HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13140 (Target)RESOLUTION NO. 13140
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM
TO A CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (SCH#
2007082125) PREPARED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 137,511 -SQUARE -FOOT
TARGET STORE ON LOT 6 AT THE SHORELINE CENTER,
125 SHORELINE PARKWAY (APN 009-320-45)
GPA07-004, ZC07-002, UP07-018, ED07-038, S10-002
The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2007, planning permit applications were filed with the City of
San Rafael, Planning Division proposing development of an approximately 137,000 -square -foot
Target retail store at the San Rafael Shoreline Center. The initial project proposed development
on a 19.42 -acre site located at 125 Shoreline Parkway; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission held an appropriately
noticed (Notice of Preparation) Public Meeting for Scoping the Environmental Impact Report to
assess the impacts of the Target store project. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), which was to address the following
issues: Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Utilities
and Service Systems, Transportation/Traffic, Urban Decay, Cumulative Impacts, Climate
Change, Growth -Inducing Impacts and Project Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Target Store DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day public
review period beginning September 8, 2008, and ending October 23, 2008 (SCH # 2007082125).
As part of this review, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public
hearing to consider and accept comments on the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the project
would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts associated with traffic/transportation,
land use and planning, and air quality. All other significant impacts identified in the DEIR can be
mitigated to less -than -significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures
recommended in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, based on written and oral comments received from the public on the DEIR
and its own review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, in early 2009, the project sponsor requested that the planning applications
for the Target Store project be placed `on -hold' due to a depressed economy. However, the
project sponsor requested that the City complete and certify an FEIR so that it could be used for
CEQA review at the time the applications were re -activated; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15089, the City responded to all the environmental comments that
were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) was completed. Based on a review of the DEIR comments and responses, which
included an expanded discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, staff determined that there
was no significant new information that would be cause to re -circulate the DEIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a); and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2009, a Notice of Availability for the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (FEIR) was mailed to interested persons
and property owners and occupants within 1,500 feet of the property and written responses to
public agency comments were provided to agencies who commented on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed
public hearing on the FEIR, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report
of the Community Development Department staff. Following closure of the public hearing and
deliberation, the City Council, on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution No. 12858 certifying the Target
Store FEIR. This certification was based on and supported by findings, which are incorporated
herein by reference. The City Council did not consider, review or take action on the pending
planning applications for the project at the time the FEIR was certified; and
WHEREAS, in Spring 2010, the planning applications for the project were re -activated
and the project was amended with minor modifications and revisions including the following: 1)
the filing of an accompanying Tentative Map application to divide the 19.42 -acre site into two
parcels, a 15.82 -acre parcel for the proposed Target Store and a 3.6 -acre parcel for the existing
Sonnen BMW storage lot; 2) the creation of a 1.6 -acre landscape easement on the proposed 3.6 -
acre parcel with the Sonnen BMW storage lot occupying the remaining two acres; 3) relocation of
the proposed Target Store building approximately 28 feet northward and 3.7 feet eastward; 4) the
addition of three surface parking spaces establishing a total surface parking count of 553 spaces;
and 5) modifications to proposed building specifications for LEED Gold green building
certification. The modifications propose no change to the general site layout of the building,
parking and landscaping, nor is there any change to the building footprint or architecture.
Second, the modifications propose no change to the current operation of the BMW vehicle
storage use authorized by City Use Permit UP03-034, which has no term limits. The BMW
vehicle storage lot lease and the proposed landscape easement are structured to run through year
2033 with extension options every five years; and
WHEREAS, the certified FEIR has been reviewed to determine if it adequately assesses
the environmental impacts of the re -activated project with the proposed modifications. An
environmental checklist was prepared to direct this review. As a result of this review, expanded
and updated information and studies were prepared to address and assess the minor project
modifications. The expanded and updated information and studies include: 1) an updated,
quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions; 2) an expanded aesthetic/visual analysis;
and 3) an assessment of potential biological impacts associated with the shifted location of the
store building. Although the proposed Tentative Map would result in the creation of a new, 3.6 -
acre parcel, the City has determined after thorough investigation that any analysis of the
environmental impacts of future development of this new parcel would be speculative because
such development is not reasonably foreseeable in the near- or mid -future in that: 1) as proposed
for amendment, the Shoreline Center Master Plan designates and approves the new parcel for
vehicle storage and landscape easement use and that any major application for development of
this parcel with a permanent use would necessitate an amendment to the Master Plan; 2) while the
terms of the lease and easement include extension options every five years, the maximum term of
each run through 2033, which is beyond the San Rafael General Plan 2020 planning forecast
period for environmental review; and 3) the parcel has been used for vehicle storage for over
seven years and there is no indication that either party intends to terminate the lease.
