Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 10024 (Fair, Isaac & Co)RESOLUTION #10024 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 406,000 SQUARE FOOT FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT ON 15+ ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF SECOND STREET, AND FRONTING LINDARO STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE (Re: Former PG & E Service Center site and City of San Rafael Corporation Yard) AP# 13-012-120 (ptn.), 13-021-100 and 13-021-190 The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, on March 17, 1997, applications requesting approval of a PD (Planned Development) District zone change, an environmental and design review permit, tentative map and use permit for the development of a 406,000 square foot office complex were filed with the City of San Rafael; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 1997, the City staff completed and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) informing the public, responsible agencies and special interest groups that an Initial Environmental Assessment had been completed and that the City would be preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A 30 -day public review period was observed on the NOP, which included a `scoping hearing' with the Planning Commission on April 29, 1997; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 1997, the applications were reviewed by the City staff and deemed complete for processing; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed and distributed for public review. A 45 -day public review period was observed commencing on August 18, 1997 and closing on October 2, 1997, which included a public hearing with the Planning Commission on September 23, 1997; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 1997, and application requesting a development agreement was filed with the City and found to be complete for processing; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1997, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Response to Comments document was completed and distributed to those agencies, organizations and persons who commented on the DEIR. Modifications to the Final Environmental Impact Report were prepared and distributed on December 24, 1997; and WHEREAS, on January 7, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 98-1 recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed PD District zone change, the environmental and design review permit, tentative map, use permit and development agreement applications for the development of the 406,000 square foot Fair Isaac Office Park project, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development staff. As part of the hearing process, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the draft Statement of Findings and Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. On a 5-0-2 vote, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 98-2, recommending to the City Council the adoption of the Statement of Findings and Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 1998, the City Council on a 4-0-1 vote, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Fair, Isaac Office Park project; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 1998, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed development applications for the office park project, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development staff. As part of this hearing process, the City Council considered the draft Statement of Findings and Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that, all impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report have been or can be mitigated to a level of less -than -significant, with the exception that the traffic generated by the project would have a significant, unavoidable impact on two segments of U.S. 101 in the southbound direction in the A.M. peak hour and on three segments of U.S. 101 in the northbound direction during the P.M. peak hour; this cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Findings and Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations presented in Exhibit A and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program presented in Attachment G of the City Council Agenda Report, dated February 17, 1998, and available and on -file with the Department of Community Development. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and approved to ensure implementation of and compliance with all conditions of approval required to mitigate project impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on Tuesday, the seventeenth of February, 1998, by the following vote to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COHEN, HELLER, MILLER & VICE MAYOR PHILLIPS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT/ COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR BORO (Due to conflict of interest) DISQUALIFIED: JE�LEONCINI, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A: The Fair, Isaac Office Park Project EIR Statement of Findings and Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (includes Attachment 1, technical traffic notes) ccreso2.fi EXHIBIT `A' THE FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK PROJECT EIR STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF CEOA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1.1 California Environmental Oualitv Act The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000-15387) require that specific findings be made if a lead agency decides to approve a project which will have significant impacts. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code states: [N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects thereof unless such public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed Environmental Impact Report. (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. © Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The State CEQA Guidelines contain similar provisions. Cal. Code of regulations, Title 14, Section 15091 (1992). The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project (State Clearinghouse No. 9704204 1) identifies significant or potentially significant environmental impacts which, prior to mitigation, may occur as a result of The Fair, Isaac Office Park Project ("Project"). Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Rafael hereby adopts these findings. The CEQA Guidelines also state that the decision -maker must balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15093 (1992). The San Rafael City Council has carefully considered the benefits of the Project. The Fair, Isaac Office Park Project EIR identifies significant environmental effects which will not be mitigated to below a level of significance and which will be allowed to occur by approval of the Project. Therefore, the San Rafael City Council hereby adopts the statement of overriding considerations contained in this document which states the specific reasons that the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and that the unavoidable environmental effects are considered acceptable. VA 1.2 Environmental Review Process In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Rafael conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has included the following: Completion of an Initial Study by the City of San Rafael, which concluded that an EIR should be prepared, and completion of a scoping process in which the public and public agencies were invited by the City of San Rafael to participate. Section 1.2 of the EIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the EIR through the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and public scoping process. Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City of San Rafael, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period (August 18,1997 -October 2,1997). Volume I of the Draft EIR contains the text of the Draft EIR, and five appendices, including the Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study and Comment Letters, and the following technical appendices: Plants Observed on the Project Site; Hydrology Analysis and Supporting Calculations; Air Quality Data; and Noise Data. The Draft EIR was released for a 45 -day public review period. Notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was sent to interested persons and organizations, published in newspapers of general circulation, and posted at San Rafael City Hall. Preparation of the Final EIR, including the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR contains the following: comments on the Draft EIR; responses to those comments; testimony and written comments presented to the Planning Commission and responses thereto; testimony and written comments presented to the City Council and responses thereto; and appended documents. Public Hearings on the proposed Project. The project applicant ("applicant"), as that term is used in these Findings, refers to Village Properties, its successors and assigns, which has proposed development of the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Fair, Isaac Office Park project involves the development and revitalization of an approximate 15.1 -acre site located on the southeastern edge of Downtown San Rafael. The site is bordered by Second Street to the north, Mahon Creek to the east, Andersen Drive (under construction) and Mahon Creek to the south and vacant, and developed lands to the west. Implementation of the Project will include development of three parcels into an office park contained in two 3 -story and three 4 -story buildings, on-site parking in surface parking and in two 3 -level parking structures, and associated site circulation, infrastructure and landscaping improvements. The actions associated with approval of the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project include without limitation the following actions, which are described in the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project EIR: a Zone change from PD 2 0 • (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) District to allow for the specific office park use and Master Development Plan; Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide the three parcels; Use Permit approval to allow for phased and/or multi -tenant development, as well as a Building Height Bonus; Environmental and Design Review Permit approval to allow for comprehensive design approval of the overall project site plan, including maximum building square footage, floor area ratio, architecture, infrastructure and landscaping plans, building elevations and phased construction, and design of the buildings and parking structures; and, approval of a Development Agreement to provide for vested development approvals. 3.0 CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS The San Rafael City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 9704204 1) (the "Final EIR") for the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project ("Project"). Based upon the substantial evidence on the record, the City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and declares as stated herein. 3.1 The City of San Rafael is the "lead agency" for the Project evaluated in the EIR The City Council finds that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. 3.2 The Final EIR evaluates the following environmental issues: Land Use, Applicable Plans and Policies; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology/Drainage; Transportation/ Circulation; Air Quality; Noise; Public Services and Utilities; Visual Resources, Aesthetics, Light and Glare; and Hazardous Materials/Risk Assessment. The EIR considered the significant unavoidable environmental effects, if any, in each of these categories within Section 4.0 of Volume I and in the Executive Summary. Additionally, the EIR considered, in separate sections, the following issues: Cumulative Impacts; Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposal Is Implemented; Altematives to the Proposed Project; Growth -Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project; and Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented. The cumulative impacts of the Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects were considered in the EIR as required by CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21083) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15130). The EIR and the related planning studies which were incorporated by reference analyzed existing conditions, which thereby considered the effects of past and present projects. Also considered were the reasonably foreseeable projects through the use of various planning projections which were identified in the EIR. The reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts from the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project and related projects were analyzed in the EIR. For purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that Phase I of the Fair, Isaac Office Park would be occupied by January 2000. Section 4.0 of the EIR analyzed the effects of the proposed Project, including analysis of future environmental conditions to the extent required to determine the significance of the Project's impacts. The EIR specifically addressed cumulative impacts in Section 5.0. The EIR identified the study area for each potential cumulative impact. The study areas included the geographical area in which the impacts of the Project are reasonably anticipated to be measurable. The EIR analyzed "related projects" or the past, present, and reasonably anticipated projects producing related or cumulative impacts. Related projects analyzed in the EIR include the following projects: Extension of Anderson Drive; Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan; PG&E Substation Site; Shamrock Retail Center; New rd Safeway Store; redevelopment of the Old Macy's Site; 1101 Fifth Avenue; Lone Pahn Court; Marin County Museum; and Albert Park Use Program. The EIR considers cumulative impacts as significant when the Project makes an incremental contribution to a significant adverse environmental effect which is due to the combined effects of the Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although the Project's impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible, the Project will contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to transportation/circulation (cumulative increases in traffic levels on three segments of U.S. Highway 101). The City Council finds that the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As demonstrated in Sections 4.0 of these findings, further mitigation of Project impacts is infeasible and/or beyond the scope of the City's jurisdiction. Since the Project impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible, it would be infeasible to further avoid, reduce, or mitigate the remaining significant cumulative effects to which the Project contributes. 3.3 The City Council finds that the Final EIR provides objective information to assist the City decision - makers and the public -at -large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review period (August 18, 1997 through October 2, 1997) as well as those made at (or prior to) the noticed public hearings on the issues relative to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR also includes a summary of the oral and written comments made at or prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing and at (or prior to) the City Council Public Hearing and responses to those comments. The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed Project to reduce anticipated impacts or objections). The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments received by the City of San Rafael. The City of San Rafael has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The City's decision -makers have based their actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. 3.4 On February 3, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael recommended adoption of a Statement of findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. These Findings reflect the Findings reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1998. These Findings reflect the City of San Rafael's final determinations regarding the significance of impacts of the Project as approved by the City Council. 3.5 The City Council certifies that it independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and that the City circulated a Draft EIR which reflected its independent judgement. 