HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9007 (Shoreline Center EIR)RESOLUTION NO. 9007
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
SHORELINE CENTER, A 42+ ACRE BUSINESS PARK, INCLUDING HOME
DEPOT, LOCATED AT 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (AP 09-320-02
to -13, -15 THROUGH -18,-20-26,-32-38)
WHEREAS, in May, 1991, the City Council approved Home Depot as a
priority project under the City of San Rafael's Priority Project Procedures; and
WHEREAS, an application for a Master Plan for development of Shoreline
Center, a 42+ acre business park and development of a 102,190 square feet
Home Depot with an Outdoor Garden Center with 22,200 square feet on
approximately 11 acres of the site along with the required applications for a
zone change from PD (Planned Development) and LI/O (Light
Industrial /Office) to a new PD zone for the entire site with new development
standards (Z90-5); a tentative map for a six -lot subdivision(TS91-5); a Use
Permit for development in the PD Zone (UP91-36); a Development
Agreement (DA92-1); and an Environmental and Design Review Permit for
the Home Depot project (ED91-99) were filed with the City of San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared by CH2M Hill, under contract to the City,
which showed that the proposed Shoreline Center/Home Depot project
might produce significant environmental effects and that an EIR would be
required for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) were sent to
responsible agencies, trustee agencies, involved federal agencies, Marin
County, and local environmental groups on or about November 6, 1991; and
WHEREAS, responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies
and groups: California Department of Fish and Game, California Department
of Transportation, California Integrated Waste Management Board; San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Marin
Municipal Water District; San Rafael Sanitation District, Marin Audubon
Society, Marin Conservation League, and the Sierra Club Marin Group; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 1991, the San Rafael Planning Commission
held a duly noticed public hearing at which they considered the responses
received from the above mentioned agencies and groups, accepted public
testimony, and provided additional comments on the Initial Study and
approved the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, a draft EIR entitled "Shoreline Center Draft Environmental
Impact Report," was prepared by CH2M Hill ; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft and copies of the Draft EIR
were delivered to the State Clearinghouse (State Clearinghouse Number
91113044) and the Draft EIR was circulated for a duly noticed 45 -day public
review period which began on November 23, 1992 and ended on January 7,
1993; and
WHEREAS, a Public Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for the Draft
EIR was mailed on November 23, 1992 to property owners within a 300 foot
radius of the project site, all City of San Rafael Neighborhood Associations, all
state and local agencies and other interested persons who requested
ORIGINAL *94o2,
information on the project and copies of the notice were duly posted and
published; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the Planning
Department, the San Rafael City Library, and the Marin County Library and
copies of the Draft EIR were also distributed to local environmental groups;
and
WHEREAS, written comments on the Draft EIR during the comment period
were received from the following agencies, groups, and individuals:
California Department of Conservation, Government, and Environmental
Relations; California Department of Fish and Game; California Department of
Transportation; California Environmental Protection Agency; City of San
Rafael Redevelopment Agency; The Environmental Forum of Marin; Marin
Audubon Society; Marin Conservation League; San Quentin Village
Association; Albert Bianchi of Bianchi, Engel , Keegin & Talkington; Karlena
Palomares; and James Sasse; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was reviewed at a duly noticed public hearing by
the Planning Commission on January 12, 1993 at which time the Commission
accepted both oral testimony and additional written comments on the Draft
EIR and directed staff to prepare a draft Final EIR document; and
WHEREAS, CH2M HILL prepared responses to each comment received
during the public review period and at the public hearing held by the
Planning Commission and included all comments and responses in a bound
document entitled, Shoreline Center Response to Comments dated April
1993; and
WHEREAS, as directed by the Planning Commission, CH2M HILL also
incorporated any responses which included text changes to the EIR into a
bound document entitled Shoreline Center Draft Final Environmental
Impact Report, dated April 1993; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b) states that an opportunity for
review of the draft Final EIR by the public and by commenting agencies may
be provided and the Planning Commission requested a 21 -day public review
period, these two documents were made available for a public review period
beginning on Tuesday, April 20, 1993 and ending on May 11, 1993; and
WHEREAS, copies of the documents were distributed to the Planning
Commission, mailed to State Agencies which commented on the Draft EIR,
distributed to local environmental groups and the City of Larkspur, placed in