Furthermore, even if there was some indication that the lease may not continue, there is no
indication of what use might replace the vehicle storage lots or what environmental effects would
be associated with a new use; and
WHEREAS, the updated information and studies were assessed to determine whether an
Addendum to the EIR, Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR would be appropriate to address
environmental review for the re -activated project. Public Resources Code section 21166 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 set forth limited situations in which a Supplemental EIR or
Subsequent EIR is required once an FEIR has been certified. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 provides for preparation of an Addendum EIR if no Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR
is required; and
WHEREAS, the updated data and studies that have been prepared to assess the re-
activated project provide additional information, but have provided no information that would
result in new significant impacts that have not been previously studied or disclosed. As a result,
an addendum to the certified FEIR (Addendum) was prepared; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2010, the Addendum EIR for the Target Store Project (RBF
Consulting, October 2010) was published; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that: a) the re -activated project with
modifications would result in no substantial changes; b) no substantial changes exist with respect
to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would result in a new significant
environmental effect not previously disclosed in the certified FEIR; c) there is no substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effects as set forth in the certified
FEIR; and d) no new information of substantial importance has surfaced, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the FEIR
was certified as complete; and
WHEREAS, following completion of the Addendum and in response to comments
received on the Addendum, it was found that there were errors in three of the tables in Section 3.2
(Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of the Addendum. The errors in Tables 3-2, 3-4 and 3-
6, which confirms the planned installation of roof -mounted photovoltaic panels, and provides
clarification on direct transportation emissions, as well as Transportation Demand Measures
(TDM), have been corrected and are presented in the attached errata (Exhibit 2-A). The
corrections confirm that the photovoltaic panels would be installed with the Target Store project;
and
WHEREAS, following completion of the Addendum, an update of the 2008 Urban
Decay Analysis prepared for the Target Store certified FEIR was completed. This update (James
Edison, Urban Community Economics, October 27, 2010) was included as Exhibit 10 of the
Planning Commission staff report dated November 9, 2010. The update concludes that the initial
2008 study is still valid. A copy of the update is provided as attached Exhibit 2-B of this
resolution; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
the Addendum prepared for the re -activated project. On a 5-2 vote (Commissioners Kirchmann
and Sonnet dissenting), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-17 recommending
to the City Council adoption of the Addendum; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010 and December 20, 2010, the City Council held a
public hearing, reviewed and considered the Addendum prepared for the re -activated project. On
a 5-0 vote, the City Council continued this hearing to a date uncertain and directed staff to
prepare a Community Impact Report for the project; and
N
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2011, the San Rafael Community Impact Study of a Proposed
Target Retail Store ( Community Impact Report) w as completed by AECOM and published
consistent with the scope approved by the City Council on January 3, 2011. The Community
Impact Report was published and made available for review on April 4, 2011. The Community
Impact Report has resulted in no changes to the studies or data contained in the Addendum; nor
has it resulted in changes to the findings or conclusions reached in the certified FEIR and the
Addendum. The Community Impact Report has been accepted by the City Council through the
adoption of a separate resolution; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2011, the City Council reviewed and considered the
Addendum for the re -activated Target Store project, along with the previously certified Final EIR
and all applicable mitigation measures therein; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the
Addendum EIR for the Target Store project, incorporating the attached errata (Exhibit 2-A) and
October 27, 2010 update of the Urban Decay Analysis based on the following findings, and also
hereby reaffirm the findings previously made by the City in certifying the Final EIR:
A. Reaffirmed Findings for Certified Final EIR (FEIR)
City Council Resolution No. 12858, adopted on October 19, 2009 found and concluded:
The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and
the City of San Rafael Environmental Review Procedures following the appropriate
format, content, technical analysis of potential impact areas, and assessment of project
alternatives. Further, the prescribed public review periods and duly -noticed Planning
Commission hearings were held for the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP); the Notice of
Completion (NOC) for public review of the DEIR; and the Notice of Availability
following publication of the FEIR.
