HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 12858 (Target)RESOLUTION NO. 12858
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (SCII #
2007082125) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 137,424 -SQ. FT. TARGET STORE AT
125 SHORELINE PARKWAY (APN: 009-320-45)
GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2006, the City Council granted a Project Selection Process
(PSP) determination for a San Rafael Target Store (the project) to be located at 125 Shoreline
Parkway (Parcel 6 of Shoreline Center). The PSP determination allowed the project a total of 115
A.M. and 394 P.M. net new peak hour trips. The PSP detennination was valid until August 21,
2008; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2007, the Design Review Board reviewed a conceptual
design of the project. The Board reconunended that the project address their comments regarding
landscaping, proposed division of the property, lack of articulation and creativity in building
design, respect for views from the Bay, screening of mechanical equipment, the view for the
residents to the north, the amount of hardscape, provision of an outdoor facility for the public to
enjoy, outdoor lighting, excessive parking, narrow entryway and bicycles and pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2007, Target applied to the City of San Rafael, Planning
Division for planning permits to build an approximately 137,224 sq. ft. retail store; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the Planning Conunission held an appropriately
noticed (Notice of Preparation) Public Meeting for Scoping the Environmental Impact Report for
the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the project pursuant to the California Envirorunental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) addressing 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, Growth -Inducing Impacts and project
alternatives; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2008, the Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans
submitted by Target in response to the Design Review Board's and the Planning Commission's
reconunendations. Following public input and discussion, the Board recommended further
revisions to the project design. On May 20, 2008, the Design Review Board reviewed the further
plan revisions and recommended approval of the project design; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008, the City Council re -granted the PSP determination
initially granted on August 21, 2006, for two additional years. The PSP determination is valid to
August 18, 2010; 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); and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public
hearing to consider the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the project would result in several
Page I
� + M
significant, unavoidable impacts associated with traffic/transportation, air quality and land use. All
other significant impacts identified in the DEIR could be mitigated to less -than -significant levels
with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, based on written and verbal 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 and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15089, the City has responded to all the environmental comments
that were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed; and
WIIEREAS, following a review of the DEIR comments and responses, which include
expanded discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, staff detennined that there is no
substantially new information that would be cause to re -circulate the DEIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5(b); and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2009, a Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental
Impact Report/Response to Continents (FEIR) was mailed to interested persons and property
owners and occupants within 1,500 feet of the property and written responses to public agency
continents were provided to agencies who continented on the DEIR; and
WIIEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Conlrnission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the FEIR, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written
report of the Connrnunity Development Department staff, and
WIIEREAS, at the September 29, 2009 public hearing, the Planning Conunission received
two letters and public continent regarding the FEIR study of biological resources, wildlife, traffic
and urban decay impacts. The E1R teclinical consultants provided detailed, verbal responses to the
concerns, which are reflected and suntirrarized in September 29, 2009 Planning Contilnsslon
Meeting Minutes; and
WHEREAS, following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Conlrnission had a
lengthy discussion on the adequacy of the studies contained in the FEIR and the reconnmended
mitigation measures. As a result of this discussion, the Planning Cormnission determined that no
further studies were necessary to deem the FEIR as adequate. However, the Planning Continission
recommended revisions to FEIR Mitigation Measures BIO4, H3, T1, T2, T3, T4 and WQ8 for the
purpose of clarifying and expanding the information and to ensure appropriate implementation of
the measures. The revised mitigation measures are presented in the attached Errata (Exhibit A),
which is incorporated herein;
WHEREAS, the Plarming Corrmnission voted 5-1 (Sonnet dissenting and Colin absent)
recontinending certification of the FEIR with the incorporation of the revised mitigation measures;
and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which this decision is based, is the Corrtinunity Development Department; 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
Conununity Development Department staff, and
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Rafael
hereby certifies the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report based on the following
findings:
FINDINGS
The FEIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San
Rafael Environmental Review Procedures following the appropriate format, content, teclunical
analysis of potential impact areas, and assessment of project alternatives. Further, the
prescribed public review periods and duly -noticed Planning Commission hearings were held
for the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP); the Notice of Completion (NOC) for public review
of the DEIR; and the Notice of Availability following publication of the FEIR.
2. The FEIR has been prepared using the City's independent judgment and analysis, and the
FEIR:
a. appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts;
b. analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
effect of the project; and
c. recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant
adverse enviromnental impacts of the project. The findings and reconunendations in the
document are supported by technical studies prepared by professionals experienced in the
specific areas of study.
The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document
certification. As a result of conunents submitted on the DEIR, the FEIN presents some
additional information and recommendations to expand, clarify and support the findings of the
specific studies and topic areas, which, as a result, was cause for minor revisions in the DEIR
text and reconunended mitigation measures. The extent of changes to the document would not
meet the threshold for re -circulation of the DEIR, as prescribed in CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5 in that the new infornnation added to the EIR does not deprive the public of
meaningful opportunity to comment upon the substantial adverse enviromnental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have
declined to implement. In particular, the new infornation presented in the FEIN does not
disclose:
a. a new significant enviromnental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented;
b. a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed in the
DEIR; or
c. any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from
others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant enviromnental impacts of
the project, but which the project's proponents refuse to adopt. Nor is the DEIR so
fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public
review and comment were precluded.