the San Rafael City Library and the Marin County Library and made available
in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the public hearing to review the documents was
duly mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, all interested
persons who asked to be notified, and all San Rafael Homeowner and
Neighborhood Associations, and were posted on the site and published in the
newspaper; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 1993 the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to review the draft Final EIR and Response to Comments documents in
conjunction with a staff report dated May 7, 1993 which discussed the
adequacy of the draft Final EIR and outlined changes to the EIR that had been
made in response to comments and focused on the following EIR issues:
Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; Economic Impacts; Plan Review;
Geology, Soils and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Human Health and
- 2 -
Safety and Landfill Gas; Project Alternatives; the Project Development
Agreement; and Significant Impacts that Cannot be Avoided; and
WHEREAS, following its review of these documents and the public
comments received, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
responses to these comments and continued the hearing on the draft Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, an addendum response to comments entitled Shoreline Center
Response to Comments on the draft FEIR Addendum, dated May 1993, was
prepared by City Staff in consultation with CH2M HILL; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1993, City staff distributed to the Commission and
made available to the public the Addendum documents and a staff report
dated May 21,1993; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993, the Commission took public testimony on the
staff report and the Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft
FEIR Addendum, dated May 1993, and reviewed and considered this
testimony in conjunction with the Shoreline Center draft Final EIR, dated
April 1993, and the Shoreline Center Response to Comments Addendum,
dated April 1993; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1993, the Commission closed the public hearing on
the draft Final EIR and directed staff to prepare responses to the comments
received on the Response to Comments on the draft FOR Addendum and to
prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council certification of the
Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 1993 the Commission accepted the Response to
Comments on the Response to Comments on the draft FEIR Addendum and
adopted on a 7-0 vote Resolution No. 93-3 Recommending to the City Council
Certification of the FEIR for the Shoreline Center; and
WHEREAS, for any project on which the City Council must have
discretionary approval, the City Council must certify the environmental
document and the rezoning for the Shoreline Center requires the approval of
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the administrative record of the Planning Commission hearings
consisting of all staff reports, exhibits, and correspondence; meeting minutes;
Resolution 93-3; and the Final EIR for the project consisting of the Shoreline
Center draft Final EIR, dated April 1993; the Shoreline Center Response to
Comments Addendum, dated April 1993; the Shoreline Center Response to
Comments on the draft FEIR Addendum, dated May 1993; and Response to
Comments on Response to Comments on the draft FEIR Addendum, dated
June 1993 were forwarded to the City Council for their consideration and
made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1993 the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider certification of the FEIR in conjunction with a staff report
dated July 21, 1993 which summarized the major issues addressed in the FEIR
and Response to Comment documents; and
WHEREAS, following its review of the these documents and the public
comments received, the City Council closed the public hearing and directed
staff to prepare responses to the public comments; and
WHEREAS, City staff in consultation with CH2MHill and Economic and
Planning Systems prepared a response to comments document entitled
- 3 -
Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council
Hearing of July 28, 1993, dated August 11, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 1993 City staff distributed to the City Council and
made available to the public the Response document and a staff report dated
August 11, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 1993 at a duly noticed special meeting of the City
Council, the Council took public testimony on the staff report and the
Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council
Hearing of July 28, 1993, document, and
WHEREAS, the City Council closed the public hearing, directed staff to
prepare responses to comments, and continued the item to September 7, 1993
for consideration; and
WHEREAS, City staff in consultation with CH2MHi11, TJKM, and Economic
and Planning Systems prepared a response to comments document entitled
Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council
Hearing of August 19, 1993, dated August 31, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 1993 City staff distributed to the City Council and
made available to the public the Response document and a staff report dated
August 31, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 1993 the City Council considered these