The FEIR has been prepared using the City's independent judgment and analysis, and the
FEIR:
a. appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts;
b. analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening
any significant effect of the project; and
c. recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise
significant adverse environmental impacts of the project. The findings and
recommendations in the document are supported by technical studies prepared by
professionals experienced in the specific areas of study.
The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document
certification. As a result of comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR presents some
additional information and recommendations to expand, clarify and support the findings
of the specific studies and topic areas, which, as a result, was cause for minor revisions in
the DEIR text and recommended mitigation measures. The extent of changes to the
document would not meet the threshold for re -circulation of the DEIR, as prescribed in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in that the new information added to the EIR does not
deprive the public of meaningful opportunity to comment upon the substantial adverse
4
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
that the project's proponents have declined to implement. In particular, the new
information presented in the FEIR does not disclose:
a. a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
b. a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed
in the DEIR; or
c. any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different
from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant environmental
impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents refuse to adopt. Nor is the
DEIR so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
The FEIR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and
support the conclusion that the project will result in several significant, unavoidable
environmental impacts and a number of potentially significant impacts that necessitate
mitigation. At the time the City considers action on the project's merits, it will be
necessary to make complete and detailed findings pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a). For each significant effect
identified in the EIR, the City will be required to make one or more of the following
findings:
a. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the final EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that
such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such other agency;
b. that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR; and
c. As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of
overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City
weigh the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
B. Findings for Adoption of Addendum EIR (Addendum)
1. CEQA Section 21166 and its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and
15163, provide that once an EIR has been prepared, no subsequent or supplemental EIR
shall be required by the lead agency unless: (a) substantial changes are proposed in the
project, requiring major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; (b) substantial changes arise in the circumstances of the project's
undertaking, requiring major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or (c) new information, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time the EIR was certified, shows any of the following:
➢ The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR;
➢ Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
➢ Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
➢ Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or move significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline the mitigation measure
or alternative.
2. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that a lead agency shall prepare an
Addendum to a previously certified FEIR if some changes or additions to the certified
EIR are necessary but none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a supplemental
EIR have occurred. Based on the analysis and documentation in the addendum and the
supportive environmental checklist prepared for the proposed amendments to the project
application, none of the situations described in CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 apply here. Based on the results of the supportive
environmental checklist, the City has concluded that the proposed amendments to the
project application would not result in new significant adverse impacts nor an increase in
the severity of impacts identified and studied in the certified FEIR.
Specifically, even though modifications to the project have been proposed, these changes
will not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Further, there has been no
indication that circumstances have changed in a way that will result in new or
substantially more severe significant impacts. Finally, there is no new information that
was not known and could not have been known, at the time the EIR was certified
regarding new significant impacts, or feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives
that applied to the proposed project. Most notably, as discussed in the Addendum, the
significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in June 2009 do not constitute new
information requiring the preparation of a new, Supplemental or Subsequent EIR for the
following reasons:
a. BAAQMD's Resolution No. 2010-06 states that "it is the policy of BAAQMD that
lead agencies in the Bay Area apply the CEQA thresholds of significance, except for
the risk and hazard thresholds, for Notices of Preparations (NOPs) issued, and
environmental analysis that began, on or after June 2, 2010. The risk and hazards
thresholds apply to NOPs issued, and environmental analysis begun, after January 1,
2011." Here, the NOP for the Target Store project was issued in 2007 and the FEIR
was certified in October 2009. The planning applications had been placed `on -hold'
in early 2009 and were re -activated, and the environmental analysis of the
modifications to the re -activated project began prior to the date the BAAQMD
thresholds were adopted. Specifically, an amended application was submitted on
April 1, 2010. Additionally, an application completeness response, including
information related to environmental impacts of the re -activated project, was
submitted to the City on May 28, 2010. Therefore, environmental analysis of the re-
activated project also began prior to the date the BAAQMD thresholds were adopted.
