HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13141 (Target)RESOLUTION NO. 13141
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS
OF FACT, APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE CITY -ADOPTED LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY C-5, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) SUPPORTING THE
APPROVAL OF A 137,511 -SQUARE -FOOT TARGET STORE PROJECT 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 an 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 a 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. 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, and reaffirmed below; 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 the 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.
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 a Rezoning and comprehensive environmental review; 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, on October 22, 2010, the Addendum EIR for the Target Store Project (RBF
Consulting, October 2010) was published; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared, which outlines the
procedures/steps and requirements for implementing all mitigation measures identified in the
FEIR and Addendum. The MMRP is provided in attached Exhibit 3-A; and
WHEREAS, as noted above, the certified FEIR concludes that all but four significant
impacts identified in the FEIR can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. The FEIR
concludes that the project will result in the following significant, unavoidable environmental
impacts:
10
➢ Transportation and Traffic. The project would contribute traffic to the intersection of
Bellam Boulevard and Kerner Boulevard, which would operate at unacceptable levels of
service under project conditions. The project would: a) contribute traffic and increase
intersection delay to a current level of service (LOS) E condition in the AM peak hour;
and b) contribute traffic causing this intersection to fall from LOS D to LOS E during the
PM peak hour.
➢ Land Use and Planniniz. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially
conflict with some of the applicable goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan
2020, which were adopted by the City of San Rafael for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. This potential conflict is with the following General
Plan policies:
• LU -2, Development Timing. For health, safety and general welfare reasons,
new development should only occur when adequate infrastructure is available
consistent with the following findings:
a. Project -related traffic will not cause the level of service established in the
Circulation Element to be exceeded;
b. Any circulation improvements needed to maintain the level of service
standard established in the Circulation Element have been programmed
and funding has been committed;
c. Environmental review of needed circulation improvement projects has been
completed;
d. The time frame for completion of the needed circulation improvements
will not cause the level of service in the Circulation Element to be
exceeded, or the findings set forth in Policy C-5 have been made; and
e. Sewer, water, and other infrastructure improvements will be available to
serve new development by the time the development is constructed.
NH -59, Cal -Pox Site (East of Home Depot). Allow light industrial/office and
specialty retail use. Traffic congestion in the area, prior to needed roadway
improvements, may limit development on the site to low traffic -generating uses.
Hotel use may be considered for the site provided that environmental analysis
demonstrates that potentially hazardous soils conditions are in compliance with
State and Federal laws and that the geo-seismic conditions and commercial use
conflicts have been mitigated.
C-5, Traffic Level of Service Standards. The intersection level of service
standard for the Bellam/Kerner Boulevard intersection is LOS D.
• I-2, Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services. Assure that development
can be adequately serviced by the City's infrastructure and that new facilities are
well planned and well designed.
➢ Land Use and Planning. The proposed project would conflict with certain provisions of
the General Plan 2020 land use designation that is adopted for the site (Light
Industrial/Office land use designation and General Plan Policy NH -59 [Cal -Pox Site, east
of Home Depot]), which are intended to limit the area and site to low -traffic generating
retail uses.
➢ Air Oualitv- Cumulative Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project could conflict
with the local air quality management plan (San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management
Plan, BAAQMD) in that it would result in a potential increase in air pollutants and
emission that would exceed the emission projections for project site development (San
Rafael General Plan 2020) that are currently factored into this plan.
The FEIR concludes that there is no mitigation that can be imposed or required to reduce
these impacts to a less -than -significant level; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 requires the decision-making agency to
balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a
project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
effects may be considered `acceptable.' The decision-making agency must state, in writing, the
specific reasons to support its action based on the information presented in the certified FEIR,
and/or other information presented in the record. The statement of overriding consideration must
be supported by substantial evidence in the record; and
WHEREAS, in support of CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 the San Rafael General Plan
2020 includes Circulation Element Policy C-51) (Evaluation of Project Merits) and Program C -5c
(Exception Review), which permits the City to authorize an exception to the City -adopted traffic
standards by weighing the community benefits of a project against the potential for the project to
deviate from the City -adopted level of service (LOS) traffic standards; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed planning applications for the Target Store project, accepting all public
testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development. On a 5-2 vote
(Commissioners Kirchmann and Sonnet dissenting), the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 10-18, recommending to the City Council approval of the CEQA Findings of
Fact, approval of an exception to General Plan Policy C-5, approval of the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and approval of the MMRP to support the approval of a 137,511 -
square -foot Target Store; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
on the proposed planning applications for the Target Store project, accepting all public testimony
and the written report of the Department of Community Development. Following closure of the
public hearing, the City Council voted to continue the matter to December 20, 2010 in order for
staff and Target representatives to respond to questions; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2010, the City Council reviewed responses to public
testimony/comments. Following closure of the public hearing, the City Council voted to continue
the matter to a date uncertain in order for staff to prepare a Community Impact Report for the
project; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2011, the San Rafael Community Impact Study of a Proposed
Target Store (Community Impact Report) was completed by AECOM and published consistent
with the scope approved by the City Council on January 3, 2011. The Community Impact Report
was made available for review 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
rd
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2011, the City Council reviewed responses to all public
testimony/comments on the Community Impact Report and updated information submitted by the
Target representatives. Further, the City Council considered draft CEQA Findings of Fact, a draft
Statement of Overriding Considerations, the draft MMRP, which is presented in attached Exhibit
3-A of this resolution, as well as the Community Impact Report.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the
following CEQA Findings of Fact to support the approval of a 137,511 -square -foot Target Store
project at the Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. California Environmental Quality Act
A. Final EIR and Addendum
As part of this action and as determined by adoption of a separate resolution, the City
Council: a) reaffirms the findings made in City Council Resolution 12858 (October 18,
2009), which supported the certification of the FEIR; and b) finds that the Addendum has
been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San Rafael
Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Further, this separate resolution finds
and concludes that the FEIR and Addendum adequately assess the environmental effects
of the proposed Target Store project.
B. Incorporated Documents/ Record of Proceedings
1. The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record
supporting these findings:
• All project plans and application materials including supportive technical reports;
• The Draft EIR and Appendices (September 2008) and Final EIR (September
2009), and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The Addendum to the EIR including the supportive environmental checklist
prepared in connection with the proposed modifications to the project
applications;
• The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) prepared for the
project;
• The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 and Final EIR;
• Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 14);
• Subdivision Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 15);
• Shoreline Center Business Park Master Plan and Planned Development District,
certified the Shoreline Center Final EIR and City Council resolution adopting the
plan and certifying the EIR, September 1993;
• Planned Development Zoning District for Shoreline Center (PD -1726 District);
and
• All records of decision, resolutions, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits,
letters, synopses of meetings, summaries, and other documents approved,
reviewed, relied upon, or prepared by any City commissions, boards, officials,
consultants, or staff relating to the project;
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above;
and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials
that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City has based its decision
are located in and may be obtained from Department of Community Development,
Planning Division. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before
the City Council.
H. Findines of Fact in Support of Proiect Action
The FEIR and Addendum, prepared in compliance with CEQA, evaluate the potentially
significant and significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from approval of the
project. Because the FEIR and Addendum conclude that implementation of the project would
result in adverse impacts, the City is required by CEQA to make certain findings with respect to
these impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) These findings list and describe the following,
as analyzed in the EIR: a) impacts determined to be insignificant or less -than -significant in the
initial study/notice of preparation checklist; b) impacts found to be less than significant after
individual analysis in the EIR; c) significant impacts that can be avoided or reduced with
mitigation; d) significant impacts that cannot be avoided; e) project alternatives that were
developed and studied as provided in the CEQA Guidelines.
Further, the Addendum evaluates the modifications to the re -activated project. The Addendum
concludes that: a) the certified FEIR adequately assesses the environmental effects of the re-
activated project;,and b) the modifications presented in the re -activated project would not result in
any new, significant impacts other than those previously disclosed in the certified FEIR, nor any
new mitigation measures.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City
as summarized below. Further explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can
be found in the Draft EIR and FEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the FEIR determinations regarding
mitigation measures and the projects' impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those
impacts. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these findings the
determinations and conclusions of the Draft EIR and FEIR relating to environmental impacts and
mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are
specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND NOT
INDIVIDUALLY ANALYZED.
During the preparation of the Notice of Preparation and scoping period, the City determined that a
number of potential environmental effects of the project would be insignificant, less -than -
significant or would be adequately addressed through the City review process. For these topics,
in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15128, no need for further environmental
assessment was required for the preparation of the FEIR.
Finding:
Draft EIR Section 1.7 and specific impact sections in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR and FEIR (as
amended) contain brief statements identifying possible impacts that were determined to be
insignificant or less -than -significant, along with the reasons for that determination. An expanded
discussion of reasons why impacts to wildlife corridors are determined to be less -than -significant
is provided in Master Response 11.6.2, Biological Resources, of the FEIR.
B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT AFTER
INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS.
The Notice of Preparation and scoping period identified a number of potential environmental
impacts to be analyzed in the Draft EIR. Through that analysis, the following impacts were
determined to be less -than -significant and no mitigation measures are necessary or required.
(1) Land Use & Planning
a. Conflicts with Shoreline Center Master Plan (SCMP)/Zoning
Designation
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on pages Draft EIR pages 4.2-
7 to 4.2-8, the project is currently within the PD -1726 (Planned
Development) zoning district, which allows specialty retail uses. The
project is requesting an amendment to its zoning designation to allow
"regional -serving" specialty retail uses. The project will be consistent
with that amended zoning designation. The project does not conflict
with the regulatory framework of the SCMP.
b. San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) Policy Consistency
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.2-8, the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has
jurisdiction over landscaped portions of the project site, but does not
have jurisdiction over the building or parking lot. Appendix B of the
DEIR analyzed the project's consistency with the Bay Plan and
determined that the project would not be in conflict with the Bay Plan's
policies. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
(2) Aesthetics
a. Scenic Vista Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.3-16, the
project is not located within or near a scenic vista because the site was
formerly a landfill and has therefore been previously disturbed. The site
is adjacent to similar urban development such as a Home Depot, an
office building and various car dealerships. The site is not identified in
the General Plan 2020 as a scenic vista.
b. Scenic Resources Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.3-17, the
project site is within a previously disturbed site that lacks natural
integrity and scenic resources. While the FEIR concludes that the site is
not a scenic resource, it is contiguous to the City of San Rafael publicly -
accessible Shoreline Park. The public paths along the Shoreline Park
offer sweeping views of the Bay and inland landmarks such as Mt.
Tamalpais. As summarized in sub -section (2)e below (Visual Character
or Quality Impacts), the visual simulations prepared and presented in the
FEIR show that the project would be largely screened with landscaping
from many viewpoints, but will have a less -than -significant impact on
views of Mt. Tamalpais. The Addendum includes an expanded study of
views from the public Shoreline Park, including the preparation of an
additional visual simulation. This expanded study confirms that, while
some views of Mt. Tamalpais will be impaired as a result of building and
project landscaping, views of Mt. Tamalpais will be retained from other
public view points along the Shoreline Park.
C. Visual Character or Quality Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.3-17 to
4.3-20, the project will substantially change the site character by
developing currently vacant land. However, visual simulations show that
the project will be largely screened with landscaping from many
viewpoints, will have less -than -significant impacts on views of Mt.
Tamalpais, and will have a character that is consistent and compatible
with surrounding uses. The project is largely consistent with design
guidelines in the General Plan 2020 and SCMP design requirements.
Overall, the project complies with the SCMP design guidelines, with the
exception of the building signage. The SCMP design regulations require
amending to permit two, proposed wall -mounted building signs.
Proposed landscaping that falls within BCDC's jurisdiction will be
consistent with the design and aesthetic goals and fundings outlined in the
San Francisco Bay Plan.
d. Light and Glare
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.3-21,
although the project will increase light and glare due to commercial
lighting, lighting will be directed downward and angled to reduce
spillover of ambient light onto adjacent properties. The project's addition
of light will not be substantial in comparison to existing conditions and
will not affect nighttime views. The project will adhere to guidelines in
the Lighting Master Plan for Development of Shoreline Center to ensure
light levels are not increased near sensitive environmental areas. The
City will also inspect the project 30 days following installation of
lighting to affirm that it meets City standards.
(3) Air Quality
a. Long -Term Operational Air Quality Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.4-20 to
4.4-21, the project would result in an overall increase in local and
regional pollutant loads due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and
indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. However,
vehicle trip emissions would not result in emissions exceeding Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds for ROG, NO,
and PM gyp. Additionally, the project's demands for electricity and heating
will not result in natural gas consumption exceeding BAAQMD
thresholds.
b. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.4-21 to
4.4-22, three intersections required analysis for their potential to create
carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. As measured in accordance with U.S.
8
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommendations, CO
concentrations would be far below state and federal standards.
c. Cumulative Operational Air Quality Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.4-24 to
4.4-28, the completed project will not exceed the BAAQMD's thresholds
of significance for area source or vehicle emissions. BAAQMD
recommends that for projects without individually significant impacts,
cumulative impacts be based on consistency with the General Plan. The
proposed project would comply with the General Plan 2020.
In relation to global climate change, the Draft EIR estimated project
impacts by totaling energy emissions from electrical power and natural
gas generation and usage, and projected automobile emissions. As
discussed on Draft EIR page 4.4-25-4.4-28, the project would result in
approximately 6,582.65 tons of carbon dioxide per year. However, the
project conforms to ten applicable strategies for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, set forth by the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger. Further, the FEIR included a Master
Response to Comments on page 11-4 to l 1-5 explaining that the project's
consistency with the CAT strategies indicates that the project is
consistent with the strategies suggested to reduce California's emissions
to the levels proposed by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32 and that the
project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact on
global climate change.
Since the certification of the FEIR, BAAQMD adopted Resolution 2010-
06, adopting new CEQA Guidelines and establishing new thresholds of
significance for emissions (June 2, 2010). Resolution 2010-06 states that
the new thresholds of significance are required and applicable to projects
for which a Notice of Preparation was issued after January 1, 2010. As
the Notice of Preparation for the Target Store project was published
before this date and the FEIR was certified (October 19, 2009), these
newly -adopted thresholds are not applicable. Nonetheless, the
Addendum incorporates an expanded analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions, prepared for information purposes, which includes: a)
consideration of the reduction measures proposed with the project
modification (including LEED Gold measures); b) an updated
quantitative assessment using the URBEMIS 9.4.2 and BAAQMD BGM
software programs; c) consideration of project design features, which are
consistent with the Office of the California Attorney General's
recommended mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
and d) consideration of the project's consistency with AB32. While the
new thresholds are not applicable, the expanded analysis presented in the
Addendum provides updated information on this topic area and
acknowledges the reduction measures that are proposed with the project
modifications. Further, the expanded analysis concludes that there is no
significant new information that would result in a new, significant
environmental effect that had not been previously disclosed in the
certified FEIR.
9
(4) Geology and Soils
a. Soil Erosion Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.6-9, the
project site currently has modest potential for erosion to occur, and
grading associated with project development could cause erosion. The
project will adhere to the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Ordinance and mitigation measures established to protect water quality
(WQ1-WQ6), discussed below, that will ensure impacts associated with
erosion are less -than -significant. Additionally, water quality mitigation
measures will ensure that installation of impervious surface materials
does not lead to increased stormwater runoff, and prevent any associated
significant impact on soil erosion.
(5) Ilydrology and Water Quality
a. Erosion/Siltation Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.8-13,
although the project will not alter a stream course or river or significantly
modify the site's existing drainage pattern, project construction will
involve grading, excavation and construction that increase the potential
for erosion and/or siltation. Runoff from the developed areas of the site
would be collected and conveyed to a City drainage system. The project
will also be required to obtain a General Permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board for stormwater discharge associated with
construction. Compliance with this permit will include best management
practices that reduce construction -related impacts to less -than -
significant. Mitigation measures required to reduce pollutant loads
during the operational phase (WQ4-WQ7, discussed below) will also
result in less eroded soil or silt entering the City's stormwater system and
ultimately the San Rafael Bay.
b. On- or Off -Site Flooding Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.8-14, the
proposed project will not alter a stream or river or modify the drainage
pattern on the site. An on-site stormwater drainage system will be
designed to accommodate stormwater from a 100 -year storm event and
will not result in on- or off-site flooding. As discussed in Master
Response 11.6.4, Hydrology and Water quality, pages 11-16 to 11-20 of
the FEIR, the Draft EIR conclusion that there is adequate capacity in the
adjacent, City -owned drainage pond to accommodate project stormwater
runoff during a peak, 100 -year flood event is confirmed and accurate.
