Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8010 (Second and Lindaro Property)RESOLUTION NO. 8010 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AND APPROVING DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LINDARO ASSOCIATES RELATING TO PROPERTY AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN SAN RAFAEL, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33433 AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Whereas, the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") staff has proposed that the City Council approve the Agency's execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Lindaro Associates ("DDA") relating to certain property at 2nd and Lindaro Streets in San Rafael (the "Property"); and Whereas, the DDA contemplates the Agency's sublease of the Property to Lindaro Associates and the development thereon by Lindaro Associates of a shopping center containing approximately 187,000 square feet for retail and related uses (the "Project"); and Whereas, the Agency and Lindaro Associates previously jointly applied to the City for and obtained a use permit, a variance and environmental design review approval ("City Approvals") necessary for development of the Project. The Project as contemplated by the DDA is the same project as was approved by the City pursuant to the City Approvals; and Whereas, prior to granting the City Approvals, the City caused to be prepared an environmental impact report ("EIR"), including the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, regarding the Project. On May 24, 1988, by Resolution No. 88-12, the City Planning Commission certified the EIR as complete in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and Whereas, following certification of the EIR and after consideration of, amOLIg other things, the information in the EIR, the Planning Commission, by Resolution 88-13, granted the City Approvals and, on behalf of the City, made findings regarding the environmental impacts of the Project; and Whereas, the Agency staff has presented to the Agency and the City a monitoring program providing for monitoring and reporting regarding compliance with conditions on the Project designed to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment; and Whereas, in connection with the approval of the DDA and the Second Amendment to Agreement between the Agency and Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E Agreement"), the Agency and the City Council have held a joint public hearing after providing notice thereof in accordance with law; and Whereas, the City Council considered the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing before the Agency and City Council. The City Council makes the following findings: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows: Section 1. The Project as contemplated by the DDA is the same Project contemplated by the City Approvals in that the DDA obligates Lindaro Associates to construct the Project in conformance with the City Approvals. Do pu' R, 1 662` 11 N , Section 2. There is no need or requirement for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report in connection with approval of the DDA and the PG&E Agreement in that. A. As set forth in Section 1 above, the Project is the same Project as contemplated by the City Approvals. Therefore, there have been no changes in the Project since preparation and certification of the EIR which would require important revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the EIR which impacts were caused by changes in the Project. B. The City Council is not aware of any substantial changes which have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken since preparation and certification of the EIR which would require important revisions in the EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the EIR which impacts were caused by or related to such changes in circumstances. C. Information regarding the Project has become available in the form of risk assessments performed by Woodward -Clyde, Harding -Lawson and Decision Focus ("Risk Assessments") with regard to the risks associated with the hazardous substances on the Property including risks related to activities carried out in furtherance of the Project and in the form of additional soils samples taken on the Property which samples were taken into account in the Harding -Lawson Risk Assessment. That information, however, is not of substantial importance to analysis of the environmental impacts of the Project in that: (i) The Risk Assessments and the additional soil sampling merely confirm what is set forth in the EIR. The Risk Assessments describe the possibility of human health risks arising from the hazardous substances on the Property and thereby confirm the conclusions of the EIR that the hazardous substances constitute a significant environmental impact. The additional samplings indicate the presence of hazardous substances in approximately the same or lower concentrations as revealed by earlier sampling noted in the EIR. (ii) Neither the Risk Assessments nor the additional soil sampling reveal that the Project will have a significant environmental effect not discussed in the EIR; to the contrary, as outlined above, they confirm the environmental effects of the hazardous substances on the Property disclosed in the EIR and considered in the course of certification of the EIR. (iii) The Risk Assessments and the additional soil sampling do not reveal that significant effects will be substantially more severe than indicated in the EIR; to the contrary, as outlined above, the Risk Assessments indicate small risks from the hazardous substances which are below levels considered by the Department of Health Services to cause adverse health effects. The additional soil sampling, as noted above, indicate hazardous substances in approximately the same or lower concentrations as previously found. (iv) The Risk Assessments do not present additional mitigation measures beyond those incorporated in or imposed on the Project. In addition, since no hazardous substances mitigation measure suggested in the EIR was found to be infeasible, the Risk -2- Assessments do not show that a mitigation measure previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible. Two alternatives, the "No Project" and the retail/housing alternatives, wI.Lich cou]", reduce -C.iic impact of the hazardous substances were found to be infeasible in the EIR and in the findings of the Planning Commission. The Risk Assessments do not contain any information which suggests that those two alternatives are now in fact feasible. (v) The Risk Assessments do not reveal mitigation measures or alternatives not considered in the EIR which would substantially lessen the significant effects associated with hazardous substances. The Risk Assessments assume or suggest that certain steps will be taken to minimize human exposure to the hazardous substances including steps related to protective clothing and equipment for construction workers dealing directly with the contaminated soils, dust control, air monitoring, limiting trenching and similar measures. These measures, however, are already suggested mitigation measures in the EIR and the conditions of the City Approvals require Lindaro Associates to carry out such measures. (vi) The Risk Assessments do not represent new information which could not have been known at the time the EIR was prepared and certified. The preparation of the Risk Assessments did not involve gathering of new information regarding the extent or nature of the hazardous substances on the Property except to the extent they took into account the most recent soil sampling. Rather, they represent application of risk assessment models to information regarding the extent and nature of the hazardous substances on the Property gathered prior to preparation of the EIR and referenced in the EIR including the results of PG&E's extensive 1984 soil and groundwater testing and Harding-Lawson's 1987 testing of surface soils. As a result, most of the information which forms the basis for the Risk Assessments was, in fact, known prior to and at the time the EIR was prepared and certified. While the latest soil sampling provided additional information regarding the condition of the Property, that sampling did not provide any new information which would indicate conditions on the Property differ from that revealed by previous testing of soils on the Property. Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Monitoring Program described in Exhibit B to the "Resolution of the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Setting Forth Findings Regarding Approvals for and Approving Disposition and Development Agreement Providing for the Agency's Sublease of Property at Second and Lindaro Streets in the City of San Rafael to Lindaro Associates Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33430 and 33433 and the California Environmental Quality Act." Section 4. Based on the Section 33433 Report prepared in conjunction with the joint Agency and City Council hearing, the City Council finds that the rent Lindaro Associates is to pay for the Property pursuant to the lease contemplated by the DDA is at least equal to the fair market rent for the Property determined at the highest and best uses permitted under the Redevelopment Plan. Section 5. The City Council hereby approves the DDA. -3- I, Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council on the 18th of JULY 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer and Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro and Breiner (Due to Potential Conflict of Interest) 07/18/89 #B013X/B14101 -XNNE M. LEO CINI City Clerk IXAM