Accordingly, the project is technically "grandfathered" from applicability of the
thresholds.
b. Generally, climate change itself is not significant new information. Further,
BAAQMD had been considering significance threshold for more than a year before
the FEIR was certified. BAAQMD first released a draft report in April 28, 2009 and
thereafter released at least ten additional reports before adopting the thresholds on
Cel
June 2, 2010. The reports considered a number of options for significance thresholds
similar to those eventually adopted. Accordingly, the fact that BAAQMD had
released similar thresholds prior to the City's certification of the FEIR indicates that
the information contained in the adopted thresholds was not new information
requiring the preparation of a new, Supplemental or Subsequent EIR.
c. The Addendum quantified the project's estimated greenhouse gas emissions taking
into account the project's design features that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions
using methodology recommended by both BAAQMD and the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The analysis shows that, using
BAAQMD's methodology, the project design features reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 32.25%. According, the project's greenhouse gas reduction would
exceed the AB32 reduction target of 28.5%, and the project is, therefore considered
to be less -than -significant.
d. BAAQMD's thresholds are not deemed to have substantial importance to the project
site as they do not reveal any new site-specific environmental impacts.
In conclusion, none of the conditions requiring a supplemental or subsequent EIR exists
and the Addendum has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
3. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and
the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual.
4. The Addendum has been presented to the City Council who has reviewed and considered
the information in the Addendum and the certified FEIR prior to recommending the
approval of the planning applications for the project.
5. The Addendum and the certified FEIR reflect the City Council's independent judgment
and analysis.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 13140 was read and introduced at a special meeting of the City Council on the
2151 day of April 2011, and ordered for a second reading, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Heller, Levine and Mayor Boro
NOES: Councilmembers: Brockbank and Connolly
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
Resolution No. 13140 came up for second reading and final adoption at a regular meeting of the
San Rafael City Council on Monday, May 16, 2011 and was adopted by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Councilmembers; Heller, Levine and Mayor Boro
NOES: Councilmembers: Brockbank and Connolly
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit 2-A, Errata to EIR Addendum
Exhibit 2-13, Update of Urban Decay Analysis, October 27, 2010
CC Reso„ EIRAddendurn 5-16-11 (final)
7
EXHIBIT 2-A
Errata to Addendum
Revisions to 'fables 3-2,34 and 3-6
Table 3-2
"Business as usual" Greenhouse Gas Emissions
.
COz
hh0 CHi
.r..... .... ..... _
Total
Source
Metria
Tons of Metric
ons o
Metric
Tons of
Metric
Tons of
Tonsl0�
To r
C , .
CO
COzeglyrs
.
..460.34
Construction Emissions
0.01 0.25 0.07
19.33
479. 92
2011 + 2012)
Amortized Construction
15.34
0.00 0.01 0.00
0.64
15.99
Emissions'
Operational Emissions
Direct Emissions
II T smdation
9
5.007f
m,
Deleix d: 5,007.49
Area Sour
0
0
0
0
(
0.23
__
�� Total Direct Emissions
4007.72
0
I 0 I 0
0
8fl5 29
_ ped; g007.72
I Indirect Emissions
I Electricity
633.54
0 0 0.01 1.01
634.55
Natural Gas
40.06
0 0 0 0.10
40.16
Water & Wastewater
8.18
0
I 0 0 0.01
8.19
Solid Waste
2.95
-
tl - 19.08 400.68
403.63
Total Indirect E missions
�.�....w.,... _-�
684.73
0
I 0 19.09 401.8
1,086.53
Total Project-Related GHG
_
987.81 MTCO: r
Deleted: 5,11025
Emiions2
r
_ ...
Notes:
1: Construction emissions are amortized over the lifetime of a project (assumed to be 30 years), and added to the
total operational
emissions.
2: Total project-related GHG emissions
= total amortized emissions + total direct emissions + total Indirect emissions (n
MTCOR06.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Man ement District Greenhouse Gas Model (BGIA,_Version 1,1.9.
Table 34
Project Consistency with BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
Project Design Feature Project Applicability Percent
ReductionlSector
Mix of Uses
Compliant The proposed project would provide on-
3
site shops and services for employees (e.g., food
(mobile)
services).
Transit Service
Compliant Existing transit service would serve the
proposed project. Golden Gate Transifs Routes 40
10
and 42 provide direct access to the project site via
(mobile)
stops at Shoreline Parkway and Kerner Boulevard,
and Francisco Boulevard East and Pelican Way.