C. Water Quality Impacts
Facts in Supp_ ort of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.8-15, the
project will not otherwise degrade water quality beyond what is
discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.8, as discussed below.
d. Levee or Dam Failure Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.8-15, the
project site is not in an area that would be affected by a dam or levee
failure. However, under BCDC predictions, sea -level rise associated
with global climate change could increase the frequency or reach of
storm surge -induced flood events. The project site is at a higher
elevation because it is a former landfill that has been capped and rough
EEO
graded. Thus, it is excluded from shoreline areas that are most likely to
be impacted by sea -level rise.
e. Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow Impacts
Facts in Support of Findinc: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.8-19, the
project is adjacent to the San Rafael Bay shoreline and the potential for
inundation due to a tsunami exists. However, given historical data, the
risk to damage at the project site's elevation of 25 feet is low, and
impacts are less -than -significant.
(6) Noise
a. Groundborne Vibration/Noise Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.9-16 to
4.9-17, pile -driving and other construction noise could result in vibration
impacts. However, the closest sensitive receptor to the project site
Shoreline Park .. is more than 75 feet from the site and would be subject
to vibrations far below the applicable thresholds for vibration impacts.
b. Long -Term Mobile Noise Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.9-17 to
4.9-19, project -generated traffic will increase vehicle noise near the site.
An analysis forecasting traffic noise with and without the project
concluded that the project will increase noise levels on surrounding roads
by a maximum of 0.3 on a decibel -weighted scale (dBA), far below the
significance threshold of 5.0 dBA. Therefore, the impacts will be less -
than -significant.
C. Long -Term Stationary Noise Impacts Facts In Support of Finding
As discussed on Draft EIR on p. 4.9-19 to 4.9-21, project could result in
increase in ambient noise levels. Noise modeling demonstrates that
noise won't exceed noise levels. Therefore, the impacts will be less -than -
significant.
(7) Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems
a. Public Services Impacts
Facts in Support of Findiniz: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.10-6 to
4.10-7, the project is slightly more than a mile away from the nearest fire
station and will not adversely impact the San Rafael Fire Department's
ability to serve other areas. The San Rafael Police Department has also
said that the project would generate a manageable increase in demand for
its services, although the proximity of the freeway and distance between
the project and nearest police substation means that criminals may be
able to quickly cross the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge into Contra Costa
County. The project will receive electricity and natural gas from PG&E,
via existing transmission facilities. The project's energy needs are
insubstantial in relation to local, regional and statewide energy supplies.
Additionally, the project is in compliance with Title 24 for energy
efficiency standards.
b. Wastewater Impacts
Facts, in $uPport of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.10-7 to
4.10-8, the project is predicted to generate an additional 3,000 gallons of
wastewater per day. The project is connected to a gravity sewer beneath
Shoreline Parkway, which ultimately connects to the Central Marin
Treatment Plant. The pipe and manholes are in good condition. The
project will not require a new or altered treatment plant. Additionally,
the project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
C. Water Supply Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.10-8 to
4.10-9, the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) has a sufficient
supply of domestic water to serve the project's water demands during
normal years. Although the MMWD is beginning to experience a deficit
during dry years, it is seeking new supplies and would not consider the
project to be a significant incremental impact to overall supply. The
project would also comply with State plumbing requirements and
undergo a landscape plan review by MMWD.
d. Solid Waste Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.10-9 to
4.10-10, the landfill and recycling facility that serve the project site have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated by the
project.
(8) Traffic and Transportation
a. Project Conditions Intersection Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.11-37 to
4.11-47 and as confirmed in the environmental checklist prepared for the
Addendum assessing the current project modifications, impacts to the
following study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of
service (LOS) and therefore impacts to these intersections would be less -
than -significant under project conditions:
1: Francisco Boulevard West and U.S. 101 SB On -Ramp*+
2. Francisco Boulevard West and Andersen Drive
3. U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp and Andersen Drive
4. Bellam Boulevard and Andersen Drive
5. Bellam Boulevard and I-580 EB Off-Ramp/U.S. 101 NB On -
Ramp+
6. Bellam Boulevard and I-580 WB Off-Ramp/U.S. 101 NB On -
Ramp
7. Bellam Boulevard and Francisco Boulevard East
12. Castro Avenue and Francisco Boulevard East
13. Irene Street and Francisco Boulevard East
14. Irene Street and Kerner Boulevard
15. Shoreline Parkway and Francisco Boulevard East
16. Shoreline Parkway and Kerner Boulevard
17. Pelican Way and Francisco Boulevard East
18. Pelican Way and Kerner Boulevard
19. Morphew Street and Francisco Boulevard East
20. Morphew Street and Kerner Boulevard
21. Francisco Boulevard East and I-580 WB On -Ramp
23, Main Street and I-580 Ramps
25. Medway Road and Francisco Boulevard East
* A re -configured on-ramp was completed by Caltrans and opened
in 2009. New on-ramp operates at acceptable LOS levels
12
+ Caltrans -controlled on-ramps/off-ramps are exempt from City of
San Rafael LOS standards (San Rafael General Plan Circulation
Element Policy C-5)
The following intersections were analyzed but because they are un -
signalized, they are not subject to signalized intersection LOS standard
set by San Rafael General Plan Circulation Policy C-5. Given the
spacing between these contiguous intersections, an arterial analysis was
completed, confirming that the addition of project traffic would be within
the LOS standard for arterials set forth in General Plan Policy C-5.13:
8. Bellam Boulevard and Lisbon Street
9. Bellam Boulevard and Castro Avenue
10. Bellam Boulevard and Belvedere Street
The traffic analysis was prepared utilizing a vehicle trip generation rate
based traffic counts of the Target Store located in Albany, California,
rather than standard trip generation rates published in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Manual. The utilization of this special
trip generation rate was deemed appropriate and supportable in that the
Albany Store is: a) similar in size and prototype to the proposed project
store; and b) a `freestanding' or `stand alone' store, meaning that is it not
part of a shopping center sharing access, parking and property with other
retail or commercial services uses. In response to public comments
regarding the use of the Albany Store for determining project trip
generation, the City Traffic Engineer confirmed that: 1) at the time of the
analysis, the Albany Store included grocery merchandise; and 2) Target's
recent store program change to consolidate and enlarge the grocery
merchandise and household goods would not significantly change project
trip generation or the conclusions of the EIR traffic study.
b Project Conditions Arterial Impacts
Facts in Support of Findings: As shown in Table 4.11-20 and Table
4.11-21 of the Draft EIR and as confirmed in the environmental checklist
prepared for the Addendum assessing the current project modifications,
the free flow speed of certain arterial segments would be expected to
decrease during the AM and PM peak hour with the addition of project
generated trips, such as on Bellam Boulevard and Francisco Boulevard
East. However, all study arterial segments meet City of San Rafael LOS
standards as described in section 4.1.2 of the Draft EIR, even under
project conditions. Therefore, impacts to arterial level of service under
project conditions are considered less -than -significant.
c. Project Conditions Queue Impacts
Facts in Support of Findings: As shown in Table 4.11-22 of the Draft
EIR, and described at page 4.11-52 to 4.11-55, the project would not
directly cause the 95th percentile queue to exceed storage capacity for
lanes at any intersections except at Intersection 15 (Shoreline Parkway
and Francisco Boulevard East). Although during the PM peak hour, the
queue would exceed storage capacity by approximately one car length
and could stretch beyond the left -turn pocket into the two-way left -turn
13
lane, it would not block entry and exit access for driveways serving the
existing BMW and former General Motors dealerships along the north
and south side of Shoreline Parkway. Extending the left -turn pocket
would provide little to no benefit for most vehicles at this intersection
because it would be expected to be exceeded only five percent of the
time during the peak hour. Therefore, the queuing on the west bound left
and southbound left -turn pockets at this intersection are determined not
to be a significant impact.
d. Site Circulation Impacts
Facts in Support of Findings: As explained in the Draft EIR on pages
4.11.55 to 4.11.56, site circulation is adequately designed to comply with
City code regulations, and provides safe access for customers, delivery
vehicles and emergency vehicles. Site access includes a secondary
emergency vehicle access driveway. Site circulation impacts would be
less -than -significant.
el Parking Impacts
Facts in Support of Findings: As explained in the Draft EIR on pages
4.11.57 to 4.11.58, the project is designed to provide adequate parking
that would be in compliance with City code regulations. Consequently,
parking impacts would be less -than -significant.
f.. Transit Impacts
Facts in Support of Findings: As explained in the Draft EIR on page
4.11-58, Final EIR response to comment 4-9 (Final EIR pp. 11-81 to l l-
82), the project area is served by Golden Gate Transit routes 40 and 42.
Routes 40 and 42 have sufficient capacity to serve current levels of
ridership, and the additional small incremental increase in ridership
brought about by the project would not be expected to cause any over-
capacity related issues. Further, as stated in Target's November 18, 2011
letter and as summarized in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
Target proposes to offer subsidized bus passes for all employees, which
would broadly expand the potential for service for employee use of
public transit. Target has committed to continue working with Marin
County Transit to understand service to this area and how it can promote
routes and schedules, encourage ridership and provide subsidized passes
for employees. Target has committed to facilitate bus transportation by
funding the frill cost to construct a bus shelter at the Shoreline
Parkway/Kerner Boulevard bus stop (where currently there is only a pole
with a posted schedule). Target has committed to purchase and install of
a weather -protected shell with benches. Target will install and maintain
permanent landscaping and irrigation in the roundabout that is located in
the center of the public, Shoreline Parkway road terminus.
g. Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
14
Facts in Support of Findings: As explained on page 4.11-58 to 4.11-59
of the Draft EIR, the addition of project -related pedestrian and bicycle
volumes would not result in a significant impact to pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, as the existing sidewalks, crosswalks and bikeways
currently have capacity to accommodate new trips. Further, compliance
with the latest version of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" and
the AASHTO "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities" would
reduce potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflicts to less -than -
significant.
(9) Urban Decay
a. Business Closings and Viability Impacts
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed on Draft EIR pages 4.12-8 to
4.12-9 and Master Response 11.6.6 of the FEIR (pages 11-28 to 11-30),
an economic (urban decay) analysis was prepared to assess potential,
physical urban decay and blight. As described on Draft EIR page 4.12-7,
the physical impact of urban decay or blight occurs when the diversion of
sales from existing retail facilities is severe enough to result in business
closures and subsequent long-term vacancies causing property decline.
The urban decay analysis impact states that the project would not result
in the closing of existing businesses nor would it affect the viability of
existing shopping centers or districts. However, the analysis concludes
that while the introduction of a strong, new retail store such as Target
may result in some store closures, demand would exceed supply in most
retail categories by 2014 and in all categories by 2019, the closure of a
store is highly unlikely to result in physical urban decay. The analysis ,
which was prepared in 2008 identified significant unmet demand in the
City and noted that the project would draw Target customers who
otherwise would travel to Target stores in Novato or El Cerrito, and,
therefore would not affect demand for existing retailers in the trade area.
An update of the urban decay analysis was prepared (October 2010),
which finds that the economic circumstances that were considered and
the conclusions that were reached in the 2008 analysis have not changed
and are still valid. On April 4, 2011, the San Rafael Community Impact
Study of a Proposed Target Retail Store (Community Impact Report) was
completed by AECOM and published for review. This report, which has
been accepted by the City Council by adoption of a separate resolution,
provides information that is in accord with the Urban Decay Analysis.
In the findings prepared by for the Community Impact Report, AECOM
agreed with the findings of the urban decay analysis, that the Target
Store would not result in lasting (long-term) commercial center
vacancies that would lead to physical urban decay or blight. AECOM
concludes that the impacts of Target to existing retail stores would be
dispersed throughout the trade area and decreased over time as
purchasing power in the trade area increases.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE AVOIDED OR REDUCED WITH
MITIGATION
The City, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15091 and 15092, identifies the significant impacts that can be eliminated or reduced to a less -
than -significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR.
These mitigation measures are hereby adopted and incorporated into the description of the project
and their implementation will be monitored through the MMRP.
(1) Air Quality
a. Short -Term (Construction) Impacts
Sianificant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.4-17 to 4.4-19,
the project will generate short-term air quality impacts during grading
and construction operations, including particulate emissions from
clearing and grading activities on-site, exhaust emissions or odors from
on-site construction equipment and vehicles used to transport vehicles to
the site, release of ozone precursors and exhaust from motor vehicles of
the construction crew.
Findin
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City firrther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Less -Than -Significant Findina. The significant
impact above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ] and AQ2, as presented in
the EIR and provided in the attached MMRP. These measures require
the implementation of specific techniques and activities to control dust
and emissions during grading and construction phases of the project.
AQ1 sets forth dust control measures to be included in a construction
management plan. AQ2 requires adherence to a BAAQMD rule that
limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural
coatings used within the District.
b. Cumulative Construction Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.4-24,
development associated with the proposed project and related cumulative
projects could result in significant short-term cumulative air quality
impacts. Individual development projects generating construction -
related impacts exceeding BAAQMD daily thresholds are also found to
have a cumulative impact.
H
Findiniz
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fun•ther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Sut)nort of Less -Than -Significant Finding. Compliance with
Mitigation Measures AQl and AQ2, explained in section II.3(i)(a) of this
document, will render the construction -related impacts of the project
less -than -significant. Therefore construction would not result in a
cumulatively significant impact.
(2) Biological Resources
a. Wetlands and Waters Impacts
Sijznificant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.5-18 to 4.5-21,
the project could impact the off-site coastal salt marsh and open water
habitats during construction through stressors such as sedimentation,
contamination, hydrologic alterations and dust. When completed, the
project could adversely impact those communities by introducing
pollutants or sediments via stormwater runoff or invasive plants through
project landscaping.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fin•ther funds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Less -Than -Significant Finding,. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through Mitigation Measures BIOI-BIO4 described in FEIR page 4.5-21
and set forth in the MMRP (attached). These best management practices
and guidance measures address procedures and employee -education
during construction, use of native plants for landscaping and
management of invasive species preparation of a habitat management
plan and interpretive signing to educate visitors and workers about the
habitat value of the marsh. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation
Measures WQ1-WQ7, described in Draft EIR pages 4.8-10 to 4.8-12 and
as revised in FEIR pages 4.8-12 to 4.8-13 and set forth in the MMRP
17
(attached), would reduce water quality impacts to a less -than -significant
level.
b. Special Status Species Impacts
Significant Imnact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.5-21 to 4.5-23,
the project could negatively impact sensitive plant and wildlife species
through construction disturbance, loss of habitat, or habitat alteration or
degradation. Impacts to plants in the coastal salt marsh near the project
site are possible due to hydrologic alterations, sedimentation or growth
of invasive species. Special status birds or the federally -listed salt marsh
harvest mouse could potentially be impacted.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
Ciry fin -then finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measures B1O5 through BIOI 1 as
described in FE1R pages 4.5-22 and 4.5-23, and set forth in the MMRP
(attached). As described in the Addendum, the conclusions of the FEIR
remain valid for the current project with modifications and the current
circumstances. These include requirements to conduct surveys and
implement mitigation including fencing and prohibited planting.
(3) Geology and Soils
a. Seismic Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.6-8 to 4.6-9,
although the project site is not located within a state -mandated
Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults traverse the site, in the event
of a major earthquake on a nearby fault there is a strong likelihood that
strong seismic ground shaking would occur at the site. Additionally, due
to their clay-like/Bay Mud character, the upper soils of the site may
collapse under seismic loading as a result of the soil composition. If a
particularly strong seismic event were to occur, damage to structures and
people at the site at the time of the event is possible.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
18
City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Finding. The significant impact listed above would
be reduced to a less -than -significant level through implementation of
Mitigation Measure GSI, which is included in the MMRP (attached).
The measure requires that prior to receiving a grading permit, the project
sponsor submit design plans to the Building and Engineering Divisions
that include a pile foundation extending through the Bay Mud layer to
the underlying bedrock.
b. Unstable Soil Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft pages 4.6-9 to 4.6-11, the soil
underlying the project site has the potential for both total and differential
settlement as greater surface load is applied and water is compressed
from the Bay Mud and landfill materials decompose. Over the next 30 to
40 years, the total settlement on the site could be as much as three to five
feet, and as much as six to nine feet within 60 to 70 years. Additionally,
because the store and adjacent concrete apron will be supported by pile -
driven foundation, but the parking lot supported at grade on near -surface
fill soils, the parking lot will be subject to settlement while the store will
remain stable.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fitriher finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significance Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measures GS2-GS5, as described
on FEIR pages 4.6-11 and 4.6-12. Measure GS2 requires parking lot
design plans that consider the potential for settlement at the site and
include measures to limit settlement, as recommended by the project's
geotechnical engineer. It also requires certain pavement quality criteria.
Measure GS3 requires the submittal of a grading plan. Measure GS4
requires design plans to incorporate a hinge slab and flexible
connections. Measure GS5 requires maintenance and monitoring of the
hinge slabs.