4. The FEIR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and support
the conclusion that the project will result in several significant, unavoidable enviromnental
impacts and a number of potentially significant impacts that necessitate mitigation. At the time
the City considers action on the project's merits, it will be necessary to make complete and
detailed findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines
Page 3
Section 15091(a). For each significant effect identified the EIR, the City will be required to
make one or more of the following findings:
a. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency;
b. that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, snake infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR; and.or
c. As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of
overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City weigh
the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
At this time, the City is merely certifying the FEIR, recognizing it as an informational
document for future project assessment. While the enviromnental document is often
considered for certification concurrent with the action on the project merits and plamiing
applications, certification of this FEIR, at this time, would not prejudice or bias fixture review
or actions on site development. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that an enviromnental
document is prepared for public disclosure of potential project impacts and that it is used as an
informational document to guide decision -makers in considering project merits. Certification
of the FEIR, as presented, would not result in a land use entitlement or right of development
for the project site. If and when the Target Store project is reactivated or a new project is
proposed for the subject property, the FEIR document will be reviewed to determine whether
the circumstances presented in Public Resources Code section 21166, as amplified by its
corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 to 15163 are present with respect to the
project to detennine whether a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to the EIR, or Addendum to the
EIR need be prepared or if farther environmental review under CEQA is not required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael certifies
the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report incorporating the revisions presented in the
attached Errata (Exhibit A).
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held Monday, the 19`1' of October, 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
EXHIBIT A: Errata
THER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
SAN RAFAL TARGET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT
October 2009
This exhibit serves as an errata and supplement to the San Rafael Target Final Environmental Impact
Report (Final EIR). The minor revisions to the following mitigation measures (in underline/ strikeout
format) have been incorporated and appear in the Final EIR in order to provide expanded clarity and
information to ensure effective implementation:
1. Revise Mitigation Measure BI04
Interpretive signageiftg 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. This sienaee
shall be prepared in consultation with a wildlife biologist and shall be consistent with the design
for Interpretive DisT)Iav Kiosks included in the Shoreline Enhancement Plan. (199 1) and the San
Rafael Shoreline Park Master Plan (1989).
2. Revise Mitigation Measure 1-13
An oil -water separator is located on the BMW storage lot in the southwest corner of the site. The
structural integrity of the feature was not evaluated relative to the potential for a subsurface
release. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall have the subsurface soils
surrounding the oil -water separator sampled and tested for potential hazardous materials in
accordance with local requirements. milts,. ol°., the- °�°+���� lin
q g wet" -mate... the lovel,.... of
r-emediatiene ff •-B tha ir,-Ff '.;ate If contaminated soils are found. thev shall be
remediated iuursuant to the recoimmendations of a qualified urofessional and subiect to auiuroval
of MCEHS, if required. Remediation may include, but is not limited to. removine and vrouerly
disUosine of contaminated soils.
3. Revise Mitigation Measure T1
Intersection #22, Main Street and Francisco Boulevard East%I-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
level of service and to address the potential, need for long-term signalization:
a. Short -terns improvements. The project sponsor shall obtain Caltrans approval and implement
the installation of two lanes at the westbound off -ramp (existing lane plus a separate left turn
lane). Caltrans approval and lane installation shall occur prior to occupancy of the Target
Store.
b. Posting of bond or securities for monitoring and signalization. Prior to the occupancy of the
p,ro,l)osed project, , the developer shall be required to post a bond or similar
security, in a forn acceptable to the City Attorney, to cover the cost of signalizing this
intersection and signalization of the I-580 Eastbound Off -Ramp at Main Street (identified as
study Intersection #23 in the Draft EIR). The amount for the bond or security shall be based
on a projected cost for the signalization of the two off -ramp intersections and needed,
associated improvements (estimated at $500,000 in 2009 dollars). An additional amount of
$10,000 shall be posted for post -occupancy monitoring and traffic analysis.
c. Post -occupancy traffic study. Between 60 to 90 days Six months following occupancy and
full operation of the project, the intersection shall be analyzed and modeled to determine the
status of signal warrants with developed project traffic. In the event all required warrants are
A-1
EXHIBIT A
SAN RAFAL TARGET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT
October 2009
met to install the off -ramp signals and associated improvements, Caltrans approval shall be
obtained and the securities posted by the project sponsor shall be used to fund the installation
of improvements.
d. Fair share contribution for project impact. Should the post -occupancy traffic study find that
the required warrants are not met to install the off -ramp signals and the needed, associated
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.
4. Revise Mitigation Measure T2
The project's impacts and contribution of traffic at this intersection will be mitigated through the
implementation of the General Plan 2020 planned transportation improvements (signalized and
intersection improvements). The project is --shall be subject to City -adopted traffic mitigation
fees, which will field these improvements and mitigate the project's impacts at this intersection.
5. Revise Mitigation Measure T3
it is iffle ded that the As directed and detennined by the City Traffic Eneineer, intersection
phasing shall be adjusted so that: a) maximum greens on the northbound -through and
southbound -through movements are decreased; and b) the maximum greens on the eastbound -
through and westbound -through movements are increased. The project sponsor shall pay the full
cost of implementing this measure.
6. Delete Mitigation Measure T4
This mitigation measure was erroneously included in Table 2-1 (Suininary of Impacts and
Mitigation) of the Final E1R. The requirements of Mitigation Measure T4 are covered by
Mitigation Measure T1 and, therefore, the measure is deleted from Table 2-1.
7. Revise Mitigation Measure WQ8
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall prepare and submit a detailed
stormwater drainage plan that would shall include directing runoff, to the extent feasible, to the
City -owned drainne D,ond north of the site and stonnwater 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 stonnwater 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
stormwater drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
A-2