documents.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San
Rafael determines for purposes of certification that the Final EIR for the
project consists of the Shoreline Center draft Final EIR, dated April 1993; the
Shoreline Center Response to Comments Addendum, dated April 1993; the
Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR Addendum, dated
May 1993; the Response to Comments on Response to Comments on the draft
FEIR Addendum, dated June 1993; Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-
3; Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council
Hearing of July 28, 1993, dated August 1993; Shoreline Center Response to
Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council Hearing of August 19, 1993, dated
August 31, 1993 and this Resolution No.. 9 0 0 7.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in evaluating the Final EIR and makes the following
determinations and findings related to certification of the Final EIR:
1. The City Council finds that the Final EIR fully complies with CEQA
requirements for consultation and public review based on the following facts
and analysis;
A. The Notice of Preparation for the EIR, the draft EIR, and the Final EIR
were duly made available to the public, Marin County, and all trustee and
responsible agencies through noticing, publication and posting. Copies of
the documents were available in libraries and the Planning Department.
B. Copies of the draft EIR and draft FEIR were sent to the City of Larkspur
during the public hearing process and they were given an opportunity to
comment on the documents. Their comments and responses were
incorporated into the Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the
draft FEIR Addendum dated May 1993 and the Response to Comments on
this document.
- 4 -
2. The City Council finds that the Final EIR fully complies with CEQA
requirements that written responses be prepared on all comments received
from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR based on the following facts:.
A. The Shoreline Response to Comments Addendum, dated April 1993,
the Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR
Addendum, dated May 1993, the Response to Comments on the Response
to Comments on the draft FEIR Addendum, dated June 1993, the
Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council
Hearing of July 28, 1993, dated August 1993; and the Shoreline Center
Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council Hearing of August
191 1993, dated August 31, 1993 contain all letters received during the
public comment period and at the public hearings and minutes of all
testimony received at the public hearings. Each and every comment has
been numbered and a response has been prepared to each environmental
issue.
3. The City Council finds that an analysis of economic and social impacts is
not required in the Shoreline Center FEIR as no linkage between potential
economic and social impacts of a physical nature with a significant
environmental effect has been established based on the following facts and
analysis:
A. Information on potential economic and social impacts presented in Al
Bianchi's letters of January 6 and January 19, 1993 and other
correspondence and public testimony submitted during the public hearing
is speculative in nature. Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines states that
"Economic or social information may be included in an EIR," but that "(a)
Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant
effects on the environment." Section (b) states that "economic or social
effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical
changes caused by the project." Comments received stating that there will
be job losses and a number of business closures are speculative in nature.
No factual evidence was provided establishing a link to physical changes.
B. General Comment No. 5 in the Resvonse to Comments Addendum„
dated April 1993, as amended to incorporate the City Attorney's memo of
1/22/93 and staff's comments regarding a lack of nexus in the record to
require such an analysis, adequately responds to economic comments.
C. The City of San Rafael requested that Economic & Planning Systems
(EPS), a land economics consulting firm, independently investigate and
respond to prior economic analysis and findings prepared by Sedway &
Associates which assert that the potential vacancy of larger hardware
stores in San Rafael will result in vandalism, building deterioration, and
physical blight in the areas in which the stores are located. The report
concluded that the City has a large, relatively healthy retail market, which
is likely to improve over time as economic growth returns to the Bay
Area. Most of the existing hardware and home improvement stores are
located throughout a mixed-use service commercial and industrial
corridor. The area is in good physical condition and existing vacancies
have not resulted in deterioration or blight. Long -term vacancies of large,
freestanding retail spaces do not show any evidence of physical
deterioration of the buildings and vandalism has not occurred in these
vacant buildings and is not a problem in San Rafael. The report concluded
that the analysis did not substantiate claims that potential negative
economic impacts generated by the Home Depot store, which might result
in possible hardware store closures, would lead to a significant impact on
the physical environment in San Rafael.
