FEIR APPENDIX A San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility...

FEIR APPENDIX A

San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility Project Site Plan San Rafael, CA

~--

~-~

, , I

I I

I I ,

I I ,

I

I I

I

MUllillt A)6a)QQk:o< UI'Hl\""of1/1X"Ilbl t.:. .. nulbot. 1136 S-ICIP I\\muc:. s..lle I.) WllinUl Cr«1:. CaJ,t'JIfIO;II ~¥J~ 192!» ..... 7-1867

, r; •

GALLI NA

I

I

---""

\ I)

"" ~ -- -Appendix A. San Rafael Airpon Recreation Facili ty Project Site Plan

San Rafael. C A

Legend

:',:;:'::;.:_ Potential Wetlands (No Impacts)

Existing Eucalyptus Trees to Remain

Top of Creek Bank

-- Drainage OildllSwale

-- Primary water Features

I

I I

./

,A "'tiP PicponlhOIi O::.k! ",,,d J. 200S

FEIR APPENDIX B

Letter from John C. Hom, John C. Hom & Associates, Inc., to Bob Herbst, February 23, 2010

1618 Second Street Sail Rafael, California 94901-2707 Telephone(415) 258-9027 Fax (415) 258-9309

Rafaell\irporl Aiiention: 2167 Fmnciscc A Son Rafael, California 94901

Oem Mr

February 23{ 2010

Job ~~umber 1250.1 J

Report Supplemenl Son Rafael Airport Recreation Building Smith Ranch Rood

San Rafael, California

This is a repod supplement to the geotechnical investigation that we conducted for the proposed Son Rofael Airpor"j Recreation Building at Smith Ranch Rood in SOil Rafoel, California. We previously conducted a geotechnical investigoiioll and presented our findings in writien report doted Mey 9, 2005 and presented a letter doted Februmy 24, 2006 regarding liquefaction potentia!. The purpose of this work was to conduct one additional test boring into bedmck in the budding mea olld three test boring in the levee to verify the ossull1ed fill material in OUI' of February 24,2006.

On December 17 and 23, 2009{ we explored the subsurface conditions 01 the site to the extent of two test borings The locations of the tes1 bmings ore shown on the Test Boring Location Plan! Plate

1. We drilled test borings a iTuck-rnounted drill rig equipped with hollow stem augers. Our Field Geologist was all 5itelo locate the test borings, 10 observe cll-illing! to log the condiiions encountemd, to obtain soil samples for exominCition and lobomtory testing. The logs of

rllOterials encountered are shown on 2 through 6. The soils ore described in with the U Soil os explained on Plate 7. The materials are described in accordance with the Geologic T enm Rock, Picile 8.

potential

liVe estimate that the will require 40 to 50 The piles will installed by n9 with a mounted on a crone. The usual 15 to 20 piles per doy. The

of blows would depend on actuol hommer and our onolysis of the structumlloads and haillmer energy. Based on our we expect the would be eCJsy vvhen

Recreolion Building f continued 2010 Number 1250.13

Page 2

~ip of the pile is in Boy Mud. The hammer would not utilize its full energy poieniiol ond less noisy. The weigh of homlner is usuolly enough to couse the pile 10 sink into Boy Mud. When the tip is in bedrock hClimner would be driving the pile with its full energy Since we

the piles 'Nil I feet inio bedl'Ock t this driving period would be oboui minutes or less.

We trust this informotioll you at

JCH

three copies submitted

time. if you ony questions; coil.

Yours very truly f

JOHf'.~ C HOM & ASSOCli'l.TES f II'-IC

John C Hom Civil Engineer 28877 Geotechnical Engineer 412 Certificotes Expire 3/31/1 1