Bike & Pedestrian
Compliant Sidewalks exist in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed project along Shoreline Parkway,
Kerner Boulevard, Pelican Way, Morphew Street, and
along Shoreline Park.
Additionally, Class I, Class II and Class III bicycle
facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site. Class I
bikeways are located along the San Francisco Bay
Trail - along the edge of San Francisco Bay from
g
Pant San Quentin near the western foot of the
(mobile)
Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. Class II bikeways exist
along Kerner Boulevard, Andersen Drive, Bellam
Boulevard (mixed Class 111111 facility), and Baypolnt
Village Drive. The City's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan also
proposes a Class 11 bicycle facility along Kerner
Boulevard from Shoreline Parkway to Bellam
Boulevard. The City's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
proposes Class III bicycle facilities along Francisco
Boulevard East and Medway Road.
Affordable Housing
Compliant The project proposes to support the
2
City's Affordable Housing Fund with a contribution of
(mobile)
$775,000.
Secure Bike Parking (at least 1 space
Compliant The proposed project would include
per 20 vehicle spaces)
bicycle storage and other facilities for bicycle riders.
The project would provide 28 bicycle spaces in order
to meet the one bike space per 20 vehicle space
standard.
1
Information Provided on Transportation
Compliant The proposed project would make public
(mobile)
Alternatives (Bike Schedules, Maps)
transit Information available to store employees and
the public.
..,
, .,
Deleted: On Road Truclm
uI!: '11 1sP111 4 lu i,III: uliu I i ii 11 „ llI
Compisnt. Div, u�n Dos1D'01
Deleted: Compliant The proposed
nil
&hona f iiuui!; dciiin:': a u ....
project wouldWihbadsafmble
u q, a iwtld " ely iq'V
I `
Compliant Thd Doe s""I piudawdn uo�:'h
waste to maximizecompaw
anoief-rent+°I'
c[^uD p epuNiJii'a inlu flii:: D+uo'lna
reduce omecessary trips. This process would
lot des on.
be centrally tracked.
4:�1!+u u'vcll; !
Comoliant. Tbv OIKIP,',r-^6 iii ,';u n rr°, u' q w !irn0u l r','h;,
Deleted• Showers
o` nm i, n o v',iai :r „a 6:' it "^ 'ina, colli[)klil Yi+'-ds
,i dy" a df he Deleted: showers and
alud redlu a u.ur,!, V B 1111111:; CAP °'i Ilo,
Formatted: Underline
centra l.0 In ' k fir
Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond
t Th .
Compliant
proposed project would exceed Title
20
Title 24The
percent,d proposes to achieve a LEED
am
(natural gas)
Gold
Ga a project would be an Energy_
Project Design Feature
Plant shade trees within 40 feet of the
south side or within 60 feet of the west
sides of property
Require cool roof materials (albedo
-30)
Require smart meters and
programmable thermostats
Install solar panels on residential and
commercial buildings
Complete streets (i.e., bike lanes and
pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of
streets, traffic calming features such as
pedestrian bulb -outs, cross -walks,
traffic circles, and elimination of
physical and psychological banters
(e.g., sound walls and large arterial
roadways, respectively).)
Project Applicability
Star labeled building and would use and sell Energy
Star appliances. High -efficiency heating and air
conditioning equipment, which exceeds Title 24 would
be installed on the building's rooftop. Also, the project
would utilize two -lamp, T8 fluorescent lamps and
electronic ballasts, motion -sensor lighting, and LED
instead of neon for exterior lightinq and cooler cases.
Compliant The project proposes 145 shade trees
throughout the project site. Trees would be planted
as close as 15 feet to the west property line and 18
feet to the south property line.
Compliant The project would use highly reflective
white roof membrane (albedo of at least 30) to reduce
coding load.
Compliant The project would install store -based
Integrated energy management system controls for
fighting, refrigeration, heating and cooling equipment,
and exhaust fans to ensure energy management over
time.
Compliant Il n, frail a octopi " w u ri
p % fbNuca xti o u I duuo
t m
Ilio-ms�Yodl,:U!n the ,t�,iu'P�?g 'a
yu 71
vjuiit Iplipn, iib¢ Y"Ilr '100 NV Fifa ou
Compliant The project would Include a fool path
connection from the project site to the existing
Shoreline Park trail to the east and would install
directional signage to help facilitate Shoreline Park
use.