- 5 -
D. The facts behind the Home Depot project in the Shoreline Center are
dearly distinct from the Citizens for Quality Growth v. Citv of Mt Shasta,
(1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 433 and Citizens Association for Sensible
Development of Bishop v. County of Invo (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151,170
cases. Both these communities are quite small, with populations of
approximately 3,500 and the projects proposed were large in comparison to
the respective city's existing retail base. (Sales of $30 million in Mt. Shasta
and $70 million in Bishop). The proposed Bishop shopping center would
have generated sales of $20 million or more, or sales of nearly 30 percent
of the entire city. In both of these cases, the Court recognized that the
potential economic impacts were of a much greater magnitude than is
possible in San Rafael, which serves as a "regional shopping center." Total
retail sales in the City exceed $900 million with retail activity dispersed
throughout the downtown, Northgate Mall and several community -scale
shopping centers. The Home Depot project will generate some $30
million or approximately 3 percent of total sales in the City.
4. The City Council finds that mitigation measures which require future
studies are legally sufficient based on the following facts and analysis:
A. Mitigation measures based on geotechnical reports, excavation of the
City pond, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, a lighting survey,
health and safety plans, a maintenance plan for sealed utility structures,
and a drainage control plan either list specific performance criteria that
must be met or specify that a specific level of mitigation must be achieved
prior to the issuance of permits. The City has committed itself to requiring
mitigation. Each of the mitigation measures has been reviewed by the City
Attorney and has been determined to meet judicial tests for adequacy.
B. The Final EIR has been reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game
(lighting survey), and other responsible and trustee local, state, and federal
agencies who have responded that mitigation measures outlined in the
FEIR are adequate to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
5. The City Council finds that the cumulative impacts section of the Final EIR
adequately addresses cumulative impacts based on the following facts and
analysis:
A. Section 5, Cumulative Impacts, has been revised to incorporate text
revisions to cumulative impacts made in Response to Comments on the
draft EIR. It also incorporates mitigation measures which deal with
cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts from the proposed San Quentin
Prison expansion have been incorporated into the EIR. The FEIR includes
a list and map of all projects included in the Cumulative Impact analysis.
B. An analysis of cumulative traffic impacts from undeveloped and
approved projects in Larkspur is not needed as only 10 peak hour trips
from Home Depot are forecast to impact East Sir Frances Drake Boulevard
and its intersection with U.S. Hwy. 101. Phase If of the project must meet
mitigation conditions set forth in the City's General Plan EIR respecting
traffic improvements to the 1580 mainline and ramps. In addition, the
County's Congestion Management Plan and the Gap Closure Plan analyze
regional traffic impacts on the arterial system and list required
improvements. CalTrans has reviewed the document for impacts on the
regional traffic network and has concluded that the FEIR adequately
assesses traffic impacts.
6. The City Council finds that the FOR adequately addresses Water Quality
based on the following facts and analysis:
WE
A. The FEIR includes a comprehensive discussion of water quality
compliance requirements for the existing closure and post -closure
activities which are not a part of the Shoreline Center/Home Depot
project. The RWQCB has reviewed the closure under current guidelines
(letter dated May 21, 1993) and states there is no verifiable evidence of a
leak of contaminants at or above the Department of Health Services'
action levels, into the waters of the State. The RWQCB requires quarterly
reports evaluating the effectiveness of the leachate monitoring.
B. The FEIR includes an analysis of data on ambient ground water
conditions and states that lead and zinc found in groundwater wells is
likely from urban runoff.
C. Groundwater testing of the adjacent ponds is not required as there is no
base data to which test information could be compared. 366 acres drain
into the ponds and there is no basis to determine which, if any, of the
contamination is from the landfill and which from the developed areas of
the drainage basin.
