a ‘historical resources’ is listed in, or

eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places or the Californian Register of Historic

Resources or listed in a local register of historical resources or is determined by the lead agency when

supported by substantial evidence, such as a cultural resource evaluation by a qualified or registered

architectural historian. No ‘historic resource’ currently exists within the MSS site. The San Rafael

Historical/Architectural Survey lists, as a locally-protected cultural resource, a single-family residence

(the ‘Bartel House’) located at 524 Jacoby Street, on what is now Area E, within the MSS site. This

‘listed’ historic resource was demolished sometime after 1977. Its remaining foundation has been

incorporated into a metal equipment storage shed. No significant portion of the former Bartel House

remains; no significant portion of the “listed” historic resource remains. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 12)

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

69

pursuant to §15064.5?

Discussion:


On October 1, 2001, the San Rafael City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1772 and Resolution No. 10933,

which established procedures to identify, protect and preserve archaeological resources, and codified

these in Chapter 2.19 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The Archaeological Resource Protection

Ordinance included the preparation of an Archaeological Sensitivity Map by a qualified archaeologist.

This map identified geographic areas of archaeological sensitivity and assigned an archaeological

sensitivity rating of ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ based on a site’s proximity to: 1) known and/or recorded

sites containing archaeological resources; and 2) sites and/or geographic areas where studies or individual

archaeological site assessments have been completed. This map was subsequently used by staff to create a

citywide database (‘PastFinder’) in which to generate parcel-specific archaeological sensitivity reports for

development proposals that involve excavation or grading. For development proposals that involve

excavation or grading and are located in areas of ‘high’ or ‘medium’ sensitivity, staff shall require a

detailed archaeological resources assessment if the site contains or located in the immediate vicinity of a

recorded archaeological resource.

According to both the City’s adopted Archaeological Sensitivity Map and PastFinder, the level of

archaeological sensitivity on the MSS site is ‘high’. Seven previous archaeological evaluations have been

recorded, covering approximately 30% of the MSS site. Two prehistoric archaeological sites have been

identified; one is a ‘habitation site’ and the other is a ‘quarry site’. Archaeological Resource Service

(ARS) prepared a cultural resource evaluation for the site on April 5, 2010. The cultural resource study

determined that the level portions of the MSS site (primarily areas A through D) were either covered with

existing buildings or pavement, or graded significantly, which precluded an effective examination. This

limited the cultural resource study to an evaluation of the undeveloped or undisturbed area on the MSS

site, which is predominantly Area E, the forested opens space hillside, and the narrow strip (70-90’-wide)

of land along the eastern boundary of Area D. The study identified two previously recorded cultural

resources (CA-Mrn-80 and CA-Mrn-525) and reported two additional, newly-observed cultural resources

(ARS 10-005-01 and ARS 10-005-02) and an isolated artifact find (a single Franciscan chert core tool), as

follows:

CA-Mrn-80, the habitation site’, is located generally above or southeast of the existing container

storage facility on Area B. The cultural resource study concluded that CA-Mrn-80 has been

severely damaged (i.e., at least 85-90% of the original deposit) by original excavation for the

adjacent Cal Park Hill Tunnel, originally a Northwestern Pacific Railroad tunnel, and grading, fill

soil and paving of the fire road network.

CA-Mrn-525, the ‘quarry site’, is located generally along the ridgeline, above or southeast of

Area D. The cultural resource study concluded that CA-Mrn-525 has fared better, though recent

grading, fill soil and paving of the fire road network has resulted in significant damage.

ARS 10-005-01 is a chert workshop, a 260’ long x 140’ wide area, located 230’ northeast of CA-

Mrn-525. It is a logical extension of CA-Mrn-525 but lacks evidence of quarrying and is

separated from CA-Mrn-525 by the improved fire road network and steep slope. It is generally

undamaged and will be recorded as a separate archaeological site due to it’s physically distinction

from CA-Mrn-525.

ARS 10-005-02 is a remnant of a prehistoric shellmound, located between the northwest parcel

boundary and a row of storage containers, above the railroad tunnel. It is located on the western

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

70

side of a naturally eroding drainage channel. Like CA-Mrn-80 , the cultural resource study

concluded that the vast majority (i.e., at least 85-90% of the original deposit) of ARS 10-005-02

has been removed by original excavation for the adjacent Cal Park Hill Tunnel. It is a logical

extension of CA-Mrn-80 but will be recorded as a separate archaeological site due to a lack of

evidence along the eastern side of the drainage channel and is separated from CA-Mrn-80 by the

improved fire road network.

The chert tool was found along the ridgeline and the cultural resource study concluded it to be an

isolated find, originally dropped or lost along a trail or path system that followed the San Quentin

or Bartel Ridge.

These resources are shown in Figure 19 of the ARS report, which is included herein:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

71

While no site improvements, including grading or excavation, are proposed within Area E, the project’s

proposed minor trenching operations may disturb unknown cultural resources. Based on the cultural

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

72

resource evaluation for the project, it is recommended that standard mitigation measures should be

incorporated. Compliance with recommended Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources-1, -2, -3 and -4

would ensure that disturbance of recorded or unknown cultural resources during project’s excavation,

grading and construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.


The following measures shall apply to work in the vicinity of cultural resources, as shown on Figure 19 of

the cultural resources report, Source Reference 13 (e.g., generally in the open space lands Area E):

CR-1: To mitigate potential damage to any recorded cultural resource during grading, excavation or soil

disturbance activities in the vicinity of any recorded cultural resource, including activities to remove

concrete improvements to the existing fire road network, archaeological investigation should be

undertaken to determine the exact boundary of the remaining deposit, the condition of the remaining

deposit and the potential for significance of the archaeological site. A Native American monitor should

also be present. The procedures to follow for archaeological and Native American monitoring of a

cultural resource site are presented in Cultural Resources mitigation measures CR-2 and CR-3.


disturbance activities in the vicinity of any recorded cultural resource, archaeological monitoring shall

occur, based on the following procedures:

Monitoring will consist of directly watching the major excavation process. Monitoring will occur

during the entire work day and will continue on a daily basis unit the depth of excavation has

been reached at which the cultural resource no longer is present. This depth is estimated as

usually five feet (5’) below existing grade but may require modification as determined by the

monitoring archaeologist and the observed soil conditions.

Spot checks will consist of partial monitoring the progress of excavation over the course of the

project. Monitoring all spoils materials, open excavation, recently grubbed areas, and other soil

disturbances will be inspected. The frequency and duration of spot checks will be based on the

relative sensitivity of the exposed soils and active work areas. The monitoring archaeologist shall

determine the relative sensitivity of the cultural resource site.

If prehistoric human interments (human burials) are encountered within the native soils of the

cultural resource site, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find. The County

Coroner, project superintendent, and the project planner (or a representative of the Lead Agency,

the City of San Rafael Community Development Department, Planning Division) shall be

contacted immediately. The procedures to be followed at this point are prescribed by law.

If significant cultural deposits other than human burials are encountered, the project shall be

modified to allow the artifacts or features to be left in place, or the archaeological consultant shall

undertake the recovery of the deposit or feature. Significant cultural deposits are defined as

archaeological artifacts or features that associate with the prehistoric period, the historic era

Mission and Pueblo Periods and the American era up to 1900.

Whenever the monitoring archaeologist determines that potentially significant remains or human

burials have been encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the suspected deposit will

be stopped, and the excavation inspected by the monitoring archaeologist. If the suspected

remains prove to be non-significant or non-cultural in origin, work shall recommence

immediately. If the suspected remains prove to be part of a significant deposit, all work shall be

halted in that location until removal has been completed. If human remains are found, the County

Coroner (or designated representative) shall be contacted to evaluate the discovered remains and

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

73

implement proper contacts with pertinent Native American representatives through the Native

American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Equipment stoppages shall only involve those pieces of equipment that have actually encountered

significant or potentially significant deposits, and should not be construed to mean a stoppage of

all equipment on the site unless the cultural resource deposit covers the entire site.

During temporary equipment stoppages brought about to examine suspected remains, the

monitoring archaeologist shall accomplish the necessary tasks in due speed.


disturbance activities in the vicinity of any recorded cultural resource, Native American monitoring shall

occur whenever archaeological monitoring is required or whenever prehistoric Native American cultural

deposits are encountered or discovered. As recommended by the Native American Heritage Commission

(NAHC), the Native American monitoring consultant shall have the following knowledge and abilities:

Knowledge of local historic and prehistoric Native American village sites, culture, religion,

ceremony and burial practices.

Knowledge and understanding of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 et al.

Ability to effectively communicate the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and

Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 et al. to Marin Sanitary Services (MSS) representatives,

including property owners, site managers, contractors and subcontractors, Native Americans, City

of San Rafael Planning staff, and archaeological monitoring representatives.

Ability to work well with local law enforcement officials and the NAHC to ensure the return of

all associated grave goods taken from a Native American grave during grading, excavation or soil

disturbance activities.

Ability to travel to known cultural resource sites within the traditional tribal territory.

Knowledge and understanding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,

Section 15064.5 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as

amended.

Ability to advocate for the preservation in place of Native American cultural features through

knowledge and understanding of CEQA mitigation measures, as stated in CEQA Guidelines

Section 15126.4(b)(A)(B), and through knowledge and understanding of Section 106 of the

NHPA.

Ability to read topographic maps and be able to locate known cultural resource sites and reburial

locations for future inclusion in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory.

Knowledge and understanding of archaeological practices, including the phases of archaeological

investigation.

The Native American monitoring consultant is required to:

Ensure the presence of a Native American monitor during all earth disturbing activities in the

vicinity of any recorded cultural resource or whenever prehistoric Native American cultural

deposits are encountered or discovered.

Communicate orally and in writing with the archaeological monitoring consultant, City of San

Rafael Planning staff, representatives for MSS representatives, including property owners, site

managers, contractors and subcontractors, and any Native American organizations. The Native

American monitoring consultant will be responsible for communicating any observations or

recommendations to any Native American organizations, neighborhood groups, or individuals

that have contacted the City of San Rafael to request listing. The contact list will be supplied to

the Native American monitor.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

74

Maintain a daily log of activities and file a report with the MSS representatives on each day that a

Native American monitor is present.

Prepare progress reports on any ‘findings’ and summarize the observations and recommendations

made in the daily reports (i.e., human remains, associated grave goods, non-human bone

fragments, beads, arrow points, and other artifacts). The progress reports will be submitted

monthly or at the completion of all approved earth disturbing activities.

Prepare a final written report at the completion of all approved earth disturbing activities,

summarizing the observations and recommendations of the daily and monthly reports and making

recommendations for future activities and procedures on the MSS site, as appropriate. The final

report should describe the monitoring process, the discovery any Native American human

remains and associated grave goods, and their final disposition. This report shall contain, at a

minimum, the following information for each discovery of human remains and associated grave

goods:

o Date of each find

o Description of remains and associated grave goods

o Date of reburial, and the geographical located of reburial, including traditional site name if

known

The final report shall include a discussion of mitigation measures taken to preserve or protect

Native American cultural features and shall be submitted to the archaeological monitoring

consultant, MSS representatives, the City of San Rafael Planning staff, and the NAHC at the

completion of all approved earth disturbing activities. Information from the report may be

included in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory.

Demonstrate the ability to identify archaeological deposits and potential areas of impact.

Work with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) if human remains are encountered. A MLD will

be chosen by the NAHC if human remains are encountered. There is no guarantee that the Native

American monitoring consultant will be named as the MLD. The chosen Native American

monitoring consultant must be able to communicate with the MLD effectively, and to aid in

carrying out any procedures or tasks undertaken or recommended by the MLD.

CR-4: In the absence of specific recommendations made by the archaeological monitoring consultant, the

following general procedures shall be implemented during the finding of an artifact (i.e., any item or

object over fifty years of age):

All contractors and subcontractors shall be required to inform all of their employees that no

artifacts are to be removed from the area of the ‘find’ except through authorized procedures.

Any artifacts found at or near a recorded cultural resource are to be turned over to, or brought to

the immediate attention of, the archaeological monitoring consultant. In the absence of the

archaeological monitoring consultant, the artifact shall be delivered to the Native American

monitoring consultant, MSS representatives (i.e., property owners, site managers, contractor and

subcontractor supervisors) or the City of San Rafael Planning staff.

Whenever any artifact is found or reported, a tag should be included that indicates the following

information:

o The identity of the finder and the date of discovery

o The identify of the responsible individual to who the artifact is given

o A description of the location where the artifact was found, the approximate distance and

direction to the nearest measuring point, identification point on the project plans, or other

reliable, accurate method of locating.

o A description of the artifact that will allow it to be identified if the tag and the artifact are

separated.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

75

The artifact, if portable, should be transported to a safe location where it can be kept until it can

be inspected by the archaeological monitoring consultant.

The following standard CEQA mitigation measure shall apply to trenching and site work located on the

developed portions of the site (e.g., generally the undeveloped strip of Area D):

CR-5: In the event of the accidental discovery of historical or unique archaeological resources

accidentally discovered during construction or recognition of any human remains in any location other

than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby

area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

3. In the event of accidental discovery of potential resources an immediate evaluation of the find shall

be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique

archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for

implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work could

continue on other parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resource

mitigation takes place.

4. In the event of discovery of human remains, the coroner of the county in which the remains are

discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If

the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

a. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

b. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to

be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

c. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person

responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate

dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources

Code Section 5097.98, or

d. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall

rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate

dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

i. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely

descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24

hours after being notified by the commission.

ii. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or

iii. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the

descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to

provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

(Sources: 6, 12)

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique

geologic feature?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (b) above. No known paleontological or fossilized resources have been identified

within the MSS site. A large portion of the MSS site, Area E, is essentially a ‘geologic feature’; it is a

natural landform created by the geologic process or ‘plate tectonics”. The project proposes minor

trenching within the undeveloped, eastern portion Area D for the purpose of installing a new, 8”-wide and

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

76

1,125’-long, “fire flow” waterline from Andersen Drive, which is located at the base on this natural

geologic feature. The proposed trenching is relatively minor and limited to the base of the forested

hillside on the MSS site and will not significantly damage this ‘geologic feature’. No further study is

necessary.

(Sources: 6, 12)

d. Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (b) above. The cultural resource evaluation for the project identified that in October or

November of 1955, an adult female human skeleton was found at recorded cultural resources site CA-

Mrn-80. The burial was found at the base of a ‘midden’ mound that had been badly damaged by heavy

‘land leveling’ equipment.

There are no formal cemeteries or known interred human remains within the MSS site. It is unlikely that

unknown human remains exist within the MSS site due to the steep (approximate 39% average cross

slope) hillside topography. Still, compliance with recommended Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures

CR-1 through CR-4 would ensure that any disturbance of unknown human remains is properly processed

and the appropriate interested parties notified.


Implement Cultural Resources Mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-5

(Sources: 6, 12)

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk

of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,

as delineated on the most recent

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zoning Map issued by the State

Geologist for the area or based on

other substantial evidence of a known

fault? Refer to Division of Mines and

Geology Special Publication 42.

Discussion:

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act (was passed into law following the destructive

February 9, 1971, 6.6-magnitude, San Fernando earthquake) ensures public safety throughout the State of

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

77

California by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults

that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. However, no Alquist-

Priolo Special Studies Zones are located within the City of San Rafael. The nearest known active

earthquake faults to the MSS site are the North Golden Gate Segment of the San Andreas Fault System

and the North Hayward Segment of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault System, both ‘active’ faults

located approximately 10 miles to the east and west of the site, respectively. The probability of a

magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring on the North Coast San Andreas Fault or North Hayward

Fault, between 2000 and 2030, is 12% and 16%, respectively. In the event of a major earthquake in the

Bay Area, the site may be susceptible to seismic shaking and related ground failure. However, the threat

of surface rupture is remote since no known active earthquake faults cross the site. No further study is

necessary.

(Sources: 1)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Discussion:

The range of ground shaking depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the

earthquake epicenter, the rock and soil conditions at the site, and variations in the propagation of seismic

waves from the earthquake due to complexities in the structure of the Earth's crust. As is the case with the

surrounding region, the MSS site is potentially susceptible to strong seismic ground shaking given its

proximity to the Hayward and San Andreas Faults. The project proposes limited site improvements that

include, primarily relocating container storage units. Both the existing and relocated container storage

facilities would comply with current California Building Code requirements established for seismic

safety. Thus, no unique or unusual impacts have been identified with the project. Impacts would be a less-

than-significant.

(Sources: 1)

iii) Seismic related ground failure,

including liquefaction?

Discussion:

Ground failure, including liquefaction, generally occurs when loose, saturated granular soil experiences a

sudden loss of shear strength during seismic shaking. Space between individual soil particles is filled with

water, which exerts pressure and influences how tightly these particles are pressed together. Prior to an

earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, seismic shaking can cause the water pressure to

increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. Ground failure

generally occurs along the tops of slopes, where ‘stiff’ soils are underlain by soft deposits. The low lying

portions of the site near Andersen Drive were historically tidally influenced lands.

The MSS site is currently comprised of five (5) adjoining parcels (A through E). The subject parcels,

identified as land use Areas A through D are relatively level, consisting of developed MSS operations

areas. The undeveloped open space Area E will remain densely forested, private open space hillside.

During multiple visual inspections in and around the MSS site, staff found no evidence indicating ground

failure. Since the project proposes limited site improvements (i.e., minor trenching and container storage

facilities relocation) subsurface geotechnical investigation has not been deemed required. Further, new

construction and the existing gabion wall are required to be designed to comply with the seismic safety

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

78

zone and soils characteristics of the site which would serve to ensure any potential risks are addressed.

This, liquefaction susceptibility associated with the proposed project is considered to be very low. This

would be a less-than-significant impact.

(Sources: 1)

iv) Landslides?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a.iii.) above. The geology of the MSS site is primarily Franciscan Complex Mélange

(fsr). Franciscan Complex Mélange is a 145-million year old, assemblage of pillow basalt, sedimentary

rocks such as shale, chert and greywacke sandstone, and assorted metamorphic rocks, created by the

tectonic seduction (i.e., plates moving at a average rate of 5 centimeters per year) of the oceanic Pacific

Plate with the continental North American Plate. Franciscan Complex Mélange is essentially ‘bedrock’; it

comprises the bulk of the California Coast Ranges which surround the MSS site.

Landslides are the sudden or unexpected geomorphic movement of rock, soil or a combination of the two.

The relative likelihood of land sliding is a product of essentially rock strength and steepness of slopes.

The project proposes limited site improvements (i.e., minor trenching for a new underground waterline

and container storage facilities relocation), restricted primarily to Areas A through D, the non-hillside

parcels on the MSS site. No fill from this waterline trenching is proposed to be deposited on the hillside

slopes of Area E, the forested, private open space area. No physical evidence of ground failure, including

past landslides, was observed during site inspections of the project area by planning staff. This inherently

high rock strength of the Franciscan Complex Mélange on the MSS site, together with the lack of

proposed site grading (excavation or fill) on steep slopes, present a very low landslide susceptibility for

the project.

(Sources: 1)

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss

of topsoil?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a.iv.) above. The project proposes limited site trenching on Area D for the

installation of a new “fire flow” waterline extension. Compliance with standard grading permit

requirements would ensure that an Erosion Control Plan and/or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is

required to be installed prior to issuance of a grading permit and maintained during trenching and

installation of the new waterline extension to reduce soil erosion resulting from temporary construction

activities to less-than-significant levels.

(Sources: 2, 6, 10)

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable, or that would become unstable as a

result of the project, and potentially result in

on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

79

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a.iii. and a.iv) above.

(Sources: 1)

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in

Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code

(1994), creating substantial risks to life or

property?

Discussion:

‘Expansive soils’ are fine-grained alluvial soils containing primarily clay. Clay materials can undergo

relatively large volume changes in response to fluctuations in water content of near-surface soils due

primarily to seasonal rainfall. As the water content increases, the soils will expand; conversely, when the

water content decreases, the soils will generally contract or shrink. Soils underlain with fifty percent

(50%) or greater abundant clays are known to have a significant expansive or swelling potential. The

geology of the MSS site is primarily Franciscan Complex Mélange (fsr), which is generally anticipated to

possess relatively low clay content and a correspondingly low soil expansion potential.

The project proposes limited site improvements (i.e., minor trenching for a new underground waterline

and container storage facilities relocation), which may be impacted by isolated unknown areas of

expansive soils. The effects of expansive soils could cause damage to the concrete foundations of the

container storage facilities or to the integrity of the waterline delivery system, depending on the level of

pressure created by soil expansion and contraction and surface water infiltration, including cracking,

settlement and uplift. Since the proposed site improvements will be designed and constructed in

compliance with the Californian Building Code standards, this would be a less-than-significant impact.

(Sources: 1, 6)

e. Have soils incapable of adequately

supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative wastewater disposal systems

where sewers are not available for the

disposal of wastewater?

Discussion:

The proposed site improvements do not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

No further study is necessary

(Sources: 6)

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS

Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

80

directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment?

Discussion:

In 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32; the California Global Warming Solutions Act) established state

legislation requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

On December 12, 2008, the California Air Resources Board adopted an AB32 Scoping Plan, requiring

cities to achieve a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. On April 20, 2009, the

San Rafael City Council adopted by Resolution (No. 12725) the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan

(CCAP) to reduce the carbon footprint of City operations and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of San

Rafael households and businesses. The CCAP contained a proposed greenhouse gas reduction goal of

25% by the year 2020 and 80% by 2050 using 48 proposed programs. The CCAP, using data analysis

performed and provided by ICLEI (International Association of Local Governmental Initiatives) – Local

Governments for Sustainability, revealed that 61% of San Rafael’s greenhouse gas emissions is due to the

burning of fossil fuels in transportation and 34% is consumed in residential and commercial buildings

from utility needs.

On July 18, 2011, the City Council adopted the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy as

Appendix E of the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan (P11-009). Concurrently, GPA11-001 was

adopted to include the General Plan 2020 Sustainability Element policies. These amendments were

adopted in response to SB97 and changes by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

in 2010 to update its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for the Bay Area; requiring that projects address new

state climate change and GHG reduction requirements (consistent with AB32 goals). The GHG Emissions

Reduction Strategy plan provides an opportunity to revisit and recalculate the numerous programs

contained in the City’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP); previously adopted in April, 2009. A GHG

Reduction Strategy Checklist was also developed that identifies required elements that projects must

satisfy in order be compliant with the CCAP. This document is expected to be updated frequently as

programs are completed, others added and emission data is refined.

As an alternative to conducting a project-by-project GHG analysis, the BAAQMD Guidelines allow the

preparation and adoption of a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan to examine emissions and reduction

strategies at a community-wide level. This is encouraged by BAAQMD as a more proactive means of

achieving desired air quality changes. The amended CCAP GHG Reduction Strategy plan was reviewed

by BAAQMD, and meets its requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. The City

meets the BAAQMD requirement, as a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, because it includes

the following elements:

an emission inventory and projections required by SB375,

target reductions,

application of GHG reduction measures,

a checklist to require implementation of measures in a project,

monitoring and updating the GHG inventory and reduction measures every 3-5 years before 2020,

requires the annual reporting on progress of implementation of CCAP / GHG Reduction Plan

programs, and

regular monitoring of community-wide GHG levels to assure that Plan objectives are being met.

Amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code have also been made, and are currently being pursued, to

provide legislative standards that implement the Sustainability Element and the CCAP (this has included

updates to adopt City water-efficient landscaping standards, parking paving, design and landscape

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

81

requirements, a ban on foam containers and plastic bags, among others). Compliance with the CCAP

assures that the Sustainability Element policies would be addressed, and that a development project would

satisfy regional air quality and GHG reduction requirements enforced by the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District (BAAQMD).

Compliance with the GHG Reduction Strategy Checklist ensures compliance with the General Plan

Sustainability Element and the CCAP and ordinances adopted to implement these policies. Site

development would satisfy applicable policies based on compliance with new City standards adopted for

purpose of implementing these CCAP and General Plan 2020 Sustainability policies. Responses to the

City of San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies checklist typically documents compliance with

the Sustainability Element and related 2009 City Climate Change Action Plan, as amended in 2011. In

this case, the project would reduce existing storage uses, but does anticipate new equipment to enhance

reduction and reuse operations (as noted in the discussion under Air Quality Section III.b above, an

anaerobic digestion facility and a biomass conversion facility are anticipated).

MSS has committed to voluntarily estimate its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beginning with base year

2006 and continuing to this reporting year, Calendar Year (CY) 2013. MSS’s previous years (CY2006-

2013) have been successfully verified through The Climate Registry. The MSS Climate Action

Management Plan is attached. Understanding the greenhouse gas impacts from these activities, and how

those impacts are mitigated, will allow greenhouse gas emissions to be considered in a quantifiable manner

when implementing future programs and management strategies. A summary of MSS greenhouse gas

emissions from 2006 to 2013 are presented below.

CO2 (metric tons) Emission Summary- CY2006 - CY2013

2006

MTCO2

2007

MTCO2

2008

MTCO2

2009

MTCO2

2010

MTCO2

2011

MTCO2

2012

MTCO2

2013

MTCO2

Mobile

Emissions 4,134 4,320 4,316 4,204 4,187 4,323 4,540 4,514

Non-Mobile

Emissions 447 416 653 418 585 505 479 586

Total 4,581 4,736 4,969 4,622 4,771 4,828 5,019 5,100

Part of a company’s value chain is responsible management of materials and waste and are evaluated in this

section. This “Avoided Indirect Emissions” analysis provides a complete evaluation of how much greenhouse

gas (GHG) a company has prevented through the responsible management of its waste due to recycling and

composting. These calculations include considerations for the entire life cycle of discarded material, and

thereby provide a more complete analysis of these benefits. Although the GHG benefits of recycling,

composting, and repurposing waste are substantial, they are often not immediately visible and easily

quantifiable. The calculations included in this report make these benefits more tangible by offering an

accurate and salient estimation of the GHG benefits of recycling and composting. The table below

summarizes the emissions MSS was able to avoid through its composting and recycling programs from the

attached MSS Climate Action Management Plan. Avoided Emissions by Category-2013

End Use

Tons

Avoided Landfill

Emissions

Avoided Emissions

from End-Use

Total

Avoided

Emissions

Recycled 69,506.27 (8,840.19) (90,154.72) (98,994.92)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

82

Composted* 19,370.37 (3,890.74) (8,309.89) (12,200.63)

Biomass Conversion 35,894.47 (2,547.34) (7,537.84) (10,085.18)

Landfill Beneficial Reuse 55,505.47 2,245.98 NA 2,245.98

Landfill Waste 97,077.81 20,498.73 NA 20,498.73

Total 277,354.39 7,466.44 (106,002.45) (98,536.01)

Numbers in parentheses represent avoided emissions (MTCO2e).

Negative landfill emissions are avoided by not landfilling materials; the positive landfill emissions are actual emissions (MTCO2e)

generated by landfilling waste, alternative daily cover, and the residual fraction.

The AB 32 Scoping Plan First Update was adopted on May 15, 2014 by the California Air Resource Board and

includes the Net-Zero concept where the Waste Sector goal is to be Net Zero by 2030. Net-Zero has been defined

by the California Air Resource Board as when an organization’s avoided indirect emissions offset their

operational emissions. By reporting the progression of operational vs avoided emissions, it is possible to evaluate

the achievement of this goal now. To meet Net-Zero, one’s avoided GHG emissions must be greater or equal to

one’s operational GHG emissions. MSS has been tracking its avoided emissions annually since 2009, and has

fully offset its direct emissions, on average, 19 times - well below Net-Zero.

MSS has avoided 98,536 tons of GHGs in 2013 by recycling and composting, whole only generating 5,100 tons

of GHGs from its operational emissions.

Table 3: Operational vs. Avoided Emissions, MTCO2e

Emissions 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Operational 4,622 4,771 4,828 5,019 5,100

Avoided (97,312) (91,976) (97,334) (99,051) (98,536)

The anaerobic digestion facility will further avoid GHGs by over 2,000 MTCO2e and the biomass conversion

facility will further avoid GHGs by 1,826 MTCO2e.

Based on the discussion above and in the Air Quality Section III.b the project potential GHG impacts have been

determined to be less-than-significant.

(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 22)

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or

regulation for the purpose of reducing the

emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion:

See discussion (a) above. Less-than-significant impacts would result.

(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 22)

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

83

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or

the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous

materials?

Discussion:


MSS operates a comprehensive, multi-faceted, waste management facility on site under permit authority from

CalRecycle. On Area A, MSS operates the Marin Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHW) collecting

household hazardous, universal and electronic waste. Collected items include paints, oils, batteries, fertilizers,

pesticides, fluorescent light bulbs and painted or treated wood products. HHW operates under additional

permitting by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and regulated by the County of Marin

Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). MSS will continue to operate the HHW facility under the auspices of

the Marin County Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the City of San Rafael Fire Department. No changes in these

MSS operations are proposed.

Proposed site improvements are limited to installing new, ‘fire flow’ waterline extension from Andersen Drive

through Area D. During the construction of the site improvements and the continuing, ongoing maintenance of the

MSS site, a minor amount of hazardous materials (e.g., paints, solvents, oils, etc.) may be used but all contractors

are expected to abide by state and federal regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of such materials,

which would minimize exposure to, and limit transporting of, hazardous materials. This is an existing condition,

and project related impacts would be a less-than-significant.

The proposed project also involves the production of biogas generated through the anaerobic digestion

process. Biogas is composed primarily of methane but can also contain small quantities of carbon dioxide and

hydrogen sulfide. The City of South San Francisco adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH

#2012092007) for the Blue Line Biogenic CNG Facility project in December of 2012. The Initial

Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) evaluated the impacts of developing an Anaerobic Digestion

(AD) Facility of similar size and evaluated the storage of methane. The biogas would be captured and the low

quality lean gas (methane content below 20% and higher than 1%) would be destroyed in an enclosed lean gas

flare (LGF) generated during digester termination operations. Methane is not toxic, but handling methane can

be hazardous as it is ignitable and can be flammable. Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000 degrees

Fahrenheit (°F) and is flammable at concentrations between 5 percent and 15 percent in air. Unconfined

mixtures of methane in air are not explosive; however, a flammable concentration within an enclosed space in

the presence of an ignition source can explode. Methane is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses

rapidly in air. Unintentional releases of biogas from the facility could pose risks to human health and safety.

For example, biogas could be released from a leak or rupture at the digester facility. If the gas reaches a

combustible mixture and an ignition source is present, a fire and/or explosion could occur, resulting in possible

injuries and/or deaths.

Compliance with existing safety regulations and widely-accepted industry standards would minimize the hazard

to the public and the environment. With respect to the flaring of biogas and potential fire hazards associated with

the storage and transport of methane and small quantities of other materials used in operations, the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) has established standards for fire protection which would be applicable to the

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

84

construction of the AD facilities. These standards have been successfully implemented by numerous waste water

treatment facilities across the country. Construction and operation of the project would be required to comply with

the California fire code and local building codes (including requirements for the installation of fire suppression

systems). Standard safety measures for anaerobic treatment facility construction and operation that would

minimize the potential for risks from unintentional releases of biogas include leak detection systems, warning

signals, and safety flares to reduce excess gas capacity. If released to the environment, methane would be

dispersed rapidly in air, minimizing the hazards of exposure.


Although compliance with existing laws and regulations governing the transport, use, storage, handling and

disposal of hazardous materials would likely ensure less than significant impacts, a Fire Safety Plan would be

implemented per Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 due to the combustion potential of methane.

HAZ-1: Prior to project approval, the applicant shall prepare and implement a Fire Safety Plan that outlines

fire hazards, describes facility operations procedures to prevent ignition of fires, requires regular inspection

of fire suppression systems, and provides worker training in safety procedures as well as protocols for

responding to fire incidents. The Fire Safety Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the local fire

enforcement agency.

(Sources: 1, 6, 7)

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or

the environment through reasonably

foreseeable upset and accident conditions

involving the release of hazardous materials

into the environment?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a) above. The project does not create any new potential hazards. As discussed above, small

quantities of hazardous materials could be used in the construction and operation of the proposed project.

Compliance with environmental laws and regulations would reduce the potential for any release of those

materials to adversely affect onsite workers, the environment or the public. There are no schools located

within a quarter mile of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact related to potential

exposure of hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter

mile of a school.

The potential for accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during the operations and/or site

improvements to the MSS site would be a less-than-significant impact due to the regulatory oversight by multiple

state, regional and local permitting agencies. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 7)

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within one-quarter mile

of an existing or proposed school?

Discussion:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

85

Refer to discussion (a) and (d) above. The project does not result in any new hazardous emission sources. No

existing or proposed school, whether public or private, is located within one-quarter mile of the MSS site. The

closest operating public school is Bahia Vista Elementary School (125 Bahia Way), located approximately .8-mile

north of the MSS site. The closest operating private school is Trinity Preschool and Kindergarten (333 Woodland

Dr.), located approximately 1.3-mile northwest of the MSS site. No hazardous emissions would be associated

with the project and thus no impact would occur at either school. No further study necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 7)

d. Be located on a site which is included on a

list of hazardous materials sites compiled

pursuant to Government Code Section

65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a

significant hazard to the public or the

environment?

Discussion:

As noted above, the project does not result in any new activities or uses on the site, aside from legally permitted

storage use expansion in Areas B and D. No portion of the MSS site is included on the State Department of Toxic

Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (DTSC’s “Cortese List”) under Government

Code Section 65962.5. The closest active (active as of 12/6/2011) “Cortese List” site is the San Francisco Nike

Battery 93, an former Army anti-aircraft control guided missile launch and defense command facility located

within the Harry A. Barbier Memorial Park, approximately 5 miles north of the MSS site. The closest inactive

(deemed needing evaluation for potential PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyl – contaminants as of 3/15/1995)

“Cortese List” site is the PG&E Utility Corporation Yard, located at 1220 Andersen Drive, immediately north,

and adjacent to, Area D. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 7)

e. For a project located within an airport land

use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport

or public use airport, would the project

result in a safety hazard for people residing

or working in the project area?

Discussion:

The MSS site is not located within an adopted airport land use plan. The MSS site is also not located within two

miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport or public use airport is the 120-acre,

publicly-owned, Marin County Airport at Gnoss Field in Novato, which is located approximately 15 miles north

of the MSS site. No further study is necessary.

(Source: 1)

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

86

project area?

Discussion:

The MSS site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or privately-owned airport facility. The MSS site is

located approximately six miles south of the nearest small private airstrip; the 120-acre, San Rafael Airport site

located in North San Rafael. No further study is necessary.

(Source: 1)

g. Impair implementation of or physically

interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation

plan?

Discussion:

The project proposes to update the existing Master Use Permit at the MSS site to allow the continued waste

management and recycling operations in Areas A through D. The site is not within an emergency evacuation

route. City departments, including the Fire Department, have reviewed the project and determined adequate

emergency access to the MSS site currently exists and the proposed site improvements would have negligible or

no impact on providing continued emergency access, response or evacuation if needed. The MSS site is located

approximately 0.5-miles west of the San Rafael Corporation Yard, a ‘primary’ emergency shelter site for the City.

No further study is necessary

(Sources: 1)

h. Expose people or structures to a significant

risk of loss, injury or death involving

wildland fires, including where wildlands are

adjacent to urbanized areas or where

residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion:

As noted in the project description, no increase in existing MSS facility primary and ancillary uses are proposed.

The private open space Area E is located within the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface very high severity zone

(WUI) in which specific combustible vegetation management standards are required in order to create 100’

defensible space around structures. The project has resulted in removal of wood storage from the Area E, and

routine vegetation management of this area would be permitted to continue. The San Rafael Fire Department has

reviewed the project and determined that the site would comply with the City’s WUI Ordinance. Impacts would

be less-than-significant. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

87

discharge requirements?

Discussion:

The MSS site operates under compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) on file with

the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The natural drainage pattern for the MSS site traverses in a

southwest-northeast trending direction, from San Quentin Ridge, down Area E and through Areas B, C and D. A

system of private culverts and open channels drain surface water runoff into public storm drain catch basins

located north of Area B, within the Jacoby Street ROW, and north of Area A, within the Andersen Drive ROW.

The project proposes bioswale and minor drainage inlet improvements. Slope and erosion control measures have

been identified in project plans BH-1 and RV-1. Further, a grading permit shall be required by the Department of

Public Works (DPW) for site trenching work required to install new fire lines. DPW shall review and approve

erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention measures. This standard review and permit requirement

would ensure water quality runoff and erosion and sediment control impacts would be less-than-significant.

(Sources: 6, 9, 10)

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies

or interfere substantially with groundwater

recharge such that there would be a net

deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the

local groundwater table level (e.g., the

production rate of pre-existing nearby wells

would drop to a level which would not

support existing land uses or planned uses

for which permits have been granted)?

Discussion:

Refer to discussion (a) above. The project does not propose the drilling, construction, reconstruction, or

installation of water wells for the purpose of using, extracting or drawing water located underground. There are no

known existing private wells on or near the project area. The proposed site improvements are limited, primarily,

to at-grade construction activities with some minor below ground trenching for the installation of a new, “fire

flow” waterline extension, which would have the effect of increasing the amount of impervious surface area

slightly since the relocated container storage facility is required to be installed on an all-weather surface

(concrete) for access as part of their proposed ‘alternative means of fire protection’. A majority of the MSS site –

approximately 50 acres (nearly all of Area E) or approximately 61% of the 82.14-acre site – would continue to

remain in a natural state. It is not expected that the project’s proposed minor site improvements would

significantly impact or impede the flow or volume of existing groundwater levels. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage

pattern of the site or area, including through

the alteration of the course of a stream or

river, in a manner which would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-

site?

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

88

Discussion:

Refer to discussions (a) and (b) above. The proposed site improvements would not substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern or capacity on the MSS site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or

off-site. Existing private drainage culverts and channels would not be altered and current runoff flows and

capacities would continue to occur. Further, enhancement of existing site conditions is proposed with an new

drainage inlet at Jacoby Street and bioswales installed on the site, in compliance with City Public Works

Department requirements to improve stormwater water quality conditions. As conditioned, the project would

improve existing conditions and have no adverse environmental impacts. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6, 9, 10)

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage

pattern of the site or area, including through

the alteration of the course of a stream or

river, or substantially increase the rate or

amount of surface runoff in a manner which

would result in flooding on- or off- site?

Discussion:

Refer to discussions (a) and (b) above. The proposed site improvements would not substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern on the MSS site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which

would result in flooding on- or off-site. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6)

e. Create or contribute runoff water which

would exceed the capacity of existing or

planned stormwater drainage systems or

provide substantial additional sources of

polluted runoff?

Discussion:

Refer to discussions (a) and (b) above. The proposed site improvements would not create or contribute runoff

water which would exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6, 9, 10)

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water

quality?

Discussion:

Refer to discussions (a) and (b) above. The proposed additional site work and improvements would be subject to

building and grading permit requirements, and would not substantially degrade water quality. Project impacts

would be less-than-significant.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

89

(Sources: 6, 9, 10)

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood

hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate

Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Discussion:

No housing is proposed as part of the project. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 14)

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area

structures which would impede or redirect

flood flows?

Discussion:

This site proposes no new structure, thus would have no new impacts. According to 2009 Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) affecting the MSS site (Panel No.

06041C0459D and 0641C0478D), the northern portion of Area A, along the Andersen Drive frontage, and the

eastern portion of Area D (approximately 825’) are located in Zone AE with a 1% annual chance of flooding

(100-year flood) with a water surface elevation of 9 feet. The remainder of Area A is located with Zone X with a

0.2% annual chance of flooding. Areas B, C, most of D and E are located outside the 0.2% annual chance of

flooding (500-year flood). The minor site improvements proposed by the project include a new, “fire flow’

waterline extension from Andersen Drive through Area D, along the eastern portion of the MSS site. As a

condition of approval, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is requiring the installation of an above-grade

backflow facility on Area D in conjunction with the installation of the new waterline extension. Negligible

grading may be required for the installation of this above-grade backflow facility. The above-grade backflow

facility itself is not anticipated to significantly impede or redirect flood flows within those portions of Area D

which are currently located within Zone AE (a 100-year flood hazard area). No new structures, significant

property improvements or activities are proposed within designated food zones. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 14)

i. Expose people or structures to a significant

risk of loss, injury or death involving

flooding, including flooding as a result of the

failure of a levee or dam?

Discussion:

The project does not propose new housing or structures on the MSS site. There is no dam structure on the MSS

site or in the vicinity. A levee exists along the San Rafael Bay, approximately 3,000 feet east of Area D (eastern

portion of the MSS site), within the Jean and John Starkweather Shoreline Park. Shoreline Park is a privately-

(easement protected) and publicly-owned linear open space/multi-use trail. Generally, both the southern and

northern sections of the levee have been improved as part of the Shoreline Park; while the middle section of the

levee is unimproved and the 165-acre, privately-owned parcels, are undeveloped. These undeveloped, shoreline

parcels (common known as “Canalways”) are predominantly low-lying wetlands which are located adjacent to

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

90

City-owned parcels and currently help in maintaining flood control for East San Rafael. The project does not

propose to modify, alter or remove any portion of this existing levee located within Shoreline Park and along San

Rafael Bay. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 14)

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion:

See discussions (h) and (i) above. State Department of Conservation maps, using data provided by the United

States Geological Survey (USGS), and Association of Bay Area Governments maps, using data provided by the

California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), California Geologic Survey (CGS) and the University of

Southern California (USC), both indicate that the MSS site is not susceptible to tsunami inundation.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) maps, using data provided by the

USGS, indicate that global warming may result in a 16” sea rise by 2050 and a 55” sea rise by 2100 along

shoreline areas within the San Francisco Bay due to global warming. While these BCDC maps are informational

only, they show inundation areas that are similar to FIRM flood zone hazard areas. If current modeling is correct,

the northern portion of Area A, along the Andersen Drive frontage, and the eastern portion of Area D

(approximately 825’), could be inundated with sea rise flooding by 2050 if global warming trends continue at

their existing pace. If current modeling is correct, the remainder of Area A could be inundated with sea rise

flooding by 2100 if global warming trends continue at their existing pace. While there is a potential risk of

isolated sea rise inundation at the MSS site, it poses a less than significant impact since the project proposes no

new housing or structures. No further review is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6, 14)

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

Discussion:

The MSS site is comprised of five (5) adjoining parcels (Parcels A through E) located at the end of Jacoby Street,

a city-maintained, surface street accessed by Andersen Drive, which terminates directly at the site. Historically,

the Jacoby Street right-of-way (ROW) extended through the MSS site. In 1984, the City of San Rafael approved

vacation or abandonment of approximately one-half of the public ROW. In 1996, the City of San Rafael approved

lot line realignment of the parcels commonly owned by MSS. Four (4) of the parcels (Parcels A through D) are

relatively flat and developed with the current MSS operations, providing municipal solid waste collection and

recycling and composting services; the fifth parcel (Parcel E) is an undeveloped, densely forested, private open

space hillside.

The project proposes to create an updated, comprehensive development and operations plan for Parcels A through

D on the MSS site. No development or operations are proposed on Parcel E, with the exception of legalizing

concrete improvements to existing fire roads. Further, the five separate parcels previously approved for the project

use and open space areas would be combined as a single parcel through a lot consolidation, and the work and

open space areas would be redesignated as land use ‘Areas’.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

91

The project does not propose any new residential subdivisions, which both the existing General Plan land use

designations (Industrial and Conservation) and the zoning classifications (Industrial and Planned Development)

prohibits on the MSS site. The project does not propose to have the City re-establish the Jacoby Street ROW

through the developed portion of the MSS site. Due to the proposed continuation of the MSS operations within

Areas A through D and the lack of significant proposed site improvements, the project would not physically

divide an established community. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 2, 6)

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,

policy, or regulation of an agency with

jurisdiction over the project (including, but

not limited to the general plan, specific plan,

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

Discussion:

The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable policies of the San Rafael General

Plan 2020 and the applicable sections of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and it

has been determined that it would not conflict with any specific regulation or policy adopted for the purpose of

avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. The project proposes to Rezone Parcel A (land use Area A) from

Industrial (I) to Planned Development (PD) in order to approve an overall development plan for the entire MSS

site and to be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, which requires PD zoning for development of

sites larger than five acres. Further, the rezoning would not change the existing land use of the site, which is

designated for Industrial land uses. Solid waste management facilities and related ancillary activities and uses are

anticipated in the Industrial land use category, Consistent with General Plan 2020 Land Use Policy 23, Exhibit 11.

General Plan 2020 policies have also been implemented by adoption of the San Rafael Zoning Code and San

Rafael Design Guidelines, and Climate Change Action Plan. The project has been evaluated and subjected to

compliance with all applicable zoning standards and design criteria, which are further incorporated into the

revised PD zoning standards that are proposed to be amended for the project. The development remains subject to

City of San Rafael Use Permit, Design Review and related entitlement review requirements. The project complies

with maximum industrial floor area ratio limits of 0.38 and standard 36 foot height limit, as discussed in the

Project Description above. Further, the subject entitlements and future development would be reviewed for

compliance the zoning and design criteria, that would assure compliance with City zoning and general plan

policies would be achieved.

Based on this discussion, it has been determined that the project as proposed remains substantially consistent with

the underlying General Plan 2020 Industrial land use designation and all pertinent General Plan 2020 policies that

apply to the development, and which have been further implemented in the San Rafael Zoning Code and San

Rafael Design Guidelines. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 2, 6, 11)

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan?

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

92

Discussion:

No active habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applies to the MSS site. No further

study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to

the region and the residents of the state?

Discussion:

No known mineral resources would be impacted by the proposed project. Mineral resources on the project site are

limited to Franciscan Mélange (fsr) geologic assemblage. The project’s Cultural Resource evaluation identified a

prehistoric site, one of the only Native American quarries known to central Marin County, located along the

ridgeline on Area E. Additionally, the former Hutchison Quarry, located immediately south of the San Quentin or

Bartel Ridge, within the corporation boundaries for the City of Larkspur, provided quarried rock materials to the

adjacent Remillard Brick Kiln for the rebuilding of San Francisco after the 1906 Earthquake. Both the Hutchison

Quarry and the Remillard Brickyard have ceased operations and their sites have been redeveloped with

commercial and residential uses. The San Rafael Rock Quarry, the only active commercial rock quarry operating

in Marin County, is located approximately 2.85-miles northeast of the MSS site. The project does not propose to

interfere with the continued operation of the San Rafael Rock Quarry. The project also does not propose to disturb

the recorded quarry site on Area E, which has been damaged or partially destroyed by grading activities at the

time the fire roads were paved. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

b. Result in the loss of availability of a

locally-important mineral resource recovery

site delineated on a local general plan,

specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion:

Please refer to (a) discussion above. The project site is not identified as an important mineral resource recovery

site in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 or any other existing land use plan. The closest known mineral resource

recovery site is the commercial quarry owned and operated currently by Dutra Properties and located

approximately 2.85-miles northeast of the MSS site. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

XII. NOISE

Would the project:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

93

noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or noise

ordinance, or applicable standards of other

agencies?

Discussion:

The MSS site is surrounded by industrial (PG&E service yard and Golden Gate Transit bus yard) and building

material (Golden State Lumber and Rafael Lumber yards) uses to the north, the public/quasi-public (Central

Marin Sanitation Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant) uses to the west, the incorporated boundaries for the City

of Larkspur to the south, and the U.S. Highway 101 and SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transportation) right-

of-ways (ROW) to the west. The MSS site is located approximately 400’ west of the closest residences within the

City of San Rafael boundaries, separated by both the Highway 101 and SMART ROWs. The closest residences to

the MSS site are located approximately 200’ south of San Quentin Ridge (Area E), in the City of Larkspur.

The San Rafael General Plan 2020 has adopted policies to minimize noise impacts from new nonresidential

development on neighboring residential and nonresidential uses. Noise Policy N-4 establishes standards of

significance or acoustical criteria where new nonresidential uses shall not increase the existing noise levels at the

property line of nearby residential uses by more than Ldn 3dB, or create noise impacts that would increase noise

levels to more than Ldn 60 dB, whichever is the more restrictive standard. Noise Policy N-4 also establishes

standards of significance or acoustical criteria where new nonresidential use shall not increase the existing noise

levels at the property line of nearby nonresidential/industrial uses by more than Ldn 5dB, or create noise impacts

that would increase noise levels to more than Ldn 70 dB, whichever is the more restrictive standard. The San

Rafael Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.16.260) establishes these same thresholds.

Similarly, the San Rafael Municipal Code has an adopted Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13), which establishes

maximum daytime noise limits of 50 dBA for constant noise and 60 dBA for intermittent noise when measured on

any neighboring residential property and 70 dBA constant noise and 60 dBA intermittent noise when measured on

any neighboring nonresidential/industrial property. Allowable nighttime noise levels (6 p.m. - 7 a.m., Mondays

through Fridays, and 6 p.m. - 9 a.m. Saturdays) are 10 dBA lower when measured on any neighboring residential

property. The Noise Ordinance provides an exception for temporary construction noise impacts. Construction

activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and

6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, provided that the noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the MSS site

shall not exceed ninety (90) dBA. The noise exception for construction activities is precluded on Sundays and

holidays.

The project would continue to generate operational noise at appropriate industrial levels. A vast majority of the

MSS operations are conducted within enclosed structures or buildings which reduce or mitigate noise volume.

These same structures or buildings also help to block or reduce noise volumes for those portions of the MSS

operations conducted outside. Area E, the private open space hillside, further provides an on-site, noise reducing

natural landform. U.S. Highway 101, located immediately west of the MSS site, and Interstate 580, located north

and east of the MSS site, additionally create continuous ambient background noise which serves to mitigate on-

site noise volume.

Wood chipping is currently happening within MRRC, where the biomass chips are hauled off-site to a biomass

facility in the Central Valley. Instead, 40 tons per days of biomass chips will stay on-site, Operation of the

biomass conversion facility would result in the use of noise‐generating equipment to deliver biomass chips from

MRRC. The noise generated from the use of heavy equipment would be similar to noise generated by existing

equipment that is currently used for operations. Therefore, because noise generated from biomass haul trucks

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

94

would be similar to existing noise sources, these activities would not result in substantial increase in noise at

sensitive receptors.

The proposed biomass conversion facility would be manufactured by Phoenix Energy, which recently installed a

similar unit in Merced County (Phoenix Energy 2011). Sound readings were conducted at this existing unit in

order to determine the potential noise levels at the project site with project implementation. In addition,

manufacturer specifications were obtained for the Caterpillar G3516 TA electrical generation equipment that

would be used in conjunction with the unit and would be located on the same pad. When open to the air, the

mechanical and exhaust noise from this equipment is estimated to be 81.3 dBA to 91.6 dBA at 50 feet from the

engine. However, this equipment would be completely enclosed in a steel container provided by the manufacturer

and would include sound attenuators along air intake and air outlet paths. In addition, an exhaust silencer would

be installed to further reduce noise levels. With these noise attenuation features in place, sound levels in any

direction would not exceed 65 dBA at a distance of approximately 30 feet from the unit.

The project remains subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance at all times, during operational use and construction.

The project would not result in significant noise related impacts.

(Sources: 1, 2, 6)

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of

excessive ground borne vibration or ground

borne noise levels?

Discussion:

No excessive, sustained ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels are expected to result during project

operation or construction. The project does not propose pile-driving or drilling construction activity or blasting

with explosives. No significant noise impacts are anticipated from trenching required for the installation of a new,

“fire flow” waterline extension from Andersen Drive through Area D. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6)

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient

noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?

Discussion:

Please refer to (a) discussion above. The predominant land use in the vicinity of the MSS site is ‘industrial’,

where the San Rafael General Plan, the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and the adopted Noise Ordinance allow for

relatively high noise levels (70 dBA constant noise and 60 dBA intermittent noise). The MSS site and immediate

vicinity are affected already by relatively high ambient noise levels due to these predominant industrial land uses

and to the proximity of both the U.S. Highway 101 and Interstate 580 transportation corridors. The proposed site

improvements would not generate a substantial, permanent increase in this ambient noise level given that any new

permanently-installed noise-generating mechanical equipment at the biomass conversion facility will be enclosed.

No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6)

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

95

in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project?

Discussion:

Please refer to (a) and (c) discussions above. While the current ambient noise levels on the MSS site and in the

vicinity are relatively high due to predominant industrial uses and proximity to major transportation corridors

(U.S. Highway 101 and Interstate 580), the proposed limited site improvements (removal of excess container

storage and minor trenching to install a new, “fire flow” waterline extension from Andersen Drive) would

generate a temporarily increase ambient noise level. Impacts from this work would not be anticipated to exceed

the industrial noise limits.

(Sources: 2, 6)

e. For a project located within an airport land

use plan or, where such a plan has not been

adopted, within two miles of a public airport

or public use airport, would the project

expose people residing or working in the

project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion:

The MSS site is not located within an adopted airport land use plan. The MSS site is also not located within two

miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport or public use airport is the 120-acre,

publicly-owned, Marin County Airport at Gnoss Field (DVO) in Novato, which is located approximately 15

miles north of the MSS site. The Marin County Airport at Gnoss Field is staffed and maintained by the Marin

County Department of Public Works Department and currently operates under an Airport Master Plan with

published noise abatement procedures in effect. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to

excessive noise levels?

Discussion:

The MSS site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or privately-owned airport facility. The MSS site is

located approximately six miles south of the nearest private airstrip; the 120-acre, San Rafael Airport site located

in North San Rafael, which has established voluntary measures to minimize noise exposure impacts from aircraft

on surrounding residential neighborhoods. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

96

area, either directly (for example, by

proposing new homes and businesses) or

indirectly (for example, through extension of

roads or other infrastructure)?

Discussion:

The project does not propose any new residential units or businesses that would directly induce substantial

population growth. The project also proposes no new, publicly-accessible roads into the MSS site or major,

growth-inducing, infrastructure improvements. The project proposes limited improvements for the site, primarily

for increased ‘fire protection’.

Specifically, as an alternative to installing fire sprinkler systems at both the existing container storage facility on

Area B and the new, relocated container storage facility on Area C, the project proposes to connect together or

‘loop’ existing private 8” waterline extensions from both Andersen Drive and Jacoby Street on Area A and install

four (4) new fire hydrants on Areas B and C to complement the system of eight (8) existing fire hydrants on Area

A and B. The project also proposes to install a new, private 8” waterline extension from Andersen Drive through

Area D and two (2) new fire hydrants.

The project further proposes to legalize concrete improvements made to the existing network of fire roads located

on Area E, the private open space area. This system of dirt fire roads have existed on Area E since at least 1942.

Between 1997 and 2007, these fire roads were improved by MSS with concrete and curbing in order to provide

all-weather access to firewood storage and curing areas within Area E. Access to these improved fire roads within

Area E is limited by control gates located down slope on Areas B and C.

The existing Master Use Permit (UP96-008) approved one (1) caretaker’s unit on either Area B or C. This unit

was never constructed and does not currently exist on the MSS facility site. The project though proposes to

preserve the option to construct the caretaker’s unit on the site.

The operational areas are designated Industrial (I) on the General Plan 2020 land se map while Area E is

designated Conservation. Residential uses are not permitted. The project would have no impacts on housing,

population or infrastructure. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing

housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion:

The project does not propose to demolish or convert any existing housing units. No housing units currently exist

on the MSS facility site. Until 1978, a single-family residence was located on the MSS facility site, on Area E,

with an address of ‘524 Jacoby Street’. At the time it was recorded as part of the survey of historic structures by

the City of San Rafael, the condition of the residence was noted as “deteriorated”. The building is no longer

present; it is not clear when, why and how it was removed. The partial concrete remains of the building’s

basement floor and wall remain and have been reused to construct a metal storage building along the improved

fire road within Area E. A previously approved caretaker’s unit was never constructed on the site, though the

project proposes to preserve the option to construct the caretaker’s unit on either Area B or C. No further study is

necessary.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

97

(Sources: 1, 6)

c. Displace substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

Discussion:

Please refer to (b) discussion above. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse

physical impacts associated with the provision of

new or physically altered governmental facilities,

need for new or physically altered governmental

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental impacts, in order to

maintain acceptable service ratios, response

times or other performance objectives for any of

the public services:

a. Fire protection?

Discussion:

The project proposes to integrate and expand the existing “fire flow” waterline delivery and fire hydrant system

on the MSS site. Specifically, as an alternative to installing fire sprinkler systems for the expanded container

storage uses, the project proposes to extend the private 8” waterline on Area A and install three (3) new fire

hydrants in Areas B and C to complement the system of eight (8) existing fire hydrants in Areas A and B. The

project also proposes to install a new, private 8” waterline extension through Area D and three (3) new fire

hydrants. As a result, all new and existing fire hydrants would be within a maximum 400’ fire hose path to any

container storage unit. Fire lanes would maintain a minimum 26’ width for 20’ of either side of each fire hydrant.

Both the new and existing fire hydrant waterlines would maintain a minimum assumed fire flow of 1,750 gallons

per minute @ 20 PSI (pounds per square inch) as required by the San Rafael Fire Department.

New metal vehicle gates, a minimum 20’-wide with “Knox-Box” lockboxes, would provide controlled public

access to these two container storage facilities while also providing rapid entry for emergency and fire protection

services. The project also proposes to legalize the improvements (i.e., concrete road base and curbing) made to

the network of historic fire roads throughout Area E, the private open space area. These improvements would

provide all-weather access to large portions of Area E, including San Quentin or Martels Ridge, for emergency

and fire protection services, if needed.

No new governmental or service-related facilities would need to be constructed to serve fire protection for the

project. Fire protection services are currently provided, and would continue to be provided, by the San Rafael Fire

Department (SRFD) – Fire Station #4, which is located at 46 Castro Avenue, approximately one-third of a mile

north of the MSS site. SRFD-Fire Station #4 is currently staffed by no less than three employees at one time, 24

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

98

hours per day, and seven days per week, including all holidays. Response time to the site is currently

approximately 3 minutes.

The proposed additional fire lines and hydrants together with the all-weather improvements made to the network

of fire roads within the open space area (aka, Parcel E), and existing fire protection services provided by SRFD-

Fire Station #4 would provide improved fire protection to the MSS site without a resulting in a reduction fire

protection services to existing structures in the service area of SRFD-Fire Station #4. No further study is

necessary

(Sources: 1, 6, 7)

b. Police protection?

Discussion:

Police protection services are currently provided, and would continue to be provided, by the San Rafael Police

Department (SRPD), which is located at 1400 Fifth Avenue (San Rafael City Hall), approximately 1.95 miles

northwest of the MSS site. The entire site is currently located within SRPD “South or Patrol Beat #3 – Zone 41”,

which extends from U.S. Highway 101 in the west to Interstate Highway 580 in the east and from Bellam

Boulevard in the north to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to the south. SRPD currently limits foot patrols within the

Downtown area only and does not have plans presently to provide foot patrols to the MSS site. The SRPD would

continue to provide police protection services to the site. In addition, the MSS currently employs private security

patrol for the site in the way of employees during hours the approved hours of operation. No further study is

necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

c. Schools?

Discussion:

The MSS site is located in an area served by the San Rafael Unified School District. The nearest public

elementary school to the MSS site is Bahia Vista Elementary School, located at 125 Bahia Way approximately

0.75-mile southwest of the site. The nearest public middle school to the MSS site is James B. Davidson Middle

School, located at 280 Woodland Avenue, approximately 1.15-mile west of the site. The nearest public high

school to the MSS site is San Rafael High School, located at 185 Mission Avenue, approximately 1.0-mile

northwest of the site. Since the project proposes no new residences, and both the existing General Plan land use

designations (Industrial and Conservation) and the zoning classifications (Industrial and Planned Development)

prohibits residential uses on the MSS site, with the exception of a caretaker’s unit on Area A, B, C or D, the

project would not result in a measurable reduction in the public school system’s capability or capacity to provide

continued educational services to the families residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the MSS site which

attend these public schools. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

d. Parks?

Discussion:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

99

The project would not impact parklands or increase demand for parklands. The nearest public ‘Community Park’

to the MSS site is the 20-acre Jean and John Starkweather Shoreline Park, located approximately 0.3-mile east of

the site. The nearest public ‘Neighborhood Park’ to the MSS site is the 0.1-acre Schoen Park, located

approximately 0.93-mile northeast of the site, in the Spinnaker Point residential subdivision. The nearest public

‘State Park’ to the MSS site is the 1,640-acre China Camp State Park, located approximately 2.15-miles north of

the site. The nearest public ‘County Park’ to the MSS site is the 20-acre Marin Center grounds, located

approximately 3.4-miles northwest of the site. Together, these parks provide opportunities for outdoor

recreational activities for San Rafael residents in the vicinity of the MSS site. Since the project proposes no new

residences, and both the existing General Plan land use designations (Industrial and Conservation) and the zoning

classifications (Industrial and Planned Development) prohibits residential uses on the MSS site, with the

exception of a caretaker’s unit on Areas A, B, C or D, the project would result in negligible or no reduction in the

public park system’s capability or capacity to provide continued recreational amenities and opportunities to

families residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the MSS site. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

e. Other public facilities?

Discussion:

The project would not impact any other public facilities nor increase demand on existing facilities. Pickleweed

Community Center is the closest community center to the MSS site, located at 50 Canal Street, approximately

0.93-mile northeast of the site. It provides a meeting space offering a wide variety of educational, athletic and

social programs to San Rafael residents. The annex branch of the San Rafael Public Library, also located within

the Pickleweed Community Center, provides San Rafael residents with the ability to borrow hundreds of

thousands of books and publications.

Additionally, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District has constructed and maintains a public non-

motorized transportation pathway within its railroad right-of-way corridor, located immediately west of the MSS

site. This pathway is currently a little over one mile in length, connecting pedestrians and bicyclists between the

cities of Larkspur and San Rafael, through the 1,100-foot Cal Park Hill or Schutzen Hill Tunnel. When fully

completed, the SMART “North-South Greenway” is anticipated to provide both a passenger rail and non-

motorized transportation opportunities along a 71-mile corridor between Larkspur Landing and the City of

Cloverdale, linking Marin and Sonoma Counties.

Since the project proposes no new residences, and both the existing General Plan land use designations (Industrial

and Conservation) and the zoning classifications (Industrial and Planned Development) prohibits residential uses

on the MSS site, with the exception of a caretaker’s unit on Areas A, B, C or D, the project would result in

negligible or no reduction in these other public facilities to provide continued amenities and opportunities to

families residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the MSS site. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

XV. RECREATION

Would the project:

a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood

and regional parks or other recreational

facilities such that substantial physical

deterioration of the facility would occur or

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

100

be accelerated?

Discussion:

As noted above, existing parks and recreational facilities within the vicinity of the MSS site provide a diverse

range of public outdoor and indoor recreational opportunities. Since the project proposes no new residences, and

both the existing General Plan land use designations (Industrial and Conservation) and the zoning classifications

(Industrial and Planned Development) prohibits residential uses on the MSS site, with the exception of a potential

future caretaker’s unit on the site, the project would result in negligible or no accelerated physical deterioration of

these neighboring recreational facilities, public open space areas and parks. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1)

b. Include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational

facilities, which might have an adverse

physical effect on the environment?

Discussion:

Please refer to (b) discussion above. The project proposes no new construction of recreational facilities or the

expansion of existing recreational facilities. The project proposes no new residences that would require the

construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing recreational facilities. No further study is

necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance

or policy establishing measures of

effectiveness for the performance of the

circulation system, taking into account all

modes of transportation including mass

transit and non-motorized travel and

relevant component of the circulation system,

including but not limited to intersections,

streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian

and bicycle paths, and mass transit)?

Discussion:

No increase in existing traffic generated by the uses on the GGHBDT and MSS properties would result. However,

the project would be required to pay required traffic mitigation fees in order to legalize the additional storage

containers placed and to remain on-site (i.e., above the documented 1992 baseline conditions for use including up

to 240 public storage containers permitted for the site). These fees would be used to fund traffic improvements

anticipated for build-out in the area pursuant to the General Plan 2020.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

101

The traffic analysis identified historic traffic generated from the facility prior to intensification of uses including

the unpermitted expansion of storage container uses. The traffic generation rates are represented in Table 1 of the

traffic report.

Based on the Department of Public Works review of the subject traffic report and its review and record of

historical use of the property, it has been determined that the project generates up to 234 additional trips above the

1992 baseline existing traffic condition (162 AM and 72PM). This figure includes the traffic generated from all

MSS facility operations and the public storage containers placed on the site from 1997 through 2005 (as

documented in the source reference 7 appendices).

Payment of traffic mitigation fees would be required as a condition of project approval and addresses the impacts

from increased traffic by requiring that the project fund its fair share portion of traffic improvements identified for

the area, based on General Plan 2020 build-out. Payment of required traffic mitigation fees is sufficient to reduce

impacts to a less-than-significant level. Currently, the fee payment would be $4,246 per new vehicle trip, paid at

time of permit issues or commencement of operations. This is required as a standard requirement and applied as a

condition of approval to zoning entitlements granted for all new development projects within the City of San

Rafael.

Impacts would be less-than-significant with payment of appropriate traffic mitigation fees required as a condition

of approval for the increased traffic generated that has been documented in the traffic report and confirmed as

adequate by the Department of Public Works. For projects subject to environmental review, the traffic impact fee

is required as a standard mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure:

TR-1: Payment of required traffic mitigation fees in the current amount of $4,246 per new vehicle trip, shall be

required at time of permit issues or commencement of operations.

(Sources: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8)

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion

management program, including, but not

limited to level of service standards and

travel demand measures, or other standards

established by the county congestion

management agency for designated roads or

highways?

Discussion:

See discussion above. No impacts would result.

(Sources: 1, 3, 6, 8)

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,

including either an increase in traffic levels

or a change in location that results in

substantial safety risks?

Discussion:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

102

The project has no impact on air traffic patterns.

(Sources: 1)

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a

design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible

uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Discussion:

As proposed and conditioned, the project has been designed to provide safe ingress and egress to facilities,

including the public storage containers.

(Sources: 2, 6, 7)

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Discussion:

As proposed and conditioned, adequate emergency vehicle access would be provided within the container storage

areas, with minimum 20 foot drive aisles per fire requirements. Impacts would be less-than-significant.

(Sources: 6)

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs regarding public transit, bicycle,

or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise

decrease the performance or safety of such

facilities?

Discussion:

The project is not within a designated pedestrian or bicycle plan pathway. Further, the Jacoby Street right of way

proposed to be abandoned in not necessary for any public use, and after consolidation of the lots, the property

maintains public street frontage and access at Andersen Drive and Jacoby Streets. No impacts would result.

(Sources: 1, 3)

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements

of the applicable Regional Water Quality

Control Board?

Discussion:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

103

The project area is within the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD), which provides sanitary sewer service to the

East San Rafael area. Wastewater is transmitted to the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) treatment

facility, located at 1301 Andersen Drive. The project proposes limited site improvements, which include

relocation of an existing container storage facility, a minor adjustment of open space boundaries to legalize

existing retaining wall encroachments, and the installation of a new “fire flow” waterline extension and fire

hydrants from Andersen Drive through Area D. No new buildings or additional square footage to existing

buildings is proposed that would require the hiring of additional employees. The project would not conflict with

the existing capacity of wastewater delivery to CMSA or the ability of CSMA to treat the additional wastewater

generated by the project given the limited new employees required. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6, 9)

b. Require or result in the construction of new

water or wastewater treatment facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects?

Discussion:

Refer to (a) discussion above. Local water service is currently provided, and would continue to be provided, by

the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) upon request and compliance with MMWD service requirements

and regulations. The existing MMWD infrastructure closest to the project site is an existing 12” water main,

located within the Andersen Drive right-of-way (ROW), and an existing 12” water main, located within the

Jacoby Street. Existing, private, 8” waterline extensions currently provide domestic and fire protection water

service to Areas A and B, the most developed parcels of the MSS site. In lieu of installing fire sprinklers to the

existing and relocated container storage facilities on Areas B and C, respectively, the project propose to improve

fire protection for the MSS site by installing new and the relocated hydrants, fire lines and fire lanes. New water

demand for the MSS site would be minor given the limited new landscaping areas proposed above the existing

bulkhead/gabion. No new buildings or additional square footage to existing buildings is proposed that would

adversely impact CSMA’s continued ability to provide waterwater treatment. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

c. Require or result in the construction of new

storm water drainage facilities or expansion

of existing facilities, the construction of

which could cause significant environmental

effects?

Discussion:

Though no net new development or hardscape is proposed, a drainage study, erosion control plan and bioswale

improvement are planned for the site, which would address runoff from existing outdoor work areas, containers

and paved fire road improvements. Over 62% of the MSS site is considered ‘hillside’ (average slope of 25% or

greater). The natural drainage pattern on the MSS site is south-north trending from the private, undeveloped open

space hillside (Area E) to private storm drain catch basins, located within the developed portions of the MSS site

(Areas A through D), and into the municipal stormwater drainage system. Recently, a Drainage Study was

conducted by MSS, which was reviewed by the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW). At the urging of

DPW, MSS voluntarily installed private stormwater drainage improvements outside the project review. The

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

104

project proposes no change in the existing drainage pattern on the MSS site and no site grading other than minor

trenching required for the installation of the new, “fire flow” waterline extension from Andersen Drive though

Area D. The existing, improved drainage pattern on the MSS site would remain unchanged. The project does not

propose to increase the amount of impervious surface on the MSS site, though it does propose to legalize existing

concrete improvements made to the historic network of fire roads. The proposed site improvements would have

negligible or no adverse impact on the existing drainage pattern and volume on the MSS site or the private and

public stormwater collector system serving the site and the vicinity. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 6, 10)

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to

serve the project from existing entitlements

and resources, or are new or expanded

entitlements needed?