Percent
Reduction/Sector
30
(city)
34
(electricity)
5
(etectridty)
5
(natural gas)
23'
(electricity)
2
(mobile)
Total Scaled Reduction 35.25
Notes:
1: The percent reduction for the electricity sector includes the adua!' 23 percent GHG reduction for Incorporation of solar panels
(instead of the reduction BAAQMD assigns to solar panels), plus BAAQMD reductions for other features related to electricity. The
23 percent reduction for solar panels was calculated based on the total amount of electricity the solar panels wou!d save
(approximately 400 MWh).
2: BAAQMD reductions are presented in percentage ranges for specific sectors (re., transportation, natural gas). Each sectors
reduction percentages are scaled proportionally to their sector of the project -generated emissions. For example, transportation
emissions account for 73 percent of the total emissions, and a 28 percent reduction would apply to transportation related emissions.
Therefore, the reduction is calculated by multiplying 0.73 by 0.28 for a scaled reduction of 0.20. This was completed for each
sector. The total emissions reducbcn aoolied to the project Is a sum of the scaled sector reduction percentages X35.25 percent)•
Deleted: The
Deleted: project's
Deleted: would be designed to carry the
weight of roobrnounted pholovonac panels for
potential future Installation
'- — City of San Rafael
Target Store
Addendum Emrtronmehtal Impact Report
proposed project would incorporate sustainable practices, which include water, energy, solid waste, land
u3e, and transportation efficiency measures.
Table 3-6
Project Consistency
with Attorney General's Recommendations
Project Design Feature (
Project Applicability
E� Efficiency "
Incorporate green building practices and design
Compliant The proposed project would be subject to the requirements within
elements.
the Clys Green Building Code (Municipal Code Chapter 1244, Green
Meet recognized green building and energy
'Building Requirements), which includes provisions to increase energy
'
effiaency.benchmarks.
eH`idency, encourage water and resource conservation, reduce waste from
Use passive solar design, e.g., orient buildings
construction, reduce long-term building operating costs, improve indoor air
and incorporate landscaping to maximize
quarry, and contribute to meefing the State and local commitments to reduce
passive solar heating dudrg cool seasons,
GHG emissions.
minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons,
and enhance natural ventilation. Design
The project proposes to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
buildings to take advantage of sunlight
Design (LEED) Gold. The project would also exceed Tire 24 requirements by
20 percent and would be an Energy Star labeled bolding. Also, 145 shade
trees would be planted throughout the project site. Trees would be planted as
close as 15 feet to the west property One and 18 feet to the south.
Install energy. efficient lighting (e.g., light
Compliant. The project would utilize two -lamp, TO fluorescent lamps and
emittirg diodes (LEDs), heating and Gaoling
electronic ballasts throughout the store, motion -sensor lighting In stock rooms,
systems, appliances, equipment, and control
light -ems diodes (LED) Instead of neon for exterior lighting and cooler
systems.
cases. The project site lighting features would be *dA sky' Ganprant to
install efficient lighting, (including LEDs) for
prevent light spillage onto adjoining properties. Additionally, the proposed
traffic, street and other outdoor liphUm.
project would Install high -efficiency rooftop heating and air conditioning
I Reduce unnecessary outdoor 111.0 no.
equipment, which exceeds Title 24.
instar fight colored 'coon roofs and coot
Compliant The projeds roof would be constructed with a highly reflective
pavements.
white membrane (albedo of at least 30) to reduce cooling load of the buld'inq.
Renewable Energy and Enerov Storans
Meet 'reach' goals for building energy
Compliant. The proposed project would use and sell Energy Star appliances.
efficiency and renewable energy use.
Also, the project would Instal store -based Integrated energy management
system controls for lighting, refrigerarori, heating and cooing equipment, and
exhaust farts to ensure energy management over time. Target has also re-
evaluated temperature selrngs, lighting levels, and equipment nun tunes to
identify efficiency opportunities.
solar, wind, and geothermal power
Compliant The proposed Target Store's roof would be designed to carry the
Iinstall
systems and solar hot water heaters.
weight of roof mounted photovoltaic panels for lad need installatkn ______._,__-
I { ..-- aetetest: poterut+<sre
Install solar panels on unused roof and ground
space and over carports and paridnq areas.
