DOCSLIB.ORG

Gate Road and “C” Street INITIAL STUDY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gate Road and “C” Street INITIAL STUDY Main Gate Road and “C” Street INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT JUNE 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. 2100 Milvia Street Suite 125 Berkeley, CA 94706 p: 510.558.6957 f: 510.898.0801 FIN FLR w: opticosdesign.com 10'-0" FIN FLR DEEED Building: Front Elevation 1 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" A204 SET: CONSTRUCTION REVIEW FOR 10'-0" NOT DEEED Building: Left Side Elevation 2 DEEED Building: Right Side Elevation 3 Scale: 13/16"=1'-0" A204 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" A204 Revisions: Issued For Construction: --/--/-- Issued For Bidding And Filing: LEAD AGENCY --/--/-- Hamilton Square Hamilton Square LLC Novato, CA CITY OF NOVATO Project Number: 625A Sheet Title: PLANNING DIVISION Building Elevations Drawn By: Sheet Number: 922 MACHIN AVENUE CCJ Date: DEEED Building: Rear Elevation 4 06.11.14 A - 204 NOVATO, CA 94945 Scale: 3/16"=1'-0" A204 Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Main Gate Road and “C” Street INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT JUNE 2015 LEAD AGENCY CITY OF NOVATO PLANNING DIVISION 922 MACHIN AVENUE NOVATO, CA 94945 JUNE 2015 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 10 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................ 11 I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 11 II. Agricultural and Forest Resources .................................................................... 16 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 18 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 33 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 35 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 39 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 44 VIII. Hazards ........................................................................................................... 49 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................ 59 X. Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 66 XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 71 XII. Noise ............................................................................................................... 72 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................... 81 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................. 83 XV. Recreation ........................................................................................................ 87 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................... 89 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................. 95 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................ 102 4. REPORT PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 106 5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 108 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT JUNE 2015 List of Tables Table 1 Project Components ...................................................................................5 Table 2 Hazardous Materials Concentrations in Soil (mg/kg) .................................54 Table 3 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results ...................................................74 Table 4 Projected Population Growth and Capacity, by Schools Serving the Project Site ...............................................................................................85 Table 5 Trip Generation Summary.........................................................................93 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Site and Vicinity .............................................................................3 Figure 2 Architectural Site Plan ................................................................................4 Figure 3 Project Site, Roadway Links, and Project Sensitive Receptor Locations .................................................................................................26 Figure 4 Project Site, Construction Area, and Off-Site Residential Receptors ...........29 Appendices Appendix 1: CalEEMod Input and Output Worksheets and Construction Schedule Appendix 2: Cultural Resources Survey Appendix 3: Noise Monitoring Report Appendix 4: 2007 Final Traffic Impact Analysis ii JUNE 2015 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Title: Main Gate Road and “C” Street Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Novato Planning Division 922 Machin Ave. Novato, CA 94945 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Elizabeth Dunn, AICP Planning Manager [email protected] (415) 493-4711 Carla Violet Contract Planner [email protected] (510) 251-8210 4. Project Location: The project site is located at the Northwest Corner of Main Gate Road and “C” Street in the City of Novato, Marin County. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Casey Clement, Development Manager Thompson Development, Inc. 250 Bel Marin Keys Blvd., Building A Novato, CA 94949 6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 7. Zoning: Planned District (PD); Hamilton Army Airfield Reuse Plan 8. Description of Project: The following project description details the location of the project site, surrounding land uses, project components, and background about the regulatory requirements to complete the project as proposed. 