19
(4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Release of Hazardous Materials Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.7-14 to 4.7-21,
the project is listed on ENVIROSTOR list and could create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Methane gas at ignitable concentrations
is thought to exist beneath the site and various VOCs and semi -volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs) are present in groundwater. There is a
potential for leachate to seep through the final cover and cause impacts to
construction worker health and safety during pile driving or other ground
disturbing activities. An expanded discussion of this potentially
significant impact is provided in Master Response 11.6.3, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, of the FEIR (pages 11-11 to 11-15).
A number of release scenarios and impacts are possible due to the
methane gas below the project site. Extension, repair or modification of
existing utilities, pile foundation construction, or building pad
construction could lead to worker exposure during construction. Methane
could also concentrate under parking lots and migrate through cracks in
asphalt or migrate upwards through building foundations. Additionally,
earthquakes or landfill settlement could permit landfill gases to be
released. Problems with ventilation, gas detection or wind -powered
turbine systems could also result in exposures of building occupants.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the Ciry to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Less-Than-Sienificant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measures Hl through H22,
described in Draft EIR page 4.7-18 through 4.7-21 and as amended on
FEIR page 4.7-18 and 4.6-19. Recommendations from the project site's
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) are included as Mitigation
Measures HI through H4. They include: compliance with Title 27 of the
California Code of Regulations landfill closure regulations; development
of a project health and Safety Plan to minimize potential risks to workers
and the environment; sampling soils around the oil -water separator on
the southwest corner of the site, and; maintenance or restoration of
groundwater and soil -gas monitoring facilities.
20
Mitigation Measures H5 through H22 incorporate measures adopted in
the Shoreline Center FEIR and tailor those measures to this project:
including requirements for sampling preparation of a maintenance and
monitoring plan. An expanded discussion of the effectiveness of
mitigation measures H5 through H22 is provided in Master Response
11.6.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the FEIR (pages 11-9 to 1 I-
1 1) and is incorporated herein by reference.
(5) Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Water Quality/Waste Discharge Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.8-9 to 4.8-12,
construction -related erosion could degrade water quality by increasing
nutrient- or trace metal -containing sedimentation in receiving waters.
After construction, non -point source pollutants including landscaping
products, oil, grease and heavy metals from automobiles and petroleum
hydrocarbons from fuels could be washed into on-site and local drainage
networks, also degrading water quality.
Findin
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jitrisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Less-Than-Sienificant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measures WQl through WQ7 as
described in Draft EIR pages 4.8-10 to 4.8-12 and as revised in FEIR
pages 4.8-12 to 4.8-13. Mitigation Measures WQ1 to WQ3 address
construction -related issues and require the preparation of a detailed
erosion control plan, compliance with Clean Water Act stormwater rules,
including the creation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and
preparation and filing of a Notice of Intent with the City and State Water
Resources Control Board. Mitigation Measures addressing operational
non -point source pollutants (WQ4-WQ7) require installation of features
to clean site waters and preparation of maintenance and monitoring plan.
These features must meet the standards of the RWQCB and the Marin
County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.
b. Stormwater Drainage System Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.8-14 to 4.8-15,
the project could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
contribute substantial additional polluted runoff. Although the project
would not result in on- or off-site flooding, the project would increase
a
the 100 -year flow from 12.5 cfs to more than 25 cfs, exceeding the 15 cfs
capacity of the existing storm drain located in Shoreline Parkway. The
project would introduce non -point source pollutants to the San Rafael
Bay, which is typical of an urban project that is located adjacent to the
bay. The conclusions presented in the Addendum do not change the
conclusions reached in the FEIR.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or m,oid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City firrther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ8 as described in
Draft EIR page 4.8-15 and WQ4 to WQ7. Mitigation Measure WQ8
requires the project sponsor to prepare and submit a detailed stormwater
drainage plan that includes stormwater retention and/or metering
measures for review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance
of a grading permit. The plan must ensure that no more than 15 cfs enter
the storm drain during storm events up to and including a 100 -year event.
The current project with modifications would direct all stormwater
runoff from the new Target parcel into a system that deposits the runoff
into the City -owned drainage pond located north of the site. Runoff from
the second parcel containing the BMW storage lot and landscape
easement would direct runoff into the Shoreline Parkway, which would
be within the capacity limits of the storm drain. Consequently, as
discussed in the Addendum, this impact has been mitigated by the
current project design.
Mitigation Measure WQ8 is further explained in Master Response
11.6.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the FEIR (pages 11-19 to 1 I-
20). Mitigation Measures WQ4-WQ7, would reduce the amount of non -
point source pollutants entering the San Rafael Bay.
(6) Noise
a. Short-term Noise Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR pages 4.9-13 to 4.8-16,
during the expected 11 -month construction period from August 2009 to
June 2010, short-term construction level noise impacts during
excavation, grading and building phases would exceed significance
levels at the nearest sensitive receptor, Shoreline Park.
22
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. Significant increases
in noise levels would occur only during construction periods. The
significant impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI L
This measure requires the project sponsor to implement noise control
measures for construction activities located within 84 feet of any noise -
sensitive receptors that will reduce daytime construction noise levels to
below the significance threshold to the extent feasible.
(7) Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems
a. Stormwater Impacts
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR page 4.10-9, the existing
18 -inch storm drain located beneath Shoreline Parkway would not have
sufficient capacity to serve the project during a 100 -year storm event.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(I) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fin7her finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Supp_ ort of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ8, as set forth in
Master Response 11.6.4, Hyrdology and Water Quality of the FEIR
(pages 11-19 to 11-20).' Expansion or modification of the proposed
drainage system draining directly to the City storm water retention pond
west of the project site would reduce the impact on the existing storm
drain to a less -than -significant level.
1 Note: The stormwater impacts discussed on DEIR page 4.10-9 incorrectly references Mitigation Measure
WQ7. The correct mitigation reference for this measure is Mitigation Measure WQ8.
23
(8) Transportation/Traffic
a. Traffic: Un -signalized Intersection of Main Street and Francisco
Boulevard East/I-580 Off -Ramp
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR page 4.11-60, this
intersection would operate at LOS E without the project and LOS F with
the project during the AM peak hour. The Addendum has resulted in no
changes to this conclusion.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
1.1, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fitrther finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within thejurisdiction risdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Suimort of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measure Tl, as described in FEIR
pages 4.11-63 and 4.11-64, and discussed in detail in Master Response
11.6.5, Transportation and Traffic, of the FEIR (pages 11-21 to 11-26).
This measure requires short-term improvements, posting of bond or
securities for monitoring, and a fair share contribution for project impact
and will ensure that impacts are reduced to less -than -significance.
b. Traffic: Un -signalized Intersection of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
and Andersen Drive
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR page 4.11-60 to 4.11-61,
this one-way stop -controlled intersection would operate at LOS F during
both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour even without the addition of project
traffic. The Addendum has resulted in no changes to this conclusion.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(x)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City fitrther frhds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measure T2. The General Plan
2020 plans to signalize this intersection and widen Sir Francis Drake into
24
a four -lane arterial. Mitigation Measure T2 provides that the project is
subject to City -adopted traffic mitigation fees, which will fund these
planned transportation improvements and mitigate the project's impacts
at this intersection.
C. Cumulative Traffic: Signalized Intersection of Shoreline Parkway
and Francisco Boulevard
Significant Impact. As described on Draft EIR page 4.11-75 to 4.11-76,
this intersection will operate at LOS D without the project and LOS E
with the project under cumulative project conditions. Comments
received on the Draft EIR questioned how the East San Rafael
transportation network would operate under projected development
conditions without two of the major, planned transportation
improvements: the widening of Francisco Boulevard East to four lanes
from Bellam Boulevard north to Grand Avenue and the construction of
an I-580 undercrossing at Shoreline Parkway. Master Response 11.6.5,
Transportation/Traffic, of the Final EIR (pages 11-26 to 11-28) addresses
this question. As explained therein, while the timing of land use and
transportation improvements cannot be precisely predicted, one would
not be constructed without the other, obviating the need for such an
analysis. If the development projected to occur in the General Plan 2020
does not come to fruition, the traffic anticipated to be generated along
with that development would also not occur, eliminating the need for the
improvements. The General Plan 2020 EIR assessed the plan's
projected growth with and without the collective list of planned roadway
improvements. The General Plan 2020 EIR's conclusions are set forth
on page 11-27 of the Final EIR for the Target Store project. As
concluded therein, no changes to the Draft EIR text or mitigation
measures are necessary. The Addendum has resulted in no changes to
this conclusion.
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(x)(1), the Cityfinds
that changes or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into
the project, or required as a condition of project approval, which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impact listed above. The
City further finds that the change or alteration in the project or the
requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition of project approval
is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this mitigation is
appropriate and feasible.
Facts in Support of Less -Than -Significant Finding. The significant
impact listed above would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through implementation of Mitigation Measure T3. This measure would
adjust phasing so that maximum greens are increased for eastbound and
westbound through movements and decreased for northbound and
southbound through movements. The project sponsor shall pay the full
cost of implementing this measure.
D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
25
As authorized by Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections
15091 and 15092, the FEIR is required to identify the significant impacts that cannot be reduced
to a less -than -significant level through mitigation measures. The FEIR concluded that impacts
are considered significant and unavoidable, thereby requiring a statement of overriding
considerations.
(1) Land Use and Planning
a. Potential Conflict with Goals, Policies and Programs of the General
Plan 2020
Siiznificant Impact. The Draft EIR identified several policies of the
General Plan 2020 with which the project potentially conflicts. The
Addendum did not revisit this conclusion as the re -activated project
continues to propose an amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
Specifically, Neighborhood Element Policy NH -59 (Cal -Pox site, east of
Home Depot) allows light industrial/office and specialty retail uses at the
project site with the provision that traffic congestion may limit
development to low traffic generating uses. Policy LU -2 (Development
Timing) provides that development should occur only when available
infrastructure ensures that the service levels (LOS) established by the
general plan's circulation element are not exceeded. Circulation Policy
C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards), in turn, provides that LOS D or
below should be maintained during peak A.M. and P.M. hour at
signalized intersections. Finally, Infrastructure Element Policy 1-2
(Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services) requires that development
be adequately served by City infrastructure.
Project -generated traffic will cause congestion at the signalized
intersection at Bellam and Kerner Boulevards to fall below LOS D
during the P.M. peak hour and would worsen the current LOS E
condition during the A.M. peak hour. Although an additional
northbound left -turn lane and southbound right -turn lane could mitigate
this impact, it would not be feasible given the existing right-of-way
constraints and planned bicycle lanes on Kerner Boulevard. Therefore,
the project would exceed the constraints in the General Plan 2020's
Circulation Element.
According to Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2, subdivisions (a)
and (e), the lead agency (City) is tasked with determining the
significance of impacts and statements in an FEIR are not determinative
of significance.
Finding
As discussed on Draft EIR pages 4.2-6 and 4.11-59, no feasible
mitigation is available to reduce these significant and unavoidable
impacts to a less -than -significant level. Specifically, there is not enough
public right-of-way width to accommodate additional lanes on Kerner
Boulevard. Therefore, it is not feasible to mitigate this impact.
26
While the project has the potential to conflict with General Plan 2020
Policies LU -2, C-5, NH -59 and I-2, which are intended to reduce or
avoid a significant environmental impact, General Plan consistency is
determined by weighing the goals and policies of all elements, including,
but not limited to, the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Housing
Element, Conservation Element, Economic Vitality Element and Safety
Element. The General Plan is recognized as a collection of competing
goals and policies, which must be read together, as a whole, and not in
isolation. Although the project is not in perfect conformity with each
and every goal, policy and program, in balancing each, and in
consideration of the project benefits summarized below, the City has
found and determined that the project is consistent with the San Rafael
General Plan 2020. Further, the City finds that the benefits of the project
(discussed below) outweigh the potential impacts associated with the
conflicts in these policies in that:
1. Circulation Element Policy C-5 sets forth level of service standards
for signalized intersections throughout the City, while Land Use
Element Policy L-2 sets forth the timing of development based on
adequate infrastructure to serve a project. The traffic from the
proposed project would contribute to and reduce the level of service
condition at the Bellam/Kerner Boulevard intersection to
unacceptable levels. However, these General Plan policies
recognize that this condition is reviewed on a project -by -project
basis through consideration of accompanying Circulation Element
Policy C-51) (Evaluation of Project Merits) and Program C -5c
(Exception Review). Policy C -5D and Program C -5c permit the City
to authorize an exception to the City -adopted traffic standards (those
LOS standards set by Policy C-5) by weighing the community
benefits of a project against the potential for the project to deviate
from the City -adopted level of service (LOS) traffic standards.
Policy C-51) states: "in order to balance the City's objectives to
provide affordable housing, maintain a vital economy and provide
desired community services with the need to manage traffic
congestion, projects that would exceed the level of service standards
[set forth above] may be approved if the City Council finds that the
benefits of the project to the community outweigh the resulting
traffic impacts." In this case, the project's consistency with Policy
C-51) and implementation of Program C -5c would override the
conflict with Policies C-5 and L-2.
2. While the proposed project would be in potential conflict with Policy
NH -59, the General Plan anticipates an amendment to this policy
when considering redevelopment of the subject Cal -Pox site by
Neighborhood Element Program NH -59a (Development Review
Process). For this reason, the proposed amendment that is included
in the project applications would be consistent with and implement
Program NH -59a, which states: "As part of a development
application, consider land use changes to the Cal -Pox site (project
site) to allow for redevelopment."
3. Infrastructure Element Policy 1-2 provides that the City should
"assure that development can be adequately served by the City's
infrastructure and that new facilities are well planned and well
27
designed." ." While the project would exceed the applicable LOS,
the project is still considered well planned and well designed.
Specifically, the project will promote innovative building design in
achieving LEED Gold. Secondly, in considering adequate
infrastructure, alternative modes of transportation will be encouraged
(e.g., bicycle parking and site connectivity to the Shoreline Park).
Thirdly, all other infrastructure needed to serve the project (water,
sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, gas and electric services) are
available. Finally, as discussed below, the project's inconsistency
with the land use designations will be addressed by amending the
designation. Based on the foregoing, and after balancing each of the
General Plan policies, the project is considered consistent with the
General Plan.
The City has conservatively found that the project will lead to significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the potential General Plan
consistency issue. The City, however, has determined that the project is
consistent with all of the pertinent General Plan goals and policies,
including Policies LU -2, C-5 and I-2. Specifically, Policy C-5 allows the
City to approve projects that exceed the level of service (LOS) standards
if it finds that the benefits of the project to the community outweigh the
resulting traffic impacts. The project, therefore, meets the traffic
standards set forth in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Further,
because the project meets the traffic standards set forth in Policy C-5,
and other infrastructure such as water and sewer is in place, the project is
consistent with Policies LU -2 and I-2.
b, Potential Conflict with General Plan Land Use Designation for the
Site
Significant Impact. The FEIR identified that the project would conflict
with provisions of the General Plan 2020 land use designation for the
site, which permits specialty retail uses to occupy minor portions of
Light Industrial/Office areas only if intensity and traffic standards are
met and the project would not threaten the integrity of the district. The
Addendum has resulted in no changes to this conclusion. As described
in Section 4(a) above and on Draft EIR pages 4.2-6, 4.2-7 and 4.11-59,
traffic congestion at the intersection of Kerner and Bellam Boulevards
would exceed traffic standards and cannot be mitigated. Thus, a
requirement of the project site's land use designation could not be met.
The project includes a request to amend the Land Use Element, Exhibit
11 to permit specialty retail uses that are "region serving" in Light
Industrial/Office designated areas. The text amendment has been further
refined so that this use allowance is applied to sites meeting specific size
criteria. Upon adoption of this amendment and adoption of an
accompanying amendment to Policy NH -59 to ensure internal
consistency, the project's intended region -serving specialty retail use will
be consistent with the General Plan 2020. With incorporation of the
specific site criteria for application of this use allowance, the use
allowance would be applicable to the subject Shoreline Center only.
28
Finding
As discussed on Draft EIR pages 4.2-6, 4.2-7 and 4.11-59, the project
will not meet the LOS standard for the Kerner and Bellam Boulevards
intersection, and thus would conflict with certain provisions of its land
use designation under the General Plan 2020. No feasible mitigation is
available to reduce these significant and unavoidable impacts to a less -
than -significant level. As discussed above, Policy C -5D provides
flexibility in determining consistency with the LOS standards. Due to
the project's benefits, discussed below, the City has found and
determined that the project's benefits outweigh potential impact. Further,
the project will be consistent with the land use designation once
amended. Such an amendment was anticipated in the General Plan.
Further, while the land use amendment would conflict with the current
General Plan land use designation, the amendment, as proposed, would
be consistent with General Plan 2020 Program NH -59a, which is
specifically applicable to the project site (Cal -Pox, east of Home Depot).
Program NH -59a states: "As part of the development application,
consider land use changes to the Cal -Pox Site to allow for
redevelopment." The proposed action to amend the General Plan would
implement this program. Lastly, the land use assumptions and traffic
modeling prepared for the San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR studied
and incorporated traffic projections for a "Large Retailer" in the East San
Rafael Census Tract 1122, which generally mirror the traffic projections
of the project.
(2) Air Quality
a. Conflict with Local Air Quality Plan
Sianificant Impact
For projects without project -specific short-term construction or long-
term operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant
cumulative impacts should be based on an evaluation of the consistency
of the project with the local General Plan, and of the general plan with
the regional air quality management plan (AQMP). As described in
Section II(D)(1)(a) above, the traffic generated by the project exceeds
standards established for the project site's land use designation as set
forth in the General Plan 2020, and since AQMP consistency is
determined based on consistency with the General Plan, the project is,
therefore, inconsistent with the General Plan and the most recent AQMP.
Thus, the project's cumulative impacts would be considered significant
and unavoidable. The Addendum has further addressed air quality
impacts. While the Addendum: a) provides an updated study of
greenhouse gas emissions and related hazards; and b) recognizes that the
re -activated project with modifications proposes to comply with LEED
Gold standards, it has resulted in no changes to the conclusions reached
in the certified FEIR.
Finding
As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.4-23, no feasible mitigation is
available to reduce this significant and unavoidable impact to a less -than -
significant level. While no mitigation is available to reduce this impact
29
to a less -than -significant level, the project assists in reducing air
pollutants, specifically related to greenhouse gas emissions by:
1. Complying with LEED Gold green building standards by including,
among others, green construction elements such as roof -mounted
photovoltaic solar panels;
2. Committing to hire from the local resident pool, specifically focusing
on the residents from the neighboring Canal community. The project
sponsor would provide locally -hired employees with a public transit
subsidy. This subsidy, coupled with the close proximity between
residency and store employment, and the direct pedestrian access
along the public Shoreline Park, would reduce vehicle trips traveled
to -and -from the store site. Reduced vehicle trips traveled would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other related hazards; and
3. Developing a new Target Store that would serve the residents of
Central and Southern Marin. Residents of Central and Southern
Marin are currently traveling north to Novato for their Target Store
shopping needs. The development of the proposed store would
eliminate current vehicle trips traveled to -and -from the Novato
Target Store, which would, in turn reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and other related hazards.
(3) Transportation/Traffic
a. Traffic: Intersection of Bellam Boulevard and Kerner Boulevard
Significant Impact
The Draft EIR pages 4.11-59-4.11-60 identified a significant impact
stemming from project generated traffic at the signalized intersection of
Kerner and Bellam Boulevards. The intersection would operate at LOS
E during A.M. peak hour with or without the project, but during the P.M.
peak hour, the service is reduced from LOS D to LOS E with the
addition of project -generated traffic. An additional northbound left -turn
lane and southbound right -turn lane could mitigate this impact; it would
not be feasible given the existing right-of-way constraints and planned
bicycle lanes on Kerner Boulevard. The Addendum has resulted in no
changes to this conclusion.
Findin
As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.11-59, no feasible mitigation is
available to reduce this significant and unavoidable impact to a less -than -
significant level as there is not enough public right-of-way width to
accommodate additional lanes. Transportation Demand Management
measures have been suggested to mitigate identified unavoidable
significant impacts to traffic and air quality. It has been determined that
the measures are either already incorporated in the project (e.g., transit
subsidies), have not been demonstrated to reduce trips (e.g., on-site
dependant care), or would not effectively reduce trips at this particular
site (e.g., carpool programs would not be effective since employees and
customers are expected to travel to the site at varying times).
Accordingly, those measures that have not already been incorporated into
the project have been considered and rejected.
30
E. REVIEW AND REJECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include "a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would avoid or substantially
lessen any significant effects of the project." As discussed in Section D of these findings above
and based on the analysis in the EIR, the project is expected to result in significant and
unavoidable impacts to land use, air quality, and transportation/traffic. Three alternatives were
scoped and studied in the EIR. Although initially considered, the project alternatives for study in
the EIR did not include a smaller Target Store alternative in that: a) Target does not have a
smaller store plan but has two standard prototypes, the one that is proposed for this location
(P09.400) and a Super Target, which is considerably larger in size; and b) given the site
constraints and costs for construction, a smaller store would not be financially viable. Other land
uses previously proposed for development at the project site were considered but rejected for EIR
study as they did not meet the basic project objectives or had been deemed to be infeasible. Past
land uses considered for site development included a larger retail use (Costco), an auto mall, a
driving range, senior housing (residential), and a corporation yard/self-storage use.
The EIR alternatives to the project were designed to avoid or reduce the significant and
unavoidable impacts and to further reduce impacts that are found to be less than significant
following mitigation. The City has reviewed the significant impacts associated with a reasonable
range of alternatives as compared to the proposed project, and in evaluating the alternatives has
also considered each alternative's feasibility, taking into account economic, environmental,
social, legal, and other factors.
The City finds that Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build (Status Quo) is the environmentally
superior alternative. Where the environmentally superior alternative is also the no project
alternative, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the EIR to identify an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. In this case, Alternative
3 (Car Dealership) is the next most environmentally superior alternative. As set forth below,
however, the City finds that each alternative is infeasible based on specific economic, legal,
social, technological and other factors. Each alternative and the facts supporting the finding of
infeasibility of each alternative are set forth below.
(1) Alternative 1: No Project/No Build (Status Quo)
This alternative would result in no physical or operational changes to the project
site. Existing conditions at the project site would remain unchanged with the
implementation of this alternative. Additionally, amendments to the General
Plan 2020 and Shoreline Center Master Plan would not occur.
Finding
Specific economic, social and other considerations make Alternative 1, identified
in the EIR and described above, an infeasible alternative as the alternative would
not meet the primary project objectives.
Facts in Supoort of Finding
1. The No Project Alternative would not improve the tax base of the City of
San Rafael and would not promote economic growth by creating new
jobs within the City.
2. This alternative would not provide a locally serving Target, so the need
for City residents to travel elsewhere would remain, as would the
31
gasoline consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and water quality
impacts associated with automobile travel.
3. While most potential impacts associated with the project would be
avoided under this alternative, the existing, unacceptable LOS conditions
at the intersection of Bellam and Kerner Boulevards would continue to
occur during A.M. peak hour.
4. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project sponsor's
objectives in that no development would occur on the project site.
(2) Alternative 2: Hotel/Restaurant
This alternative examined impacts resulting from development of a hotel and
restaurant on ten acres of the site. The automobile storage lot that currently
occupies two acres of the site would remain and the remainder of the site would
be used for parking, access roads, landscaped open spaces and setbacks. The
hotel would have approximately 150 rooms and total 87,000 square feet, and the
restaurant would be constructed adjacent to the hotel and total 10,000 square feet.
The hotel and restaurant would be situated at the eastern edge of the site to
maximize view of the Bay. The EIR assumed that this alternative would have
fewer employees and patrons than the proposed Target store.
Finding
Specific economic, social and environmental considerations make this alternative
a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael
from a policy standpoint as the alternative would not meet the primary project
objectives and would be economically and physically challenging due to site
development costs and site location.
Facts in Support of Finding
1. This alternative would not meet the primary project objectives to provide
a locally serving Target, so the need for City residents to travel
elsewhere would remain, as would the gasoline consumption, greenhouse
gas emissions and water quality impacts associated with automobile
travel.
2. This alternative would not provide needed retail services in an area
where retail demand exceeds supply and is projected to continue to do so
through 2019.
3. This alternative would have beneficial impacts related to improving the
tax base and promoting economic growth through job creation, similar to
those under the proposed project.
4. The hotel/restaurant alternative would be consistent with the General
Plan 2020, but would require an Amendment to PD -1726.
5. This alternative and the proposed project would have comparable
potentially significant impacts to biological resources, geology and soils,
exposure to hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water
quality. However, the number of customers and workers that could
potentially be exposed to seismic or hazardous materials risks would be
lower than under the proposed project.
6. This alternative would slightly reduce impacts to air quality, aesthetics,
noise, solid waste, traffic and urban decay over impacts foreseen for the
proposed project. This alternative would eliminate the project's
32
significant and unavoidable land use and planning, as well as air quality
impacts. Regarding traffic impacts, the existing, unacceptable LOS
conditions at the intersection of Bellam and Kerner Boulevards would
continue to occur during A.M. peak hour with this alternative, and thus
would require the City to make findings of overriding consideration to
approve this alternative for development. However, this alternative
would not cause this intersection to fall below LOS D in the P.M. peak
hour, and thus would not result in a significant, unavoidable traffic
impact for this P.M. peak hour traffic condition.
7. This alternative would produce more wastewater and have greater water
demand than the proposed Target store.
8. Site development costs analyzed during the EIR process, set forth in the
applicant's December 17, 2010 letter and summarized during the
December 20, 2010 City Council hearing, are substantial. Physical
constraints on the site include the site's former use as a landfill and
engineering requirements that will be required for construction on Bay
mud. These constraints make development on the site physically and
economically challenging and limit the type of development that can be
pursued on the site, as further described in the December 20, 2010 staff
report.
9. In discussing additional alternatives during the December 20, 2010 City
Council hearing it was noted that the site is in a primarily industrial area
with poorer than average access and visibility. These characteristics
indicate that the viability of a hotel use at this site would be challenging.
(3) Alternative 3: Car Dealership
This alternative examined impacts resulting from development of another
potentially lower impact use allowed at the site under the General Plan 2020 land
use designation and PD -1726. Two dealerships occupying six acres each would
be constructed, including new single -story buildings totaling approximately
35,000 square feet per dealership. Each dealership would include a sales
showroom, office area, and vehicle service with service and detailing bays and a
car wash. The automobile storage lot that currently occupies two acres of the site
would remain and the remainder of the site would be used for vehicle storage,
access roads, landscaped open spaces and setbacks. The EIR assumed that this
alternative would have fewer employees and patrons than the proposed Target
store.
Finding
Specific economic, social and environmental considerations make this alternative
a less desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael
from a policy standpoint as the alternative would not meet the primary project
objectives and would be economically and physically challenging due to site
development costs and site location.
Facts in Support of Findine
1. This alternative would not meet primary project objectives to provide a
locally serving Target, so the need for City residents to travel elsewhere
would remain, as would the gasoline consumption, greenhouse gas
emissions and water quality impacts associated with automobile travel.
33
2. This alternative would not provide needed retail services in an area
where retail demand exceeds supply and is projected to continue to do so
through 2019.
3. This alternative would have beneficial impacts related to improving the
tax base and promoting economic growth through job creation, similar to
those under the proposed project.
4. This alternative would not meet the project sponsor's goals to construct a
locally and regionally serving Target Store.
5. The car dealership alternative would be consistent with the General Plan
2020 and PD -1726.
6. This alternative and the proposed project would have comparable
potentially significant impacts to biological resources, geology and soils,
exposure to hazards and hazardous materials, and water quality during
construction. However, the number of customers and workers that could
potentially be exposed to seismic or hazardous materials risks would be
lower than under the proposed project.
7. This alternative would slightly reduce impacts to air quality, aesthetics,
noise, solid waste, operational water quality, traffic and urban decay over
impacts foreseen for the proposed project. This alternative would reduce
the project's significant and unavoidable land use and planning, as well
as air quality impacts to a less -than -significant level. Regarding traffic
impacts, the existing, unacceptable LOS conditions at the intersection of
Bellam and Kerner Boulevards would continue to occur during A.M.
peak hour with this alternative, and thus would require the City to make
findings of overriding consideration to approve this alternative for
development. However, this alternative would not cause this intersection
to fall below LOS D in the P.M. peak hour, and thus would not result in a
significant, unavoidable traffic impact for this P.M. peak hour traffic
condition.
8. This alternative would produce more wastewater and would have greater
water demand than the proposed Target store.
9. Site development costs analyzed during the EIR process, set forth in the
applicant's December 17, 2010 letter and summarized during the
December 20, 2010 City Council hearing are substantial. Physical
constraints on the site include the site's former use as a landfill and
engineering requirements that will be required for construction on Bay
mud. These constraints make development on the site physically and
economically challenging and limit the type of development that can be
pursued on the site, as further described in the December 20, 2010 staff
report.
10. Similarly, as stated in the December 20, 2010 staff report, past efforts to
develop the site as an auto mall have been unsuccessful as plans for an
auto mall were never realized after an anchor dealership backed out.
This indicates that the viability of an auto dealership at this site would be
challenging.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e), an environmentally superior alternative must be
identified among the alternatives that were studied. The FEIR concluded that Alternative 1 (No
ProjectlNo Build (Status Quo) is the environmentally superior alternative, followed by
Alternative 3 (Car Dealership). However, neither of these alternatives would meet the primary
project objective of constructing a local and region -serving retail use. Further, site development
34
costs and location make development on the site physically and economically challenging and
limit the type of development that can be pursued on the site, rendering these alternatives
economically challenging and impractical.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby: a) approves an exception
to the City -adopted level of service traffic standards set forth in San Rafael General Plan 2020
Circulation Element Policy C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards) per Circulation Element
Policy C -5D (Evaluation of Project Merits) and Program C -5c (Exception Review); b) adopts the
following findings of Statement of Overriding Considerations; and c) approves the MMRP
presented in attached Exhibit 3-A, finding that the MMRP has been prepared in accordance with
the CEQA Guidelines:
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The San Rafael City Council adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations based
on: a) information in the FEIR and Addendum; b) other information in the record including the
proposal of public benefit outlined in the November 18, 2010 revised letter from John Dewes,
Target (on file with the Department of Community Development); and c) recommendations
presented in deliberation by the City Council at its April 21, 2011 public hearing. Clarifications
to several of the public benefits proposed by Target are presented in the April 1, 2011 letter from
John Dewes, Target to the San Rafael Mayor and City Council (on file with the Department of
Community Development). The City recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts would
result from implementation of the project. The City has imposed all feasible mitigation to reduce
the project's significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. The City further finds that except
for the project, all other alternatives set forth in the Draft EIR are infeasible for reasons set forth
in section E of the findings. . Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures and recognized the
significant, unavoidable environmental effects, the City of San Rafael hereby finds that the
benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable effects for the reasons stated below.
On April 4, 2011, the City of San Rafael completed and published the San Rafael Community
Impact Study of a Proposed Target Store (Community Impact Report), which has been accepted
by adoption of a separate resolution. In support of these findings, the City has considered the
Community Impact Report, which includes among other information, data and findings,
employment wages, projected retail sales, impacts to the retail trade area and retail leakage. As a
result of this study, some of the public benefits proposed and presented by Target have been
adjusted in these findings. The benefits adjusted in the findings include the estimate for annual
sales tax and estimated employment generation. Further, these findings incorporate an updated
statement of Target's sustainability policies and practices, which were not available on November
18, 2010. These sustainability practices are outlined in the letter the April 1, 2011 letter from
John Dewes, Target to the San Rafael Mayor and City Council.
The reasons discussed below summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the proposed
project, and provide, in addition to the findings, the detailed rationale for the project.
Collectively, these overriding considerations would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse
environmental impacts of the project.
I . Sales Tax
As concluded in the City -prepared Community Impact Report, it is estimated that the Target store
will generate approximately $646,000 annually in sales tax paid to the City, thereby strengthening
the City's tax base.
35
Emplovment
The project would create a number of short-term jobs during construction of the project. Target
has committed to `open -shop' bidding practices to allow local subcontractors an opportunity to
bid on construction of the project. Target's commitment to the hiring of local construction
workers will include presenting a pre -construction job fair in partnership with organizations
serving the local construction industry such as the Building Trades Council, Marin Builders
Association, the Marin Employment Connection, and the Marin City Community Development
Corporation -Enterprise Development Program. Further, as modified by the City Council in its
deliberations and recommendations presented at the April 21, 2011 public hearing, Target has
committed to the hiring of a minimum of eight and as many as eighteen local apprentices enrolled
and participating in an apprenticeship program serving the local employment area. Such
apprenticeship program must have received approval from the CA Department of Apprenticeship
Standards. First priority shall be given to apprentices from Marin County. If there are not enough
available Marin County registered apprentices, apprentices from neighboring counties, including
Sonoma County, may be substituted.
Target agrees to provide to the City of San Rafael certification confirming the number of local
apprentices hired pursuant to this agreement.
These short-term employment benefits would contribute to the general welfare and the economic
growth and stability of the City of San Rafael and the surrounding region. As clarified in the
April 1, 2011 letter from John Dewes, Target: a) through its general contractor, Target is
committed to primarily hire local construction subcontractors, which will be reinforced prior to
bidding events; and b) Target implements and will continue to commit to implementing its
Supplier Diversity initiative, which supports hiring companies that are 51% owned, operated and
managed by woman, ethnic minority, veteran or LGBT.
Additionally, as concluded by the City -prepared Community Impact Report, factoring in 200
permanent new jobs created by Target, an estimated 164 new retail positions would be created in
San Rafael by 2015, deducting the estimated job losses at existing retailers (36 jobs). While the
case studies included in the City -prepared Community Impact Report found that a low percentage
of Target employees live within the communities where they work, Target has committed to a
goal of hiring 85% of the San Rafael Target Store team members from the immediate area
surrounding the store, with an emphasis on the Canal neighborhood. In reaching this goal, Target
has committed to implement the following steps in proactively hiring local residents:
• Target will commit to a three week schedule of local newspaper ads promoting our new
San Rafael store's job opportunities.
• Target will host a job fair renting Pickleweed Community Center to provide a central
location for jobseekers interested in applying for positions with Target.
• Target will work with the Marin Workforce Investment Board as well as organizations
including the Canal Alliance and the Canal Welcome Center to outreach to job seekers
and support with training for job -application skills.
• Target proposes to rent vacant commercial space in the neighborhood on a short term
basis to use as a hiring hall and job application center.
• Target will consult with the communication consultants hired by the Mi Pueblo Market to
discuss "best case" practices used by Mi Pueblo for employee recruitment and hiring.
krol
As confirmed by the City -prepared Community Impact Report prepared for the project by the
City through adoption of separate resolution, Target provides full-time health and other benefits
for employees working more than 20 hour per week. Additionally, Target has committed to
encourage continuing education for its employees and supports that goal with financial assistance
and time allowances for classes, especially for ESL programs.
Transportation Manaeement and Improvements
Target proposes to offer a 30% subsidy for bus passes issued and made available to all
employees, which would broadly expand the potential for service employee use of public transit.
Bus passes would address individual employee schedules and we help promote mass transit and
use of the local bus system. Target has committed to continue working with Marin County
Transit to understand service to this area and how it can promote routes and schedules, encourage
ridership and provide subsidized passes for employees.
Target has committed to facilitate bus transportation by finding the full cost to construct a bus
shelter at the Shoreline Parkway/Kerner Boulevard bus stop (where currently there is only a pole
with a posted schedule). Target has committed to purchase and install of a weather -protected shell
with benches, to be completed for use at the time of Target Store occupancy.
Target has committed to offer 28 secured and covered bicycle parking for its employees, and will
promote bike usage. Further, Target has committed to provide a 30% employee discount for bike
purchase and bicycle accessories.
Target will install and maintain permanent landscaping and irrigation in the roundabout that is
located in the center of the pub.lic, Shoreline Parkway road terminus.
4. Recreation/Circulation
The public Shoreline Park will become more easily accessible to pedestrian/bike path users with
the addition of the Target store. Target will provide designated parking spaces within its store lot,
will build a connection from the Target lot to the existing path and will install directional signage
to help facilitate park use.
In addition to park access signage, Target has committed to work with City Public Works
officials to improve overall directional signage in the commercial area, guiding traffic to -and -
from US101 and I-580. Improved signage will help assure that customer traffic is minimized in
the nearby residential neighborhoods (general Canal, Spinnaker Point areas), by effectively re-
routing project traffic to less congested intersections.
As modified by the City Council in its deliberations and recommendations presented at the April
21, 2011 public hearing, Target has committed to improve the store building relationship to the
proposed outdoor dining/sitting so as to improve customer use of the outdoor area and project
orientation to the public Shoreline Park and bay. Target has agreed to modify the approved site
plan, building floor plan and building elevations so that there is a visual connection between the
southeast corner of the store building and the outdoor dining/sitting area. Such changes would
involve minimal, if any change to the project's environmental impacts and no further
environmental review is required.
Charitable Givine
UN
Target has reported that it is committed to a number of community initiatives nationwide,
including those that support education, the arts and safe families and communities. As outlined in
the November 18, 2010 and April 1, 2011 letters from John Dewes, Target currently commits five
per cent of its income, or on average $3 million per week, to communities it serves for non-profit
efforts. In 2009, this contribution was estimated at $187 million. Accordingly, if constructed,
Target would continue to implement this practice of contributing to local organizations.
Target has committed to implement a Store Grant Program, which is directed to support local
communities. Target has committed to implement its "Take Charge of Education" program,
which is presently being implemented with their operation of the Novato Target Store. The funds
from this program are used for field trips, individual classroom grants and others, which are not
specifically earmarked for Novato. In 2009, Target has indicated that it contributed $33,000 in
charitable support to schools and non-profit organizations in Marin County, which included the
following recipients in San Rafael: Coleman Elementary School, Dixie Elementary School, San
Rafael High School, Falkirk Cultural Center, Young Imaginations and Youth in Arts. With
continued implementation, the "Take Charge of Education" grants will include awards to a
number of San Rafael schools and organizations. As an indication of support that extends beyond
dollars, Target has reported that it provides hundreds of hours of employee volunteer time to
assist with local events and programs.
Target has committed to making its "Take Charge of Education" program responsive to
individual communities. As reported by Target, each store's program is administered at the local
level -- grant requests come through the local store, are decided locally, and funds are distributed
directly from the local store. According to Target, this policy assures a smooth process and
awards reflecting local community interests rather than a one -size -fits -all corporate approach.
Target agrees to participate in the San Rafael Clean Campaign.
Further, as modified by the City Council in its deliberations and recommendations presented at
the April 21, 2011 public hearing, Target has agreed to structure its charitable contribution
program so that the primary focus and goal of the contributions are to local, San Rafael -based
non-profit organizations and charitable projects/events.
Further, as modified by the City Council in its deliberations and recommendations presented at
the April 21, 2011 public hearing, Target and the property owner have committed to contribute
$250,000.00 to the San Rafael Public Library Foundation for the purpose of funding capital
improvements- design, planning and building, - to the Downtown and Pickleweed libraries. This
contribution is to be paid to the Foundation over a 10 -year period, commencing at the time of the
Target Store groundbreaking.
Sustainabilitv
Target has committed to a number of environmental responsibility measures and efforts to limit
greenhouse gas emissions associated with its operations. Target indicated that it is a member of
the U.S. EPA's Climate Action Partnership, is committed to sustainability in both construction
and operational practices; Target has confirmed that the San Rafael store will illustrate both. The
store will be constructed to LEED Gold specifications, requiring measures that address on-site
water management, energy conservation, use of recycled content and regionally produced
materials, and protection of indoor air quality. Notably, the store will include the installation of
photovoltaic solar panels. While the LEED Gold standard is required for this project by City -
adopted ordinance, according to Target representatives, when completed, this store will be the
38
only store in its family of 1700 Target stores to achieve LEED Gold certification. Further, while
the LEED Gold standard is required for this project by City code, it represents a significant
landmark for the City as it is the first large, commercial development project that is approved and
developed at this green building standard.
As modified by the City Council in its deliberations and recommendations presented at the April
21, 2011 public hearing, Target has agreed and is committed to procure power for store operation
needs that meets State of California Renewable Portfolio Standard. This standard sets a
renewable power threshold of 20% in 2010, increasing to 33% by 2021.
As outlined in the April 1, 2011 letter from John Dewes, in December 2010, Target updated its
sustainability policies and practices, which include new milestones for the next five years. By
2016, Target is committed to eliminating waste and minimizing its carbon footprint by: a)
reducing the percentage of operating waste to landfills by 15%; b) reducing waste usage by 10%
per square foot; c) reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 10% per square foot of store area and
20% per dollar of retail sales; d) earning an energy star rating in buildings; and e) implementing a
more efficient merchandise transportation. In this letter, Target reports that the sustainability
milestones include:
➢ Launching its offering of sustainable product choices such as home furniture made
from wood derived from sustainably -managed forests.
Y Launching sustainable living practices such as a five percent reusable bag discount.
The sustainability practices listed in the April 1, 2011 letter from John Dewes, Target are hereby
incorporated by reference.
As noted above, Target is committed to hire from the local resident pool. Further, Target would
provide locally -hired employees with a public transit subsidy. This subsidy, coupled with the
close proximity between residency and store employment, and the direct pedestrian access along
the public Shoreline Park, would reduce vehicle trips traveled to -and -from the store site.
Reduced vehicle trips traveled would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other related hazards.
Developing a new Target Store at the proposed site would promote sustainability by providing a
store that is in close proximity to Central and Southern Marin residents. As noted above,
residents of Central and Southern Marin are currently traveling north to Novato for their Target
Store shopping needs. The development of the proposed store would eliminate current vehicle
trips traveled to -and -from the Novato Target Store, which would, in turn reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and other related hazards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City hereby declares that, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093 and consistent with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation Element
Policy C -5D (Evaluation of Project Merits) and Program C -5c (Exception Review), which
permits the City to authorize an exception to the City -adopted traffic standards by weighing the
community benefits of a project against the potential for the project to deviate from the City -
adopted level of service (LOS) traffic standards, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the
project against its significant and unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project. The City hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effects of the project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the project and having weighed
the benefits of the project against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation, the City has
39
determined that the social, economic and other benefits of the project outweigh the potential
unavoidable significant impacts and render those potential significant impacts acceptable.
The foregoing Resolution No. 13141 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:
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 13141 was read and introduced at a special meeting of the City Council on the
2151 day of April 2011, and ordered fora 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. 13141 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
Exhibit 3-A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
CC Resom fndgs&MMRP 5-16-11 (final)
M
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NOW MONITORING
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/ RECORD (NAMEMATE)
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
AIR QUALITY
AQ1—
The project sponsor shall prepare and submit a construction management
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
Ian to implement the following BAAQMD dust control measures during
approval for Use Permit and
incorporate
and/or Design
project construction:
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Review Permit
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily
project approval
Applications
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require
all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard
Incorporate measures into
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
final construction plans
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers
Building Permit
Building Permit
on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
Construction drawings
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
construction sites
reviewed by City staff
Building & Safety
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking
Division
Building Permit
Building Permit
areas and staging areas at construction sites
Measures to be installed by
Project Sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Project Sponsor
Building & Safety
inspections during
construction until
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
Division
construction
measures are
carried onto adjacent public streets
implemented
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction
Implement control measures
Project Sponsor
During grading and
Halt grading and
areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more)
through all phases of
Building & Safety
construction
construction until
construction
Division
activities
measures are
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
implemented
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads up to 15 mph
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff to public roadways
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible
3A-1
ION: 11:311off,1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or
tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward
side(s) of construction areas
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph
Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity
at any one time.
3A-2
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
AQ2 —
The construction contractor shall adhere to BAAQMD Regulation S, Rule 3
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
(Architectural Coatings), which limits the VOC content of architectural
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
coatings used in the BAAQMD. The construction contractorshall not allow
Permit
conditions as part of
Applications
,ie averaging of such coatings to exceed the allowable emissions specified
project approval
in BAAQMD Regulation S, Rule 3. Coatings applied to stationary
structures and their appurtenances at the site of installation, to portable
fications
Incorporate specifications
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
buildings at the site of installation, to pavements, or to curbs shall adhere
into final construction plans
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
to this BAAQMD Rule. Coatings applied in shop applications or to non -
stationary structures such as airplanes, ships, boats, railcars, and
Construction drawings
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
automobiles, and adhesives are not considered architectural coatings for
reviewed by City staff
Building & Safety
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
the purpose of this rule.
Division
Building Permit
Building Permit
Coating installed by Project
Project Sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Sponsor
Building & Safety
inspections during
construction until
Division
construction
measures are
implemented
Confirm that coating
Building & Safety
During grading and
Halt grading and
measures meet BAAQMD
Division
construction
construction until
regulations
BAAQMD
activities
measures are
implemented
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B101—
During the grading and building construction phases of the project, the
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
contractor shall alert construction workers to sensitivity of marsh areas
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
adjacent to the project site. Workers shall be made aware of the need to
Permit
conditions as part of
Applications
avoid surface disturbing activities in or near the marsh, properly dispose of
project approval
litter or refuse, and to avoid trespassing into marsh areas. The contractor
Incorporate specifications into
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
shall require and enforce use of refuse receptacles during meal breaks,
final construction plans.
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
3A-3
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Require the preparation of a
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael,
California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
Review Permit
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
Application
water shall be used during construction if available from the Central Marin
Design Review Permit
ACTION
SANCTION/
Sanitation Agency or the Las Gallinas Treatment Plant.
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
collection of construction debris, and parking of equipment away from the
Specifications shall include
Prepare dust control plan in
Building Permit
Building Permit
marsh boundary during construction and building phases. Adequate
the installation of'alert' signs
conjunction with construction
a Grading Permit or
flagging and/or fencing of the marsh boundary areas by a qualified
along the bay and marsh
management plan as
Building Permit
biologist shall be required to prevent construction crew access and avoid
borders of the development
required by mitigation
unnecessary damage. Equipment parking and fueling areas shall be near
site.
measure Al. Incorporate into
,he center of the site, away from the marsh. Fuel spills shall not be flushed
Construction drawings
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
down storm drains or allowed to remain on-site, and shall be contained
reviewed by City staff
Building & Safety
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
and collected for proper disposal.
Division
Building Permit
Building Permit
Grading Permit or
'Alert' and informational signs
Project Sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Building Permit
posted along the property
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
Halt grading and
boundaries that abut the bay
construction
measures are
construction until
and neighboring marsh
implemented
B102 —
Explicit guidance measures shall be included on plans submitted for a
Require the preparation of a
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
grading permit and contract documents for the application of water to
dust control plan as a
incorporate
Review Permit
grading and construction sites to reduce and control dust. Reclaimed
condition of approval for
conditions as part of
Application
water shall be used during construction if available from the Central Marin
Design Review Permit
project approval
Sanitation Agency or the Las Gallinas Treatment Plant.
Prepare dust control plan in
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue a
conjunction with construction
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
management plan as
Building Permit
Building Permit
required by mitigation
measure Al. Incorporate into
construction drawings.
Construction drawings
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
Planning Division
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
Implement dust control plan
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
3A-4
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NOW
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
8103 —
Plans submitted for a building permit shall use California native plants with
ipland habitat values for landscaping all perimeter areas upslope of marsh
habitat. Since the project site is adjacent to Shoreline Park, the project
landscaping plan shall be compatible with the San Rafael Shoreline Park
Master Plan and the Shoreline Enhancement Plan. Upland vegetation
shall be established in zones that blend with natural plant communities and
are compatible with the Enhancement Plan objectives. Invasive plants
shall regularly be removed from landscaped areas on the project site so
that propagules of invasive plants do not spread into the adjacent marsh. A
habitat maintenance plan that ensures long-term protection of the
landscaped buffers shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
B104 —
Interpretive signage shall be installed at the edge of the development
adjacent to the coastal salt marsh to educate visitors and workers about
the habitat value of the marsh. The signage shall be prepared in
consultation with a wildlife biologist and shall be consistent with the design
for Interpretive Display Kiosks included in the Shoreline Enhancement Plan
(1991) and the San Rafael Shoreline Park Master Plan (1989).
Require the preparation of a
final landscape plan that
incorporates native plants
suitable for marsh habitat as
a condition of approval for the
Design Review Permit.
Prepare final landscape plan
with incorporation of native
plants. Incorporate into
construction drawings.
Construction drawings
reviewed by City.
Planning Division
Project sponsor
Project sponsor
Planning Division
Install native landscaping per Project sponsor
approved final plan. Planning Division
Require interpretive signage Planning Division
as a condition of approval for
Design Review Permit
Prepare final landscape plan Project sponsor
with incorporation of
interpretive signage.
Incorporate into construction
drawinqs.
3A-5
implemented
Draft and Deny Design
incorporate Review Permit
conditions as part of Application
project approval
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
a Building Permit Building Permit
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Complete site
Halt grading and
inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
implemented
Draft and Design Review
incorporate Permit Application
conditions as part of
project approval
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
a Building Permit Building Permit
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline
Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Construction drawings
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Install interpretive per
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
approved final plan.
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
implemented
B105 -
Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a botanical survey of
Require the
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
the nearby salt marsh using CDFG and California Native Plant Society
preparation/conduction of a
incorporate
Review Permit
guidelines shall be conducted in July or August when Point Reyes bird's-
pre -construction survey as a
conditions as part of
Application
beak, soft bird's -beak, and Marin knotweed can be properly identified. This
condition of approval for
project approval
survey would determine whether or not any listed plant species are
Design Review Permit
present.
Conduct pre -construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
survey.
CDFG
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Submit pre -construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
survey.
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Implement protective
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures if deemed
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
necessary.
construction
measures are
implemented
ADB101-
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a 300 -foot long construction fence Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Design
shall be installed along the western project site boundary from the approval for Design Review incorporate Review Permit
northeastern corner of the Home Depot property to the south. Permit conditions as part of Application
project approval
3A-6
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
This measure has been
implemented. See Target
Store Addendum EIR
(September 2010). LSA
Associates, Inc. conducted a
botanical survey of the
contiguous property, which is
presented in a letter (August
12, 2010). The survey
disclosed that a portion of the
adjacent salt marsh contains
purple needlegrass, which is
a sensitive plant species
(CDFG). See new mitigation
measure ADBI01, which
recommends measures to
protect this stand of
grassland.
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
BI06 —
To avoid impacts to nesting birds, clearing of vegetation and the initiation
of construction shall be done in the non -breeding season between
September and January. If these activities cannot be done in the non -
breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform pre -construction bird
surveys within 30 days of the onset of construction or clearing of
vegetation. If nesting birds are discovered in the vicinity of planned
development, it would likely be necessary to establish buffer areas around
the nest until the nest is vacated. The size of the buffer shall be
dependent on the particular species of nesting bird and determined by a
qualified biologist.
Incorporate specifications into Project sponsor Prior to issuance of Do not issue
final construction plans. a Building Permit Building Permit
Specifications shall include
the installation of construction
fence along the property
boundary bordering the salt
marsh.
Construction drawings
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City staff.
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Install construction fence.
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
implemented
Require the
Planning Division
Prior to approval of
Deny Design
preparation/conduction of a
Design Review
Review Permit
pre -construction survey as a
Permit
Application
condition of approval for
Design Review Permit
Conduct pre -construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
survey.
CDFG
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Submit pre -construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
survey.
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Implement protective
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures if deemed
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
necessary.
construction
measures are
implemented
3A-7
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
B107 —
Although it is unlikely that the salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) would
leave its preferred marsh habitat and cross the upland buffer area and
gravel road into the project site during construction, as an added
drecaution a temporary exclusion fence shall be installed at the edge of the
project site, or at the edge of the work area, in those places where the
work area is adjacent to neighboring salt marsh habitat. It may be possible
to satisfy City requirements for erosion control measures with the same
fence, as long as it is maintained in good condition, inspected at least
weekly, and gaps or holes are repaired immediately upon discovery. As a
precautionary measure, prior to initiation of grading or any other ground
disturbing activities, a preconstruction survey for SMHM shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist, to be paid for by the project sponsor.
8108 —
The proposed project could increase the presence of cats, dogs, and other
predators of SMHM, including feral predators after construction. To
prevent this as much as practicable, no pets shall be allowed onto the
project site during construction. All food and food container waste shall be
removed daily from the site during construction. After construction metal,
animal -proof waste containers that would prevent attraction of animals, as
well as their entry into the container shall be provided. Waste containers
shall be emptied regularly to prevent attraction of animals by odors.
Require a pre -construction
survey as a condition of
approval for Design Review
Permit
Conduct pre -construction
survey prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Submit pre -construction
survey.
Implement protective
measures if deemed
necessary.
Require as a condition of
approval for Design Review
Permit
Incorporate specifications into
final construction plans.
Specifications shall include
the installation of signs within
the construction area and
along the marsh and bay that
prohibit pets during
construction.
3A-8
Planning Division Draft and Deny Design
incorporate Review Permit
conditions as part of Application
project approval
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
implemented
Planning Division Draft and Deny Design
incorporate Review Permit
conditions as part of Application
project approval
Planning Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue
a Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
Building Permit Building Permit
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
8109 —
Tall trees planted as project landscaping adjacent to the marsh could serve
as perch sites for raptors that prey on SMHM. For this reason, tall trees
shall be excluded from landscape plans for the north and west sides of the
proposed building.
Construction drawings
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City staff
Building & Safety
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Division
Building Permit
Building Permit
Informational signs shall be
Project Sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
posted within the construction
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
area and along the property
construction
measures are
boundaries that abut the bay
implemented
and neighboring marsh
Require the preparation of a
Planning Division
Draft and
Design Review
final landscape plan that
incorporate
Permit
prohibits the planting of tall
conditions as part of
Applications; deny
trees adjacent to the
project approval
Tentative Map
neighboring marsh. Require
that Tentative Map action
include a condition that
requires a deed restriction or
easement precluding the
planting of tall trees on the
north and west sides of the
building.
Prepare final landscape plan
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
to comply with tall tree
a Building Permit
Building Permit
prohibition. Incorporate into
construction drawings.
Construction drawings
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Install native landscaping per
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
approved final plan.
Planninq Division
inspections during
construction until
3A-9
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
construction measures are
implemented
Record Final Map with Project sponsor Review Final Map Halt recordation of
planting restriction or Planning Division and restrictive Final Map
easement. language prior to
recording Final Map
B1010—
Exterior
1010—
Exterior evening lighting installed as part of the proposed project could
Require the preparation of a
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
impact wildlife use of the adjacent marsh. Guidelines in the Lighting
final landscape plan that
incorporate
Review Permit
MasterPlan for Development of Shoreline Centershall be followed in order
incorporates the lighting
conditions as part of
Application
to ensure that light levels in marsh areas are not increased by
guidelines specified in the
project approval
development activities. These guidelines specify that lighting within the
Shoreline Center Master Plan
perimeter areas of the development area should be confined to the project
as a condition of approval
site in order to reduce impacts on sensitive environmental areas.
Prepare final exterior lighting
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plan and incorporate into
a Building Permit
Building Permit
construction drawings.
Construction drawings
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Install lighting per approved
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
final plan.
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
implemented
B1011 -
Fencing (or a wall) shall be installed along the east side of the proposed
Require the preparation of a
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
parking lot adjacent to the landscape buffer. Fencing material shall be
final landscape plan that
incorporate
Review Permit
selected based on its ability to screen the adjacent buffer area from light,
incorporates the installation
conditions as part of
Application
noise, and human activity (e.g. if the fence is chain link, it shall include
of fencing and signs as
project approval
privacy slats or screening). Fencing shall include pedestrian / bicyclist
specified.
3A-10
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORINGI NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
points of access to the Shoreline Trail (with exact location and
configuration to be determined by City). On the east side of the buffer,
there shall be no fence so that wildlife movement is uninhibited. Instead,
periodic signs or posts with chains strung through them shall be used as
necessary to delineate the property boundary so that it is clear to users of
.he Shoreline Park where the park ends.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GS1—
Prepare final landscape plan Project sponsor
with incorporation of fencing
and sign design, location and
specifications.
Construction drawings
reviewed by City.
Install fencing and signs per
approved final plan.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit final Require as a condition of
design plans for review and approval by the Building and Engineering approval for the Design
Divisions that incorporate the following design measure: Review Permit.
• In order to develop sufficient capacity to support the expected
structural and down drag loads from consolidating Bay Mud, a pile Prepare final construction
foundation extending to the underlying bedrock shall be constructed. plans incorporating pile
foundation design.
Construction drawings
reviewed by City.
Install pile foundation.
3A-11
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
a Building Permit Building Permit
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
Planning Division
a Building Permit
Building Permit
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
Building Permit
construction
measures are
implemented
Planning Division Draft and
Deny Design
incorporate
Review Permit
conditions as part of
Application
project approval
Halt grading and
Project sponsor Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
Building Division Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
Project sponsor Complete site
Halt grading and
Building Division inspections during
construction until
construction
measures are
implemented
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING! NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION!
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
GS2 —
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit
Require as a condition of Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
parking lot design plans to the Building and Engineering Divisions for review
approval for the Design
incorporate
Review Permit
id approval. The final design for the parking lot shall consider the potential
Review Permit.
conditions as part of
Application
for settlement at the site and include measures to limit settlement in the
project approval
plans and documents as recommended by the project geotechnical
engineer. Such measures may include a requirement to surcharge the site,
Prepare final construction Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
use lightweight fill, or replacement of existing soil with lightweight fill. Paved
Plans incorporating
measures.
a Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all
surface water off the site. In addition, all pavement shall conform to the
Construction drawings Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
following criteria:
reviewed by City.
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
• All trench backfill, including utility and sprinkler lines, shall be properly
Install/construct or implement Project sponsor
Building Permit
Building Permit
placed and adequately compacted to provide a stable sub -grade.
measures. Building Division
Complete site
Halt grading and
• An adequate drainage system shall be provided to prevent surface
inspections during
construction until
water or subsurface seepage from saturating the sub -grade soil.
construction
measures are
implemented
• The aggregate base and asphalt concrete materials shall conform to
ASTM test procedures and work shall be performed in accordance
with Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest addition.
• Other measures that might be used to reduce settlement such as
dynamic deep compaction (DDC) of the waste materials are not
considered feasible or practical, largely due to the impact of the
underlying Bay Mud.
GS3 —
Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit grading
Require as a condition of Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
plans that include the following specifications:
approval for the Design
incorporate
Review Permit
Review Permit.
conditions as part of
Application
• Prior to general site grading, the site shall be cleared of all existing
project approval
vegetation, stockpiles and debris.
3A-12
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael,
California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
• Following the clearing and grubbing activities, the exposed sub -grade
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
shall be scarified to a depth of eight inches.
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
measures.
• Any near surface structures or utilities uncovered by this process shall
be removed.
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
• Scarified areas shall be moisture conditioned to at least two percent
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
over optimum, and re -compacted to the recommendations of the
project Geotechnical Engineer. Moisture conditioning and re-
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
compaction of the sub -grade soils shall extend to a minimum of five
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
feet beyond building limits and two feet beyond pavements and
City Engineer
construction
measures are
flatwork. Soft areas, if encountered, shall require over excavation and
implemented
backfilling with compacted fills.
• Fills shall be limited to those necessary to establish adequate slopes
for drainage and landscaping. If fills greater than one or two feet are
planned over large areas of the site, the project Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted to review the settlement estimates.
• Imported soils shall consist of select non -expansive engineered fill.
This material shall be free of organic and meet a 15 or less Plasticity
Index, a 35 or less Liquid Limit and between 8 percent and 40 percent
Passing #200.
jS4 —
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit final
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
design plans for review and approval by the Building and Engineering
approval for the Design
incorporate
Review Permit
Divisions that incorporate a hinge slab and flexible connections, which
Review Permit.
conditions as part of
Application
would act as a transition from the pile supported structures to the at -grade
project approval
components of the project.
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
foundation design
requirements.
3A-13
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
X3:11:11t&F-11
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael,
California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Install foundation consistent
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
with required measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Engineer
construction
measures are
implemented
GS5 —
The store owner shall periodically maintain the hinge slabs and conduct
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
remedial grading throughout the life of the project to ensure that the hinge
approval for the Use Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
slabs sufficiently compensate for the predicted progressive change in
and Design Review Permit.
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
elevation between the store foundation and parking lot.
project approval
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the retail store owner shall prepare
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
and submit a maintenance plan for the hinge slabs to the Building and
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Engineering Divisions. The plan shall specify a periodic maintenance
measures.
and Building Permit
and Building
schedule for the hinge slabs. The plan shall specify that the owner of the
Permit
retail store shall monitor the hinge slabs a minimum of once a year for the
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
life of the store. The store owner shall prepare yearly monitoring reports
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
and submit these reports to the Building and Engineering Divisions at the
and Building Permit
and Building
end of each monitoring year. The reports shall identify the condition of the
Permit
.nge slab, change in elevation between the store foundation and parking
lot, maintenance actions at the site (i.e. adjustment of hinge slab, grading,
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
etc.), and include photographs documenting the status of the transition from
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
the store foundation to the parking lot prior to and after any remedial
City Engineer
construction
measures are
actions.
implemented
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Every five years
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Building Division
following completion
non-compliance;
and submitted to City once
Planning Division
and occupancy of
consider
every five years. Monitor
Marin County Health
building.
revocation of Use
through Use Permit review
Department
Permit
process.
3A-14
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
H1-
-uture site development shall comply with Title 27 of the CCR, with regard
to landfill closure compliance regulations. These regulations include
requirements for construction of a liner beneath each structure, and
apassive or active venting system. Control of landfill gas migration through
any site improvement shall be evaluated as part of the site design plans.
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
approval for the Use Permit.
incorporate
Application
conditions as part of
project approval
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans in compliance with Title
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
27.
and/or Building
and/or Building
Permit
Permit
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures required to comply
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
with Title 27.
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Marin County Health
implemented
Department
Conduct post -construction
Property owner
Report schedule
Impose fines for
monitoring report required by
Marin County Health
required by landfill
non-compliance.
landfill closure permits.
Department
closure permit
H2—
Future construction activities involving excavation shall incorporate Require preparation and Planning Division Draft and
appropriate health and safety considerations for workers that could be submittal of a Health & Safety Marin County Health Incorporate
potentially exposed to landfill gas and leachate. Alleqations that Plan as a condition of Department condition as
3A-15
Deny Design
Review Permit
application
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline
Parkway, San Rafael, California; April
2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
hazardous materials were disposed of at the landfill were filed in 1984.
approval for Design Review
approval for Design
Site investigation was not pursued by the regulatory agencies. Therefore,
Permit
Review
the issue of hazardous materials located within the landfill is unknown at
this time. Prior to issuance of grading permits and/or any ground-
Preparation and submittal of
Project sponsor Prior to issuance of
Deny issuance of
disturbing activities, the project sponsor shall develop a project Health and
a Health & Safety Plan
a Grading Permit
Grading and/or
Safety Plan (HSP) to be implemented during project construction. The
and/or Building
Permit
Building Permits
project sponsor shall submit the HSP to the City Engineering and Building
Divisions as well as the San Rafael Fire Department, DTSC and MCEHS
Review and approval of
Planning Division Prior to filing an
Deny application
for review and approval. The HSP shall stipulate measures to minimize
Health & Safety Plan with
Building -Division application for a
for Grading Permit
potential risks to workers and the environment. The HSP shall describe
construction plans
Marin County Health Grading Permit
and/or Building
construction safety measures, including appropriate personal protective
Department
Permit
equipment and procedures for excavation and other construction activities;
describe emergency response procedures; and designate personnel
responsible for implementation of the HSP. The HSP shall also specify
Implement Health &Safety
Project sponsor Complete site
Halt grading and
measures for worker safety should leachate be discovered during
Plan
Planning Division inspections during
construction until
construction activities such as pile driving, utility trenching, or other
Building Division grading and
Marin County Health construction
appropriate
measures are
construction work. No utility work shall be allowed on-site, and no
Department
implemented
construction of building pads shall occur until the authorizing agencies
have reviewed and approved the HSP. If contamination is discovered,
work shall be halted, appropriate regulatory agencies shall be notified, and
remediation of the site shall be conducted in accordance with agency
guidance. The HSP shall specify that waste material and soil generated
from initial site development activities shall be sampled and analyzed for
appropriate contaminants to evaluate handling and disposal options; and
that all such materials and soil shall be stored, disposed, and/or, if
applicable, reused in accordance with applicable regulations.
H3—
An oil -water separator is located on the BMW storage lot in the southwest
Require preparation and
Planning Division Draft and
Deny Design
corner of the site. The structural integrity of the feature was not evaluated
submittal of a study
Incorporate
Review Permit
relative to the potential for a subsurface release. Prior to issuance of
assessing the structural
condition as
and/or Tentative
grading permits, the project sponsor shall have the subsurface soils
integrity of the oil -water
approval for Design
Map
surrounding the oil -water separator sampled and tested for potential
separator as a condition of
Review and
applications
3A-16
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline
Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
hazardous materials in accordance with local requirements. If
approval for Design Review
Tentative Map
contaminated soils are found, they shall be remediated pursuant to the
Permit
recommendations of a qualified professional and subject to approval of
MCEHS, if required. Remediation may include, but not be limited to,
Preparation and submit of a
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Deny issuance of
removing and properly disposing of contaminated soil.
study
Building Division
a Grading Permit
Grading and/or
City Engineer
and/or Building
Building Permit
Permit
Review and approve study
Planning Division
Prior to filing an
Deny application
with construction plans or
Building Division
application for a
for Grading Permit
with Final Map
City Engineer
Grading Permit
or Final Map
Implement plan by
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
incorporating recommended
Planning Division
inspections during
construction until
measures into construction
Building Division
grading and
appropriate
plans
City Engineer
construction
measures are
implemented
H4—
The site is currently under Waste Discharge Reporting Requirements and
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit,
groundwater and soil gas sampling from on-site monitoring wells will be
approval for the Use Permit,
incorporate
Design Review
required annually at least until 2017. Provisions for the maintenance (or
Design Review Permit and
conditions as part of
Permit and/or
reconstruction) of groundwater and soil -gas monitoring facilities shall be
Tentative Map (necessary
project approval
Tentative Map
incorporated in developing site improvement plans.
easements).
Applications
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit or
monitoring measures.
and or Building
Building Permit; do
Prepare Final Map to include
Permit; prior to
not record Final
easements for access to
approval of Final
Map
monitoring wells
Map
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Buildinq
and/or Buildinq
3A-17
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
H5 -
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the contractor shall submit
project plans and specifications to the Building Division and Fire
Department as well as MCEHS for review and approval. Plans and
specifications shall include measures for construction of buildings
with piles as part of the foundation and include a specific vapor
barrier design for a continuous final cover incorporating piles.
3A-18
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Mari County Health
implemented
Department
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Quarterly or as
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
required by Marin
non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin
Department
County Health
consider
County Health Department,
Department
revocation of Use
as required. Monitor through
Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if
necessary)
required.