& ASSOCIATES. ! Geotechnical Consuftants

JCH JOHN C. HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultants

Job No. : 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Dote: 1/10

EXPLANATION

Test Boring

Reduced from Bose Mop

Prepared by Oberkamper and Associates

Doted: 1 /31 /05

TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN

Smith Ranch Airport Fields Son Rafael, California

PLATE

1

Ql

laboratory Tests "6 "" 8

CONSOL

J~[H] JOHN C. HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultants

0 * 0 ~::-~ :0 C

3 -v; 2 .- c

0 o 0 co :Eu

17 14.2

17 19.4

Job No: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Date: 1/10

.;::- Ql

.;;; L Ci ~ t3cn 0. E

Ql 00..,9, 0 0

en

117

109

Log of Boring 1

Equipment: Truck Mounted Drill Rig

Elevation: 0 Date Drilled: 12/17/09

MEDIUM BROWN, ORANGE and GREY Sll1Y CLAY (CH), wet, medium stiff, (Fill)

DARK GREY CLAY (CH), saturated, soft, (BAY MUD)

MOTTLED RED, BROWN and ORANGE GRAVELLY SANDY CLAY (Cl), saturated very stiff, (AllUVIUM)

Water level as measured at time of backfill (12/17/09-12:30pm)

MOTTLED ORANGE and TAN GRAVEllY SANDY CLAY (Cl), saturated, very stiff, (AllUVIUM)

MOTTLED RED, ORANGE and BROWN GRAVEllY SANDY CLAY (Cl), saturated, very stiff, (AllUVIUM)

lOG OF BORING 1

Smith Ranch Airport Fields San Rafael, California

PLATE

2

laboratory Tests

UC = 1868 psf

J~[]={] JOHN C. HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultants

71

:19

45

55

60

65

70

75

80

Job No: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Date: 1/10

'" Q. E a

V)

Log of Boring 1

Equipment: Truck Mounted Drill Rig


MOITlED RED, ORANGE and BROWN GRAVEllY SANDY CLAY (Cl), saturated, very stiff, (AllUVIUM)

DARK GREY SHEARED SHALE, moderately hard, friable, highly weathered, (BEDROCK)

Boltom of Boring

*Blows converted to Standard Penetration Resista nce.

PLATE lOG OF BORING 1

Smith Ranch Airport Fields San Rafael, California 3

Q)

Laboratory Tests 0 "" 0

J~[}={] JOHN C. HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultants

0 ?1: 0 e~ "S ~~ i: 0 o 0

0:; :::;;;:u

7 29.3

8 37.6

3 101.2

2 94.1

Job No: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Date: 1/10

-i!' c:--'~~

L a.

Q) U Q)

00-9, 0

0

2 64

4

6

61

8

10

43

12

14 44

16

Q)

a. E a

V>

Log of Boring 2

Equipment: Track Mounted Drill Rig


LIGHT ORANGE and GREY-BROWN SILTY CLAY (CH), moist, medium stiff, (FILL)

DARK GREY CLAY (CH), wet, medium stiff, (FILL)


Boltom of Boring

No measurable groundwater at time of backfill

LOG OF BORING 2


PLATE

4

Q)

La bora tory Tests 0 "" ~

-#200 Wash = 91.9%

J~[}={] JOHN C. HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultants

0 * "g ~"i" .c ~ :§-E 'Vi

~ ~ 't 0 o 0 co ~u 00.3

31.1

10 30.7 55

2 93.2 44

109.9 40

Job No: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Date: 1/10

Q)

..r:: 0. Q. E Q) 0 0 V)

14

16

Log of Boring 3

Equipment: Track Mounted Drill Rig


LIGHT GREY-BROWN SILTY CLAY (CH), moist, stiff, (FILL)


Bottom of Boring

No groundwater encountered at time of backfill

LOG OF BORING 3


PLATE

5

'" Laboralary T esls 0 0"-

~

J~[H] JOHN C. HOM & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultants

0 ~

~ ~~ .2 '" 3 <n-.- c

0 o 0 co ::;:;:U

5 22.3

21 46.5

2 103.2

Jab No: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Dale: 1/10

.?:-'v; -c

o.. c:-c= '" v '" oo.E, 0

56

70

42

12

14

16

'" 0.. E 0

Vl

Log of Boring 4

Equipmenl: Track Mounled Drill Rig

Elevalion: 0 Dale Drilled: 12/23/09

LIGHT ORANGE-BROWN and GREY SILTY CLAY (CH), moisl, medium sfiff, (FILL)

DARK GREY CLAY (CH), saluraled, soft, (BAY MUD)

Bottom of Baring

No groundwaler 01 lime of backfill

LOG OF BORING 4

Smilh Ranch Airport Fields San Rafael, California

PLATE

6

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO.4 SIEVE SIZE

SANDS

MORE THAN HALF COARSE FRACTION I

S SMALLER THAN NO.4 SIEVE SIZE

CLEAN GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

GRAVELS WITH OVER 12% FINES

CLEAN SAN DS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

SANDS WITH OVER 12% FINES

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GP ~;;..: ..