4 (O 3.6 The City Council certifies that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgement of the City of San Rafael. 3.7 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR and in Section 4.0 of these Findings. 3.8 The significant impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives, as identified in the Final EIR and Section 6.0 of these Findings. 3.9 CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program for the Project which it has adopted or made a condition of the Project approval in order to ensure compliance with project implementation. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program included in the Final EIR as certified by the City Council, serves that function for the Final EIR. The monitoring and reporting program designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures. Although the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting provisions of CEQA apply only to impacts which would be significant if not mitigated, the program has been developed to address all proposed mitigation measures. The primary objectives of the monitoring program are: (i) to establish a framework for the manner in which each measure will be monitored, and (ii) to establish a reporting process to inform the decision -makers of the status of the overall program. The City of San Rafael Planning Department will serve as the overall Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Coordinator. The numerical references to Mitigation Measures in these Findings correspond to the identifying numbers used in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The specific timing of each Mitigation Measure is described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3.10 CEQA defines the term "project" as the whole of an action or "activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies." Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15378) emphasizes that "the term project does not mean each separate governmental approval." Accordingly, the City Council is certifying a Final EIR for, and approving and adopting findings for the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the Final EIR as comprising the Project. It is contemplated that there may be a variety of discretionary actions undertaken by other state and local agencies (who might be referred to as "responsible agencies" under CEQA), concerning the Project, including without limitation the California Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Toxic Substances Control (CaIEPA/DTSC), the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Because the City of San Rafael is the lead agency for the Project, the Final EIR which the City of San Rafael has prepared is intended to be the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions by other state and local agencies to carry out the project. 3.11 This EIR is a Project EIR for purposes of environmental analysis of the proposed Fair, Isaac Office Park Project. A Project EIR examines the environmental effects of a specific project. The Project EIR process is appropriate for the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project because it analyzes the environmental effects of a specific project proposal. This EIR serves as the primary environmental compliance document for entitlement decisions regarding these components of the proposed project by the City of San Rafael and the other regulatory jurisdictions. Upon certification of this EIR, no additional CEQA review will be required for the implementation of the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project. 3.12 The City Council believes that its decision on the Project is one which must be made after a hearing required by law at which evidence is required and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City of San Rafael. As a result, any judicial review of this decision would be governed by Public Resources Code §21168 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. Regardless of the standard of review which is applicable, the City Council has considered evidence and arguments presented to the City of San Rafael prior to or at the public hearings on this matter. In determining whether the Project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting Findings pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081, the City Council has complied with Public Resources Codes §21082.2 and §21081.5. 3.13 Documents were incorporated by reference into the Final EIR pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15130), and are considered part of the Final EIR as if set forth in full therein, and are considered part of the administrative record for the Project. Copies of all these documents have been available at all times at the offices of the City of San Rafael Planning Department. 3.14 The City Council finds and declares that the Project is expected to have a "lifetime" of unlimited nature, beginning when the project is approved and running forever into the future. There were no assumptions that the Project would have a limited lifetime in the Final EIR, and the environmental effects of the Project were estimated based on an unlimited lifetime. 3.15 The City Council finds and declares that the EIR analyzes the Project, in its full size and extent, including the offsite infrastructure and transportation improvements described in the EIR. 3.16 The EIR analyzed all reasonably foreseeable extensions, expansions or alterations of the Project. The EIR analyzed, to the extent feasible at this time, the environmental effects of development of the Fair, Isaac Office Park Project at some time before the year 2003. The impacts of this development have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time the EIR was certified. The City of San Rafael hereby finds and declares that at this time there are no reasonably foreseeable extensions, expansions or alterations of the Project which area not described in the EIR, based on the administrative record before the City of San Rafael at the time of its final decision on the Project. 3.17 Having received, reviewed and considered the above described information, as well as all other information and documents in the record, the City Council hereby conditions the Project and finds as stated in these Findings. 4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT OR MITIGATED TO A LESS - THAN -SIGNIFICANT LEVEL 4.1 Land Use, Related Plans and Policies 0 12 4.1.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to land use, related plans and policies that can be mitigated to a less - than -significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.1 of the EM cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.1. A zone change for the project site from PD (Planned Development) to PD District is proposed, but would not result in any significant impacts. Prior to Phase U, the Project would involve the acquisition and relocation of the existing City Corporation Yard. Impacts associated with the relocation of the City Corporation Yard, including the demolition of the existing facility and the siting of the new facility are considered to be potentially significant and will be analyzed in detail in subsequent environmental documentation once a specific site is selected. The Project would conflict with General Plan policy NE -15 due to the Project's encroachment into the wetland buffer area by 300 square feet. General Plan Policy NE -15 Wetland Buffer Area states, "a property owner may apply for a waiver to this setback policy if the property owner can demonstrate that the proposed setback adequately protects the value of the wetland habitat to the satisfaction of the City after review by the Department of Fish and Game, similar wildlife agencies, and the public, or if the property owner can demonstrate that implementation of this policy would substantially interfere with economically viable use of the property." This is considered a potentially significant impact. The total number of proposed parking spaces provided on the site plan would conflict with the City's parking requirement of 1 space per 300 gross square feet. The resulting parking shortfall of 135 spaces would result in a potentially significant impact. The cumulative impacts associated with land use, related plans and policies, are described in Section 5.3.1 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.1.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with land use, related plans and policies have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR 4.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that, with the exception of the potentially significant impacts related to the relocation of the City Corporation Yard, the conflict with General Plan policy NE -15 and the parking shortfall, no significant impacts on land use, related plans and policies will occur. The EIR discusses potential construction impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. Land use impacts associated with construction activities are considered a temporary nuisance, and are therefore less -than -significant. The EIR also discusses impacts to on-site land use resulting from implementation of the Project. The proposed project would result in the alteration of the parcels to a more permanent, higher intensity developed condition (relative to traffic, air and noise). However, as a result of project design, which accounts for the existing on-site constraints associated with each parcel, the proposed project would result in a less -than - significant onsite land use impact. The Project's land use compatibility and surrounding land use impacts are described in the EIR. The proposed project is anticipated to be compatible with adjacent uses, including businesses within the 7 I-6 Downtown area and the transit center, as the proposed office use would revitalize a vacant and unsightly property in a prominent Downtown location and would be consistent with the Vision Statement expressed for the San Rafael Downtown, as identified in the General Plan 2000. The proposed project is also substantially consistent with the recommended design guidelines proposed in the Draft Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan which addresses a 7.16 acre segment of the creek, a portion of which is adjacent to the project site. Therefore, potential land use impacts to surrounding uses are anticipated to be less -than -significant. The EIR analyzes the relationship of the proposed Project with City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 policies. While the proposed project would be in substantial conformance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 policies, a conflict between policy NE -15 and the proposed project would result due to the project's encroachment into the wetland buffer area by 300 square feet. The potential significant impacts on land use, plans and policies will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project, except as noted in Section 6.0 of these Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-c will substantially lessen impacts resulting from relocation of the City Corporation Yard: Mitigation Measure 4.1-c: Pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Policy LU -50, the City of San Rafael shall relocate the City Corporation Yard. Upon selection of a suitable site, the City of San Rafael shall be responsible for preparing the necessary environmental documentation that will provide environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-e will substantially lessen impacts related to planning policies/zoning ordinance consistency: Mitigation Measure 4.1-e: Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.2-d and 4.5-f. No further mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measure 4.2-d (as clarified on pages 4-1 and 4-2 and Exhibits 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 in the Final EIR) will assure consistency with City of San Rafael general Plan 2000 policy NE -15. Mitigation Measure 4.2-d: The 300 square foot encroachment into the wetlands setback area shall be mitigated as follows: The applicant shall request a waiver from the 50 -foot setback requirement and will revise the project site plan to illustrate additional wetland buffer planting at a ratio of two square feet for each square foot of encroachment. The proposed alternative locations suitable for wetland buffer area replacement are shown on Exhibit 4.2-2 (see Volume II, Final EIR). To further increase the value and long-term success of wetland buffer habitat to be created, the City of San Rafael may consider the following options: (1) Relocate the pedestrian path between the southeastern edge of the lawn area and Lincoln Avenue closer to Building B, thereby allowing for greater protection of wetland buffer plantings between the pathway and the edge of the buffer area; (2) Replace wetland buffer area lost to encroachment with wetland habitat at a 2:1 ratio within or adjacent to the Andersen Drive Extension mitigation area; (3) eliminate that segment of the public pathway between the southeastern edge of the lawn area and Lincoln Avenue to preclude access through the wetland buffer area; (4) provide a split -rail fence between the edge of the public pathway and the wetland buffer area to 0 14 prevent human intrusion into the buffer area; and/or (5) to minimize potential disturbance to wetland buffer areas to be provided between Building B and the pathway, signage to restrict public access shall be developed and strategically placed in areas that maintain the most sensitive resources or highest habitat value. Signs shall discourage pedestrians from veering off of the public pathway and shall indicate that the buffer is an "environmentally sensitive area -keep out", (see Volume H, Final EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3). The Draft Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan references adopted San Rafael General Plan 2000 Policies and Programs NE -13 through NE -18 that are pertinent to Mahon Creek and the Andersen Drive extension wetland mitigation area. Specifically, Policy NE -15 Wetland Buffer Areas states, "a property owner may apply for a waiver to this setback policy if the property owner can demonstrate that the proposed setback adequately protects the value of the wetland habitat to the satisfaction of the City after review by the Department of Fish and Game, similar wildlife agencies, and the public, or if the property owner can demonstrate that implementation of this policy would substantially interfere with economically viable use of the property." A waiver from the 50 -foot setback for the 300 square foot encroachment (minimum 30 -foot setback) may be appropriate for three reasons. First, setbacks of greater than 50 feet are provided for more than half of the wetland area between Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue. Secondly, the 30 to 50 - foot buffer zone proposed represents a significant expansion of the 5 to 12 -foot buffer width already accepted as adequate by the regulatory agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RMI 1996). And finally, based on a preliminary review of the Andersen Drive wetland mitigation site, reducing the setback to a minimum of 30 feet at the three identified locations would still adequately protect the value of the wetland habitat to be created (HT Harvey 1997). The City of San Rafael has also adopted a Wetlands Overlay Ordinance (City of San Rafael Municipal Code, Title 14, Chapter 13). The Wetland Overlay Ordinance has a 50 -foot setback standard and waiver criteria similar to those proposed in the Draft Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan. Therefore, the Wetland Overlay Ordinance waiver criteria may also be met with the proposed project for the three reasons discussed in the previous paragraph. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-f will substantially reduce potential impacts from the conflict of the proposed Project with the City's parking requirement. Mitieation Measure 4.5-f: The applicant shall establish a parking/landscaping reserve or the layout of the parking structures shall be reconfigured to accommodate an additional 135 parking spaces. Parking demand will be monitored through full occupancy of Phase I to determine whether parking demand estimates for buildout of Buildings A and B fully accommodate the actual parking demand. Should monitoring efforts reveal a lower actual parking demand, parking space requirements for Phase H could be lowered proportionate to the reduced parking demand and the reserve land developed into a landscaped area. 4.2 Biological Resources 0 15 4.2.