1 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT JUNE 2015 Project Site The project site lies on the southeast side of the City of Novato, just east of Highway 101 and within the former Hamilton Air Force Base as shown in Figure 1. The project site is comprised of approximately 2.7 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Number 157- 980-05) on the northwest corner of Main Gate Road and “C” Street and is currently unoccupied. The site is generally level. It was previously developed with a gas station. The project site is surrounded by a chain link fence and is paved with some sparse vegetation growing in the cracks, including some grass and weeds. A culverted creek (Pacheco Creek) runs along the western border of the project site. The project site has frontage along Main Gate Road on the south and frontage along “C” Street on the east. Immediately north is vacant Novato Unified School District property and immediately west is Lanham Village residential. Further east across “C” Street are educational uses, including North Bay Children’s Center, Novato Charter School, and two vacant lots owned by Novato Unified School District. Figure 2 shows the Architectural Site Plan prepared by Opticos Design, Inc. dated June 11, 2014. Project Components The proposed project includes excavation of soil impacted by the release of hazardous materials and replacement of 3 active monitoring wells as described in the Draft Remedial Action Plan (Draft RAP) (West Yost Associates, 2015). Following the remediation process, construction of 31 townhome-style residential units with tuck-under parking in 8 three- story buildings and 1 two-story building would commence. A rear and internal alleyway would provide vehicle access to tuck-under parking for each unit. The maximum building height is approximately 34 feet and a rear alleyway surrounds the project. There are 6 three-story buildings that surround and face a common park space, 2 three-story buildings with frontage on “C” Street, and 1 two-story building with frontage on Main Gate Road. There would be a fence along the perimeter of the rear alleyway to screen tuck- under parking garages and a low wall on Main Gate Road and “C” Street to partially screen units facing the street. The proposed project includes the elements listed below and detailed in Table 1. Residential Units: A total of 31 units are proposed. The types of units include 21 three-bedroom and 10 four-bedroom townhomes. Unit sizes range from 1,387 to 1,929 square feet. 2 JUNE 2015 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT FIGURE 1 PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY Project Site Rail Hamilton Parkway Hamilton School Main Gate Road 3 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT JUNE 2015 FIGURE 2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 4 MAIN GATE ROAD AND “C” STREET PROJECT JUNE 2015 Common Spaces and Amenities: The proposed townhome project includes a large central common park space (Hamilton Square) for social gatherings and recreation among residents. Directly south of the park is a small plaza with a mail pavilion and an entry green that abuts the sidewalk on Main Gate Road. Additional front yards, upper-story balconies, and landscaped areas throughout the project site are also provided. Circulation and Parking: There are a total of three vehicular entry points proposed to connect an internal alley network within the project site. Two access points are located on “C” Street, leading to an alley that provides access to tuck- under parking
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Raiders and Ruins
    Raiders and Ruins By Nathan-–Patches-Reed Credits Author: Nathan Reed Publisher: Editor: Sarah Lyon Art Director: Nathan Reed Graphic Designer: Nathan Reed Layout: Nathan Reed Cover Artist: Tamas Baranya Cover Designer: Nathan Reed Interior Artists: Tamas Baranya, Don Davis, Nathan Reed, James P. Blair Diagrams: Fonts: Boycott, Arial Indexes: Nathan Reed Proofreaders: John Michael Scott, Challon Winer Miniatures in Photos: www.Brother-Vinni.com, Artizan Designs, Armorcast, WorldWorks, Reaper Miniatures, Games-Workshop. Raiders and Ruins This game references the Savage Worlds game system, available from Pinnacle Entertainment Group at www.peginc.com. Savage Worlds and all associated logos and trademarks are copyrights of Pinnacle Entertainment Group. Used with permission. Pinnacle makes no representation or warranty as to the quality, viability, or suitability for purpose of this product. Licensee indemnifies Licensor, other licensees of the Property, their officers, employees, agents, licensees, and assigns, and holds them harmless against all loss, damage, injury, and expense, including reasonable attorney’s fees, from any breach of this Agreement. 1) The licensee agrees not to reproduce material from the Savage Worlds rulebook or any other copyrighted work without the express written consent of Pinnacle Entertainment Group or the copyright holder. 2) Pinnacle Entertainment Group reserves all intellectual property rights to Savage Worlds, including, but not limited to, all copyrights, trademarks, hobby game, publishing, entertainment, licensing and merchandising rights. 3) Pinnacle Entertainment Group reserves all rights to its Intellectual Properties, including those used as examples or illustrations in the Savage Worlds rule book, promotional material, or published works. 4) This licensee agrees not to charge for the product in any way, shape, or form.