GC ~ SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PI

• • • • • • • •

I I

TYPICAL NAMES

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

SILTY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, PLASTIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Cansol Consolidation

LL Liquid Limit (in %)

PL Plastic Limit (in %)

PI Plastic Index (in %)

Gs Specific Gravity

SA Sieve Analysis

I11III Undisturbed Sample

[l] Auger Sample

Gd Standard Penetration Sample

CZl Excavation Sample

0 Sample Aflempt No Recovery

Tx

TxCU

DS

FVS

UC

LVS

SS

EXP

P

I Shear Strength, psi

~ ~ Confining Pressure, psi

320 (2600) Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

320 (2600)

2750 (2000)

470

2000

700

Shrink Swell

Expansion

Permeability

Consolidated Undrained T rimdol

Consolidated Drained Direct Shear

Field Vane Shear

Unconfined Compression

laboratory Vane Shear

Note: All strength tests on 2.8" or 2.4" diameter samples unless olherwise indicated.


job No: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Date: 1/10

KEY TO TEST DATA

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST DATA

Smilh Ranch Airport Fields San Rafael, California

PLATE

ROC K

I~=~I SHALE

T Y PES

~ METAMORPHIC lLL.I ROCKS

SANDSTONE

II+E) SHEARED SHALE ± - MELANGE

1,_', (_.>;_ IGNEOUS ROCKS , , ~CHERT

t: ::1 GREENSTONE . ~, r'::":'~~'1 SANDSTONE ~...,.....:: & SHALE

BEDDING THICKNESS

Massive - Greater than 6-feet Thickly Bedded - 2- to 6-feet Medium Bedded - 6- to 24-inches Thinly Bedded - 2-1/2- to 8-inches Very Thinly Bedded - 3/4- to 2-1/2-inches Closely Laminated - 1/4- to 3/4-inches Very Closely Laminated - less than 1/4-inch

Soft - pliable; can be dug by hand

HARDNESS

JOINT, FRACTURE, OR SHEAR SPACING

Very Widely Spaced - Greater than 6-feet Widely Spaced - 2- to 6-feet Moderately To Widely Spaced - 8- to 24-inches Closely Spaced - 2-1/2- to 8-inches Very Closely Spaced - 3/4- to 2-1/2-inches Extremely Closely Spaced - less than 3/4-inch

Slightly Hard - can be gouged deeply or carved with a pocket knife

Moderately Hard - can be readily scratched by a knife blade; scratch leaves heavy trace of dust

and is readily visible after the powder has been blown away

Hard - can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visible

Very Hard - cannot be scratched with pocket knife; leaves a metallic streak

Plastic - capable of being molded by hand

Friable - crumbles by rubbing with fingers

STRENGTH

Weak - an unfractured specimen of such material with crumble under light hammer blows

Moderately Strong - specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking

Strong- specimen will withstand a few heavy ringing hammer blows and usually yields large fragments

Very Strong - rock will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments

DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Highly Weathered - abundant frodures coated with oxides, carbonates, sulphotes, mud, etc., through discoloration,

rock disintegration, mineral decomposition

Moderately Weathered - some fracture coating, moderate or localized discoloration, little to no effect on cementation,

slight mineral decomposition

Slightly Weathered - a few stroinedfroctures, slight discoloration, little or no effect on cementotion,minerol decomposition

Fresh - unaffected by weathering agents, no appreciable change with depth


Job No.: 1250.13

Appr: JCH

Date: 1/10

GEOLOGIC TERMS FOR ROCK


PLATE

PRESSURE (PSF X 1000)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 '( i'-- r- U -.

r- -.