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to biological resources that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.2. Refer also to responses to comment G-10, J-2, and H-1 on pages G-2, and J-1 and H-1 of the Final EIR, respectively, as well as the responses to comments provided in Section M of the Final EIR. No significant impacts related to loss of existing ruderal/developed habitat, loss of various Special Status Species, wildlife movement, or relocation of the 115 kV transmission lines, are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. The cumulative impacts associated with biological resources are described in Section 5.3.2 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.2.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with biological resources have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 4.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on biological resources will occur after mitigation. The Project may result in impacts to Mahon Creek and/or the Mahon Creek Draft Conceptual Plan. While development of the project has substantially incorporated the setback requirements in the City's General Plan 2000 Policies and Ordinances, the project would result in a 300 square foot encroachment into the 50 -foot wetland setback area. This encroachment is in direct conflict with the 50 -foot wetland setback requirements established by Policy NE -15 and the Wetland Overlay Ordinance. General Plan Policy NE -15 Wetland Buffer Area states, "a property owner may apply for a waiver to this setback policy if the property owner can demonstrate that the proposed setback adequately protects the value of the wetland habitat to the satisfaction of the City after review by the Department of Fish and Game, similar wildlife agencies, and the public, or if the property owner can demonstrate that implementation of this policy would substantially interfere with economically viable use of the property." The approximate 300 square foot encroachment would also result in a direct conflict with the recommended wetland setback area proposed in the Draft Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan (50 feet). Any encroachment into the 50 -foot wetland setback area as set forth in the City of San Rafael General Plan policies and ordinances is considered a potentially significant impact. The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that the project will not have significant impacts on biological resources resulting from decreases in water quality as a result of implementation of the proposed Project, after mitigation. Redevelopment of the proposed project could result in a reduction in the water quality of site runoff. If site runoff flows unimpeded into Mahon Creek prior to treatment, this runoff would result in a potentially significant impact. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on biological resources will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-d (as clarified on pages 4-1 and 4-2 and Exhibits 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 in the Final EIR) would reduce potential Project impacts related to Mahon Creek and/or the Mahon Creek 10 1 (0 Draft Conceptual Plan to a level of less -than -significant. Refer also to response to comment PC -7 on pages 3-3 and 3-4 of the Final EIR Mitieation Measure 4.2-d: The 300 square foot encroachment into the wetlands setback area shall be mitigated as follows: The applicant shall request a waiver from the 50 -foot setback requirement and will revise the project site plan to illustrate additional wetland buffer planting at a ratio of two square feet for each square foot of encroachment. The proposed alternative locations suitable for wetland buffer area replacement are shown on Exhibit 4.2-2 (see Volume II, Final EIR). To further increase the value and long-term success of wetland buffer habitat to be created, the City of San Rafael may consider the following options: (1) Relocate the pedestrian path between the southeastern edge of the lawn area and Lincoln Avenue closer to Building B, thereby allowing for greater protection of wetland buffer plantings between the pathway and the edge of the buffer area; (2) Replace wetland buffer area lost to encroachment with wetland habitat at a 2:1 ratio within or adjacent to the Andersen Drive Extension mitigation area; (3) eliminate that segment of the public pathway between the southeastern edge of the lawn area and Lincoln Avenue to preclude access through the wetland buffer area; (4) provide a split -rail fence between the edge of the public pathway and the wetland buffer area to prevent human intrusion into the buffer area; and/or (5) to minimize potential disturbance to wetland buffer areas to be provided between Building B and the pathway, signage to restrict public access shall be developed and strategically placed in areas that maintain the most sensitive resources or highest habitat value. Signs shall discourage pedestrians from veering off of the public pathway and shall indicate that the buffer is an "environmentally sensitive area -keep out", (see Volume II, Final EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3). The Draft Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan references adopted San Rafael General Plan 2000 Policies and Programs NE -13 through NE -18 that are pertinent to Mahon Creek and the Andersen Drive extension wetland mitigation area. Specifically, Policy NE -15 Wetland Buffer Areas states, "a property owner may apply for a waiver to this setback policy if the property owner can demonstrate that the proposed setback adequately protects the value of the wetland habitat to the satisfaction of the City after review by the Department of Fish and Game, similar wildlife agencies, and the public, or if the property owner can demonstrate that implementation of this policy would substantially interfere with economically viable use of the property." A waiver from the 50 -foot setback for the 300 square foot encroachment (minimum 30 -foot setback) may be appropriate for three reasons. First, setbacks of greater than 50 feet are provided for more than half of the wetland area between Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue. Secondly, the 30 to 50 - foot buffer zone proposed represents a significant expansion of the 5 to 12 -foot buffer width already accepted as adequate by the regulatory agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RMI 1996). And finally, based on a preliminary review of the Andersen Drive wetland mitigation site, reducing the setback to a minimum of 30 feet at the three identified locations would still adequately protect the value of the wetland habitat to be created (HT Harvey 1997). The City of San Rafael has also adopted a Wetlands Overlay Ordinance (City of San Rafael 11 R- Municipal Code, Title 14, Chapter 13). The Wetland Overlay Ordinance has a 50 -foot setback standard and waiver criteria similar to those proposed in the Draft Mahon Creek Conceptual Plan. Therefore, the Wetland Overlay Ordinance waiver criteria may also be met with the proposed project for the three reasons discussed in the previous paragraph. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-f will reduce potential water quality impacts to a level of less - than -significant. Mitigation Measure 4.2-f: See Mitigation 4.4-f. Mitigation Measure 4.4-f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which shall focus on the implementation stormwater management practices currently in use for commercial developments. Such practices include structural and non-structural pollution prevention measures. Structural Controls: Structural controls used in the management of stormwater in commercial areas are typically used for the purpose of restoring the quality of water exiting the site to be the same as before the project development. These systems are usually used to contain or divert runoff and could provide pollutant removal capabilities as well as restore the original hydrology. The following structural control measure is suggested for the project site: Inlet trash racks or bars should be installed at all surface drainage inlets to prevent trash and floating debris from entering the storm drain system. Maintenance of the structural measures will be required on an ongoing basis to ensure proper operation. Non -Structural Controls: Non -Structural Controls emphasize controlling the source of pollutants. The two most frequently used source controls are erosion/sediment control ordinances and public education. Recommended non-structural controls which are suitable for implementation with this site and shall be the responsibility of the project applicant to perform include the following: �J Periodic cleaning (i.e. street sweeping) of paved areas to remove small particle size sediments with absorbed pollutants caused by uses of the area. Routinely cleaning onsite storm drain manholes and catch basins to remove sediment and debris. Controlling washdown or nonstormwater discharges from the project development facilities. In some cases, disposal to sanitary sewers may be required. b Controlling herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer usage through the use of a licensed landscape maintenance company. b Covered areas for trash receptacles or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation. The trash receptacle area should also be designed so that it is elevated slightly above the surrounding area to prevent contact with surface runoff. 12 19 Efficient landscaping irrigation to prevent or reduce excess irrigation or nonstormwater discharges from discharging into the storm drain system as nuisance flow. Common area litter control through removal of waste from receptacles on a regular basis. Site litter shall be strictly controlled and trash containers will be provided throughout the site. Housekeeping of delivery areas shall occur through regular sweeping of the delivery areas and/or loading zones. Spills in the loading areas shall not be washed into the storm drains. 4.3 Geoloev and Soils 4.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.3 of the EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.3. Refer also to response to comment PC -8 on pages 3-4 and 3-5 of the Final EIR. The Project would result in less than significant or no impacts related to liquefaction potential, lurching and ground cracking, lateral spreading, erosion, expansive soils, or pile driving vibration. Seismic ground accelerations would result in lateral and vertical forces on structures and other improvements at the ground surface. Consequently, structural impacts associated with seismic shaking are considered potentially significant. Differential settlement could cause structural damage to proposed buildings. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Seismically induced ground settlement would result in potentially significant impacts to site structures. Potential breaching of the slurry wall during construction would result in potentially significant impacts. The cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils are described in Section 5.3.3 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.3.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with geology and soils have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 4.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on geology and soils will occur. As the analysis in the EIR demonstrates, impacts related to seismic shaking, settlement, seismic induced ground settlement, and slurry wall breaching would be less than significant after mitigation. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on geology and soils will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-a will reduce impacts related to seismic shaking to a level of less than significant: Mitigation Measure 4.3-a: The project shall adhere to the seismic provisions of the 1997 Uniform 13 iCl Building Code using the criteria from the UBC Tables as summarized in Table 4.3-4. Though the City of San Rafael has not currently adopted the 1997 UBC, the 1997 UBC exceeds the minimum values required by the City's current version of the 1994 UBC and is recommended for this project. Possible differences in ground acceleration across the site shall be identified and accounted for in the foundation design. Earthquake resistant design of non-structural facilities and installed equipment shall also be evaluated and implemented as appropriate. The potential significant impacts related to settlement will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 4.3-b: Mitieation Measure 4.3-b: The proposed structures are planned to be founded on piles driven into the firm, non-compressible soils underlying the bay mud. Settlement of structures supported on properly installed pile foundations should be negligible. Due to the placement of new fill and possible ongoing settlement of the existing fill, the ground adjacent to the pile -supported structures will continue to settle away from the building. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project Geotechnical Engineer shall conduct a final evaluation of the amount of anticipated total and differential settlement at the site and around each of the structures. The project design shall incorporate special features to accommodate differential settlement in utility connections, flat works, stair details, and the entrance and exits of the building. Mitigation measures shall include flexible utility connections at the structures, increased scope for storm drains, articulated concrete slab -on - grades and special connections to exterior structure attachments. The project Geotechnical Engineer shall review the final plans to verify that the design accommodates the anticipated total and differential settlements to reduce potentially significant impacts to less -than -significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-d will substantially reduce potential impacts related to seismic induced ground shaking to less -than -significant levels: Mitieation Measure 4.3-d: Generally, previous borings did not encounter loose materials in the fill. However, prior to approval of a final grading plan, the project Geotechnical Engineer shall confirm areas of fill that would require excavation and re -compaction prior to initiation of construction activities. These areas shall be identified on the final grading plans and the contractor shall excavate and recompact the loose fill during grading of the site. All soils shall be handled in accordance with the requirements identified in the Soil Management Work Plan (SMWP) and the Health and Safety Plan (HSP), refer to Section 4.10 Hazardous Materials/RiskAssessment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-j will reduce impacts related to potential breaching of the slurry wall during construction to less than significant levels. Refer also to response to comment C-4 on page C-1 of the Final EIR. Mitization Measure 4.34 Utilities are planned to avoid breaching the slurry wall. A recent survey has confirmed the exact location of the slurry wall. The final plans and specifications for the project shall incorporate the location of the slurry wall. Heavy rubber tired vehicles or construction equipment moving over the uncapped portions of the slurry wall shall be minimized to eliminate potential for damage to the slurry wall. The project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide specific recommendations for construction equipment crossings, trench backfill, and repairs of breached 14 20 sections of the slurry wall. If breaching of the slurry wall occurs during construction, the Contractor shall repair the slurry wall to the satisfaction of the PG&E, DTSC and RWQCB. 4.4 Hvdroloev/DrainaLye 4.4.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to hydrology/drainage that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.4 of the EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.4. Refer also to responses to comments PC -25 on page 3-8, H-3 on page H-2 and M-15 through M-21 on pages M-3 and M-4 of the Final EIR. The Hydrology Analysis and Supporting Calculations for the proposed project are provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR The project would result in less than significant or no impacts related to the flood zone or hydraulics on Parcel C. Project construction activities, such as grading, would result in the potential for increased sedimentation due to increased erosion where soils are exposed; thus altering the quality of storm runoff. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased flow rates at the Lindaro Pump Station. The horizontal re -alignment and relocation of the central parcel drainage outlet (Parcel B) to Lindaro Street Pump Station would cause the peak flowrate of runoff, tributary to the Pump Station, to further exceed the currently overburdened pumps. Any increase in the peak flowrate at the Lindaro Pump Station would be considered a potentially significant impact due to the existing capacity deficiencies at this pump location. Proposed improvements would reduce the water quality of surface runoff conveyed through the project site, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The cumulative impacts associated with hydrology/drainage are described in Section 5.3.4 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.4.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with hydrology/drainage have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR 4.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on hydrology/drainage will occur after mitigation. As the analysis in the EIR demonstrates, impacts related to short-term construction, hydrology, hydraulics, flood zone, and water quality would be less than significant after mitigation. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on hydrology/drainage will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-a (as clarified on page 4-2 of the Final EIR) will substantially reduce potential impacts related to short term construction to less -than -significant levels. Refer also to response to comment A-4 on page A-1 of the Final EIR. Mitieation Measure 4.4-a: Prior to issuance of grading permits, a stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared that addresses different phases or stages of the grading operation to ensure that appropriate control measures are installed for erosion protection during the duration of 15 21 the construction period. Preparation of the SWPPP shall be coordinated with final preparation and implementation of the Revised Soils Management Work Plan (SMWP) to ensure that on-site construction personnel and the public are at all times protected. The provisions of the SMWP would take precedence over the suggested SWPPP control measures. The erosion and sediment control features shall be developed with the following objectives and basic strategy: Protect disturbed areas through minimization and duration of exposure. For example, by covering disturbed areas with rolled plastic sheeting or other like material. b Control surface runoff (i.e. sand bags) and maintain low runoff velocities. b Trap sediment on-site. Inspect and maintain control measures through implementation of maintenance and follow- up program. �J Minimize length and steepness of slopes. Nonstructural control measures should also be implemented for pollution control during the construction phase which focus on good housekeeping practices. The program should focus on (1) dumping of wastes and (2) maintenance of equipment. The contractor should establish an area for the dumping of site wastes and chemical pollutants should be disposed of in proper receptacles. Waste oil, grease and hydraulic fluid from the servicing of construction vehicles must be disposed of at authorized disposal centers. The SWPPP shall examine the drainage patterns, delineate tributary drainage, identify downstream/adjacent drainage facilities, and determine the limits of grading and clearing. Specific Best Management Practices should be selected between two major categories which include (1) cover practices and (2) structural measures. The selection of the control measures is dependent upon the site conditions and specific application. In addition the erosion control measures should focus on simple low cost structures which are easily maintainable. The possible features may include: Silt Fences Drainage system outlet protection Temporary sediment basins and traps Surface Stabilization through landscaping of slopes b Temporary gravel entrance Controlling surface runoff through temporary diversion and interceptor swales Inlet protection with gravel bags or silt fence 16 2Z Gravel bag barriers A staged SWPPP Plan shall be prepared to accurately represent the current stage of construction if rain is forecasted within five days and the erosion control measures specified on the original SWPPP cannot be put in place due to construction progress. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-b will substantially reduce potential impacts related to hydrology to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.4-b: Prior to final grading plan approval, the project applicant shall submit detailed engineering plans for an on-site drainage system. The drainage system shall be designed to handle the 100 -year storm event, and provide adequate protection to life and property in the interim and proposed/final condition in compliance with FEMA guidelines. The final drainage plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of San Rafael Public Works Department, and as part of their review, the Public works Department shall ensure that adequately designed drainage mechanisms are in place, as may be required to accommodate the interim hydrologic conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-d will substantially reduce potential impacts related to hydraulics (Parcels A and B) to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.4-d: In the event the Lindaro Pump Station is not operational at the time a final grading plan is approved, an interim measure shall be implemented during construction of Phase I that will ensure 100 -year flood protection to the proposed finished floor as required by FEMA guidelines. Construction of the interim condition shall be required if the 75 cfs pump upgrade planned for the Lindaro Pump Station; which is currently in the final stages of design and for which funding has been committed, is not operational by October 31, 1998. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-f will substantially reduce potential impacts related to water quality to less -than -significant levels. Refer also to response to comment A-3 on page A-1 of the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.4-f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which shall focus on the implementation stormwater management practices currently in use for commercial developments. Such practices include structural and non-structural pollution prevention measures. Structural Controls: Structural controls used in the management of stormwater in commercial areas are typically used for the purpose of restoring the quality of water exiting the site to be the same as before the project development. These systems are usually used to contain or divert runoff and could provide pollutant removal capabilities as well as restore the original hydrology. The following structural control measure is suggested for the project site: b Inlet trash racks or bars should be installed at all surface drainage inlets to prevent trash and floating debris from entering the storm drain system. Maintenance of the structural measures will be required on an ongoing basis to ensure proper operation. 17 23 Non -Structural Controls: Non -Structural Controls emphasize controlling the source of pollutants. The two most frequently used source controls are erosion/sediment control ordinances and public education. Recommended non-structural controls which are suitable for implementation with this site and shall be the responsibility of the project applicant to perform include the following: Periodic cleaning (i.e. street sweeping) of paved areas to remove small particle size sediments with absorbed pollutants caused by uses of the area. Routinely cleaning onsite storm drain manholes and catch basins to remove sediment and debris. Controlling washdown or nonstormwater discharges from the project development facilities. In some cases, disposal to sanitary sewers may be required. Controlling herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer usage through the use of a licensed landscape maintenance company. �J Covered areas for trash receptacles or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation. The trash receptacle area should also be designed so that it is elevated slightly above the surrounding area to prevent contact with surface runoff. b Efficient landscaping irrigation to prevent or reduce excess irrigation or nonstormwater discharges from discharging into the storm drain system as nuisance flow. Common area litter control through removal of waste from receptacles on a regular basis. Site litter shall be strictly controlled and trash containers will be provided throughout the site. Housekeeping of delivery areas shall occur through regular sweeping of the delivery areas and/or loading zones. Spills in the loading areas shall not be washed into the storm drains. 4.5 Transoortation/Circulation 4.5.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to transportation/circulation that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.5 of the EIR and clarified in Section 4 of the Final EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.5. Refer also to responses to comments PC -1 through PC -5 and PC -10 through PC -12 in Section 3 of the Final EIR, G-1 through G-21 in Section G of the Final EIR, L-1 through L-9 in Section L of the Final EIR and M-22 and M-23 in Section M of the Final EIR The Project would result in less than significant or no impacts related to baseline plus project traffic, General Plan plus project buildout traffic at study intersections and arterials, and transit. The proposed site plan may cause traffic congestion on Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue at the location of the project driveways. Additionally, no delivery loading zone is provided for Building D. This represents a potentially significant project impact The project would add significant pedestrian volumes to the project study area. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the project would result in a parking shortfall of 135 parking spaces based on parking demand calculations. This could result in 18 24 parking spillover into adjacent areas, which would be a potentially significant impact of the project. The presence of slow-moving construction vehicles traveling and stopping in the project area may affect the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic around the project. This is a temporary potentially significant impact. The cumulative impacts associated with transportation/ circulation are described in Section 5.3.5 of the EIR; significant impacts are identified related to traffic impacts on three segments of U.S. Highway 101. 4.5.2 Findings Project -generated traffic would have a significant, unavoidable impact on two segments of U.S. 101 in the southbound direction during the morning peak hour and on three segments of U.S. 101 in the northbound direction during the evening peak hour under General Plan build -out plus project conditions, as discussed in Section 5.0 of the findings. All other significant impacts associated with transportation/circulation have been mitigated to a less than significant. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid all other significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR 4.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings As the analysis in the EIR demonstrates, impacts related to baseline plus project traffic, general plan plus project buildout traffic on study intersections and arterials, site circulation and access, pedestrian and bicycle use, transit, parking and construction would be less than significant after mitigation. General Plan plus project buildout traffic impacts on freeway segment operations would be considered a significant unavoidable. However, the analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that all other project -specific and cumulative significance on transportation/circulation will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR (and clarified in Section 4 of the Final EIR) and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-c (as revised on page 4-4 of the Final EIR) will substantially reduce potential impacts related to site circulation and access to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.5-c: The project site plan should be modified to ensure smooth and efficient traffic flows both on the site and on adjacent roadways. The following modifications are required. Redesign the parking lot to the west of Lindaro Street to provide a minimum of 100 feet of vehicle queue storage for vehicles exiting the site, (Fehr & Peers 1997, see "Attachment A"). Redesign the parking structure to the east of Lincoln Avenue and relocate the northerly access driveway opposite the driveway access for the project parking area to the east of Lincoln Avenue. As mitigation for pedestrian impacts this intersection would be signalized, see Mitigation Measure 4.5-d. Reconfigure the surface parking lot west of Lincoln Avenue between Buildings B and E to accommodate a delivery loading zone for Building D. The loading zone should be designed to accommodate large single -unit delivery trucks. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-d (as revised on page 4-4 of the Final EIR) will substantially reduce potential impacts related to pedestrian and bicycle use to less -than -significant levels. Refer also to 19 25 response to comment J-5 on page J-1 of the Final EIR_ Mitigation Measure 4.5-d: A pedestrian signal shall be provided at the main project driveways on Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue to accommodate expected pedestrian flows. Pedestrian crosswalks should be located on all sides of these intersections. The project should provide a minimum of 41 bicycle parking spaces. Because bicycle parking is likely to be used on a long-term basis, the parking should be secure, meaning that it is in an enclosed area, or if exposed, allows the bicyclist to lock both tires and the frame. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-f will substantially reduce potential impacts related to parking to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.54: The applicant shall establish a parking/landscaping reserve or the layout of the parking structures shall be reconfigured to accommodate an additional 135 parking spaces. Parking demand will be monitored through full occupancy of Phase I to determine whether parking demand estimates for buildout of Buildings A and B fully accommodate the actual parking demand. Should monitoring efforts reveal a lower actual parking demand, parking space requirements for Phase II could be lowered proportionate to the reduced parking demand and the reserve land developed into a landscaped area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-g (as revised on pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the Final EIR) will substantially reduce potential impacts related to construction to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.5-q: Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the project sponsor (or the sponsor's construction manager) shall submit a Construction Staging Plan for review and approval by the City. At a minimum, the Construction Staging Logistics Plan shall include measures to ensure the safety of and minimal disruption to vehicular traffic in the project vicinity, the safety of and minimal disruption to pedestrians in the project vicinity, and minimal disruption to parking operations. If the project sponsor cannot ensure minimal disruption of traffic and parking, the following measures should be considered: b require the sponsor to identify construction and phasing plans, including identification of staging areas for each major construction phase; b require most construction -related employees to arrive before 7:00 AM and depart before 4:00 PM (except as might be required to import clean soil and complete the cap over the project site; and require the sponsor to designate travel routes for trucks to the site. A Truck Route Plan shall be developed which will prohibit construction traffic on residential streets where improvements are not planned and shall provide measures to ensure that truck drivers are directed away from residential streets and travel on approved routes only. Measures to assist in guiding truck movement on the arterial roadway system include, but are not limited to, provision of truck route maps to truck drivers and placement of flagpersons and construction signage at appropriate locations. In the event of valid complaints regarding noise impacts at residential noise receptors resulting from construction truck activity, these truck routes may 20 26 be altered, as deemed appropriate by the City of San Rafael Public Works Department. To expedite the handling and limit the time contaminated soils would be exposed, the applicant shall request a street closure permit from the City of San Rafael to allow for full closure of Lindaro Street to through traffic between Second Street and Andersen Drive. This closure would be in effect during excavation and movement of contaminated soils on the site and during the trenching and installation of a water main, sewer line and underground utilities in the Lindaro Street right-of-way. This work shall be completed within approximately four weeks. This measure is contingent upon the completion and full operation of the Andersen Drive Extension project, such that circulation and access south of the project site is not impeded. To expedite the movement of imported soil and placement of fill to complete the cap over the project site soils, and in an effort to reduce the daytime traffic disruption caused by construction truck trips to and from the project site, the applicant shall request from the City of San Rafael Public Works Department that construction truck delivery, placement and compaction of soils be allowed to occur in the evening hours (post p.m. peak hour) until 12:00 a.m. Implementation of a Construction Staging Plan would reduce the identified construction -period traffic impacts to a less -than -significant level. 