J Water Conservation and Efficiency
Incorporate water -reducing features into
Compliant The proposed project would use customized Irrigation settings to
burdha and tandsc "design.
avoid aver -watering of landscaping. The project would also utilize Indigenous
Create water -efficient tandscaoes,
and/or water -saving plants in project landscaping. - Further, the project would
Install water-efficlent inflation systems and
comply with Merin Municipal Water Districts (MMWD) Water Conservation
devices, such as soli rmlsture-based Irrigation
Ordinance 414.
controls and use water-eflident irrigation
methods.
Devise a comprehensive water conservation
strategy appropriate for the project and
j location.
Design bindings• to be water -efficient Install
Compliant. The proposed project would Install law -flow fixtures, and would
water -efficient futures and sooliances.
reduce water use by 30 percent
I Solid Waste Measures
Draft • October 2010
3.27 Summary of Impacts ,
EXHIBIT 2-B
Update of Urban Decay Analysis
Urban Community Economics
October 27, 2010
�r
UrbanComuniy
ECONOMICS....
�--•rr
Urban Commu* Economics 415 460 0335 tel
1349 Park Avenue 510748 9990 fax
Alameda, CA 94501
www.urbanecon.com
October 27, 2010
Kristie R. Wheeler
Senior Associate
RBF Consulting
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 270
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
City of San Rafael
RE: San Rafael Target Urban Decay Analysis Update, UCE #1055
Dear Ms. Wheeler:
Urban Community Economics, inc. (UCE) staff previously prepared an urban decay study
for the proposed' Target store within the Shoreline Center Master Plan, dated April 27,
2008.' information in the study was used In preparation of a Draft EIR for the Target Store.
Subsequent to certification of the Fnai EIR in October 2009 by the San Rafael City Council,
Target submitted an amended project application to the. City,•which has required preparation
of an Addendum EiR. UCE has examined the changed circumstances and developments in
the retail environment in San Rafael since the preparation of the original report in 2008.
UCE has also reviewed the original analysis to determine whether the findings are stiff valid
for the current proposed project and economic conditions.
Original AnatyMsand Conclusions
The original urban decay analysis determined that there would be no significant urban decay
impacts on the City of San Rafael, based on an examination of the current retaf! environment
in the. City and the projected growth in Income and population over the subsequent twenty
years. Although the Target would absorb most of the demand in a few retail categories In
the medium.term, the report concluded that there were sufficient other retail opportunities
thatthe downtown retail•spaces would not see significant long-term vacancies •resulting in
blight.
Changes Since Original Report
In addition to the project itself, there have been several changes in the retail context in San
Rafael. UCE has examined these to determine whether any would result in a material
change to the conclusions of the original Urban Decay Analysis.
1 Economics Research Associates, Inc. (ERA), prepared the original report ERA no longer exists,
but the author of this update, James A. Edison, was the principal in charge of the original report.
Page 1 of 4
Lr"'UrbanCommunityECONOMICS......San Rafael Target UD Update
October 27,2010
Table 1
T=bIeTr,3traacJIons by Type of Buslness;
San HatzatTargetUD Update
CalendarYearTaxable Sales (00013) Change
Type at Businris 2003 2014 2006 20116 Z, 07 2003 , 2006-2008
Retail Slates:
Apparel Slates
=11303
$20fi53
$20,011
$19,648
-$211.820
422,496
$2,849
General Merchandise Stores
3121,708
t,118,611
$113.107
-$117,692
$113,702
$100,833
($1 %759)
Food States
W.717
$54,054
;58,740
$00,125
$64,434
$65,151111
$5,385
Wing and Drinking Places
$86,712
$88,543
i$90,145
$91.612
$97,339
$97,662
$13.950
Home Furnishings addAppliances
$87,086
$92,473
$98,062
499,082
$95,163
$93,837
($5,245)
Didil. Materials and Farm implements
$223,298
V511.915
$248,716
s"46,898
$239,557
$202,229
($44,667)
Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies
$391,000
$3E*,276
. 045,049
$336,392
042t=
S278,207
semoo station's
$69E51
$IS,943
$83.414
$101,964
$95,894
$103769
$11,795
Other Retell glores
$179,778
$1197,435
$190,815
$111187118
57.02,316
-$189
($19,2121
RelallStoroliblols
$1,234,651
$1,273,203
$11,2411,059
$1,262,029
$11.2711,260
$1.134,040
($127,909)
All 01herOultels
83x1M
na a
k1 R 1113
TOTALALLOUTLETS
$1,547,423
$11,687,483
$1,560,392
$1.644,771
$1,642.891
$11,494,895
$109,876
Source: Board of Equi-1kation, Steals of GaVornla
Urban Community Econorniet;, 2010
Project Description
The Target store is not sighiffean' Iy differbrit from the one proposed, with the majority of
changes being how the building Is situated and the layout of the site. It is UCE'S
understanding that Target anticipates stalling a higher proportion of food Items, but still a
small proportion of the store's overall sales. As with the analysis of the changes In stores in
San Rafael discussed -above, this does not cause a chpgo In the aggregate supply of
goods for sale in the 66in Rafael market area, but rather shifts the balance of supply and
demand . for particular goods. In addition, It Is UdE's understanding that the vast majority of
food products sales in San RaWl are outside the downtown area, and so a shift to food
products by Target would result In reduced effect on the downtown. It is important to note,
howevd, that the exact mix of products offered by the store will vary, over time in response
to market forces.
