Loading...
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 -