D. Mitigation measures have been recommended for the project which
will reduce water quality impacts to a level of insignificance. Oil and
grease separators will be monitored and maintained to minimize any
urban pollutants from the project site.
7. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately addresses hydrology,
grading and drainage impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. The FEIR concluded that full buildout of the project would increase the
net flows of runoff by 6 percent. These figures were quantified to
determine the net increase in pond level and marsh water level that
would result. Worst case (100 year flood) would raise the water level .3
inch for Home Depot and .9 inch for full buildout. This was determined
to be an insignificant impact for Home Depot, but potentially significant
under full buildout. Mitigation measures were revised to require that
Phase 2 development be required to be reviewed on a project by project
basis to insure that capacity is available.
B. Grease and oil separators in parking lots, preparation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, and drainage swales have been recommended
to mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance.
C. The Final EIR has been reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game,
RWQCB, and other responsible and trustee local, state, and federal
agencies who have responded that mitigation measures outlined in the
FEIR are adequate to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
8. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Transportation
and Circulation impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. The FEIR incorporates a freeway analysis which looks at freeway
segments and ramps as requested by CalTrans. Freeway levels of service
will not change.
B. The FOR incorporates an Intersection Analysis and Signal
Coordination Timing Study prepared by TJKM Consultants as requested
by CalTrans. The report confirms the work performed by CH2M Hill and
projects even better Levels of Service under project conditions.
C. The traffic analysis contained in the FEIR is consistent with the City's
transportation planning process in East San Rafael that has been
- 7 -
developed, refined, and utilized over the last 15 years. General Comment
No. 1, Traffic Impact of the Home Depot Project, prepared by Lloyd Strom,
Assistant Public Works Director, explains the traffic analysis in the context
of these long term transportation planning efforts. The assumptions used
in the study are consistent with this process and were developed in
consultation with John Rumsey, the City's former traffic engineer based
on his long term knowledge of East San Rafael traffic modeling and traffic
patterns. The study evaluated traffic during the one hour weekday period
between 4:00 and 6:00 pm when the heaviest traffic flows occur. It was
assumed that traffic flows would follow current pm peak hour trends as
congestion during this period discourages shopping trips and most traffic
will be local, i.e, customers who either live or work in San Rafael. These
assumptions and the traffic analysis are consistent with the City's
transportation planning process as mandated by the General Plan and set
forth in the "Priority Projects Process."
D. The traffic analysis in the FEIR evaluates traffic impacts in the San
Quentin interchange and concludes that impacts will be less than
significant. Additional trips from the proposed San Quentin Prison
expansion were evaluated as were impacts on the Sir Francis
Drake/Andersen Drive intersection.
E. Traffic studies submitted by the City of Larkspur and Al Bianchi,
attorney for Jackson's Hardware, have used different assumptions in
evaluating traffic impacts on Sir Francis Drake Blvd. These studies were
reviewed in considering the adequacy of the traffic analysis and were
responded to in the Response to Comments and at the Public Hearing.
Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The
assumptions used in preparing the traffic analysis contained in the FEIR
are consistent with San Rafael's long term traffic planning process and
have been validated through traffic counts.
F. The Final EIR has been reviewed by CalTrans who has determined that
the FEIR adequately assesses traffic impacts on state highways.
G. Trip generation rates, trip distribution, and the Highway Capacity
Manual Methodology used in the traffic study are consistent with the
City's past and present transportation planning process and with accepted
traffic engineering principles. General Comment No. 1, in the Shoreline
Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR, City Council Hearing of
July 28, 1993, document reviews trip generation rates, trip distribution,
capacity calculation, and signal optimization and concludes that there has
been no substantive information presented that would invalidate the
analysis performed by CH2MHill. The Response to Comments on the
draft FEIR - City Council Hearing of August 19, 1993 document contains an
independent analysis of the traffic study performed by TJKM. The
document was prepared by Dalene Whitlock, a registered traffic engineer.