    [Show full text]
  • Base Structure Report: Fiscal Year 2004 Baseline
    DCN: 10365 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BASE STRUCTURE REPORT (A Summary of DoD's Real Property Inventory) FISCAL YEAR 2004 BASELINE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS & ENVIRONMENT) Department of Defense Base Structure Report (BSR) I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. DoD-2 II. PORTFOLIO SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. DoD-2 III. CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................................... DoD-6 IV. DATA SOURCES AND DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................................ DoD-7 V. SUMMARY OF CHANGES ............................................................................................................................................... DoD-9 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................................... DoD-9 VII. INSTALLATION SUMMARIES..................................................................................................................................... DoD-11 VIII. TOTAL DOD INVENTORY............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Rare & Endagered Birds
    California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus State Endangered 1971 Fully Protected Federal Endangered 1970 General Habitat: The California brown pelican uses a variety of natural and human-created sites, including offshore islands and rocks, sand spits, sand bars, jetties, and piers, for daytime loafing and nocturnal roosting. Preferred nesting sites provide protection from mammalian predators and sufficient elevation to prevent flooding of nests. The pelican builds a nest of sticks on the ground, typically on islands or offshore rocks. Their nesting range extends from West Anacapa Island and Santa Barbara Island in Channel Islands National Park to Islas Los Coronados, immediately south of and offshore from San Diego, and Isla San Martín in Baja California Norte, Mexico. Description: The brown pelican is one of two species of pelican in North America; the other is the white pelican. The California brown pelican is a large, grayish-brown bird with a long, pouched bill. The adult has a white head and dark body, but immature birds are dark with a white belly. The brown pelican weighs up to eight pounds and may have a wingspan of seven feet. Brown pelicans dive from flight to capture surface-schooling marine fishes. Status: The California brown pelican currently nests on West Anacapa Island and Santa Barbara Island in Channel Islands National Park. West Anacapa Island is the largest breeding population of California. In Mexico, the pelicans nest on Islas Los Coronados and Isla San Martín. Historically, the brown pelican colony on Islas Los Coronados was as large as, or larger than, that of recent years on Anacapa Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation March 8, 2007 HAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN File No. 94-003 Project Manager: Tom Gandesbery RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consideration and possible Conservancy authorization to accept title to the 18.37 acre Navy property in a no-cost public benefit transfer for purposes of the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Plan LOCATION: Novato, Marin County PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy; Resource Enhancement EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location, Site and Parcel Maps (3) Exhibit 2: USFWS letter in support of no-cost transfer Exhibit 3: Finding of Suitability for Transfer, Department of the Navy Exhibit 4: Determination of No Further Action - DTSC and RWQCB RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following Resolution pursuant to Division 21 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the acceptance of fee title to the Navy “Ballfields” property adjacent to the Hamilton Army Airfield as a no-cost public discount benefit transfer from the United States Department of the Navy, on the terms and conditions described in the accompanying staff recommendation. This authorization is subject to approval by the Director of General Services pursuant to Government Code Section 11005 and all other relevant provisions of law.” Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that acceptance of title
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001
    CALIFORNIA HISTORIC MILITARY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY VOLUME I: INVENTORIES OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ON CALIFORNIA MILITARY INSTALLATIONS Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, California Contract DACA05-97-D-0013, Task 0001 Prepared by: FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Sacramento, California 95834 and JRP JRP HISTORICAL CONSULTING SERVICES Davis, California 95616 March2000 Calirornia llisloric Miliiary Buildings and Structures Inventory, \'olume I CONTENTS Page CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... i FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ ii TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... viii SERIES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 I. I Purpose and Goals ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Closing Military Bases: National Disaster Or National Opportunity?
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 1994 Closing Military Bases: National Disaster or National Opportunity? Brooke Danielle Wortham University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Wortham, Brooke Danielle, "Closing Military Bases: National Disaster or National Opportunity?" (1994). Theses (Historic Preservation). 477. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/477 Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Wortham, Brooke Danielle. (1994). Closing Military Bases: National Disaster or National Opportunity?. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/477 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Closing Military Bases: National Disaster or National Opportunity? Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Wortham, Brooke Danielle. (1994). Closing Military Bases: National Disaster or National Opportunity?. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/477
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton Wetland Restoration Plan 9 1
    P Hamilton Wetland A 0 3_ Restoration Plan 0 3 8 volumeII: EIR/EIS 9 LeadAgencies: California State CoastalConservancy and U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers San FranciscoDistrict December1998 L P A 0 1 0 3 HAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN 9 1 VOLUME I1: FINAL EIR/EIS Lead Agencies: California State Coastal Conservancy 1130 Broadway,1 lth Floor Oakland, CA94612-2530 Contact: Terri Nevins 510/286-4161 and U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers San Francisco District EnvironmentalPlanning Section 333 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 Contact:Eric F. Jolliffe 415/977-8543 PREPARED BY" Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 2600 V Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95818-1914 Contact: Lisa Larrabee 916/737-3000 DECEMBER 1998 This documentshould be cited as: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1998. Hamiltonwetland restoration plan, volumeII: final EIR/EIS. December. (JSA 98-033.) Sacramento, CA. Lead agencies: California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA, and U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, EnvironmentalPlanning Section, San Francisco, CA. Tableof Contents 0 3 9 3 Summary S-1 Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1 Overviewof the Proposed Project 1-1 The Proposal 1-1 Project Sponsors 1-2 Overview of CEQAand NEPA 1-2 Scope of the EIR/EIS 1-3 Definition and Purposes of Scoping 1-3 Elements of the ScopingProcess 1-3 Frameworkof the EIR/EIS 1-5 The Next Steps in the EnvironmentalReview Process 1-5 Chapter2. Purpose of and Need for the HamiltonWetland Restoration Plan 2-1 Introduction 2-1 Needfor Tidal Habitat Restoration in San Francisco Bay 2-1 Project Purposes 2-1 Project Goal and Objectives 2-2 Relationship to Other Projects and Plans 2-3 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 2-3 City of NovatoGeneral Plan 2-4 The San Francisco Bay Plan 2-4 San Francisco Estuary Baylands EcosystemGoals Project 2-4 San Francisco Estuary Project ComprehensiveConservation and ManagementPlan 2-5 Long-TermManagement Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Sediments in San Francisco Bay 2-5 EcosystemRestoration Program Plan 2-6 Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement(50-Foot) Project 2-6 Chapter3.