4.6 Air Oualitv 4.6.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to air quality that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.6 of the EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.6. Air quality data are provided in Appendix D of the Draft EIR The Project would result in less than significant or no impacts related to long term air quality, carbon monoxide roadway impacts, and consistency with air quality management regional plans. Dust containing PAHs may be generated from the excavation and movement of soils on the site during construction and may be inhaled by on-site construction workers or the off-site community, resulting in a potentially significant impact. In addition, site preparation, demolition activities and project construction would result in a significant short-term PM,o air quality impact. The cumulative impacts associated with air quality are described in Section 5.3.6 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.6.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with air quality have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 4.6.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on air quality will occur. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on air quality will be 21 23 avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-a will substantially reduce potential impacts related to short-term air quality to less -than -significant levels: Mitisation Measure 4.6-a: The Soils Management Work Plan limits the total dust emissions on Parcels A and B to 2.1 mg/ms at the property fenceline during all operations involving contaminated soil. The area subject to this restriction accounts for a significant portion of the total earthmoving activity on the project site. Also, refer to Mitigation Measures recommended in Section 4.10. Parcel C construction -related fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled through implementation of the basic control measures identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996. These measures include; Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Implementation of this measure shall be coordinated with the implementation of mitigation measure 4.10-c to ensure a consistent approach to the treatment of on-site soils during earthwork activity on Parcel C. 4.7 Noise 4.7.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to noise that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.7 of the EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.7. Refer also to response to comments E-1 on page E-2 of the Final EIR. Noise Data is provided in Appendix E of the Draft EIR. The Project would result in less than significant or no long-term vehicular, parking area or stationary noise source impacts. Grading, demolition and construction activities associated with project development would result in temporary, less -than -significant noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. The only exception to this is noise generated by pile driving activities which could significantly impact students attending daytime classes at Davidson Middle School. The cumulative impacts 22 associated with noise are described in Section 5.3.7 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.7.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with noise have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 4.7.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on noise will occur. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on noise will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-a will substantially reduce potential impacts related to short-term noise to less -than -significant levels. Refer also to response to comment J-9 on page J-2 of the Final EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-a: To avoid the short-term impacts of pile driving for the two Phase I buildings, on the classroom activities which need a quiet noise environment at Davidson Middle School, the pile driving activities for the Phase I buildings shall be scheduled as follows to restrict pile driving to times when the fewest classroom activities are taking place. a. Pile driving for the two Phase I buildings shall be prohibited on weekdays during the regular session academic year, commencing on the day following Labor Day and continuing until approximately June 10th, and during the hours of 8:00 am to 12:00 pm on days on which classes are held during the approximately five week summer school session, unless the administration of Davidson Middle School determines that classes would not be materially disrupted by pile driving during those hours. b. Pile driving for the two Phase I buildings shall be scheduled such that the noise generating activity is condensed into as short a period of days as is reasonably practicable. C. Pile driving of test piles, if necessary before the closing of the regular session academic year, shall be limited to weekends. d. These restrictions on pile driving shall be implemented through the Construction Logistics and Staging Plan. e. The Project FEIR assumes that noise generated from pile driving for Phase II buildings would not exceed the sensitive receptor threshold of 60 dBA inside classrooms (because of distance from Davidson Middle School and that Phase I buildings would serve as a buffer to attenuate noise). If during the construction of Phase H buildings, the pile driving activities exceed 60 dBA inside classrooms, then the requirements and restrictions listed above shall be implemented. 23 201 4.8 Public Services and Utilities 4.8.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.8 of the EIR and clarified on page 4-5 of the Final EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.8. The Project would result in less than significant or no impacts related to fire inspection services, fire protection services, police services, parks and recreation, short-term solid waste, long-term solid waste, increase in electrical demand, electromagnetic fields (EMFs), natural gas, telephone service or cable television service. Development of the proposed project would precipitate a more rapid effort to relocate the existing 115 kV transmission lines and poles that circumscribe the proposed project site. Although electrical service and/or supply impacts would not result, construction activities associated with the relocation of these lines may result in potentially significant impacts due to disruption of chemically affected soils and/or disturbance to wetland and/or sensitive species habitat. The cumulative impacts associated with public services and utilities are described in Section 5.3.8 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.8.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with public services and utilities have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 4.8.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on public services and utilities will occur. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on public services and utilities will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-g will substantially reduce potential impacts related to relocation of the 115 kV utility lines to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.8-g: Prior to the relocation of the 115 kV transmission lines and poles, a Transmission Facilities Relocation Agreement must be signed with PG&E to address the land rights and exact terms and conditions of the proposed relocation. Any proposed transmission relocation shall be constructed in conformance with all CPUC requirements, applicable regulations and sound engineering practices to ensure public safety and continued reliable electric service to PG&E's customers. 4.9 Visual Resources. Aesthetics. Light and Glare 4.9.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to visual resources, aesthetics, light and glare that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.9 of the EIR, 24 cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.9. Exhibits 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-3 and 4.9-5 have been revised and Exhibit 4.9-11 has been included, as indicated on page 4-5 of the Final EIR. The Project result in less than significant or no impacts related to long-term aesthetics or building massing, height, and elevations. Construction of the proposed project would create temporary aesthetic nuisances associated with project construction and grading activities for the adjacent uses. This would be considered a potentially significant impact due to the prominent, Downtown gateway setting in which the project is located. Development of the office buildings and parking areas associated with the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare into this urban setting. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. The cumulative impacts associated with visual resources, aesthetics, light and glare are described in Section 5.3.9 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.9.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with visual resources, aesthetics, light and glare have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 4.9.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on visual resources, aesthetics, light and glare will occur, after mitigation. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on visual resources, aesthetics, light and glare will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-a will substantially reduce potential impacts related to short-term aesthetics to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.9-a: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, in conjunction with standard conditions of approval, would reduce short-term aesthetic impacts to less -than - significant levels. 1. Construction staging areas shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic field inspections by City of San Rafael. 2. During construction, a screened security fence approved by the City of San Rafael, shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the project parcels and removed immediately following completion of construction work authorized by the building permit. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-d will substantially reduce potential impacts related to light and glare to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.9-d: Implementation of the following mitigation measures, in conjunction with standard conditions of approval, would reduce light and glare impacts to less -than -significant levels. Pursuant to the Preliminary Lighting Program (Exhibit 3-12), any lights used to illuminate 25 the buildings, parking areas, including the structures, common areas and other exterior or interior areas, shall be designed and located so that directional lighting does not spill over common areas and other exterior onto adjacent properties. In addition to directional lighting, lighting should be a minimum intensity (wattage) of 1-'/z foot candle or otherwise necessary for public safety. A Final Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the City of San Rafael for review and approval. 2. Project design and architectural treatments shall incorporate additional techniques to reduce light and glare, such as use of low reflectivity glass, subdued colors for building materials in high visibility areas, and the use of plant material along the perimeter of the structures to soften views. 4.10 Hazardous Materials/Risk Assessment 4.10.1 Potential Significant Impacts The Project's potential impacts related to hazardous materials/risk assessment that can be mitigated to a less than significant level or are otherwise not significant are discussed in Section 4.10 of the EIR; cumulative impacts are analyzed in Section 5.3.10. Refer also to responses to comments H-2 on page H-1, PC -16 through PC -20 on pages J-6 and J-7, and M-26 through M-29 on pages M-5 and M-6 of the Final EIR. Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant or no impacts related to risk calculations for children between the ages of 0 and 6. Dust containing PAHs may be generated from the excavation and movement of soils on the site during construction and may be inhaled by on-site construction workers or the off-site community, resulting in a potentially significant impact. It is possible that chemically affected soil and groundwater would remain after remediation is complete. Consequently, during construction on Parcel C, earthwork construction workers may be exposed to chemically affected soil and groundwater, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Contamination of clean fill through contact with potentially chemically affected soil may occur during loading and transport of the soil to the west parcel (Parcel A), resulting in a potentially significant impact. Personnel associated with the project, but not actively working in the Exclusion Zone (e.g., grade checkers, geotechnical engineers, authorized visitors, inspectors), may enter areas with chemically affected soil, be exposed to chemicals in the soil, and track chemically affected soil to the Support Zone, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Should unforseen circumstances warrant and/or require additional earthwork activities to occur in which potentially chemically affected soil would be uncapped after completion of Phase I (e.g., installation of additional utilities, relocation of planned building foundations), on-site and off-site populations may be exposed to such soil resulting in a potentially significant impact. If the roots of the edible plants included on the list of landscape species that would be suitable for planting at the project site extend into chemically affected soil, chemicals theoretically could accumulate into edible portions of the plant. This could result in a potentially significant impact to site occupants (if these plants make up a substantial portion of the diet of site occupants). The cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials/risk assessment are described in Section 5.3. 10 of the EIR; no significant cumulative impacts were identified. 