Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9265 (Northview Townhouse Project)RESOLUTION NO. 9265 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE, USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE NORTHVIEW TOWNHOUSE PROJECT - Z89-8/UP89-43/ED89/55/TS90-5 - END OF PROFESSIONAL CENTER PARKWAY, A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AP 155-050-03 & 04 (NORTHVIEW TOWNHOUSE PROJECT) WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared by the City of San Rafael which showed that a proposed 40 -unit condominium/townhouse project might produce significant environmental effect on the oak woodland and adjacent wetland areas and that an EIR would be required for the project; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1994, the San Rafael Planning Commission found that the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report for the Northview Townhouse Project had been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the document; and WHEREAS, the applications were modified from a 40 -unit project to a 28 -unit residential townhouse subdivision on the project site, consistent with the preferred alternative B-2 recommended in the EIR, including a zone change, use permit, environmental and design review permit, tentative subdivision map; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael reviewed and considered public testimony and the staff report at a duly noticed public hearing on the project and voted to recommend adoption of the zone change and voted to recommend approval of the project applications for the 28 -unit residential project; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of San Rafael reviewed and considered public testimony and the staff reports at a duly noticed public hearing on the project and voted to adopt the zone change and approve the project applications for the 28 -unit project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael approves the zone change (Z89-8) and use permit (UP89-43), the environmental and design review permit (ED89-55), and the tentative subdivision map (TS90-5) based on the following findings: 1 ORIGINAL q,es SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND FINDINGS OF FACT Consistency with City Plans and Policies Impact - The project reviewed in the EIR provided a 50 -foot setback from the wetland area. This setback did not meet the requirements of General Plan Policy LU -34, NE -13, NE -14, NE -15, NE -17 and NE -19 because it failed to incorporate a wide enough setback to protect Gallinas Creek and wetlands, both sensitive wildlife habitat areas. Mitigation Measure: In compliance with the recommendations of the USFWS and CDFG, and incorporated into alternative B-2, a 75 -foot setback has been provided for in this 28 -unit project. Finding #1. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Geology, Soils and Seismicity: Impact - Unstable slopes above the proposed building sites and along the proposed roadway alignment could result in unstable conditions for the project and adjacent properties. Mitigation Measure: Recommendations of the Geotechnical Report have been adopted as conditions of approval # 50, 54, 55, 58, and 42. The requirements reduce the existing and potentially increased slope instability. These recommendations include: Maximum recommended gradients for cut slopes; removal of unstable colluvial materials; excavation and backfilling and/or buttressing of existing landfill deposits; installation of subdrains; and use of retaining walls and/or reinforced earth embankments along portions of the roadway. Finding #2. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required for the project which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Varying foundation material would provide varying degrees of support for the project buildings and could result in differential settlement. Mitigation Measure: Recommendations of the Geotechnical Report have been adopted as conditions of approval # 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55. These conditions will reduce the potential for foundation damage to levels below significance. Finding #3. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Seismically -induced ground shaking could damage the proposed residences on the project site. Potential damage and casualties could be caused by falling building elements and materials and household equipment. Mitigation Measure: Conditions of approval require the building design conform to the seismic requirements of the most current version of the Uniform Building Code. Finding #4. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Landslides within the project site could be triggered by seismic activity resulting in potential human injury or property damage. 2 Mitigation Measure: The effects of ground shaking on fill slopes or retaining walls will be accounted for in their design as will be discussed in the geotechnical reports for the project. Finding #5. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality Impact - Shallow groundwater beneath the development site could potentially cause seepage around residential unit foundations, weaken the stability of natural and cut - and -fill slopes, and result in differential settlement of fill within the project site. Mitigation Measure: Conditions of approval #42 requires that subdrains be included in existing wet zone areas proposed for cut and fill. This proposed installation will be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Finding #6. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Construction and grading activities could increase erosion potential, and the silt -load generated by earth moving operations could impact the proposed drainage system, Gallinas Creek and the associated wetlands. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 16, 62, 63 and 64 require that the project sponsor develop a sedimentation control plan. Finding #7. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Runoff from the project could contain pollutants typical of residential areas which could be conveyed into Gallinas Creek and the associated wetlands. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 43 contain requirements to control toxic runoff into the wetland area, as well as measures to inform the residents of ways to reduce use of pesticides and herbicides that reduce the water quality of runoff from the site. Finding #8. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Biological Resources Impact - Development of the project site would result in the removal of approximately 0.3 acres of the 1.2 acres of coastal oak woodland, or approximately 8 oak trees. Construction of the roadway would require the removal of approximately 0.2 acres of the 0.4 acres of oak woodland, or approximately 12 trees. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 require the project proponent to replace removed trees at a 3:1 ratio, and revegetate the oak woodland area with native plant species, and also to prepare a semi-annual monitoring program to ensure success of the new vegetation. Finding #9. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen 3 the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Construction of housing units would remove approximately 0.3 acres of Valley Needlegrass grassland, and construction of the roadway would remove approximately 1.4 acres of Valley Needlegrass grassland habitat. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 19 through 26 establish mitigation measures for the proposed landscape plan to promote and preserve the remaining Valley Needlegrass Grassland habitat on the project site. Finding #10. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Two potential special status plant species owl's clover plants located in the eastern corner of the site may be disturbed/ destroyed during grading activities. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 27 and 28 require the establishment of a management plan to preserve these plants, if found to be present after field surveys. This plan shall be developed by a qualified botanist, and shall detail preservation of these plants in this location during construction and beyond, or dispersal of their seeds to the dedicated open space area. Finding #11. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Five special status animal species are assumed on the site based on the habitat area. These species include the black shouldered kite, great egret, northern harrier, short -eared owl, and saltmarsh yellowthroat. The project may result in habitat removal or degradation which could adversely affect these species. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 18 and 83 require preservation of approximately 9.4 acres of open space under the conditions of a conservation easement. This easement would compensate for special status bird species habitat on the area of the site proposed for development. Finding #12. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Seven special status animals have the potential to occur in the marsh or creek areas adjacent to the site and would use the wetland/upland transition area periodically as refuge. These species are the California black rail, California clapper rail, saltmarsh harvest mouse, saltmarsh wandering shrew, Suisun ornate shrew, tidewater goby, and California brackish water snail. Mitigation Measures: The proposed project is consistent with the recommended alternative B-2, which has a 75 -foot setback from the creek and marsh area for all buildings and development. This setback was recommended by USFWS and CDFG to adequately protect the creek and marsh habitat area. Finding #12. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - A revegetation plan containing mostly semi -drought tolerant species would most likely be introduced by the project proponent. The proposed species could adversely impact native species in the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh habitat adjacent to the project site. 4 Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 19 and 20 require that certain species not be planted, and lists appropriate species for the salt marsh habitat. Finding #13. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - The proposed project would introduce a storm water pipeline into Gallinas Creek. This pipeline would require the placement of a minimal amount of fill in the wetlands of Gallinas Creek. This may cause disruptions to wildlife activity and water quality degradation in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 29 and 30 require that approvals for fill be secured with U. S. Corps of Engineers, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Lands Commission. All permit conditions shall be implemented. Finding #14. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Use of riprap could provide cavities for pest species that could compete for food sources with native animal species. Mitigation Measures: Condition of approval # 30 requires eliminating rip -rap as an erosion control material. Finding #15. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Increased human activity from construction and ultimately the residential project could have an adverse effect on the marsh habitat and its associated wetland. Mitigation Measures: Consistent with preferred alternative B-2, a 75 foot setback has been proposed for the project. Condition of approval # 32 requires that a 4 -foot high fence be provided between the marsh area and the houses to deter human access to the marsh and creek. Additionally, the residences have been designed so as not to facilitate ground -level access to the wetland. Finding #16. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Traffic, Circulation and Parking: Impact - Truck traffic associated with construction could degrade the quality of pavement on Redwood Highway Frontage Road or Professional Center Parkway. Mitigation Measures: Condition of approval # 34 requires the project sponsor to compensate the City of San Rafael for road surface damage and repairs resulting from construction activities. Finding #16. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. 5 Environmental Contamination: Impact - The remaining sewage sludge in the defunct oxidation ponds on the site might be contaminated with heavy metals. Disturbance to the soil could cause health hazards to construction workers and future residents of the area. Mitigation Measures: Condition #35 requires that the site be tested to determine the level of contamination. If determined to be hazardous, appropriate remediation and monitoring measures will be taken. Finding #17. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Certain construction materials used for the project could expose new residents to hazardous materials, depending on type of materials. Compliance to Proposition 65 is the significant threshold. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of approval # 37 and 38 require that the project sponsor comply by retaining a Certified Industrial Hygienist to sample the indoor air to determine the levels of toxic substances emitted from construction materials. Finding #17. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Noise: Impact - Neighbors of the project would experience noise levels in excess of 70 dBA during construction activities. Mitigation Measures: Condition # 4 limits construction hours from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, to avoid the most noise -sensitive times for area residents. Finding #18. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Public Services: Impact - Any increase in demand for police services would result in an impact to police staffing as the staff is already overworked. Mitigation Measures: Conditions of Approval placed on the project by the Police Department require that the design of the project contain features that deter criminal activity. Finding #19. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - The additional 28 -units at the project site would increase the demand for park and recreation services provided by the City of San Rafael. Mitigation Measure: Condition of approval # 7 requires that a parkland dedication fee of $1784.31 be paid for each unit except the BMR units at application for building permit. Finding #20. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen C1 the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Construction and occupancy of the proposed 28 unit project would increase incrementally the solid waste generation and disposal. Mitigation Measures: Condition of approval #39 requires the project proponent to provide containers for reusable and recyclable construction material, and each unit shall be designed to have adequate storage area to allow separation of garbage and recyclables. Finding #21. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Impact - Additional water will be consumed by the project and residents. Mitigation Measures: Condition # 40 requires that the project have water conserving fixtures, and that the proposed landscape plan contain appropriate drought -tolerant landscaping. Finding #22. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. Visual Aesthetics: Impact - Light and glare on the project site to off-site would increase as a result of the proposed residences and associated roadway lighting Mitigation Measures: Condition #41 requires that colors be non -reflective, outdoor lighting be directed toward the ground, and landscaping and vegetation shall be used to screen the proposed entrance roadway. Finding #23. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Required. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, thereby reducing such potential effect to less than a significant level. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Environmental Impact Report: 24. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Significant adverse impacts were identified in the areas of Biological Resources, Water Quality, Vegetation and Wildlife. The project design was modified and conditions developed to mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been proposed and approved for the project. 25. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 26. The Draft Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft Final EIR prior to approving the project. Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 94-5, on January 25, 1994, Recommending to the City Council Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Zone Change Z89-8 7 27. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan because the development standards of the PD District is consistent with the General Plan Policies including Land Use Policies LU -10, LU -12, LU -19, LU -21, LU -22, LU -29, LU -32, LU -33, LU34,1U-35, LU -48, LU -51, LU -52; Housing Policies H-17, H-19 and H- 32; Circulation Policies C-2, C-3, C-4, C-8, C-18; Recreation Policy R-4; Natural Environment Policies NE -2, NE -12, NE -14, NE -15, NE -17, NE -19, NE -20; Health and Safety Policies S-2, S-4, S-6, S-7, S-11, S-18, S-20, S-21, S-22, S-23, S-24; Noise Policies N-1, N-4, N-7 N-10; and Northgate area Policy NG -2. 28. The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the the surrounding community of the City in that all impacts identified in the environmental impact report were mitigated. Use Permit UP89-43 29. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan, and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The operation of this residential project, together with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of Hillside Residential and Medium Density Residential. Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Policies LU -10, LU -12, LU -19, LU -21, LU -22, LU -29, LU -32, LU -33, LU -24, LU -35, LU -48, LU -51, LU -52, H-17, H-19, H-32, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-8, C-18, C-26, R-4, NE -2, NE -12, NE -14, NE -15, NE -17, NE -19, NE -20, NE -15S-2, S-4, S-6, S-7, S-11, S-18, S-20, S-22, S-23, S-24, N-1, N- 4, N-7, N-10 and NG -2. Furthermore, residential uses are conditionally permitted in the PD zoning district and this use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 30. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the PD -WO -H zoning district. 31. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the 28 -unit residential project will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City in that required parking for the use is provided on-site, adequate setbacks have been proposed from the wetland and marsh area to protect the natural environment, all the impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report were mitigated to a level of insignificance and the project has been reviewed by all appropriate City and State agencies and their comments have been incorporated into project revisions through project design and conditions of approval. 32. Changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Tentative Subdivision Map TS90-5 33. The subdivision map complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and with the City of San Rafael's Subdivision Ordinance. 34. As conditioned, approval of the proposed subdivision would be consistent with important General Plan Policies, consistent with the open space plan, and consistent with the land use designation of Hillside Residential and Medium Density Residential. 35. Approval of the proposed subdivision would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding development in that the potential environmental impacts have been assessed and mitigated through project design and conditions of approval. 36. The site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development based on the review by the Design Review Board, compliance with the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, and the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report. pz 37. The City has balanced the regional housing needs of the region against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources and concludes that adequate public services are available for the site, the project will not impact environmental resources, and the project meets an identified housing need. 38. The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible based on balancing the need to create a design compatible with the neighborhood with solar energy needs, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. 39. An exception is granted to providing the recreational vehicle parking required by Section 15.50.150 of the Municipal Code in that excessive grading and tree removal would be required to provide the recreational vehicle parking. 40. The granting of this exception for providing recreational vehicle parking will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated in that more trees are preserved and a more attractive project is achieved without the requirement that recreational parking be provided. 41. The Design Review Board has determined that an exception to the Hillside Guidelines requirement of four spaces per unit be granted and three spaces per unit be provided. The Design Review Board determined this as a result of their analysis of the natural resources of the site and the available area for development. 42. An exception is granted to providing a community building or recreational facility required by Section 15.50.150 in that the project is composed of mainly detached single family homes, and excessive grading and tree removal would be required to construct such facilities. 43. The granting of an exception to providing a recreation or community building will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated in that providing a recreational building would require excessive grading and tree removal which would not be beneficial for the community. Environmental and Design Review ED89-55 44. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan 2000 land use designation of Hillside Residential and Medium Density Residential, and with the goals and policies of the General Plan including Policy LU -10, LU -12, LU -19, LU -21, LU -22, LU - 29, LU -32, LU -33, LU -24, LU -35, LU -48, LU -51, LU -52, H-17, H-19, H-32, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-8, C-18, C-26, R-4, NE -2, NE -12, NE -14, NE -15, NE -17, NE -19, NE -20, NE -15S-2, S-4, S-6, S-7, S-11, S-18, S-20, S-22, S-23, S-24, N-1, N-4, N-7, N-10 and NG -2. 45. The Environmental and Design Review application conforms to the design standards established in General Plan 2000, to the Criteria for Approval of Applications listed in Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Ordinance, and to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines. 46. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the PD -WO -H zoning district. 47. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts and will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitats or cause serious public health problems based on the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project and modifications made to the project design to incorporate recommended mitigation measures. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINL Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular 9 meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday the 5th day of December, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk 10