~ 4 "',,-

"- I"E) 8

\ 1\

12 \

16 1\ Z i\ 0 ~ \ « 20 0 :::; 0

\ V)

\ Z 24 0 A u I- l.7--. c-- -. 1\ z r- '---. w 28

I 1\ u -. 0<: r- c--

W 0.... r- r-

~ \ 32

:--.

! r--r--~~

36

i

40

44

48 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Type of Specimen Undisturbed Before Test After Test

Diameter (in.) 2.43 I Height (in.) 0.800 Moisture Content 105.4 67.2

Overburden Pressure, Po 900 psf Void Ratio 2.826 1.869

Preconsolidation Pressure, Pc 900 psf Degree Saturation 100% 100%

Compression Index, Cc 0.28 Dry Density 44 33

Liquid Limit I Plastic Limit Plastic Index Specific Gravity, Gs 2.7, assum d

Classification DARK GRAY CLAY (Cl) I Source Boring 1 @22.5'

JCH Job No. : 1721.1 PLATE CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT

JOHN C. HOM Appr: JCH Smith Ranch Airport Fields 9 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Dale: 1/10

San Rafael, California

Geotechnical Consultants

FEIR APPENDIX C

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Tables

land Use Other Sources:

Square Feet (SF)

Recreation Facility

87,500

San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility

GHG Emission Calculations

Electricity Demand (kWh)

per unit

22.5 Rec Facility

1,968,750

Energy Information Administration. 2006. http://www. eia.doe. gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_ tables_ 2003/2003setl0/2003pdf/c14.pdf (Accessed September 2010)

land Use Other Saurces:

Square Feet (SF)

Recreation Facility

87,500

Natural Gas Demand (converted to kWh)

per unit 20.2

Rec Facility 1,767,500

Energy Information Administration. 2006. http://www. eia. doe. gov/emeu/cbec5/cbecs2003/detailed_ tables_2003/2003setll/2003pdf/c24.pdf (Accessed September 2010)

Direct Emissions

Recreation Facility Area Source Mobile Source

Indirect Emissions

URBEMIS C02 Output

128 tons/year 1,367 tons/year

Indirect Emissions from Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption

C02 Emissions

Conversion Factor

0.907 metric ton/English ton 0.907 metric ton/English ton

CH4 Emissions

MWh/yr Ib/MWh GWP Ib/MWh GWP Rec Facility 3,736 724.12 1 0.03020 23

Total C02 Emissions

116 MT/yr 1,240 MT/yr

N20 Emissions

Ib/MWh GWP 0.0081

Total Direct and Indirect long-Term Emissions Sources:

2,S88 C02e metric tons per year

California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol v 3.1.

AB 32 2020 Goal GHG emissions (metric tons C02e) per Service Population 4.6 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds, 2010 (Accessed September 2010)

296

Total

C02e MT/yr 1,232

GHG Reduction SurnlTlary

Construction Phase GHG Emission Reductions

MTC02e C&D Waste Diversion 23 Anti-Idling 53 Equipment Maintenance 51 Construction Worker Carpool 241 Total 367

Annual Project GHG Emission Reductions

MTC02e Photovoltaics 155 Green Building 184 Lighting Efficiency 12 Synthetic Turf 3 Water Conservation 31 Total 386

IEmissIon-Re-cfuctf6-ns (Metric Tons C02e) 231

C&D Waste Reductions

Proposed Squre Footage 85,700

Average C&D Waste Generated (Ibis.!.) 4.34

Total Waste Generated Metric Tons 169

Total,\!\I •• teDhi.~e4 from Landfill (Metne_ 127 Methodology.

Source:

EPA states the weighted average C&D waste generated in nonresidential construction is 4.34 Ib/s.f. Assumed 75% diversion rate. Emission were calculated using EPA's WARM Model coefficients.