    [Show full text]
  • US/US Territories Army
    DCN 3343 Operations & Training Facilities Area Department Owned US/US Territories Army - Active 18,590 Army - Guard 2,503 Army - Reserve 1,819 Navy - Active 10,320 Navy - Reserve 380 Air Force - Active 12,631 Air Force - Guard 2,799 Air Force - Reserve 626 Marine Corps - Active 2,110 Marine Corps - Reserve 12 DLA 235 TMA 117 WHS 22 Other 9,398 US/US Territories Total 61,562 Non-US Army - Active 4,017 Navy - Active 1,681 Air Force - Active 4,123 Marine Corps - Active 644 TMA 17 Other 557 Non-US Total 11,039 Operations & Training Total 72,601 DCN 3343 Maintenance & Production Facilities Area Department Owned US/US Territories Army - Active 11,154 Army - Guard 640 Army - Reserve 584 Navy - Active 4,389 Navy - Reserve 187 Air Force - Active 4,293 Air Force - Guard 1,125 Air Force - Reserve 169 Marine Corps - Active 868 Marine Corps - Reserve 3 DLA 81 TMA 38 Other 3,263 US/US Territories Total 26,794 Non-US Army - Active 1,161 Navy - Active 526 Air Force - Active 773 Marine Corps - Active 205 DoDEA 1 TMA 2 Other 41 Non-US Total 2,709 Maintenance & Production Total 29,503 DCN 3343 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Facilities Area Department Owned US/US Territories Army - Active 2,813 Army - Guard 3 Army - Reserve 12 Navy - Active 2,655 Air Force - Active 1,556 Marine Corps - Active 30 TMA 44 Other 1,191 US/US Territories Total 8,304 Non-US Army - Active 133 Navy - Active 35 Air Force - Active 38 TMA 8 Other 27 Non-US Total 241 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Total 8,545 DCN 3343 Supply Facilities Area Department Owned
    [Show full text]
  • Base Realignment and Closure Account - 1995 Financial Summary - Overview Cost and Savings by Fiscal Year (Dollars in Millions) ARMY/Overall Summary
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ARMY Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Budget Estimates JUSTIFICATION DATA SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS APRIL 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Overview Fiscal Year 2014 1 II. Financial Summary 3 III. BRAC Recommendations Detail -- By State TAB a. Alabama Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (1988) 1 Ft. McClellan (1995) 2 b. Arkansas Ft. Chaffee (1991) 3 c. California Ft. Ord (1991) 4 Hamilton Army Airfield (1988) 5 Lompoc Disciplinary Barracks (1995) 6 Oakland Army Base (1995) 7 RC Transformation in California (2005) 8 Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant (2005) 9 Sacramento Army Depot (1991) 10 Sierra Army Depot (1995) 11 d. Connecticut RC Transformation in Connecticut (2005) 12 Stratford Army Engine Plant (1995) 13 e. Colorado Pueblo Army Depot (1988) 14 f. District of Columbia Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (2005) 15 g. Georgia Ft. Gillem (2005) 16 Ft. McPherson (2005) 17 h. Hawaii RC Transformation in Hawaii (2005) 18 i. Illinois Ft. Sheridan (1988) 19 RC Transformation in Illinois (2005) 20 i Savanna Army Depot Activity (1995) 21 j. Indiana Ft. Benjamin Harrison (1991) 22 Jefferson Proving Ground (1988) 23 Newport Chemical Depot (2005) 24 k. Iowa RC Transformation in Iowa (2005) 25 l. Kansas Kansas Army Ammunition Plant (2005) 26 m. Kentucky Lexington (1988) 27 n. Maryland Ft. Meade (1988) 28 Ft. Ritchie (1995) 29 o. Massachusetts Ft. Devens (1991) 30 Sudbury Training Annex (1995) 31 p. Michigan Detroit Arsenal(1995) 32 RC Transformation in Michigan (2005) 33 U.S. Army Garrison Michigan (Selfridge) (2005) 34 q. New Jersey Camp Kilmer (1995) 35 Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadway Complex San Diego, California