4.10.2 Findings All significant impacts associated with hazardous materials/risk assessment have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the EIR. 26 32 4.10.3 Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that no significant impacts on hazardous materials/risk assessment will occur. The analysis in the EIR supports the conclusion that the project -specific and cumulative significance on hazardous materials/risk assessment will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level with the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-b will substantially reduce potential impacts related to dust generation and exposure to PAHs in dust to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.10-b: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements addressed in the final Revised SMWP and the HSP as governed by DTSC and the RWQCB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-c as revised (see page 4-6 of the Final EIR) will substantially reduce potential impacts related to residual chemical exposure on Parcel C to less -than -significant levels. Refer also to response to comment C-3 on page C-1 of the Final EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.10-c: Once remediation efforts are completed on Parcel C, and if warranted by residual chemical concentration in soil or groundwater on Parcel C, potential exposure of earthwork construction workers during Phase H construction on Parcel C shall be reduced by preparation of an appropriate health and safety plan for Parcel C in accordance with OSHA and Cal -OSHA requirements for hazardous waste operations (29 CFR 1910.120 and CCR Title 8, Section 5192, respectively) and any other applicable health and safety standards. If warranted by residual chemical concentrations in soil on Parcel C, an appropriate soil management plan shall be prepared that describes procedures to be used in the event that visibly impacted or odorous soil is encountered during construction. The final determination requiring the need for an appropriate health and safety plan and/or soil management plan shall be made by the RWQCB and/or DTSC, following their review of remediation efforts on Parcel C. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-d as revised (see pages 4-5 and 4-6 of the Final EIR) will substantially reduce potential impacts related to potential cross -contamination of clean fill to less -than - significant levels: Mitieation Measure 4.10-d: Potential cross -contamination of clean fill can be eliminated during loading and transport of chemically affected soil by adherence to and compliance with requirements addressed in sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the Final Revised SMWP. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the Final Revised SMWP contain the following requirements: 2.6 Import of Clean Soil: When the balancing of the site has been completed, the Contractor will import clean soil for final grading. In addition, the building pad excavations for Building C, D, and E will be backfilled with clean soil. Areas that will contain vegetative cover will have a minimum of 2 feet cover of clean soil. To eliminate the risk that contaminated soil might be tracked offsite on the tires of the haul trucks, no trucks will be allowed to drive over contaminated soils or truck tires will be washed to prevent potential cross -contamination. Soils will be dumped and spread with the same equipment used in the balancing of the 27 -33 central parcel. Sampling and physical and chemical testing will be conducted on these clean soils as described in Section 8.0 to check that they are free of contaminants. 2.7 Sanitary sewer, electrical, gas, and water utilities will be installed after clean fill has been imported to the site. The top 18 inches of the newly placed clean fill will be excavated from the utility trenches and stockpiled for backfill. A minimum of 6 inches of clean soil together with the native soils will be excavated and placed in the depository. Utility trenches will be overexcavated 6 inches below and 1 foot on each side of the normal trench dimensions required for that utility. All contaminated soil will be placed in the depository. Trenches will be lined with visqueen to prevent worker contact with potentially contaminated soil during utility installation. Clean imported sand will be used to backfill the entire trench depth. By over -excavating and backfilling the entire trench with clean sand, the risk of contact with contaminated soil by maintenance personnel in the future will be minimized. All work in the utility trenches will conform to the guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Shoring shields or shoring jacks will be used to protect workers within the utility trenches that are deeper than 5 feet. Emergency egress will be provided at all times for workers within trenches. If trench dewatering is required, the water will be contained for offsite disposal at a permitted facility, discharged to the sanitary sewer or storm drain with the permission of the applicable agencies, or processed and discharged by the existing groundwater treatment system. The Contractor will construct the sanitary sewer, electrical, gas, and water lines to within 5 feet of the planned building foundations in accordance with the contract documents. The utilities will be stubbed within clean fill materials so that the building contractor can connect the lines to the buildings. Sanitary sewer drop inlets will be added to accommodate differences in elevation. Gas and electric lines will be placed in joint trenches. Fire hydrants, water valves, backflow preventers and valve boxes will be installed in accordance with the contract documents. In addition to the subsurface utilities constructed on-site, the City of San Rafael will construct a sanitary sewer and a water supply line along Lindaro Street and a joint trench for natural gas, electricity, and telephone along 2nd Street. Although the streets are not part of the site, the City of San Rafael's underground contractor may excavate contaminated materials during utility construction along these streets. If the scheduling of underground construction coincides with the open soil depository, the soils generated during utility construction on Lindaro and 2nd streets may be incorporated in the soil depository. If the depository is closed, then the soil will be disposed offsite by the City of San Rafael. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-e will substantially reduce potential impacts related to exposure on the work site but outside of the exclusion zone to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.10-e: Tracking of and exposure to chemically affected soil by personnel who leave the Support Zone and enter the work site, but who are not actively working in the Exclusion Zone, can be mitigated by placing a physical barrier of some form (e.g., fence or flagging tape) at the boundaries of areas where chemically affected soil is present (i.e., where clean fill has not been 28 224 placed). In other words, until clean fill has been put into place, physical barriers shall be used to prevent access to contaminated soil by personnel who do not have the appropriate health and safety training. Consequently, tracking of chemically affected soil and potential exposures to chemically affected soil will be mitigated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-f will substantially reduce potential impacts related to future earthwork activities to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.10-f: For future activities in which chemically affected soil may become exposed (e.g., installation of additional utilities, relocation of planned building foundations), the following precautions shall be taken: activities shall be performed in accordance with the HSP, which shall be modified, as appropriate, to address the specific activities being performed; the air monitoring plan shall be modified to evaluate potential exposure to occupants of Phase I buildings; any excess soil shall be appropriately disposed off-site; regulatory agency guidance and requirements shall be strictly adhered to, as appropriate; and b the cap shall be restored with 2 feet of clean fill in landscaped areas, buildings or pavement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-g will substantially reduce potential impacts related to uptake of chemicals in edible plants to less -than -significant levels: Mitigation Measure 4.10-2: Potential exposure of site occupants to chemicals of concern in edible plants can be mitigated by having the landscape architect determine if edible plant species are going to be included in the landscaping and if the root zone would extend below the 2 feet of clean fill. If edible plants are included in the landscaping plan and if the roots could extend below the 2 feet of clean fill, uptake of PAHs into the plants shall be evaluated further or precautions shall be taken to prevent roots from extending into chemically affected soil. Alternatively, edible plants can be removed from the proposed plant palette (Exhibit 3-11, Plant Legend). 5.0 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 5.1 Transportation/Circulation 5.1.1 Significant Impacts Under General Plan build -out plus project conditions, there would be a significant impact which is not mitigated on two segments of U.S. 101 in the southbound direction during the morning peak hour (AM peak) and on three segments of U.S. 101 in the northbound direction during the evening peak hour (PM peak). The segments of U.S. 101 which are impacted are: 29 3?S U.S. 101 between North San Pedro and Lincoln Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hour impact) U.S. 101 between Lincoln Avenue and Mission Avenue (a.m. and p.m. peak hour impact) U.S. 101 between Mission Avenue and Interstate 580 (p.m. peak hour impact) These three segments of U.S. 101 are designated as Routes of Regional Significance on Marin County's CMA Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The level of service (LOS) standard on these CMP network segments is LOS E, although all U.S. 101 study segments are grandfathered at LOS F because of current LOS F operations. These three segments under existing and baseline conditions are at LOS E/F. As determined in the significance criteria, if the freeway segment is already experiencing LOS F, a deterioration of the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.01 or more results in a significant impact. Under the General Plan build -out plus project conditions, the proposed project's incremental contribution to the existing V/C ratio would be 0.01 (refer to Table 4.5-13 in Section 4.5 of this EIR), thus resulting in a significant cumulative project impact. 5.1.2 Findings Mitigation of project impacts on U.S. 101 under General Plan build -out conditions would require the construction of Reversible High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. This measure would be prohibitively expensive and not reasonably feasible to implement by this Project. No further mitigation is available to render the effect less -than -significant. Such further mitigation would be infeasible to due specific economic, legal and social considerations. The effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. 5.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation to a less -than -significant level of project impacts on U.S. 101 under General Plan build -out plus Project conditions during the morning peak hour (AM peak) and during the evening peak hour (PM peak) requires complete closure of the gap in the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes which exist between North San Pedro Road and Lucky Drive on U.S. 101. Closing the HOV gap through the construction of a Reversible HOV lane will cost an estimated Eighty -Two Million dollars ($82 million). Of the total estimated cost of Eighty -Two Million Dollars ($82 million), currently (January 1998) funded is Forty -Three Million dollars ($43 million) from state and federal funding sources for the southbound HOV lane only. The southbound HOV measure which will mitigate the impacts on the morning peak (AM peak) is scheduled to be completed in June 2002. A separate measure to mitigate the impacts on the evening peak (PM peak) is estimated to require an additional Thirty -Nine Million Dollars ($39 million) for construction of conversion of the southbound only HOV lane to a Reversible HOV lane. This measure is currently not funded. The funds for this measure are expected to be provided from some combination in the future of state funds, federal funds, and funds from a possible, local sales tax measure, if it were to be adopted. It is not reasonably feasible to implement this regional measure prior to occupancy of the Fair, Isaac Project or to impose upon this Fair, Isaac Project, the unfunded $39 million cost of a measure for mitigation of regional impacts on U.S. 101. The No-Project/No-Development Alternative would eliminate the Project's impact on the U.S. 101 segments, but would not change the operations of the segments of U.S. 101 from the existing condition of LOS E/F. Implementation of the No-Project/No-Development Alternative is infeasible for the reasons stated in Section 6.0 of these findings. 30 on Under the City's General Plan policies, Policy C-22, Transportation System Management (TSM), TSM programs are mandatory for large, new developments. TSM programs reduce traffic on U.S. 101 by an unknown amount, therefore, they are not required as or given credit for mitigation of project -related impacts on the freeway. Policy C-22 states the following: "Continue to work cooperatively with the business and residential communities to minimize peak period traffic demand through a proposed comprehensive transportation system management program. TSM programs will be mandatory for large new development projects and initially voluntary for existing development." To ensure compliance with Policy C-22, as a condition of project approvals, the Fair, Isaac project is required to continue to implement their existing TSM program as outlined in the Final EIR (pages G-2 and G-3). 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The EIR has evaluated various alternatives to the proposed Project, including four alternative sites. Section 7.0 of the EIR provides detailed descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail for to render a decision regarding the relative superiority of each alternative, as compared to the proposed Project, and an analysis of the environmentally superior alternative. Refinements and clarifications to Section 7.0 of the EIR are provided on pages 4-7 and 4-8 of the Final EIR. 6.1 No-Proiect/No-Development Alternative 6.1.1 Description of Alternative Section 7.2 of the EIR describes and discusses the No-Project/No-Development Alternative. The No- Project/No-Development Alternative assumes that future development of the proposed project site would not occur. Parcels A and B would remain vacant, under-utilized land areas. Parcel C would continue the current uses indefinitely. The widening of Second Street would likely be delayed until such time as development of the site and surrounding Downtown sites precipitate the need to dedicate additional right-of-way and off-site improvements. The Lindaro Street Utility Undergrounding District Program would proceed, although its timing would be uncertain, and the environmental benefits achieved by coordinating the concurrent undergrounding of all planned utilities in the areas impacted by chemically affected soils could be compromised. Relocation of the existing 115 W lines that circumscribe the proposed project site would not occur in the time frame analyzed within this document, and may not occur at all. This alternative assumes a status -quo land use scenario. No foreseeable alterations, modifications or improvements to the three project site parcels would occur under the No-Project/No-Development Alternative. 6.1.2 Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No-Project/No-Development Alternative identified in the EIR. 6.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the No-Project/No-Development Alternative would result in fewer potentially significant impacts, related to all environmental issues, in comparison to the proposed project. Likewise, implementation of this alternative would not achieve the identified benefits associated with revitalizing the 31 ✓1-4 project site into a productive Downtown land use. Because no development would occur on-site, this alternative would result in no project impacts and would be considered the environmentally preferred alternative. However, under the No-Project/No-Development Alternative, the potential benefits associated with the proposed project, including at minimum, substantial achievement and compliance with the City's Downtown Plans, Policies and Programs as identified in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000, would not be realized. While this alternative is determined to be environmentally superior to the proposed project, it would not meet the objectives of the proposed project (See Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San DieRo (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Ca1.Rptr. 898] and Seauovah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Citv of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]). Therefore, this alternative is not proposed as the environmentally superior alternative, and has been rejected as infeasible. 