The report concludes that CH2MHil1 followed standard transportation
planning practices in evaluating the traffic impacts of the Shoreline Center
development. The data collection, trip generation and distribution, and
analysis performed are all typical of the procedure followed for such an
analysis.
9. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Air Quality
impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. The FEIR clarifies that PM10 particles will not contain contaminants
because soils sample do not contain contaminants and the landfill's clay
cap will only be punctured for the installation of building foundations and
possibly storm drain pipes. Adequate mitigation measures are provided.
B. The FEIR contains quantitative information on the amount of PM10
generated during construction and concludes that with site watering and
other measures, PM10 levels can be reduced to a level of insignificance
during construction.
C. The FEIR has evaluated PM10, TOG, NOx, and SOx levels from auto
emission from project generated traffic and compared them to BAAQMD
significance criterion and determined that emission rates are below the
significance criteria. CO levels will not be exceeded.
D. PM10 levels for traffic generated from buildout of the Shoreline Center
Master Plan were analyzed and will exceed BAAQMD significance criteria
and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
10. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Geology, Soils,
and Seismicity impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. The FEIR included an analysis of Geotechnical Reports for the project
site and a Foundation Investigation for the Home Depot project. The FOR
fully evaluates potential impacts from grading and earthwork
construction, settlement, seismic hazards, soil erosion, soil production,
and slope instability.
B. The FEIR has been revised to reflect the fact that any site grading or
construction cannot penetrate the clay liner without the written
permission of the appropriate and responsible landfill closure agencies.
11. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Human Health
and Safety and Landfill gas impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. The FEIR fully evaluates all issues related to landfill gas and public
safety issues through a comprehensive and independent review of all
technical documents related to the site closure and all testing data. The
FEIR recommends mitigation measures to mitigate all impacts to a level
of insignificance.
B. The Final EIR has been reviewed by all trustee and responsible local,
state, and federal agencies who have responded that the FEIR adequately
assesses impacts.
12. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Plant and
Animal Community impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. Based on the quantitative analysis on the actual increase in pond and
marsh water levels that would result from increased stormwater runoff
created from the project, the Home Depot project will not have a
significant impact on the adjacent wetlands and wildlife. Further buildout
of the site will be reviewed on a project by project basis to ensure there is
adequate pond capacity and that wetlands will not be impacted.
B. A landscaped wildlife corridor of 371/2 feet is required adjacent to the
Shoreline Park Band. The Department of Fish and Game is the designated
state agency having statutory authority for the protection of wetlands and
fish and wildlife. Fred Botti, Associate Wildlife Biologist with this agency,
states that there is no hard evidence or studies on the subject of what is an
adequate width for a wildlife corridor. The Department found the
proposed 371 /2 foot corridor to be adequate.
C. The FEIR recommends that the proposed building setback of 50 feet
from the property line with 25 feet of this area landscaped to provide a
buffer is adequate if the City property adjacent to the north and west
borders of Parcel 1 and the north border of Parcel 6 is revegetated to
supplement the existing marsh vegetation and edge vegetation. This
standard has been reviewed and found to be adequate. The General Plan
recommends a setback on large projects of 100 feet for structures. Parking
lots and driveways are allowed within the setbacks. Fred Botti, Associate
Wildlife Biologist for the Department of Fish and Game states that the
Department uses a building and parking setback of 100' for a non -tidal
marsh. When there is a steep change in topography, as with this project,
less of a setback may be required because the flooding danger is lessened
and there is a different habitat on steeper slopes. The Home Depot
building at its closest proximity will be located approximately 160 feet
from the marsh edge, more than meeting the General Plan and Fish and
Game standard. Fish and Game considers the revegetation plan to be
beneficial and is satisfied with the proposed setbacks and buffers as long as
the revegetation plan for the City property and Home Depot site are
coordinated as required by mitigation measures.