    DCN: 7336 Commissioner's Base Briefing Book Navy Broadway Complex San Diego, California Chairman Principi and Commissioners Coyle, Hansen, & Bilbray 5 August 2005 NAVY BROAIIWAY COMPLEX, SAN DIEGO, CA CHAIRMAN AND COMMISIONERS' BASE VISIT 5 AUG 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB A. ITINERARY B. BASE SUMMARY SHEET C. INSTALLATION REVIEW D. STATE MAP AND STATISTICAL DATA E. STATE CLOSURE HISTORY LIST F. PRESS ARTICLES AND CORRESPONDENCE G. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Base Visit Itinerary Navy Broadway Complex, San Diego, California August 4-5,2005 - - p~~- DATEITIME EVENT LOCATION POC ACTION Thursday 4 Aug 05 Commission Staff Navy Broadway LCDR Michael Pre-visit Complex, Tasker, Navy 937 North Harbor Region Southwest Dr., San Diego (619) 571-3381 cell Thursday 4 Aug 05 Commissioner Ornni San Diego Brian McDaniel Bilbray Arrives in Hotel Sr. Staff Analyst San Diego, CA 675 L St. 202-64 1-6406 or San Diego, CA 703-861-1 159 cell 6 19-231 -6664 Jason Cole Advance Team 703-90 1-7768 cell Friday 5 Aug 05 Commissioner San Diego Int. Jason Cole Mr. McDaniel 9:19 AM Hansen Arrives in Airport (SAN) 703-90 1-7768 cell will meet San Diego, CA Delta Flt. 3787 Commissioner from SLC and drive him to Navy Broadway Complex Friday 5 Aug 05 Commissioner Coyle San Diego Int. Jason Cole Mr. McDaniel 10:25 AM Arrives in San Airport (SAN) 703-901 -7768 cell will meet Diego, CA UA Flt. 6 162 Commissioner from LAX and drive him to Navy Broadway Complex Friday 5 Aug 05 Chairman Principi San Diego Int. Brian McDaniel Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton Village Housing Project
    Hamilton Village Housing Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by City of Novato Community Development Department 922 Machin Avenue Novato, California 94945 Contact: Steve Marshall, AICP, Planning & Environmental Services Manager prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 4825 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95819 April 2020 Hamilton Village Housing Project Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by City of Novato Community Development Department 922 Machin Avenue Novato, California 94945 Contact: Steve Marshall, AICP, Planning & Environmental Services Manager prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 4825 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95819 April 2020 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. Table of Contents Table of Contents Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1 1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1 4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1 5. Project Sponsor’s
    [Show full text]
  • 3.14 Aesthetics
    3. Affected Environment / Environmental Setting, Environmental Consequences / Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.14 Aesthetics Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public experience and appreciation of the environment. This section describes the existing aesthetic conditions in the North Bay Water Recycling Program (NBRWP) area and evaluates potential impacts on aesthetic resources as a result of NBWRP implementation. The analysis is based on information obtained during field investigations and from local plans. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section defines significance criteria used for the impact assessment and presents a discussion of potential project-related impacts. Determination of significance of impacts in this EIR/EIS apply only to CEQA, not to NEPA. 3.14.1 Affected Environment/Setting LGVSD and Novato SD The NBWRP area contains visual resources that are representative of California’s Bay Area region, including farmland, meandering creeks, rolling hills and oak woodlands. The LGVSD area is characterized by Hamilton Army Airfield, St. Vincent’s School for Boys, Silveira Ranch, China Camp State Park and Peacock Gap, which are situated between urbanized areas of the city of San Rafael, and the communities of Terra Linda, Lucas Valley and Smith Ranch. The Miller Creek corridor, an important natural area, is east of U.S. Highway 101 and serves as a centerpiece of the watershed. The hills between the city of San Rafael and the surrounding communities are scenic topographical features. Large areas of open space that contain undeveloped ridgelines, hillsides, and oak tree groves also contribute to the natural scenic beauty of the area.
    [Show full text]