6.2 No-Proiect/Ezistine Zoning Designation 6.2.1 Description of Alternative Section 7.3 of the EIR describes and discusses the No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation Alternative. The No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation assumes development of up to 550,000 square feet of office use. This alternative assumes that the proposed Fair, Isaac Office Park Project is not developed, but that an alternative development proceeds under the guidance of the existing General Plan and Planned Development zoning requirements. Due to the existing site constraints on Parcels A and B, (which are determining factors for site design, site configuration, vehicular access and land use) environmental impacts associated with development of this alternative would be substantially greater than impacts associated with development under the proposed project. Impacts would be greater because in order to avoid the onsite property constraints associated with Parcels A and B, building heights would need to be increased for both the office structures and parking structures to achieve the increased square footage and parking spaces. As under the No-Project/No-Development Alternative, it is assumed under this alternative that the existing uses on Parcel C (City Corporation Yard and the Shell Service Station) are maintained. This alternative would also require the widening of Second Street, although the undergrounding and/or relocation of the 115 kV lines would be subject to consideration by the subject property owner/developer, and as such, are not assumed to be relocated and/or undergrounded in the analysis of this alternative. 6.2.2 Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation Alternative. 6.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation is expected to result in some similar impacts, but most environmental impacts would be greater in comparison to the proposed project. This alternative assessment is based on the implementation of 550,000 square feet of office (and/or incidental office -serving retail uses and other secondary uses such as entertainment, cultural facilities, and/or public parking) compared to the 406,000 square feet of office and ancillary uses proposed with the project. This alternative is also assumed to have greater construction -related impacts due to the over 145,000 square feet of additional office space that could be developed and the addition of 435 parking spaces. Overall, given the higher 32 oxlw intensity of land use that could be developed onsite, project -specific and cumulative effects associated with the implementation of this alternative would be greater, particularly with respect to land use, traffic and parking, air quality, public services and utilities, and aesthetics. The No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation Alternative would result in greater impacts overall than would the proposed project. Although the timing of the impacts would not be expected to occur within the time frame analyzed within this EIR (construction beginning in summer of 1998), potentially significant impacts would nonetheless occur. Therefore, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior. In addition, the No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation Alternative does not meet the project objectives (See City of Del Mar v. Citv of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Ca1.Rptr. 898] and Seauovah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Citv of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Ca1.Rptr.2d 182]). For the reasons noted above, the No-Project/Existing Zoning Designation Alternative has been determined to be infeasible. 6.3 Alternative Proiect Desien 6.3.1 Description of Alternative The Alternative Project Design is discussed in section 7.4 of the EIR. The Alternative Project Design would involve the reconfiguration of the proposed project site plan into four five -story office buildings (average height of 73 feet) arranged around a central commons area, surface parking accessed from mid -block of Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue at the perimeter of the central parcel, surface parking on the west parcel and structured parking on both the west and east parcels. Total gross building square footage would be 410,000 square feet, an increase of approximately 4,000 square feet over the proposed project. A minimum of 1,230 surface and structured parking spaces would be provided, a negligible increase of 12 spaces over the proposed project. The proposed parking structure on Parcel C would be retained under this alternative as it would be necessary to maintain the objective of creating an "office complex" on the central parcel. 6.3.2 Findings Specific economic, social or other circumstances make infeasible the Alternative Project Design identified in the EIR. 6.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings As described in Section 7.4 of the EIR, implementation of the Alternative Project Design is expected to result in similar or greater environmental effects. The potential impacts to biological resources, geology and soils, public services and utilities, hazardous materials/risk assessment, traffic, air quality and noise, would be comparable to the proposed project. However, impacts to land use plans and policies, parking and circulation and visual resources and aesthetics would result in greater potentially significant impacts than would the proposed project. Impacts to hydrology and drainage would potentially be reduced due to the reduction in overall site coverage. For the reasons noted above, the Alternative Project Design has been determined to be infeasible. 6.4 Reduced Proiect Scale Alternative A: 250,000 Sauare Feet of Total Office Gross Buildine 33 39 Area 6.4.1 Description of Alternative Section 7.5 of the EIR describes and discusses the Reduced Project Scale Alternative A (refer to page 4-7 of the Final EIR for clarifications to the discussion of this alternative). The Reduced Project Scale Alternative A would result in two three-story and two, two-story office buildings arranged around a central commons area with surface parking at the perimeter of the central parcel (130 spaces) and surface parking only on the west parcel (360 spaces). A two-level parking structure would be constructed on the east parcel (260 spaces). Gross building square footage would total 250,000 square feet and total parking for this alternative would consist of a minimum of 750 spaces. The existing onsite (baseline) constraints, which include the utility and remediation easements and setbacks must be met in this alternative. This alternative includes the base assumption that all applicable and appropriate mitigation measures associated with the project would be implemented under this alternative. However, applicable mitigation measures may be scaled up or down to reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration and may not precisely match those identified for the project as proposed. 6.4.2 Findings Specific economic, social or other circumstances make infeasible the Reduced Project Scale Alternative A: 250,000 Square Feet of Total Office Gross Building Area. 6.4.3 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Reduced Project Scale Alternative A: 250,000 square feet of total office gross building area is expected to result in a reduction in the intensity and magnitude of potentially significant environmental effects. Implementation of this alternative would result in fewer potentially significant impacts with respect to land use policy consistency, hydrology/drainage, and transportation/circulation. Other potentially significant impacts would be reduced in magnitude, but not avoided. Although the magnitude and intensity of potentially significant impacts would be reduced under this alternative, based on the existing site constraints, conceptual plan layout and design parameters, few potentially significant effects would be avoided under this alternative. Significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on U.S. 101 between Lincoln Avenue and Mission Avenue in the AM peak hour southbound direction and PM peak hour northbound direction would be avoided under this alternative, thus reducing the number of impacted freeway segments from five with the proposed project to three under the Reduced Project Scale Alternative A. This alternative is consistent with the City of San Rafael's objectives for the project site, but is in direct conflict with the project applicant's objectives for onsite development. This alternative, although environmentally superior to the proposed project, would fail to meet the basic office space objectives of Village Properties (minimum requirements of 406,000 gross square feet of building area to provide adequate office and ancillary space to house Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc.'s projected 1,300 to 1,500 employees). Further, this objective would be in direct conflict with Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc.'s objectives to provide an office complex that can accommodate up to 500,000 square feet of office facilities as part of Fair, Isaac 34 40 and Company, Inc's projected growth through the years 2000-2006. Implementation of this alternative would substantially hinder the financial feasibility of the proposed project given the costs associated with development of a site which must address, and is limited by, existing on-site constraints imposed by the historical uses of the property, as well as development requirements imposed by the regulatory agencies maintaining jurisdiction over certain aspects of the site. The Reduced Project Scale Alternative A is the environmentally superior alternative that is capable of avoiding, minimizing or reducing some of the significant and potentially significant impacts associated with project development on the subject site. However, while the Reduced Project Scale Alternative A is capable of achieving most of the city's basic objectives for project development, this alternative is not capable of achieving the basic objectives of Village Properties or Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc., rendering it financially infeasible. Moreover, although significant adverse impacts to two segments of U.S. 101 would be avoided, this alternative is not capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts on U.S. 101. With the exception of avoiding land use policy consistency conflicts (NE -15), this alternative would not substantially reduce the level of significance of impacts associated with the proposed project without incorporating the same mitigation measures that are proposed as part of the project. For the reasons noted above, the Reduced Project Scale Alternative A: 250,000 Square Feet of Total Office Gross Building Area has been rejected as infeasible. 6.5 Reduced Proiect Scale Alternative B: 350.000 Sauare Feet of Total Office Gross Building Area 6.5.1 Description of Alternative Section 7.6 of the EIR described and discusses the Reduced Project Scale Alternative B (refinements and clarifications to this discussion are provided on page 4-7 of the Final EIR). The Reduced Project Scale Alternative B would result in two four-story and two three-story office buildings arranged around a central commons area with surface parking at the perimeter of the central parcel (130 spaces) and surface parking only on the west parcel (360 spaces). A three-level parking structure would be constructed on the east parcel (560 spaces). Gross building square footage would total 350,000 square feet and total parking for this alternative would consist of a minimum of 1,050 spaces. The existing onsite (baseline) constraints, which include the utility and remediation easements and setbacks must be met in this alternative. This alternative includes the base assumption that all applicable and appropriate mitigation measures associated with the project would be implemented under this alternative. However, applicable mitigation measures may be scaled to reduce or avoid the potential impacts of the alternative under consideration and may not precisely match those identified for the project as proposed. 6.5.2 Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the Reduced Project Scale Alternative B identified in the EIR 6.5.3 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Reduced Project Scale Alternative B is expected to result in fewer potentially 41 significant impacts with respect to land use policy consistency, and hydrology and drainage. Other potentially significant and significant impacts would be reduced in magnitude, but not avoided. Although the magnitude and intensity of potentially significant impacts would be reduced under this alternative, based on the existing site constraints, conceptual plan layout and design parameters, no significant unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts would be avoided and very few potentially significant effects would be avoided. This alternative is consistent with the City of San Rafael's objectives for the project site, but is in direct conflict with the project applicant's objectives for onsite development. This alternative, although environmentally superior to the proposed project, would fail to meet the basic office space objectives of Village Properties (minimize requirements of 406,000 gross square feet of building area to provide adequate office and ancillary space to house Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc.'s projected 1,300 to 1,500 employees). Further, this objective would be in direct conflict with Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc.'s objectives to provide an office complex that can accommodate up to 500,000 square feet of office facilities as part of Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc.'s projected growth through the years 2000 - 2006. Implementation of this alternative would substantially hinder the financial feasibility of the proposed project given the costs associated with development of a site which must address, and is limited by, existing on-site constraints imposed by the historical uses of the property, as well as development requirements imposed by the regulatory agencies maintaining jurisdiction over certain aspects of the site. Each of the Reduced Scale Project Alternatives would result in a reduction in the intensity, magnitude and/or severity of potentially significant impacts generated by project development and allow for minor reductions in the extent of the mitigation required. Although environmentally superior, these two alternatives would fail to meet the basic objectives of either the project applicant (Village Properties) or the primary tenant (Fair, Isaac). For the reasons noted above, the Reduced Project Scale Alternative B has been rejected as infeasible. 