EPA Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Malerials Amounts

CalRecycle Detailed Characten"zation of Construction and Demolition Waste, 2006

USA Today March 2009 article based on U.S. Census Data

caD Waste Characterization C&D Waste Characterization Combined

"/(1 ofWast~ Metric Tons Metric Tons wI 75% Diversion Metric Ton Metric Ton Total C02e Reduced {Metric Tom

Composition Roofing 10.2% 17 4 Dimensional Lumber 33 8 15

Remainder Composit

Lg. Asphalt

Dirt & Sand

Other Aggregates Clean Dimensional Lu Lg. Concrete wlo Reb; Painted Wood Clean Gypsum Board Clean Engineered Wo Paper Organic

8.3%

8.1%

6,6%

6.4% 5.9% 5.2% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 3.2% 3.0%

14

14

11 11 10 9

Concrete & Asphalt

Paper

Organ·lc

33 nla

Emissions Reduction

I 20201 IEmissions Reduction (MT C02e) 1841

Title 24 Energy Reductions

Title 24 Applied to Project

2008 Standards

Methodology

-Assumed proposed project exceeds Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 15 percent with green building practices.

Sources

-California Energy Commission, Impact Analysis: 2008 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, November 2007

Emission Reductions

IEmission Reductions (Metric Tons C02e) 121

Operation Reductions

Total MWh if Total Total

Lighting Type/Location Total MWh traditional bulbs Electricity Emission

were used Saved (MWh) Reductions IMTC02el

ParkinQ Lot 12.20 23.81 11.61 4 Exterior of Proposed BuildinQ 14.77 34.89 20.12 7 Bollards 9.29 13.80 4.51 1

Methodology:

-Using project specific information provided by the applicant to calculate energy consumption. -Assumed lights will be on 4,280 hours annually

Source -CAPCOA (201 0) <hUp://www.capcoa.org/wp-contentiuploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf>pg.119

C02e Reductions r----- 20201

IEmiSsIon~Reductions MT C02e 1551

Energy Reductions 2020

kW PV Installed (cumulative)1 259

AveraQe Sun Hours per day 5.00

ArinualElectricitY generated (kWhj 473,040.00

Annu(jIElectrlcitv: generated"(MVVh) 473.04

Methodology:

Source

-Assumed an average 200 watt photovoltaic panel

-Average Sun Hours per day obtained from the National Renewable Energy Lab. Assumes South-facing tilted system. http://www . n rei. g ov/g is/images/map _pv _us_an n u a 11 Okm_ d ec2008 .jpg

Emission Reductions

IEmission-Reductions (Metric Tons C02e) 311


Percentagede!:recu,e In 1;innualt1;ihdscaping water consumption " 40%

Total emissionl)~s~Qc;i:.t(,;~Vlfith landscaping 81.3

Methodology:

Source

- Assumed a 40% decrease in annual water consumption for the proposed irrigation system. - Assumed 70% of water consumption per year for the project was for outdoor landscaping

'-Synthetic Turf Council <http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1 &subarticlenbr=228> -Enerov associated with water consumption calculated usino URBEMIS 2007

Emission Reductions

IEmisslon-Reductions (Metric Tons C02~ 31


Assumptions

Source

- Assumed annual water savings of a synthetic turf sports field is 750,000 gallons of water.

-Synthetic Turf Council < http://www .synthetictu rfcou n cil. org/d isp laycomm on. cfm? a n= 1 &su ba rti clenbr=228> -California Energy Commission. 2005. California Energy - Water Relationship Staff Report.

rEmission Reductions (Metric Tons C02) 241 I

Emission Reductions

Assumptions

Sources

55% of all construction related emissions were attributed to employee commute. Assumed 14% of construction worker carpool based on 2000 Census data. Assumed an increase in carpool mode share to 20%

EPA Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector, February 2009 2000 US Census Data

IEmissiOn Reduction (Metric Tons C02e) 511

Methodology Proper equipment maintenance can reduce construction related C02 emissions by 0.5%

Source EPA Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector, February 2009

Emission Reductions

IEmlssionReduclions{MetricTonsC(26) r 531


Methodology: - Total construction operations calculated using Urbemis 9.2.4 -Assume heavy trucks idle for one hour per day - According to http://www.cobbcountyga.gov/green/downloads/meassure37-reduction.pdf, vehicles consume 1 gallon of diesel fuel for every hour of idling. Assume 0.5 gallons per hour for passenger cars

Construction Operations

Total number of days Total hours

Total Construction Vehicles

654 5232

13

FEIR APPENDIX A San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility...

Documents

Transcript of FEIR APPENDIX A San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility...