HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-08-19SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
I
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1993 AT 7:30 PM
Special Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Councilmember
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Dorothy L. Breiner,
1.PUBLIC HEARING - CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR SHORELINE
CENTER, A 42+ ACRE BUSINESS PARK, INCLUDING AN APPROXIMATELY 102,190 SQUARE FOOT BULK
RETAIL BUILDING WITH A GARDEN CENTER (Pl) - File 10-3 x 5-5 x 10-2 x 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro announced that this is a continuation of a Public Hearing which started on July
28, 1993, dealing with the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
Shoreline Center, a 42+ acre business park, including an approximately 102,190 square foot
bulk retail building with a garden center. Mayor Boro asked Planning Director Pendoley to
report on what had transpired since the last meeting.
Mr. Pendoley stated that he will report on where we are in the process and will briefly summarize
three of the important points which were in the Response to Comments. He explained that on
July 28, the Council opened a Public Hearing on this Final EIR and took comments. At the
end of that meeting the Council closed the hearing and stated they would reopen the hearing
to take comments on staff responses to the questions and issues which were brought up at the
meeting of July 28. Mr. Pendoley reported that at that meeting there were 74 questions or
comments, and each of those has been responded to in the Response to Comments document.
Therefore, as staff understands the rules laid out by the Council, tonight's hearing will
be to take comments on those 74 responses.
Mr. Pendoley added that the rest of the staff report tonight will focus on three major points
in the Response to Comments. They were: Transportation; Economic Issues; and Setbacks. Mr.
Pendoley explained that he will speak briefly on transportation. Walter Kieser from Economic
and Planning Systems will give a summary of a piece he has written on economic issues, and
Sheila Delimont will discuss the general Response to Comments on setbacks.
Mr. Pendoley stated there was a good deal of comment at the Council meeting, as well as at
the Planning Commission meetings, on transportation and circulation issues. Staff had asked
Lloyd Strom, Assistant Public Works Director, to prepare a general response to those comments.
He has discussed five issues. The burden of his comments is that the systems which have
been used to analyze transportation impacts are consistent with our General Plan and the traffic
modeling systems which have been used by San Rafael over the past 15 years. He breaks his
comments down into five points. The first has to do with trip generation, which is basically
how many trips during the PM peak hour a particular land use generates. Mr. Pendoley noted
that the trip generation rate used for the Home Depot phase of this project is 3.28 trips,
and in the body of his report Mr. Strom explains the source of that, which is basically the
experience at other stores and shows that it is compatible with studies which have been done
by the Institute of Traffic Engineering.
Mr. Pendoley explained that the next issue relates to trip distribution, which is the origin
of the trips which are generated - where did they come from and where do they go? He noted
that one of the issues which was raised at the Council hearing was the suggestion that no
trips had been assigned to Southern Marin. That is not correct, since 50 of the total trips
were assigned to Southern Marin. Mr. Pendoley stated it is important to remember that, what
this traffic analysis has to do with, is the peak PM commute hour; one sixty minute period
between 4:00 and 6:00 PM when there is the most traffic. Mr. Pendoley added that our experience
in the 15 years the City has worked on this issue, has been that during that peak there are
very few people who will drive up from Southern Marin to San Rafael as a particular destination.
He explained that is because this is the most congested period and it makes sense to avoid
retail shopping from Southern Marin at that time.
Mr. Pendoley explained that the third point has to do with capacity calculations, which is
really a methods question. The issue was raised that in our General Plan we used the Circular
212 method to calculate traffic impacts, and it was stated that therefore this EIR was deficient
because it used a different method, the Highway Capacity Model. Mr. Pendoley noted that in
the body of the staff report Mr. Strom explains that the Circular 212 method was only designed
and can only be used for a broad, long range, land use planning study, and it is simply not
appropriate for the rather detailed studies which need to be done in an EIR. For example,
it cannot tell you how to modify an intersection to accommodate the increased traffic, if
that were necessary. The Highway Capacity Manual method is designed to do exactly that, to
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
1
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
2
look at the very specific effects of very specific projects.
Mr. Pendoley addressed the issue of signal optimization, on which staff received comments
from CalTrans and have prepared responses through consultants TJKM. He explained this is
a very technical issue which has to do with the planning of traffic signals. Finally, the
question was asked should we be looking at the morning peak hour commute, and is there any
residual capacity. He stated there probably would be some residual capacity, if this project
were approved and built. Staff is not prepared at this time to project the exact amount.
He added that staff does not recommend that the morning peak needs to be studied in any detail,
because the pattern with this type of store is that it gets very little morning traffic.
Mr. Pendoley introduced Walter Kieser, a principal with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
a firm with which the City is quite familiar and which has an excellent reputation in the
Bay Area for studying economic effects. They are very familiar with the CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) process. Mr. Pendoley noted that the economic comments the Council
received last time could be broken down into two categories. One had to do with the question,
would the economic effects of this project somehow result in physical blight, and that is
a CEQA question which must be addressed in some way in this EIR. The other set of economic
questions had to do with how much revenue will this project generate and will it take business
away from other firms? If so, how much? He noted those are merits questions which are not
the subject of an EIR, according to the rules laid out in CEQA. However, if the Council wants
staff to respond to those questions staff will be prepared to do that. He expects this issue
will be taken up at a special meeting on September 8th.
Mr. Walter Kieser noted that his firm, EPS, is located in Berkeley, and they specialize in
market analysis, fiscal analysis, and public finance. He added that retail and downtown
revitalization is an area they become involved in regularly in their work, and it is those
skills and that information on which they have based their analysis of the project. He pointed
out that they were retained specifically to look at the question of the relationship between
any potential economic effect which may result from the opening of Home Depot and cause a
physical blight in the San Rafael area. That is the area on which they focused, and it is
covered in their report. He stated he will explain their various tasks, and their conclusions.
One of the issues they were asked to look at was some of the other cases in which the relationship
between economic effects and physical effects have been cited. The two in question were the
City of Bishop and the City of Mt. Shasta. They looked at them to see what similarities existed
between those cases and the case in the City of San Rafael. Secondly, they reviewed the record
in terms of the project and the environmental work, and the comments which were included,
such as the technical analysis provided by staff and consultants, as well as the people
commenting on the EIR. In addition, he conducted interviews with brokers, land owners and
City staff people, to get a sense of retail trends in the San Rafael area. He also did an
analysis of retail trends. Finally, he did a site analysis, looking at the distribution of
the retail and particularly where home improvement stores are, to get a sense of where they
are and how they relate to and influence the overall form of the Downtown.
Mr. Kieser stated that their conclusions following this effort are: First, with regard to
the Mt. Shasta and Bishop cases, their conclusion in looking at these cases and talking to
the people involved, was that there is a significant difference between the facts in those
cases and the situation in San Rafael; primarily, the relationship or ratio between the scale
and size of the project proposed, as compared to the existing Downtown. He noted that both
Bishop and Mt. Shasta are very small places, both with populations in the range of 3,000 to
3,500. The projects which were proposed were beyond the edge of the town and, just by virtue
of the numbers, appeared to be large by comparison to the businesses which existed in the
towns. From that, his conclusion was that this case does not bear much relationship, because
the size of this project in terms of sales versus the sales of the entire City are quite small.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Kieser, for the benefit of the public, that he be very specific when
calling out numbers and percentages and comparisons so everyone will understand. He noted
there was a general comment regarding the percentage of sales in relationship to the sales
in the two cities, versus San Rafael.
Mr. Kieser explained it is his estimate that the sales which we were looking at in these cases
were in the range of 20% to 30% of the total retail volume in these two cities which would
be caused by these projects which were being considered. In the case of San Rafael, with
regard to the project in question - Home Depot - we are talking about generating perhaps 3%
of the $900 million volume of sales which currently occur in San Rafael. He stated there
is a magnitude of difference in what we are looking at in San Rafael versus what we are looking
at in those two cases.
Mr. Kieser next addressed the question of current retail. He stated they were trying to
understand what is happening in San Rafael retail relative to physical deterioration and blight.
He stated that by his observation, Downtown San Rafael is doing comparatively well in
absolute terms, particularly when you are looking at a recessionary trend. Current vacancies
are in the range of 5% or 6%, and that is more or less a normal market condition. There are
many downtowns, both large and small, which are suffering greater vacancy rates than that
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
2
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
3
at the present time, mainly due to poor economic conditions which the State, and the nation
as a whole, are suffering. In looking at the retail trends, although the Marin market is
a stable market, a mature market, clearly San Rafael enjoys a fairly strong and healthy retail
base, and has the opportunity for extending the retail base by providing additional shopping
opportunities in a number of sectors, including home improvement.
Mr. Kieser stated that one of the issues they looked at was the question of the vacancies,
which was brought up in some of the comments, and the fact that there were some large stores
which remain vacant. He looked at that question, and found it was not entirely related to
poor market demand, although that is partly the answer. Other factors were high prices, and
the fact that one store has a lease which continues and results in the owner not being motivated
to sell. He feels that these properties could be marketable if there was motivation.
Regarding the question of home improvement stores and their contribution, it is Mr. Kieser's
observation that the home improvement stores comprise approximately 8% to 100 of the retail
base in San Rafael. He stated they expect that there will be some impact on particular stores
resulting from Home Depot, there is no question. The question is, how does that relate to
the physical situation? It is his view that, even under a worst case scenario where you might
have some closures of those stores, it might lead to an additional 4% vacancy of these stores,
but that does not say that an increase in short-term vacancies could have any direct relationship
to blight or physical deterioration. In support of that, he looked at where these stores
are located, and also the question regarding the stores which are vacant, and are they being
taken care of and have they deteriorated in any way? He noted that a very important point
is that these stores are distributed throughout the community and are not located in any one
location and, even if there were a closure here or there, they would not cause a concentration
of blight in one or another area.
Mr. Kieser stated that the final point is that he had looked closely at the stores which are
vacant, and took pictures which are included in the report, and looked to determine whether
it appeared that the owners had neglected or abandoned them in any way. Their visual observation
suggested that was not the case. He also talked with the Police, to get a sense of whether
there was additional vandalism or any particular Police protection problems, and received
an affirmative answer that no such problems have occurred in or around these vacant stores.
He stated that concluded his report.
Councilmember Shippey noted that while Mr. Kieser's report was that the analysis was done
versus the entire market in San Rafael, yet he saw very little mention of hardware or other
types of stores in Northern San Rafael, in particular the Sears hardware store, Cook's, or
Pacific Lumber. He stated he is curious whether the analysis took into account anything
outside the Downtown and southern portion of San Rafael.
Mr. Kieser replied they did not look at the hardware stores in the Terra Linda area. He added
that in terms of the physical observations they did take them into account overall, relative
to the market numbers, but they did not look at them from a physical standpoint.
Ms. Delimont discussed the setback issues, stating that the Marin Conservation League (MCL)
and the Marin Audubon Society (MAS) were very concerned at the hearings about the fact that
we did not have cross-sections so they could adequately address the proposed setbacks. She
reported staff had the project applicant prepare full-sized sets and they were made available
to those organizations. Also, they had met with Fish and Game yesterday and, based on this
they found they need to make a modification on two of the proposed setbacks.
Ms. Delimont showed the cross-section and explained that there are two small setbacks, one
of which is on Parcel 3. She noted that in the field they had anticipated that the screening
they discussed would be at the top of the bank, but the cross-section shows that it actually
comes halfway up the bank, which does not provide adequate mitigation. The screening needs
to be up 5 feet to the parking lots and those types of activities are screened, so that needs
to be revised. Ms. Delimont added that the same situation exists on Parcel 5, which is located
adjacent to the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Pond. Again, the setback line came
halfway up the bank, and when they were in the field with Fred Botti, Department of Fish &
Game biologist, they made the recommendation they were anticipating the fence and the screening
to be at the top of the bank. Staff is recommending that the mitigation measures be revised
to require that the setback lines on those two parcels be established at 6 feet from the top
of the bank. This would allow provision of a mature landscaping screen in front of the fence
and would provide the mitigation measures to adequately protect those resources.
As far as the other setbacks on the property are concerned, Ms. Delimont reported that MCL
and MAS have a difference of opinion with some of the setbacks recommended in the EIR. The
biologist who prepared the recommendations, and the Department of Fish and Game, believe they
are adequate mitigation measures, so in this case it is basically a difference of opinion
between experts as to what is most appropriate. She stated that when she went through the
site plan with the Council at the last meeting, she had noted that on the Home Depot property
we have a 100 ft. building setback from the wetland edge. In this case, the building will
be 160 ft. from the wetland, with berming and staff feels that all of the other mitigation
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
3
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
4
measures as proposed in the EIR are fully adequate, and recommend that the setbacks be modified
for Parcels 3 and 5.
Mr. Pendoley reported that the purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive public comment on
staff's and consultants' Response to Comments from the Council's July 28th meeting. At the
conclusion of this hearing staff will prepare any written responses as the Council directs,
and will have for consideration at the next regular Council meeting a proposed Resolution
to certify the EIR.
Councilmember Cohen stated that with regard to the setbacks, he assumes that there is room
to increase the setbacks and there is no impact. He inquired how they plan to increase the
setbacks and do they have to shift the building pad, and what is the impact of doing that?
Ms. Delimont responded that the reality of it is that they will not be able to place buildings
or development on the slope anyway, so from the project standpoint it would not help the developer
but would provide mitigation for the wetlands issue, because it will provide screening at
the top of the bank because that is where it has to be. If it is further down the bank we
would not have adequate mitigation measures. She noted staff wants the mitigation to be
specific that it is always at the top of the bank because the actual setback can vary, depending
on where the property line is. Councilmember Cohen stated he had wanted to know whether there
was any other impact, and staff has clarified the issue.
Councilmember Shippey stated that at the last meeting there was discussion of berms or fences
being used as screening. Ms. Delimont explained that the Department of Fish and Game had
submitted a letter which is Exhibit "P" in the most recent Response to Comments. They feel
that fencing is adequate along the west side of the parcel and part of the southern boundary,
but that berming would be required along with screening, along the Canalways marsh. She stated
that Fish and Game feels fencing is adequate along the less sensitive areas, with landscaping
in front of it, such as the Shoreline Park with a parking lot and playground area. Their
primary concern in this area is that the headlights do not shine down on the marsh area.
Councilmember Thayer inquired about the setback on Parcel 1 where Home Depot would be located,
as to how far back it is from the wetlands or the pond, and from impervious surfaces, rather
than just the building? Ms. Delimont responded it is at least 100 feet from that particular
parcel. She noted there was a graphic at the last meeting which showed that, but she thinks
it is 106 feet from the parking lot in that area. She added she will check and report back
shortly.
Mayor Boro called on attorney Al Bianchi for his presentation.
Mr. Bianchi stated he is representing Jackson's Hardware, and there are others in his group
who will wish to speak in opposition to the Home Depot project. He stated that as he understands
the situation this evening the only items the Council is considering at this time are the
responses to comments regarding the Response to Comments on the EIR, and what you are dealing
with is the possibility of certification of the EIR as adequate. Mayor Boro responded that
is correct. Mr. Bianchi stated that they should limit their comments only to that, and not
deal with the merits of the project, or demerits depending on points of view. Mayor Boro
agreed.
Mr. Bianchi reported that after the last hearing before the Council he received a short letter
from the Planning Director in which he returned a document which was submitted to the Council
at the end of that meeting and which dealt with the EIR, entitled, "Citizens of San Rafael
Your Soul for a Fistful of Dollars?" Mr. Pendoley's letter says, "The City Council's public
hearing on the adequacy of the Final EIR was opened and closed on July 28, 1993. The document
you submitted (the Fistful of Dollars document) includes additional testimony on the adequacy
of the Final EIR. It is improper to accept additional testimony since the hearing has been
closed, and therefore it cannot be accepted as part of the hearing". He stated that the hearing
has been reopened tonight and therefore he will resubmit the document and ask that it be made
a part of the administrative record.
Mayor Boro inquired if it pertains to the questions which were raised at the last meeting.
Mr. Bianchi stated that it does, and it also pertains to a series of other issues which are
also involved in the overall consideration of the issues before the Council. He stated that
the 70+ questions which were posed certainly encompassed the whole range of issues which are
involved in this project.
Mr. Bianchi stated he would limit his comments at this time to a brief overview of the economic
analysis by Mr. Kieser. He stated that is a continuation of Response to Comments and he is
sure he is entitled to discuss it. He added there will be more detailed analysis orally
presented by Laura Blair of the Sedway firm. He stated he wants to talk about the analysis
from Berkeley, only because the Council has been presented, and will be presented tonight,
with differing points of view from people who are supposed to be experts in their various
fields, and he has no reason to question their expertise.
However, he is not an urban economic analysis expert, nor are any members of the Council,
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
4
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
k,
which makes it difficult to determine the basis upon which to gauge the validity of either
what his expert says, or the staff's expert from Berkeley. He stated one way that can be
done is to look at the basis or the foundation on which these analyses are predicated. If
the foundation or the underlying premise of the economic analysis from Berkeley is faulty,
then you would be justified in questioning the validity of the entire report. He stated that
to look at the basic premise you need only to turn to page 3-2, which sets the scene for the
entire report. He quoted, in part "Existing hardware and home improvement stores represent
a relatively small portion of the San Rafael retail market. The stores, for the most part,
are not concentrated in a geographical area already suffering from physical deterioration
and blight. In fact, no such blighted areas exist in San Rafael. These factors lead us to
the conclusion that if some store closures were to occur it is unlikely that they would lead
to physical deterioration of the areas in which they are located".
Mr. Bianchi asked, there is no physical blight in San Rafael? He stated that he and most
of the people here tonight live and work in San Rafael, and someone is going to tell us that
there is no physical blight in the City of San Rafael, and then predicate the rest of their
report on that assumption. He stated that if you walk up and down Fourth Street, as he does
daily, you see businesses opening, but you also see businesses closing. You see businesses
closing which have not reopened. He stated he sees that as blight, if not immediate blight,
it is certainly blight for the future. He added that if you go behind auto row off West Francisco
Boulevard area, he sees what he would regard as blight. If you go into certain parts of the
Canal area he sees what he would define as blight. He stated that this report is predicated
on the supposition that there is no blight in San Rafael. He added that maybe they did not
find it, but maybe they did not look very hard either.
Mr. Bianchi stated that in further addressing this report he feels the Council is entitled
to ask themselves a series of rhetorical questions. He stated he will not ask for answers
to the questions, but he hopes they will help the Council as "think pieces" to gauge the validity
of an economic analysis which says that all is well in San Rafael and you do not have to worry
about what is going to happen to the dozens of small businesses which are going to be affected.
It is not just the home service businesses, but the businesses which rely on the home service
businesses as well. He noted the analysts are saying you do not have to worry about that.
He stated that the situation is different because there is a different law for little cities
than it is for big cities - that is what this report is telling you. He stated that if you
believe that, and believe there is no blight in San Rafael, and that the law is different
for the City of Mt. Shasta or the City of Bishop, then you should accept the Berkeley report
as being valid. He explained you need some foundation such as that to gauge the overall validity
of that report. He stated those are a few of the rhetorical questions he had in mind.
Mr. Bianchi added he does not know who selected this firm, and he has no quarrel with them,
and does not know who they contacted, although there is a list of some of the people they
presumably spoke to. He stated he does know that they were not selected by the Council, because
he has attended all of the public hearings. They were not selected by his group, so he has
to assume they were selected by the staff. He stated, as the Council knows, the staff has
already expressed undying affection for the Home Depot project; before a single public hearing
was held, before one word of public input, the staff has committed itself to this project.
Mr. Bianchi stated it is not so much who selected them, as who gave them guidance, and why
was his group not consulted for input? He stated his group had something to say about this.
The Council's constituents are seated out here, the people who know what the circumstances
are in San Rafael because they are here every day and do not have to come over from Berkeley,
and they are available but were not consulted. Mr. Bianchi stated his group was not consulted
and did not have one word of input into the analysis which was prepared by the Berkeley firm,
and he thinks the Council is entitled to take that into account when judging whether they
should accept that report and that analysis, or the report and analysis which has been prepared
for his group in conjunction with people who live and work here and know what the circumstances
are here.
Mr. Bianchi asked another rhetorical question for which he did not expect an answer tonight.
If, as the report says, there is no blight nor danger of blight in San Rafael,
why do we have a Redevelopment Agency? He noted that redevelopment agencies under State law
can be created only upon the finding that blight exists. You cannot have a redevelopment
agency in the abstract. This City Council, the predecessors of the present Council, formed
a Redevelopment Agency and made factual findings which are in the record, and indicate that
blight exists in San Rafael. If we do not have blight in San Rafael we do not need a Redevelopment
Agency, and if we were to dissolve the Redevelopment Agency it might solve many problems because
of the tax money saved per year by that means, which would be more than the City would ever
get from retail sales tax from Home Depot.
Mr. Bianchi closed by stating he feels that what he is about to say is necessary because we
have to be honest with each other, and he hopes it does not sound too blunt. He stated that
the people who are here with him tonight in opposition to Home Depot are not his people, they
are the Council's people. They are their friends and constituents, and are here, not because
they want to object to what the Council does, nor to protest against whatever action the Council
may take. They are here to ask for the Council's help in their time of need. They are here
to get the Council's help so that when the time comes for the Council to ask for their help
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
5
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
they will be here to give it to them.
Laura Blair from Sedway & Associates, located in San Francisco, stated the firm was in downtown
San Rafael on Fourth Street for about a decade, until four years ago. She explained she is
here to respond to some of the EPS comments referring to the work her firm had done. She
mentioned they had not received a copy of the study until last week, so they had not had
significant time to respond.
Mayor Boro explained that the request from Mr. Bianchi was that the report come out a week
in advance of this meeting, and his understanding was that the report had gone out accordingly,
a week in advance. He verified that fact with staff. He stated he would like to get rid
of the restraints which have nothing to do with the issue, and get to the issue. He stated
we have met the requirements asked for at the last meeting.
Ms. Blair stated that her firm is very familiar with EPS, and have found them to be a reputable
firm. They have agreed on many points, probably the most striking is finding that the home
improvement/hardware stores market is fairly saturated and that Home Depot will impact existing
stores. This was not challenged. She stated there are two points mentioned by Mr. Kieser
which are divergent from what her firm had concluded. One is that there is not a significant
problem leasing larger retail space in the City, and they attribute long-term vacancies to
non-competitive lease rates or undesirable locations, or lack of landlord motivation.
Secondly, they indicated that to the extent you could subdivide the larger locations you could
mitigate the problem of having them stay on the market by making them into little spaces.
Ms. Blair added they also disagree on the point that even if hardware stores and home improvement
stores go out of business that they would not add to the deterioration of some of the City
streets.
Ms. Blair stated that, with regard to the issue of long-term vacancies her firm stands by
their initial assessment that there really is very limited demand for larger spaces, over
6,000 or 7,000 sq. ft. She noted that the EPS study is based on anecdotal information from
discussions with brokers, and cited one vacancy where the landlord was not motivated. She
stated she finds it hard to believe that, with so many large spaces sitting on the market
with property owners charging rents which are so high that they result in long term vacancies,
where smaller tenant spaces are at a vacancy rate of under 50. Also, a lot of the spaces
her firm looked at are not really in what you would call inferior locations, certainly the
Downtown Many's store which has been sitting vacant for some time in one of San Rafael's prime
Downtown locations; and the Goodmans store which is at a very busy intersection near a lot
of very vital retail. She stated that another good example is the 22, 000 sq. ft. space sitting
vacant next to the new Toys R Us store since it was completed in January. She noted it could
not be next to a more significant anchor, with freeway visibility. She stated she understands
there are some negotiations going on, but the space has been vacant over eight months at this
point.
Ms. Blair stated that, to the extent that any of the hardware and home improvement stores
did go out of business, it would just add to the overall inventory of larger spaces, and would
exacerbate the situation for all of the vacancies which are out there. She noted that EPS
had stated that if you could subdivide the spaces you could get rid of the problem, but how
successful that is really depends on depth of bayfronts and street frontage and ceiling heights
and many of the stores are not appropriate to be subdivided. She added that a lot of the
single tenant buildings are located by themselves and, probably an even more compelling point,
subdividing the spaces would really dilute
their role as anchors in their respective areas. She noted that many cities are fighting
to keep their stores and the loss of Macy's in Downtown San Rafael is a significant loss to
the city. She does not feel that the goal is to create a bunch of little stores out of big
spaces. She noted that Yardbirds, for example, does serve as an anchor to the West side of
the Downtown, with a lot of activity, Also, it increases sales to surrounding businesses.
Jackson's, MacPhail's and Orchard Supply are significant draws to their respective areas
and if they went away it would really reduce the overall level of activity and vitality.
With regard to the point that existing stores are not concentrated within geographic areas
suffering from blight, Ms. Blair pointed out that all of the home improvement/hardware stores
listed in the EPS study were within our Redevelopment project area. In 1972 when the
Redevelopment Agency plan was adopted those areas were considered blighted and many of the
improvements which are in there, particularly the Woodland Avenue, DuBois, and Lincoln Avenue
areas still have the same physical improvements. She stated there has been some improvement
in the Andersen Drive area and where there is freeway visibility there are new lighting stores.
However, in general when you drive around the streets near a lot of these stores the flavor
and character have not really changed that dramatically. By way of example, Ms. Blair showed
photographs of the Andersen Drive/Simms Street area, showing vacant lots and underutilized
parcels. She stated that over half of the home improvement/hardware stores are located in
the Woodland Avenue/West Franciso Boulevard vicinity - the quonset huts and truck storage
and older warehouses mixed in with some newer bulk retail. She noted that the City's initial
goal was to revitalize these areas, and there still is room for additional revitalization.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
6
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
7
Ms. Blair stated, in conclusion, she wants to maintain that San Rafael is adequately served
by the existing array of home improvement and hardware stores and she feels that the Home
Depot will significantly effect the economic viability of some of the existing stores, possibly
resulting in store closures or relocations. To the extent that the larger stores go out of
business, and she has identified about half of them over 6,000 sq. ft., it is very reasonable
to assume that it will take a while for those spaces to lease and, in spite of EPS' comments,
she feels these areas are vulnerable to be subject to vacancies. Not only do these stores
anchor the areas they are in now and bolster the overall vitality and level of sales, but
their loss has more far-reaching implications. In general, she has found that vacancies are
typically associated with deferred maintenance, lower property values, and overall negative
image of adding to a sense of decline and have a negative impact on surrounding stores including
lowering of sales volumes. She feels the loss of these stores would impact the physical fabric
of some of San Rafael's streets and conflict with the City's overall goal of revitalizing
these areas.
Councilmember Breiner commented that the public sees the Macy's store where their home store
was, and feel it has been empty for a long time. She stated that is true in one aspect but,
in fact, Macy's has been paying rent up until August, so the property owner was not able to
make a deal to lease it out. She stated that the record should reflect the fact that Macy's
may have been empty as a store, but is not necessarily available for leasing because there
was uncertainty in terms of when Macy's was going to stop paying rent.
Mr. Bianchi inquired if Mrs. Breiner was suggesting that because they were receiving rent
until this month, that they are not attempting to lease the space? Mrs. Breiner replied they
were not certain when they could be freed up, and she feels the record should reflect that
because it does in fact alter the perception.
Mayor Boro explained that the landlord had a lease which went beyond August, and Macy's as
we know is in bankruptcy, so the landlord was not motivated to lease the property until Macy's
stopped paying. Mr. Bianchi replied, not to be argumentative, but his experience has been
over many years that when a landlord has an empty building, regardless of whether he is going
to get rent for a month or two, that landlord is attempting to fill that building. Mayor
Boro stated he understands that.
Mr. Bianchi stated that their last scheduled speaker will deal with the questions which had
to do with the traffic or transportation analysis. Mr. Bob Harrison, who has submitted a
report, will address the Council on the traffic impacts.
Mr. Harrison, a transportation and planning consultant based in Tiburon, stated he would like
to respond to the information in the staff report. He stated it is getting so technical he
almost hesitates to get too far into it. He explained they are reaching a point where it
is almost impossible to give a clear understanding of what the issues are in a very short
presentation. He stated the Council is in a position to make a common sense, reasonableness
decision, because there are technical experts who are disagreeing, and it will probably boil
down to what is a common sense, reasonable way to go. He stated he will put the issues into
that context.
Mr. Harrison first addressed the trip generation issue, stating that the staff report indicates
that the best way to get trip generation information for a study is to conduct traffic counts
of a similar land use in the local area. He stated that is true, and for the Home Depot EIR
one such count was conducted at the San Carlos Home Depot. The problem is, one count does
not make a data base. He asked, what is known about the San Carlos Home Depot? Is it a typical
Home Depot, or one with a high rate or low rate? He noted the report could be overstating
the problem, and if you did a good study you might end up with a lower trip generation rate
and less impact from the project. He stated that the question is, should we rely on this
single trip generation study as the data base? He noted that the staff has provided quite
a bit of additional information on trip generation research. The studies were done in Maryland
and Delaware, and looked at six bulk warehouse retail kind of stores, and a wide range of
trip generation rates was found. The trips ranged, per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space, from
2.16 to 3.70 trips in the PM peak hour for the six studies. He stated that the point is,
there would be a range of trip generations if a retail locally based trip generation study
were made at Home Depots in the Bay Area. Such a study was not done for the Home Depot EIR.
Mr. Harrison stated that the question becomes, is it reasonable to proceed with a project
as large as Home Depot on the premise that we really only have the one trip generation study
as the legitimate local source for this kind of project? He stated he feels this is a reasonable,
common sense issue. If you certify the EIR as presented, you will be saying, "Yes, that is
a reasonable approach".
Mr. Harrison next discussed trip distribution, stating that again the experts seem to disagree.
He noted that although the EIR does say no trips were distributed to Southern Marin County,
staff indicates that, in fact, 5% of the trips of Home Depot were distributed to the Southern
Marin County area. He added the EIR also says 30% came from the East Bay. Again, a question
of reasonableness. He asked is it reasonable that the East Bay, where the nearest residential
community, Point Richmond, is 61,g miles from the project site, would be the source of six times
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
7
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
Eta
as many trips as Southern Marin County where last week we found out has one-third of the Marin
County population. He asked if that is a reasonable assumption.
Mayor Boro noted that what he heard Mr. Pendoley state was that the 5% from Southern Marin
pertained to the 4:00 to 6:00 PM time frame, and he inquired is that the same basis for the
30%? Mr. Pendoley responded that it is. Mr. Harrison stated it is all PM peak hours.
Mr. Harrison stated he understands staff's position that traffic congestion discourages people
coming from Southern Marin but, apparently, based on the EIR, it does not discourage people
as much from the East Bay.
Mr. Harrison explained that the last of the technical issues is the method which calculates
intersection Level of Service (LOS). He noted that the staff report correctly states that
the General Plan recommends the Circular 212 method to calculate LOS, but it does not require
Circular 212 for that purpose. The question remains, when the Council was doing their General
Plan review and developing policy such as the Policy C-2 which is the one which says that
LOS would not fall below mid -point D range, and defined that as Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C)
equals 0.85, what method were they using to define the conditions which that represented?
He noted that Circular 212, which is appropriate for use in environmental documents, and is
used across the State of California, is typically more conservative. This means that if you
are looking to make sure that a project does not have an unfortunate impact you do not want
to use a method which might miss an impact. By using the slightly more conservative Circular
212 it is actually a smart thing to do when you are working on environmental impact documents.
Mr. Harrison discussed the advantages of using other methods, such as the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM). He stated that one of the points made by staff is that this is a better method
because it is based on an estimate of delay, the number of seconds a vehicle has to wait at
an intersection. He stated you can go out in the field and measure that delay. However,
we have not done a delay study of that type at the Bellam Interchange. He explained they
have used the HCM to estimate delays, and find a relatively short delay using that method,
but they have not done an actual field study so they cannot verify the results. He noted
that comments made by a couple of the experts on this suggest that they are a little concerned
that perhaps this method underestimates delay for this particular area.
Mr. Harrison stated that from the CalTrans letter of July 22, 1993, which states, "In conclusion,
because of the close proximity of the three intersections (Bellam at Francisco, Bellam at
I-580 westbound, and Bellam at I-580 eastbound ramps), we expect significant delay occurring
at both approaches of East Francisco Boulevard". He then read from the TJKM letter, commenting
on the CalTrans letter of August 4, 1993, "As previously indicated, we concur with CalTrans
that delays will continue to be experienced in this signal system despite the theoretical
finding of acceptable solutions. The recommended improvement, however, should provide some
measure of relief until such time as the volume can be reduced by opening the Irene Street
Overcrossing". Mr. Harrison stated he does not believe the Irene Street Overcrossing is on
the table for this particular project.
Mr. Harrison discussed the findings of the HCM method, which said that the current situation
out there, Bellam and Francisco, LOS C, roughly 19 seconds delay per vehicle, is better than
a mid -C LOS. He noted Circular 212 said that there is a problem out there, and the V/C ratio
presently is 0.838, approaching the standard in General Plan Policy C-2, which is 0.85. He
asked the Council, since he is aware that they often drive through that area, whether they
think the congestion out there is close to what they think is the maximum acceptable in San
Rafael, which Circular 212 would suggest, or is it in fact working pretty well, which is what
the HCM would suggest. He stated this is a judgment call on the part of the Council. Both
methods are legitimate but they give different impressions in terms of their results. He
stated that if the Council should decide to go with Circular 212, which is not what the staff
recommends at this point, the Council has a problem, because if they stick with it for the
existing and say they will stay with it to check out how the project looks in the future,
the project fails. Based on adding Home Depot traffic through this intersection, the V/C
ratio goes up to 0.976, LOS E, clearly failing the Policy C-2 requirements of the General
Plan.
Mr. Harrison explained that if the Council decides to stay with the HCM method, he would recommend
they amend their guidelines for the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP), to indicate that this
is the technical method they are going to use to evaluate projects in the future. He stated
this is important because one of the major calculations in the PPP process was the percent
of Critical Moves (CM) available at intersections. He noted that whole concept was derived
from the Circular 212 methodology, and if the Council decides to switch to the HCM method
in the evaluation of projects they are going to have to amend the PPP to accommodate that.
He stated this is particularly complicated because HCM not only requires volume information,
but also information on signal timing and signal phasing. He explained that timing and phasing
can be adjusted to favor one leg of an intersection or another; so one person's project located
on the north leg might not fare so well if a signal is not in his favor. He stated if this
is done, the entire PPP process may have to be recalculated, and he is not sure how that could
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
8
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
be done, but a way could be found.
Mr. Harrison stated that whatever the Council decides on the reasonableness of these questions,
and to certify the EIR they obviously would have to say they are reasonable as presented,
he would think there should be a discussion of the issues in the EIR. Secondly, it would
seem appropriate that all of this new information be submitted back to the Planning Commission,
because they made a decision on this without the full data base. He stated it would be nice
to have them take a look at this before they finalize their recommendation on certification
of the EIR.
Jay Paxton, attorney for the landowners in this project, explained he wishes to correct a
mis-statement he made at a prior meeting. He stated it was with regard to San Carlos, and
a point which Mr. Harrison just raised. He stated he had told the Council at a prior meeting,
based on the quick recollection of Mr. Lyon, the Home Depot real estate manager, that San
Carlos had sales which were at least 20% higher than is projected for San Rafael. That was
a mis-statement. He explained that Mr. Bill Saccone, district manager of Home Depot and
who was involved with the San Carlos store, is present, and has stated that the sales at San
Carlos store are more than 50% higher than the projected sales in San Rafael. He stated he
feels that is an important fact which reflects on the comments made by Mr. Harrison and indicates
that the trip generation rate in the EIR was overly conservative.
Mayor Boro stated that at this point he would like the public to come forward, and re -stated
that tonight we are interested in hearing comments on the issues which have been answered
over the past several weeks. He asked that when people come forward they state their name
and where they live, and specific comments. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes.
Irving "Whitey" Litchfield addressed the Council, stating it would take more than 3 minutes
to tell the audience what is going on in San Rafael. He stated people have been hired and
paid to talk about blight in the City of San Rafael, while the City is in continual blight.
Every building on Fourth Street is going to be closed. The Independent -Journal advertises
for the big stores like Costco, because they will not advertise for the little guys, and they
are behind Home Depot, and are not giving the story about what is going on in this town.
Mr. Litchfield then spoke of the Zoning Ordinance and how he had to close Bermuda Palms because
he could not provide enough parking spaces, and the City is discriminating against the homeless.
He warned against the City going forward with Home Depot because according to the Ordinance
they would have to have thousands of parking spaces.
Raoul Noland of 116 Courtright Road in San Rafael, read a letter which explained their difficulty
in using a rented storage area at 3106 Kerner Boulevard because they could not access it between
3:00 PM and 7:00 PM on Mondays through Fridays "due to local law". When he inquired about
the reason he was told by the manager that as far as he knew it had something to do with traffic
congestion. He stated that if the traffic was bad enough in 1991 to restrict the hours at
his storage unit, then certainly the increased traffic from Home Depot cannot be considered
negligible. He wondered if perhaps Home Depot could be asked to close between the hours of
3:00 and 7:00 PM. He stated he opposes the Home Depot project on the site in question. He
urged the Council to listen to the citizens of San Rafael.
Mrs. Joan Hoffmann from 65 Cushing Avenue in Santa Venetia, stated that Marin is the slowest
growing County in the State, and there is no building in Marin and she does not know why Home
Depot wants to come here. She stated that the City of San Rafael is looking for new sources
of revenue, but to think they can extract monies from existing small businesses when they
propose to admit Home Depot is ludicrous. She stated that the small independent businesses
which will have to quit have been the backbone in revenue for years, and asked that the City
not abandon them. She concluded by stating that the quality of Home Depot's products is not
there, and we in Marin will take our trade elsewhere and San Rafael will be the loser.
Don Collins, a resident of 39 La Crescenta Way, and owner for 42 years of a family -operated
car dealership, at 502 Francisco Boulevard, spoke stating that Home Depot is not a competitor
of his, but it will drastically change the flavor of our town. He stated he has grown up
here in San Rafael, as have his three children, two of whom work in the family business.
He stated they like the town as it is, and Home Depot will bring in so much outside traffic
that gridlock will paralyze the East end of San Rafael. He added he has seen what it has
done to his side of Francisco Boulevard (West), since Toys R Us opened. He suggested trying
to make a left-hand turn out his place of business anytime after noon until 5:00 PM, is worth
your life. He stated if it is bad on his side of the street, he could not imagine making
a left-hand turn out of businesses on East Francisco Boulevard in the situation we have now,
let alone when we would have a Home Depot. He asked that the Council not be in such a hurry
to push this project through that we end up destroying the heart and soul of our town in the
name of progress. He stated we all like it here, and like San Rafael as it was, and the way
it is now. He asked that the Council not change it and force them to move to Bend, Oregon.
Vickie Grube, a homeowner in San Rafael, working for a community bank in San Rafael, stated
it is her understanding that this EIR is to determine whether this is buildable property,
with all of the methane gas and traffic problems. She asked the Council to ask themselves
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
9
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
10
if before them was an elementary school which their children would be attending, would they
build this project, or is this perhaps where they would live? She stated that if their answer
is `No', that there is not enough evidence that this property is safe for children or to live
on, then no business should be here either.
Carol D'Alessio, representing Marin Conservation League, read a letter, thanking the Council
for requiring the preparation of cross-sections for parcels 1, 3, 5 and 6 as requested, which
are adjacent to wetlands. She stated that the Planning Department has provided MCL with full
sized maps, and noted that small ones are included as Exhibit Q in the July 28 Comments document.
She stated that these section maps are confirmation that no one - EIR preparers, planners,
or Fish and Game - knew where property lines were in relation to the top of the bank. Because
of this lack of information, landscaping buffers and setbacks were shown incorrectly for parcels
3 and 5, and were not clear on parcels 1 and 6.
Ms. D'Alessio stated that in a meeting with Planning staff and Mr. Fred Botti of the California
Fish & Game Department, the cross-section maps were reviewed and the position of Fish & Game
was clarified in relation to the new information. Diagrams for parcels where fencing is
proposed without a berm (3 and 5, and part of parcel 1) will be revised to show a buffer area
of 5 - 10 feet inboard from top of the bank so that a fence and a row of dense large native
shrubs can block views from the wetland of human activity. In addition, there will be further
investigation of vegetating part of the service road around the wetlands.
Ms. D'Alessio stated that MCL was concerned that Fish and Game mandates to protect the wetlands
are minimum standards, and she pointed out that MCL is interested in protecting the upland
habitat as well, and hope that the Council is too. In closing Ms. D'Alessio requested that
these new section maps be incorporated in the final EIR with notes indicating the adjustments
to buffer areas, berms and fences. MCL also requests that these be noted as minimum standards
for protecting wildlife in that area, and that direction be given to enhance these minimum
standards when tentative maps and merits of future projects are being reviewed.
Bill Harrod, a San Rafael resident, stated he feels there should be space given to subjective
impressions should such a project come to San Rafael. He stated that if the Council were
to visit Lundy's or Jackson's they would find an atmosphere which could not be duplicated
in a Home Depot. He stated we are living in a more and more standardization of living which
is a very alienating world, and Home Depot would just serve to reinforce this. He urged the
Council to look at some of the subjective aspects of what our quality of life would be like
if Home Depot came in.
Tony Szanto, owner of Rafael Jewelers in Downtown San Rafael spoke stating he was a few minutes
late and hopes he does not repeat any comments which have been made. He stated that a young
lady who is not a business owner and has no economic interest in whether Home Depot opens
or not, spoke at the last meeting, asking where did we get this magical number that we are
going to bring in $300,000 more in revenue because of the presence of Home Depot. He stated
it is another way of saying that all of the efforts, all of the marketing skills of businesses
like Orchard Supply, Jackson's Hardware, Fairfax Lumber, and the other companies just do not
have the skills and creativity to bring all of the potential revenue which is available in
this community. He stated he finds that rather difficult to believe, that they do not have
this capability.
Mayor Boro informed Mr. Szanto that he probably was not here when Mr. Pendoley gave the staff
report, and stated that the issue of the $300,000 and the source of it, will be discussed
on the night the Council considers the zoning. That question will be answered.
Mr. Szanto stated he had written a letter on this issue, and has not received a reply. Mr.
Pendoley informed him that staff is required to respond to every comment in writing, and while
staff is not able to respond to all comments by letter, the comments and responses were included
in the staff report.
Mr. Szanto stated he feels Home Depot would have an affect on auxiliary businesses such as
his, as well.
Mr. Larry McFadden, lives in Fairfax but owns property and has a business in San Rafael; he
also is president of Fairfax Lumber and Hardware. He noted that at the last meeting he spoke
on some economic issues in the County, and also traffic. Since then he has been thinking
about the traffic issues, and can not possibly believe the traffic levels which were given.
He added that as a former Chairman of a Planning Commission he is familiar with development
and with EIRs. He noted that the previous staff report, page 6, stated that the current zoning
of specialty retail has a 2.0 trip generation rate, which is 244 trips per day. However,
the traffic impact study indicated 3.29 trip generation rate, or 400 trips per day, would
be much better. He stated he just cannot accept that, because the applicant and the City's
Finance Director have stated that sales tax revenue of $300, 000 will generate from this project.
He stated these are honorable people and he knows they are accurate. He noted that is not
saying additional revenue, but just revenue. Mr. McFadden explained that if we use the
calculation of 92.75 on that, which would bring you the actual number of sales which would
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
10
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
11
generate that kind of sales tax, we are talking about $27, 825, 000 in sales, which their average
store does. He added that the Home Depot income statements for 1991/92 indicate they did
$5,136,674,000 in 174 stores. Their average store does some $29,521,000. Therefore their
estimate is probably accurate. Mr. McFadden stressed that these are the applicant's own
financial reports. He added that the reports show that the average transaction is $35.13,
and pointed out that if you are doing $27, 825, 000 and you divide that by $35.13 on the average,
you will come up with some 792, 000 transactions per year. He noted that their financial report
says that corporate -wise they did 146,221,000 transactions per year in their 174 stores in
1991. He noted that still indicates they had 840,000 transactions per year, so overall they
are pretty much in agreement. It is not 840,000 sales, but 840,000 transactions. Therefore,
we have a reasonable idea of how many sales are going to transpire in this projected location.
He noted there is generally one sale per vehicle, although occasionally there may be more.
He asked does that indicate that we are going to have 800, 000 vehicles? He stated that logic
will tell you it does, but an engineer will probably say it does not. He stated it is reasonable
to believe that projection because it is verified by the financial statements and that is
what they are doing at an average store. He explained that, assuming they will be open 365
days per year, dividing 365 into 800,000 it would be 2,170 trips per day, or 2,300 trips.
In a 12 -hour day, at 2,000, it would be 180 - 190 cars per hour. He noted they will not be
scheduled regularly, so some hours there will be 100, and some hours 50. He stated that would
further break down to 3 cars per minute. He added that if you travel in the Canal area as
he does, it would be staggering. He stated that the traffic impact studies we have heard
so far are nice, easy and theoretical applications, but he would suggest to the Council that
there are times when we need to throw out theory in applications, and the experts, and just
deal with common sense. He stated common sense would indicate to him that it is not unreasonable
to expect 800,000 transactions and/or sales, and it also indicates to him that there would
be only one sale or transaction per car.
Mr. McFadden explained that according to the computer sheets from Fairfax Lumber, they indicate
that in the last seven months we did over 500 transactions a day, in his relatively small
business. Consequently he has great reason to believe that 2,000 cars is a relatively accurate
statement, per day. He stated he has a great deal of reason to believe that everything else
we have heard has been a great deal of `hocus pocus'. He added he has read the response to
the questions raised earlier, and would ask that the Council use common sense and use the
statistics which were provided by the applicant themselves, use the statistics which were
provided by your staff. You will have a lot more cars - and good luck getting through the
Canal area.
Ron Leach, who owns a business in the Francisco Boulevard area of San Rafael and lives in
Novato, stated he is against Home Depot and the Shoreline Center. He stated some people are
afraid that if Home Depot is not allowed to come into East San Rafael they will put a store
in Novato and take away our business anyway. He stated that is what he wants to talk about
tonight.
Mayor Boro informed Mr. Leach that that issue is not before the Council tonight; the issue
is what we have discussed over the last few weeks. Those remarks would be more appropriate
when we get into the zoning issues.
Mr. Leach responded he would like to talk about the Novato reaction to economic blight. Mayor
Boro said he could give a brief presentation. Mr. Leach explained that three weeks ago their
City Council was quoted regarding the shopping center coming into Novato and the reaction
of the small stores. The article was in the Novato Advance. One Councilmember acknowledged
that some businesses were hurting because of the recession and the competition from the shopping
center and Councilmember Moore stated that we as councilmembers must look at ways to help
them; if there is something we can do, like keeping fees low, we should do that. Another
Councilmember sees the Novato economy as a mixed bag, with Vintage Oaks filling up, but problems
in other areas. They agreed they will have to have a strong "Shop Novato" program. Another
councilmember stated he bases his perception on what he sees in the Novato shopper. Vintage
Oaks seems to be doing very well, but some stores in the other part of town do not seem to
be doing as well as they were before the opening of Vintage Oaks. Mr. Leach stated that the
fear of Home Depot going to Novato was misdirected.
Richard Gruber, a Terra Linda resident, stated he spoke last time about what would happen
if all these findings from Mr. Pendoley and the experts are wrong. He noted that recently
in the Independent -Journal there was an editorial, asking who is going to pay for the cleanup
if this thing blows up, and who will pay for the traffic after this thing blows up? He stated
that he hopes that when a decision is made the owners are made to put a deposit down for the
cleanup of the problem.
Ms. Norma Osborne, whose husband is a retired building contractor, stated that the contractors
are the people who deal a lot with Jackson Hardware. She stated he was very upset about this
project, since he has done remodeling in this County for 35 years, and has said he does not
go to a place like Home Depot when he is working. He is at Jackson's Hardware at 7 o'clock
in the morning and gets his material and is being waited on immediately and gets out on the
job. She said he does not work by the hour, but signs contracts, and he is not about to go
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
11
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
12
and stand in line at some place like Home Depot to buy his supplies. She said her point is
that Jackson's does give a service and they are there to serve. She noted that recently she
was at Orchard Supply, asking for an item and the young people on duty did not even know what
she was talking about. However, when she went to Jackson's with a note from her husband to
pick up an item for him, she was taken care of at Jackson's with courtesy and helped immediately.
She said she does not know how Home Depot can sell someone the idea that they are going to
service a lot of contractors, because if they are a legitimate contractor and not a handyman
they are not going to waste their time that way. That is why they go to Jackson's.
Louis DiGiorgio, a San Rafael resident for 32 years, stated that at the last hearing he requested
information about Methane gas, as to the mitigation measures which were proposed. He stated
we had talked about safety and staff has responded to the safety part of it. However, there
was no indication that mitigation measures have been addressed. He stated they were carefully
omitted from anything he can find in the EIR, so as far as he can see the EIR is faulty and
he does not know how anyone could vote for certifying a document which does not respond to
mitigation.
Mr. DiGiorgio reminded the Council that not so long ago four City employees were seriously
injured by the explosion of Methane gas on the site. He noted that safety is in place in
the EIR reports, and it is monitored, but the mitigation is not responded to.
Mr. DiGiorgio stated that the other subject he tried to cover was leachate, and when you go
through the report it identifies the significant impact and refers you to Appendix F, which
is all about traffic. He stated that after carefully researching he found that it was Appendix
E, but there again it is monitored but does not talk about mitigation measures. He stated
it is beyond him how someone could certify a document which talks about monitoring and not
about mitigation.
Ms. Barbara Salzman, representing the Marin Audubon Society (MAS) stated that the minutes
attributed to her that she agreed with most of what Mr. Bianchi had said, and she clarified
that MAS does not really have a position on the economics of this whole project, or about
the traffic, and what she was talking about was the tone of the EIR being supportive of the
project. She would like that issue clarified.
Ms. Salzman first addressed the buffer zone and setbacks, stating she appreciated having the
meeting with City staff and the Fish and Game biologist yesterday, and being given the additional
drawings of the property. She noted these drawings are different than the other documents
in the EIR, and it is still unclear to her what the project is; assuming this is the project
proposal it should be evaluated in the EIR and it has not been. All they have is a set of
drawings some of which are the same, and some are not. She added that other issues which
are different are the fencing and the vegetation.
Ms. Salzman noted that much of what is proposed or evaluated seems to be based on recommendations
of the Fish and Game Department and other agencies, and it began to feel to her as if many
of these issues are being decided by agencies, and that does not feel quite right. She stated
that to automatically or blindly incorporate what an agency says, when their charge may be
slightly different than the City's responsibility to its citizens, needs to be examined
carefully. She stated that is the case with Fish and Game, who come to us with a certain
philosophy and that is not necessarily that of the City or the environmental community. She
asked that the Council look at the recommendations from these other agencies with a critical
eye, and with a responsibility to their own citizenry and the environment.
Ms. Salzman stated they have a number of disagreements with the treatment of the buffer zones
and setbacks, which she has mentioned before, and pointed out that we need to have an independent
review of the most recent plans, if they are indeed the plans submitted by the applicant.
She added they need to address the issues of not only wetlands protection but protection for,
and providing habitat and movement corridors for, upland species.
Ms. Salzman then discussed water quality, and stated she appreciated the explanation of the
oil and grease separators as requested by Councilmember Shippey. She stated this is another
mitigation which had been suggested by Fish and Game, and was suggested as a mitigation instead
of grassy swales for urban runoff. She pointed out that when we would have Home Depot, as
well as the whole site developed, we would have more and more urban runoff which contains
lead and heavy metals as well as oil and grease. She stated that with the information which
was provided regarding the oil and grease separators it says that, "Little data on oil
characteristics in storm water leads to considerable uncertainty about the performance"..
She added this is a criticism of the limitation of the separators as a functioning system
to address urban runoff. She stated this is a difficult problem, since there is not a certain
way, nor an easy way, to deal with urban runoff, and oil and grease separators are not perfect
but could do an OK job. They are not to be depended upon as a mitigation all the time, for
our future and the future of the wetlands in that area. She stated that the other problem,
which is mentioned in the document, is that they would require constant maintenance, so if
they are not maintained they will not work. She added her concern about this is that the
EIR recommendations do not even recognize this as an uncertainty, and they are not even willing
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
12
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
13
to recommend that the urban runoff and the leachate are potential problems, and they do not
even recommend that there be some sampling done, some baseline data and monitoring, so we
can know that there is no problem. She stated she cannot understand that.
Councilmember Breiner inquired if Ms. Salzman is referring to the Pond, and she replied she
is referring to the Pond to the south and the wetlands to the north.
Ms. Salzman next referred to leachate as another problem. She noted they had said it was
not a problem, but they do recognize that sometimes there are higher levels of zinc, silver
and copper in the leachate and in the groundwater. They pass it off by saying you really
cannot tell if it is coming from the site, and Steve Ritchie, Executive Director of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, states that monitoring is not necessary because water quality
impacts are not caused by the landfill, but by urban runoff in San Rafael, and his agency
has directed the City and County to begin developing an urban runoff control program. He
states he fully expects that program to become stronger in the coming years to eliminate such
problems. Ms. Salzman explained that this is a program which has been trying to get off the
ground for two years. It was with the County for a year, and now with the City of San Rafael
for a year, and she does not know how it is working because there has been no public input
and no public review. She added she has been asking for these two years from the Regional
Board, what is happening with it, but it is certainly not a program we can depend on to address
this issue. She stated she cannot understand why there is such a reluctance to require this
project to at least make sure that the program is developed and used so the habitat will not
be harmed.
Ms. Salzman stated that her last issue is the fact that she has asked for another alternative,
a reduced project which has more buffers. She noted that Alternative 3 reduces the project
by 50% and she has some questions about that, as to whether it is enough to give them the
kind of buffers and habitats they need. She stated she would have liked to have had those
specific issues addressed more specifically in the Alternatives.
Mayor Boro inquired if there is anyone who has anything to offer which the Council has not
yet heard.
Dave Shapiro who has lived in this area for about a year and a half and has been in the building
materials business for 25 years, stated he has sold to a lot of contractors and how the City
can say there is no need to do a study on traffic in the morning is unbelievable to him.
He explained that contractors get up early, buy their materials early in the morning, and
they go on their way to the job site. They do not get to the job at 11 o'clock in the morning,
so if Home Depot opens at 7:30 AM you will have an enormous amount of contractors coming in.
Secondly, he remembers the statement that a lot of people would come into the area to bolster
the economy, and also they would be eating in the area and doing other things. He stated
that right now Home Depot is in negotiations with McDonald's at other stores throughout the
country and it is in the trade paper that they are trying to do something with McDonald's
to bring them into their stores. Whether they do it in a pilot store somewhere in the midwest
or in the east, why would they not do it here, and if they do here it will take business away
from restaurants and delicatessens which the normal contractor might want to visit. It would
be convenient for a contractor to stop in at Home Depot and have his morning coffee at McDonald's.
Mr. Shapiro stated he likes Home Depot and has nothing against them, they do a fine job with
inexpensive prices, but they can be a major disaster to an area.
There being no further public input, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed and called
for Council discussion.
Councilmember Breiner stated she has a few questions; Why do we not have any uplands species
protection? Also, if monitors do find Methane gas is appearing, what would be done to remove
it?
Councilmember Cohen stated that he assumes we are going to refer this back to staff and get
responses. Mayor Boro explained to the Council and audience that as a result of tonight's
meeting, all the questions which were raised tonight will be responded to in writing and be
back to all the parties a week prior to the meeting of September 7th, and at that meeting
we will bring it back for action by the Council. The public testimony part is closed at this
time, and it will be up to the Council to react to the answers they receive at that time.
Councilmember Cohen stated in that case he would like to highlight a couple of the comments
he has as a result of public testimony. He realizes staff will have picked them up, but he
wants to make sure we get responses to them. The first is with regard to Mr. Harrison's comments.
He alleged that there has been no delay measurement, that the Highway Capacity approach
estimates delay which can be measured. He stated that General Comment #1 and the additional
report received tonight point out that the benefit of the Highway Capacity Model (HCM) is
that it does allow actual counting on the ground, and Mr. Harrison lead to no such analysis
of what had actually taken place. He stated he would like that clarified. He noted the staff
report seemed to suggest that the trip counts had been taken. If the heart of the HCM methodology
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
13
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
14
is delay, have we timed delay? He stated that would help distinguish between the expert
testimonies. He explained that if that allows us to do actual counts, then we have done those
and it will be easier to rely on.
Councilmember Cohen then referred to Mr. McFadden's comments, where he stated he had done
some quick calculations and it appeared to him that based on Mr. McFadden's breakdown, that
there would be a general figure of 2,200 trips per day. He noted that some of the technical
figures submitted to Council estimated something like 7 to 100 of trip generation would come
during the peak PM hours. He stated he believes that is from the article which appeared in
the Independent -Journal (I -J) which stated 4:00 to 5:00 PM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM, the average
ran about 7% total in and out. He stated that would give you a number of less than 200 trip
counts. He noted the trip counts we are using are either the General Plan trip counts of
180 in the day and 212 for a total peak hour trip count of 400, or the trip generation figure
of 3.28 per 1,000 which would be roughly 410. He noted that was done without the benefit
of a calculator, it may be a little imprecise. He stated he would like some clarification
on it, and if it is correct it would be about 250 of what Mr. McFadden's analysis would give
us for total trips per day. He stated, if that is so, it would seem to be a relatively
conservative analysis of the traffic impact, and he would like a response on that issue.
He noted that both calculations are correct.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the Methane gas issue, and Mr. DiGiorgio's comments. He noted
there is a response in the Response to Comments provided for this evening's meeting. He is
not entirely satisfied with it, because it primarily twisted the burden for developing the
plan and monitoring onto the contractors. He stated he would like a little more analysis
of that, and noted the response says that the health and safety plan is the responsibility
of the general contractor who has a couple of options as to how he could take the responsibility
himself or put it on the subcontractors to come up with a specific plan, or do a general plan
for the entire project on the health and safety issues. He stated that the concerns about
this piece of land and the constraints on developing, given the history, might justify some
more enhanced monitoring above and beyond the general contractor or a subcontractor who have
an interest in getting on the site, getting their work done, and getting off. He noted it
would be an additional burden to have a third party monitor, but it might be justified in
this case, and he would like a little more comment on that. He noted that Mr. DiGiorgio's
comments were responded to, but he would like some more exploration of alternatives.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would also like some response to comments made by Ms. Salzman,
particularly on the issue of oil and grease separators and potential runoff. He stated it
appeared to him that in Table 1-1, Impacts and Mitigation Summary, the Draft FEIR, both 3.5-7
and 3.5-9 call for sampling and monitoring of the results of the runoff. He stated that again
we have gotten into a level of detail which is hard for a lay person to grasp, but he would
like some clarification of when the standards which are referred to in those sections are
going to be in place so they can adequately be used to monitor the runoff. He stated it appears
from Ms. Salzman's comments that we do not actually have those standards in place and it may
be some time before we get them. If that is the case, he would like an explanation of what
we propose to do in the interim to monitor runoff from the site once it is developed, because
there are sensitive areas around there.
Councilmember Breiner inquired, on the 3.28 trip generation factor per 1,000 square feet,
is that per hour? Mr. Pendoley responded that is the Peak PM hour.
Councilmember Breiner referred to 3.L-16, in terms of Pond monitoring program, where it states
that in the storm water monitoring program consideration should be given to cost. She stated
we need some options, but if this project goes forward a Pond baseline and monitoring on a
regular basis should be definitely part of the environmental protection of this area.
Councilmember Shippey stated that he has a couple of comments which have not already been
addressed. One of them is if we go further into the comments from Mr. Harrison about the
consistency of the current traffic analysis with the General Plan requirements. He stated
that the LOS E calculation would now make two calculations which would involve two intersections,
including the freeway on-ramp which would be LOS E but is not within our purview, and then
the intersection of Bellam and Francisco. His other concern, which has not been addressed,
is about a question he asked at the last hearing about the potential for the clay cap leakage.
He stated that Ms. D'Alesssio of MCL had come up to him afterward and pointed out there might
also be concern about the liners at the sides and bottom. He stated that since this is an
elevated project because of the wetlands we should look into the potential for the monitoring
for leakage and, as Councilmember Breiner said, if it is monitored we should have a way to
mitigate if leakage is detected.
Councilmember Thayer stated she is having some confusion. She knows about LOS D versus C
with respect to the Bellam Interchange. She stated she has in front of her the plan for the
PPP (Priority Project Process) meeting in April of 1991, which gave the Critical Moves 1 and
3, for the various projects, and she realized that a couple of those projects may not be with
us any more. She noted that on page 4 of that report it says that under General Plan Policy
C-2 the City may approve projects which will cause LOS mid -D standard to be exceeded if the
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
14
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
15
City finds it would be for a definable interim period, given the existing capacity of the
Bellam Interchange. The recommended projects would cause a LOS, 24 critical moves below mid -LOS
D. She noted that the projects which are mentioned on list are Toys R Us, Spinnaker on the
Bay II, Honda, Home Depot, Orchard Supply and Lucas Arts. She noted that she is having a
hard time relating some of the findings in the staff report to the data she has there with
regard to traffic generation.
Councilmember Thayer stated her second question also had to do with traffic, and referring
to Mr. Harrison's presentation tonight, he explained that using Circular 212 method Home Depot
would cause LOS E rather than LOS D.
Councilmember Thayer referred to Response to Comments No. 1 in the April 1993 staff report,
which indicates that the project applicant and other property owners within the watershed
contributed to an Assessment District formed to finance the construction and maintenance of
the Pond. She noted it says that negligible maintenance has resulted in the current
sedimentation problem, and she is wondering why the maintenance was negligible if there was
an Assessment District.
Councilmember Thayer said she also has a question with regard to the summaries with regard
to the EIR, which are contained in tables on pages 27 and 28, where one of the remarks had
to do with mitigation and referred to section 3.6-5. It says, "The following improvements
are recommended for implementation before development of Shoreline Center to reduce cumulative
traffic impacts in the study area. However, future development at Shoreline Center will be
able to compete with other projects in San Rafael for critical moves in the PPP process if
and when available, and therefore could be constructed prior to the implementation of these
improvements". She noted it discusses Kerner Boulevard Extension and all of the other
improvements which are needed before Phase II. She is wondering how these could possibly
be constructed before, and noted that is supposedly a mitigation. She stated she is also
wondering about the extension of Kerner Boulevard because it is needed to mitigate the traffic
impact. Also there is the question of how that project would affect Canalways, because that
is a mayor issue.
Councilmember Thayer stated she is also interested in the question asked by Ms. Salzman about
the dependability of the oil and grease separators and whether there are other methodologies
for dealing with urban runoff.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like a little more clarification, since it is difficult
for a lay person to understand the methodology of traffic engineering. He stated the Council
have to use its best judgment, but he would like clarification. He stated that Mr. Harrison's
assertion that using the Circular 212 methodology generates a result that traffic generation
is significantly worse and LOS Mid -D. He noted that Mr. Harrison commented that the whole
issue of critical move methodology comes from Circular 212 approach as opposed to the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) approach, and when Councilmember Thayer mentioned the PPP it reminded
him of the complexities of that process and how some intersections have two sets of critical
moves, 1 and 3. He stated the basis for allocation of traffic capacity at the intersections
was the heart of the PPP. He stated that whole methodology is not used now, and he is not
clear how these methodologies relate. He stated that because the allocations in the PPP process
were based on critical moves and the methodology of Circular 212, he needs a better understanding
of how that relates to the analysis which is rendered on this specific project.
Mr. Pendoley inquired is Mr. Cohen's question how the HCM compromises the PPP? He stated
that is a fair question. Councilmember Cohen replied that if you follow this back, to where
the whole PPP process is based on critical move methodology, if there really is a disparity
in results generated by the two different models, then what impact would it have if we were
to apply the HCM to the traffic allocations in the PPP? He explained he needs a better
understanding, and he wants to know does the Circular 212 result in a theoretical model which
tells us that LOS will be E and not Mid -D, and, if so, how is that offset by the HCM method?
Mr. Pendoley stated it sounds like the question is, does it contradict PPP, and the findings
made at that time.
Councilmember Cohen stated he thinks so. He stated that he wants a specific response to the
allegation that if we use the Circular 212 method we come up with a result that says we are
violating our standards. That was a point made by Mr. Harrison tonight, and needs to be
responded to, because traffic is a major concern in this area and relative to this project,
and it needs to be addressed, and why staff disagrees with his conclusion on that specific
issue. He stated that the more fundamental question, in looking through this, is that the
PPP methodology relies heavily on Circular 212 and does that impact some of the underlying
assumptions in the PPP process on traffic which was all about traffic allocations.
Councilmember Breiner stated she had concerns about the traffic issues and had spoken to the
person in Public Works who deals with traffic issues. She stated that in connection with
a letter received from Preston Kelly, written by Wade Greene dated July 22, where it talks
about expecting delays, the traffic engineer told her that staff had written to CalTrans since
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
15
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
16
their assumptions were based on 1985 timing information. She asked if we will be receiving
any newer information from CalTrans in response to our request for information, since this
is a letter talking about significant delay.
Councilmember Shippey stated he had the same question as Councilmember Cohen regarding the
traffic analysis. He added that if we are switching our traffic count methods from Circular
212 to HCM, if it is valid in light of the PPP, have we done so in an acceptable manner based
on essentially one study, the San Carlos Home Depot store. He stated he would like a response
on that issue.
Councilmember Thayer stated she had been confused before, questioning why the report indicated
LOS Mid -D right now, and yet a couple of years ago, we knew that Mid -D would be exceeded if
all of these projects were granted those trips, and we would have to make allowance for that.
She stated she is confused as to the data. Mr. Pendoley stated that the short answer on
that is that several of those projects have not been built yet. Councilmember Thayer inquired
if they were deleted from any of the counts? Mr. Pendoley replied they were not deleted in
any of the projections, but in terms of defining the existing conditions they are not there.
Ms. Thayer replied that the 1991 reports indicated that we had already used up the traffic
capacity and in fact would go below LOS Mid -D if all of them were built.
Mayor Boro explained that is the point - if all of those went in. He noted the whole premise
has been that we had Priority Processing and as people came on line at some point we knew
we were going to have to stop once we reached capacity, and further enhancement including
Irene Street Overcrossing would have to go in. So, some of them who are part of the PPP,
because they have not proceeded may have to wait quite a while, including the second phase
of this particular development. He stated that is his understanding, that once the capacity
is exceeded we have to wait for the enhancements.
Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. He noted that as everyone has said tonight, it gets
quite complicated and it would be easier if he lays it out for the Council on a flow chart
or some more easily understood way. Mayor Boro agreed.
Councilmember Shippey stated that staff did provide us a map of the Andersen Drive Extension,
which is yet to be constructed, and it is his understanding that it was considered in the
traffic analysis. He stated he would like to have an idea of the timing, which staff could
report back on, when this is projected to be constructed, and also the Irene Street Overcrossing.
Mayor Boro stated it is important that staff come back to the Council describing what LOS
Mid -D would mean to a typical person driving at this intersection tomorrow, versus what they
see today; how long does it take to get through today and how long will it take to get through
tomorrow? What can we expect? He stated he would like that compared to other areas we know
about in the County, what happens up at Terra Linda, and down at Larkspur Landing, and compare
what is being projected here with some of the other highway impacted area so we would have
some comparison. He stated that talking in the abstract about these levels, and then talking
about our own experience, we need a basis for comparison. He would like to know how long
is the wait today, and what will it be under Mid -D. He stated he would like it explained,
because we are getting a lot of theory.
Mayor Boro stated another question he had was one Ms. Salzman asked, and that is what the
agencies have recommended versus what is the position of the City on our policies? In other
words, is there a conflict with our policies, and are we meeting our policies in meeting Fish
and Game's policies?
Mr. Bianchi inquired about the next Council meetings, and Mayor Boro explained that September
7th will be the regular Council meeting at which time the EIR will be back before us, and
the 8th is the special meeting when we will be going forward on the zoning.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT AND LI/O (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) DISTRICT TO A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 42+ ACRE BUSINESS PARK (SHORELINE CENTER), INCLUDING AN
APPROXIMATELY 102,190 SQUARE FOOT BULK RETAIL BUILDING WITH A GARDEN CENTER (Pl) -
File 10-3 x 5-5 x 10-2 10-5 10-7
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and continued it to September 8, 1993, at 7:00 PM.
Councilmember Breiner requested that staff furnish the Councilmembers with full-size
cross-sections, as were furnished to MCL.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
16
17
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993.
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/19/93 Page
17