Discussion:

Refer to (b) discussion above. No impact would result.

(Sources: 1)

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider which serves or may

serve the project that it has adequate

capacity to serve the project’s projected

demand in addition to the provider’s existing

commitments?

Discussion:

Refer to (a) and (b) discussion above. No impacts would result.

(Sources: 1)

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the

project's solid waste disposal needs?

Discussion:

Since 1958, solid waste throughout Marin County, including the MSS site, has been transported to Redwood

Landfill, located approximately six (6) miles north of the MSS site along U.S. Highway 101. Redwood Landfill is

420 acres in size, of which 222.5 acres is dedicated to waste disposal of non-hazardous materials, while the

remainder of the Class III facility is dedicated to providing composting and recycling operations facilities and

private open space. Redwood Landfill currently meets or exceeds all federal, state, and local requirements for

landfill management and is regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air

Quality Management District, CalRecycle and the Marin County Environmental Health Services Division. It is

permitted to accept 2,130 tons of material daily. MSS is a “waste stream processor” or transfer station, providing

solid waste collection and recycling services in which waste that cannot be recycled is transported to Redwood

Landfill. It, essentially, operates under the same permitting as Redwood Landfill. The project does not propose

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

105

improvements or operational changes to MSS that would increase solid waste disposal needs. To the contrary,

MSS continues to operate an aggressive recycling program, helping the public and the municipalities it serves to

decrease waste production with the goal of reaching “zero waste” (Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste

Management Joint Powers Authority or JPA, representing the 11 cities and towns in Marin County and the

County of Marin passed a zero waste resolution with a goal of 80% landfill diversion by 2012 and a zero waste

goal by 2025). No new buildings, additional square footage to existing buildings or new residences are proposed

by the project. The project would not generate a significant amount of additional solid waste due to daily tonnage

limits imposed under its operational permits and its aggressive recycling programs. Any additional solid waste

generated by the project that is not recycled would continue to be transported to Redwood Landfill and would

have negligible or no impact on the capacity of the landfill. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 1, 6)

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes

and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion:

See (f) discussion above. MSS operates under state permitting authority from the California Integrated Waste

Management Board. Additional concurrent permitting provided by the California Water Resources Control Board

(Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPP), the California Air Resource Board (Portable Equipment

Registration Program), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Permanent Household Hazardous

Waste Facility; regulated by the Marin County Certified Unified Program Agency or CUPA), and the Marin

County Environmental Health Services Department (Solid Waste Facility Permit; Enforcement Agency

Notification for Inert Debris Processing Facility and Green Waste Composting). It is expected that MSS would

continue to comply all required state and local permitting requirements. No further study is necessary.

(Sources: 9)

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Would the project:

a. Does the project have the potential to

degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or endangered

plant or animal or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of California

history or prehistory?

Discussion:

As discussed herein the project proposes no new significant improvements other than trenching for fire lanes,

landscaping and stormdrain enhancements. The minor rezoning, lot consolidation and use permit proposal for the

MSS master plan amendment would have minimal impacts on wildlife and the environment. Mitigation is

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

106

proposed to assure any potential impact on pallid bat or bird species as a result of trenching work would be less-

than-significant.

(Sources: 1, 6, 7, 9, 10)

b. Does the project have impacts that are

individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”

means that the incremental effects of a

project are considerable when viewed in

connection with the effects of past projects,

the effects of other current projects, and the

effects of probable future projects)?

Discussion:

See discussion (a) above. The project has the low potential to impact cultural resources and biological resources

as a result of minor site grading. These impacts are reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation

of mitigation measures BR-1 through BR-3 and CR-1 through CR-5.

The project related traffic would affect Andersen Drive wet of the site at its intersections with Jacoby Street,

Bellam Blvd, Francisco Blvd and Interstate 580, and east of the site at Sir Francis Drake Blvd. The majority of

traffic to and from Marin Sanitary Service occurs along Jacoby Street which is used to access the transfer station

and other uses, which is west of the main MSS facility offices at its Andersen Drive entrance and parking lot. The

City is processing a request from Marin Airporter to relocate its transfer terminal from the City of Larkspur to

property owned by and adjacent to Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District bus yard at 1011

Andersen Drive, located across the street from the Marin Sanitary Service Andersen Drive frontage. The use

would replace an existing unpaved parking and RV/boat storage use and Toyota car sales vehicle storage lot with

a new 1,440 square foot modular ticket office building, parking for 3 buses and 336 long term vehicle parking

spaces on 3.1 acres.

A traffic analysis was prepared for the Marin Airporter use by CSW/ST2 based on counts made on December 18,

2014 (this report may be found in the Marin Airporter project file, ED15-002/UP15-002). The report found that

the site generates up to 22 car trips per hour in the AM peak and 12 cars per hour in the PM peak. The transfer

station is anticipated to generate up to 9 trips per hour in the AM peak and 9 trips per hour in the PM peak. The

Department of Public Works has reviewd and confirmed the traffic analysis for this use as adequate and accurate.

Therefore, there would be no increase of AM or PM peak hour trips associated with relocation of the Marin

Airporter transfer station to the site at 1011 Andersen Drive, and no additional cumulative impacts would occur at

the impacted intersections of Andersen/Bellam, Andersen/Jacoby, Bellam/580, Bellam/E Francisco,

orAndersen/Sir Francis Drake. No cumulatively considerable traffic impacts would result.

(Sources: 7, 8, 9, 12, 13)

c. Does the project have environmental effects

which will cause substantial adverse effects

on human beings, either directly or

indirectly?

Discussion:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less-Than-

Significant With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less-Than-

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

107

The proposed minor use, rezoning and lot consolidation for MSS would maintain an existing municipal waste

facility and would not have any direct or indirect adverse environmental impacts.

(Sources: 6, 7)

108

APPENDIX

SOURCE REFERENCES/APPENDICES

The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Unless attached herein, copies of all

reference reports, memorandums and letters are on file with the City of San Rafael Department of Community

Development. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State agencies may be found with the agency

responsible for providing such information.

1. City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 and Final EIR, City of San Rafael, adopted November 15, 2004,

updated January 2015 (online: http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-topics-gp2020 )

2. City of San Rafael Municipal Code, City of San Rafael, adopted 1992, amended May 1996 and June

2014) (online: https://www.municode.com/library/ca/san_rafael/codes/code_of_ordinances )

3. City of San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2008 Update, adopted January 2014 (online:

http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/pubworks-proj-bpmpu )

4. San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Manual, adopted October 1991 (online:

http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-handouts/ )

5. San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan (online:

http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CityMgr/Green/Climate%20Change%20Action%20Plan%20-

%20Final.pdf ); adopted April 20, 2009 by City Council Resolution No. 12725 and Exhibit E

amendment (i.e., Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy)

6. Project plans (MSS MUPP) submitted January 17, 2014 (dated 06/02/09, with revisions 2015)

(Provided to Planning Commission members) (project file)

7. Master Use Permit Amendment (MSS MUPA) application description, operations summary and

materials submitted January 17, 2014 (dated March 29, 2010, with revisions 2015) (attached)

8. Traffic Analysis by George W. Nickelson, P.E., dated October 28, 2010 (aka, MUPA Appendix A,

attached)

9. Marin Sanitary Service 2012/2013 Annual Report for Storm Water Discharges Associated with

Industrial Activities, State of CA Water Resources Control Board (aka, MUPA Appendix C, attached)

10. Drainage Analysis Marin Sanitary Services Property, San Rafael Ca, prepared by Oberkamper &

Associates, Civil Engineers, Inc. July 2010 (aka, MUPA Appendix E, attached)

11. Marin Sanitary Service 2013 MUP Parking Calculations (aka, MUPA Appendix F, attached)

12. Archaeological Resource Service, Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Marin Sanitary Service Parcel,

April 5, 2010 and Appendices (aka, MUPA Appendix H, attached)

13. Marin Sanitary Service Biological Resources Assessment and Focused Rare Plant Survey: White-Rayed

Pentachaeta, prepared by WRA, Inc., dated May 2010 (aka, MUPA Appendix I, attached)

14. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel Nos.

06041C0459D and 06041C0478D, May 4, 2009;(online: http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/flood.shtm )

http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-topics-gp2020

https://www.municode.com/library/ca/san_rafael/codes/code_of_ordinances

http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/pubworks-proj-bpmpu

http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-handouts/

http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CityMgr/Green/Climate%20Change%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Final.pdf

http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CityMgr/Green/Climate%20Change%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Final.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/flood.shtm

109

15. Emission Estimate for Master Use Permit Application for MSS, May 27, 2014 and Phoenix Energy

Basic Process Description (attached)

16. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist, June 14, 2013 for MSS Project (attached)

17. Marin Sanitary Service Anaerobic Digestion Project Description (attached)

18. Emissions Estimate Organics Management AD and BG Treatment for Fuel and Electricity Production,

Edgar & Associates, Feb. 9, 2015 (attached)

19. Odor Impact Minimization Plan for MSS Transfer Station 1050 Andersen Drive, CA 94901, Edgar &

Associates, February 10 2015 (attached)

20. Solid Waste Facility Permit for Marin Sanitary Service Facility/Permit Number: 21-AA-0005 (attached)

21. Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC September 2012 Project 120408 report for SmartFerm

Anaerobic Digestion Facility at Agromin’s Oxnard Facility (attached)

22. Marin Sanitary Service Climate Action Management Plan: Climate Registry & Avoided Emissions

Reporting Calendar Year 2013 March5, 2015 prepared by Edgar & Associates (attached)

110

PROJECT SPONSOR’S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES

DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT

On the basis of this Initial Study and Environmental Checklist I find that the proposed project could have a

Potentially Significant Effect on the environment; however, the aforementioned mitigation measures to be

performed by the property owner (authorized agent) will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a point

where no significant effects on the environment will occur. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.

Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner Date

REPORT AUTHORS

City of San Rafael, Community Development Department:

1. Steve Stafford Associate Planner

2. Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

KraigT

Pencil

KraigT

Typewritten Text

5/11/15

Documents

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Marin ...docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/Planning/marin-sanitary-services...Marin Sanitary Services Facility (MSS) ... line adjustments