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
approval for the Use Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
and Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit
project approval
Applications
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
measures.
and/or Building
and/or Building
Permit
Permit
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Mann County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Enqineer
construction
measures are
3A-18
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Marin County Health implemented
Department
H6—
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Building Division shall verify
the project sponsor has placed signs warning of the hazards of entering
confined airspaces on all utility covers and vaults.
Require post -construction Property owner Report schedule Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared Marin County Health required by landfill non-compliance.
and submitted to Marin Department closure permit
County Health Department,
as required. Monitor through
Use Permit review process, if
required.
Require that signage be
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
included in the preparation
Marin County Health
Incorporate
Review Permit
and submittal of a Health &
Department
condition as
application
Safety Plan. Require that
approval for Design
signs be installed as a
Review
condition of approval for
Design Review Permit
Preparation and submittal of
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
a Health & Safety Plan with
a Grading Permit
Grading and/or
signage; construction plans
and/or Building
Building Permits
include details and
Permit
specifications for sign
installation
Review and approval of
Planning Division
Prior to filing an
Deny application
Health & Safety Plan with
Building Division
application for a
for Grading Permit
construction plans
Marin County Health
Grading Permit
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Install signs
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
Planninq Division
inspections durinq
construction until
3A-19
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
-*:i!IH--11 0
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
H7—
After
7—
After completion of grading at the site, the grading contractor shall comply
with applicable sections of the California Code of Regulations.
H8—
Prior
8—
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit
plans and specifications to the Building Division for review and approval.
The plans and specifications shall include construction of a detection zone
(i.e., high permeable layer with vents and sensors) where landfill gas could
accumulate under the asphalt to identify landfill gas emissions.
3A-20
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
Building Division
grading and
signage is installed
Marin County Health
construction
Department
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
approval for the Design
incorporate
Review Permit
Review Permit
conditions as part of
Application
project approval
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Complete site
Impose fines for
inspection to confirm
Marin County Health
inspections during
non-compliance.
compliance with code
Department
construction
regulations.
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
approval for the Use Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
and Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit
project approval
Applications
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
measures.
and/or Building
and/or Building
Permit
Permit
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Enqineer
construction
measures are
3A-20
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
WA :11--1k*W1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Marin County Health
implemented
Department
Require post -construction
Property owner
Report schedule
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
required by landfill
non-compliance.
and submitted to Marin
Department
closure permit
County Health Department,
as required. Monitor through
Use Permit review process, if
required.
H9—
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project sponsor
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
shall prepare and submit a maintenance and monitoring plan for treatment
approval for the Use Permit,
incorporate
and Design Review
of potential landfill gas emissions to the Building and Engineering Divisions
Design Review Permit and
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
for review and approval. The plan shall specify a periodic monitoring
Tentative Map (necessary
project approval
schedule for landfill gas emissions that would be conducted by an
easements).
appropriately trained professional and include a description of
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
maintenance practices that would limit gas emissions through cracks on
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit or
the asphalt and joints to concrete structures. In addition, the plan shall
measures. Prepare Final Map
and or Building
Building Permit; do
specify that monitoring reports be prepared for each monitoring period and
to include easements for
Permit; prior to
not record Final
submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency for review. The reports
access to monitoring wells
approval of Final
Map
;hall identify the effectiveness of the features designed to protect the store
Map
against landfill gas emissions and any remedial maintenance actions at the
site.
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Mari County Health
implemented
Department
3A-21
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael,
California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Quarterly or as
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
required by Marin
non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin
Department
County Health
consider
County Health Department,
Department
revocation of Use
as required. Monitor through
Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if
necessary)
required.
H10—
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project sponsor
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit,
shall submit plans and specifications to the Building and Engineering
approval for the Use Permit,
incorporate
Design Review
Divisions for review and approval. The plans and specifications shall
Design Review Permit and
conditions as part of
Permit and
include construction of monitoring devices in detection zones below building
Tentative Map (necessary
project approval
Tentative Map
foundations. Each separate area creating subsurface projections (e.g.:
easements).
Applications
grade beams) shall be monitored. The perimeter of the foundations shall
prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
provide for landfill gas detection, control, and ventilation. The sensors of
plans incorporating
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit or
the monitoring devices shall be accessible for routine testing, calibration,
measures. Prepare Final Map
and or Building
Building Permit; do
maintenance, repair, and replacement. Plans shall also provide measures
to include easements for
Permit; prior to
not record Final
for routine maintenance of sensors.
access to monitoring wells
approval of Final
Map
Map
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Mari County Health
implemented
Department
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Quarterly or as
Impose fines for
3A-22
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEMATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
H11—
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project sponsor
shall submit plans and specifications to the Building and Engineering
Divisions for review and approval. The plans and specifications shall
include construction of a vapor barrier (i.e., low permeability barrier that
restricts landfill gas migration) in building foundations to withstand
anticipated foundation movements caused by differential settlement and
earthquakes. Designs shall provide a discussion of the anticipated
foundation behavior during differential settlement and earthquakes and of
the flexibility of the vapor barrier, including connections to pipes, utilities,
and piles. The project sponsor shall also provide a discussion of
anticipated foundation behavior as noted above.
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
required by Marin
non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin
Department
County Health
consider
County Health Department,
Department
revocation of Use
as required. Monitor through
Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if
necessary)
required.
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
approval Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
Permit
conditions as part of
Application
project approval
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans incorporating vapor
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit or
barrier design and
and or Building
Building Permit; do
specifications.
Permit; prior to
not record Final
approval of Final
Map
Map
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install vapor barrier
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
consistent with approved
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
construction drawings.
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Mari County Health
implemented
Department
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Quarterly or as
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
required by Marin
non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin
Department
County Health
consider
County Health Department,
Department
revocation of Use
3A-23
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
H12—
mor to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall prepare and
submit a landfill gas -monitoring plan to the MCEHS, Building Division and
Fire Department for review and approval. The landfill gas -monitoring plan
shall include provisions requiring post -earthquake inspection of all
subsurface structures and utility conduits and pipes at the site. Utility
structures shall also be monitored for settlement damage and strengthened
and repaired as necessary.
as required. Monitor through
Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if
necessary)
required.
Require as conditions of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit,
approval for the Use Permit,
incorporate
Design Review
Design Review Permit and
conditions as part of
Permit and
Tentative Map.
project approval
Tentative Map
Applications
Prepare final construction
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plans incorporating gas-
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit or
monitoring plkan measures.
and or Building
Building Permit; do
Prepare Final Map to include
Permit; prior to
not record Final
easements for access to
approval of Final
Map
monitoring wells
Map
Construction drawings
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
reviewed by City.
City Engineer
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Marin County Health
and/or Building
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Permit
Install and/or implement
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
measures.
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Man County Health
implemented
Department
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Quarterly or as
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
required by Marin
non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin
Department
County Health
consider
County Health Department,
Department
revocation of Use
as required. Monitor through
Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if
necessary)
3A-24
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
required.
H13—
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project sponsor
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
call submit plans and specifications to the Building and Engineering
approval for Use Permit and
incorporate
and Design Review
Divisions for review and approval. The plans and specifications shall
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
include measures for protection of passive vents and detection systems
project approval
from rupture by earthquake. The plans shall demonstrate that vertical pipes
traveling through walls are isolated from rigid building elements (i.e., double
Incorporate passive vent and
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
wall pipes). The passive vents and detection systems shall permit periodic
detective system measures
Building Division
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
inspections for integrity of the piping systems. Inspection could include
into the construction plans
Building Permit
Building Permit;
video, pressure, and visual checks.
Review construction plans to
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
ensure measures are
City Engineer
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit
incorporated
Marin County Health
Building Permit
and/or Building
Department
Permit
Complete site inspections
Project sponsor
During construction
Halt grading and
during construction
Building Division
construction until
City Engineer
measures are
Mari County Health
implemented
Department
Report quarterly or as
Project sponsor
Post construction
Impose fines for
required by Marin County
Marin County Health
monitoring
non-compliance;
Health Department
Department
consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
H14—
Prior to issuance of building and occupancy permits the project sponsor
Require as condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
shall submit HVAC design plans to the Building and Engineering Divisions.
approval for Use Permit and
incorporate
and Design Review
Design of building ventilation systems shall exceed minimum capacities,
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
and include positive ventilation for all rooms and enclosed spaces
project approval
3A-25
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
regardless of their functions, including utility closets. Ventilation shall be
triggered by backup gas sensors within the building ventilation systems. Incorporate ventilation
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
measures and specifications
Building Division
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit
into construction plans
Review Permit
Building Permit
and or Building
conditions as part of
Permit
Review construction plans
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
every confined space. Alarms shall provide a tiered warning system and
City Engineer
a Grading Permit or
Do not issue
Deny occupancy
Marin County Health
Building Permit
Grading Permit
an occupancy
Department
higher level, both of which shall be below life threatening levels.
and or Building
City Engineer
permit
are completed and
Permit
Install ventilation measures
Project sponsor
Complete site
submitted.
Building Division
inspections during
City Engineer
construction
Halt construction
Mari County Health
until measures are
Department
installed
Report quarterly or as Project sponsor Post occupancy
required by Marin County Marin County Health monitoring
Health Department Department Impose fines for
non-compliance;
consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
H15—
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the project sponsor shall submit as-
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
built plans to the Building and Engineering Divisions for review and
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
approval. The as -built plans shall demonstrate that gas sensing alarms
Permit
conditions as part of
have been installed in all buildings. Gas sensing alarms shall be placed in
project approval
every confined space. Alarms shall provide a tiered warning system and
Prepare and submit as built
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Deny occupancy
include silent responses to one detection level and audible responses to a
plans
Building Division
an occupancy
until built plans
higher level, both of which shall be below life threatening levels.
City Engineer
permit
are completed and
Marin County Health
submitted.
3A-26
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Department
H16-
-rior to issuance of occupancy permits, the project sponsor shall prepare
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
and submit an Operating and Emergency Plan to the MCEHS and DTSC for
approval for the Use Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
review and approval. The Operating and Emergency Plan shall include
and Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Application
measures to protect the health and safety of workers and the affected public
project approval
throughout the life of the project.
Prepare and submit
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Deny occupancy
Operating and Emergency
Marin County Health
an occupancy
until as -built plans
Plan
Department
permit
are completed and
DTSC
submitted.
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Post occupancy
Impose fines for
monitoring report be prepared
Marin County Health
monitoring
non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin
Department
consider
County Health Department,
DTSC
revocation of Use
as required. Monitor through
Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if
necessary)
required.
'17—
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
maintenance plan for sealed utility structures to the Building and
approval for the Use Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
Engineering Divisions, as well as the MCEHS for review and approval. The
and Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Application
plan shall demonstrate that migration of landfill gas is prevented. The
project approval
maintenance plan shall require the project sponsor to continue to monitor all
subsurface monitoring structures at the project site as required for
Prepare and submit
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Deny occupancy
regulatory closure compliance.
maintenance plan for sealed
Marin County Health
an occupancy
until plan is
utility structures
Department
permit
completed and
DTSC
submitted.
Require post -construction
Project sponsor
Post occupancy
Impose fines for
3A-27
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
H18—
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the project sponsor
shall submit a utility plan for review and approval by the Building and
Engineering Divisions. The utility plan shall demonstrate utilities have been
designed to enter buildings after surfacing and include a vapor barrier at
structure penetration.
H19 —
monitoring report be prepared Marin County Health monitoring non-compliance;
and submitted to Marin Department consider
County Health Department, DTSC revocation of Use
as required. Monitor through Permit (if
Use Permit review process, if necessary)
required.
Require as a condition of Planning Division Draft and Deny Design
approval for Design Review incorporate Review Permit
Permit conditions as part of Application
project approval
Prepare and submit utility Project sponsor Prior to issuance of Do not issue
plan Building Division a Grading Permit Grading Permit or
City Engineer and or Building Building Permit
Permit
Complete review of utility Building Division Prior to issuance of Do no issue
plan City Engineer a Grading Permit Grading Permit or
and/or Building Building Permit
Permit
Project sponsor Complete Halt construction
Install utilities per approved Building Division inspections during until utilities are
plan City Engineer construction installed consistent
with approved plan
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Implement procedures for
Implement procedures
Implement
Implement
grading plan as well as Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to Mitigation Measures WQ2,
for Mitigation
procedures for
procedures for
the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions, as well as the MCEHS WQ3 and WQ4
Measures WQ2, WQ3
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation
for review and approval. The grading plan and SWPPP shall include
and WQ4
WQ2, WQ3 and
Measures WQ2,
provisions for construction of a fence around surface water drainage
WQ4
WQ3 and WQ4
3A-28
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
discharge points where landfill gas could accidentally be released. This will
prevent potential contact of landfill gas with humans or animals.
H2O —
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit
wilding plans and specifications to the MCEHS for review and approval.
Because passive vents and detection systems could collect condensate,
plans shall demonstrate that public access to collection points is restricted.
Collection and disposal methods shall be approved by the MCEHS.
Passive vents and detection systems shall also be protected from rupture
by operating equipment. Where vents travel through walls, walls shall be
reinforced with steel plating or a similar material. If vents are not encased
they shall be reinforced or protected with steel poles or similar material.
Plans shall also demonstrate that passive vent and detection system
emission locations are separated from all ignition sources. Adequate
distance shall provide for dilution of landfill gas with a minimum of five
percent methane down to below five percent. Passive vents and detection
zones shall be constructed with similar materials to provide a secure seal
against landfill gas infiltration at the joints between the horizontal flexible
membrane and vertical pipes. A secondary detection system shall provide
positive pressure to the zone immediately beneath the foundation. Positive
-pressure will prevent gas migration into the secondary zone, reducing the
rotential for gas and condensate accumulation.
H21—
Prior to issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit
plumbing plans to the City of San Rafael Engineering Department for review
and approval. In order to prevent methane gas from the underlying landfill
from entering the proposed Target Store Plumbing System, the plans shall
include a pump with a check valve and throttle to control downstream
surcharging.
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
approval for Use Permit and
Review Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
Prepare and submit plumbing Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
project approval
plan City Enqineer
Review construction plans to
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
ensure measures are
Building Division
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
incorporated
Marin County Health
Building Permit
Building Permit;
Department
Install measures as
Project sponsor
Complete site
Halt grading and
recommended by approved
Building Division
inspections during
construction until
plan
City Engineer
construction
measures are
Mari County Health
installed
Department
Report quarterly or as Project sponsor Post occupancy Impose fines for
required by Marin County Marin County Health monitoring non-compliance;
Health Department Department consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
Draft and incorporate Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
conditions of approval for
incorporate
Review Permit
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Application
project approval
Prepare and submit plumbing Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Deny Grading
plan City Enqineer
a Gradinq Permit
Permit or Buildinq
3A-29
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April
2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
and or Building
Permit
Permit
Complete review of plumbing
City Engineer
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
plan
a Grading Permit
Grading Permit or
and/or Building
Building Permit
Permit
Install plumbing per approved
Project sponsor
Complete
Halt construction
plan
Building Division
inspections during
until plumbing are
City Engineer
construction
installed consistent
with approved plan
H22—
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the site shall be inspected by a
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Prior to approval of
Deny Design
Department of Public Works building inspector. The building inspector shall
approval for Design Review
Design Review
Review Permit
verify that no devices (e.g., chimney caps or similar fixtures) that produce a
Permit
Permit
Application
vacuum on the primary and secondary detection systems have been
installed.