7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEOA CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Growth -Inducing Effects of the Proposed Proiect Implementation of the proposed office park project may induce growth of various kinds, including population growth in the City of San Rafael, new construction and other jobs in the region. It is anticipated that the Downtown San Rafael area would experience substantial economic growth in the future as an indirect result of the proposed project and other municipal planning efforts, such as the development of the old Macy's site into a mixed use center, redevelopment of the Shamrock Materials Inc. site into a retail center, renovation of the Old Garden Court Building, development of the Marin County Museum and provision of several small family rental housing units and/or apartment complexes. The proposed project would allow for office uses consistent with the City's plans to revitalize the Lindaro District, enhance the economic base of the City, and increase local employment opportunities. Growth anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the types of land uses allowed and growth inducement addressed in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000. Therefore, although the proposed office park development project is anticipated to induce future development of retail, commercial and residential uses, the growth would be consistent with the growth projections for the 36 qZ City of San Rafael (see response to comment M-25 on page M-5 of the Final EIR). Construction jobs in San Rafael and throughout the region would be created for a period of time as a direct result of the proposed project and related projects in the Downtown area. In addition, other jobs, in a wide variety of sectors of the local and regional economies would be induced as an indirect result of the implementation of the project. The influence of the proposed project and related projects on the job market is not expected to generated significant growth beyond the growth assumed in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 or area -wide regional plans (ABAG 1997). Refer to response to comment PC -14 on page 3-6 of the Final EIR. Implementation of individual development projects within the Downtown Area, as identified in Section 5 of the EIR, would directly create a number of new employment opportunities in the City of San Rafael and throughout the Marin County region. Construction jobs in San Rafael and throughout the region would be created for a period of time as a direct result of the proposed project and related projects in the Downtown area. The influence of the proposed project and related projects on the job market is not expected to generated significant growth beyond the growth assumed in the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 or area -wide regional plans (ABAG 1997). The proposed project could also indirectly induce effects on population growth elsewhere within the region. The potential demand for public services and utilities that would be generated by this induced population growth would be well within the forecasted growth and infrastructure improvements addressed in local and regional plans, including public service plans which are developed to accommodate forecasted growth. Through the establishment of an office use on the proposed project site, the policy objectives set forth by the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 are accommodated with regard to: securing development which enhances Downtown's image as a high quality finance, office and retail center; establishing a new landmark building; and, tying different properties and developments in the District together through public spaces, streetscapes features, and extensive landscaping, as well as the other objectives as identified in the EIR. 7.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed. Action Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Implementation of the proposed Fair, Isaac Office Park Project would require the long-term commitment of natural resources and land. Actions related to development of the office complex would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as energy supplies and other construction -related resources. These energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods to and from the site, heating and refrigeration for food preparation and water, as well as lighting and other associated energy needs. The environmental changes produced by the proposed project would occur mainly as a result of the alteration of the physical environment from underdeveloped blighted land uses and existing City Corporation Yard/Service Station uses to office, ancillary administrative and parking uses. If the project is developed, utilities expanded to serve the increase in demand for the office use and site infrastructure, including, parking, circulation and landscaping improvements. The site is designated in the City's General Plan for office use; therefore its ultimate development is consistent with local community planning. Project development is a 37 43 short-term irreversible commitment of the land. Once the 50-75 year life -span of the buildings is reached, it is probable that the site would continue to support urban uses due to the large investment of capital resources that would be expended on the revitalization of the project site and surrounding vicinity, including implementation of site infrastructure. In this way the project would commit future generations to similar uses. In as much as fossil fuels currently are the principal source of energy, it can be stated that the proposed development will directly reduce existing supplies of fuel, including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline. This represents a long-term commitment to consumption of an essentially nonrenewable resource. The Fair, Isaac Office complex and related projects in the area would require the commitment or destruction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources. These resources include, but are not limited to, lumber and other forest products; sand and gravel; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel; copper; lead and other metals, water; etc. A marginal increase in the commitment of social services and public maintenance services (waste disposal and treatment, etc.) would also be required. 8.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Based upon the evidence presented in the Final EIR, the following Findings of Fact have been made: a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the following significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Environmental Impact Report: Land Use, Applicable Plans and Policies; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology/Drainage; Transportation/Circulation; Air Quality; Noise; Public Services and Utilities; Visual Resources, Aesthetic, Light and Glare; and Hazardous Materials/Risk Assessment. b. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterations identified in the Environmental Impact Report to reduce the following significant impacts below a level of significance: Transportation/Circulation - General Plan Plus Project Buildout Traffic Impacts on Freeway Segment Operations. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant impacts which are identified in the EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the completed EIR and/or other information in the record. The City has found that the impacts listed in "b" above are significant and unavoidable impacts. Accordingly, the City of San Rafael adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations based on information in the Final EIR and on other information in the record. The City recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the Project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected the alternatives to the Project discussed above, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv) balanced the benefits of the Project against the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental effects, the City of San Rafael hereby finds that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effects for the reasons stated below. The reasons discussed below summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the proposed Project, and 38 44 provide, in addition to the above findings, the detailed rationale for the Project. These overriding considerations of economic, social, aesthetic and environmental benefits for The Fair, Isaac Office Park Project outweigh its environmental costs, and justify adoption of the Project and certification of the completed EIR. Many of these overriding considerations individually would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. 8.1 Increase Revenues for the Citv of San Rafael The Fair, Isaac Office Park will produce substantial beneficial fiscal impacts. The Fair, Isaac Office Park will directly generate significant revenues in property taxes, utility taxes, and miscellaneous taxes to the City of San Rafael. 8.2 Jobs for Area Residents The Fair, Isaac Office Park will directly create 1,300 to 1,5001ong-term jobs and short-term construction jobs. The Fair, Isaac Office Park will also stimulate the creation of additional indirect jobs in businesses serving the office park. The increase in employment opportunities will not induce substantial migration into Marin County or substantially increase intra -urban relocation. Therefore, the Project's direct employment would not result in significant adverse employment impacts but would result in substantial employment benefits. The employment benefits of the Project will constitute a substantial contribution to the general welfare and the economic growth and stability of the City of San Rafael and the surrounding region. 8.3 Increase Economic Oonortunity for Existing Businesses Implementation of the proposed Project will increase the demand for existing retail, commercial and restaurant service uses in the project vicinity (Downtown) as noted in comment letter B in the Final EIR. 8.4 Visual Enhancement and Revitalization The landscaping, urban design and lighting features of the Fair, Isaac Office Park will unify and upgrade the appearance of the Lindaro District, and Downtown San Rafael as a whole. In accordance with the City's objectives for the Lindaro District, as stated in the General Plan and zoning amendments to implement Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael (March 1996), the proposed Project will "enhance the visual image of Downtown by establishing distinctive, high quality development." 8.5 Improvements to Transportation and Access A number of improvements to the existing transportation and circulation system have been incorporated into the project design to enhance access to and egress from the Project area, and to provide convenient and pedestrian -oriented circulation within the Project area. The project includes the following transportation and access improvements: dedication of right-of-way and off-site improvements for widening portions of Second Street; and design of the parking structure, surface parking lots on Parcel A, internal walkways, plaza and lawn amphitheater that provides for easy pedestrian circulation. 8.6 Consistencv with the Citv of San Rafael General Plan 2000 The proposed project would be in substantial conformance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 39 q 5' policies, including the following: DT -12 Lindaro Office District a. Strategically Significant Gateway. Transform the Lindaro Office District into one of the most handsome urban places in Marin County by developing landmark, well-designed buildings. This District will be a special asset to the City and enhance Downtown's image as a high quality business center... b. Mix of Uses. Encourage an office complex which may include limited and incidental office - serving retail uses and other secondary uses such as entertainment, cultural facilities, public parking, and if feasible, residential uses... DT -18 Downtown Design.. New and remodeled buildings must contribute to Downtown's hometown feel. Design elements which cnhancc Downtown's identity and complement the existing attractive environment are encouraged, and may be required where appropriate for locations with high visibility or for compatibility with historic structures... DT -28 Full Utilization of System. To enable our desired uses and activities to happen Downtown, encourage full utilization of streets, which is efficient use of our public infrastructure and recognizes Downtown's urban character. DT -29 Full Range of Transportation Options. Encourage a wide variety of ways for people to travel to, in, and through Downtown in addition to auto travel... LU -41 Existing Business Areas. Support and encourage the upgrading of existing commercial areas consistent with infrastructure needs. .X q� ATTACHMENT I W� HCS: Unsignalized intersections Ret, r 2.1d cPAM.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers in Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Nall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ac =ate=tea � _■ �-_—�--_��_-- �--_,.ice==-_s�__� _- Streets: (N -S) Lindaro Street CE -W) Project Driveway Major Street Direction..., NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... FFC Date of Analysis.......... 7/15/97 Other Information......... General Plan Plus Project Conditions - AM Peak Hour Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection NorthboLukd I Southbound I Eastbotrd I Westbound I L T R i L T R I L T R I L T R 1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes ( 1 1< 0 1 1 1< 0 1 0 > 1 < 0 1 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield I N1 NI 1 Volumes 1 70 606 101 10 287 2251 20 1 201 10 1 10 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Mc's (9) 1 I 1 I SU/RV's (X)1 1 1 1 U'S (x) 1 I I I PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 908 HCS: unsignalized Intersections Relewe 2.1d GPAM.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting FLOWS: (vph) 644 420 Potential Capacity. (pcph) 653 848 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 653 848 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 0.97 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB N8 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 649 539 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 841 949 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 841 949 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 0.91 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3t TH from Minor Street we EB Conflicting FLOWS: (vph) 1268 1154 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 236 271 Capacity Adjustment Factor (pcph) (peph) clue to Impeding Movements 0.90 0.90 Movement Capacity: (peph) 213 244 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street W8 EB Conflicting FLOWS: (vph) 1160 1155 Potential capacity_ (peph) 225 227 Major LT, Minor TH 0.5 C Impedance Factor: 0.90 0,90 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.92 0.92 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to impeding Movements 0.90 0.90 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ------------------------------------ 202 205 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Delay = 0.9 Bee/veh Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (peph) (pcph)(sec/veh) veh) (sec/veh) E8 L 23 205 > EB T 1 244 > 328 12.8 0.5 C 12.8 EB R 23 848 > WR L 12 202 > 618 T 1 213 > 303 12.9 0.2 C 12.9 X18 R 12 653 > NO L 81 949 4.1 0.2 A 0.4 SB L 12 841 4.3 0.0 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 0.9 Bee/veh HCS: UnsignaLized Intersections Rel. a 2.1d GPPM.HCO Page 1 —=mss= �-ntMs =-- -___ W__---y_-:-------�_ ---a Cent,2r For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Nall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-5) Lindaro street (E -Y) Project Driveway Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... FFC Date of Analysis.......... 7/15/97 Other Information......... GeneraL Plan Plus Project Conditions - PM Peak Hour Two-way stop -controlled Intersection 1 Northbound I Southbound I Eastbound 1 Westbound I L T R J L T R J L T R J L T R J.... ---- ..--I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1< 0 1 1 1< 0 1 0 T 1 < 0 1 0 > 1 -e 0 Stop/Yield J NJ NI 1 volumes ( 30 492 101 10 205 251 180 1 251 10 1 10 PHF 1 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95 Grade J 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 MC -3 Su/RV's MI J J 1 PCE's 11.10 11.10 11.10 1.10 1.1011.10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 59 HCS Unsignalized Intersections Ret"se 2.1d GPPM.HCD Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB Es Conflicting Flows: (vph) 524 229 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 751 1060 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 751 1060 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 0.97 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SH MR Conflicting Flows: (vph) 529 242 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 959 1315 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 959 1315 Pr❑b. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB ER -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Ft❑ws: (vph) 808 801 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 411 414 Capacity Adjustment Factor 208 346 > due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 395 348 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WS EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 809 802 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 360 363 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.96 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97 0.97 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 0.95 Movement Capacity: (peph) 339 346 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Delay = 5.6 sec/veh 5► TOTAL P.06 Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approech Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (peph) (peph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) ER L 208 346 > Ee T 1 398 > 317 25.5 5.0 D 25.5 ER R 29 1060 > W8 L 12 339 > W8 T 1 395 > 464 8.2 0.0 a 8.2 WS R 12 751 > WR L 35 1315 2.8 0.0 A 0.2 SB L 12 959 3.8 0.0 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 5.6 sec/veh 5► TOTAL P.06