Economfod and Demographlb Trends I
Thb US has seen a significant drop. in economic activity over the past three years, -
accompanied by an Increase in unemployment and a drop In retail sales. San Rafael is no
exception to this, andthe City has seen aggregate sales and use tax revenue drop, from
$17.0 millioh In 2005-2006 to'$i 5.9 million in 2008-2009. It is 'Important to hote, however,
that the, reduction In tixabld transactions has not been equal across all categories. As -
shown on Table i, between calendar year 2005 and 2008, overall taxable'transactions
dropped from $1.60 billion to $1.49 billion, a decline of $110 million. The majority of this
drop is accounted for by building materials, which dropped by $45 million, and auto -related
gales, which dropped by $58 million. The proposed Target Store will affect neither ofthese these
categbrijes signiffloanfly. A few categories, such as eating and drinking places and food'
stores; increased over the same period.
In addition, it is important to note that the urban decay analysi's looked at a period of ten
years, and did not focus on economic cycles, The economy Is currently in a recession but
Page 2 oF4
San Rafael Target UD Update
October27,2o1o, .
M1M—° Ur6an[ommunity
ECONOMICS...:,,
UCE expects it will recover in coming years. As shown on Table 2, the population of San
Rafael has continued to groW (as has Its effective purchasing power). UCE expects that
total expenditures and receipts In San Rafael will retum to the overall trend projected in the
2008 analysis as the economy recovers.
'Table 2 '
Population Trends
San Rafael Target UD Update
Year SOn Rafael
Marin County,
California
2006 57,302
252,963.
37,087,005
2007 57,721
•254,532
37,463,609
2008 68,063.
256,604
37,871,509
2009 58,359
258,602
.38,255;508
2010 58,822
'260,651
38,648,090
Source: Demographic Research Unit Depatment of
Finance
State of California
Urban Community Economics, Inc., 2010
Retail Context
Since the original report,.there have been several changes in the retail environment in San
Rafael. CVS has replaced Elephant Pharmacy, a Walgreens opened where before there
had been Pier 1 imports, and Kohl's opened in a space previously occupied by Mervyn's.
While each of these changes can have an effect on the overall balance of supply and
demand for particular goods, they do not have a significant effect on the demand for retail
space in -the downtown area. The reason for this is that the stores cited have occupied
existing space, and therefore from the perspective of creating urban blightthrough
vacancies have a neutral effect.
Page 3 of 4
UrVancommunity
ECONOMICS....
San Rafael Target UD Update
October27,2010
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, UCC finds that the results of the original urban decay study dre still
valid, that the changes to the Target project and the shifts In certain retail establishments in
San Rafael do not have a material effect on the findings pf the original urban decay study.
Although taxable sales are doft overall, the decline sales in categories offered by the
proposed Target are less severe. In addition, the population and purchasing power in the
proposed Targofs market area continue to grow and UCE expects that overall taxable sales
will return to the trend line projected in the 2008 report once the economy recovers.
Please let me know If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Edison
Managing Principal
Page 4 of 4
I