Complete inspections
Building Division
Prior to occupancy
Deny occupancy
City Engineer
until implemented
or corrective
measures are
made
1YRDOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
WQ1—
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall prepare
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
and submit a detailed erosion control plan (ECP) and narrative to the
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
City's Storm water Program Manager for review and approval. The ECP
Permit
conditions as part of
shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts during
project approval
construction. At a minimum, the ECP and written narrative shall include
the following:
Prepare and submit Erosion
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
Control Plan
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
• A proposed schedule of qradinq activities, monitorinq, and
Building Permit
Building Permit
3A-30
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
;:1:11:3111iKff_1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
infrastructure milestones in chronological format
• Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or Review and approve Erosion
unstable slopes Control Plan
• Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before
and after grading
Identification of erosion control measures on slopes, lots, and
streets, based on recommendations contained in the Erosion
and Sediment Control Field Manual published by the
SFBRWQCB, the Association of Bay Area Governments'
Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control, or
equivalent document, as required by the General Plan 2020
Policy S-19 (Erosion)
• Soil stabilization techniques (such as short-term biodegradable
erosion control blankets and hydro seeding) to be utilized
• The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities for
accumulated sediment, and the cleaning of these drainage
structures of debris and sediment
• The first 3/4 —inch of runoff from the first one -inch of rainfall
must be treated
WQ2 —
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first,
and following the preparation of project site grading plan, the project
sponsor shall comply with NPDES General Construction Activities Storm
Water Permit Requirements established by the Clean Water Act (CWA),
including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The SWPPP shall identify specific types and sources of storm
water pollutants, determine the location and nature of potential impacts,
and specify appropriate control measures to eliminate any potentially
Building Division Prior to issuance of Do not issue
City Engineer Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
Planning Division Building Permit Building Permit
Implement Erosion Control Project Sponsor
During grading and
Halt construction
Plan
construction
until measures are
Permit
conditions as part of
implemented
Inspection Erosion Control Building Division
Prior to completion
Halt construction
Plan City Engineer
of project for
until measures are
occupancy
implemented
Require as a condition of Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
Permit
conditions as part of
project approval
Prepare and submit SWPPP Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
3A-31
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael,
California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
MONITORING/
NOW
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY
REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
significant impacts on receiving water quality from storm water runoff. In
Review and approve SWPPP Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
addition to complying with the standards established by the CWA for
And NPDES Permit City Engineer
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
preparation of a SWPPP, the SWPPP shall also comply with the directions
RWQCB
Building Permit
Building Permit
for preparing a SWPPP contained in the latest edition of the Guidelines for
Planning Division
Construction Projects, published by the SFBRWQCB. Furthermore, in
Implement SWPPP Project sponsor
During grading and
Halt construction
,onjunction with the Marin County Storm water Pollution Prevention
construction
until measures are
Program (MCSTPPP), and as required by the General Plan 2020 Policy S-
implemented
21 (RWQCB Requirements), the project sponsor shall consult with City
staff and implement recommended measures that would reduce pollutants
Inspection SWPPP Building Division
Prior to completion
Halt construction
in storm water discharges from the site to the maximum extent practicable.
City Engineer
of project for
until measures are
RWQCB
occupancy
implemented
WQ3 —
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Require as a condition of Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
and following the preparation of the project site grading plan, the project
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
sponsor shall submit to the City Engineer for review a draft copy of the
Permit
conditions as part of
Notice of Intent (NOI) and SWPPP. After approval by the City, the NOI
project approval
and SWPPP shall be sent to the State Water Resources Control Board.
(The SWPPP follows the preparation of the project site grading plan
Prepare and submit N01 and Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
because Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control are
SWPPP
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
selected to meet the specific site requirements.)
Review and approve N01 and Building Division
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
SWPPP (NPDES Permit) City Engineer
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
RWQCB
Building Permit
Building Permit
Planning Division
WQ4 —
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first,
Require as a condition of Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
the project engineer shall incorporate into the final site plan features that
approval for Use Permit and
incorporate
and Design Review
would clean site waters in accordance to RWQCB and MCSTOPPP
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
standards before they enter San Rafael Bay. Features that could be used
project approval
to clean site waters include, but are not limited to, bio-swales, Continuous
Incorporate clean water Protect Sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
3A-32
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
City Engineer
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April
2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
Building Permit
ACTION
SANCTION/
RWQCB
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Deflective Separation (CDS) filters inserted into the site drainage inlets to features into construction
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
filter runoff, and landscaped and unimproved areas that would act as bio- plan in accordance with
Building Permit
Building Permit
swales to allow microorganisms in the soil to clean and filter site waters RWQCB and MCSTOPPP
Halt grading and
before release into San Rafael Bay. standards. Prepare long-term
construction
construction until
maintenance plan.
MCSTOPP
The project sponsor shall prepare and submit maintenance and monitoring
plan to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits to ensure
that features to clean site waters function as designed. The plan shall
describe an on-going maintenance and monitoring program and specify
that the project sponsor shall monitor the features to clean site waters a
minimum of once a year. The project sponsor shall prepare yearly
monitoring reports and submit these reports to the City Engineer at the end
of each monitoring year. The reports shall identify the effectiveness of the
features designed to clean site waters and maintenance actions at the site.
The project sponsor shall implement remedial measures should the
success criteria not be achieved in any of the monitoring years.
,JQ5 —
Where grass swales are to be used to filter pollutants from runoff, they
shall consist of a dense, uniform growth of fine -stemmed herbaceous
plants best suited for filtering pollutants and tolerant to the water,
climatological, and soil conditions of the development area. In addition,
the swale design shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Design methods for increasing detention, infiltration, and uptake
by wetland -typed plants
• A flow path adequate to provide for efficient pollutant removal in
Review and approve clean
water measures and long-
City Engineer
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
term maintenance plan
Marin County
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
MCSTOPPP
Building Permit
Building Permit
RWQCB
Install and inspect measures
Project Sponsor
During grading and
Halt grading and
City Engineer
construction
construction until
MCSTOPP
measures are
installed
Implement post -construction
maintenance plan
Project sponsor
Following
Impose fines for
City Engineer
occupancy
non-compliance;
MCSTOPP
consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
approval for Use Permit and
incorporate
and Design Review
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
project approval
Incorporate grassy-swale
Project Sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
features into construction
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
plan in accordance with
Building Permit
Building Permit
RWQCB and MCSTOPPP
standards. Incorporate into
3A-33
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
accordance with the standards of the RWQCB and MCSTPPP
The project sponsor shall submit a final site plan, design, construction
details, and maintenance program for the proposed grass swale(s) to the
City's Engineering Services Manager for review and approval prior to
,suance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
WQ6 —
Where CDS, such as Vortechnics Storm Water Treatment Units are to be
used to filter pollutants from runoff, they shall be designed to provide
efficient pollutant removal in accordance with the standards of the RWQCB
and MCSTPPP. In addition, the project sponsor shall submit a design plan,
construction details, and a main tenancernspection program for the
proposed CDS system to the City's Engineering Services Manager for
review and approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first. Additionally, the main ten ancernspection program
shall include a maintenancernspection schedule, as well as outlining a
long-term funding mechanism for the program.
long-term maintenance plan
required by Mitigation
Measure WQ4
Review and approve City Engineer
measures and long-term Marin County
maintenance plan MCSTOPPP
RWQCB
Install and inspect measures
Implement post -construction
maintenance plan
Require as a condition of
approval for Use Permit and
Design Review Permit
Incorporate treatment unit
features and specifications
into construction plan in
accordance with RWQCB
and MCSTOPPP standards.
Incorporate into long-term
maintenance plan required by
Mitigation Measure WQ4
3A-34
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
Building Permit Building Permit
Project Sponsor
During grading and
Halt grading and
City Engineer
construction
construction until
MCSTOPP
measures are
Do not issue
Grading Permit or
installed
Project sponsor
Following
Impose fines for
City Engineer
occupancy
non-compliance;
MCSTOPP
consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
Planning Division Draft and
Deny Use Permit
incorporate
and Design Review
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
project approval
Project Sponsor Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
Building Permit
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
Review and approve City Engineer
measures and long-term Marin County
maintenance plan MCSTOPPP
RWQCB
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
Building Permit Building Permit
3A-35
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
Install and inspect measures
Project Sponsor
During grading and
Halt grading and
City Engineer
construction
construction until
MCSTOPP
measures are
installed
Implement post -construction
Project sponsor
Following
Impose fines for
maintenance plan
City Engineer
occupancy
non-compliance;
MCSTOPP
consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
WQ7 —
After project completion, the project sponsor shall properly maintain
Require as a condition of
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Use Permit
parking lots and other common paved areas, by sweeping or other
approval for Use Permit and
incorporate
and Design Review
appropriate means, to prevent the majority of litter from washing into storm
Design Review Permit
conditions as part of
Permit Applications
drains. Parking lots and paved areas shall be swept once per week.
project approval
Failure to maintain this schedule shall result in the issuance of an
administrative citation to the project sponsor.
Prepare long-term water
Project Sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
quality maintenance plan
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
required by Mitigation
Building Permit
Building Permit
Measure WQ4 and
incorporate parking lot and
paved area water quality
maintenance
Review and approve
City Engineer
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
measures and long-term
Marin County
Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
maintenance plan
MCSTOPPP
Building Permit
Building Permit
3A-35
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
WQ8 —
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall prepare and
submit a detailed storm water drainage plan that shall include direct runoff,
to the extent feasible, to the City -owned drainage pond north of the site
and storm water retention and/or metering measures (e.g., on-site
detention basin or CDS system) that would reduce the amount of storm
water flow to the 18 -inch storm drain line on Shoreline Parkway. Project
storm water flow to the storm drain line shall be no more than 15 cfs during
storm events up to and including the 100 -year event. The storm water
drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
NOISE
RWQCB
Implement post -construction Project Sponsor
maintenance plan City Engineer
MCSTOPP
Require as a condition of Planning Division
approval for Design Review
Permit
Prepare storm water drainage Project Sponsor
plan to incorporate on-site
detention or CDS system.
Plan shall be accompanied
by report from project
engineer supporting
measures as effective
Review and approve plan City Engineer
with incorporated measures
and supportive report from
project engineer
Install approved on-site storm Project sponsor
water retention or CDS City Engineer
system
3A-36
Following Impose fines for
occupancy non-compliance;
consider
revocation of Use
Permit (if
necessary)
Draft and Deny Design
incorporate Review Permit
conditions as part of Applications
project approval
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
Building Permit Building Permit
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
Building Permit Building Permit
Inspect during
construction and
prior to completion
and occupancy
Halt construction
and/or deny
occupancy
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAME/DATE)
_0:l:lHM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
N011—
Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project sponsor(s) shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, that construction
otivities located within 84 feet of any noise -sensitive receptors would
implement appropriate noise controls to reduce daytime construction
noise levels to meet the 70-dBA daytime speech interference criterion to
the extent feasible. Such controls shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Require as a condition of Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
approval for Design Review
incorporate
Review Permit
Permit
condition as part of
Application
project approval
Prepare and submit plans Project Sponsor
Prior to filing
Do not issue
and specifications addressing
application for
Grading Permit or
attenuation of noise during
Grading Permit or
Building Permit
construction
Building Permit
• Best available noise control techniques (including mufflers,
intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically Measures to be installed by Project Sponsor
attenuating shields or shrouds) shall be used for all equipment Project Sponsor Building Division
and trucks in order to minimize construction noise impacts.
If impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers,
and rock drills) is used during project construction, hydraulically
or electric -powered equipment shall be used wherever feasible
to avoid the noise associated with compressed -air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of
pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler
on the compressed -air exhaust shall be used.
Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive
receptors as feasible. If they must be located near receptors,
adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and
appropriate) shall be used to ensure local noise ordinance limits
are met to the extent feasible. Enclosure opening or venting
shall face away from sensitive receptors. If any stationary
equipment (e.g., ventilation fans, generators, dewatering pumps)
is operated beyond the time limits specified by the pertinent
noise ordinance, this equipment shall conform to the affected
3A-37
Complete site Halt grading and
inspections during construction
construction activities until
measures are
implemented
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
jurisdictions pertinent day and night noise limits to the extent
feasible.
• Noise -producing construction activities shall be prohibited
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday unless otherwise approved with appropriate restrictions
by the City of San Rafael Planning Department.
• Material stockpiles as well as maintenance/equipment staging
and parking areas shall be located as far as feasible from
residential receptors.
A designated project liaison shall be responsible for responding
to noise complaints during the construction phases. The name
and phone number of the liaison shall be conspicuously posted
at construction areas and on all advanced notifications. This
person shall take steps to resolve complaints, including periodic
noise monitoring, if necessary. Results of noise monitoring shall
be presented at regular project meetings with the project
contractor, and the liaison shall coordinate with the contractor to
modify any construction activities that generated excessive
noise levels to the extent feasible.
TRAFFIC AND PARKING
T1—
Intersection #22, Main Street and Francisco Boulevard East/1-580
Westbound Off -Ramp. Traffic analysis concludes that, with the
contribution of project traffic during the AM peak hour, one of eight
warrants for signalization (the Peak Hour warrant) per California MUTCD
would be met. Hence, signalization is not required to approve the
proposed project. However, the following mitigation measures are
recommended to ensure that the intersection operates at an acceptable
Require as a condition of Planning Division
approval for Use Permit and
Design Review Permit
Prepare plans for short-term Project Sponsor
off -ramp improvements
3A-38
Draft and Deny Use Permit
incorporate and Design Review
conditions as part of Permit Applications
project approval
Prior to issuance of Do not issue
a Grading Permit or Grading Permit or
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING MONITORING/
NON -
PROCEDURE
RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING
COMPLIANCE
ACTION
SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
level of service and to address the potential need for long-term
Building Permit
Building Permit
signalization:
Submit plans for short-term
City (Traffic) Engineer Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
a. Short-term improvements. The project sponsor shall obtain
off -ramp improvements and
Caltrans a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Caltrans approval and implement the installation of two lanes at
post securities for monitoring
Planning Division Building Permit
Building Permit
the westbound off -ramp (existing lane plus a separate left tum
and full funding of long-term
signalization.
lane). Caltrans approval and lane installation shall occur prior to
occupancy of the Target Store.
Obtain Caltrans approval
Caltrans Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
b. Posting of bond or securities for monitoring and signalization.
(encroachment permit)
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, the developer
Building Permit
Building Permit
shall be required to post a bond or similar security, in a form
Obtain City approval of short-
City (Traffic) Engineer Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
acceptable to the City Attorney, to cover the cost of signalizing
term plans. Prepare and
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
this intersection and signalization of the 1-580 Eastbound Off-
execute agreement for
Building Permit
Building Permit
ramp at Main Street (identified as study Intersection #23 in the
bonding and monitoring long -
Draft EIR). The amount for the bond or security shall be based
term signalization with
on a projected cost for the signalization of the two off -ramp
reimbursement of all but fair
intersections and needed, associated improvements (estimated
share contribution by project
at $500,000 in 2009 dollars). An additional amount of $10,000
sponsor. Post securities for
shall be posted for post -occupancy monitoring and traffic
funding signalization
analysis.
Install short-term off -ramp
Project sponsor Prior to occupancy
Deny occupancy
c. Post -occupancy traffic study. Six months following occupancy
improvements
Caltrans
until improvements
and full operation of the project, the intersection shall be analyzed
City (Traffic) Engineer
are installed
and modeled to determine the status of signal warrants with
Prepare and submit post-
Project sponsor Six months
Use securities for
developed project traffic. In the event all required warrants are
occupancy traffic study
Caltrans following occupancy
fund installation of
met to install the off -ramp signals and associated improvements,
City (Traffic) Engineer
signals
Caltrans approval shall be obtained and the securities posted by
the project sponsor shall be used to fund the installation of
Monitor off -ramp for five
City (Traffic) Engineer Post occupancy
None; securities
improvements.
years following occupancy
and bonding fully
d. Fair share contribution for project impact. Should the post-
cover either fair
share or full cost of
occupancy traffic study find that the required warrants are not met
signalization.
to install the off -ramp signals and the needed, associated
3A-39
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
improvements; the City shall return/refund the bonds and
securities but shall retain the projected fair share contribution for
the project (two percent of the projected volume) and the deposit
for traffic monitoring.
e. Post occupancy monitoring. The City shall continue monitoring
the intersection in consultation with Caltrans for a period of five
years following project occupancy. If after five years of
monitoring the required warrants are not met to initiate
signalization, the fair share contribution shall be returned to the
project sponsor.
Traffic studies will be required for subsequent development projects
impacting this intersection. The first development project that triggers all
required warrants for signalization shall be required to obtain Caltrans
approval and install the improvements recommended in this measure.
T2—
The
2—
The project's impacts at this intersection will be mitigated through the
Calculate fee and require
Planning Division
Draft and
Deny Design
implementation of the General Plan 2020 planned transportation
payment as a condition of
incorporate
Review Permit or
improvements. The project shall be subject to City -adopted traffic
approval for Design Review
condition as part of
Vesting Tentative
,mitigation fees, which will fund these improvements and mitigate the
Permit or Tentative Map
project approval
Map Applications
project's impacts at this intersection.
Traffic mitigation fee is paid
Project sponsor
Prior to issuance of
Do not issue
City Engineer
a Grading Permit or
Grading Permit or
Building Division
Building Permit, or
Building Permit or
prior to recordation
halt recordation of
of a Final Map
the Final Map
T3—
As directed and determined by the City Traffic Engineer, intersection
Require as a condition of Use
Planning Division
Prior to approval of
Deny approval of
phasing at the Francisco Boulevard East/Kerner Boulevard shall be
Permit and Design Review
Use Permit and
Use Permit
3A40
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)
EXHIBIT 3-A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Target Store @ Shoreline Center, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, California; April 2011
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING MONITORING/ NON -
PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY REPORTING COMPLIANCE
ACTION SANCTION/
& SCHEDULE ACTIVITY
adjusted so that: a) the maximum green light time on the northbound- Permit approval Design Review Application
through and southbound -through movements is decreased; and b) the Permit
maximum green light time on the eastbound -through and westbound -
through movements is increased. The project sponsor shall pay the full Phasing of intersection City (Traffic) Engineer Prior to occupancy Deny occupancy
adjusted until phasing is
cost of implementing this measure. completed
3A-41
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE
RECORD (NAMEIDATE)