D. Cross sections have been prepared for all parcels to illustrate site grades,
setbacks, landscape buffers and berms/fences. Based on these sections
mitigations for parcels 1, 3, and 5 have been clarified to state that fencing
must be placed 5' to 10' from the top of the bank with substantial, mature
landscaping placed in front of the fence to screen these sites from the
adjacent marshes. These cross sections have been reviewed by Fred Botti,
Associate Wildlife Biologist with the Department of Fish and Game.
E. The Final EIR has been reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game
and other responsible and trustee local, state, and federal agencies who
have responded that mitigation measures outlined in the FEIR are
adequate to mitigate Plant and Animal Community impacts to a level of
insignificance. Testimony from environmental groups recommending
alternative setbacks and buffers for mitigations were reviewed and
discussed in the Responses to Comments. Disagreement among experts
does not make an EIR inadequate.
13. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Visual Impacts
based on the following facts and analysis:
A. Photos were taken from three locations, Kerner Blvd, the Shoreline
Park Band, and Francisco Boulevard and a computer simulation of the
project were superimposed over these photos to create an illustration of
views with the development. These accurately reflect the project's visual
impacts from important viewing areas.
B. Future development on Parcel 6 will require additional photomontages
or staking to illustrate potential aesthetic effects.
14. The City Council finds that the FOR adequately assesses Public Service
Impacts based on the following facts and analysis:
A. Public Service impacts were based on contacts with the Redwood
Sanitary Landfill, MMWD, PG & E, Marin Sanitary Service, Central Marin
Sanitary Agency, San Rafael Sanitation District, and City staff. Notice of
the availability of the document was made to all appropriate agencies. No
comments were received from any service agency commenting on the
conclusions of the EIR.
- 10 -
B. The Shoreline Center Response to Comments on the draft FEIR - City
Council Hearing of July 28, 1993 document, comment No. 66, and the Staff
Report of August 11, 1993 contain additional information on long term
maintenance costs.
15. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses Project
Alternatives based on the following facts and analysis:
A. Alternative 2: Present Approvals, has been revised to reflect the fact
that the zoning on the site has been changed to PD and LI/O as adopted in
the October 1992 zoning ordinance. Revisions also clarify that the present
approvals would not allow development at a higher intensity since the
site would be regulated by the number of PM peak trips allocated in the
General Plan.
B. The FEIR contains a range of alternatives which is reasonable. It
analyzes the following alternatives: No Project; Present Approvals;
Reduced Intensity; Alternative Location, two sites for the Shoreline Center
Master Plan (St. Vincents/Silveira and Marin Ranch Airport) and one site
for the Home Depot project (PG & E). These are the only large,
undeveloped sites within the City's General Plan boundaries. An EIR
need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably
ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
16. The City Council finds that the FEIR adequately assesses the Relationship
Between Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity based on the
following facts and analysis:
A. The FEIR includes a discussion of cumulative impacts and irreversible
changes in the project vicinity. These are summarized in this section as
required by CEQA.
B. The FEIR states that the project is being developed now as it has been
designated by the General Plan and zoned to accommodate this type of
development and the Home Depot project was approved under the
Priority Project Procedures. This meets CEQA requirements to state the
reasons why the proposed project is justified now.
17. The City Council finds that under current California law an EIR need not
analyze a proposed Development Agreement.
A. The City Attorney's memo dated May 20, 1993 states that the analysis is
not required based on the recently decided (5-6-93) case of Native
Sun/Lyon Communities v. Citv of Escondido.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council
hereby finds that the Shoreline Center Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and certifies the document.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council
hereby certifies that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council which is
the decision making body of the City of San Rafael and that the City Council
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the project described in the
Final EIR or any variation or modification of that project.
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
regular meeting of the city Council of said City held on the 7th day of
September, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer &
Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
E M. LEON INI, City tY Clerk
- 12 -